Clickboxer - new key broadcasting software

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 'eqjoe',index.php?page=Thread&postID=136171#post13 6171

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 'Suvega',index.php?page=Thread&postID=136163#post1 36163

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 'Sam DeathWalker',index.php?page=Thread&postID=136153#p ost136153

Instead of all this wild guess talk in this thread just simply post on WoW forum and ask if IS is legal or not. They have stated that Keyclone is legal, I see no reason they would not also take a position on IS.

---

Still waiting on this, however IMO this will never happen.

---

I started a thread on the US WoW boards and asked this very question several months ago in the UI and Macros forum. I never got a blue answer. I did get a green answer who suggested that Blizzard will never declare any software safe or unsafe and that they ban based on in game conduct.

Ok, we know that is bullshit. Blizzard banned several of us a few years ago for vanilla InnerSpace, just to reverse the bans and give us free time. Some of us have never trusted Blizzard since.

-j

---

This is what I'm afraid of :(. We know that innerspace is on a "watch" list if you will, and that they will be checking for anything shady going on.

My Main concerns:
Innerspace already being very closely tied to botting software in the past (yes, platform, just saying closely associated).
People drawing anymore analogies with Botting and Boxing.
Sweeping bans on kids who have innerspace (which might get reversed later), and then them swarming our boards like "BANNED FOR MULTIBOXIGN!!!"


Lax-
To clarify, I have no problems whatsoever with you creating a competiting product in the multicasting niche. In fact I would LOVE more competition, as right now (at least on this board), keyclone is the monopoly. If you could provide a good alternative to keyclone, by all means I would ENCOURAGE you to do so.

My only concern is using Innerspace as the platform. I understand that it is just a "platform", however the platform is very extensibile, and provides alot of hooks into an application which many of us do not want to be anywhere near.

I understand that you're workign on a standalone, which I think would be GREAT for the community, and by all means charge for it as well (Open markets ftw).
I would -strongly- prefer that you leave innerspace out of this community, as unfortunetly what YOU do, will affect ALL of us. Even if the majority of people decide they would rather the standalone application, this doesn't negate the fact that people ARE using innerspace. Nothing good can come from associating boxing with innerspace, and I don't want to have the repercussions of this affecting me or others in this community who had nothing to do with this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 'Suvega',index.php?page=Thread&postID=136163#post1 36163

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 'Sam DeathWalker',index.php?page=Thread&postID=136153#p ost136153

Instead of all this wild guess talk in this thread just simply post on WoW forum and ask if IS is legal or not. They have stated that Keyclone is legal, I see no reason they would not also take a position on IS.

---

Still waiting on this, however IMO this will never happen.

---

You should consider that lax may not care to waste his time doing this, and most people who are rational won't blame him. For one thing IS is a more complex issue of software (one of keyclone's selling points is that it does one thing and is careful to do nothing at all dangerous), and I doubt anyone in CS would want to touch IS with even a semi official response.

For another he may not see any value in getting a CS endorsement as unlikely as it may be, because most people understand that a CS response does not dictate nor assure blizzard policy. I know every time I fire up Keyclone I take some risk of being banned, I just consider it small enough (so tiny really) to not deter me from doing so.

Should he get an endorsement to satisfy you, even if such an endorsement would be meaningless to most others? Thats his call I guess, just PLEASE stop demanding it over and over like it is some masterstroke to your otherwise baseless arguments (if any one who is rational is still reading them).

Also several of you are coming off sad and for once it's not Sam. That should probably tell you something about this thread...

Quote:

---

For another he may not see any value in getting a CS endorsement as unlikely as it may be, because most people understand that a CS response does not dictate nor assure blizzard policy. I know every time I fire up Keyclone I take some risk of being banned, I just consider it small enough (so tiny really) to not deter me from doing so.

Should he get an endorsement to satisfy you, even if such an endorsement would be meaningless to most others? Thats his call I guess, just PLEASE stop demanding it over and over like it is some masterstroke to your otherwise baseless arguments (if any one who is rational is still reading them).

Also several of you are coming off sad and for once it's not Sam. That should probably tell you something about this thread...

---

a) I don't care what I come off as to you, nor anyone who thinks like you. I'm here to ensure that my ability and people like me continue to have the ability to Multibox and enjoy the hobbies that I Do.
b) An endorsement by a Blizzard GM is a good way to both increase sales, and to mitigate fears by the unknowledgable. If he was SMART he would, because if YOU haven't noticed by now, a VAST MAJORITY of this site tries to keep as legal as possible.
c) Claiming that arguments are coming off as "sad and for once its not sam", and that they are "irrational" but have no counterpoints to the arguements is quite ironic imo ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 'Aethon',index.php?page=Thread&postID=136085#post1 36085

And you seriously don't think that that influnces other people?

