Xantaria.8726 Posted May 7, 2018 Share Posted May 7, 2018 > @"Dayra.7405" said: > If you would reread the opening post you would see my edit it does not involve any process checking anymore. > Just because you say it should not check processes, how do you think a flag would be possible? You *have* to check the running process in order to flag. Thats why it wont work. > Currently I do not play any T4 fractals nor raids to avoid stress. I cannot see how it can become worse. Is this about you? Or about everyone? Cause if this is about you then sry but nobody will make changes just for one person when in return many more will have it worse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dayra.7405 Posted May 7, 2018 Author Share Posted May 7, 2018 Lol read it, don’t speculate Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Laila Lightness.8742 Posted May 7, 2018 Share Posted May 7, 2018 > @"Kheldorn.5123" said: > > @"maddoctor.2738" said: > > > @"Kheldorn.5123" said: > > > Of course it isn't. But I don't want dps meter to be removed, I want it to be opt-in. This way groups will advertise "dps share required" in LFG so everyone knows what to expect and those who dont want to share, would have no reason to complain when kicked. > > > > That's already in the game, it's called reading the LFG entries. It's not hard to spot the runs that do not have dps meters. An "exp or fast" run will probably have dps meters while a "casual" run won't. > > No, it's not the same. The group I play with rarely uses the meter but posts KP reqs for CMs for example. That is not exclusive and there is no reason to assume anything one way or another. Toxic there should not be any restrictions as kp.dps. li ore classes in lfg its toxic discrimination towards other wich only leads badly everyone should be allowed in a group no matter what toxic proof requirments some any other user asks (thats sumery of what people wants) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turin.6921 Posted May 7, 2018 Share Posted May 7, 2018 > @"TexZero.7910" said: > > @"Turin.6921" said: > > > @"TexZero.7910" said: > > > > @"Sorin Noroku.5342" said: > > > > Just a quick mention OP... not sure if someone else said it, but 10 pages.. tldr... > > > > > > > > You're thinking people with meters invades your privacy... did you forget that Anet invaded the privacy of everyone just before the ban wave?! > > > > > > Sigh....... > > > > > > No they didn't. You're privacy cannot be invaded if you give consent as everyone did by accepting the user agreement. > > > So let's not start this again. > > > > Its a bit irrelevant to the thread (which i think it is utter BS) but that is not entirely true. A user agreement is not a legally binding document. If a law is been broken by it the company is still liable and your privacy can be invaded even if you have consented, if the data collected are not justified by the collector. Please this kind of misunderstanding is dangerous to spread. > > > > Whether the monitoring software broke the law or not depends on what it did. If the monitoring software did sufficient filtering of data (sending only the relevant info to Anet servers eg if you used an non-compliant application), had good encryption and most processing was done client-side it is fine even with the new GDPR. If on the other hand, the encryption was lacking (which it might have been from what it been said) and if it sent a list of all processes running alongside the game (even if irrelevant to the game) then it would be an invasion of privacy and it would break the GDPR even if you have given consent in the user agreement. Data collection can only be justified if it is essential for the business and only if you make a strong case that the collection you are doing is the minimum possible for the function you would be using it. > > > > In other words: If it can be done with **less ** with the **same ** result you are breaking the law no matter the ToS or the UA. > > Have you even read the GDPR and if so did you actually understand it ? > Because nothing Anet did was in violation of the GDPR. It's cute though how many people think that the GDPR is going to be some wide sweeping change for them though. I have. And you obviously you did not understand my post. Even before the GDPR the regulations were similar on the matter. If you can do the same function with less data collected you are obligated to do so whether you are a company or the state. GDPR just made it clearer. Also UA and ToS do not invalidate laws. UA are private agreements between parties (in this case between the company and the user) and if they break the law they are void. That is the case both in the US and the EU and irrelevant to privacy laws. Also I explained very clearly how Anet could have theoretically violated privacy regulation. I did not say they did. If you think i am mistaken please explain why and cut the attitude. And BTW the regulations are enforced at the 25th of May. So Anet could not have broken them in March. And yes GDPR does change a good deal of things. If you were working in a company or a state institution that works with user data in Europe you would know haw many changes are required to be done to be compliant. The user might not see a change but many things have changed under the hood. