"Player follow" will get you banned

[Freeyorp101]

"The license must explicitly permit distribution of software built from modified source code."
(same point - secret client must be made available to all) ?

What is this secret client people keep mentioning? If it's derived from the official client, then those whom receive it must also have the source, and the right to redistribute, made available to them.

"The license must not discriminate against any person or group of persons."
(I assume this means botters too, as they are a group of people)

"6. No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor - The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the program in a specific field of endeavor."
(This would include botting, I assume, as it is an endeaver in the field of botting)

"10. License Must Be Technology Neutral - No provision of the license may be predicated on any individual technology or style of interface." (ok.. so this surely means I am allowed to bot now, right? ... it sure is my style of interface)

From what I gather in all of that; Not only is botting allowed, but AFK botting too. I know that is not a good thing and surely there is a workaround or loophole that actually protects Server Administrators in some way and lets them have some choices, at least... but basically, if you are going to use this software or even add to it, whether you be a server admin, dev, gm or player, that you have to abide by the terms of the Open Source Software Agreement.

You're confusing the client software license with the terms of use of the server. You can indeed use the client software, modified or otherwise, in any way you want, but if what you do is against policy on a given server, expect that server to ban you.

People making the client can't prevent you from, for sake of example, altering the client to flood packets in order to drop other people from the server, but the people running the server will probably have something to say about that.

There is a solution to all these problems, you know... other than perma-ban, i mean. I propose a duncecap. It would be ugly and stand out like a sore thumb. In addition it can only be equipped on another player by a GM. On top of that, it could cause minuses in stats.. to be fair... -5, -10 or even more, in all stats and would automatically disappear once a certain amount of exp had been reached... or maybe leave stats alone and simply make the exp goal to get the hat off and finally get real exp again.

And hey.. maybe for smaller crimes, turn someone into a frog for a duration of gameplay time.

Not viable for exactly the same reasons that a "jail" area is not viable: Making content exclusively for people that break the rules does not always discourage people from breaking the rules.


---Freeyorp

[Frost]

Oh, so much to say and ask. First off here is a link to wikipedia's definition of Open Source Software...
<snip>
basically, if you are going to use this software or even add to it, whether you be a server admin, dev, gm or player, that you have to abide by the terms of the Open Source Software Agreement.

I'm afraid I stopped reading after the above nonsense.

Sir, if you believe the GPL (that is the license involved; wikipedia articles are not legally binding contracts) means that the admin of an open source server cannot make and enforce rules, you are a fool.

As a sysadmin, I have on multiple occasions taken action against people who exceeded their authority when using Linux servers (hey, open source!) under my watch. As a direct result of my actions, several had their employment terminated with cause. Two others were sued by my employer. One large retail contract was cancelled for breach of terms after I identified possible attempts to access proprietary information.

In other news, botting is still not authorized on the server, regardless of client features.

[Ledmitz]

If this is in response to an action the player takes (trying to attack) it is definitely a macro. OTOH, if it is in response to the magic attack ending, it is only indirectly a response to the player's action of attacking, so debatably falls under "automation", although not under this latest explicit definition.

No.. botting is any automation. Nice try though. And ppl probably think you are a dev because you spend more time snooping and commenting than most devs to, whether you have anything productive to say or not. And don't gimme that crap about skill.. this ain't no simulator anyway.

OTOH, if it is in response to the magic attack ending, it is only indirectly a response to the player's action of attacking, so debatably falls under "automation", although not under this latest explicit definition.

Botting = Automation

[Pixiebobs]

So i just have one Question...
When a person does this what do they gain once those characters get to LVL 99 basically the fun in the game is pretty much over .
So what do you gain ? People still selling accounts on ebay ?

[Ledmitz]

As a sysadmin, I have on multiple occasions taken action against people who exceeded their authority when using Linux servers (hey, open source!) under my watch. As a direct result of my actions, several had their employment terminated with cause. Two others were sued by my employer. One large retail contract was cancelled for breach of terms after I identified possible attempts to access proprietary information.In other news, botting is still not authorized on the server, regardless of client features.

Never did I say you could legally do illegal things with Open Souce Software. Nor did I say you can do whatever you want at work with it. It is clear though that there is a distinctly different set of rules for servers and software, open source or not.... we're almost there people.... so... all botting is illegal but some types are too hard to detect so they will be... hmn... tolerated if GM's decide to permit it, from what I read. Wow.. that really clears this issue up. Thanks guys, it's good to know where I stand.. i just need to kiss more ass and then I can do whatever I want. Gotcha.

I guess I'd better just use my mage from here on out to avoid detection, especially since it is the most powerful class in game.

