I think you are making a confusion between 1) sharing strategies before GW battles with teammates, sharing ideas, teams that might work and 2) taking control of another members account and play all the moves for him. (1) is perfectly fine, not (2). But to each his own opinions and interpretations.
If the devs said about (2) that they dont encourage it, there is a reason. As I already said above, they didnt say more about it simply because they know they have no control over it and cant do anything against that.
Do you think the devs will say something like âyeah, of course its great if the few best members of a guild do all battles in place of all the weakest! Keep doing that! Its exactly the way we meant GW to be played by a group of 30!â ? 
First, thereâs the dev angle. They donât like this, but in the end it doesnât matter how they feel because unless a build posts a livestream of them doing it the devs canât detect it. They donât want to waste resources on things they canât do, so they arenât. So thereâs no real call to action, that topicâs dead unless something all the way down at the OS level changes.
Second, the player angle. Youâre trying to change other playersâ minds about whether itâs right or wrong. That usually doesnât end well. Donât say âto each his ownâ if youâre going to follow it up with another paragraph about how people who disagree are wrong!
At least remains good laugh on this forum! Thats the most important thingâŚ
Yes, they donât want to support any Mixer related issues, whatever those might be. If they encourage players to use Mixer, players will expect support if some parts of GoW donât interact well with Mixer, or some parts of Mixer donât interact well with GoW. Note that the devs even allow account sharing between multiple players, which goes far beyond anything you can achieve with Mixer.
No, I expect them to not say anything at all, thereâs nothing to be gained from repeating over and over again that they consider it well within the rules. They have zero interest in imposing arbitrary limits on how players enjoy playing the game, as long as itâs players and not bots playing the game. I imagine they are even happy that players help out each other, it improves player retention.
They have interest in keeping the game modes they create and the competition fair and not let it become a circus.
And when a player play all battles for another, then this player is not enjoying playing the game anymore becauseâŚhe actually dont play it!
Now thanks again to Slypenslyde and you for the good laugh. Ciao!
@anon43026234 being right doesnât give you the right.
The way I see it, IF the GoW dev crew explicitly stated that using third party software to share your screen in XB1 is not cheating THEN your or anyoneâs opinion is just that, an opinion. Stay healthy and happy by not fighting against the ocean?
Im not english speaker but I guess your 1st sentence have a few missing words, no? or is it an english saying?
I already repeated on this thread 3 or 4 times âto each his own opinionsâ⌠maybe you have not see it? Of course what we all say here are just opinions.
btw you should read again my very first comment, you will understand better the reasons why the devs said about Mixer that they dont consider it cheating.
âbeing right doesnât give you the rightâ (to complaint about it and expect to change it for you being right. You are entitled to think it is cheating, for the many reasons you may show, however that does not change the fact that you have no right to read between the lines of an (official?) statement and change its meaning to push for what you believe is right.)
You quoted the following:
âWe dont approve the use of Mixer, unfortunately we have no control over it. We dont consider it cheatingâ.
I understand English (btw itâs not my native language either so Iâm sorry for any mistakes) and that sentence clearly confirms that the use of Mixer is valid, allowed and legal, so Iâm not sure what would one want to accomplish by complaining the way you have. Not picking any sort of fights, as I said in my previous interaction with you, just trying to give a friendly advice
In my 1st message on this thread, I answered to the thread opener by telling him that devs dont consider it cheating. So I think it was clear from me.
And yes, I have absolutely the right to complaint about Mixer use or whatever other subjects. I also have the right to try to change someones mind about any subjects. In the end he stay with his original stance or not. No prob. Everybody here also have the right to try to make me change my mind on any subjects they desire as well. So when you write âBeing right doesnt give you the right to complaint about it and expect to change it for you being rightâ. Its just what I call a nice load of crap.
You or others dont like what I say is the least of my concern.
About reading between the lines, its just called common good sense. If they dont approve the use of Mixer, no need to be a genius to understand why. And yes, I have the right to read between the lines of whoever is writing here on this forum and make my interpretation of it. Its not called an assertion (affirmation?), its just an interpretation hence the word I used: âProbablyâ⌠based on this weird concept called Common good sense. I may be wrong, people can tell me Im wrong. No prob.
I know common good sense is something that tend to disappear in the 2000s, but here an exemple: Big math exam in University. There is a math genius and all the rest suck at math. Im the guy who will think its cheating if the math genius complete the math test for all the rest of the class. And some others will find it perfectly fine, not cheating.
