TIF is bit over-moderated

[green9090]

"We don't really care/need to know what kind of input device you use. Could be a traditional mouse, a trackball, a touchpad, a graphics tablet, a touch screen... or your computer keyboard with MouseKeys enabled.

 

The key thing is that every time you want the on-screen pointer to move somewhere, you must make a movement on/with your input device that exactly corresponds with the on-screen movement. And every time you want to click on something on-screen, you must carry out a click using your device."

 

This is a real quote about what the policy really is. Autohotkeys can be used as a keyboard remapper WITHOUT macros, which would make it entirely, 100% legal according to a mod actually thinking about the issue and not giving a copypaste response. Input device is irrelevant, and only amount of actions per action is important. This is very, VERY clearly stated in the official statement from Mark L, who actually has the authority to speak on macro policy.

 

Why would you think that giving us a canned response from a community manager would override that? Because you aren't involved in the game enough to understand what is happening.

[obfuscator]

Yet you state he got the response directly from the cheating team....

"hey lads, a player posted on the community forums about something called "autohotkey", asking if it was allowed or not"

"eh, just say it's 3rd party"

"alright see you at the pub?"

 

or as you imagine it

"Hey lads, a player posted: Recites the question exactly as it was written down"

"Oh yes we are actually researching that right now and have deemed it a 3rd party program which we will not allow our players to use, as we find it breaks this rule and that rule."

 

Get real.

 

 

Lol. Your assumption carries no more weight then mine.

 

edit: @michael then i'm sure you could be messaged as well

[Andy]

Yet you state he got the response directly from the cheating team....

"hey lads, a player posted on the community forums about something called "autohotkey", asking if it was allowed or not"

"eh, just say it's 3rd party"

"alright see you at the pub?"

 

or as you imagine it

"Hey lads, a player posted: Recites the question exactly as it was written down"

"Oh yes we are actually researching that right now and have deemed it a 3rd party program which we will not allow our players to use, as we find it breaks this rule and that rule."

 

Get real.

 

 

Lol. Your assumption carries no more weight then mine.

 

edit: @michael then i'm sure you could be messaged as well

 

It's a hell of a lot more realistic than yours.

[obfuscator]

 

It's a hell of a lot more realistic than yours.

 

Ahh yes, which you know from your extensive experience working at Jagex, correct?

[Vex]

There are still several scripts that are illegal, including a post from grimy quoting the offending script saying "that's illegal"; but it hasn't been removed.

 

Why is there a need to remove it? Can't it be an example of what isn't ok. It's not being endorsed or promoted or seen as acceptable to the other people. If someone wants to go ahead and use it knowing they are breaking the rules, then that's up to them. I don't see how it's condoning said behaviour if it's implicitly stated that's illegal.

 

Not everything has to be censored and deleted. This forum board is worse than George Orwell's 1984.

[Bows]

So then message Michael. I don't understand how it's so damn hard. All we ask for is proof, which you supposedly have. If that is true, show us. Or just admit you're lying.

[Ginger_Warrior]

There's been five pages worth of posts in the past few hours. Is there some record you guys are trying to break for the worst-dealt with e-conflict ever?

[green9090]

Very curious what forum of communication is faster than email and can't be copy/pasted. Was it a phone call?

[Andy]

 

It's a hell of a lot more realistic than yours.

 

Ahh yes, which you know from your extensive experience working at Jagex, correct?

You honestly believe then that a person in community management's opinion holds the same value as someone who is actually working on these things? We don't even know what the question asked was about (all questions in the clan leader forums are hidden on the thread brainy posted on.)

 

Like brainy said, swiftkit was not allowed because it was "3rd party software" - it's the automatic response to something that jagex aren't going to investigate any further.

[obfuscator]

 

It's a hell of a lot more realistic than yours.

 

Ahh yes, which you know from your extensive experience working at Jagex, correct?

You honestly believe then that a person in community management's opinion holds the same value as someone who is actually working on these things? We don't even know what the question asked was about (all questions in the clan leader forums are hidden on the thread brainy posted on.)

 

Like brainy said, swiftkit was not allowed because it was "3rd party software" - it's the automatic response to something that jagex aren't going to investigate any further.

 

Of course not. What I do believe is that it would extremely unprofessional for the people who know what they're doing to deliberately mislead their co-workers, which is what you're suggesting.

 

@Bows: Tripsis will do it, as soon as she gets here, as I said. Unfortunately I'm not able to access her private messages or I'd do it right now.

 

EDIT: This will be my last post until we have more info for you guys, see Danq's post on page 24

[Dragonlordjl]

What is really amusing about all this is that the TIF mods are on this big crusade to defend Jagex's policies, when Jagex themselves doesn't give a rat's ass about enforcing their own rules.

[Kimberly]

Why would you think that giving us a canned response from a community manager would override that? Because you aren't involved in the game enough to understand what is happening.

