Sun Jan 28, 2007 6:56 pm
*Guilty of Posting on the PPT forums* Embarassed
I found it to be a helpful way off letting of steam, as we all have a general consensus here that this shouldn't have happened. (Or have been as badly handled on the part of ENT as it has been).
It's interesting to see the general, perhaps narrow minded views of people over there on some topics.
Just some wondering on my part, it seems that PPT has generally belittled the comments about Internet privacy, but don't we have any legal rights with regard to companies accessing and seeing what is installed on our computers without our consent?"
Belittled in my book is a negative comment. Narrow minded views is a negative comment.
Hhhhmm, perhaps I am mistaken, but I can infer from this post that the strangers being talked about are PPT forum members. Once again a negative comment.well, anskey, I guess what is bothering me about that discussion at PPT is that there is an assumption that w3 was frozen for using (or having, or supporting) improveneo. . .
The other thing that bothers me is hearing strangers saying things like: he must have deserved it."
Like I said last night, I really don't like it when people come here just to read our forums and then take what we said back to their own forums and make negative comments about it. Most of the Neodaq members don't know us. I suggest that rather than assuming that we are all narrow minded and complaining about Neopets while at the same time defending Neopets (and therefore, looking as if we are fickle in nature) that you read some of our back posts and get to know us before making such assumptions.
Sun Jan 28, 2007 7:40 pm
The comment that inferred we shouldn't defend TNT here just because we've complained about them in the past made me laugh. I'll complain about things I think are stupid, such as items being announced in the news but not actually released, terribly-drawn pet colors, changes to the world challenges (I complained up a storm when they made that three pieces per day limit!), etc. I will defend TNT when I think they were justified in their actions. I don't see that as wishy-washy or hypocritical; I see it as giving credit -- or blame -- where it's due. Maybe some people see things in black and white, but I don't think of TNT as either always perfect or always wrong. (Also, does "ENT" mean "Evil Neopets Team" or something? If so, that's childish... and really not all that clever.)
Morningstar summed it all up well. Littlemac created and encouraged people to use a third-party program and never got approval from TNT. These programs are against the rules, as is clearly stated* in the ToC. W3's freezing was possibly because he promoted this program and publicly stated that he used it -- perhaps he was frozen as a warning to others; we don't know. I hope he hears back from TNT soon and gets this sorted out.
---
*I don't know how much clearer you can get than this paragraph:
"You agree not to design, disseminate or use any third party programs designed to change the game play on the site including, but without limitations, programs such as autobuyers, flash game cheats, autofreshers, and snipers."
"You agree not to use... any third party programs designed to change the game play" -- is that too vague for people? Obviously things like flash don't count here, as they are actually part of the normal gameplay. Improveneo is not.
"including, but without limitations" -- obviously a necessary phrase, as they can't possibly list every type of cheat program there is or ever could be. They are just giving examples.
I fully agree that parts of the ToC are vague and hard to understand. This is not one of them.
Morningstar summed it all up well. Littlemac created and encouraged people to use a third-party program and never got approval from TNT. These programs are against the rules, as is clearly stated* in the ToC. W3's freezing was possibly because he promoted this program and publicly stated that he used it -- perhaps he was frozen as a warning to others; we don't know. I hope he hears back from TNT soon and gets this sorted out.
---
*I don't know how much clearer you can get than this paragraph:
"You agree not to design, disseminate or use any third party programs designed to change the game play on the site including, but without limitations, programs such as autobuyers, flash game cheats, autofreshers, and snipers."
"You agree not to use... any third party programs designed to change the game play" -- is that too vague for people? Obviously things like flash don't count here, as they are actually part of the normal gameplay. Improveneo is not.
"including, but without limitations" -- obviously a necessary phrase, as they can't possibly list every type of cheat program there is or ever could be. They are just giving examples.
I fully agree that parts of the ToC are vague and hard to understand. This is not one of them.
