Talk:Main Page/Hacked Content Discussion

From AQWorlds Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

For Reference Only

Please add all discussion and talk in a vertical top to bottom fashion. Your post should be at the very bottom if it is new. Yuo can preceed your text with an ":" to indent it also please add "~~~~" to the end of your post to sign it.
------POST BELOW THIS LINE---------

Nighte

I believe that as long as it's nothing serious, as long as said pictures/info are strictly legitimate and on topic, we should allow them to proceed or else we could either delete the information, or ban the hackers.

I actually think that they should add a new report list where it gives you options to pick like hacking or something like that. NOW THAT WOULD BE NICE! ~Hokkaido~

Hacks

If AE haven't contacted us dosen't this mean they dont give about us? Why dont we just go back to posting hacked thingsuser:remo652

They really don't care about us yes, but I seem to think we may yet keep members and see more rolling in due to fun facts about the items (like certain weapons have <Enter words here> written on them) that they don't seem to want (I recently tried this with the curse of skull punch island. They quickly revised the history). Do we give about hacked items still? Yes we do. Reason is, if we have hacked info, then people won't respect the wiki, and we will continue to see flamers and deleted pages. If you want to read more on this subject, there are topics about it below. --Beta wolf | (Talk)--

Sc0tt

Sc0tt's reply to "the hacks"

The only reason they call it hacks is because people are getting info/photos from in the games without asking permision (kinda like stealing from a store) to be honest I thought they would take up deleting this site sooner.


Below is also my thought's about deleting AQwiki.

I think this site should not be erased because at least 2000 players come here for info (every day) they cant get in the game. It took me 2 hours for an older quest (before I knew about this site) to get an item because I was stuck on what to do next. There for this site should not be erased because futur users will want to know what to do next in game instead of wasting time looking for a single item when it takes 2-5 minutes on here.

Wolfthestar

Some of the stuff in this wiki is hacked things like how the items in the good shop were known before it was releashed. Wolfthestar.

DeathKnight

If the SysOps actually did anything here, hackers wouldn't be here. They don't care at all. I say fire the current ones and appoint some that actually care. That way hackers would be banned and the hacked items would be gone, thus making this wiki semi-trustable on AE forums.

And at you Al: "I disagree it is a major fault of the AE team for allowing access to users through publicly available software to this content"-AE doesn't let out trainers which allow you to view unreleased items. Hackers do this. It is not your place to blame AE for what people who don't play fair do. It is TOTALLY the wiki's fault for allowing such content to be posted. ~ DK Skull.png DeathKnight (Talk| Contribs) 19:58, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes trainers are put out by other people. However if AE didnt put unreleased content into the game engine then trainers could not get to it. I think its careless to put content that's not out yet into a public build of a game. Al Gilman 20:03, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
Ah, but they do this. The hackers that post these items make things called "Private Servers" where all items are publicly available. Therefore, it is not AE's problem. They put the items in for testing ~ DK Skull.png DeathKnight (Talk| Contribs) 20:05, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
That is understood. As I understand private servers however run a build of the public AQW game which within it has the unreleased data for weapons armor...etc So if this data was not in the build ANYWHERE this would not be a problem. The AE team should keep a private build for themselves that has all this data in it. Al Gilman 20:08, 7 March 2009 (UTC)


They have these. However, hackers can go in unbeknownst to the staff. I see no fault for AE. It is the wiki's SysOps as you can't stop hackers from hacking. The SysOps act like normal members and are never usually on. If ypu read my first staement, you will see why it is their fault and not AE's. ~ DK Skull.png DeathKnight (Talk| Contribs) 20:16, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
Your first statement assumes that it is our job to stop their hacking. A wiki's purpose is simply to compile available information. It should be AE's job to stop the hacking or am I wrong? If we didnt spend resources on stopping hacked edits, then sysops could put more effort into monitoring vandalism. Now regarding "hackers can go in unbeknownst to the staff", if they have an off site copy of the game somewhere in the confines of the AE secret base, the majority of hackers would not have access to it. Those who could hack their private network probbably wouldn't care enough to do it. Rather AE leaves all the data out in the open. Al Gilman 20:20, 7 March 2009 (UTC)


