Need advice: static imploding because of cheater.

[Stormpeaks]

Rambling is fine. If I come off as aggressive I apologize. I've been told many times I have a sharp tone online and it is something I am actively trying to work on.

I personally run three different communities of ... 12, 18, and 140 people. I participate in several others, including a low-mid tier raid group as a member. I've seen plenty of organizations of different size fall apart over the course of my life. Most of the attitudes of 'Let someone cheat' are akin to people that traditionally I, or the people I have help run said communities, had to kick out for disruptive behavior. This is especially notable for cheaters and exploiters.

Anyway have a nice night, all of you. Best of luck. o7

Keep trying to paint the so called "cheaters" as bad people, as if people that dont "cheat" are all holy and never do anything wrong lmao, this is so low

[Kansene]

Keep trying to paint the so called "cheaters" as bad people, as if people that dont "cheat" are all holy and never do anything wrong lmao, this is so low

Why say so-called and put quotation marks around the word "cheat" though?

[Stormpeaks]

Why say so-called and put quotation marks around the word "cheat" though?

Because to me zooming further out is not cheating. It should be in the game by default. And it already is for people with very high resolutions.

[Kansene]

Because to me zooming further out is not cheating. It should be in the game by default. And it already is for people with very high resolutions.

Granted, you don't necessarily agree with the terms of service even though you press "I agree", that horse is beaten to death already.
Fair enough, you have your views, I have mine, and SE has theirs.

[Stormpeaks]

Granted, you don't necessarily agree with the terms of service even though you press "I agree", that horse is beaten to death already.
Fair enough, you have your views, I have mine, and SE has theirs.

So people with a very high end monitor can get it, but people with lower resolutions cant ? Fairness is where exactly ?

pay2win gg

I mean it's literally true, back when the controversy happened with Unnamed, someone made a comparison between resolutions and the highest resolution available was basically a zoom hack.

So if I pay money it's okay, but if I dont, it's called cheating and it isnt, I see.

[Kansene]

So people with a very high end monitor can get it, but people with lower resolutions cant ? Fairness is where exactly ?

I can't comment on that one personally, as I haven't seen or heard of it prior to you mentioning it. So I'll take your word for it. An unfair advantage, technically not cheating because it's not tampering with the game files, but achieving the same result as a reviled hack.

[Stormpeaks]

I can't comment on that one personally, as I haven't seen or heard of it prior to you mentioning it. So I'll take your word for it. An unfair advantage, technically not cheating because it's not tampering with the game files, but achieving the same result as a reviled hack.

The entire thread got deleted because as I said it was from the controversy with Unnamed, but on the highest resolution, you could literally see multiple times what you could see on a "normal" resolution, including from higher up and on the sides, if this was in the game by default, there would be no need for third party. Maybe its time Square gets the hint that if there are so many mods, its because its needed in the game to make it enjoyable to a further extent, granted some people enjoy it fully vanilla, but a huge amount of the population uses one mod or more.

[Bobby66]

Because to me zooming further out is not cheating. It should be in the game by default. And it already is for people with very high resolutions.

I am willing to put money that come 7.0 we will be able to zoom out even further. UAV will be baseline.

[Pixieh]

Because to me zooming further out is not cheating. It should be in the game by default. And it already is for people with very high resolutions.

According to the TOS that have been quoted here it literally is. The definition on this type of cheat IS clearly worded.
What you personally think is worth exactly zero.

[Bobby66]

According to the TOS that have been quoted here it literally is. The definition on this type of cheat IS clearly worded.
What you personally think is worth exactly zero.

It is only worth zero to you or others that feel cheating is wrong, if they do not feel it is cheating it becomes a point of agree to disagree. If one does not value the opinion of those in power quoting their authority is kind of irrelevant.

Edit: We have seen it many times, take parsing YOSHI-P IS WRONG!!!!!!!!!!! This is what I never understood about this debate:

Person A: Cheating is wrong, you violated the ToS.
Person B: I did not cheat though, the ToS is wrong.
Person A: ToS clearly states . . .
Person B: Don't agree with it ToS is wrong.

This is what this cheating debate largely boils down to, why do we even care at this point.