---

I'm not saying my personal opinion doesn't influence others -- I would've kept my mouth shut if my opinion didn't have any value. I was merely clarifying (because I am a mod) between MY personal opinion, and that of the site (because others have oft accused me of speaking for the site when I was disussing MY opinion on a FORUM.)

I speak my opinion because that's what every person on this forum has the right to do -- they say what they feel about a product/strat/composition/encounter and others DISCUSS whether they feel the same, whether they don't, or whether their perception has changed because they read someone else's perspective. If people agree with my perspective -- good for them -- that doesn't make them mindless sheep. Knowledge is power -- nothing I have said in any of my posts is false. I am not misleading any one. I am not posting false information, or information that is purposely lacking -- I have made my stance clear on Innerspace -- and in this very thread I have compared it to my same personal impressions of AHK, G15s, etc. I don't like any of them.

"Why didn't you put up such a big fuss about G15's and AHK?"

I did. G15s and AHK were out before I even started multiboxing -- but even so -- whenever the topics came up, I was on those threads with my warnings of "be careful when using it -- I wouldn't use it, but they CAN do things that can get you banned".

I'm doing the same in this thread -- and if I'm not mistaken that's my right to.


Are we not a DISCUSSION forum?
Are we not allowed to share our OPINIONS on products?
Is my opinion not based on FACTS (as I laid out in a previous post of mine VERY clearly)?


Please don't patronize me -- I have never once made my stance the official stance of dual-boxing.com. I have been VERY, VERY, VERY, EXCEEDINGLY clear with my NUMEROUS uses of "personally", "imo", "seriously guys this is my opinion", "FFS OPINION". If people value my PERSONAL opinion over others -- why do you think that is? Perhaps because I have always ALWAYS been a member of the community who is GREATLY INVESTED in keeping people on the right track in terms of the ToU/EULA, and have ALWAYS had people's account interests in mind?

[quote='Sam DeathWalker',index.php?page=Thread&postID=136165#p ost136165]Thats called a "contract of adhesion" in legal terms.

Its not infoceable in a court of law. [/quote]

Regardless, OUR FORUM RULES on this forum clearly state:
[quote]Game Specific Forum Rules
[list][*][color=#ff0000]If it is against the ToS of the game you are discussing it is against dual-boxing.com’s community guidelines to discuss ways of breaking said ToS. We are COMMITTED to keeping our hobby 100% compliant with the ToS of any game we play.[/color][*]Discussions regarding software that automates gameplay or alters parts of the gaming environment are strictly prohibited. We neither use nor condone the use of such software. Do not name, provide links or provide a “how-to” for such software.[*]If a game has a tool for detecting prohibited programs, such as “Warden”, discussions of bypassing or disabling those tools are prohibited. Do not name, provide links or provide a “how-to” for such procedures.[/list][/quote]
[url='http://www.dual-boxing.com/forums/index.php?page=Thread&postID=14540#post14540']Community Guidelines - Read Before Posting[/url]

If it's not compliant with the ToU/EULA, we don't discuss it here. End of story.

So let's see....

We have the author of the base platform many bots run on, who also maintains and provides the extension to that platform meant to hide it from warden. (and no, you didn't quit providing that in 2007. looks like it was posted that with the bans that came with 2.4.3 you told users to stop using it until the "problems" could be fixed.)

We have eqjoe, longtime botter and the author of botting scripts. A simple search shows him giving advice to others on writing their scripts as well as providing his own. This line from this thread is really funny: "Blizzard banned several of us a few years ago for vanilla InnerSpace, just to reverse the bans and give us free time. Some of us have never trusted Blizzard since." as it implies that he doesn't bot.

Those searches also turned up Wilbur, who's also speaking up in defense of innerspace.

Botters and the guy providing their base sofware and the anti-detection extension. Go ahead and take their word for it on this stuff if you want. I seem to see a complete lack of honesty or openess from any of them on who they are and what they do. From lax you see a ton of double talk, which is quite pretty to read, and very little actual answering. Eqjoe seems to be running interference. Then we have the forum moderator who drops into these threads every now and again to insult anyone who speaks up against lax. That's a pretty little setup.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 'Lax',index.php?page=Thread&postID=136026#post1360 26

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 'RobinGBrown',index.php?page=Thread&postID=136007# post136007

2. Is the Innerspace 'platform' capable of reading or scanning memory/data of WoW in any way?

---

2. Inner Space does not change the capability of reading or scanning memory. That functionality is built into your processor and additionally in Windows. Being in-process means that you do not need any functionality beyond what World of Warcraft itself is doing, using your CPU. There is no additional functionality in Inner Space for this.

---

I'm going to keep on this point, since I have yet to see a straightforward answer to the question. You have continually answered this question in a manner intended to avoid the actual intent of the question by stating that anything could read from memory. I hope this is unintentional on your part, so I will try and phrase this question again.

