Battle eye showing up when disabled

[Pipinghot]

On 3/25/2021 at 8:08 PM, invincibleqc said:

Oh boy, why am I still here. 🤪

That's a good question. When you claim (more than once) that you're leaving a conversation and then keep coming back you're certainly not doing yourself any favors. Based on your posting history you seem like a person who tries to act with integrity, but talking like you're going to take your toys and go home but then not doing it is rather unbecoming. In no way am I suggesting that you shouldn't be in this conversation, the only point here is that it's never a good idea to claim that you're leaving a conversation, even if you're feeling exasperated, it looks disingenuous if you don't actually leave.

On 3/25/2021 at 8:08 PM, invincibleqc said:

"A cat has 4 legs like a giraffe or an elephant" is a perfectly valid simile.

It's not a simile, it's an analogy, they're not the same thing. The fact that you're confused about what a simile and an analogy are should give you pause for thought and reflection, in and of itself that's already an indicator that you're thinking about this issue using the wrong logic.

A simile would be something along the lines of, "Her hair shone like the sun." It's a form of poetic, verbal imagery that conveys a feeling.

An analogy, on the other hand, is comparing two things that are logically equivalent in order to use one thing to help explain another.

On 3/25/2021 at 8:08 PM, invincibleqc said:

They all have 4 legs, as you pointed out, therefore everything else that differs between them is irrelevant. The specific attribute they share, and that is specifically compared, is true, which makes it 100% valid.

The differences are entirely relevant, that's the difference between a good analogy and a bad one. Analogies must hold up to logical scrutiny in order to be valid, that's the point of an analogy in the first place. When you use one thing as an analogy to explain another thing, you are using the de facto argument that the two things are logically similar. This in turn means that for an analogy to be valid the similarities must be more important than the differences. An analogy is not valid when the differences are more important than the similarities, that is the very essence of what make an analogy invalid.

The difference between a good analogy and a false analogy is not based on whether are superficially similar, it's based on whether at a deeper level they are logically equivalent. Even a good analogy has limitations, no one expects any analogy to be perfect, if two things are identical then it's not necessary to use an analogy in the first place, so of course even the best analogy has limitations, but analogies have to have a strong enough degree of equivalency to be valid. When an analogy is needed the basis of a good analogy is making a comparison between two things that are logically equivalent, it's not good enough that they are only superficially similar.

You're trying to present the argument that the AC software companies and the TSA are logically equivalent, but they're not. That would be like saying that the airline industry is logically equivalent to the FAA, or that auto insurance companies are logically equivalent to the DMV, but in all three of those cases the answer is, "No, they're not." The simple existence of some form of ToS does not make them logically equivalent, nor does the fact that they both participate in the same industry. Private industry and a government agency that has both regulatory agency and law enforcement duties are simply not logically equivalent to each other.

On 3/25/2021 at 8:08 PM, invincibleqc said:

They all have scenarios where your privacy is void when you give it away. For instance, if the FBI knock at your door and ask to have a look inside, you have the choice, and if you consent, their search is legal, etc.

And the FBI can't deny access to the housing industry if you refuse. But if you don't want spyware installed on your computer the gaming companies can deny you access to their industry. The FBI is bound by constitutional and legal structures that prevent them from searching your home without cause contrast glaringly with the access gaming companies have to data mine your computer without any cause whatsoever.

Throughout this conversation you've never once answered why you think gaming companies should be allowed to install spyware and data mine your computer when the FBI, other law enforcement, and other private industries can't. You haven't answered why you think gaming companies should have more access to your personal data (stored on your personal property) than other industries like banking and insurance. There is no good reason why gaming companies have access to your PC and your data that no one else has.

If the FBI can't do it then it should be obvious that gaming companies shouldn't be allowed to do it either, that's a pretty simple concept that you keep avoiding.

On 3/25/2021 at 8:08 PM, invincibleqc said:

Well, an AC does not really benefit the gaming industry. It benefits legit players that want a fair game without cheaters.

Except we all know that's not really true. Very little cheating is actually stopped by AC software, certainly not enough to justify the invasion of data privacy. You can look at statements by any game company about the number of people/accounts that they ban for cheating and they're always pitifully small numbers compared to the installed playerbase for the respective games.

The funny thing here is that I generally have a pretty positive outlook about cheating, I believe that in gaming overall accusations of cheating happen a lot more than actual cheating, but even with my optimistic outlook on how little cheating is taking place the number of account bans that happen are obviously just nominal and mostly for show. Anti-cheat software simply does not do a good job of preventing cheating. It's like having a screen door on a bank vault, it's only keeping people honest who already want to be honest anyway.

This is especially true for ARK. Obviously I'm not going to explicitly describe how people can cheat in this thread, since that's an ethically gray thing to do in a public conversation, but I'm confident that you know what I'm talking about so an explanation isn't necessary. Cheating/exploiting is rampant in ARK PvP and BE doesn't touch the specific forms of cheating that are easily and most commonly used in ARK. Having BE in relation to this game is nothing more than smoke and mirrors to help uninformed people feel like more is being done than is actually being done.

The great majority of the benefits of the AC software accrue to the game company, not the players. The benefits of AC software are mostly based on plausible deniability and positive PR, they can claim that they're dong everything they can to prevent & stop cheating when really they're just causing invasive data mining software to be installed on people's PC's without accomplishing the stated goal.

This is true even for games that don't have the same methods for cheating that ARK has, the actual benefits of AC software benefit the companies more than they benefit the players.

On 3/25/2021 at 8:08 PM, invincibleqc said:

The fact ESEA did what they did doesn't means BE has, or will. It is a matter of trust, as previously stated, and you have the choice to not give your trust to them if you want to but I personally have no reason to doubt their legitimacy and have no issue to accept their terms in order to play a great game.

You're certainly entitled to allow people to data mine your PC if you want to, you also have the right to invite strangers into your house or let the FBI search your house without a warrant, but that doesn't mean other people should be forced to accept the same choices that you make. Other people should have just as much right to refuse consent to being data mined. It should actually be a true choice, not a faux "choice" in which a private industry can extort "consent" from people that even the FBI and TSA don't have the ability to do.

 

[Joebl0w13]

lol