Greasemonkey script

[compfreak847]

 

Now the first thread that you referred to was a misinterpretation of the rules but luckily the moderator has corrected his mistake so there is no harm done. And I'm going to check out your second thread now :P

 

It's really nothing serious, just a few comments sprinkled through the thread - I was simply using it as a 'worse then' example ;)

 

Okay well does my point make sense then? Do you still feel like there are inconsistencies that need to be fixed? Personally, consistency is really one of the most important things to me as a staff member (and a user), and it always has been. So if you think there's still a problem, I would like to try to fix it :P

 

Nope, nothing I can easily prove besides personal things that can be argued from both sides.

 

 

 

I like to make sure I have an airtight argument before posting, in this case a 'worse' thread that remained unlocked for 31 pages :P

 

 

 

(Oh, and right now I'm waiting 57 seconds to post this because I just posted on a H&A thread while typing it -.- . That stupid posting limit irritates me more every day :-X . I might be able to program a greasemonkey script that would auto submit my posts every 500 ms until they got through. Kind of bad for the server load if a lot of people did it, though - what's tip.it's policy on things like that?)

[tripsis]

Nope, nothing I can easily prove besides personal things that can be argued from both sides.

 

 

 

I like to make sure I have an airtight argument before posting, in this case a 'worse' thread that remained unlocked for 31 pages :P

 

 

 

(Oh, and right now I'm waiting 57 seconds to post this because I just posted on a H&A thread while typing it -.- . That stupid posting limit irritates me more every day :-X . I might be able to program a greasemonkey script that would auto submit my posts every 500 ms until they got through. Kind of bad for the server load if a lot of people did it, though - what's tip.it's policy on things like that?)

 

Yeah if it has a negative impact on the server load, you'd probably be asked to stop :P Since I don't think it's ever been done before, I don't think we officially have a policy. But if we openly allowed it, I'm sure more people would want to do it which, as you said, would result in a negative impact on the server load. So I'd advise against it :P

[compfreak847]

It's just one client, as long as I didn't share the script it wouldn't even be a blip on the bandwidth monitor (Unless I ran it on a server at work with instant refresh, but I think that counts as a DDOS attack in most countries :lol: ).

 

 

 

Something more moderate like 2-3 seconds should be fine - it's less often then I end up refreshing it, with the bonus of me being able to do other things then sit there clicking on that stupid button -.-

[tripsis]

I would highly recommend PMing an admin - maybe Pure_MageUK - before proceeding with this :P Just because we may not have an official policy doesn't mean they won't mind if you do follow through with this :P

[compfreak847]

I'm sure it would be indistinguishable from my regular traffic if I randomized the length of time between 2 and 8 seconds, so I don't think it would be an issue (Or detectable, for that matter :-$ ). It was just a thought I had, I don't have much experience in Greasemonkey coding so I'd have to learn it, but I'm sure it's possible and it would make for a fun project some afternoon when there's nothing better to do :P

[MageUK]

I'm sure it would be indistinguishable from my regular traffic if I randomized the length of time between 2 and 8 seconds, so I don't think it would be an issue (Or detectable, for that matter :-$ ). It was just a thought I had, I don't have much experience in Greasemonkey coding so I'd have to learn it, but I'm sure it's possible and it would make for a fun project some afternoon when there's nothing better to do :P

 

 

 

There's no need to create any form of automated scripts to refresh the page over and over, simply wait a minute or so and then submit your post, or if you get the flood control message, wait a minute and refresh.

[compfreak847]

I'm sure it would be indistinguishable from my regular traffic if I randomized the length of time between 2 and 8 seconds, so I don't think it would be an issue (Or detectable, for that matter :-$ ). It was just a thought I had, I don't have much experience in Greasemonkey coding so I'd have to learn it, but I'm sure it's possible and it would make for a fun project some afternoon when there's nothing better to do :P

 

 

 

There's no need to create any form of automated scripts to refresh the page over and over, simply wait a minute or so and then submit your post, or if you get the flood control message, wait a minute and refresh.