speaking as a user of WPE PRO, I'd just like to tell you that it does not have anything to do with private servers (which indeed run a public build, so they cant get the items through that). wpe pro is a program that scans packages. this is often used to hack multiplayer games.
fx: I scan the id of a shop. now lets say I scan a very old shop. it has ID 3. if I input 4 there, and send it back, I get the shop that was created next. now AE actually puts unreleased content into a shop (!!yes!!). this is the famous "non-existent" pixel/glitch shop.
its true that you can also find unreleased content otherwise, but its a tedious process, and those that are able to do so will not post that stuff in here.
You may have also heard of "limbo", the staff menu. yes that place exists, and its quite easy to find. theres a button there to get to the staff shop. ::::::Now it would be terrible to simply give that shop a normal ID. so to hide it just a tiny bit, they give it a decimal. so its something like 7.9 (it once was), which makes it harder to find.
And my personal opinion: I aggree with gilman. btw, you cant equip hacked items. just read description, dmg and preview.
its mad to put unreleased items into a shop in-game. it makes it so easy. why not simply give every staff member a token one, token 2 etc. and like with the rhubarb name tag, they change it whenever they want to test equip something?
-Somestranger (yes that is actually my name)

---

Isadora

I don't see a problem with posting information about unreleased content, regardless of how it was obtained whether by hacking through trainers, moderator sending you a screenshot, information from AE forums, official AQW news page, or otherwise. But it should be identified as unreleased content.

I do see a issue with posting about purely hacked content. By this I mean content that doesn't exist in the official game and is purely for AQW emulators (or private servers as they seem to be called here). Let someone create a separate wiki about how to create and maintain AQW emulators. If you incorporate the two, then you just add a whole layer of complexity in identifying what is official content and what is emulator content.

This becomes especially apparent when emulators start to branch away from official content, such as increasing the stats for a popular item. You have battles over which information takes precedence on the item page, when really at that point they have become two distinct items of the same name. Then you need disambiguation pages, renaming schemes, etc. Isadora ( talk | contribs ) 21:50, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with this, as long as the unreleased content comes from AQW there should be no problem posting it. However custom content from an emulator might as well be from another game it is just unrelated. Al Gilman 22:04, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
---
After reading some of the posts above, I thought I'd amend mine. Leaked content is a part of any game, that's just life. Unreleased content is reported on forums and wikis for just about any game online you can name. That's where I draw the line personally.
Beyond that line, I don't believe the wiki should encourage or condone hacking. Describing the processes of hacking AQW, even if it's just how to get unreleased content from the official game, seems immoral to me. It shows a lack of respect to the game creators.
And no, I'm not referring to anyone who's posted already, this is just a general opinion I have. One that I see a little more clearly now that different points have been raised. And perhaps this is a bit of a double standard, willing to accept posts about unreleased content, even if it comes from questionable methods, but not to post the methods themselves. Isadora ( talk | contribs ) 23:09, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
---
I disagree with hacking altogether. Anything that comes from a staff page is fine, because at that point everyone can find out about the item. But hacking unreleased items? That's why people don't like the wiki. --Beta wolf | (Talk)--


Perhaps you're right about taking a stance of no content gained through hacking, only that which comes from a legitimate source (such as a staff page). However, then how do sysops know if a screenshot of an item or armor is from a emulator/trainer or the official game? Part of a wiki is to allow others to add information you don't know about yourself. Some cases may be clear-cut hacks, which could be removed immediately, but others not so much. Where do you draw the line for the stuff you're not sure about? Isadora ( talk | contribs ) 02:09, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Ah, now this is where it gets a little difficult. I can see where certain things could be put into place, but it would be difficult to maintain and people don't always have the time. I think it would be best to have a talk page dedicated to the gathering of unreleased info (based on the staff page, or on what AE releases) and then try and confirm that info. I'm not saying for just the Sysops to do this, as confirmation could come from a certain number of users. --Beta wolf | (Talk)--
Just an idea, but maybe the wiki could mandate that all unreleased content require a legitimate source (link to official page, quote from a mod in-game, etc) and a notice to be included on the page that it is unreleased, otherwise be subject to removal. Probably could make a template that does both in a consistent way. And once the content is officially released in-game, the restriction is lifted. This may prevent some legitimate but unsourced material from staying it on the wiki, but I think it would also have the added benefit of increasing the quality of new information. So it might be a decent trade-off.
And could still have your talk page, maybe call it a Rumors page, where unconfirmed things can be posted and looked into by anyone. Isadora ( talk | contribs ) 02:54, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Kitor

On another wiki I use, GuildWarsWiki, they have pages for things such as TexMod with a disclaimer saying that the content on this page is not official, etc, I think that having hacked/unreleased content put on such page might be a decent idea Here's the page, in case anyone wants to check it out: http://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/TexMod --Kitor 00:11, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Edit: Looking at Isadora's reply to me, it seems as if she took the post under this as mine, or something, xD. Just clearing up that the below is not my opinion, but that of a different user. --Kitor 19:15, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Edit to the edit, heh: Meant Zakar, not Isadora --Kitor 19:21, 13 March 2009 (UTC)