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ashen.2907 Posted May 7, 2018 Share Posted May 7, 2018 > @"Kheldorn.5123" said: > > @"Ashen.2907" said: > > > @"Kheldorn.5123" said: > > > > @"Feanor.2358" said: > > > > > @"Kheldorn.5123" said: > > > > > All of the above would have been avoided if dps meter, no matter 3rd party or built in, was opt-in. > > > > > > > > It is opt-in. You don't want your dps checked? You don't join the party. > > > > > > A 3rd party toy from a person unrelated to Anet, not being a part of User Agreement and for whom and which Anet takes no responsibility for, should never be a gate for in-game content I paid for. Combat data is visible and public, okay, but ArcDPS is not part of the game and opt-in option for this tool should be required by default, not the other way around. > > > > You did not pay to be in someone else's party. > > > > It is completely opt in. You have to choose to put yourself in a situation where a dps meter can read your dps. > > It is not, because dps meter is not part of the game and me playing content I paid for doesn't mean I by default agree for people to use this tool on me. The tool is not being used on you. You didnt pay to be part of someone else's group. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ashen.2907 Posted May 7, 2018 Share Posted May 7, 2018 > @"DeadlySynz.3471" said: > Regardless of people's position, their stance is likely to change on it and very soon. A simple tool that's either causing exclusion of other players (in a social game as some of you like to put it), and/or toxic behavior will inevitably cause the tool to be unsupported and thus banned. > > Now if people would be civil about and used to track their own stats to better themselves instead of belitting others, maybe, just maybe the DPS meters stand a chance. As of now, don't expect them to be allowed for too much longer. The tool reduces exclusion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Laila Lightness.8742 Posted May 7, 2018 Share Posted May 7, 2018 > @"Dayra.7405" said: > Lol read it, don’t speculate Then any dmg other se you do to enemy through enemies life bar is illegal for that is what meter record and counts up to more acurate numbers it shows group for in raids that bar is way to high better option reworkvraid bosses with only 55%of thealth they got now then less need for dps It dont take any data from you but that your client already sent to server Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dayra.7405 Posted May 7, 2018 Author Share Posted May 7, 2018 > @"Ashen.2907" said: > The tool is not being used on you. It was used 8 days ago to discuss the spike damage of necros in the WvW-Squad (fortunately I was rev but it was the worst thing I heard so far in 5 years WvW) in Teamspeak by the Commy and his guild mates. > @"Laila Lightness.8742" said: > It dont take any data from you but that your client already sent to server That’s what I want to change. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Laila Lightness.8742 Posted May 7, 2018 Share Posted May 7, 2018 > @"Dayra.7405" said: > > @"Ashen.2907" said: > > The tool is not being used on you. > > It was used 8 days ago to discuss the spike damage of necros in the WvW-Squad (fortunately I was rev but it was the worst thing I heated so far in 5 years WvW) in Teamspeak by the Commy and his guild mates. > Lol dps meter in wvw is basicly useless your dps dont matter in wvw Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GrubySzymek.1362 Posted May 7, 2018 Share Posted May 7, 2018 > @"Ashen.2907" said: > > @"Kheldorn.5123" said: > > > @"Ashen.2907" said: > > > > @"Kheldorn.5123" said: > > > > > @"Feanor.2358" said: > > > > > > @"Kheldorn.5123" said: > > > > > > All of the above would have been avoided if dps meter, no matter 3rd party or built in, was opt-in. > > > > > > > > > > It is opt-in. You don't want your dps checked? You don't join the party. > > > > > > > > A 3rd party toy from a person unrelated to Anet, not being a part of User Agreement and for whom and which Anet takes no responsibility for, should never be a gate for in-game content I paid for. Combat data is visible and public, okay, but ArcDPS is not part of the game and opt-in option for this tool should be required by default, not the other way around. > > > > > > You did not pay to be in someone else's party. > > > > > > It is completely opt in. You have to choose to put yourself in a situation where a dps meter can read your dps. > > > > It is not, because dps meter is not part of the game and me playing content I paid for doesn't mean I by default agree for people to use this tool on me. > > The tool is not being used on you. > > You didnt pay to be part of someone else's group. > > I see you are confused about my position on this. I don't want myself a free pass into groups. I want clear communication and reasonable, fair rules that respect all the customers. DPS meter in current form and implementation are not parts of the game and there is no reason to automatically assume anyone is using them. I want Anet to require an opt-in function from DPS meter dev. This way groups will need to communicate - share your dps meter values if you want to play with us. BGDM worked like this. There is nothing people like you are losing if this happens because you are still allowed to segregate people however you want. The only difference