Sun Jan 28, 2007 8:03 pm
I completely agree Cranberry, the ToS is very clear about the use of third party programs to gain an advantage when playing the game. Legally it's solid even if people will try to claim that it's "vague".
I am tempted to get into a several hundred word rant on any company's right to refuse service to anyone for any reason but I think it's been covered here so I won't rehash old arguments (also I'm tired and can't be bothered to source the points I'm about to make) but I will add in that in several of the jobs I have held over the years I have refused service to customers for reasons as varied as "they looked like they were about to pass on an age rated item to a minor" right through to "they were rude to me" and it was well within my rights as an employee. Just because it's a "virtual" business doesn't make neopets any different.
I am tempted to get into a several hundred word rant on any company's right to refuse service to anyone for any reason but I think it's been covered here so I won't rehash old arguments (also I'm tired and can't be bothered to source the points I'm about to make) but I will add in that in several of the jobs I have held over the years I have refused service to customers for reasons as varied as "they looked like they were about to pass on an age rated item to a minor" right through to "they were rude to me" and it was well within my rights as an employee. Just because it's a "virtual" business doesn't make neopets any different.
Sun Jan 28, 2007 8:03 pm
Okay, I have been an improveneo user for 3 months (But I only represent myself) and I've been following the issue somewhat closely as I am obviously quite involved in the issue. Now I'm sorry if I say something that has already been said but I want to voice my opinion and I've got lots to do (in my real life) so I don't have time to read all the posts that have been made.
In my opinion, improveneo was not the target of the neopets freeze of GreaseMonkey. Improveneo has many features which are convinient (however I mostly use it to contribute to the project of graphing the item prices over time which i think is incredible just like neodaq graphing the stocks or neoitems making item lists), however it hardly allows you to make significant amounts of neopoints more than the regular user (from what I've explored). To me it demonstrates the power of GreaseMonkey and especially how one could create a program which could be used maliciously.
Programs on GreaseMonkey could be made to make millions of np by its versatility, and I believe that these are the targets of the freeze and not improveneo itself. TnT could easily contact improveneo and tell them that it is not allowed and I'm sure they wouldn't mind it. If TnT neomailed me or posted that it was not allowed, I would definitely uninstall it (although i would be very disappointed). It is their site and they can do as they please, however it is also important for them not to create mass hysteria (EDIT: sorry for the gross exaggeration) and to keep its users updated on its going ons (this is where I think neopets is failing, they should have a separate "news" button where they put actual news to keep us updated).
You may have different opinions but until I get real confirmation from neopets, I believe that stopping users from using improveneo is useless compared the real cheaters out there who make millions off of programs that are solely dedicated to making neopoints without effort.
In my opinion, improveneo was not the target of the neopets freeze of GreaseMonkey. Improveneo has many features which are convinient (however I mostly use it to contribute to the project of graphing the item prices over time which i think is incredible just like neodaq graphing the stocks or neoitems making item lists), however it hardly allows you to make significant amounts of neopoints more than the regular user (from what I've explored). To me it demonstrates the power of GreaseMonkey and especially how one could create a program which could be used maliciously.
Programs on GreaseMonkey could be made to make millions of np by its versatility, and I believe that these are the targets of the freeze and not improveneo itself. TnT could easily contact improveneo and tell them that it is not allowed and I'm sure they wouldn't mind it. If TnT neomailed me or posted that it was not allowed, I would definitely uninstall it (although i would be very disappointed). It is their site and they can do as they please, however it is also important for them not to create mass hysteria (EDIT: sorry for the gross exaggeration) and to keep its users updated on its going ons (this is where I think neopets is failing, they should have a separate "news" button where they put actual news to keep us updated).
You may have different opinions but until I get real confirmation from neopets, I believe that stopping users from using improveneo is useless compared the real cheaters out there who make millions off of programs that are solely dedicated to making neopoints without effort.