As a platform, does IS allow access to WoW memory space, or read or write to any WoW memory space? I'm not asking if Windows can do it, or if the CPU can do it, I'm asking if IS does it or exposes calls/hooks/fucntions to allow scripts to do it.

As for all the bashing going on both sides, all I can say is that very few people can claim their hands are clean in here, mine included. There have been some very good points in this thread and those were ones that were backed up with cited facts. These posts have come from both sides and I hope that we can continue those kinda of posts *without* the personal attacks or the "shame on yous".

- Souca -

Edit: Changed with to without.

I just reread this...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 'Lax',index.php?page=Thread&postID=135812#post1358 12

Firstly, I was never heavily involved in Glider. In 2006 I made a deal with MDY to provide him with protection from Warden. That is not Lavish Software, that is me individually, there is a difference and Lavish Software does not produce nor market Warden protection.

---

So, in essence you're saying that
a) You own and are involved with a software company thus named Lavish Software.
b) You (but not Lavish Software) made a deal with MDY (which produces SOLELY Glider) to provide him with protection from Warden.
Note: "Protection" from warden, or otherwise tampering with warden, is against the ToU/Eula.
c) Lavish Software does not produce nor market Warden protection.

Question:
Are you the sole owner of Lavish Software?

If so, doesn't that mean that "You" and "Lavish Software" are therefore equivalent in terms of everything but responsibility?

i.e. Is the only REAL differentiation between "you" and "lavish software" useful in order to protect the right hand from what the left hand is doing?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 'jrichard',index.php?page=Thread&postID=136187#pos t136187

So let's see....

We have the author of the base platform many bots run on, who also maintains and provides the extension to that platform meant to hide it from warden. (and no, you didn't quit providing that in 2007. looks like it was posted that with the bans that came with 2.4.3 you told users to stop using it until the "problems" could be fixed.)

We have eqjoe, longtime botter and the author of botting scripts. A simple search shows him giving advice to others on writing their scripts as well as providing his own. This line from this thread is really funny: "Blizzard banned several of us a few years ago for vanilla InnerSpace, just to reverse the bans and give us free time. Some of us have never trusted Blizzard since." as it implies that he doesn't bot.

Those searches also turned up Wilbur, who's also speaking up in defense of innerspace.

Botters and the guy providing their base sofware and the anti-detection extension. Go ahead and take their word for it on this stuff if you want. I seem to see a complete lack of honesty or openess from any of them on who they are and what they do. From lax you see a ton of double talk, which is quite pretty to read, and very little actual answering. Eqjoe seems to be running interference. Then we have the forum moderator who drops into these threads every now and again to insult anyone who speaks up against lax. That's a pretty little setup.

---

When did I say I stopped providing something in 2007? I said I was deposed in 2007. ISXWarden has not been in distribution since August, and that is unrelated to "the problems" you are describing.

I have no idea what double talk you are referring to. I have been open and honest and answered as many questions as I can, so I don't know what "little actual answering" you're referring to either. Sorry, please be more clear as far as what I'm not answering. For the most part what I see is people like you who simply don't read or understand my posts and then spout off nonsense, such as claiming that I somewhere said that ISXWarden has not been provided since 2007.

Souca:

Quote:

---

I'm going to keep on this point, since I have yet to see a straightforward answer to the question. You have continually answered this question in a manner intended to avoid the actual intent of the question by stating that anything could read from memory. I hope this is unintentional on your part, so I will try and phrase this question again.

As a platform, does IS allow access to WoW memory space, or read or write to any WoW memory space? I'm not asking if Windows can do it, or if the CPU can do it, I'm asking if IS does it or exposes calls/hooks/fucntions to allow scripts to do it.

As for all the bashing going on both sides, all I can say is that very few people can claim their hands are clean in here, mine included. There have been some very good points in this thread and those were ones that were backed up with cited facts. These posts have come from both sides and I hope that we can continue those kinda of posts *without* the personal attacks or the "shame on yous".

- Souca -

Edit: Changed with to without.

---

Inner Space cannot PREVENT access to WoW memory space, because it is IN WoW memory space, and reading from memory is a basic function of your computer. I thought I answered it as clearly as I could the first time around. Let me explain that there are a variety of mods that can be loaded via Inner Space. "Extensions" can be written in C++. Extensions can do literally anything, as they are essentially compiled Windows programs. Inner Space provides API to extensions for general memory writes, however this has nothing to do with World of Warcraft, and without specifically using an anti-Warden solution, provides no benefit over writing memory directly. Reading memory requires NO special API, because that is what all programs do -- they manipulate the memory in the process's "memory space" as you say. "Scripts" can be written in LavishScript, and LavishScript, like many programming languages, has type-casting. It is possible to read bits of memory through clever typecasting, very much like what could be done in C++, but again, there is nothing WoW-specific here. ".NET Applications" can be written in any .NET language, commonly C#. The same API provided to extensions or scripts is available to .NET applications, but much like extensions, these are Windows-native programs that will run in the WoW process, and can read or write to the memory space by design. In order to have the WoW-specific functionality that I believe you're trying to ask about, you would need to use a custom extension (e.g. ISXWoW). If this does not thoroughly answer your question I'm not sure what else to tell you on the subject.

