obfuscator

Already had one, just after work :D

Well, this guy is definitely a spambot, but it looks like the topic has taken off so I'm leaving it public. I did remove the link though, especially seeing as it had nothing to do with the actual article.

If we dont allow discussion there, why is that thread unlocked? or why isn't it here where you DO allow that kind of discussion? The purpose of that thread is solely to announce to the forum at large that a new administrator was appointed, it's open to allow people to congratulate if they so wish. The fact is, that I had that signature for several months, and nothing was ever done about it in that time. The 6 lines of text with an image is obviously meant to prevent a large image along with a lot of text, and as I said earlier its not really a strong interpretation of the rules, I could just of easily had a link with "slayer is the only option." and it would have been the same size/effect. If it hadn't been removed for several months, that just means no one noticed it. And if you could have had a link that would have accomplished the same purpose within the rules, then it wouldn't have been removed.

And it looks like Atlanta to Winnipeg is official now. I wonder how they'll make out...

Um -- you DO realize that you're arguing the attributes of "game-play" with someone who doesn't even play, right? :unsure: So because I no longer play runescape I can't possibly hope to understand the technical aspects of a scripting language not even intended for runescape?

I can't access the thread, could you pm me the c/p please? EDIT: I do not have access to my account at this time.

It's not true that its never more efficient. Personally, I can press CTRL + Space just as quickly as I can click, but that's largely irrelevant. What it boils down to is that you're saying "my scripts can be legal 1:1, but not as they are currently". Once again, this should be taken up with Jagex, not us. I've already made it quite clear why I personal believe they've taken the viewpoint (i think) they've taken, and certainly I have no power to change rs rules.

It's not just the speed though, it's the actual principle. And you forget, we're talking about Jagex's rules here, not ours. We're disallowing your scripts because we believe Jagex thinks this way. If they don't, the scripts will be re-allowed. It's that simple. It's also a slippery slope. If 2:2 is allowed, why not 3:3. And then 4:4, 5:5, 6:6, etc etc...where does what's acceptable stop? That's why the only solution is to wait (however much longer we must) for a response from jagex.

I am crew and mod, therefore I get to choose which role I play on this thread. So for now, 11!

348

In that scenario, sure. But surely you admit with most of your functions that's not the case.

So the space is the trigger, the Q is a prerequisite. If, as you said, you can make scripts that do the first half for first, second for second, then why not do that for all of them, since that would be unarguable legal? The difference is that the actions are done at once, much faster then they can be reasonably done. I believe muuuuuu said adding sleeps would negate this effect, but that would have to be done. (and even then I don't know what Jagex's opinion on this is) The problem with Jagex's stance on AHK is that it's ambiguous. In my opinion they should either make it all legal, or all illegal - this half way sort of rule makes it very difficult to determine what's legal and what isn't; which is why I imagine it's taking them so long to respond to our email.

::q:: RS_Click_Quick_Prayer() Return There's an example. For that to click your quick prayer, you would have to press q, release the key, and then press space/enter/esc/etc. 2 inputs. Then the function is still running when you click one key, not when you click two, that's the problem. @ginger, yes I've edited it. What do you mean by the functions is still running? Also, the second button must be pushed for this to work. And I'm not talking both pressed at once, such as ^F1. You must press q, release it, and press space. Then the function doesn't run when you press Q, it runs when you press space, and it all runs when you press space (one input). The only way this could be legal is if you could somehow run half the function when you press Q, and the other half when you press space.

I'm aware this is how YOU look at it. This is not how I (and I believe Jagex as well) looks at it. ::q:: RS_Click_Quick_Prayer() Return There's an example. For that to click your quick prayer, you would have to press q, release the key, and then press space/enter/esc/etc. 2 inputs. Then the function is still running when you click one key, not when you click two, that's the problem. @ginger, yes I've edited it.

This wait is ridiculous. I'm going out on a limb and saying VAN in 4.

