 |
This page or section is an archive. Please do not edit the contents of this page. This thread was archived on 21 November 2012 by A proofreader. |
Okay so recently, User:Joeytje50 has recently created a script which allows someone to automatically type something after a trigger word has been said. For example, this is what currently happens if someone says hairdo while I am present in chat:
<User A> hairdo <Haidro> Haidro*
Now although this may seem fine, it can result into spam. Any user can just come in chat and say hairdo and this message will pop up, and any user can install this script in their Chat.js. Other people use this script, people who I know include Joey, Dogfoger, EpicPancakes, and myself (and there are probably more).
Now, Let's say if User A has an auto reply message so that when someone says 123, User A will say 456. Now let's say User B has an auto reply message so that when someone says 456, User B will say 123.
<User A> 456 <User B> 123 <User A> 456 <User B> 123
And so on... creating a paradox.
The good thing about this is the auto reply only works if the message is said "alone", eg Saying "hai hairdo" won't trigger anything. It works like the "ponies" command in IRC. Joey has said there is a possibility to make it so it doesn't matter where the word is, but I definitely think this should not be included.
What are your opinion on this? Should users not be allowed to have this, and should this command only be used in bots? Or should users maybe have only one reply command?
Haidro (talk) 06:00, November 9, 2012 (UTC)
Discussion
It should just be one word, else it'll just spew spam out the butt. https://i.imgur.com/skfqP.jpgTalkHSVandalise here or here! 06:03, November 9, 2012 (UTC)
I don't like triggers. There's nothing wrong with butts. --Iiii I I I 06:25, November 9, 2012 (UTC)
- My butt is my best asset. MolMan 23:00, November 10, 2012 (UTC)
- http://www.badum-tish.com/ JOEYTJE50TALK pull my finger 13:17, November 15, 2012 (UTC)
Comment - Make it so an auto-reply can't be given out more than once in a certain cooldown period (say, 1, 2 or 5 minutes). Most scripts written for IRC that need to auto-reply have this feature, where it's called flood control. A particularly curious user who comes in, wants to talk to a certain user, says their name, and sees that there's an autoreply won't be tempted to trigger it endlessly if it stops after the first one due to flood control.
Also, just the word alone in a line please. I don't want to be like "Good job, insert name here" and see his or her autoreply.
a proofreader ▸
06:33, November 9, 2012 (UTC)
- As a bonus, if there's flood control, there can't be any auto-reply loops of the "123 -> 456 -> 123 -> 456" kind Haidro put forth as an example. a proofreader ▸ 07:03, November 9, 2012 (UTC)
Support rate limits - Stops the spam, keeps the (somewhat dubious) usefulness of the autoreplies. 222 talk 07:59, November 9, 2012 (UTC)
- The closest thing I've seen to "usefulness" is Mime's, which still isn't that helpful. Everything else is stupid. MolMan 22:57, November 10, 2012 (UTC)
Comment - I still think whoever is abusing the trigger word is at fault here. Same as abusing `say >say in IRC.
- REDIRECT User:Cqm/Signature
Remove frivolous script - Stupid. This isn't IRC and there is no Fishbot. Spare the rest of us from these ridiculous scripts that just cause disruption. User:Urbancowgurl777/Signature 14:06, November 9, 2012 (UTC)
- To add on to that, this script can't possibly be used in any useful way. Especially when one of the triggers is "caek", causing Joey to say "CAEK :D". What do you expect to happen with something like that? The only thing it'll cause is more people to yell out "caek" to see what happens, therefore creating more spam. Ugh. Strong support removing. Stupid scripts like that are one of the reasons I don't use IRC. User:Urbancowgurl777/Signature 15:10, November 9, 2012 (UTC)
- "This isn't IRC" - is there a reason why s:c is should get different rules than irc? They are both chat mediums used by the wiki. bad_fetustalk 19:55, November 9, 2012 (UTC)
- Because we get different traffic than IRC, and we don't have as immature/spammy a crowd. The script doesn't fit with the environment of the chat. My comment had nothing to do with rules. User:Urbancowgurl777/Signature 22:11, November 9, 2012 (UTC)
- I would agree that there is a different userbase between chats. There are few instances where IRC is spammed repeatedly by more than one or two users, whereas this script has caused a more that a couple of problems. I might suggest it is because of availability - I can just c/p this from Joey's chat.js and it doesn't take a genius to alter the trigger and response phrases - but I would think a quick google search might throw up a IRC equivalent. I would put it down to an immature group of users, who I still believe are the issue here rather than the script. If someone is willing to disrupt the chat, it matters little as to what the method is, more that they have done it in the first place. To put it simply, this isn't abused in IRC but is in S:C. Unless it becomes a problem in the IRC I see no reason to remove it, but as it stands S:C apparently has reason to ban these scripts.
