Gil stolen through market board

[TurtlesAWD]

An autoclicker used to run a game in the background while you go about your life, would fall under this, as while it does not modify the game, it modifies the gameplay.

A mouse with the capability to read a held click as rapid clicking and a roll of scotch tape can do the same.

An accessibility software utilized by a person(s) with a disability would NOT fall under said category as it does not, nor is it designed to modify the game NOR is it designed to modify the gameplay. It is instead designed to assist a user in accomplishing TYPICAL gameplay which they otherwise would be wholly restricted from doing so.

Powerful enough software to do that would be capable of being turned towards gameplay automation just as the right kind of physical apparatus can. I don't see a relevant difference between customizable enough software and hardware.

TYPICAL gameplay does not include setting it to run in the background.

Sure, that's not what I'm arguing.

Your unwillingness to acknowledge the differences between the two, and your readiness to conflate the two to support your narrative, indicates an argument of bad faith.

What I'm saying are the same are the different methods of gameplay automation - I don't think special consideration should be given to software based methods of system circumvention if hardware methods have the same impact. I think players who use either could use both kinds of tools to engage with the game appropriately, and some subset of users opting to use those tools in an unintended way shouldn't spoil it for anyone who needs them.

Additionally, you've built up this strawman of a disabled person using an autoclicker for... what reason?

Inability to interact with a mouse via the standard method. Like I said pages ago, I used to watch a guy with no arms stream counterstrike and in addition to specialized hardware he had additional software as an intermediary between his inputs and the game client. Apparently at one point he got a VAC ban, that VAC ban was later overturned - probably because a rule against that kind of software is best not applied to that scenario. That some subset of users would use that kind of software to cheat the system isn't grounds to exclude that software universally. It's been years so I can't say I remember the specifics of his setup, but this isn't something I just made up, it's based on observations of how other people have played games.

If I bought a breath-based device from quadstick and used it essentially as a hardware based autoclicker in my sleep - assuming I breathe in my sleep, which I generally believe will occur, at least for a while yet - would you then advocate for that input device to be disallowed, regardless of who else it impacts that may have been using it to actually play the game?