NATION

PASSWORD

Keybindings

Bug reports, general help, ideas for improvements, and questions about how things are meant to work.
User avatar
Tim-Opolis
Negotiator
 
Posts: 5977
Founded: Feb 17, 2010
Iron Fist Consumerists

Keybindings

Postby Tim-Opolis » Fri Jul 28, 2017 5:23 pm

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?
Last edited by [violet] on Sat Jul 29, 2017 6:01 am, edited 1 time in total.
Author of SC#74, SC #203, SC #222, and SC #238 | Co-Author of SC#191
Founder of Spiritus | Three-Time Delegate of Osiris | Pharaoh of the Islamic Republics of Iran | Hero of Greece
[11:16:10] <@Koth> tim is a loose cannon cop on the edge who doesn't play by the rules

User avatar
Eluvatar
Site Admin
 
Posts: 2184
Founded: Mar 31, 2006
New York Times Democracy

Postby Eluvatar » Fri Jul 28, 2017 9:31 pm

Tim-Opolis wrote: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.
To Serve and Protect: UDL

Eluvatar - Taijitu member

User avatar
Tim-Opolis
Negotiator
 
Posts: 5977
Founded: Feb 17, 2010
Iron Fist Consumerists

Postby Tim-Opolis » Fri Jul 28, 2017 9:55 pm

Eluvatar wrote:
Tim-Opolis wrote: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.
Last edited by Tim-Opolis on Fri Jul 28, 2017 9:55 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Author of SC#74, SC #203, SC #222, and SC #238 | Co-Author of SC#191
Founder of Spiritus | Three-Time Delegate of Osiris | Pharaoh of the Islamic Republics of Iran | Hero of Greece
[11:16:10] <@Koth> tim is a loose cannon cop on the edge who doesn't play by the rules

User avatar
Eluvatar
Site Admin
 
Posts: 2184
Founded: Mar 31, 2006
New York Times Democracy

Postby Eluvatar » Sat Jul 29, 2017 5:59 am

Tim-Opolis wrote:
Eluvatar wrote: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.
To Serve and Protect: UDL

Eluvatar - Taijitu member

User avatar
Blitzkeig
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 390
Founded: Dec 13, 2009
Ex-Nation

Postby Blitzkeig » Sun Jul 30, 2017 2:01 pm

Eluvatar wrote:
Tim-Opolis wrote: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?
The Greater Vakolicci Haven: Unified, expanding, free

((please note: this nation is second-hand. Its current operator is not a fascist.))

User avatar
Vincent Drake
Envoy
 
Posts: 325
Founded: Dec 08, 2016
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Vincent Drake » Sun Jul 30, 2017 3:35 pm

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.
Chamberlain of The Order of the Grey Wardens
Founder of European Union

Need to talk? Vincent Drake#3952

User avatar
Tim-Opolis
Negotiator
 
Posts: 5977
Founded: Feb 17, 2010
Iron Fist Consumerists

Postby Tim-Opolis » Sun Jul 30, 2017 4:18 pm

Vincent Drake wrote: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.
Author of SC#74, SC #203, SC #222, and SC #238 | Co-Author of SC#191
Founder of Spiritus | Three-Time Delegate of Osiris | Pharaoh of the Islamic Republics of Iran | Hero of Greece
[11:16:10] <@Koth> tim is a loose cannon cop on the edge who doesn't play by the rules

User avatar
Eluvatar
Site Admin
 
Posts: 2184
Founded: Mar 31, 2006
New York Times Democracy

Postby Eluvatar » Sun Jul 30, 2017 8:00 pm

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.
To Serve and Protect: UDL

Eluvatar - Taijitu member

User avatar
[violet]
Site Admin
 
Posts: 14285
Founded: Antiquity

Postby [violet] » Mon Jul 31, 2017 10:10 pm

Tim-Opolis wrote: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.

User avatar
Verwood Island Archipelago
Attaché
 
Posts: 76
Founded: Oct 29, 2016
Ex-Nation

Postby Verwood Island Archipelago » Mon Jul 31, 2017 10:16 pm

[violet] wrote:
Tim-Opolis wrote: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!

User avatar
Tim-Opolis
Negotiator
 
Posts: 5977
Founded: Feb 17, 2010
Iron Fist Consumerists

Postby Tim-Opolis » Sat Aug 05, 2017 8:53 pm

[violet] wrote:
Tim-Opolis wrote: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.
Author of SC#74, SC #203, SC #222, and SC #238 | Co-Author of SC#191
Founder of Spiritus | Three-Time Delegate of Osiris | Pharaoh of the Islamic Republics of Iran | Hero of Greece
[11:16:10] <@Koth> tim is a loose cannon cop on the edge who doesn't play by the rules

User avatar
[violet]
Site Admin
 
Posts: 14285
Founded: Antiquity

Postby [violet] » Sun Aug 06, 2017 7:44 pm

Tim-Opolis wrote: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.

User avatar
Tim-Opolis
Negotiator
 
Posts: 5977
Founded: Feb 17, 2010
Iron Fist Consumerists

Postby Tim-Opolis » Sun Aug 06, 2017 11:16 pm

[violet] wrote:
Tim-Opolis wrote: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!
Author of SC#74, SC #203, SC #222, and SC #238 | Co-Author of SC#191
Founder of Spiritus | Three-Time Delegate of Osiris | Pharaoh of the Islamic Republics of Iran | Hero of Greece
[11:16:10] <@Koth> tim is a loose cannon cop on the edge who doesn't play by the rules

User avatar
Club Lux
Lobbyist
 
Posts: 25
Founded: Oct 16, 2016
Capitalizt

Attempted Necromancy?

Postby Club Lux » Mon Sep 09, 2019 4:59 pm

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?


Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to Technical

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users

Advertisement

Remove ads