New Glitch - Hax Mode

[Fracture]

Me and Scrap are people who would lie to the community?

Evidently yes.

I am on the fence about this, them creating such a useful glitch and not releasing it seems a bit fuzzy. I must say though if this is real, then I happily applaud you. But if this is fake or a joke, then I'll laugh my a** off.

Yes, it's a ton of fun to mess around with :D

This is definitively fake.

Damn it, you got us ACAMS. Fine... the entire thing was a hoax to draw attention to ourselves.

THIS DOESN'T SEEM LEGIT.

Umm... I think Sage was joking about it being a hoax.

OR WAS I

[JoeBlo]

Honestly people there has to be someway to prove it's legit without telling you how exactly to do it.

Tell me and I will back you up

:P

Its impossible to 100% confirm it until people can try it themselves.. and that option is rather controversial at this stage...

[123savethewhales]

Honestly people there has to be someway to prove it's legit without telling you how exactly to do it.

What would convince you?

Nothing.  For all I know you might as well be using a memory hack.  If collision is processed with a memory state then it shouldn't even be that hard to freeze it using cheat engine.

But more importantly, I don't believe it because "exist but can never enter my reality" is no different from "not exist".

[Sage]

Honestly people there has to be someway to prove it's legit without telling you how exactly to do it.

What would convince you?

But more importantly, I don't believe it because "exist but can never enter my reality" is no different from "not exist".

So someone you see on TV doesn't exist, because you have not seen them in real life for yourself?

[Thyrus]

yes

[123savethewhales]

Honestly people there has to be someway to prove it's legit without telling you how exactly to do it.

What would convince you?

But more importantly, I don't believe it because "exist but can never enter my reality" is no different from "not exist".

So someone you see on TV doesn't exist, because you have not seen them in real life for yourself?

A better analogy is "the person I thought I knew on TV most likely does not exist".  Fake personality, makeups, fake names, you name it, they do it.  The only thing that is needed to not believe is "not enough evidences".  If you have to prove "not exist" to not believe, you would have to believe in invisible pink unicorn.

[freeziez]

Are you guys still arguing about this?

The bot is real, and even if it doesn't use Hax Mode, it's still baddass.

[Badger]

Honestly people there has to be someway to prove it's legit without telling you how exactly to do it.

What would convince you?

But more importantly, I don't believe it because "exist but can never enter my reality" is no different from "not exist".

So someone you see on TV doesn't exist, because you have not seen them in real life for yourself?

A better analogy is "the person I thought I knew on TV most likely does not exist".  Fake personality, makeups, fake names, you name it, they do it.  The only thing that is needed to not believe is "not enough evidences".  If you have to prove "not exist" to not believe, you would have to believe in invisible pink unicorn.

Easy to prove, it will be a unicorn, thus solid, therefore it must make contact with everything it touches. I have never been touched by a unicorn that I couldn't see. It could not be a liquid, as a unicorn has a certain shape, and an invisible unicorn made of gas? That would be called air.
And if the unicorn is invisible, it cannot have a colour, so it cannot be pink. 

[123savethewhales]

Honestly people there has to be someway to prove it's legit without telling you how exactly to do it.

What would convince you?

But more importantly, I don't believe it because "exist but can never enter my reality" is no different from "not exist".

So someone you see on TV doesn't exist, because you have not seen them in real life for yourself?

A better analogy is "the person I thought I knew on TV most likely does not exist".  Fake personality, makeups, fake names, you name it, they do it.  The only thing that is needed to not believe is "not enough evidences".  If you have to prove "not exist" to not believe, you would have to believe in invisible pink unicorn.

Easy to prove, it will be a unicorn, thus solid, therefore it must make contact with everything it touches. I have never been touched by a unicorn that I couldn't see. It could not be a liquid, as a unicorn has a certain shape, and an invisible unicorn made of gas? That would be called air.
And if the unicorn is invisible, it cannot have a colour, so it cannot be pink. 

Hold on a sec, just when the did you touch an unicorn?  Oh I got it you bought some Twilight Sparkle toys.

It follows that if you take that toy into a dark room, turn off the light, and touch it, you just touched an unicorn that you couldn't see.

[LiNcK]

Honestly people there has to be someway to prove it's legit without telling you how exactly to do it.

What would convince you?