would be the requirement of actual communication instead of empty assumptions. Current dps meter policy is easy to manage and cheap for anet because they removed any responsibility from themselves while creating a problem for the community. I want them to take minimal responsibility in form of policing the opt-in requirement for 3rd party dps meter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dayra.7405 Posted May 7, 2018 Author Share Posted May 7, 2018 > @"Laila Lightness.8742" said: > > @"Dayra.7405" said: > > > @"Ashen.2907" said: > > > The tool is not being used on you. > > > > It was used 8 days ago to discuss the spike damage of necros in the WvW-Squad (fortunately I was rev but it was the worst thing I heated so far in 5 years WvW) in Teamspeak by the Commy and his guild mates. > > > > Lol dps meter in wvw is basicly useless your dps dont matter in wvw I know, still it its used to bash people. That’s why I want to limit its usage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Feanor.2358 Posted May 7, 2018 Share Posted May 7, 2018 > @"Kheldorn.5123" said: > > @"Ashen.2907" said: > > > @"Kheldorn.5123" said: > > > > @"Ashen.2907" said: > > > > > @"Kheldorn.5123" said: > > > > > > @"Feanor.2358" said: > > > > > > > @"Kheldorn.5123" said: > > > > > > > All of the above would have been avoided if dps meter, no matter 3rd party or built in, was opt-in. > > > > > > > > > > > > It is opt-in. You don't want your dps checked? You don't join the party. > > > > > > > > > > A 3rd party toy from a person unrelated to Anet, not being a part of User Agreement and for whom and which Anet takes no responsibility for, should never be a gate for in-game content I paid for. Combat data is visible and public, okay, but ArcDPS is not part of the game and opt-in option for this tool should be required by default, not the other way around. > > > > > > > > You did not pay to be in someone else's party. > > > > > > > > It is completely opt in. You have to choose to put yourself in a situation where a dps meter can read your dps. > > > > > > It is not, because dps meter is not part of the game and me playing content I paid for doesn't mean I by default agree for people to use this tool on me. > > > > The tool is not being used on you. > > > > You didnt pay to be part of someone else's group. > > > > > > I see you are confused about my position on this. I don't want myself a free pass into groups. I want clear communication and reasonable, fair rules that respect all the customers. DPS meter in current form and implementation are not parts of the game and there is no reason to automatically assume anyone is using them. I want Anet to require an opt-in function from DPS meter dev. This way groups will need to communicate - share your dps meter values if you want to play with us. BGDM worked like this. There is nothing people like you are losing if this happens because you are still allowed to segregate people however you want. The only difference would be the requirement of actual communication instead of empty assumptions. Current dps meter policy is easy to manage and cheap for anet because they removed any responsibility from themselves while creating a problem for the community. I want them to take minimal responsibility in form of policing the opt-in requirement for 3rd party dps meter. Seems like an exercise in futility though. Why make it more complicated to achieve basically the same result? Players are already segregated, so this only affects a handful of people who are oversensitive and/or try to play in groups they don't really belong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Astralporing.1957 Posted May 7, 2018 Share Posted May 7, 2018 > @"Miko.4158" said: > I would argue most of the attempts on this thread to derail, are based on "I'm not doing anything illegal" > with a fair amount of of other users opinions don't count. > **same users who obviously use dps meters**. My position on any challenging type of content and elitist behaviour is pretty well known on these forums, i think (and it's generally not positive). And yet i am also tellin OP that his concerns are completely unfounded and based on faulty understanding of privacy laws. What does that tell you, i wonder? Hint: i'd be very happy to discuss dps meters and their existence in the game with anyone. Personally i was disappointed when Anet caved in and allowed their use. Still, i can't blindly turn away when i see the arguments OP uses are... well, not too well thought out, to say it mildly. I also generally dislike things like visibly flagging people - _it's the very reason why i was against dps meters in the first place_. And it never works out well. > @"Kheldorn.5123" said: > All of the above would have been avoided if dps meter, no matter 3rd party or built in, was opt-in. "opt in or kick" That's basically the same as flagging. Thank you, i'd rather not see it. > @"Cynn.1659" said: > > @"Shagaliscious.6281" said: > > Step 1 : Flag players that use DPS meters. > > Step 2 : ??????? > > Step 3 : Profit > > Step 1 : Flag players that use DPS meters. > Step 2 : Watch players that wanted this flag get kicked for not using dps meter. > Step 3: Watch them come to the forum to cry about it. Pretty much what i'd expect to happen as well. (and that's all in addition to the point some people already