WAT i think is that thousands of people are trying to hack aqw and most of the time they cant becuz the sucerity is soo high and its hard for them to do it thats every gamers dream to own on a game thats online so they think they are better then every one else so they can show off and they will look cool but that kind of stuff is not tollerated in this site and it is not exseptible and we rilly need to do something about this

We don't run the game, AE does that. We are not responsible in any way for people who hack, just the information that is being put into the wiki. --Beta wolf | (Talk)--

Ok before people start blaming and starting some kind of war I would just like to say this: Has anyone checked the character page? There are like 5 SysOps who like everyone else on the planet has a life! Do you honestly think they have time to sit and check page after page of just things on the wiki? The reason they are trying to recruit more is hopefully to get enough people who are checking everything and keep this website clean! Now honestly I don't blame AE staff or SysOps. Some things get in to this wiki and we need to keep a look out. I blame the hackers seeing as hacking a website is a federal crime. I don't like it at all. If you aren't patient to wait and get it then why play the game? If you can't level up like everyone else then why play? If you have to have the item that was out like 3 years ago but you can't get it OH WELL! Should have been looking for the game sooner. Sorry guys just my opinion - Rider14

Hey, no need to be sorry. Everybody's entitled to their opinion. And I agree with most of what you have said (except this: If you are patient to wait and get it then why play the game? Aren't you supposed to be patient and wait? and: If you have to have the item that was out like 3 years ago but you can't get it OH WELL! If you have the item, why would you want it again?). Just clearing up a few points for those that didn't understand. --Beta wolf | (Talk)--
I believe you misread a few things in Rider's post, Beta. It says If you AREN'T patient to wait and get it then why play the game? , not are patient enough, and as for the other, the first have is being used to mean "must" so it could be read If you MUST have the item that was out like 3 years ago but you can't get it OH WELL. Anyway, I'd over all agree with that post, but if people want to hack, that's up to them. As long as it affects only their playing experience, and no one else's, then it's fine by me. --Kitor 18:46, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
I believe someone may have edited it since I posted Kitor. When I posted this, it previously said what I quoted (My proof is that I copied and pasted those sentences), I also read through it several times thinking I may have skipped a couple of words (happens more often than you think). And I realized what he meant at the time, but going over other peoples posts to correct them seems a slight bit rude to me, so I just made that post. --Beta wolf | (Talk)--
Ah, I looked at the edit history, and I see what happened. Looks like Rider made a typo, and fixed it :S Well, now that I understand that, I apologize if I seemed rude :/ I was just pointing it out, as it sort of confused me seeing the two different things. --Kitor 19:15, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

---

Corwin Ambrose

In the interest of fairness, I will first admit that I am indeed a moderator for AdventureQuest worlds, while I don't believe it makes my opinions on the matter less valid as all statements are my own and not representative of Artix Entertainment in general, some people may think differently. I will attempt to stay away from the standard, "hacking is bad" side of the argument, as I believe that would largely be disregarded.. and my position on such should be pretty obvious anyway.

So, from a more objective point of view, I believe the main problem you run into with unreleased content is a lack of validity with the information, you post something unreleased, and the information on it is purely conjecture and may be incorrect (in some cases, it has been). A recent example of this would be the good shop: the location was incorrect (though this is a bit more minor, as one could argue that the swordhaven castle is still swordhaven), the price of the swordhaven adept armor was invalid (I believe as was its status as non-upgrade only), not every item that was in the shop upon release was listed, and the idea that the shop WAS indeed the good shop in the first place might have very well been incorrect, though in this case it wasn't.

A different page that is likely a major contributor to the existence of this discussion would be the staff-only armor page, which.. well, has many errors. Some quick examples: Bello and Merca are not staff members, Odanta indeed DOESN'T have a male form, even if it is in some male inventory, and as far as I am aware, I do not have access to every armor on that page, some of which could be a custom armor on a private server, which has been taken as being "staff only" on ours.