Last edited by jorago on Sun Jan 28, 2007 8:10 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Sun Jan 28, 2007 8:03 pm
It's great new that they are reviewing your niece's account 
I hope she gets it back! *crossed fingers*
I agree with that.
If you offer your program to so many people, I personally think you have a moral duty to make sure it's a legal program. Even if the maker did mail TNT and they never responded, that is no argument to say he thought the program was legal. Just because TNT never responded doesn't mean they approved the program. He might have had the best intentions, but he seems like a smart guy that could have figured out this program could very well be against the T&C. It would have been smart to to keep emailing TNT and wait till you get an explicit anwser from TNT before offering it to the neopian public.
About the other forums: who cares what people there say about us? Live and let live
I hope she gets it back! *crossed fingers*
Morningstar wrote:
And, I would like to add something here. One would think that a creator of a program would have gotten the approval of a program before tossing it out to the masses. I know that the creator has no legal duty to do so, but ethically he does. Because he put hundreds of accounts at risk by doing what he did.
.........
And it is a shame that littlemac didn't feel some sort of obligation to his followers to make sure this program was approved by Neo before implementing it.
I agree with that.
If you offer your program to so many people, I personally think you have a moral duty to make sure it's a legal program. Even if the maker did mail TNT and they never responded, that is no argument to say he thought the program was legal. Just because TNT never responded doesn't mean they approved the program. He might have had the best intentions, but he seems like a smart guy that could have figured out this program could very well be against the T&C. It would have been smart to to keep emailing TNT and wait till you get an explicit anwser from TNT before offering it to the neopian public.
About the other forums: who cares what people there say about us? Live and let live
Sun Jan 28, 2007 8:16 pm
fructy wrote:
About the other forums: who cares what people there say about us? Live and let live
You're right, fructy. We know what a great thing we've got here. I love this place.
Last edited by Morningstar on Sun Jan 28, 2007 8:29 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Sun Jan 28, 2007 8:23 pm
fructy wrote:If you offer your program to so many people, I personally think you have a moral duty to make sure it's a legal program. Even if the maker did mail TNT and they never responded, that is no argument to say he thought the program was legal. Just because TNT never responded doesn't mean they approved the program.
You make a good point and it probably should have been done, although i do understand in some ways why littlemac would not opt to do this immediately because I'm sure initially neopets may have thought it was a malicious program and would have frozen him instantly without letting it prove iteself as a useful tool for item price graphing. If anyone on improvenoe uses it to gain a significant advantage over others, I definitely do not condone such behavior!
Sun Jan 28, 2007 8:45 pm
Morningstar wrote:*Guilty of Posting on the PPT forums* Embarassed
I found it to be a helpful way off letting of steam, as we all have a general consensus here that this shouldn't have happened. (Or have been as badly handled on the part of ENT as it has been).
It's interesting to see the general, perhaps narrow minded views of people over there on some topics.
Just some wondering on my part, it seems that PPT has generally belittled the comments about Internet privacy, but don't we have any legal rights with regard to companies accessing and seeing what is installed on our computers without our consent?"
Belittled in my book is a negative comment. Narrow minded views is a negative comment.Hhhhmm, perhaps I am mistaken, but I can infer from this post that the strangers being talked about are PPT forum members. Once again a negative comment.well, anskey, I guess what is bothering me about that discussion at PPT is that there is an assumption that w3 was frozen for using (or having, or supporting) improveneo. . .
The other thing that bothers me is hearing strangers saying things like: he must have deserved it."
Like I said last night, I really don't like it when people come here just to read our forums and then take what we said back to their own forums and make negative comments about it. Most of the Neodaq members don't know us. I suggest that rather than assuming that we are all narrow minded and complaining about Neopets while at the same time defending Neopets (and therefore, looking as if we are fickle in nature) that you read some of our back posts and get to know us before making such assumptions.