We don't allow this kind of discussion on that thread, even if it's not insulting, so what I've done is I've merged your post (that was actually constructive) on to this topic, where it can be properly discussed. See my response below (the post is near the top of this page). I can't speak (and won't) on his forum involvement, but as for the signature rules I have this to say: Yes, your sig was probably largely harmless. But it did technically break rules, and as a result it was removed. We have rules for a reason, and they should be enforced. If there's really nothing at all wrong with having an oversized sig, why should we bother having the rules at all? I'd also like to mention that just because it was Jimmy who removed your signature doesn't mean he was just viewing the forums, saw yours and decided "No one else would remove that, I will". We discuss these things quite a bit as a collective, and then somebody takes action. I can safetly say that if your sig was over, it would have been removed by anyone on staff; Jimmy was merely the mod who was on to do so at the time. Personally, I've had to remove my own signature once or twice even after being a moderator, I didn't realize that I had too many lines of text, or a big image, or whatever. Even though it was harmless, and not "what the rule was intended to prevent" per se, I still removed it with good grace because it breaks the rules. Now, if you feel our signature rules are too strict, perhaps, feel free to make a topic in this forum to discuss it. Contrary to popular opinion (it seems) we are open to making rule changes if they make sense and it's what the community wants. Personally, I have no problem with making changes to sig rules to incorporate more lines of text, for instance, if the image is small or nonexistent. We don't want sigs to be too big because then they stretch the page and make topics annoying to read, but if it's within reason and doesn't hurt I see no reason not to make changes.

Your scripts are functional. They have to be called, yes - but the functions you provided do work. You've made this point already several times while ignoring my problem with it. It is impossible to call a function with more than one input. Therefore, any function with more than one action cannot be legal. Sorry, what two inputs are being required here? I see you pressing CTRL+F3, which is two keys, one input. You're mixing up keys and inputs. If you require a function to use two key presses to run, it won't run if you press one then the other, it will run if you press both simultaneously, AKA one input. That's my problem with your functions - because they all use more than one action. Now of course, we can debate for some of the longer functions whether your users will even bother requiring as many simultaneous key presses (were that possible) as they need to, but I agree that people should be given the benefit of the doubt. But the function itself is only doing one action, as you said moving the mouse to the quick prayer. How do you call a function using three inputs? Give me an example, right now, and tell me how you'd use those inputs as a user. I already know what you'll say, something like "^!F2" which is CTRL+ALT+F2 - three keys, one input, since the key presses are simultaneous. Which is exactly what you, and I mean the TIF staff in general, are doing to me. Saying that my work, which was designed for the sole purpose of helping out, are scripts and functions for botting. I don't doubt that you had the best intentions when you created these, and I don't think you're a botter. I do still think your scripts break runescape rules for the reasons I've specified. I'd also like to mention that I agree with you about it being unfortunate that Jagex obviously doesn't really care about customizeable gameplay. You look at the success WOW has had with the API Blizzard gives developers to customize their game, and some great apps have been written by players that are widely used today. But the fact is that Jagex doesn't do that, and they have rules against the equivalent. That doesn't change. Even if you disagree with their stance, it doesn't give you the right to break those rules. I've used the real life legal parallel several times in this topic already. Much of the clamoring from TEF in regards to our actions have basically been trying to make something illegal legal by doing it. This doesn't work. If you disagree with marijuana being illegal, you don't smoke it to make it illegal, you lobby the government/get petitions, etc - you follow the appropriate channels. You may still smoke it in the time being, but certainly you have to accept that as it is illegal (even if you don't agree with the law) that you may well be punished for it.

By extension, when proof is presented from our side that we are not only competent to make the decision but have fully explained it it's completely ignored (and continues to be).

Looks like we missed that; thanks for the heads up. I've removed it now. How convenient. You ignored it a week ago, after even replying about it, but now claim to just have "missed" it. To be honest, at the time I thought that your first scripts (the original functions) were only pseudo code and not actually functional, so I left the illegal script. However, since you pointed out that it was an actual functioning script that is against the rules I've removed it. So you have no knowledge over what constitutes a working script. Who's to say anything posted on TEF is just pseudocode if you obviously can't tell the difference? Also, what makes pseudocode acceptable over real code, the fact that you can't just copy and paste it and have it working? You posted those scripts not to actually do something, but in order to demonstrate. I briefly scanned them, understood your point, and thought no more of it. Now that you've (rightly) pointed out that there was in fact a rule breaking script there, I agree with your insistence it must be deleted.

Looks like we missed that; thanks for the heads up. I've removed it now. How convenient. You ignored it a week ago, after even replying about it, but now claim to just have "missed" it. To be honest, at the time I thought that your first scripts (the original functions) were only pseudo code and not actually functional, so I left the illegal script. However, since you pointed out that it was an actual functioning script that is against the rules I've removed it.

Looks like we missed that; thanks for the heads up. I've removed it now.

haha epic :D gratz james, don't break anything!

My BMI is like 20.8...hadn't calculated it in a while.

Congrats RSD :)

Yeah, the only way I think there will be a peaceful solution is basically a decade + of demilitarization on both sides, with occupation by the UN or Nato or something.