boki15

Where does it say that users don't get ANY support when it is clear they share? We are not the police, we can't (and won't) tell people what to and what not do do.

 

We say we won't support cardsharing, and we won't allow illegal cardsharing (or other forms of illegal PayTV) discussions on the forum.
 

Quite a different matter.

I did not say you should or should not support something. Knowing the fact that oscam is also in your repo and your users upgrading your sofware to install packages from your report it is totaly valid to offer the support which you can are allowed. By that, none of my questions were replied, I did not ask if you are police, I just stated that you can't blame one user asking for what changed, of course it is clear to me that this user uses softcam.key and I would understand as stated before that user wants to know what changed as obviously his/her setup stopped working. Where the same happened in other thread where somebody else complained that a cam is not working and posted logs. For you it does not make a difference that you clearly see in those logs that it is about card sharing over internet which clearly is breaking the rules, where I do not see anywhere that if somebody mentions that if user is asking why my cam is not working after update and I use softcam.key, that obviously does not state anything if user is using own softcam.key for local sharing, if he uses softcam.key at all or believes it must be there, but obviously, if softcam.key is not part of oscam package there is and was no need to talk about it or to give support about it.

Point is, I actually see that posting card server share logs is actually 100% meant as card sharing over internet, saying I have a softcam.key in my folder does not say anything about it or if it is used or for which purpose, for the other thread it is a fact and user got support on his issue without to be pointed to rules, here only assumption could be that it is about card share servers online, but assumption is not a proof and this user gets pointed to rules.

Beside all of that, if nothing to discuss (especially as nobody is going to explain thread starter the changes), why is this thread then still open?

You are full of hot air, and wasting everyones time, breaking into someone elses topic and dumping your bull.

That is the reason why you lie, insult and always only assume (mostly wrongly) instead to know? I guess this is again what you call having a clue.

This is a forum, I did not dump my bull, you are dumping your lies and disgrace yourself by going off topic. Your past few post were straight just to go offtopic and insult, if your team members can't keep up with rules you have written, then it is again not my problem, if you think it wastes somebodies time, stop posting and getting this into offtopic, none of my posts were here offtopic, for some you already did show that you wrongly assume, thats your right to assume , just dont sell it as a fact, lies have short legs.

 Fine. I call your bluff.

 

Prove to everyone here you have driver sources, from any OpenPLi supported box.

Didn't you say you are not interested? You just try to get offtopic. Where did anybody mention it is OpenPli supported box or what would you define as one, the one the ressources are available are those you do not support anymore?

Beside all of that, you call for me to post here non public drivers? What a nonsense, however, you just try to get offtopic.

"I had to fix drivers". What a load of bull.

 

Drivers are supplied by the manufacturer as .ko files, and I am very sure you don't have access to the VU+ sources.

 

This, like your other recent posts, show clearly you have absolutely no clue what you are talking about.

VU+ drivers are closed sources, what a load of bull assumptions of you if you think that nobody has access to it. Like in quite a lot previous posts, you always only assume but you take it as a fact, that all as first and as second I was not talking about only specifically VU+ sources, that is once again another of your assumptions, wrong assumptions.

You manage to insult in quite every post you do? Or do you try to go into offtopic without to mention it? Maybe you should actually just care about yourself and if you have a clue, I hope you do but that clearly is not on topic here, right?

I can hardly believe that Wanwizard offered support for C-lines.

Working with Softcam.Keys is also simply illegal, so he is violating our boardrules.

 

What people do via PM is private.

I never stated he offered support for C-lines. There was discussion about mgcamd and oscam, maybe your mods deleted it but it was here: https://forums.openp...ease-available/

A user clearly was using cardsharing server and asked for support where you clearly can see card server is being used which by itself would be against the rules (which might be the reasoned mods removed it).

He did not ask about softcam.key or how softcam.key works, he just described that one is there.

User asked what changed on YOUR (OpenPli's version) of oscam, that is at least how I understood it.

 

Please show me where I have aided people in how to use WAN sharing?

You were giving support for cam, not explaining how to share, however, I took it back then as ok as you actually were about to repair something. Here is same, what is the difference if user writes softcam.key/cardsharing.cc if the question is not about cardsharing.cc or softcam.key? In current case you helped out, where in this thread user was not given reply, he was pointed to rules where the user did not break any, or can you show me how the rule is broken and if, then why wasn't the rule broken when users posted their logs of card sharing server in use?