TIF is bit over-moderated

[The Observer]

Whatever reply you get will be from 'community mods'. (If your reply is from Timbo it can pretty much be ignored)

 

As I'm not restricted to official channels I'll ask the people who make these decisions directly, rather than those who have to tow the party line.

 

I think that's what the goal is. Hopefully a decent reply will be made at least.

[curtis95112]

Ok, seriously. What is your method of communication?

I don't know what time it is there but it's Thursday in this part of the world. Do you have the question and reply yet?

Why are you refusing to even tell us how you asked Jagex?

[tripsis]

We've sent Jagex an e-mail but have not yet received a reply. It will be posted as soon as we have it. There's nothing we can do to speed things up; it's up to Jagex now.

[curtis95112]

Thank you, Tripsis. That would be your formal inquiry I assume?

 

My question was more about how Darkdude informally contacted Jagex to ask about the scripts. Apparently they said it was against the rules.

[tripsis]

Yep that's our formal inquiry. Jagex was informally contacted prior to this but we've been asked to respect the privacy so we can't reveal any specifics :/ I know it's annoying and sounds stupid and a PITA for you guys (and as such, probably shouldn't have been mentioned at all but I think we didn't expect people to ask for details), but our hands are kind of tied here :/

[Nifflin]

Our hands are slightly more tied given that you banned our link then decided to actually verify your actions.

[Ginger_Warrior]

If you can prove any other potentially rule-breaking website would've been treat any differently I'd be interested to know.

 

Are you suggesting Tip.It shouldn't remove links to such websites?

[Andy]

Remember how you said you're a layman in this, ginger? TEF does not encourage botting in any shape or form. The removal of links was done out of a lack of understanding of the ahk scripts on tef.

[Ginger_Warrior]

A 'lack of understanding' which is being clarified by Jagex, right? So let's sit tight and wait before making any premature claims to innoncnce.

[Nifflin]

Multiple people, including the person who wrote the scripts, explained how they are 100% within the rules. Read the thread.

[Guy]

I can understand that tipit doesn't want to be affiliated with botting of any sort, so if there are legitimate concerns about there being potentially rulebreaking stuff on TEF then it seems reasonable that the link is banned. While TEF doesn't encourage botting, it seems some scripts are suspect and it makes sense that tipit want to double check with the actual decision-makers before allowing linking. It may turn out that the scripts are fine, but that wouldn't change the legitimacy of the admins/mods decision. The two sides can argue whether or not they are rulebreaking or not until they are blue in the face - an answer from Jagex is the only thing that will work.

[obfuscator]

Multiple people, including the person who wrote the scripts, explained how they are 100% within the rules. Read the thread.

That's precisely why we're contacting the authority on the matter.

[Kimberly]

Multiple people, including the person who wrote the scripts, explained how they are 100% within the rules. Read the thread.

That's precisely why we're contacting the authority on the matter.

 

And to add to that: when it was met with user disapproval, we went to contact Jagex via the connections granted to fansites so that we can provide an email to our users for their perusal.

[Soma2035]

A 'lack of understanding' which is being clarified by Jagex, right? So let's sit tight and wait before making any premature claims to innoncnce.

 

Why not sit tight and wait before making any premature claims to guilt?

 

Notice that a significant amount of evidence has been provided to show the scripts are perfectly legal, including the fact that no one using the scripts in the ways prescribed thus far has been banned or in any other way punished or warned by Jagex. The only evidence at all to suggest that these scripts are not permissible is the obscure interpretation of the 1:1 rule set forth by Jagex.

 

So again, why is it suddenly guilty until proven innocent?

[Dragonlordjl]

A 'lack of understanding' which is being clarified by Jagex, right? So let's sit tight and wait before making any premature claims to innoncnce.

 

Why not sit tight and wait before making any premature claims to guilt?

 

Notice that a significant amount of evidence has been provided to show the scripts are perfectly legal, including the fact that no one using the scripts in the ways prescribed thus far has been banned or in any other way punished or warned by Jagex. The only evidence at all to suggest that these scripts are not permissible is the obscure interpretation of the 1:1 rule set forth by Jagex.

 

So again, why is it suddenly guilty until proven innocent?

As much as I hate the stance TIF has taken towards AHK, you can't use the rationale that "Jagex hasn't taken action," since there doesn't seem to be much they DO take action for anymore (other than small offenses like offensive language reports, which are handled by automated software anyway). :sad:

[obfuscator]

The reason it's guilty until proven innocent is that we've always understood to be certain things posted there to be illegal. Thus, our policy has always been to remove links to this certain thing.

 

What has been brought up in this topic is that we may have been or are mistaken. So, we are checking with Jagex - and if their response indicates these scripts are acceptable it will likely be followed by a change to our rules.

[green9090]

A 'lack of understanding' which is being clarified by Jagex, right? So let's sit tight and wait before making any premature claims to innoncnce.