About the secret client.... what would happen if it were not so secret anymore? I mean it is free to distribute, right? The validity of what has been said, by certain ppl, about this topic hangs on a thread. I know, I know... I can't. That is because my word is bond. Is yours? (@devs and admins concealing client)

[mistergrey]

The whole "devs and GMs concealing a client" thing is getting old, really. Considering people keep claiming they have this client, I guess it's not so secret is it? But, I have a question since you know so much about this mystery client: did you or the person who gave it to you (assuming you have it) have the creator of the client's permission to use and distribute it? Do you even know who the creator is?

[Ledmitz]

did you or the person who gave it to you (assuming you have it) have the creator of the client's permission to use and distribute it? Do you even know who the creator is?

I do not know the creator, myself. I didn't say I had it either, but it sure is a good way to get at the truth. It is quite simple to spot, really. there are functions or multiple clients in one, plus some. I knew it existed before anyone ever opened the truth box, that's for sure. I know 1 thing though. It most certainly is open source.

[o11c]

Please learn to use the [ quote ] button properly, DO NOT type them by hand, you will make errors like that one.

[yourmistakes]

so let me get this straight:
the rules are changing to deal with the rampant multiboxing because of a leaked client, and you're threatening to completely release said client, making the problem much worse, which will in turn make the rules tighten up even more, while simultaneously making you the new Haunted/Amun asshole responsible for manabot 2.0?
Is that what the Duck is going on here, lawyer boy?
go ahead and Duck release it, thereby using a nuke on an entire server when you're obviously here to start Chocolate Cupcake with a small group of people.
but seriously, please stop wasting everyone's time. If you want to bring in a new era of bans go ahead and do it already.

[mistergrey]

Well, for example: Tradebot was allowed in game, yet Turmfalke didn't share the source code as I recall (I could be wrong, lol). If something isn't meant for wide distribution, it generally isn't distributed. If the creator made it for a specific reason, and you get it and give it out against their wishes, well I'm not an expert on what that means, but it would certainly be a jerk move heh. That said, if it's such a big deal, why hasn't anyone leaked it on here yet? As much as people are talking about GMs and Devs having it, it doesn't seem like these other people who have it have been super prone to make it public either. I personally could care less if another client is put out, but my personal opinion is that if the creator doesn't want it mass released it shouldn't be. If they say so, I'm all for it, if not, well... if someone wants to, go for it, but I'm not responsible for the shitstorm that will follow, nor the one who makes botting even more of a problem in the game by distributing supposedly "better" botting clients.

Mistakes: that's what they call a vicious cycle... complaining about rules being too harsh regarding botting, then increasing the need for said rules to get more strict to deal with more advanced bot clients.

[salmondine]

I just had this awful thought...
I am wondering about evil following, older clients had follow feature for awhile, also.
So some guy creates an account(s) and follows an old enemy to get them banned?
Can this happen?

I fully support the no bot following rule, but I want to know, can malicious following be detected?

[mistergrey]

In that case salmondine, the follower would be penalized, not the "enemy", unless they happen to be the same person.

[Frost]

some guy creates an account(s) and follows an old enemy to get them banned?

I imagine that the followers will be first against the wall.
I invite anyone who hates me to auto-follow me and test this theory.

[Ledmitz]

but seriously, please stop wasting everyone's time.

You waste everyones time, every time you speak. Say something worth saying for a change, would ya?

If the creator made it for a specific reason, and you get it and give it out against their wishes, well I'm not an expert on what that means, but it would certainly be a jerk move heh.

Yes it would, I agree. But others would say that if you make something that is open source, expect it to be requested.. and they would in fact be in the right. If it is open source, you are obliged to share it and it's code and if it was never meant to be public, then it should not have been made.

Hmn... May I request a copy of this client? I have been curious about it for a while. I would like a copy please. Oh wait.. I forgot... no one has it.

P.S. - when i use quote, it always goes to top of page and i have to cut and paste it where it belongs. Sorry about any confusion there.

[mistergrey]

You really don't see how doing so would just make botting that much worse/more frequent, and result in even tighter rules? Since you seem determined not to care about what the maker's wishes are in favor of open source licensing policies, I would think maybe you'd consider this fact beyond how it affects a few players. I would still do my duties, and it wouldn't affect me much in that sense... aside from maybe making things more difficult. But, on top of way more botters in game, I'd really rather not see the rules get even more strict to deal with the new influx of advanced bots lol. You've seen how much this one change has upset people, it can only get worse that I can see.

But yeah, just a few thoughts on the subject, what happens will happen and we'll see how it goes haha.