@zgrssd the subject applies to #2 because enforcement is enforcement. If they are picking and choosing enforcement, at what point do they pick and choose which mod authors are enforceable and which get the golden ticket to do what they want? Example, lets say if your mod specifically only functions in PVP, it doesn't matter if it has wall hacks built in, or speed exploits included -- so long as those features are shut off in PVE.

Mod authors are this communities life-lines in this situation. Before this community expires, the mod authors can come together and let people know what is happening in effort to unite them in the forums and express their protest.

ZOS is indeed the word of God, however when 92% of the community uses MODs and are educated to what is happening, being the language of GOD is the current exchange rate, they will be more willing to listen to what people want, especially when half of this game's UI functionality comes from MODs.

zgrssd wrote: »

leewells wrote: »

@zgrssd the subject applies to #2 because enforcement is enforcement. If they are picking and choosing enforcement, at what point do they pick and choose which mod authors are enforceable and which get the golden ticket to do what they want?

It is thier RIGHT to ban my Addon. Or any of those I use.
It never even occured to me that they would not have that right. It's as self explaining and obvious as "the sun is yellow" that this was part of our deal when I pre-ordered the game.

Mods have been banable since beta, unless Zenimax explicitly allows them.
The just clarified the rules for Addons (that I had asumed to exist in that way all along) with that Update.
Exploits have been bannable offesnives since before WoW came out. Those are totally irrelevant for any dicussion about mods and addons.

I find not the slightest problem with their recent changes. It showed me some weaknesses in my code and I will adapt to the new code.
And waiting 1-2 days for API Patchnotes is nothing.

So you believe that it would be ok for ZOS to approve a mod that allows wall hacks and has links to exploits so long as it automatically turns off while the player is in a PVE zone? I realize that ZOS possesses this right -- I'm telling you that you, as a mod author possess the POWER to influence ZOS's integrity in their decisions. Moreover, you have a direct line of communications to every player using your mod, and those players possess this power to influence ZOS by using the absence of their wallets.

leewells wrote: »

So you believe that it would be ok for ZOS to approve a mod that allows wall hacks and has links to exploits so long as it automatically turns off while the player is in a PVE zone? I realize that ZOS possesses this right -- I'm telling you that you, as a mod author possess the POWER to influence ZOS's integrity in their decisions. Moreover, you have a direct line of communications to every player using your mod, and those players possess this power to influence ZOS by using the absence of their wallets.

Is that a new version of the "ZOS is working with the Goldspammers/Botusers" argument?
Now that there are no more bots (actually better then I expected), you are going for "they are working with hackers"?

FYI, this kind of stuff is forbidden by the Forum Rules:
http://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/discussion/60843/community-rules

Conspiracy Theories and Misinformation: We do not tolerate the deliberate and malicious spreading of false info or conspiracy theories about ZeniMax Online Studios, its game(s), or its employees. This does not include honest mistakes; rather, this rule pertains to those who go out of their way to spread harmful or malicious rumors about ZeniMax Online Studios and its employees, or The Elder Scrolls Online.

zgrssd wrote: »

FYI, this kind of stuff is forbidden by the Forum Rules:

How is this mis-information? ZOS, in that link clearly stated that exploitations of in-game bugs were grey-areas and provided a lack of action. There is no misinformation there, it is in black and white and the EULA is in black and white:

Straight from the EULA:

C. use cheats, automation software (bots), hacks, mods or any other unauthorized third-party software designed to modify the Game or adversely impact any other persons playing of the Game or his/her experience of playing the Game;

D. exploit the Game or any of its parts, including without limitation the Game Client, for any commercial purpose (including without limitation renting, leasing or licensing the Game to others), including without limitation (a) for gathering virtual currency, items or resources for sale outside the Game; or (b) performing in-game services in exchange for payment outside the Game, e.g., power-leveling;

How is this misinformation? To say that ZOS's moral integrity is so low that your mod could be next is not misinformation. It is not a conspiracy theory. It is hypothetical statement based upon a valid foundation of fact. Now, what they could do is go for the old line:

We do not allow petitions or protests on our forums.

But I encourage you to read my topic again and keep the following in mind: I'm not petitioning ZOS in these forums, and I'm not protesting ZOS in these forums. I'm appealing to MOD AUTHORS in these forums, to protest ZOS in their MODS (not the forums). You see, if ZOS can wiggle in enforcement, I can at least wiggle around their wording.

Sasky wrote: »

All I'm seeing is a flimsy pretext to get you support for a crusade against moderators showing discretion in an area that would be a subjective violation of the ToS.

There is no crusade against moderators, there is a crusade for ZOS to execute in-game EULA enforcement evenly and without discrimination between PVP and PVE.