And yes, I find that the people who think its not cheating are completely dumb!
And they can tell me I am completely dumb to believe its cheatingâŚno prob! Im not a flaggy-flag little kid anymore.
Now Im done with this subject. It was a pleasure to read other opinions about that. 
Lol, it amuses me how you still think that being right entitles you to be agressive/cocky.
Evidently you are at least not as smart as you think you are, you just gave proof of it exactly with your overreacting.
I hope you donât keep harassing fellow forum members for one Iâm sure I wonât be around to see it if you do.
Peace.
My feelings on mixer is itâs a non issue. For starters I highly doubt there is one person in a guild playing 30 guild mates battles. I doubt that 30 people would give access to their account INFO. Nearly every guild has people that have language barriers as well so thatâs another big problem. Is there one or two people that may trust each other doing it? Probably. Does it effect guild wars? No. You still have to play the battles and itâs no different than me inviting my neighbor over and handing him my controller and doing my battles. If mixer was only available to say one guild I might have a different opinion on it. Anyone can use mixer and from what I have heard itâs a lot of work. Some do not want to put in the work but complain about the ones that do. People play lots of games on mixer and IMO it gives the game exposure kind of like Tacet on You Tube.
Letâs start with this:
Hereâs a redundant conversation:
A: âI think the best color is green.â
B: âI think the best color is yellow.â
A: âI think youâre wrong.â
A is not adding to the dang conversation. A already stated a very exclusive opinion about the best color. B contributed a different opinion. Anybody with âsomething called intelligenceâ probably has intuited, at this point, that A will not agree with Bâs opinion.
So it sort of sucks that A showed up to say something that was already on the table. A could have maybe brought new evidence to light. A could have brought out some facts or discussed why they like green instead of yellow. But they already had that chance and didnât take it. So now they are âextending the discussionâ or âcreating an argumentâ, based on how you look at it.
The longer the chain goes on, the more itâs âjust an argumentâ and not a discussion. Iâd argue we go by Lincoln-Douglass rules and the longest it should go is:
A â B â A â B.
At that point, B has had a chance to explain what they donât like about Aâs position. A has had a chance to respond to Bâs new information. B gets to have the last word because A opened the discussion. Most of the time once you get past this part of the chain, itâs just two people yelling the same things at each other. Itâs pointless.
But you go beyond and made it antagonistic, too:
See, this isnât politely saying, âI disagreeâ. Thatâs saying, âif you disagree with me, you are stupid, for only intelligent people think like I do.â That alone is enough to turn off anyone who mightâve been listening. You didnât stop there.
Again, âonly stupid people disagreeâ.
You arenât âallowing people to disagreeâ. Youâre putting an insult on the table and saying, âAnyone who disagrees is bad.â If you were âallowing people to disagreeâ the thread would already be over. But itâs clear to any observer that, for you, the thread isnât over until everyone agrees:
- You are smarter than they are.
- This is cheating.
Thereâs not a lot of supporting evidence for either claim yet. (2) is completely subjective so not worthy of further discussion. (1) can be subjective, but evidence to support it could exist. It just hasnât been posted.
You absolutely look smart when you write 4 paragraph of bs.
Based on the quote (trying to read between the lines here) I think the question really lies on the devs.
If they had the means of control would they consider this cheating?
The quote sounds more like they would ban it if they could but regretfully they lack the resources.
Given that this thread was a simple request for information by the OP,
I think it really should have ended after the 2nd post, by Fleg,
or perhaps after some quotes/screenshots were provided â which Iâll attempt to do now.
If you enter âMixerâ into the forum search, the first result is another thread by the original poster, @truethat, about a year ago, asking why the Devs allow the use of Mixer (as truethat firmly believed it to be cheating):
Locked threads. Weird.
It got a bit convoluted, so itâs perhaps (
) understandable that @truethat wasnât able to find the answer they needed for the question at hand. Nonetheless, screenshots of Dev responses in and around post 23 from that thread provide a pretty fair indication:
To follow up on this, there was a very definitive answer in the next thread listed, which was running around the same time:
And more, scrolling down the list; more recently, even (March '19):
And again, here (May '19), where CanyonSurfer posted a screenshot of Saltyâs above response, on a thread asking essentially the same question as the OP.
I havenât seen any comments or announcements since from the Devs that would indicate theyâve changed their mind; @truethat, Iâm pretty sure youâll be okay.