But more importantly, I don't believe it because "exist but can never enter my reality" is no different from "not exist".

So someone you see on TV doesn't exist, because you have not seen them in real life for yourself?

A better analogy is "the person I thought I knew on TV most likely does not exist".  Fake personality, makeups, fake names, you name it, they do it.

ITS LIKE JERSEY SHORE ALL OVER AGAIN!!!
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEZZZZZZZZZZ!!!!! D:


Honestly, I dont think we need any more proof, I mean... Why would they lie? What do they get?
Its basically a loss of everyone's time if its fake, Theyll be like: HAHA! You believed us.
So?

Theres no point in lying that you discovered a new glitch really... Atleast for me, Too much works making the vids & To just say that it was a lie & Troll everybody.
Not worth MY time atleast :\

[Badger]

Honestly people there has to be someway to prove it's legit without telling you how exactly to do it.

What would convince you?

But more importantly, I don't believe it because "exist but can never enter my reality" is no different from "not exist".

So someone you see on TV doesn't exist, because you have not seen them in real life for yourself?

A better analogy is "the person I thought I knew on TV most likely does not exist".  Fake personality, makeups, fake names, you name it, they do it.  The only thing that is needed to not believe is "not enough evidences".  If you have to prove "not exist" to not believe, you would have to believe in invisible pink unicorn.

Easy to prove, it will be a unicorn, thus solid, therefore it must make contact with everything it touches. I have never been touched by an invisible unicorn. It could not be a liquid, as a unicorn has a certain shape, and an invisible unicorn made of gas? That would be called air.
And if the unicorn is invisible, it cannot have a colour, so it cannot be pink. 

Hold on a sec, just when the did you touch an unicorn?  Oh I got it you bought some Twilight Sparkle toys.

It follows that if you take that toy into a dark room, turn off the light, and touch it, you just touched an unicorn that you couldn't see.

Fixed!
And why do you assume that I would buy an MLP toy?

[123savethewhales]

Fixed!
And why do you assume that I would buy an MLP toy?

Because it's not like there are other unicorns out there that you can get your hands on.....

[Badger]

Fixed!
And why do you assume that I would buy an MLP toy?

Because it's not like there are other unicorns out there that you can get your hands on.....

That's what she said! 

[123savethewhales]

Fixed!
And why do you assume that I would buy an MLP toy?

Because it's not like there are other unicorns out there that you can get your hands on.....

That's what she said! 

So you DO have MLP toys then.

ITS LIKE JERSEY SHORE ALL OVER AGAIN!!!
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEZZZZZZZZZZ!!!!! D:


Honestly, I dont think we need any more proof, I mean... Why would they lie? What do they get?
Its basically a loss of everyone's time if its fake, Theyll be like: HAHA! You believed us.
So?

Theres no point in lying that you discovered a new glitch really... Atleast for me, Too much works making the vids & To just say that it was a lie & Troll everybody.
Not worth MY time atleast :\

Just because "Sage and SD posted it" isn't good enough.  Why might they lie?  Attention.  After all, what's the point of even telling everyone they found something if they not going to share it?  Attention.  I guarantee that if no one responded to this thread from the very start they would have been disappointed.

So attention is certainly what they wanted, the only question left is how far will they go to get it.  Besides we are on a forum where people will fake their own suicide and gender just to troll.  Not believing without evidences is a good measure to take.  Again this is something universal and not specific to Sage or SD.

[Badger]

I have no MLP toys. Ask MNB for them.

[Sage]

Release thread coming soon.

[R0B0SH4RK]

The Hax Mode Guide is now up for public comsumption!

The thread: https://gametechmods.com/forums/index.php/topic,7468.0.html

And since I really don't want to answer this question, I'll answer it before you guys ask:

Neither Scrap nor Sage told me how to superstack. I figured it out on my own using clues from the original thread (on the night of July 3rd if you're really asking. This is also why I neglected to answer S32's argument at first, since I was now talking from the other side of the fence xD). When I did, I approached Sage with what I'd found. He informed me that yes, I had discovered the correct method. When this thread was first posted, I was left in the dark as much as you guys were and was never told.

After, we worked on compiling the guide for you guys. And now you all can Hax Mode.

Happy Building :D

[kill343gs]

locking thread since we're done talking about how fake this is.