TIF is bit over-moderated

[Stev]

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.

Incorrect. If you search RuneScape, that's closely related to their RuneScape RWT and gold farming advertisements and so will be displayed whether or not you search for them.

[Lose No Hope]

I was totally searching for rwt and botting right?

[Kimberly]

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

 

If we're going to get into each and every moderator's personal preference of advertisements, not only will it get us nowhere we'll have a whole lot of crap on a page that will make this look like a We-pay-we-say RSOF thread. :geek:

 

These in-between times for policy revision always suck. They suck for the user because it's an unfair time period while the staff gets their crap together and works out a better policy. They suck for the staff because it takes forever to get everyone's feedback, especially like now when finals are still going on for a lot of people, while trying to work with understandably frustrated users in the meantime. But this policy will get ironed out, whether it be for/against/whatever. And hopefully that will be sooner than later.

 

(Say 'understandably frustrated user' 5 times fast. I can't. I think I need sleep.)

[Grimy_Bunyip]

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.

ban first, discuss later.

This is just shameless prejudice towards us.

as if the mods would take the same measures if it were any other forum.

[PoorLepRecon]

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.

ban first, discuss later.

This is just shameless prejudice towards us.

as if the mods would take the same measures if it were any other forum.

 

 

I fully agree that over the last month, we have been hasty to take action, then discuss it later. This whole situation could have been avoided with some discussion. But that's in the past now. I just hope that we as a team can learn from all this, to provide much better moderation for you guys.

[Lose No Hope]

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

 

If we're going to get into each and every moderator's personal preference of advertisements, not only will it get us nowhere we'll have a whole lot of crap on a page that will make this look like a We-pay-we-say RSOF thread. :geek:

 

These in-between times for policy revision always suck. They suck for the user because it's an unfair time period while the staff gets their crap together and works out a better policy. They suck for the staff because it takes forever to get everyone's feedback, especially like now when finals are still going on for a lot of people, while trying to work with understandably frustrated users in the meantime. But this policy will get ironed out, whether it be for/against/whatever. And hopefully that will be sooner than later.

 

(Say 'understandably frustrated user' 5 times fast. I can't. I think I need sleep.)

Sorry, what I meant by "you" was TIF moderation as a whole. I realize I should have worded that better.

[Nifflin]

Glad to see this is all getting worked out.

 

On the topic of Mod Timbo, I would like to point out that once I needed to contact a J Mod to try and figure out if something was legal or not.

 

The community mod told me "if you need to ask it likely isn't," their cookie cutter response. The mod from the macro team told me what I wanted to know about was in the rules given certain things, quite an in depth response. So that is why it matter what mod you hear from. Some will blow you off because they don't actually know or understand the answer to your question. That is fine, they are PR guys, it is to be expected.

 

Also, Darkdude, please don't claim to have evidence and then fail to be able to actually present it for verification. That is a very novice debate tactic and makes you look really bad.

 

And thanks so much Kimberly, you are the voice of reason from the TIF mods.

[Stev]

Glad to see this is all getting worked out.

 

On the topic of Mod Timbo, I would like to point out that once I needed to contact a J Mod to try and figure out if something was legal or not.

 

The community mod told me "if you need to ask it likely isn't," their cookie cutter response. The mod from the macro team told me what I wanted to know about was in the rules given certain things, quite an in depth response. So that is why it matter what mod you hear from. Some will blow you off because they don't actually know or understand the answer to your question. That is fine, they are PR guys, it is to be expected.

 

Also, Darkdude, please don't claim to have evidence and then fail to be able to actually present it for verification. That is a very novice debate tactic and makes you look really bad.

 

And thanks so much Kimberly, you are the voice of reason from the TIF mods.

I fully agree and can say I've had the same situation happen to me. One JMod says yes, another says no. Also something that would swing their answer is when approached with an already biased question.

 

"Hey, Mod _____. These guys are trying to say these bot functions are legal when they are clearly disobeying the 1:1 rule." What do you think the response is going to be? They're also not disobeying the 1:1 rule to begin with. And if anyone can point out a script that we have on that site that does produce more actions then inputs, I'm more then interested.

 

For one, the functions can not be against the 1:1 rule anyways... They're functions! They have no set input required to call them! Just like mousekeys, it is up to the user to set them up. It's up to the user to ensure they pressing two buttons to call a function that results in two actions.

 

And a quote directly from the first post in the thread itself before any functions/scripts are even listed:

Must read:

• 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.

 

And again, in-case you guys have missed it, please read my previous post found here since I've seen many admins and mods view this thread without so much as a response to it.

[tripsis]

As a few moderators already stated, we're working on getting an official response from a knowledgeable, non-CM Jagex moderator and we'll let you know as soon as we have it. But unfortunately it will be Monday at the earliest.

 

We are still discussing what we will and will not allow, but it will most likely end up being something like this:

 

• Sites that contain rule-breaking adverts are fine because they're adverts. They're not the actual website's content.
  
• Search engines and massive sites that "could possibly contain rule-breaking content" are fine because in order for you to find rule breaking content, you'd actually have to go searching for it yourself. The information isn't sitting there for you, you have to go to Google.com and search "RuneScape fletching bot" or go to YouTube.com and perform the same search.
  
