daddycataclysm I think this whole subject about using a command to help put on locks is bs. Its not abusing, its not hurting anyone so why would you ban someone over something so little as a COMMAND , its really the same as this bundle thing yall are talking about. Now Im not trying to start anything but Im just saying its really stupid. I had to spend sooo much time putting locks on my door, you should just allow this command go by.
Joey I've looked over the whole thing and 1 of 2 things needs to happen. Either 1 it needs to be added to the rules to clearly state that it is against the rules or 2 it needs to be allowed. At this point I honestly don't even care which way it goes.
Petrosmz1 daddycataclysm wrote I think this whole subject about using a command to help put on locks is bs. Its not abusing, its not hurting anyone so why would you ban someone over something so little as a COMMAND , its really the same as this bundle thing yall are talking about. Now Im not trying to start anything but Im just saying its really stupid. I had to spend sooo much time putting locks on my door, you should just allow this command go by. It gives an unfair advantage just like a food bind click your key you eat for locks if you're in a hurry you can spam it unlike someone else that has to manually do it
Joey Yes crocker that is very true but now that Doge had the bright idea to post he bind on the forums for all to see it makes it where it is no longer a unfair advantage but rather something else. Whether this something else is good or bad who knows.
daddycataclysm I agree with that but yes since he posted the bind i believe it should be able to be used.
Doge1 Honsetly I don't really care about adding locks, that just helps you, but Food binds/Lockbreaker binds, that should be exploiting and be temp bannable or bannable. Because the command has like a .4 sec delay so you can basically spam it and break all of someones locks in the matter of like 15 secs
Sheckles its automated. not allowed. same thing as macroing/scripting just internal ^^^ basically what we told anonymous. its not his intention, its the command use that could be used for good or bad intentions, for his usage, it was adding locks
MurderousMorty Ace, the Vintage of Sheckles wrote its automated. not allowed. same thing as macroing/scripting just internal ^^^ basically what we told anonymous. its not his intention, its the command use that could be used for good or bad intentions, for his usage, it was adding locks Can we get some examples of how adding locks with a bind could be used for bad intentions?
daddycataclysm MurderousMorty wrote Ace, the Vintage of Sheckles wrote its automated. not allowed. same thing as macroing/scripting just internal ^^^ basically what we told anonymous. its not his intention, its the command use that could be used for good or bad intentions, for his usage, it was adding locks Can we get some examples of how adding locks with a bind could be used for bad intentions? He's got a good point
Sheckles MurderousMorty wrote Ace, the Vintage of Sheckles wrote its automated. not allowed. same thing as macroing/scripting just internal ^^^ basically what we told anonymous. its not his intention, its the command use that could be used for good or bad intentions, for his usage, it was adding locks Can we get some examples of how adding locks with a bind could be used for bad intentions? its actually very simple. dont use binds, scripts, macros. just put it on yourself.