I feel this can damage your reputation as an information source without some sort of tag clearly stating, "all information on this page may be blatantly false" (admittedly, for PR reasons, you'd probably want to spin it a little differently).. even then it is no longer priding yourself on accuracy of the information, just the fact that you have the information. At the end of the day you'll still end up with people who will take the posting of hacked information as "supporting hacking" or alternatively just disliking hackers enough to not use your service, but that's something I said I'd stay away from. -- Corwin Ambrose 09:45, 8 March 2009 (UTC)


The staff armor page is more for unreleased or unobtainable armors. It was also locked to help prevent hacked or fake info from entering the page. I'm more bothered by someone trying to post next weeks Un-live event items (someone recently tried to do so).
As I posted earlier, there should be a system put into place based on authenticating info gained from AE official spoilers or staff pages (Again goes to staff page area). I don't agree with what people do, but all I can do is hope preventions are put into place to stop such information from ruining the wiki. Hopefully a safeguard will be put into place in the near future. --Beta wolf | (Talk)--


Actually, I read what you said earlier, and I do agree with the sentiment, but not being a regular user/contributer to the site I felt it somewhat out of place for me to comment there and wished to go from a different angle. I am personally of the opinion that if you see a staff member wearing it, or on their character page, then add it as you please, though even in that situation the unreleased content warning could be a good idea -- especially if any speculations about where it's going to eventually go are made. I, like you, am also more bothered by someone trying to post items from a future event, but those too would fall under the character page rule. Corwin Ambrose 12:09, 8 March 2009 (UTC)


To be honest I think there are some people who simply post junk here. there was a retexture of paladin armor, sold as guardian armor. So the easiest thing would be to put a banner there. "Unreleased/Hacked content. Warning, the content of this page is not verified, and is subject to error." and maybe put a picture of angry artix there xD
Also, a lot of it is taken out of character pages, but people wouldn't be able to give accurate descriptions about that in those cases.
I have never supported hacking, but started to do it when AQW seemed to become another farm game like adventure quest. I was mad, and started using simply gold hacks and glitches since farming shouldn't be what a game is about.
-Somestranger

Flawless Death

The page should lead to a "WARNING: UNRELEASED CONTENT" page before the actual page so if the viewer does not want the item/monster/event to be spoiled, they can turn away at that point. I heavily dislike hackers, the option I listed is only for an emergency situation. Flawless Death 11:06, 8 March 2009 (UTC)


I agrre with was above stated. There should be a banner saying that the equipment is not yet released and if there are pictures of it taken by hackers, a disclaimer on top of the page should be warning people to NOT hack. In fact, pictures of staff members with unreleased gear should have priority then pictures taken by hackers. Faneca

Flathead IV

I'm not typical of the AQ Worlds user group, being an adult, so it's possible that how I feel about things is irrelevant to AE's business model. In spite of that, here goes: So far, the existence of hackers has been only a minor irritant to the non-hackers. Stolen accounts and hacked accounts seem to be the greatest problems. That may change when PvP is implemented, if it allows hackers to have a direct advantage within the game over other players. For me, that will probably be the end, and I'll go play WOW or something. I don't want to invest the time to hack the game, and I certainly don't want to see it turn into a virtual version of Laser Tag, dominated by tiny ferocious eighth-graders. The reason I stuck with it so far was that despite it's being fairly juvenile, it had the basics of an adventure game and wasn't too demanding. I didn't have to keep appointments to go on a WOW raid, for example. Now, AE probably doesn't care. I suspect that the product life cycle of a game like this is a few years, and then it's on to the next product. So there will be a participation curve. New players will get a better deal over time because of everything that's been added, but new players are not inexhaustible, as the failure of pyramid schemes illustrates. A primary rule of sales is that repeat business is easier to get than new business, but I'm not sure that applies here. That did work in migrating me from DF to AQW, but I see no next move, and, frankly, the recent releases are really boring. I am so thrilled by watching cartoons and reading how Artix thinks it's the greatest thing ever to happen. But, as I said, I'm just an old gamer that saw this as a nice fix between FF and solitaire, so this is an outlying data point.


SSanatobaJR

To be honest, I can't believe this discussion is even happening. I just stood up for us on the forums the other day and it was because I thought from what it says on the main page we were going to stop allowing hacked information.

The law itself says that going against the rules and guidelines set by the owner of a product is illegal, wrong and punishable. All data within AQWorlds is Artix Entertainment's property. That means that what they say goes and they have said that the hacks (and yes they have called all of it hacks) must stop. Therefore the hackers are breaking the law and stealing info and data that AE has not yet released for people to use and us to post, and breaking all the copyright laws.

And by allowing that stolen data to be posted, the wiki is encouraging the hacking and can be accused of being accomplices of the hackers. Therefore, even though AE has said they won't shut us down, if all of this continues, they could seek legal action against all of us and shut this wiki down. And a WARNING UNRELEASED CONTENT sign will not help with that and in fact may make it worse. We must not allow hacked information.