 

That's the point. Why should I sit there for 30-40 seconds hitting refresh every time I want to post a simple reply? I've had 6 replys open before at once, in threads like H&A it is very easy to type a helpful but short response in 10 to 15 seconds. I don't see the point in me sitting there hitting 'submit' for 5 minutes when I could just as easily have finished posting and go back to whatever I was doing before.

[tripsis]

I'm sure it would be indistinguishable from my regular traffic if I randomized the length of time between 2 and 8 seconds, so I don't think it would be an issue (Or detectable, for that matter :-$ ). It was just a thought I had, I don't have much experience in Greasemonkey coding so I'd have to learn it, but I'm sure it's possible and it would make for a fun project some afternoon when there's nothing better to do :P

 

 

 

There's no need to create any form of automated scripts to refresh the page over and over, simply wait a minute or so and then submit your post, or if you get the flood control message, wait a minute and refresh.

 

That's the point. Why should I sit there for 30-40 seconds hitting refresh every time I want to post a simple reply? I've had 6 replys open before at once, in threads like H&A it is very easy to type a helpful but short response in 10 to 15 seconds. I don't see the point in me sitting there hitting 'submit' for 5 minutes when I could just as easily have finished posting and go back to whatever I was doing before.

 

You don't have to keep refreshing. If you hit the limit, stop, read a different thread for 30 seconds or so and then go back and hit submit for a second and final time. There is no need to refresh over and over again or hit 'submit' for 5 minutes. You can easily "go back to whatever you were doing before" for 30 seconds, then go back to your reply written in another tab/window and try hitting 'submit' again. No one is making you constantly refresh the page or hit 'submit.'

[compfreak847]

The point is, I'm generally not on the forum after a few minutes of posting - I post in a burst for a minute or so so that it doesn't interrupt my playing RS\working outside of the computer, so I have nothing else to do for the next 5 minutes while I wait for the timer to refresh.

[tripsis]

The point is, I'm generally not on the forum after a few minutes of posting - I post in a burst for a minute or so so that it doesn't interrupt my playing RS\working outside of the computer, so I have nothing else to do for the next 5 minutes while I wait for the timer to refresh.

 

The flood control is 60 seconds. Including the time it takes you to write your post, you'd probably only have to wait 30 seconds at the most to submit your message. Waiting 30 seconds is not a big deal and it's not going to prevent you from getting things done. An admin has already told you not to do it, so I'm sure that there will be consequences if you decide to follow through with it anyway. Now we're getting off track so I think we can end this conversation and turn to the actual topic at hand :P

[compfreak847]

Figure 15 seconds to type up and respond to a single H&A post. Now, say I type up responses to 8 posts. That's a total of 120 seconds typing, so at the end I will have 3 posts posted, with all of my posting done. Now I get to wait 5 minutes for my other 5 posts to go through. The problem is that every second I have to wait is compounded with each response, so if I end up responding to 15+ posts\PMs (as sometimes happens), even if I take 30 seconds per post, I end up with a 7 minute wait.

 

 

 

All Pure mage posted was that there was no need to do it; I disagree, as described in the above posts. Writing a script with a 5+ second delay would be undetectable and result in LESS server load (I end up clicking once every ~2 seconds while waiting). Plus, there's not a whole lot of risk - I get banned, I create a new account and stop using the script. I get an IP ban, I go through the Tor network :?

 

 

 

Anyway, it was just an idea I'll have to investigate :P

[tripsis]

Nice to see that you have a clear respect for the rules and figures of authority on this forum. There is no reason to do it. I'd say the reason that you're having such a problem is because you're creating unnecessary work for yourself. You're the one clicking once every 2 seconds when there's absolutely no reason to. You're the one turning seven minutes into a "wait." You can easily go back to whatever it is you were doing (playing RS, doing something IRL, whatever), and turn back to your computer or to the Tip.it screen once every minute to submit one of your new posts. You don't have to sit there staring at the screen for seven minutes.