 

Since I would like to assume that you and I are both pretty involved in runescape (though I will cede that you probably know a lot more about some things than I do) I think it's safe to say that Jagex contradicts themselves...I mean, a lot. And it's caused a whole mess of problems, from anywhere to a Jmod stupidly saying that cat medals would be untradable (happened a few years ago) to this debacle. As pointed out by another user, they're constantly revising their stance on 3rd party clients, often in such foggy manners that make it hard to keep up, admittedly.

 

But not only have we received a direct response saying that this situation against the rules, we already have an existing statement by Mod Mark L that has some aspects that does apply to this situation and some that don't. Then we have another post from a third party saying it's against the rules, and none of us, users and staff, have the access to the information to either disprove or prove anything that's going on.

 

So that's why Tip.it's administration is attempting to get an official statement through from Jagex. I don't understand how this translates into a 'lack of ability to think critically'--if anything, I would hope this speaks more of trying to do right by you guys than serving our own needs. It's not as if we've got these people at knifepoint going, "OI! Give me the answers I want or I'mma cut you, [bleep]!" And honestly, continually barraging the staff is not going to help the situation....instead all it will do is continue to foster the apparent 'bad blood' between everyone.

 

Now I don't know about you guys, but I'm freaking tired of hashing over the same crap every day. I'm sure you guys are too. We've laid out what we're trying to do to verify this (contacting Jagex), what we're doing to work with TEF's admins (Tripsis is PM'ing the admins we know of and I requested of Cheezedude to give any more names to add to that list), and how we will be addressing this in the meantime (removing the links, which is a temporary measure given how the admin discussion goes). I've seen Michael post that he's willing to remove them if its shown to be against the rules, which is what we're trying to do. And we're trying to give as much information as possible as this situation develops.

 

Let's stop the bashing now, because I've seen people associated with TEF give great feedback (Nifflin, muuuuu, etc). That's the sort of information we're looking for in the meantime. If we're going to improve the community, but we can't see what needs improving, that's where we rely on the users to help see what we might miss. And if you're not interested in doing that in this thread then you're only wasting your own time by posting. :/

 

tldr: The issues brought up are being addressed, it's going to take time. This link removal business is hopefully only a temporary measure, and we're not actively seeking to cut anyone off from their community. Please help contribute to this topic with some feedback we can actually use, because I think that's what everyone's really interested in.

[Stev]

My turn?

 

Moving +/- 5 pixels or whatever of a certain point, I wonder why you're doing that? It couldn't be to try and get around the macro detection would it?

Actually it was to make the scripts more human-like. And it's not +- 5, it clicks anywhere within the button's width and height. I thought this would seem more professional and realistic. The same reason I've used more realistic mouse movements rather then straight lines. Although, sorry to tell you, that really is all it takes to bypass Jagex's bot-detection system...

 

Despite what you think, DarkDude98, I'm not some script kiddie pretending that he knows how to code. I make a living out of scripting and programming. I'm 22 and own my own house (Not paying for... Own). Selling programs that aid people with disabilities and handicaps. Also writting software for Norton's support agents. Do you maybe think these functions weren't written to bot as much as to simply make the gaming easier/more enjoyable?

 

This isn't including your buttons to click on quick pray (move and click in one button press, against the rules) and such things.

Had you taken the time, you'd see in the same thread as that function that we say if a function produces more then one action, require the same amount of inputs to call such a function. I don't give a [bleep] how many actions a function produces. Look at my Click_IN(). They could have it click all 28 items in their inventory. I don't decide what inputs are required, that's up to them. But saying that my functions are against the rules; that's utter bull-[cabbage].

 

Well if you take Wicked's guide for example it specifically says:

 

Many of these functions produce more then one action. If a function is producing more then one action, please abide by Jagex's one action per reaction rule and require the same amount of inputs to call the function.

 

So this is saying it's ok to be posting botting scripts as long as there's a disclaimer telling people they have to make them 1:1 themselves? That's like directing someone to a RWT site, telling them how to use it, and then saying they can't pay for gold as it doesn't fit within Jagex's rules.

I shouldn't even bother replying to this crap, but I guess I will.

 

I provide functions for people who may not know as much about scripting. I'm not going to write a complete [bleep]ing program with pre-assigned hotkeys/hotstrings. The point of simply releasing functions is so that they can do what Jagex fails to develope; a customizable gameplay. Y'know, mousekeys could be used against Jagex's rules, so ban everyone who posts about those too please?

 

I provide the foundation for the scripts so that they themselves can build around it. None of my functions disobey the 1:1 rule because they have no set inputs.

 

That quote was from a year ago now? If not more.

Sent 13 November 2010 - 03:13 AM.

 

And no, I was in a conversation and simply said that you seemed as though you believed that anything AHK related was against the rules. I simply copied a few conversations.

