TIF is bit over-moderated

[Assume Nothing]

These arguments and analogies are completely irrelevant to the topic at hand - DPS figures of RuneScape weapons is hardly a disputable claim, where it's a matter of simply comparing numbers, whereas the cleanliness of hands would depend on whether the aforementioned doctor had touched infectious surfaces, and the dangers associated would depend on the conditions at the time of the incident.

 

Please don't make this a straw man argument and stay on topic.

 

It is very possible for us to verify information on the DPS figures, but doing so tends to derail topics into little more than banter over a trivial subject.

 

I still don't see why we can't have a sticky which encompasses all 'common knowledge' related links on the H&A and metagaming boards.

[Ginger_Warrior]

The rule ought to be that if a statement is likely to be challenged ('CLS is better than CR') or is actually challenged, you should have to back it up with non-original evidence. That's the only objective and varifiable way of making sure that:

 

1) Statements are accurate and verifiable, and;

2) There is no conflict of interest.

 

A common knowledge sticky is pointless though, since knowledge itself is constantly changing and is liable to need reviewing periodically, thus removing its main purpose.

[Assume Nothing]

The rule ought to be that if a statement is likely to be challenged ('CLS is better than CR') or is actually challenged, you should have to back it up with non-original evidence. That's the only objective and varifiable way of making sure that:

 

1) Statements are accurate and verifiable, and;

2) There is no conflict of interest.

 

A common knowledge sticky is pointless though, since knowledge itself is constantly changing and is liable to need reviewing periodically, thus removing its main purpose.

 

I can agree with that.

[Kaida23]

 

These arguments and analogies are completely irrelevant to the topic at hand - DPS figures of RuneScape weapons is hardly a disputable claim, where it's a matter of simply comparing numbers, whereas the cleanliness of hands would depend on whether the aforementioned doctor had touched infectious surfaces, and the dangers associated would depend on the conditions at the time of the incident.

You seem to have missed the point of what I was trying to say. I was pointing out that common knowledge is constantly changing and that if people are encouraged to simply accept facts blindly because it's "common knowledge" it allows for neither discussion nor growth.

 

As an aside, the facts about how hand washing killed germs was available in the early 1900's, but was ignored, or outright suppressed, because it went against what was commonly believed. Will that happen when someone brings new info to debate your "common knowledge" without blindly accepting what you say?

 

I still don't see why we can't have a sticky which encompasses all 'common knowledge' related links on the H&A and metagaming boards.

For the sake of argument, if they did that who would decide what falls under "all common knowledge" to go into that sticky and who be responsible for it's upkeep?

 

 

Edit: Due to my laggy connection I missed both Ginger's post and your response in agreement dealing with both my points. Sorry about that. I'm not trying to prolong the argument.

[Assume Nothing]

 

These arguments and analogies are completely irrelevant to the topic at hand - DPS figures of RuneScape weapons is hardly a disputable claim, where it's a matter of simply comparing numbers, whereas the cleanliness of hands would depend on whether the aforementioned doctor had touched infectious surfaces, and the dangers associated would depend on the conditions at the time of the incident.

You seem to have missed the point of what I was trying to say. I was pointing out that common knowledge is constantly changing and that if people are encouraged to simply accept facts blindly because it's "common knowledge" it allows for neither discussion nor growth.

 

As an aside, the facts about how hand washing killed germs was available in the early 1900's, but was ignored, or outright suppressed, because it went against what was commonly believed. Will that happen when someone brings new info to debate your "common knowledge" without blindly accepting what you say?

 

I still don't see why we can't have a sticky which encompasses all 'common knowledge' related links on the H&A and metagaming boards.

For the sake of argument, if they did that who would decide what falls under "all common knowledge" to go into that sticky and who be responsible for it's upkeep?

 

 

Edit: Due to my laggy connection I missed both Ginger's post and your response in agreement dealing with both my points. Sorry about that. I'm not trying to prolong the argument.

 

It would have been easier if you simply said that instead of making an analogy that simply made little sense, and didn't seem relevant at all. Although common knowledge is good to some extent - I would agree that just because everyone believes something, it doesn't make it true. In the case of RuneScape, many claims are more factual as opposed to being preference, thus it is less disputable and more easily verified, ie; DPS figures.

 

It does seem to be a shame that well justified claims should still be challenged on the basis that it's "not extensive enough," but that's another story altogether.

 

I would be unable to offer a method to maintain the upkeep of the hypothetical sticky should it be made. I believe it isn't necessarily going to be called a 'common knowledge' sticky if it were to exist, but it would be a place where well accepted ideas and concepts are going to be verified should players challenge these ideas or concepts.

