Clickboxer - new key broadcasting software

[Vyndree]

In the context of programs written, marketed and distributed by Lavish Software versus programs written, marketed and distributed separately of Lavish Software by Joe Thaler.

And I gave you an appropriate analogy. Bill Gates actions' reflect on Microsoft just as much as Joe Thaler's actions reflect on Lavish Soft.

In either case, the actions of the figurehead reflect on the company, and vice versa.

The specifics don't change my response.

Your analogy does not apply. If Bill Gates writes, markets and distributes "Billy Bob.exe" on billybobgates.com web site, it does not make it written, marketed, or distributed by Microsoft.

I didn't say that. Please read my original response. Do you see any implication of legality in my response, or my previous original version?

LEGALLY, yes -- they are independent. But to the common consumer, anything with the name "Bill Gates" immediately implies a connection to Microsoft -- legally or not. To us (the consumers of your multiboxing product), the name "Innerspace" automatically gets associated with "Bot", regardless if it was Joe Thaler's legal action.

It's a reputation. It doesn't have to be legal. Reputations are very volatile creatures -- they're immeasurable, easy to ruin and hard to repair. And, I will repeat, you've been responsible for upkeeping your reputation and your company's reputation -- so you've earned the difficulty in proving to your consumers that you (and your company) are trustworthy.

People, consumers -- we're not as easy to sway because we're not as black and white as the law. We don't follow the absolute path. You can tell us something is "legal" or "illegal", but just because legality is involved doesn't make it "right", "wrong", or more notably "trustworthy". Humans, people, consumers -- we work on unmeasurable metrics that the law attempts -- but is not perfect at defining. Just because something is legal doesn't make it trustworthy. Just because something is legal doesn't prevent us from making human associations between company and employee/owner. Just because something is legal doesn't make it unbannable or safe to use.

I have highlighted the important word in my response for better clarity.

[Lax]

[quote='jrichard',index.php?page=Thread&postID=1362 76#post136276]
You said no, then qualified that answer, then asked a question. If you had simply said no i would be satisfied. But when i look at your response i see nothing except evasion. You're the one who hurts your own credibility. Your answers are slick and well prepared, try honest short and succint sometime. Even the next to last line of that post doesn't actually simply say no, it asks another question without actually saying anything. To answer your last question, YES, everything about that post tells me all i need to know about using your software.[/quote]To be brutally honest, the reason I cannot answer "short and succinct" is because people take everything I say, and change the words, so I have to add disclaimer upon disclaimer upon disclaimer, to try to avoid situations like I am now in with Vyndree, who is arguing with me over semantics, and numerous other replies that quote (e.g.) a single line of my posts and make outrageous claims. I am trying to be as specific and detailed a possible when answering questions, so as to not leave anything out.

And, the questions are [url='http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhetorical_question']rhetorical[/url] , they are meant to make you think about why I would even consider circumventing Warden.

[Vyndree]

Vyndree, who is arguing with me over semantics

I'm not arguing over semantics. You say one thing, then claim you didn't say it. So I point out the obvious since you appear to have missed it, or forgotten what you had written a post earlier.

My argument has always been the same -- its yours that is jumping around without direction or purpose. In fact, you could read my first response and see the same argument as I am giving now. You and/or our software company has been involved (directly or indirectly) with ToU/Eula breaking, bannable software. This gives you, and your software company, a poor reputation. Your current software platform is 'gray area' -- that is, it is neither confirmed wrong or right but MAY (or may not) be bannable. Given those two precedents, I (as a personal opinion), believe you, and your software company to be untrustworthy when it comes to the consumer's account security.

Every post I've made in this thread has had the exact same content, outlined above.

[Lax]

I didn't say that. Please read my original response.

LEGALLY, yes -- they are independent. But to the common consumer, anything with the name "Bill Gates" immediately implies a connection to Microsoft -- legally or not. To us (the consumers of your multiboxing product), the name "Innerspace" automatically gets associated with "Bot", regardless if it was Joe Thaler's legal action.

It's a reputation. It doesn't have to be legal. Reputations are very volatile creatures -- they're immeasurable, easy to ruin and hard to repair. And, I will repeat, you've been responsible for upkeeping your reputation and your company's reputation -- so you've earned the difficulty in proving to your consumers that you (and your company) are trustworthy.

I have highlighted the important word in my response for better clarity.

Alright, in that case, we don't need to keep on keeping on with this, because it has already been well established that I created Inner Space via Lavish Software, and that I separately created ISXWarden and that people have used the two together. The point I was making that you were quoting:

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.

is that Lavish is not and was not "heavily involved in Glider". They were interested in technology that I created, and they paid me, not Lavish Software. Irregardless of whether it was Lavish or me individually, there was absolutely no "heavy involvement", period. If you want to perceive that as some sort of connection between my company and MDY go right ahead. But it is absolutely correct to say that Lavish Software does not produce nor market Warden protection. Because the company does not. Just like Microsoft would not be producing nor marketing Billybob.exe in my example. Are we done with that yet, because we're way off topic.

