Nechrom

You are absolutely correct if the question was worded as you proposed, but sadly it isn't. The current question does not leave room for unconvinced opinions. Either you think it gives an unfair advantage or not. I couldn't answer no to that because I can see situations where it could give an advantage. But I also think that the poll as it is worded and constructed has no purpose other than trying to farm "yes" answers to an irrelevant question. WG has posted their criteria for having the mod re-evaluated already, and it's not "gather enough signatures".

The best thing about this discussion is that I have no horse in the race. I basically never use the X myself. I have it because it comes with the mini-map mod I prefer. If the mod gets banned it would only affect me if the mod author won't supply his mini-map mod without that feature. There are two reasons why I'm still sticking around in the two topics: 1. I still have an opinion, that the mod shouldn't be banned based on how little actual impact it has on practical gameplay compared to other mods which no one has any issue with. 2. Most of the people driving the movement to have the mod banned are doing so in the worst way possible. They ignore what WG says, use intellectually dishonest arguments and try to prove their point in the most awkward counterproductive ways possible that has the least chance to get taken seriously by WG. Those two reasons are separate and I'm open to be proven wrong on the 1st point, but they are not making any progress on that front with the way they are handling this. Before someone starts taking this personally, there are people more and less guilty of this.

If they clicked the topic, yes. I'm talking about "don't care" as in "either is fine", not as in apathy. A poll presented on a forum like this will always attract more active and opinionated people, but being fine with both options is still an opinion.

"minimap by autospy"

Your point that there is no reason to play RN CLs as long as someone has an X on the mini-map where he is aiming?

No personal attack there. Just being facetious at someone who thinks that the reason why he gets deleted is because of mods. Humor is allowed.

No it doesn't, it matter how big or small this advantage is in WG's eyes...

It's there so you can have something else to blame than yourself after getting wrecked when you stop in front of a BB while being spotted and smoking up.

Because they are not just looking for examples where it is possible to use the mod to hit un-spotted ships. But also examples showing it providing better results than not using it. Basically they want to see if it has enough of an actual effect in practice. A hurricane would be ideal to show this in my opinion, where you don't have anyone to shoot at except those speculative targets.

Downplay and stonewall what? MrConway posted a perfect response already on the 4th page:

But again, that's not what the rule is. It's not about if the mod provides new information or not, that's in a separate line which also includes the part: "except for those mentioned and approved on the official forums or portal". I'm not the one who has been pushing hard to ban all mods that gives you any advantage over someone using just the vanilla client.

Then you have completely missed the entire point of doing a forum poll. If you think that WG is going to blindly adhere to a random poll result on the English section of the EU forums on matters affecting every single player of their game, then you will be very disappointed. WG doesn't care about what a handful of players voting yes or no thinks, including me. What WG needs to see is that enough players actually do CARE. So it matter extremely much how many people vote "I don't care". The actual Yes versus No relationship has almost no impact. Because WG has already made a decision about the mod and the question isn't if they should immediately ban it or not based on player opinion. The question is if they should take another look at it based on new evidence. They have no reason to do that if on the grand scheme of things, no one cares.

And isn't the entire point of that to make you perform better?

How do you improve something without making it better than it was before?

That's not the rule though. The rule is: "Applications and mods that help a player to aim in any way that is not already available in the game, that includes any predictive aiming mods." That's not confined to mods providing information not otherwise available. One possible opinion is "I don't care" another is "I don't know". You don't have those in the poll, so the results will not correctly reflect the opinions of the people answering. If the result is 60% yes and 40% no, or if it's 6% yes, 4% no and 90% "I don't care" makes for a very big difference. By not offering more than two options you are also pushing people to pick one of two things they might not otherwise have picked. When companies do official polling they don't ask people to pick between two answers even if the question is binary, because that would skew the poll. Let people answer what they want to answer. Obviously you don't have to add the option "Orange" to a binary poll where the scale is "yes to no", but at least try to include some of the most probable answers. So you think that an informed and an uninformed opinion has the same value? A mod is made for people to use, so to have an opinion on it one should probably use it first. Thanks for bringing up movies, that's a perfect analogy. To criticize a movie, you need to watch it first. You can have an opinion about it from just hearing what your friends say about it or watching the trailer. But if you want to review it that's not enough.

The same interpretation that allows other mods which aid in aiming, like more visible crosshairs, zoom mods, larger mini-map etc.

If you know there is a DD nearby then you can keep an eye on how many enemies have you targeted. If the number drops for a short moment then goes back, that's a good indication that the DD launched torps in your direction.

I'm not defending anyone. I would love for WG to write better rules or to be consistent. But now when they have made a choice (presumably knowing their own rules) it's not very helpful to use those rules to try and change their mind. Personally I wouldn't have written those rules like that because I'm much more interested in the level of advantage that mods give you and WG seems to be of the same opinion despite what they have written in their rules, however contradictory that may be. I can appreciate that the rules that governs what mods people can use have to be very simple and not open for interpretation, but whether we like it or not those rules are for the players not WG themselves.

But the topic isn't about having the rules changed. I don't like analogies, but here we go: Freedom of Expression is a common convention in many developed countries which protects people's rights to share ideas and information. But there are also exceptions. You can't divulge state secrets, share protected proprietary information, commit libel or slander etc. What I am saying is that you can have very general wide rules and still allow or disallow things within those rules separately. Which is what WG has done with this mod. And before anyone puts words in my mouth for the 5th time, I'm not saying that it is written in stone. You can definitely have WG reverse that decision, but not by just repeating their own rules over and over. They have literally said in this topic what they need in order to look at this case again. It's not me making this up.

It only makes you look stupid.

Supercontainers already work like the X-mas crates. They will not give you a duplicate ship unless you already own every ship it could possibly give you. For everything else there is no special mechanic to take into account other things like premium time, flags, camos, doubloons etc. But the X-mas crates didn't do that either as far as I know.

No it doesn't, but it does raise the question why then have you said it? You say it's against the rules, yes? So explain to me how that is relevant to this mod being allowed or banned.

It is literally under debate as per WG's wishes. See MrConway's posts. The fact that people repeatedly say it's against the rules and WG says that they have looked at the mod several times and allowed it, leaves one remaining avenue for people who want it banned: Prove to WG that it provides enough of an advantage for them to reverse their decision. Repeating the rules over and over does not do that.

People who disagree with you are clearly just trolls. Why else would they write the wrong opinions. You have it all figured out. /s Meanwhile you refuse to follow WG's wishes and provide examples of the mod providing actual benefits in real battles. Instead you just copy and paste the rules. You know, I'm pretty sure they know of the rules that they themselves have written.

Because WG has already looked at this mod and decided that it is allowed. They specifically stated that they are open to people providing examples of it providing advantages in battles. Posting the mod rules over and over again serves no purpose when the people writing those rules have already deliberately allowed the mod.