made, that such a mechanic would not be trivial to implement, unless Anet actually implemented in-game dps meter of their own) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Laila Lightness.8742 Posted May 7, 2018 Share Posted May 7, 2018 > @"Dayra.7405" said: > > @"Laila Lightness.8742" said: > > > @"Dayra.7405" said: > > > > @"Ashen.2907" said: > > > > The tool is not being used on you. > > > > > > It was used 8 days ago to discuss the spike damage of necros in the WvW-Squad (fortunately I was rev but it was the worst thing I heated so far in 5 years WvW) in Teamspeak by the Commy and his guild mates. > > > > > > > Lol dps meter in wvw is basicly useless your dps dont matter in wvw > > I know, still it its used to bash people. That’s why I want to limit its usage. For first dps in wvw has none number to compare to for you face people not an ai wich makes dps less needed that commander is either a pve player who tries to play high tier pve in wvw open pvp . For you have no dps too ore botom in this case its not meters fault its a commander thinking wvw is pve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GrubySzymek.1362 Posted May 7, 2018 Share Posted May 7, 2018 > @"Feanor.2358" said: > > @"Kheldorn.5123" said: > > > @"Ashen.2907" said: > > > > @"Kheldorn.5123" said: > > > > > @"Ashen.2907" said: > > > > > > @"Kheldorn.5123" said: > > > > > > > @"Feanor.2358" said: > > > > > > > > @"Kheldorn.5123" said: > > > > > > > > All of the above would have been avoided if dps meter, no matter 3rd party or built in, was opt-in. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It is opt-in. You don't want your dps checked? You don't join the party. > > > > > > > > > > > > A 3rd party toy from a person unrelated to Anet, not being a part of User Agreement and for whom and which Anet takes no responsibility for, should never be a gate for in-game content I paid for. Combat data is visible and public, okay, but ArcDPS is not part of the game and opt-in option for this tool should be required by default, not the other way around. > > > > > > > > > > You did not pay to be in someone else's party. > > > > > > > > > > It is completely opt in. You have to choose to put yourself in a situation where a dps meter can read your dps. > > > > > > > > It is not, because dps meter is not part of the game and me playing content I paid for doesn't mean I by default agree for people to use this tool on me. > > > > > > The tool is not being used on you. > > > > > > You didnt pay to be part of someone else's group. > > > > > > > > > > I see you are confused about my position on this. I don't want myself a free pass into groups. I want clear communication and reasonable, fair rules that respect all the customers. DPS meter in current form and implementation are not parts of the game and there is no reason to automatically assume anyone is using them. I want Anet to require an opt-in function from DPS meter dev. This way groups will need to communicate - share your dps meter values if you want to play with us. BGDM worked like this. There is nothing people like you are losing if this happens because you are still allowed to segregate people however you want. The only difference would be the requirement of actual communication instead of empty assumptions. Current dps meter policy is easy to manage and cheap for anet because they removed any responsibility from themselves while creating a problem for the community. I want them to take minimal responsibility in form of policing the opt-in requirement for 3rd party dps meter. > > Seems like an exercise in futility though. Why make it more complicated to achieve basically the same result? Players are already segregated, so this only affects a handful of people who are oversensitive and/or try to play in groups they don't really belong. It would encourage proper and clear communication in groups instead of empty assumptions and bullying that's happening now. All that is required from Anet is to demand this from ArcDPS dev to apply opt in function for Arc. It's 3rd party dev so its irrelevant for them how he's going to accomplish it for as long as his tool is compliant with rules. Simple thing to change policy that would make community healthier at the end. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meowtier.1364 Posted May 7, 2018 Share Posted May 7, 2018 > @"Kheldorn.5123" said: > It would encourage proper and clear communication in groups instead of empty assumptions and bullying that's happening now. All that is required from Anet is to demand this from ArcDPS dev to apply opt in function for Arc. It's 3rd party dev so its irrelevant for them how he's going to accomplish it for as long as his tool is compliant with rules. > > Simple thing to change policy that would make community healthier at the end. Those empty assumptions and bullying you're talking about are not new things post-dps meters. This has always existed in GW2 (and.. just about every mmo). It will continue to exist no matter if policy about dps meters stays the same or changes. If it's opt in you don't think people would bully their party to do it? and if they don't do it, assume their dps is going to be bad and kick them from party or harass them? Not saying these kinds of attitudes are okay but it's certainly not a good argument for making changes to these sort of