You can not because it modifies the client and data stream, which is clearly prohibited.
It is fine to discuss it, but bothering UO Team members about it goes too far.

Ah, understood. So UOAssist is illegal to use then.

If any developers are bothered by this discussion, then I invite them to speak up and make it known and I will retract everything I've said in this thread.

*needn't add anymore 'cause Deraj has got it covered*

UOAssist has explicit permission under the UOPro program to be used. That is entire premise behind the program. Are you debating something you don't know about?
They are not bothered as in they read this topic. Adam mentioned he talked with Jeremy about UOPro. It was probably just a passing thought, but taking it any further is just a waste of time.

Ok, to end one portion of this debate that isn't necessary:

No one has outright asked anyone that works on UO to actually do anything. This is just a topic of opinions discussed amongst us.

On to the actual topic:

When you say one thing (you can not because it modifies the client and data stream) but then have to backtrack, turn around, and then say that there is an exception (UOAssist has explicit permission under the UOPro program to be used.), but only one, then that can cause problems.

If I started out playing UO and didn't look at anything but picked up a different 3rd party program and used it for a given amount of time only to find out that it wasn't accepted but something I had to pay $15 for was. I'd take into account that I didn't pay anything for what I already have, haven't been caught with it, and don't want to pay $15 for something that does significantly less than what I have already and just keep running my other 3rd party program.

This whole thing is not very complicated. A program cannot modify the client/datastream. There are programs, most under the UOPro program, which are allowed to do this. There are very clear definitions of what is and is not acceptable.

Unless you can name a program that is in a so called "gray" area, this discussion is going nowhere.

Me: Any program that is not on the UOPro list is illegal.
You: That has never been stated.
Me: So it's okay to use Razor then?
You: No because it modifies the data stream.
Me: So UOAssist isn't okay to use then?
You: No because it's on the approved list.


:eusa_think: Huh. Well I guess what you say next helps me to understand:

So why is UOAssist approved and Razor not approved? I suppose the logical answer would have to deal with the fact that UOPro is suspended (but not canceled). That is, it's still in effect, but not being updated. And this, of course leads us all the way back to the original arguments that initiated this delightful discussion:

But ultimately I think you're biggest point in all of this is that this issue isn't important enough to merit attention (to which, I would agree). Would you call it an issue though, even if minor?

But even still, nothing has changed my original argument (which stands sadly neglected):

All I have ever asked for is consistency from EA. And every time there is an issue where EA is being inconsistent, it annoys the hell out of me. This, is inconsistency.

Even if UOPro was still in effect the program you mentioned would be denied because it has cheats built into it. Even worse the program creator was considering adding even more blatant cheating abilities.
This program was not created by EA. It was created by OSI.

Fortunately for everyone here, I have already covered that in my original post on this thread:

You say that Razor has lots of cheating capabilities, but what if UOPro had never existed; people would say the same thing about UOAssist! Now I'm not arguing whether Razor does or does not possess cheating capabilities because as I have just proven, it's purely a matter of perception. And it's just like you said early in the thread:

The only saving grace for UOAssist is the absolute fortune it had in securing it's place on this list. Right now, if you want to talk about a scripting program, about 99.9% of the posting community would bash it (note: posting community, not whole playerbase). But what if, let's say, hypothetically (and I understand this is a bit of a stretch, just bear with me) this scripting program in question somehow got on the UOPro list (and again, not likely to happen but let's pretend). If that were to occur, there wouldn't be such an overwhelming perception of scripting as "cheating" as there is now.

The purpose of eliminating the list is to alter that perception. Now, am I biased against UOAssist? The answer is yes, so consider the source please.

UOAssist had to remove infinite loop macros to get accepted, along with other modifications. So there are clearly capabilities which the developers wouldn't approve of. I bet smart targeting would be one of them.