Here is what it boils down to: You love the game, yes? You want to see it around for a while, yes? Then shouldn't the game be appealing to EULA complaint players? What if ZOS takes a stance that EULA enforcement against players is unenforceable? What if EULA complaint players leave? What is this community left with? Is this what you want? Or do you simply not care?

Dominoid wrote: »

leewells wrote: »

zgrssd wrote: »

leewells wrote: »

@zgrssd the subject applies to #2 because enforcement is enforcement. If they are picking and choosing enforcement, at what point do they pick and choose which mod authors are enforceable and which get the golden ticket to do what they want?

It is thier RIGHT to ban my Addon. Or any of those I use.
It never even occured to me that they would not have that right. It's as self explaining and obvious as "the sun is yellow" that this was part of our deal when I pre-ordered the game.

Mods have been banable since beta, unless Zenimax explicitly allows them.
The just clarified the rules for Addons (that I had asumed to exist in that way all along) with that Update.
Exploits have been bannable offesnives since before WoW came out. Those are totally irrelevant for any dicussion about mods and addons.

I find not the slightest problem with their recent changes. It showed me some weaknesses in my code and I will adapt to the new code.
And waiting 1-2 days for API Patchnotes is nothing.

So you believe that it would be ok for ZOS to approve a mod that allows wall hacks and has links to exploits so long as it automatically turns off while the player is in a PVE zone? I realize that ZOS possesses this right -- I'm telling you that you, as a mod author possess the POWER to influence ZOS's integrity in their decisions. Moreover, you have a direct line of communications to every player using your mod, and those players possess this power to influence ZOS by using the absence of their wallets.

There is no power or leverage here. It's ZOS's game. Period.

Tell me that again when ZOS is staring down the barrel of bankruptcy and are sending emails out to previous subscribers asking, "What can we do to make you re-subscribe" like many other games have done and where this very statement was made.

Indeed you are right. It is ZOS's game, funded by OUR money. And guess what? Subs we have yet to pay isn't ZOS's money. And while Fallout 2 and Fallout New Vegas remains as some of my most favorite Beth games, do you think I'd even THINK about purchasing any MMO version of said titles premised with "Heavy PVP component"? Absolutely not.

Sasky wrote: »

Might want to pick better section of the ToS. Those two don't prevent players exploiting in-game bugs.

C. is concerned with using 3rd party software. ("any other unauthorized third-party software" implies the preceding items in the list were also of the type "unauthorized third-party software")
As the bug is within the game client, it is not applicable.

D. is concerned with exploitation for commercial purposes (the qualifiers "without limitation" apply to the definition of exploit, game client, and types of commercial purposes, but do not extend it beyond commercial gain)
As long as the players are not deriving commercial benefit, this is not applicable.

---

The main point of my post was that you're using scare tactics/misinformation about Addon copyright to draw people to your support. If authors feel this is an issue, they're certainly free to join in (Thurisaz I believe has a notice about Scourge campaign in his addon, for example).

Keep in mind -- lack of updates in most cases would be ineffectual, since end-users would keep using the current version.

"including without limitation" ie, in legal speak is "including, but not limited to...." which means it is a qualifier to exploitation of ingame bugs if it meets the qualifier of exploiting the game. The, "including without limitation" means, quite literally, that just because it is not listed there doesn't mean the provision does not apply.

The first section has an or tactfully appended to the end which stays specifically actions that are of negative impact to the other players experience of the game -- ie, performing an unintended action in which another player cannot in order to gain an unfair advantage falls right into that category.

The best argument would be, to what end? Being those are the only two provisions that cover exploitation, are you saying that exploiting in-game bugs are entirely not against the EULA so long as you do not use commercial software or programs? If that is the case, then please explain to me why so many people were banned for exploiting the guild bank duplication bug for violation of the EULA?

And to to your point, it is not a scare tactic; if ZOS is picking and choosing whether or not it will police the game based on its nature of PVP or PVE, then what stops them for taking the same liberties with their mods? But lets just throw their mods out of the equation entirely and state what makes them think they are immune if they are legitimately trying to have fun in this game with everyone else?

The appeal to mod authors is explicitly because they, through their mods, can reach players a lot better than these forums can exactly as Thurisaz did.

Let me be more clear: How many people would play/watch baseball if the umpires did nothing when the basemen all pulled up the bases and ran off the field with them every time the other team hit the ball?

Gillysan wrote: »

I understand selective enforcement. Maybe you are implying they will play favorites while punishing other addon authors?

Your examples make no sense whatsoever. You cite examples of things that are clearly against any games EULA.

If things were to ever get as bad as you are fantasizing people would do the one thing they have absolute control. Spend their money on something else.

Did you click the link in the OP? It takes you right to an Alliance War thread where the admin called exploiting the terrain to gain access to enemy safe-area as a "grey area" and NOT an exploit. Clearly, that should also be against the EULA. But no, ZOS demonstrated that they can take liberties with their EULA, but we can't.