 

Should new updates cause a dispute about these things - players would have to prove their claim to be correct should they want to be taken seriously. I don't think a sticky would be very practical though, which may be the major drawback of the suggestion. What do you think?

[Kaida23]

I think that Ginger made an excellent suggestion that in the case of something that has already been proven, then the burden of proof falls upon the person presenting the dissenting opinion. This should only apply to things that have been previously shown to be correct as opposed to simply being claimed as common knowledge. I realize that I'm arguing semantics with that, but if there's going to be a policy change to this effect then there needs to be an established base line to begin from.

 

Also, I agree with you that the idea of a sticky is unmanageable which is why I questioned it.

[Ginger_Warrior]

That wasn't my opinion, I'm sorry for misleading you there. My viewpoint is that if you make a statement that is then challenged by somebody else, then you have to prove it.

 

TBH I don't get the big deal here. The OT board has managed to follow this principle pretty well for about five years now, in that if you make the original claim (like, I don't know... '40% of Muslims are terrrorists' or something daft and silly), then you have to go find proof for it, and if you can't, then it's assumed the claim is not yet true. It's not up to me as someone who disbelieves that statement to find proof confirming otherwise when you haven't proved the original statement has any real basis.

 

If a claim has been proven in a previous topic/guide/post/YouTube video/Holy Book, then it surely won't be too hard to find an URL for it. The burden of proof doesn't need to be waived just because it's already been proved; that's the whole point of proving it in the first place - it acts as a reference.

[K4ylan]

At some point, that just becomes redundant though. Using the 'CR vs. CLS' debate, most people know that CR is better. Therefore if someone comes along saying otherwise, they should be the one's to provide evidence.

[tripsis]

Original e-mail sent to Jagex:

 

Hi there,

 

Several autohotkey scripts have become a large topic of debate on Tip.It and we are hoping to get some confirmation as to whether they are allowed under RuneScape's Rules or not. Our understanding is that autohotkeys are allowed as long as they are used within the "1 input: 1 output" guideline. But there are some doubts as to whether or not the scripts in question operate within those guidelines or not. For example, if you have to hold down two keys to get a two part output script to run, is that considered two inputs for two outputs? Or since the keys have to be held down simultaneously, is that one input for two outputs? How about moving the curser to an absolute position on the screen? And then there's the question of whether or not it's acceptable to call a function that moves the mouse to an absolute location and clicks with just one input.

 

We have provided a long list of scripts at the bottom of this e-mail, that we are hoping could be reviewed by a qualified member of the macro investigation team. They don't have to look at every single one since we know there's a lot, but hopefully they will examine enough to determine if there are any that violate the RuneScape Rules.

 

Many thanks for your assistance!

Tip.it Admin Team

 

Scripts removed. ~ Sio

 

 

Jagex's reply:

 

Hi,

 

It seems the reply to this was lost in an e-mail jungle. Our investigations team has been looking at this in the past week and have finally come to me with an answer.

 

Without going into too much detail, the exact words I got from them is that using these scripts will get you banned. The most damning offender is the Mousemove command as this allows the player to do something he couldn’t normally do and gain a huge advantage. Mousemove breaks the manual input nature of RuneScape.

Also, while one input for one output is ok (F8: “Mouseclick, left” would be legal as it’s virtually identical in both cases), anything giving you multiple actions from 1 button press is not. This is clear in the following script:

 

Loop, 6

Click_BMI(A_Index, 4)

Click_BC()

Return

 

I hope this has answered your questions and interrogations on the matter. Unless the scripts are very basic and striped of almost everything, using them will get you banned. Your community needs to be very careful with these and avoid using them as they could lead you into a heap of trouble.

 

This is probably harsh but makes sure there is no confusion. Thank you very much in your approach to this.

 

Thanks,

 

Eduardo

 

As a result of this confirmation, TEF will remain censored unless the scripts are removed. If they are removed, we would be happy to uncensor the site and allow advertising in signatures once again.

Edited June 3, 2011 by Siobhana
Removed the scripts

[Stev]

Without going into too much detail, the exact words I got from them is that using these scripts will get you banned.