And no the hacks will not stop, unless there is no longer a way for them to profit off the information or have an advantage using it. And by giving them a place here for it, as I said we are encouraging it. We must stop encouraging it.

As long as we allow that info on this wiki, it is our problem and we could eventually get into a huge amount of legal trouble over it, no matter what countries we are all from. The only information that should be listed on this wiki is already released, safe for us to post data. And more of us need to find ways to be on the look out to stop posting or delete postings of hacked info in order to help the Sysops. End of story.

And I definitely agree with having posts on unreleased LEAKED (not hacked) info having a staff source listed so we can check.

--SSanatobaJR 06:35, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

"I never would encourage hacking"(front page), neither would any one on this wiki. Hacking is bad, however if it is to be done by somebody and they gain unreleased information why punish them for posting it? AE can deal with them in any legal or other way they want. However we are not AE and we are not run by AE so we can still allow it.
The biggest draw I see to this content however is it's validity. As obtaining validation would require acts which we do not encourage. :D So I think a BIG warning sticker is required to warn people that the information is unreleased and potentially false. Al Gilman 07:27, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
One of the drawbacks would be validity, but I still think it might be wise to disuade hackers. If we start posting hacked info, people are going to take it as a sign that it's ok to hack. I don't think that's a good idea in all. --Beta wolf | (Talk)--

Athius

Well since there are always two sides of the same thing, I think that even though info, although hacked, should not be removed, because there's nothing wrong about knowing about something someone else knows about already (sharing information). But, on the other hand, hackers themselves are probably rather dangerous for the game itself, because since they can already do stuff like this, they could also do something that could damage the game and/or ruin it for everyone, like stealing people's accounts or mess around with the game code.

As for the official wiki, I think they should definitely release that one as well, so that players can also have a wiki with more official and 100% true information, as well as probably a wiki more professionally done (no offense) but also this one, with, lets say more freedom. By the way, I think it would be much more better if they put the official wiki INSIDE the Book of Lore (since they've already got "glossary", "beastiary", "legends" and "events" written on the book).


noone can mess up the game code without acess to the server. meaning that only true hackers that could also hack into a swiss bank account could possibly do that. all we can do is things like, raise damage, farm gold faster, and open shops wherever we are (selling stuff faster and finding these staff items with the pixel/staff shop) yes scamming is a big problem. and I aggree with your point about official wiki though its getting off-topic.

xshujinkox

this wiki is dying slowly

Zakar

Guess its my turn to join the brawl. Let me address a few of the previous opinions on the wiki itself to begin:

  • DK: Don't say the SysOps don't do anything. Its rude, and not true. Second: Prehaps there is a reason as to why the SysOps are never on. Maybe school, homework, projects? Life is our first priority, my friend. Once we get it out of the way, we can then contribute.
  • Isadora: The only thing to fix there is to remove "by hacking through trainers"
  • Kitor: Same as Isadora
  • Corwin: Thanks for clearing up a few things