- Because we get different traffic than IRC, and we don't have as immature/spammy a crowd. The script doesn't fit with the environment of the chat. My comment had nothing to do with rules. User:Urbancowgurl777/Signature 22:11, November 9, 2012 (UTC)
- REDIRECT User:Cqm/Signature
Support limit - If there is no limit, then there should be no script. Just the other day the chat was spammed massively by a couple of users abusing Dogfoger's autoreply to cause mass spam, which the limit would have prevented. Template:Signatures/Ciphrius Kane 16:44, November 9, 2012 (UTC)
Remove the script - It's annoying. User:TyA/sig 21:40, November 9, 2012 (UTC)
Remove the script - Per TyA. User:Jr Mime/Signature 22:01, November 9, 2012 (UTC)
Remove the script - 'Nuff said. -- 
SpineTalk
02:45, November 10, 2012 (UTC)
Remove the script - I'm at the point of complete frustration with auto replies. This has already caused issues in the chat that I think were both unjustified and uncalled for. An issue that I really disagreed with was with CoffeeMugRS. He "spammed" the abuse replies of EpicPancake's around 3 times ending up being banned:
| Logs |
|---|
00:32 <CoffeeMugRS> EpicPancakes 00:32 <EpicPancakes> What do YOU want? 00:32 <CoffeeMugRS> EpicPancakes 00:32 <Jr Mime> A proofcaek 00:32 <EpicPancakes> What do YOU want? 00:32 <CoffeeMugRS> EpicPancakes 00:32 <EpicPancakes> What do YOU want? 00:32 <Jr Mime> STOp 00:32 <CoffeeMugRS> I type fast 00:32 <Jr Mime> COFFEE 00:32 <EpicPancakes> wtf 00:32 <CoffeeMugRS> OH 00:32 <Jr Mime> Kane please 00:32 <CoffeeMugRS> He has automessage 00:32 -!- Jr Mime has left Special:Chat. 00:32 <CoffeeMugRS> Sorry 00:32 -!- Jr Mime has joined Special:Chat 00:32 <EpicPancakes> Wigglewump 00:32 <EpicPancakes> that was so fast 00:33 <Jr Mime> Ciphrius Kane 00:33 <EpicPancakes> I had words that start with w, I always mess those up. 00:33 <EpicPancakes> *hate 00:33 -!- CoffeeMugRS was banned from Special:Chat by Ciphrius Kane for 86400 seconds. |
This issue alone irritates me considering he was warned to stop, he did, and was still banned for doing nothing after apologizing. I don't think it's completely fair to blame CoffeeMugRS alone though, considering EpicPancakes is the one that has this script, so I think that the owner of the script should be punished too, as the script isn't going to cause anything productive, just spamming. So... in the end, I think we should just remove the script. Hair 02:54, November 10, 2012 (UTC)
- I agree with you 100%, about that the script is not productive at all. Haidro (talk) 02:57, November 10, 2012 (UTC)
- In regards to that banning - there had already been previous bouts of autoreply abuse that night, and I had warned twice that any further abuse of the autoreply system would result in a ban. I considered coffee to be abusing the system so I took action Template:Signatures/Ciphrius Kane 18:16, November 10, 2012 (UTC)
Remove auto replies scripts - It has no good use at all 
TIMMMO 
++Discuss Sign 03:17, November 10, 2012 (UTC)
Support 1 matchword per person, and the person who spams the matchword of a person often, causing the other person to spam back, is the one who's spamming. Same for spamming with bots in IRC, the person with the autoreply shouldn't be the one to blame. As long as people don't abuse the autoreply script, there's nothing wrong with the scripts. I don't see any problem with the autoreply script itself. JOEYTJE50TALK pull my finger 17:37, November 10, 2012 (UTC)
Remove the script — They were fun at first, but now they're spreading like wildfire and it's really annoying. Joey was the first (and for a while only) user to have an auto reply. Shortly after came Dogfoger, then Mime. And with each new script, another user (usually a newer one [and/or likely younger]) thought to themselves "HOT DIGITY DAMN! That's cool! I want ONE!!!!!!!!!!!!" And even if every user had only a single trigger, just the mass amounts of auto-replying gets really fucking annoying. Auto-reply scripts don't even help; it may provide the illusion that the user upon whom you called is now paying attention, but unless the trigger exists in a chatping script, they may have no idea. Not to mention the fact that most replies are incredibly stupid (which also is what mainly leads to the abuse: the fact that people actually think it's funny). So fairness dictates that if not everyone can have the script, no one can have the script. MolMan 22:52, November 10, 2012 (UTC)
Notice of intent - Since the early consensus is overwhelmingly against having auto reply scripts, users should start disabling their current auto reply scripts by adding /* before, and */ after, this code block in their chat.js:
/* <- START DISABLED BLOCK
onNewMessage.push(function(el,attrs) {
if ($('#Chat_'+attrs.roomId).is('form#Write+div') && (attrs.user||attrs.name) != wgUserName) {
var msg = $(el).find('.message').html();
var curtext = $('[name="message"]').val();
if (msg == autoReplyTrigger) {
sendMessage(autoReplyMessage);
}
// else if ... else ...
$('[name="message"]').val(curtext)
}
}); END DISABLED BLOCK -> */
If the final consensus were to support the use of the scripts, as is or with modifications, these new characters can be removed to enable the script again.
a proofreader ▸23:39, November 10, 2012 (UTC)
Oppose - I don't even use chat, and this looks annoying. http://i250.photobucket.com/albums/gg244/blaze_fire12/RuneScape%20Wiki%20Images/Blaze_fire.pnghttp://i250.photobucket.com/albums/gg244/blaze_fire12/RuneScape%20Wiki%20Images/12.png 11:55, November 12, 2012 (UTC)
Closed - Automatic reply scripts are, from now on, banned from Special:Chat. Users caught spamming the auto-reply of a user who has not yet removed their auto-replies from their chat.js may be warned, kicked and banned according to usual rules about spamming. Users with auto-replies shall be warned the next time they join Special:Chat and their auto-reply triggers at least once. Scripts disabled with /* and */ can now be deleted outright. This applies to all users.
A rate limit for scripts was explored, but consensus is more for deleting them than limiting them to once in some period of time.
A limit of one word per person was explored, but consensus is more for not having them altogether.
Three users have expressed opposition to the scripts but have not expressed their view on the implementation. These users are hereby assumed to be happy with any outcome that deals with the scripts and greatly limits or eliminates them.
a proofreader ▸04:16, November 21, 2012 (UTC)