things because the problem isn't with dps meters it's with the players. You can't fix that without banning a good chunk of people ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Voltekka.2375 Posted May 7, 2018 Share Posted May 7, 2018 > @"Dayra.7405" said: > > @"Ashen.2907" said: > > The tool is not being used on you. > > It was used 8 days ago to discuss the spike damage of necros in the WvW-Squad (fortunately I was rev but it was the worst thing I heard so far in 5 years WvW) in Teamspeak by the Commy and his guild mates. > > > @"Laila Lightness.8742" said: > > It dont take any data from you but that your client already sent to server > > That’s what I want to change. Youre Vabbi? Cant think of another server Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Laila Lightness.8742 Posted May 7, 2018 Share Posted May 7, 2018 > @"Kheldorn.5123" said: > > @"Feanor.2358" said: > > > @"Kheldorn.5123" said: > > > > @"Ashen.2907" said: > > > > > @"Kheldorn.5123" said: > > > > > > @"Ashen.2907" said: > > > > > > > @"Kheldorn.5123" said: > > > > > > > > @"Feanor.2358" said: > > > > > > > > > @"Kheldorn.5123" said: > > > > > > > > > All of the above would have been avoided if dps meter, no matter 3rd party or built in, was opt-in. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It is opt-in. You don't want your dps checked? You don't join the party. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > A 3rd party toy from a person unrelated to Anet, not being a part of User Agreement and for whom and which Anet takes no responsibility for, should never be a gate for in-game content I paid for. Combat data is visible and public, okay, but ArcDPS is not part of the game and opt-in option for this tool should be required by default, not the other way around. > > > > > > > > > > > > You did not pay to be in someone else's party. > > > > > > > > > > > > It is completely opt in. You have to choose to put yourself in a situation where a dps meter can read your dps. > > > > > > > > > > It is not, because dps meter is not part of the game and me playing content I paid for doesn't mean I by default agree for people to use this tool on me. > > > > > > > > The tool is not being used on you. > > > > > > > > You didnt pay to be part of someone else's group. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I see you are confused about my position on this. I don't want myself a free pass into groups. I want clear communication and reasonable, fair rules that respect all the customers. DPS meter in current form and implementation are not parts of the game and there is no reason to automatically assume anyone is using them. I want Anet to require an opt-in function from DPS meter dev. This way groups will need to communicate - share your dps meter values if you want to play with us. BGDM worked like this. There is nothing people like you are losing if this happens because you are still allowed to segregate people however you want. The only difference would be the requirement of actual communication instead of empty assumptions. Current dps meter policy is easy to manage and cheap for anet because they removed any responsibility from themselves while creating a problem for the community. I want them to take minimal responsibility in form of policing the opt-in requirement for 3rd party dps meter. > > > > Seems like an exercise in futility though. Why make it more complicated to achieve basically the same result? Players are already segregated, so this only affects a handful of people who are oversensitive and/or try to play in groups they don't really belong. > > It would encourage proper and clear communication in groups instead of empty assumptions and bullying that's happening now. All that is required from Anet is to demand this from ArcDPS dev to apply opt in function for Arc. It's 3rd party dev so its irrelevant for them how he's going to accomplish it for as long as his tool is compliant with rules. > > Simple thing to change policy that would make community healthier at the end. Isnt it better ban arc dps make content as easy each individual wants it to be with same reward (no difficulty discrimination same reward for all difficulties so no one will feels bad) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Voltekka.2375 Posted May 7, 2018 Share Posted May 7, 2018 The only reason someone might have an issue with a dps meter is if his/her dps is bad (provided he/she has a dps role) and resort to being carried. Those who carry, kick. Cant think of anything else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nia.4725 Posted May 7, 2018 Share Posted May 7, 2018 > @"Voltekka.2375" said: > > @"Dayra.7405" said: > > > @"Ashen.2907" said: > > > The tool is not being used on you. > > > > It was used 8 days ago to discuss the spike damage of necros in the WvW-Squad (fortunately I was rev but it was the worst thing I heard so far in 5 years WvW) in Teamspeak by the Commy and his guild mates. > > > > > @"Laila Lightness.8742" said: > > > It dont take any data from you but that your client already sent to server > > > > That’s what I want to change. > > Youre Vabbi? Cant think of another server ArcDPS is also used in some Baruch Bay squads/by some BB users. But I don't find any problem in that unless the communication of that DPS (or lack of DPS) is made with respect. I mean, it's