Now, my views on hacking the game are quite simply that it is unallowed and in direct violation of the AQW terms of service. If you find an armor on a staffer page or directly from AE, then its fair game. All other sources, Hacked or Otherwise, is not allowed on this wiki. I hope that I have Cleared some things up. Please state any questions and/or concerns under this message. Thank you and good night. Zakar 01:12, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I still stand by what I've said before, completely intact. There's nothing to fix, because that's just my opinion where to draw the line. However, if those who run the wiki want it in a slightly different place, then I fully support that as well, and even gave a suggestion that might help in that endeavour. To me, it's a fuzzy line and isn't a Good vs Evil debate :)
As a example, what if a staff member unintentionally posts information somewhere (forum, news page, in-game, whatever) but then retracts it after realizing their blunder. Do we also have to retract it from the wiki if we've already captured that information?
From my understanding of your definition, it's still a bit ambiguous, as it could be argued that it is longer from any acceptable source. I'm sure some people would argue that we should follow suit with AE wishes, while others would say it's already leaked and came from an official source so why bury our heads in the sand.
I can come up with examples like this forever, for any stance that picks and chooses sources. It's just not that clear cut to me, and however the rules are defined you'll either allow some questionable content or restrict something credible (and I've already stated mine may have a double-standard built into it). So it comes down to what you're willing to live with. This is the reason we have tabloids, newspapers, and a bunch of in-between ones that people argue about what they are. It's all about the sources and what people believe are credible, or acceptable, methods and what are not. Isadora (talk|contribs) 02:43, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
I don't think there's anything against having information that AE accidentally released. I doubt they would retract it anyway as there have been similar blunders in the past. To the fuzzy line, I don't see any. If you do, then your not looking hard enough. There are laws that prevent hacking and such other things. Maybe you had better read over the Terms and Conditions again.--Beta wolf | (Talk)--
You don't see anything wrong with accidentally released info, great. Doesn't mean everyone shares the same sentiment. It's still info that wasn't meant for public eyes. How about info that was willfully given against AE's wishes to the public by a disgruntled employee? It's a less likely scenario, given the happy-go-lucky attitudes of their staff, so feel free to exchange disgruntled employee with someone they gave a private demo to, or anyone else that happens to have access to information we do not. It's just an example after all. Still see nothing wrong with posting the information? All I'm trying to show is that even as much as you agree with others, there's probably slight differences what you believe is acceptable and what is not. To me, that's the very definition of fuzzy.
And you are confusing the laws. The site isn't hacking anything. I don't know why a few of you keep missing this point. Some people who visit and contribute to the site are the hackers. There's no infringement by the wiki itself or the wiki owners. And if you mean copyright law, then you should be arguing the entire site be shut down, because it's all copyright of AE regardless of how it was obtained. However, there's such a thing as "fair use" built-in to copyright law, which allows the wiki to display content from the game. Otherwise every unofficial game wiki would be at risk. So what part of the Terms and Conditions are you referring too (and yes, I've read it)? What law is being broken by the wiki itself? You're going to have to be more specific for me to believe such a general statement.
Also, when people throw the word released content around here, I think there is a general understanding that it means whatever AE wants us to see. But truthfully, anything they include in the client is technically released content. That's the product they release, which is what any laws would look at.
So I'm looking deeper, but I still don't see this perfectly draw line between what is right and wrong here :) And sorry for hijacking your section Zakar! Isadora (talk|contribs) 14:39, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
so feel free to exchange disgruntled employee with someone they gave a private demo to, or anyone else that happens to have access to information we do not. It's just an example after all. Anyone else (apart from the staff) who has unreleased info are probably hackers. I can't really speak for the disgruntled employee scenario, because it hasn't happened, but I think it unlikely they would post unreleased info. Even if they did, I think AE would take it in their stride and move on without a hitch. It's probable that the unreleased info would then become public info.
As to the fact that you think I'm confusing the site with hacking, I'm not. The fact remains that there are a few people on here who hack. I also never stated that the site hacked (Not even sure where you pulled it up from).
Hacking is against the law, and the terms and conditions set by AE. The fact that people go against the terms and conditions set means they are breaking the law. It clearly states in the terms and conditions that you shouldn't hack for any reason:

6. PROHIBITED USES.
Company imposes certain restrictions on your permissible use of the Site and the Service. You are prohibited from violating or attempting to violate any security features of the Site or Service, including, without limitation, (a) accessing content or data not intended for you, or logging onto a server or account that you are not authorized to access; (b) attempting to probe, scan, or test the vulnerability of the Service, the Site, or any associated system or network, or to breach security or authentication measures without proper authorization; (c) interfering or attempting to interfere with service to any user, host, or network, including, without limitation, by means of submitting a virus to the Site or Service, overloading, “flooding,” “spamming,” “mail bombing,” or “crashing;” (d) using the Site or Service to send unsolicited e-mail, including, without limitation, promotions, or advertisements for products or services; (e) forging any TCP/IP packet header or any part of the header information in any e-mail or in any posting using the Service; or (f) attempting to modify, reverse-engineer, decompile, disassemble, or otherwise reduce or attempt to reduce to a human-perceivable form any of the source code used by Company in providing the Site or Service. Any violation of system or network security may subject you to civil and/or criminal liability.
Additionally, only Artix Entertainment, LLC or its licensees have the right to host Artix games. Accordingly, you may not host, provide matchmaking services for, or intercept, emulate, or redirect the communication protocols used by Artix as part of any Artix game, regardless of the method used to do so. Such prohibited methods may include, but are not limited to protocol emulation, reverse engineering, modifying Artix games, adding components to Artix games, or using a utility program to host Artix games. Also, the use of any "user interface" for Company games other than the user interface that is Company provides for any particular Company game ("Third Party User Interface") is prohibited by Company.
Furthermore, you agree that you will not (1) modify or cause to be modified any files that are a part of an Artix game; (2) create or use cheats, “mods”, and/or hacks, or any other third-party software designed to modify the experience of Artix games; (3) use any third-party software that intercepts, “mines”, or otherwise collects information from or through an Artix game.
Company has the right to terminate your account, and, if you are a Member, your Membership, if you violate any of the terms of this Agreement. Members terminated for breach of this Agreement shall not be entitled to any refunds of Membership payments.--Beta wolf | (Talk)--
I said I've read the terms of service already, so you could've just let me know the section number :)
That whole section applies purely to hacking, spamming, and using third-party programs. The actions of doing those things. So what part of that applies to the wiki and the content it recieves? All you've done is shown you agree with me that hacking is wrong, and that it's against the terms of service.
And please don't get me confused with the fellow below who asked if hacking is an infringement. I already know that. I'm asking how receiving information that happened to come from a hacker is infringement, not the actual hacking itself. There's a huge difference between the two, and people (not just you) keep glossing over it with blanket statements about it infringing the law. Isadora (talk|contribs) 02:15, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
I wasn't confusing you with the fellow below. I replied to your post before I'd even read his. I think I realise what your saying now. What you posted earlier wasn't all that clear. There's nothing wrong with recieving hacked information apart from a moral dilemma. The fact is that even if you should recieve such information, it might be best to delete/get rid of the content as it's not supposed to be available, and to advise others not to hack for such information. It's more taking into consideration those who created and coded the game, and their wishes. --Beta wolf | (Talk)--
I completely agree. And I'm glad someone could put it into much fewer words than I :) Isadora (talk|contribs) 04:08, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