[Lax]

Quoted from "Lax"[/url]

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]How is this NOT about semantics?

[Vyndree]

How is this NOT about semantics?

Clarification. From your responses, it wasn't clear whether you were agreeing or disagreeing with my standpoint, as many of your statements were largely circular.

So I simply laid out the facts I got from your ambiguous paragraph, and asked if that was indeed the point you were making.


As for whether or not you were involved with Glider -- I think my point is still the same. To the consumer, I would consider the owner of a company to be the representative of the company. You consider the legal seperation between your actions and your companies to be the defining factor. Thus my further information on why I believe that to be an incorrect assumption because the issue is with reputation -- not legality.

In any case, you inferred that "involvement" meant legal involvement. I intended no such inference.

However, as you say "you don't care" to change my opinion (or others who question your reliability) -- and I feel that is a critical error if that is your business model. Upkeep of yours, and your company's reputation and a emphasis on consumer trust should be an important goal for any company. But, in the end, that's your choice.


In any case, if you feel my point has been adequately made and don't care to change my opinion, I have no need to post anymore. Just don't follow up respond with any more questions and I won't need to answer.

[Lax]

Clarification. From your responses, it wasn't clear whether you were agreeing or disagreeing with my standpoint, as many of your statements were largely circular.

So I simply laid out the facts I got from your ambiguous paragraph, and asked if that was indeed the point you were making.


As for whether or not you were involved with Glider -- I think my point is still the same. To the consumer, I would consider the owner of a company to be the representative of the company. You consider the legal seperation between your actions and your companies to be the defining factor. Thus my further information on why I believe that to be an incorrect assumption because the issue is with reputation -- not legality.

In any case, you inferred that "involvement" meant legal involvement. I intended no such inference.

However, as you say "you don't care" to change my opinion (or others who question your reliability) -- and I feel that is a critical error if that is your business model. Upkeep of yours, and your company's reputation and a emphasis on consumer trust should be an important goal for any company. But, in the end, that's your choice.

Okay, except that there is no way for me to change my reputation by posting on dual-boxing.com, that is something that is earned over time. Therefore, my posts are intending to educate, not magically change your opinion of whether you would want to trust my company's software. I have already mentioned that I believe that perception will be changing over the next few months. If that is somehow circular and ambiguous let me know.

I inferred that "heavy" as in "heavily involved" meant "significant", as in my company had some significant involvement with MDY. In response, I detailed the extent of my involvement, and explained that there is no "heavy" involvement. You on the other hand are making it about whether it is about Lavish or myself, due to those 2 lines of my post, and whether that would tarnish Lavish's reputation. I made no claim that it had no effect on Lavish's reputation, but yes I did specify that it is an important distinction. Yes, I was implying in that statement a legal distinction, not a reputational distinction.

We've already established that you don't like my reputation, and I have already established that I cannot change your opinion. It would take someone else entirely to do that, and there is nothing that I can say here right now that will change your mind, so why should I focus on changing your mind (in other words, I don't care to sit here and try to change your opinion, or any other individual's opinion, as paraphrased)? Reputation has nothing to do with getting banned, which is what the majority of the replies on this thread have been about. Getting banned is supposed to be about the Terms of Service.

What I am intending to do, what you are calling a critical flaw, is fixing the misinformation. If people are making posts that are untrue, then it does me a disservice, but you are free to have your own opinion on my reputation, and I suspect that the people who do not see it the same as you are the people who will end up trying it first. Eventually, your perception of my company may change due to the people around you that choose to use the software, and what their opinion is. After all, your opinion is very likely to already be based on exactly that. The people around you and what their opinion is.

Are you following me now, or is this circular? Do we need to keep going on about reputation or are we going to get back on point? I have been trying to keep this discussion NOT about reputation, because that comes over time.

[Vyndree]

Are you following me now, or is this circular? Do we need to keep going on about reputation or are we going to get back on point? I have been trying to keep this discussion NOT about reputation, because that comes over time.

Do you need to continue asking questions? Or are you willing to let me rest my voice because repeating myself is starting to make me feel hoarse. And yes, I feel that way even though I've had to type it all.

If you feel that the legal differentiation should absolve the reputation issue: that's fine. I don't. We can agree to disagree. As long as you don't misinterpret or misrepresent my words, there is no need for me to continue repeating myself.

[oMek]

i love cats, and my cat loves inner space.

[Sam DeathWalker]

I really dont see the point. Lets assume he made 100 illegal botting programs... I really dont see where that has anything at all to do with wheather or not his current product violates the TOS. Either the current product does or it does not. If it does then it should not be used if it does not then it can be used.

Lax is going to go where the money goes and for sure MORE PEOPLE will pay him for a product that is legel and helps them win, then a product that is illegal and helps them win.

I'm defending his postion and I don't have any ax to grind one way or the other, right now I use and recommend Keyclone. If Lax comes up with a superior product that is legal Ill use that, if he dosn't then I stay with Keyclone. Fairly simple.