TMO resort to hacking in VP - Page 46

BigLe2e · #**451** 03-21-2013, 05:06 PM

They probably would have banned on red if banning 1 person didnt eliminate 1/3 the population.

kenzar · #**452** 03-21-2013, 05:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ele [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

That is your whole argument.

No, thats the straw man you and Zereh created. My argument is that in the scenario outlined by Zereh, there is a glaring flaw in that, 1 person should not have an exemption. Exemptions are for >2 people on the same connection. That is my entire argument.

Ele · #**453** 03-21-2013, 05:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kenzar [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

No, thats the straw man you and Zereh created. My argument is that in the scenario outlined by Zereh, there is a glaring flaw in that, 1 person should not have an exemption. Exemptions are for >2 people on the same connection. That is my entire argument.

How does Zereh's scenario preclude a second person being around or more than one account or that the exemption was rightfully obtained? Zereh's scenario doesn't disclaim there being an additional person or additional account for purposes of the ip exemption. It only puts forth that you just need one account with an exemption and two computers to perform the specific action being discussed.

You are the one bringing up that that situation shouldn't occur because individual players shouldn't get exemptions.

Ele · #**454** 03-21-2013, 05:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BigLe2e [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

They probably would have banned on red if banning X persons didnt eliminate 1/3 the population.

Where have we heard that before.

Cars · #**455** 03-21-2013, 05:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ele [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Where have we heard that before.

Bahahaha memory lane just occured for me.

kenzar · #**456** 03-21-2013, 05:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ele [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

How does Zereh's scenario preclude a second person being around or more than one account or that the exemption was rightfully obtained? Zereh's scenario doesn't disclaim there being an additional person or additional account for purposes of the ip exemption. It only puts forth that you just need one account with an exemption and two computers to perform the specific action being discussed.

You are the one bringing up that that situation shouldn't occur because individual players shouldn't get exemptions.

Now we are arguing semantics after you've repeatedly misrepresented my claim. Right. When I asked you to quantify the number of times I'd have to explain this to you before you got it, I wish you would have just said you are willfully ignorant. It could have saved us each a few minutes.

finalgrunt · #**457** 03-21-2013, 05:24 PM

Exploiting pathing (so as to not get hit): suspension
Exploiting IP exemption to dual box: ban/suspension.

Exploiting IP exemption for instant aggro drop (thus doing both of above): no suspension?

Some people here need to review their scale of values.

Jokesteve · #**458** 03-21-2013, 05:25 PM

Nothing about this has to do with hacking, nice try.

Bardalicious · #**459** 03-21-2013, 05:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bardalicious [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Instead of arguing semantics over this bullshit in RNF, a place that no GM action is ever taken, make a fucking bug report, and have people /sign bump it til a GM response is given. A quick search of the bugs and pvp bugs section shows a SINGLE report complaining about someone poofing from /q too quickly in PVP.

That thread was made on 01-09-2012 and never got past a single page of posts. Though Amelinda stated:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amelinda [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Rogean and I were actually working on this recently.

In reference to the IP exempt exploit. It has clearly fallen through the cracks or has been ignored. Instead of blasting TMO for exploiting it, how about making a legitimate call to action to have it fixed? I mean.... I was excited to hear about FE making a push to overcome TMO in the raid scene. But all these fucking posts are making you just as obnoxious as they are.

Ele · #**460** 03-21-2013, 05:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kenzar [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Now we are arguing semantics after you've repeatedly misrepresented my claim. Right. When I asked you to quantify the number of times I'd have to explain this to you before you got it, I wish you would have just said you are willfully ignorant. It could have saved us each a few minutes.

If you would appropriately present your claim in a clear manner, then it wouldn't have to be picked apart in a drawn out attempt to figure out what you are attempting to convey.

Good luck in your future endeavors.