Quote Originally Posted by Lax',index.php?page=Thread&postID=139773#post13977 3]I think you may have missed my post. I have the same problem you have with making up facts that aren't there. Please read it.

Edit: The post is #51 on this thread.[/quote]

Sorry, Lax. I was still going on on the offshoot topic that snaed started. As long as blue statements are clear in the future, there need not be any additional flak about it.

Since you've requested I specifically read it, here's my thoughts on your post (#51),
[quote]What I am saying about minimap ping is that you are putting words in their mouths, and I see absolutely no backup of your claim that any blue poster said multi-boxers should not be able to manually click on the ground. I quoted the original blue post, which very specifically said ____________ may not do ________. You're adding words into the blanks (multiboxing, to prevent clicking on the GROUND, etc) I am merely regurgitating what he very specifically stated.[/quote]

I'm not adding words to the blanks -- I'm adding the definition of what MinimapPing DID (or at least used to do before it was fixed, as addressed in that post) in replacement of the term "Minimap:PingLocation". Since the functionality and the term are relatively synonymous, I don't see any false information there. Do you?

I never said a blue poster said MULTI-BOXERS should not be able to manually click on the ground (can you quote me saying this, or just make further claims about what I did/didn't say... or meant to say... or intended to say?). I said that a blue poster claimed that ALL players should not be able to utilize macros/addons to TARGET a spell (which is targeted BY clicking on the ground).

[quote]I did not say that you are implying that gold buying is okay when you say that it is "less questionable than botting". Personally, I took "less questionable" in this context to be stronger than you did,[/quote]

How strong can a term "less questionable" be? It, in and of itself, is a relative comparison. Its strength can't even be measured.

[quote]and so apparently did Cogwheel and Souca,[/quote]
...of whom I've responded -- souca and I ni particular have had a nice little discussion about his interpretations versus mine and we've been quite clear and civil...

[quote]and based on the content of the thread, I read it as implying that it is okay -- particularly given the first response,[/quote]

For clarity, here is the first (I'm assuming you meant BLUE) response in the thread:
[quote][color=#0000ff]Hey Vel,

While I'm not entirely sure about the significant majority of the workings on this program, some of it does indeed sound very questionable. [/color]

[quote]2) Is making dynamic decisions (based on memory) about the location of a UI action button (in order to click it) bannable? [/quote]

[color=#0000ff]This really does sound like automation of some form; as always, if it appears to be questionable it's best to just avoid it to prevent any possible issues that may arise with the use of something.

You may be better off inquiring on this issue on our UI/Macro forum where someone with a more technological background may be able to look into the issue for you. While I realize that that forum is generally specifically related to in-game User Interfaces, from other various comments within this thread it appears as if there is something that is related to an outside adjustment (i.e overlay) to the general World of Warcraft User Interface.

I'd personally avoid this as it does appear to be very questionable. [/color][/quote]


[quote]to the post where you said that ClickBoxer was doing something that it is clearly not, when based on that information he gave a distinctly negative answer, I would say that the new response is not negative,[/quote]

Well, the first response (as you say) was to inaccurate information on a specific product (ClickBoxer). The second (quoted below for clarity) was in response to a general question that involved no specific products.

Why would you assume that two seperate were related when the first was about erroneous features that don't exist in a specific product, and the second was about a general feature?
Reythur [i]clearly[/i] quoted the questions he was answering to provide very clear context about his responses, so I see no ambiguity nor alluding that the two questions are directly related to each other just for being in the same thread. In fact, I see the majority of the thread between Reythur's first and second response being clarifications that the first response was actually totally unrelated to ClickBoxer and that a totally different, accurate question remained unanswered.

[quote='GM Reythur
The question was: is making decisions about where to click in a UI bannable?

The wording of this question unfortunately leads to a large number of possible misunderstandings of what I would like to respond with. =/

Are you making the decision? Or is the software?

We're honestly touching upon very questionable grounds here, and I'm wary to provide either a positive or a negative at this point in time.

Due to the nature of Multi-Boxing (and as you're well aware of, we've deemed Multi-Boxing more than fine) there are always going to be questionable methods of approaching the practice. Replication of a keyboard press is a little less of an issue due to the way it works; however, software making adjustments of mouse placement depending on a number of variables determined by the user leans more towards automation.

While the use of the mouse to click on point A on screen 1 and point A on screen 2 is a little less questionable than the preceding example, it can still lead to some interesting and questionable uses of it.

I'd personally avoid it until the technology is 1) more well defined and it's limitations established and 2) a better understanding of it's specific intended uses are understood fully.

I understand that this isn't exactly the definitive answer you were looking for, and for that I apologize. However, I'd prefer to abstain from providing a definitive yes or no until more information is available regarding the technology.
and retracts his earlier statement that it is not okay.
A retraction would be an update and/or direct conflict of two statements. I see nothing in either of his two posts that contradict each other, nor any sort of update to the first statement present in the second statement.

This is what I see:
Statement #1:
Quote Originally Posted by GM Reythur
2) Is making dynamic decisions (based on memory) about the location of a UI action button (in order to click it) bannable?
This really does sound like automation of some form
Statement #2:
Quote Originally Posted by GM Reythur
The question was: is making decisions about where to click in a UI bannable?

The wording of this question unfortunately leads to a large number of possible misunderstandings of what I would like to respond with. =/

Are you making the decision? Or is the software?
...
I understand that this isn't exactly the definitive answer you were looking for...
In actuality, it just looks like something like a FAQ, where a person goes down the line answering various questions. I see no relation other than the fact that both questions were asked and answered in the same thread.



What I'm saying, is saying that your INTERPRETATION or assumptions do not facts make. Stating them as if they were facts, straight from the horse's mouth, is misrepresentation of the blues. Stating them as if they were opinions, on the other hand, would've been perfectly acceptable and the whole conflict could've been avoided.



In final, there need not be additional discussion about what should/shouldn't be said. I think I've made that clear in my editing of your thread, to give you an example. As long as the example is followed in the future, there need not be any additional discussion about what you said/didn't say -- we know you MEANT that it was your opinion (since that's what you keep following up to say, for example, in post #51). But the delivery of the message was not clear. I have since, through edits, made it clear. As long as it stays clear in your future posts, we're cool. Cool?