• Forums that allow users to admit to breaking the rules are perfectly fine.
  
• RuneScape sites/forums that contain rule-breaking content (bots, macros, black markets, etc.) are not allowed. The official response from Jagex will aid us in determining what constitutes as a script that breaks the rules.

Again, that's not official at this point, but I think that's the direction we're headed in.

 

I hope we can all sit tight until early next week when we get that official response for you guys :)

Edited May 14, 2011 by tripsis
Just for green9090

[green9090]

Tripsis, you do know that we are a forum and not a fansite. ...Right? Right?

[tripsis]

Right! Right! ....right (for good measure) :P

[Andy]

As a few moderators already stated, we're working on getting an official response from a knowledgeable, non-CM Jagex moderator and we'll let you know as soon as we have it. But unfortunately it will be Monday at the earliest.

 

We are still discussing what we will and will not allow, but it will most likely end up being something like this:

 

• Sites that contain rule-breaking adverts are fine because they're adverts. They're not the actual website's content.
  
• Search engines and massive sites that "could possibly contain rule-breaking content" are fine because in order for you to find rule breaking content, you'd actually have to go searching for it yourself. The information isn't sitting there for you, you have to go to Google.com and search "RuneScape fletching bot" or go to YouTube.com and perform the same search.
  
• Forums that allow users to admit to breaking the rules are perfectly fine.
  
• RuneScape sites/forums that contain rule-breaking content (bots, macros, black markets, etc.) are not allowed. The official response from Jagex will aid us in determining what constitutes as a script that breaks the rules.

Again, that's not official at this point, but I think that's the direction we're headed in.

 

I hope we can all sit tight until early next week when we get that official response for you guys :)

So you're going to block TEF because you could potentially break the 1;1 rule by making a script for yourself (assuming wicked's scripts are the ones you have a problem with, that hasn't even been made clear.), but you won't block sites that allow ads for bots/buying runescape gp that directly break the rules? None of wickeds scripts as far as I can see break the rs rules unless the user themselves makes it more than 1 output for 1 input (read wicked's well written post 1 page back.)

 

 

Edit for sonic's post: It's in metagame development now seeing as it's more about developing scripts than discussing them. (I assume, dunno who moved it.)

[Youmu]

The Autohotkey thread must have been deleted or something, because I couldn't find it in the General Discussion forums where it used to be.

 

Or my eyes are playing tricks on me.

[Stev]

Board index » General » Metagame Development » Wicked's RuneScape Functions... And Scripts

 

Board index » General » Metagame Development » Autohotkey.

[Youmu]

Board index » General » Metagame Development » Wicked's RuneScape Functions... And Scripts

 

Board index » General » Metagame Development » Autohotkey.

o.

 

No wonder why :wall: I was like "OOH THE TENSION FINALLY ENDED" because I've never seen a thread get moved in that forum.

[Ginger_Warrior]

As a few moderators already stated, we're working on getting an official response from a knowledgeable, non-CM Jagex moderator and we'll let you know as soon as we have it. But unfortunately it will be Monday at the earliest.

 

We are still discussing what we will and will not allow, but it will most likely end up being something like this:

 

• Sites that contain rule-breaking adverts are fine because they're adverts. They're not the actual website's content.
• Search engines and massive sites that "could possibly contain rule-breaking content" are fine because in order for you to find rule breaking content, you'd actually have to go searching for it yourself. The information isn't sitting there for you, you have to go to Google.com and search "RuneScape fletching bot" or go to YouTube.com and perform the same search.
• Forums that allow users to admit to breaking the rules are perfectly fine.
• RuneScape sites/forums that contain rule-breaking content (bots, macros, black markets, etc.) are not allowed. The official response from Jagex will aid us in determining what constitutes as a script that breaks the rules.

Again, that's not official at this point, but I think that's the direction we're headed in.

 

I hope we can all sit tight until early next week when we get that official response for you guys :)

So you're going to block TEF because you could potentially break the 1;1 rule by making a script for yourself (assuming wicked's scripts are the ones you have a problem with, that hasn't even been made clear.), but you won't block sites that allow ads for bots/buying runescape gp that directly break the rules? None of wickeds scripts as far as I can see break the rs rules unless the user themselves makes it more than 1 output for 1 input (read wicked's well written post 1 page back.)

 

 

Edit for sonic's post: It's in metagame development now seeing as it's more about developing scripts than discussing them. (I assume, dunno who moved it.)

As a lay person in all of this, it seems pretty easy for me to understand what's happening.

 

The adverts on YouTube etc. are not counted in this rule because they're not part of the website's content and are more or less transposed onto the page by an external group. Therefore it's the advertisers' fault, not the website's. Hell, Tip.It itself has inadvertently had links to RS gold websites via adverts in the past, and these have had to be dealt with retrospectively. The difference here is that the thread in question isn't being put there by an external website, it's part of the forum's content. Because Tip.It think there's a question mark over whether the scripts are illegal, they've formally got in touch with Jagex to see if it does. Until then, it appears TEF has been put on a kind of "probation" until Jagex can clarify the matter. Until then, patience is a virtue, but I'm sure if Jagex officially agree with Wicked and say there's nothing wrong with the scripts then I'm sure links to TEF will be allowed again.