Sry, I just couldn't help but LOL at this quote. Go ban some real bots. Maybe the thousands at Avansies (All with 99 Range/HP/Defence/etc)? Maybe even the thousands at Tzhaar? No? How about the [cabbage] load at the Fishing Guild? Ah, still nothin'. Do the hundreds at blue/green dragons tickle your fancy? Hm, didn't think so. Maybe check out Sorcerers Garden? I hear there's also thousands there. Again, no? Do the people making your game less boring/more fun/customizable work for you? Yes? great. (As if you can even tell)

 

...anything giving you multiple actions from 1 button press is not. This is clear in the following script:

 

Loop, 6

Click_BMI(A_Index, 4)

Click_BC()

Return

Lmfao! They forgot the:

LOOK HERE JAGEX ---> ::12+ inputs here:: <--- LOOK HERE JAGEX

Loop, 6

Click_BMI(A_Index, 4)

Click_BC()

Return

I'm glad to see they looked through all but what?... 20 lines of the code at most? But, what ever, Jagex.

 

Thanks for your time. Love,

Wicked - il Foreva li

[Aiel]

using these scripts will get you banned

nice lie jagex.

 

 

anyway, that's to bad, I didn't use them personally, but I can see the adventage, and it seems more of a convenience then something that gives you an upper hand. Sorry Wicked. :mellow:

[Stev]

Hi,

using these scripts will get you banned

nice lie jagex.

 

 

anyway, that's to bad, I didn't use them personally, but I can see the adventage, and it seems more of a convenience then something that gives you an upper hand. Sorry Wicked. :mellow:

Yeah, go after the people giving themselves a quick button for quick prayer at bosses, or taking some of the grinding out of skilling, or switching weapons at TDs, or quick teleporting with equipped items. People who are actually sitting at their computer.

 

Yeah, I can see the HUGE advantage we're gaining. Maybe if this was used in PvP, then I can see it as being wrong as most people can't switch as quickly, but seriously Jagex? I would love to sit down and have a conversation with a JMod (Not from TIF), without them staying for 3 minutes and saying, "Gotta go get back to work!" I have spoken with Mod Kathy in the past when she came to a 99 party of mine. I mentioned the TD gear switch script in very high detail and was told it was OK.

 

Jagex, I've never lashed out before and have always really kept my cool. You can see that my posts on this topic have been calm, collective, and simply debating my side. But seriously, you are full of [cabbage]. You're claiming that you'll ban the users of scripts that simply save 5-10 milliseconds of time. Often time, they don't save any time, yet simply make it easier/more enjoyable. Users who are actually sitting at our computers and have to deal with the bull-[cabbage] of real bots while getting killcount at Armadyl, for example.

 

Why I try to write scripts and functions to help out for a game I don't even play is beyond me. Especially when Jagex themselves couldn't give a [cabbage] about the game. I try to make their game more enjoyable and easier for people (Which saves them a maximum of a few milliseconds, if any at all), and they threaten to ban.

 

Meh, the way RuneScape's going, in a few years or so we won't be seeing RuneScape around anyways.

[Laikrob]

Can we expect an apology to the admins from each and every one of the TEF members now? :razz:

 

Nah, just happy the e-mail is posted and the saga is over.

[The Observer]

Wish there was a better communication system between players and Jagex.

 

Would've loved if Jagex could've posted on this topic. I mean they do have TIF accounts. Suppose they're a bit busy, but oh well.

[Rainy_Day]

Wish there was a better communication system between players and Jagex.

 

Would've loved if Jagex could've posted on this topic. I mean they do have TIF accounts. Suppose they're a bit busy, but oh well.

I suppose it would have been nice however they did answer our question which is what matters. :)

 

Now to build a bridge and move on....? I hope..

[Assume Nothing]

The question now would be; 'Should they?'

[Ginger_Warrior]

I don't follow, should they what?

 

Sorry if I'm being oblivious.

[Rainy_Day]

'Should Jagex post', I *think* is what he's saying.

[Kaida23]

The question now would be; 'Should they?'

To what end? They already answered our question about the scripts.

[Ginger_Warrior]

Oh, 'kay I'm with you.

 

I can't see how an email or a post makes much of a difference.

[The Observer]

Oh, 'kay I'm with you.

 

I can't see how an email or a post makes much of a difference.

 

More so to reply to the people on this topic first-hand. To try and answer their specific grievances and hopefully be able to explain it using their game mechanics.

[obfuscator]

That would be great. Don't see Jagex doing it any time soon...

[The Observer]

Didn't say it was exactly realistic though, yeah. Usually those game designers are too busy... guess it... designing the game to reply to people on here. The only staff on here are CMs anyway, so not sure if they'd be any help.

[Assume Nothing]

Just to clarify; The question I proposed should have been 'Should they disallow AHK functions that follow 12:12 or any other combination that has equal inputs and outputs?'

[The Observer]

Well, it's their game so it's up to them. Wish I could help you out.