BH15

I admit to say that I love a good debate. so I'll join.

Given the arguments presented by both sides, I will attempt to present each of the affirmative and the negative without bias.

Now, is it 100% positive to say that the hacking is a complete infringement? After all, the AE staff and mods know about this wikia, and the fact is, many people have been showing hacks for some time now, eg Doom Knight armour. Now, let's put it this way, if they were concerned with this type of problem, wouldn't they have done something about it? I mean, I believe you could flag this site and take it down, yet it has not. Of course not, I am sure that the Staff would care more about people trying to attack their games and sites, not about childish hacks allowing others to see armours that might not exist or staff, although, you can't say you can blame the players, as the Staff DO in fact show off their custom armours. But, these hackers show that the security may be a bit light, like a thief breaking through a window; and this at least gices the Staff the ability to patch these broken windows.

Of course, following the negative, it is of course illegal and rather sad that people hack just to obtain items that players might get anyways. Frankly, the armours DO look great, such as the Doom Knight or Necromancer classes; but we're getting them in due time, patience and honesty are virtues. Hackers and viral creators do what they do purely out of boredom and the undisputable desire to show off. What better place then a budding internet game to show off to the supposed n00bs? Unfortunatly, our AQW wikia is the top grade wikia of this game, therefore, the pics of hacked materials are most likely to appear here. I believe our admins can IP ban, if not, they should, as, hacked material can be a bother, sure, people like spoilers, but sometimes it is a better to be safe than sorry.

In conclusion, I cannot vouch for either side, people have different opinions, mine is undecided. People can hack if they want, or they can play the game, in the end, is doesn't truely matter. As much as I like gazing on Doom Knight, I'd much prefer to be wearing it once it comes out. I am non-member, doing what I do. BH15 08:22, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