 

Poking questions at admins here isn't going to get Jagex to answer any more quickly though, not least because it's a weekend.

 

The only grey area I can see in what appears to be a sensible set of rules there, is what happens when a website deliberately puts (or knowingly leaves) an advert to a questionable third party? If I made my own forums and put a signature-like banner at the bottom of the index page, for example. It's an advert, so it's not content according to those rules, but I've deliberately put it there.

[Nifflin]

 

As a lay person in all of this, it seems pretty easy for me to understand what's happening.

>As a lay person in all of this, it seems pretty easy for me to understand what's happening.

>As a lay person in all of this

>As a lay person

 

lay person or layperson

 

— n , pl lay persons , lay people , laypersons , laypeople

1. a person who is not a member of the clergy

2. a person who does not have specialized or professional knowledge of a subject

 

MFW you admit you can't contribute anything new to the discussion and are writing with no knowledge on the subject. MFW you actually understand nothing about the scripts. :wall:

[Andy]

I'd have no problem with them removing the links if tef actually "encouraged botting" as has been pmed to everyone who got links removed. The thing is, tef doesn't encourage botting in any way, and the scripts don't even have inputs listed - it's up to the user to decide the inputs and follow the rules themselves. Basically, the tif admins/mods don't trust people to abide by the rules on a different site so they removed the links. Guilty until proven innocent.

[The Observer]

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.

 

That's incorrect. I never searched anything remotely close to gold selling sites or botting sites. It's just that if you search RuneScape itself or do anything related to RuneScape, they'll show up, because bot/gold selling sites are usually among some of the first results, and are among the top things advertised through Google ads. (Jagex doesn't advertise RS through Google ads, and neither does any fan site)

 

That being said though, there's no need to ban those sites. They're far too popular for them to be a need to be advertised.

[Danqazmlp]

 

As a lay person in all of this, it seems pretty easy for me to understand what's happening.

>As a lay person in all of this, it seems pretty easy for me to understand what's happening.

>As a lay person in all of this

>As a lay person

 

lay person or layperson

 

n , pl lay persons , lay people , laypersons , laypeople

1. a person who is not a member of the clergy

2. a person who does not have specialized or professional knowledge of a subject

 

MFW you admit you can't contribute anything new to the discussion and are writing with no knowledge on the subject. MFW you actually understand nothing about the scripts. :wall:

 

That is really just nitpicking. He is saying he is somebody from the outside with no bias.

 

Adverts = Not directly controlled by a site

Content = Directly controlled

 

Ginger does bring up a good point about adverts purposefully left up, but unless there is ever proof it's hard to take action about.

[Nifflin]

Well that's cool. We can have adverts advertising RWT to viewers 24/7 but a few lines of code that don't even break rules are so bad? Get a grip.

[Danqazmlp]

Well that's cool. We can have adverts advertising RWT to viewers 24/7 but a few lines of code that don't even break rules are so bad? Get a grip.

 

The difference is that the majority of sites will actively try to get rid of gold selling adverts, or they are simply not in enough control of them to get rid of them. As I said, adverts are not directly in control of a site. It isn't realistic for a site to get rid of it's adverts if they can't single out rule breaking ads as they are often the only way they stay afloat.

 

Forum content however can easily be removed by moderators/admins of the site if it breaks rules. Not removing it is seen as support of anything contained within it.

[Nifflin]

So I guess having over 9000 RWT banners on the forums would be a cool way to raise some revenue. I'll pass that idea on to the admins. Thanks!

 

Inb4Darkdudebaiting

[Ginger_Warrior]

I'm not sure why anyone would need a specialist knowledge of scripts to understand what Tripsis wrote, to be honest.

 

There are bits for which specialist knowledge would be required for a contested interpretation of the rules (i.e., knowing what "rule-breaking content" means as is being clarified in TEF's case) but the actual principles don't require anything special. Since I don't have said knowledge (hence "lay person", which you so kindly gave a definition for in case anyone else didn't know what that meant), I'm trusting an authority figure which does have that knowledge: Jagex, whose opinion will come soon, I hope.

[Grimy_Bunyip]

I'm not sure why anyone would need a specialist knowledge of scripts to understand what Tripsis wrote, to be honest.

 

There are bits for which specialist knowledge would be required for a contested interpretation of the rules (i.e., knowing what "rule-breaking content" means as is being clarified in TEF's case) but the actual principles don't require anything special. Since I don't have said knowledge (hence "lay person", which you so kindly gave a definition for in case anyone else didn't know what that meant), I'm trusting an authority figure which does have that knowledge: Jagex, whose opinion will come soon, I hope.

you also don't need specialist knowledge to know that you shouldn't ban first and prove later.

 

I'm now issuing an ultimatum.

If you want to negotiate TEF, do so on OUR forums.

The post deletion problem is cropping up again.