Need advice: static imploding because of cheater.

[Midareyukki]

They're not against the TOS though unlike the cheats that are being discussed here. So what's your point?

The point is that there is a difference between calling certain tools "against the ToS" and "cheats". And as far as I've seen, the distinction really loves to shift between people, even within this thread.

Or, you know maybe read the actual whole post rather than just cutting out the part that irked you to understand the point.

Plenty of people have already stated that they consider those tools to be cheats. Others don't, like you. Even, again, in this thread. And even actual cheats like zoomhacks and stuff that lets you faze through walls or speedhacks have people going like "Oh they're not cheats!".

The ultimate point is that it doesn't matter what anyone's definition is. What matters is what SE considers cheating or not.

Like I said before; I don't educate the willfully ignorant.

Considering you missed the point of my post despite it being cleared in the paragraphs you skipped, and failed to read the rest of the conversation leading to it, I'd consider you an ignorant party as well. Please drop the attitude.

[Pixieh]

What matters is what SE considers cheating or not.

Exactly. Not sure where you got the impression that anyone has been arguing against that. If you use a third party programm that hooks into the game, changes the actual game (whether its shading or zooming or what not) then its against the TOS. The points you made that I quoted do not do that. Ergo, they're not cheating.

[Midareyukki]

Exactly. Not sure where you got the impression that anyone has been arguing against that. If you use a third party programm that hooks into the game, changes the actual game (whether its shading or zooming or what not) then its against the TOS. The points you made that I quoted do not do that. Ergo, they're not cheating.

Imora and Bobby66's interactions.

For example, Imora's post.

I can't believe there's actually people here defending cheating.

I'd have taken it up with them first, possibly, their reaction would have been the motivator for the kick(being an entitled douche, for example), but I see nothing wrong with removing them. Your static, your rules. And if people leave because they condone cheating, then so be it.

I'm guessing everyone here defending that guy heavily mods their game like its Skyrim.

Some people look at mods and go "this isn't cheating, it's just cosmetic". And who knows, they may be right, there is no inherent advantage or disadvantage to make people clear content with it.

But will SE see it that way? Good luck arguing against the GMs at Mordion Gaol :B

That's what I meant. Even in this thread, some people consider X to be a cheat, others don't. Some people consider certain tools and websites against the VERY LOOSE ToS we agreed to, others don't.

But at the end of the day, Square's the one who defines what they look out for and what they don't. And as I said:

Unless you're either harassing people with these things, being blatant about their use and visibly associating your character's name with it, or specifically trying to get an upper hand in content by skipping mechanics or removing challenge via hacks, they won't see it as cheating. Violating the ToS, probably? But cheating? Not necessarily.

That's what Square has visibly shown to target.
Everything else? Likely peanuts to them, they won't care to move.