AE does do something about it. They ban the players resposible for hacking. As stated in the AE forums however, they cannot remove a wiki.
And yes, hacking is a complete infringement:
6. PROHIBITED USES.
Company imposes certain restrictions on your permissible use of the Site and the Service. You are prohibited from violating or attempting to violate any security features of the Site or Service, including, without limitation, (a) accessing content or data not intended for you, or logging onto a server or account that you are not authorized to access; (b) attempting to probe, scan, or test the vulnerability of the Service, the Site, or any associated system or network, or to breach security or authentication measures without proper authorization; (c) interfering or attempting to interfere with service to any user, host, or network, including, without limitation, by means of submitting a virus to the Site or Service, overloading, “flooding,” “spamming,” “mail bombing,” or “crashing;” (d) using the Site or Service to send unsolicited e-mail, including, without limitation, promotions, or advertisements for products or services; (e) forging any TCP/IP packet header or any part of the header information in any e-mail or in any posting using the Service; or (f) attempting to modify, reverse-engineer, decompile, disassemble, or otherwise reduce or attempt to reduce to a human-perceivable form any of the source code used by Company in providing the Site or Service. Any violation of system or network security may subject you to civil and/or criminal liability.
Additionally, only Artix Entertainment, LLC or its licensees have the right to host Artix games. Accordingly, you may not host, provide matchmaking services for, or intercept, emulate, or redirect the communication protocols used by Artix as part of any Artix game, regardless of the method used to do so. Such prohibited methods may include, but are not limited to protocol emulation, reverse engineering, modifying Artix games, adding components to Artix games, or using a utility program to host Artix games. Also, the use of any "user interface" for Company games other than the user interface that is Company provides for any particular Company game ("Third Party User Interface") is prohibited by Company.
Furthermore, you agree that you will not (1) modify or cause to be modified any files that are a part of an Artix game; (2) create or use cheats, “mods”, and/or hacks, or any other third-party software designed to modify the experience of Artix games; (3) use any third-party software that intercepts, “mines”, or otherwise collects information from or through an Artix game.
Company has the right to terminate your account, and, if you are a Member, your Membership, if you violate any of the terms of this Agreement. Members terminated for breach of this Agreement shall not be entitled to any refunds of Membership payments.--Beta wolf | (Talk)--
I agree totally with Beta Wolf, hacking is infringement because it is against AE's wishes. Besides, how do we know that it really is that easy to hack into the system? Can someone tell me? And as long as we accept their hacked info, the hackers have something to keep hacking for.
And as this continues, it will also escalate. It always does. Soon just getting simple hacked info will not be enough for these people. They will hack further and further into the system and more and more people will be losing accounts. And it will just continue until they crash the whole system. How many games in the past have been destroyed in just this way by just this thing? I'll tell you, too many to count. And we are encouraging it by accepting their info. We must stop.
Hacking in any form against the wishes of the game's owner is a criminal act. And no, the term 'hacking' does not cover the leaking of info by the Staff, even accidental or intentional. Hacking is the intentional modification of restricted program code, by people who are not given the permission to, to allow results that the games creator's never intended or wanted. --SSanatobaJR 05:24, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
I just thought I'd address one question you had. Yes, it is fairly easy to hack AQW and we can know this for some very specific reasons. Network traffic is unencrypted, such as your login password being sent as plain-text. More content is in the client than necessary, with many powerful point-and-click Flash decompilers available. And the server doesn't block a lot of requests that don't make sense, such as faking a request to open a shop when you aren't actually in the same room as it. So overall the software hasn't matured to a stage that could be called secure yet. Over time it will likely get better, as this is just the nature of new (and a bit innovative) software. Isadora (talk|contribs) 05:54, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Dragonbb001

I think the hacked photos should only be put as a link. I don't think it's reasonable to delete the hacked data as it might have been edited by other users, and this will destroy all their hard work.

It doesn't matter whether hacked content has been edited, it's still hacked content, and it will still fall under the guidelines and rules provided.--Beta wolf | (Talk)--

well

this wikis done cus the new wikis got rules unlike this wiki oh btw AE DESPISES YOU AND THEY ARE ALSO IGNORING YOU which means your done!

First off, we have rules. You might want to consider the fact that this page is currently discussing what our rule on hacked and unreleased content should be. Second, please link you claim to a statement by AE in which they announce that they "despise" the wiki. Thirdly, assuming your claim that AE despises us is true, and that they are ignoring us, how does that mean this wiki is done?? --Kitor 19:18, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

My opinion

i saw the new wiki and i think it's a bit.... nice but!....: 1. it's a bit incomplete. the weapons dont have their damage written. 2. the other items dont have notes. 3. i have a lot of difficulty finding my way through. 4. i didnt know any additional info. from it.

other than that, it was wonderful!

Overall, I like the style of this wiki better than wikidot. The userpage system was kind of meh for me, and I agree, it was a bit harder to navigate. It also seemed to load quite slow last night, though it's not going slow right now, so it was probably just my computer. Of course, it's new, so AE may work out some of its insufficiencies. Though there's always the fact that it's official, and AE staff can be interacted with on there, too.--Kitor 19:19, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

My view

Hacking isnt really the right word. Hacking is when you hack a computer and wreak havoc with thier system. This was done with photoshop. Theyre fairly different. As long as it has the unreleased template im fine with it

Hacks / programs to hack

hacks are stupid, this is just demeaning to the game, and people who hack should be banned, if ou wanna hack then hack i dont reall care, just if i see you hacking, don't thing i wont report you, i have reported some people and they have been caught hacking and from what i know their accounts were deleted

Retrieved from "http://www.aqworldswiki.com/index.php?title=Talk:Main_Page/Hacked_Content_Discussion&oldid=177664"