[compfreak847]

I respect the rules, but I see no such policy under the tip.it forum rules. Nor have I been told it is against them by anyone, period. There's not a whole lot of things I can do in RL or RS for 60 seconds while running back and forth to my laptop, and a script would result in less server load and much less hassle for me - it's unquestionably the most annoying thing about tip.it. I find learning a new scripting language fun; I don't find staring at a refresh screen fun, so I would consider a script much less 'bother'. If it is explicitly against the rules, I may reconsider, but I have seen no evidence of that for the time being.

[tripsis]

I respect the rules, but I see no such policy under the tip.it forum rules. Nor have I been told it is against them by anyone, period. There's not a whole lot of things I can do in RL or RS for 60 seconds while running back and forth to my laptop, and a script would result in less server load and much less hassle for me - it's unquestionably the most annoying thing about tip.it. I find learning a new scripting language fun; I don't find staring at a refresh screen fun, so I would consider a script much less 'bother'. If it is explicitly against the rules, I may reconsider, but I see no reason to at the moment.

 

I was referring to you openly admitting that you would ban evade if you did get banned for it. I'm sure you wouldn't get banned, but ban evading IS explicitly against our rules and is laid out in the Tip.it Forum Rules. And again, there is no reason for you to stare at a refresh screen. Any problem that you have with this, you're really bringing upon yourself. If you want to be stubborn and refresh every 2 seconds when you don't need to, that's your problem. But since it's not something that is necessary, then there is in fact no need to create a script that would refresh the page for you. You're just being lazy and refuse to change your ways, even though it would benefit you.

 

 

 

Now I'm done with this conversation. And if you want to continue it, I'd at least recommend making a new thread for it since this one is about inconsistent policies and not page-refreshing scripts.

[compfreak847]

Continuation of me and tripsis discussion at http://forum.tip.it/viewtopic.php?f=90&t=782763

 

Latest post:

 

 

I was referring to you openly admitting that you would ban evade if you did get banned for it. I'm sure you wouldn't get banned, but ban evading IS explicitly against our rules and is laid out in the Tip.it Forum Rules. And again, there is no reason for you to stare at a refresh screen. Any problem that you have with this, you're really bringing upon yourself. If you want to be stubborn and refresh every 2 seconds when you don't need to, that's your problem. But since it's not something that is necessary, then there is in fact no need to create a script that would refresh the page for you. You're just being lazy and refuse to change your ways, even though it would benefit you.

 

 

 

Now I'm done with this conversation. And if you want to continue it, I'd at least recommend making a new thread for it since this one is about inconsistent policies and not page-refreshing scripts.

 

 

 

Fair enough. I had forgotten about the 'evading a ban' rule; it wasn't a good idea to bring that up, even to illustrate a point.

 

 

 

As I was saying, I can't get anything done in 50 seconds away from my computer, running back and forth to repost - I find it much simpler to post all at once, and end up deleting my posts otherwise. A script would be something I've wanted to do for a long time - something I would find enjoyable; I was bringing it up to make sure it wasn't violating any rules. As I see no evidence of rules being broken, I will be coding this script unless otherwise informed by pure mage or another admin.

[tripsis]

I split off the previous posts related to this topic and merged them all together for ease of reading and organization.

[compfreak847]

The joys of being a mod :lol:

 

 

 

Anyway, I think this is settled - a script is less hassle, less server load, and generally better. Now I get a refresher course in Javascript :cry:

[Phil]

My suggestion to you would be to look at your own reading/posting style here, not at our posting limit. Most others seem to manage fine.

[compfreak847]

My suggestion to you would be to look at your own reading/posting style here, not at our posting limit. Most others seem to manage fine.

 

Most others seem to find my posts helpful, I've rarely been told (once, actually) that I posted incorrect or incomplete information :|

 

 

 

Also, I believe 130+ WPM typing to be above the average. Quite a few H&A threads can be answered in under 2 paragraphs, a minute's worth of typing.