Quote:

---

So, in essence you're saying that
a) You own and are involved with a software company thus named Lavish Software.
b) You (but not Lavish Software) made a deal with MDY (which produces SOLELY Glider) to provide him with protection from Warden.
Note: "Protection" from warden, or otherwise tampering with warden, is against the ToU/Eula.
c) Lavish Software does not produce nor market Warden protection.

Question:
Are you the sole owner of Lavish Software?

If so, doesn't that mean that "You" and "Lavish Software" are therefore equivalent in terms of everything but responsibility?

i.e. Is the only REAL differentiation between "you" and "lavish software" useful in order to protect the right hand from what the left hand is doing?

---

I am indeed the sole owner of Lavish Software at present time. I don't believe your synopsis is correct, and I do believe MDY has other products (though I am not an expert on MDY). Lavish Software (and indeed Inner Space) was created long before Warden existed, so I'm not sure why you're saying this is "the only REAL differentiation", but it is indeed convenient to keep it separate and not market any Warden-related tools on the Lavish Software company site. There are some pretty good arguments against your statements, but I will ask you if you feel that an act of Lavish Software is an act of me, Joe Thaler, as an individual (note that I have employees who also act for Lavish Software). If not, then why is an act of me, Joe Thaler, automatically an act of Lavish Software? I have also held other jobs while owning Lavish, do my other jobs count as being Lavish? If I release a free, open source program to make toast for you, and I don't market it or provide it on my company site, but I do somewhere else, does that mean the toaster program is a Lavish product?

In the end the distinction is largely legalese, and I don't think it's fit for discussion on these forums. Just take it as read that Lavish Software as a company has never produced nor marketed Warden protection, and you will not find any evidence to the contrary on the web site. You are certainly free to feel however you like about my distribution of ISXWarden but on my end it's handled, and you may or may not come to find that out in the near future.

If the argument is that I've made software people use for botting, so you don't want to trust my software, then don't, I'm not going to change your mind, because indeed I have written software people use for botting. Even before Inner Space, I made MacroQuest 2 in EQ1, rewritten from MacroQuest 1 which was originally made by Plazmic, who I'm told landed a job at Microsoft after impressing someone with it (he died last year of an aneurysm). People used that for botting and warping and whatever else you can think of. Our MQ2 community rules explicitly state that afk bots are not allowed, hacks like warping are not allowed, and so on, but in the minds of the many, MQ2 is synonymous with botting and warping. From my experience with MQ2 I went on to create EQPlayNice, which was and is a HUGE benefit to multi-boxers in EQ1, and WinEQ, neither of which were "cheating" applications by any measure, and EQIM clients such as TEQIM (for Trillian). And as anyone who was around back then will tell you, I had these same kinds of conversations with people at that time, even though I ALSO made EQWatcher, long before I got into MacroQuest, and it had a decent following in its time, including from multi-boxers such as Scott Adams of Adventure fame (not Dilbert). Note that SOE never banned any of my accounts, some of which are active to this day. I believe I present even them with an interesting dilemma.

Edit: Added "Even before Inner Space" in the previous paragraph, because there would have been a reply asking me if I was implying that Inner Space was never used for botting, and I'm obviously not arguing against that, because people have.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 'Lax',index.php?page=Thread&postID=136238#post1362 38

There are some pretty good arguments against your statements, but I will ask you if you feel that an act of Lavish Software is an act of me, Joe Thaler, as an individual (note that I have employees who also act for Lavish Software). If not, then why is an act of me, Joe Thaler, automatically an act of Lavish Software? I have also held other jobs while owning Lavish, do my other jobs count as being Lavish?

---

For the same reason that people will critize Microsoft for a action made by Bill Gates. For the same reason that people will critize Microsoft for an action made by me (as an employee of Microsoft). For this reason, I am required to sign a quite comprehensive contract on what I can, and cannot say (and do) inside and outside of Microsoft.

If Bill Gates were to be involved in some scandalous activity involving the computer industry, would people not also critize Microsoft (particularly because of his vast influence on the company)?

Like it or not you are a representative of your company. And like it or not, you have been responsible for your own soiled reputation, which in turn is soiling your company's (howevermuch you're trying to seperate the two for reasons of legalese). It's not a hard concept why you are receiving such a large amount of mistrust and criticism regardless of your product's merits (or lack thereof). You've earned it.