 

Ok so I worded that poorly I admit, because they aren't botting scripts exactly but they still do more than one action per input the way they are presented don't they?

That's what I don't get... You say they disobey the 1:1 rule, right? Yet nowhere is the input required even listed. And in the scripts posted, when a functions produces more then one action, it also requires the same amount of inputs to be called. Therefore, this argument is completely false.

 

You think a script which calls a function which moves the mouse to a specific place then clicks with just one button press is perfectly legit? Really?

When the script moves the mouse and clicks, that's two actions. We require that two inputs be needed, therefore obeying the 1:1 rule. Again, your argument is completely false.

 

Funny that the quote also says "it is fine because it doesn't allow the cursor to jump to a pre-defined spot".

Again, the functions posted on that site also have a speed parameter so that the mouse actually moves rather then jumps. Read into it. Thus, all the crap about the mouse "jumping" to a given position is false.

 

So now there are only certain J-Mods you'll accept an answer from?

If I accepted a response from just any JMod, I would have been happy with DarkDude98's. Oh wait... What? Yeah, how about that.

 

And also the fact that I too have asked JMods who were on my friends list about my simple gear switch, for example, in which I got a reply that it was fine. Maybe that's why I won't take one JMod's response, especially one not in that department.

 

 

 

Now about the absolute/relative mouse movements. As of now, the functions work like this:

Desired_Click_X = 200
Desired_Click_Y = 400

MouseMove, % Desired_Click_X, % Desired_Click_Y

 

Hmmm... Now that you mention it, I could make it relative and completely:

MouseGetPos, Current_Mouse_X, Current_Mouse_Y

Desired_Mouse_X = 200
Desired_Mouse_Y = 400

MouseMove, % (Current_Mouse_X>Desired_Mouse_X) ? Current_Mouse_X-Desired_Mouse_X:Desired_Mouse_X-Current_Mouse_X, % (Current_Mouse_Y>Desired_Mouse_Y) ? Current_Mouse_Y-Desired_Mouse_Y:Desired_Mouse_Y-Current_Mouse_Y,, R

 

Lol, imagine that. Now it uses relative mouse movements. Legal. But I'm sure y'all will find a problem with it.

 

Also, how about PMing the one who's functions you claim are against the rules. *Raises hand*. I'm curious to know exactly what about my functions breaks the rules.

 

 

 

Until I CBA to type more,

Stev.

[Lose No Hope]

Very curious what forum of communication is faster than email and can't be copy/pasted. Was it a phone call?

It takes time for a pigeon to make a roundtrip flight

[Kimberly]

Very curious what forum of communication is faster than email and can't be copy/pasted. Was it a phone call?

It takes time for a pigeon to make a roundtrip flight

 

Not as fast as an African Swallow, however.

 

EDIT: Derp I can't even quote movies right lol.

[Lose No Hope]

lrn2montypython

[Kimberly]

lrn2montypython

 

[Lose No Hope]

Oh, and going back to a previous argument, any site that advertises/promotes botting or selling of gp is blocked from tip.it?

[Kimberly]

Oh, and going back to a previous argument, any site that advertises/promotes botting or selling of gp is blocked from tip.it?

 

Part of that is still being discussed per the feedback in this thread (although the topic is more broad to address all RS rule breaking issues) but we are still actively removing such things from our site at the very least, and any link that happens to be reported with verifiable issues.

 

E: lol spelling I suck

[Lose No Hope]

If TEF links are banned from these forums for having one thread that contains scripts that could possibly be used for macroing, shouldn't any other site that contains adverts or topics that break Jagex rules be banned?

[Kimberly]

If TEF links are banned from these forums for having one thread that contains scripts that could possibly be used for macroing, shouldn't any other site that contains adverts or topics that break Jagex rules be banned?

 

Again, that is why it is being discussed. As mentioned before the issue with the TEF blocked links is hopefully just a small temporary one. And again, if you see a link that fits what you explained in the meantime that a moderator hasn't spotted (which will probably pop up overnight as ESTers are getting ready for bed and GMTers are sleeping) you can report it and action will be taken that way.

 

I'm personally going to head offline shortly myself, I've had a long day.

[Lose No Hope]

What about a place like youtube?

[Gandorf61]

What about a place like youtube?

 

Well youtube has to remove videos that are illegal, violate copyrights, have scams, etc.

[Lose No Hope]

But you are fine with their advertisements that support gold farming and botting?

[Gandorf61]

Well sites like Google and Youtube show ads based on what you search for don't they? So you'd have to be looking for bots/gold selling sites in the first place to see the ads. It would seem kind of silly to ban a site like Google if you look at things from that pont of view.

 

Anyhow this is being discussed by the moderating team right now like Kim said so I can really give anything more than just my own opinion right now.