good to try to improve and to see if DPS players are actually doing good DPS, as long it's for improving and not for harassing anyone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TexZero.7910 Posted May 7, 2018 Share Posted May 7, 2018 > @"Turin.6921" said: > > @"TexZero.7910" said: > > > @"Turin.6921" said: > > > > @"TexZero.7910" said: > > > > > @"Sorin Noroku.5342" said: > > > > > Just a quick mention OP... not sure if someone else said it, but 10 pages.. tldr... > > > > > > > > > > You're thinking people with meters invades your privacy... did you forget that Anet invaded the privacy of everyone just before the ban wave?! > > > > > > > > Sigh....... > > > > > > > > No they didn't. You're privacy cannot be invaded if you give consent as everyone did by accepting the user agreement. > > > > So let's not start this again. > > > > > > Its a bit irrelevant to the thread (which i think it is utter BS) but that is not entirely true. A user agreement is not a legally binding document. If a law is been broken by it the company is still liable and your privacy can be invaded even if you have consented, if the data collected are not justified by the collector. Please this kind of misunderstanding is dangerous to spread. > > > > > > Whether the monitoring software broke the law or not depends on what it did. If the monitoring software did sufficient filtering of data (sending only the relevant info to Anet servers eg if you used an non-compliant application), had good encryption and most processing was done client-side it is fine even with the new GDPR. If on the other hand, the encryption was lacking (which it might have been from what it been said) and if it sent a list of all processes running alongside the game (even if irrelevant to the game) then it would be an invasion of privacy and it would break the GDPR even if you have given consent in the user agreement. Data collection can only be justified if it is essential for the business and only if you make a strong case that the collection you are doing is the minimum possible for the function you would be using it. > > > > > > In other words: If it can be done with **less ** with the **same ** result you are breaking the law no matter the ToS or the UA. > > > > Have you even read the GDPR and if so did you actually understand it ? > > Because nothing Anet did was in violation of the GDPR. It's cute though how many people think that the GDPR is going to be some wide sweeping change for them though. > > I have. And you obviously you did not understand my post. > > Even before the GDPR the regulations were similar on the matter. If you can do the same function with less data collected you are obligated to do so whether you are a company or the state. GDPR just made it clearer. Also UA and ToS do not invalidate laws. UA are private agreements between parties (in this case between the company and the user) and if they break the law they are void. That is the case both in the US and the EU and irrelevant to privacy laws. > > Also I explained very clearly how Anet could have theoretically violated privacy regulation. I did not say they did. If you think i am mistaken please explain why and cut the attitude. > > And BTW the regulations are enforced at the 25th of May. So Anet could not have broken them in March. And yes GDPR does change a good deal of things. If you were working in a company or a state institution that works with user data in Europe you would know haw many changes are required to be done to be compliant. The user might not see a change but many things have changed under the hood. Obviously you didn't understand a dang thing written in the GDPR then. A simple binary Y/N switch that parses active processes using the Win API is not a violation of anything on the GDPR. Not it's privacy as defined within, not its data collection/storage, not its mandate to notify users of a breach, not it's required security first principal. So this notion that you and many others have that Anet or any company for this matter is going to have to change how they operate is pretty silly. So, show me where the UA violates anything within the GDPR because it doesn't. In fact it's already been ahead of the GDPR as far as defining data sets and private data, but people will use literally any piece of straw they can to try and invalidate Anet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Feanor.2358 Posted May 7, 2018 Share Posted May 7, 2018 > @"Kheldorn.5123" said: > > @"Feanor.2358" said: > > > @"Kheldorn.5123" said: > > > > @"Ashen.2907" said: > > > > > @"Kheldorn.5123" said: > > > > > > @"Ashen.2907" said: > > > > > > > @"Kheldorn.5123" said: > > > > > > > > @"Feanor.2358" said: > > > > > > > > > @"Kheldorn.5123" said: > > > > > > > > > All of the above would have been avoided if dps meter, no matter 3rd party or built in, was opt-in. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It is opt-in. You don't want your dps checked? You don't join the party. