Keybindings

[[violet]]

So, as we know we have scripts like Breeze and Breeze++ which already keybind things such as the endorse button, the move button, and so on.

I'm curious, since I'm not really an expert-coder and wouldn't want to fall afoul of any script rules, would a similar keybinding process be legal to do for the send button on telegrams?

[Eluvatar]

So, as we know we have scripts like Breeze and Breeze++ which already keybind things such as the endorse button, the move button, and so on.

I'm curious, since I'm not really an expert-coder and wouldn't want to fall afoul of any script rules, would a similar keybinding process be legal to do for the send button on telegrams?

No, that would not be legal, is my understanding. No enhancements to the UI around sending a telegram are permitted. You may not even use a script to generate a telegram preview.

[Tim-Opolis]

So, as we know we have scripts like Breeze and Breeze++ which already keybind things such as the endorse button, the move button, and so on.

I'm curious, since I'm not really an expert-coder and wouldn't want to fall afoul of any script rules, would a similar keybinding process be legal to do for the send button on telegrams?

No, that would not be legal, is my understanding. No enhancements to the UI around sending a telegram are permitted. You may not even use a script to generate a telegram preview.

Thanks for the input, Elu, it's really good to know. This is why I ask these things.

I'm curious, is that ruling documented somewhere? I glanced through the OSRS and Script Rules, and this was the first I heard of it.

[Eluvatar]

No, that would not be legal, is my understanding. No enhancements to the UI around sending a telegram are permitted. You may not even use a script to generate a telegram preview.

Thanks for the input, Elu, it's really good to know. This is why I ask these things.

I'm curious, is that ruling documented somewhere? I glanced through the OSRS and Script Rules, and this was the first I heard of it.

As far as I can recall off the top of my head this ruling was given to me in a TG response to a GHR a few years ago.

It may be appropriate to revise the script rules for extra clarity, as was done for the simultaneity rule.

[Blitzkeig]

Thanks for the input, Elu, it's really good to know. This is why I ask these things.

I'm curious, is that ruling documented somewhere? I glanced through the OSRS and Script Rules, and this was the first I heard of it.

As far as I can recall off the top of my head this ruling was given to me in a TG response to a GHR a few years ago.

It may be appropriate to revise the script rules for extra clarity, as was done for the simultaneity rule.

Maybe they should just be relaxed?

[Vincent Drake]

Would it be possible for an admin to add these rules to the OSRS? This is also the first I've ever heard of this. I'm glad that we asked before implementing anything, but like damn, all the game rules need to be in the same place and up to date. It's kind of scary that there's rules outside of the OSRS, rules that no regular player even knows exist, and no way to get legality checks via GHR.

[Tim-Opolis]

Would it be possible for an admin to add these rules to the OSRS? This is also the first I've ever heard of this. I'm glad that we asked before implementing anything, but like damn, all the game rules need to be in the same place and up to date. It's kind of scary that there's rules outside of the OSRS, rules that no regular player even knows exist, and no way to get legality checks via GHR.

I've got to strongly echo this.

We're currently in a situation where Admin won't script review over GHR, rules that we apparently are supposed to know exist are not documented anywhere, and the OSRS and Script Rules that do exist don't even come close to encompassing all the various rulings we've been given over the months. It's like navigating a minefield, only once you're out of the minefield it turns out there's another hidden minefield we were supposed to know about.

[Eluvatar]

This isn't a separate unwritten rule, it's an answer to a question about a written rule.

I understand that this answer reflects what the written rule was intended to mean.

Admin will not look at a script where all that's provided over GHR is a link to its source code, generally speaking, but actual questions about the rules typically get answered.

I'm the only admin who's made a habit of looking at people's code for legality at their request, and I definitely prefer to do that here in Technical. It's not something NS admin commits to doing with any sort of consistency though: it's extremely easy to link us more code than I am willing or able to review.

Specific questions about how the rules are to be understood are much easier to answer.

[[violet]]

rules that we apparently are supposed to know exist are not documented anywhere

There's a difference between rules and interpretations. It's admin's responsibility to document all rules as clearly as possible. There absolutely should not be "hidden" or undocumented rules, and I don't think there are any.

But it's not possible to anticipate every possible scenario in which the rules may apply, and that's when we need interpretations. A rule is something like "No dark colors," and an interpretation is "This shade of gray is considered to be dark." The rule can't proscribe every possible color because it's not possible to anticipate them all.

Where we often run into trouble is that people want to know where the line is so they can deliberately stand one inch on the correct side of it. That is, they want to pick a color that's as dark as possible while still being legal. That's understandable, especially in a competitive situation, but it means you're assuming a risk.

With recruitment telegrams, for example, there's a Telegrams API that's been specifically created for script use, and which you can use risk-free, easily staying within the rules. Tools are prohibited from interacting with the regular telegrams page, because that's for manual recruiters, who are given their own queue space free from competing bots. If you choose to use a tool for manual recruitment, you are sailing into dangerous waters, because that's against the broad intent of the rule. It will be frustrating to build a tool that does that, because you have to drill so closely into the line between legal and illegal that you might get different interpretations depending on who you ask and how you ask it.

We try to make the line as clear as we can, but no matter where it is, there's some unavoidable subjectivity in its immediate vicinity. No-one should need to sail that close to it, but if you choose to, that's the unfortunate reality.