 

Why not sit tight and wait before making any premature claims to guilt?

 

Notice that a significant amount of evidence has been provided to show the scripts are perfectly legal, including the fact that no one using the scripts in the ways prescribed thus far has been banned or in any other way punished or warned by Jagex. The only evidence at all to suggest that these scripts are not permissible is the obscure interpretation of the 1:1 rule set forth by Jagex.

 

So again, why is it suddenly guilty until proven innocent?

As much as I hate the stance TIF has taken towards AHK, you can't use the rationale that "Jagex hasn't taken action," since there doesn't seem to be much they DO take action for anymore (other than small offenses like offensive language reports, which are handled by automated software anyway). :sad:

They still ban SOME bots. I think it's very, very telling that we've never seen anyone have action taken against their account for using Wicked's scripts- it's not like this is a brand new thing. I'll be more inclined to see TIF's stance as non-stupid when we have one person get any action taken by Jagex for using anything posted on TEF. Until then, they're just looking for excuses to needle us as far as I'm concerned.

[The Observer]

Jagex's measures aren't exactly perfect. That's why you see so many bots in the Sorceress' Garden for example. Yes, they're breaking the rules, but action hasn't been taken against them, so you can't argue based on that.

 

They're enforcing their current policy. If Jagex comes back with a response contradicting that, then the policy will be changed, and then it will be acted upon differently.

[curtis95112]

Is Jagex reverse engineering the scripts via whitespace?

[The Observer]

It takes a long time for them to respond... even on their own forums when I had access to the Clan Leadership board. It sucks, but you've been playing RS for a while and should realize how long it usually takes for customer support to respond. :P

[Ginger_Warrior]

Dunno, ask them. Maybe you'll also get a reply some time before Christmas.

[Assume Nothing]

I think this was pointed out previously, but I shall restate it: The burden of proof should apply for those who make dubious claims, whilst common sense need not require full justification.

 

The highest DPS weapons outside Dungeoneering is usually the Chaotic Rapier, unless a monster is exclusively resistant to stab, or have very high defence in general. This should be common sense - It shouldn't be necessary to conduct a test of thousands of hits to prove it in Metagaming.

 

A claim like 'Chaotic Crossbow with Rune Bolts is faster dps than using the Chaotic Rapier' should be treated as somewhat dubious as it's illogical that it is indeed the case, unless the monster in question has very high melee defense, or is difficult to fight with melee (Zilyana, Nex).

 

The growing use of poor analogies such as rape/abortion analogies may be likely to cause offense, and they're usually irrelevant to the topic at hand. I think this should be against the rules too, assuming that it isn't the case currently.

 

Last but not least, I shall restate what Das has said in previous pages: A user admitting whether they have broken the RS rules in the past shouldn't be used as something to remove posts for - It should be reserved for players who are actively endorsing/supporting the use of bots.

 

Posts that go somewhat on the lines of "Botting is a bad idea, as it is likely that you will get banned for it. I've botted before, and I've gotten banned for it." shouldn't be removed simply because the author/poster has admitted to breaking RS rules as it's not encouraging the use of bots, but the example illustrates the reasoning (thus strengthening the reason). However, posts which go along the lines of "I have used bots before, they're great and I will continue to use them" should obviously be removed for actively endorsing the use of bots.

 

The ambiguous and subjective nature of some of the Tip.It rules are also a problem - There were disagreement to what constitutes 'unacceptable/obscene images' posted. Eg: Das may be more lax with such images (possibly somewhat risque), whereas tripsis may be more strict on the enforcement of the policy. Gray areas exist in the said rules - There is a fine line between 'hot girl at the beach' and 'showing too much', which is why there may be disagreement on the interpretation of the rules.

 

If rules like these were well defined, then it's likely that we'll see better consistency in terms of moderation and the use of the report system.

 

Speaking of (in)consistency - Why do moderators sometimes post in a 'spammish/trollish' manner when it is allegedly unacceptable for normal users to do so?

[Nifflin]

Dunno, ask them. Maybe you'll also get a reply some time before Christmas.

Wicked already asked and got a response that they were legal. TIF admins are just being stubborn. Thank God most serious institutions use innocent until proven guilty when dealing with these sorts of matters. The whole point of that sort of policy is to prevent what is happening right now.

[curtis95112]

Thank God most serious institutions use innocent until proven guilty when dealing with these sorts of matters.

 

Hear hear. =D>

[Ginger_Warrior]

As has already been said, TIF received a contradictory statement from Jagex saying the opposite. It's still innocent until proven guilty, it's just both sides have received messages from Jagex which appear to be diametric opposites. Hence the need for clarification.

 

And neither TIF or TEF are 'institutions'. Please get some perspective on this. Both are loosely affiliated not-for-profit communities run by volunteers and used by people with fandom for RuneScape.