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > A 3rd party toy from a person unrelated to Anet, not being a part of User Agreement and for whom and which Anet takes no responsibility for, should never be a gate for in-game content I paid for. Combat data is visible and public, okay, but ArcDPS is not part of the game and opt-in option for this tool should be required by default, not the other way around. > > > > > > > > > > > > You did not pay to be in someone else's party. > > > > > > > > > > > > It is completely opt in. You have to choose to put yourself in a situation where a dps meter can read your dps. > > > > > > > > > > It is not, because dps meter is not part of the game and me playing content I paid for doesn't mean I by default agree for people to use this tool on me. > > > > > > > > The tool is not being used on you. > > > > > > > > You didnt pay to be part of someone else's group. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I see you are confused about my position on this. I don't want myself a free pass into groups. I want clear communication and reasonable, fair rules that respect all the customers. DPS meter in current form and implementation are not parts of the game and there is no reason to automatically assume anyone is using them. I want Anet to require an opt-in function from DPS meter dev. This way groups will need to communicate - share your dps meter values if you want to play with us. BGDM worked like this. There is nothing people like you are losing if this happens because you are still allowed to segregate people however you want. The only difference would be the requirement of actual communication instead of empty assumptions. Current dps meter policy is easy to manage and cheap for anet because they removed any responsibility from themselves while creating a problem for the community. I want them to take minimal responsibility in form of policing the opt-in requirement for 3rd party dps meter. > > > > Seems like an exercise in futility though. Why make it more complicated to achieve basically the same result? Players are already segregated, so this only affects a handful of people who are oversensitive and/or try to play in groups they don't really belong. > > It would encourage proper and clear communication in groups instead of empty assumptions and bullying that's happening now. All that is required from Anet is to demand this from ArcDPS dev to apply opt in function for Arc. It's 3rd party dev so its irrelevant for them how he's going to accomplish it for as long as his tool is compliant with rules. > > Simple thing to change policy that would make community healthier at the end. It would do nothing of the sort. It would simply prompt behavior in the lines of "why aren't you running arc? (kick)". Currently people don't care. They often don't even care if your dps is quite lacking, provided it is still enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turin.6921 Posted May 7, 2018 Share Posted May 7, 2018 > @"TexZero.7910" said: > A simple binary Y/N switch that parses active processes using the Win API is not a violation of anything on the GDPR. Not it's privacy as defined within, not its data collection/storage, not its mandate to notify users of a breach, not it's required security first principal. No it is not. But i never said that the parsing could be a violation. Collecting/storing the data would be. Sending a list of all processes to Anet server is a violation (if it happned - i am not saying it did). And that would be the case even if there is consent given through the UA. And i never tried to invalidate anyone and i am not accusing Anet about anything. What you are accusing me has literally nothing to do with what i said in my posts. You are acting completely unreasonable. But i guess you never really cared to read and understand a simple forum post, you lash out on others on things they never actually said and you have the audacity to say that ppl do not understand the GDPR. And i do not have a notion that companies will change how they operate. They already are changing and those that do not want remove themselves from the market. I work in one and we had to make changes and have been doing them for the last two years since the regulation was first approved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maddoctor.2738 Posted May 7, 2018 Share Posted May 7, 2018 > @"Turin.6921" said: > Collecting/storing the data would be. Sending a list of all processes to Anet server is a violation I'm curious, where do you base that collecting/storing the data of which process someone is using on their computer is a violation? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turin.6921 Posted May 7, 2018 Share Posted May 7, 2018 > @"maddoctor.2738" said: > > @"Turin.6921" said: > > Collecting/storing the data would be. Sending a list of all processes to Anet server is a violation > > I'm curious, where do you base that collecting/storing the data of which process someone is using on their computer is a violation? > > Article 5 -1 c - Personal data shall be: c) adequate, relevant and limited to what is necessary in relation to the purposes for which they are processed (‘data minimisation’); Anet knowing if i use one of the cheater programs and storing it is absolutely fine. Knowing all my processes i run on my PC and storing (thats important - just filtering that data client-side and sending only the relevant data is also fine ) that information on the server violates the data minimization principle. And these processes can be considered personal data cause they are link to a location IP and can be considered profiling data. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now