Having read this, I do feel the urge to defend myself on this issue.
Firstly, I have been actively posting in this debate not been "simply reading then going back to the daq to post".
Secondly, I feel that the comments about Privacy were at that stage generally belittled (made small) by the dog god, that's his views though, I'm not heavily fussed with that, and I'm sure he won't mind me commenting on that aspect. (He said "So what?” or words to that effect in response to the privacy comment)
Thirdly, I wrote that "Perhaps narrow minded views on some topics", with "Perhaps" and "Some topics" (meaning in this case the steadfastness of some of the members of this forum with regard to the discussion about the clarity of the ToC) being key terms. But if this offended you I apologise. (As I have already, being the first poster to try to clear the air over over here on this thread).
I have been a long term lurker of the PinktPT forums (pretty much since around 4.5 years ago (a few months after I first signed up with Neopets) - it took me a few years to pluck up the courage to post), and I do know that you all really are a nice bunch of open minded people (I never would have done as well on the LDP, or have been as interested in the MI plot without your helpful community.)
So overall, I agree with fructy, why can’t we all just get along? We have differences of opinion, but that’s just life.
(Also note that the "
"s emoticon was just an attempt to relieve the atmosphere in the thread, if you also found this offensive, again I apologise.)
Jon
Sun Jan 28, 2007 8:45 pm
This is what I actually said:
I'm just letting you know that this was said with no disrespect for PPT at all. You've got a great site which I've visited many time over the years - thanks for all the help you've been to so many Neopians' experience!
The thing is, we all have a stake in how TNT treats its guests (us), but sometimes we jump to conclusions about what they've done - specifically freezing accounts. w3 shouldn't be accused of knowingly trying to cheat, by people who don't know him. and the verdict on improveneo is still out. If some functions need to be modified or deleted, I'm sure littlemac - if he's still game to keep providing his expertise - would be happy to comply. The benefits to thousands who use neoitems for pricing are generated by iPricing - a part of improveneo.
And there was nothing said at the Daq that couldn't have been said here. I hope our members' intense feelings about the issue aren't construed any longer as being dismissive of PPT - it's TNT they have problems with!
eggwalterpunk wrote:well, anskey, I guess what is bothering me about that discussion at PPT is that there is an assumption that w3 was frozen for using (or having, or supporting) improveneo.
That is still unknown. The problem could well be that there was an actual GM cheat script that they were trying to crack down on, and w3 and others got caught in the crossfire. Some people will consider improveneo a cheat, but it's such a grey area. Reading the TOS quotes doesn't tarnish it for me - it just doesn't do what they forbid.
So far as we know now, w3 was frozen for using a cheat, which he says he didn't do. That's good enough for me. The way they determined he was cheating was presumably the presence of greasemonkey, which ENT had no clear right to spy out.
The other thing that bothers me is hearing strangers saying things like: he must have deserved it.
I'm just letting you know that this was said with no disrespect for PPT at all. You've got a great site which I've visited many time over the years - thanks for all the help you've been to so many Neopians' experience!
The thing is, we all have a stake in how TNT treats its guests (us), but sometimes we jump to conclusions about what they've done - specifically freezing accounts. w3 shouldn't be accused of knowingly trying to cheat, by people who don't know him. and the verdict on improveneo is still out. If some functions need to be modified or deleted, I'm sure littlemac - if he's still game to keep providing his expertise - would be happy to comply. The benefits to thousands who use neoitems for pricing are generated by iPricing - a part of improveneo.
And there was nothing said at the Daq that couldn't have been said here. I hope our members' intense feelings about the issue aren't construed any longer as being dismissive of PPT - it's TNT they have problems with!
Sun Jan 28, 2007 9:50 pm
And now a word from the admin: I'm personally not liking some of the tonage being used in this thread. I was under the asumption that some of you who could have prevented this from getting as far out of control as it has become, unfortunatly I think it's best that this discussion cease.