[Verwood Island Archipelago]

rules that we apparently are supposed to know exist are not documented anywhere

There's a difference between rules and interpretations. It's admin's responsibility to document all rules as clearly as possible. There absolutely should not be "hidden" or undocumented rules, and I don't think there are any.

But it's not possible to anticipate every possible scenario in which the rules may apply, and that's when we need interpretations. A rule is something like "No dark colors," and an interpretation is "This shade of gray is considered to be dark." The rule can't proscribe every possible color because it's not possible to anticipate them all.

Where we often run into trouble is that people want to know where the line is so they can deliberately stand one inch on the correct side of it. That is, they want to pick a color that's as dark as possible while still being legal. That's understandable, especially in a competitive situation, but it means you're assuming a risk.

With recruitment telegrams, for example, there's a Telegrams API that's been specifically created for script use, and which you can use risk-free, easily staying within the rules. Tools are prohibited from interacting with the regular telegrams page, because that's for manual recruiters, who are given their own queue space free from competing bots. If you choose to use a tool for manual recruitment, you are sailing into dangerous waters, because that's against the broad intent of the rule. It will be frustrating to build a tool that does that, because you have to drill so closely into the line between legal and illegal that you might get different interpretations depending on who you ask and how you ask it.

We try to make the line as clear as we can, but no matter where it is, there's some unavoidable subjectivity in its immediate vicinity. No-one should need to sail that close to it, but if you choose to, that's the unfortunate reality.

Scripts and bindings I don't get but right there is one awesome life lesson!

[Tim-Opolis]

rules that we apparently are supposed to know exist are not documented anywhere

There's a difference between rules and interpretations. It's admin's responsibility to document all rules as clearly as possible. There absolutely should not be "hidden" or undocumented rules, and I don't think there are any.

But it's not possible to anticipate every possible scenario in which the rules may apply, and that's when we need interpretations. A rule is something like "No dark colors," and an interpretation is "This shade of gray is considered to be dark." The rule can't proscribe every possible color because it's not possible to anticipate them all.

Where we often run into trouble is that people want to know where the line is so they can deliberately stand one inch on the correct side of it. That is, they want to pick a color that's as dark as possible while still being legal. That's understandable, especially in a competitive situation, but it means you're assuming a risk.

With recruitment telegrams, for example, there's a Telegrams API that's been specifically created for script use, and which you can use risk-free, easily staying within the rules. Tools are prohibited from interacting with the regular telegrams page, because that's for manual recruiters, who are given their own queue space free from competing bots. If you choose to use a tool for manual recruitment, you are sailing into dangerous waters, because that's against the broad intent of the rule. It will be frustrating to build a tool that does that, because you have to drill so closely into the line between legal and illegal that you might get different interpretations depending on who you ask and how you ask it.

We try to make the line as clear as we can, but no matter where it is, there's some unavoidable subjectivity in its immediate vicinity. No-one should need to sail that close to it, but if you choose to, that's the unfortunate reality.

Understood, thanks for the clarification.

My concern was more regarding the fact that this was the first I'd ever heard that interpretation of the rule regarding manipulating the telegram UI in regards to a non-automated level, and I wouldn't want people to get smacked for rule-breaking on something that wasn't ever documented anywhere we could see. For example, this thread will undoubtedly sink into the depths of Technical once again and I think it would be an unfair expectation for somebody to have known this particular interpretation if at a late point they are smacked for rule breaking on that regard due to an improper interpretation that only sending the telegram itself via script/tool would be against the rule rather than any manipulation prior to the "send" step. However, given Admin responses to this thread, I'm confident that there will be well documented and established language regarding the illegality of manipulating the Telegram UI, and want to thank you folks for taking the time to entertain my initial inquiry, as well as the follow-ups.

[[violet]]

this was the first I'd ever heard that interpretation of the rule regarding manipulating the telegram UI in regards to a non-automated level, and I wouldn't want people to get smacked for rule-breaking on something that wasn't ever documented anywhere we could see.

It's always been documented in Script Rules under "Sending Telegrams." For at least a few years it's said that tools are banned from interacting with the Telegrams page "unless they are only adding minor functionality."

I did modify that language a week or two ago, when this thread started, based on the feedback that this left open a debate over what "minor functionality" meant. It now simply says that tools can't interact with the page at all.

Which is clearer. But the point of the original clause was to explicitly allow for apps like NS++ or Stately or whatever that provide a general site restyling or interface, as opposed to tools designed for faster sending of recruitment telegrams, and we still want to allow that.

[Tim-Opolis]

this was the first I'd ever heard that interpretation of the rule regarding manipulating the telegram UI in regards to a non-automated level, and I wouldn't want people to get smacked for rule-breaking on something that wasn't ever documented anywhere we could see.

It's always been documented in Script Rules under "Sending Telegrams." For at least a few years it's said that tools are banned from interacting with the Telegrams page "unless they are only adding minor functionality."

I did modify that language a week or two ago, when this thread started, based on the feedback that this left open a debate over what "minor functionality" meant. It now simply says that tools can't interact with the page at all.

Which is clearer. But the point of the original clause was to explicitly allow for apps like NS++ or Stately or whatever that provide a general site restyling or interface, as opposed to tools designed for faster sending of recruitment telegrams, and we still want to allow that.

Copy that, thanks!

[Club Lux]

Would it be allowed to make a script that would bring you to the compose telegram page (for example, https://www.nationstates.net/page=compo ... o=Club_Lux) by clicking on a nation link or something? So you would not in any way be interacting with the telegram page, you'd just be getting to the page more directly?