Fixed another bug on the item page and implemented an item blacklist to fix the bug that made me disable it.
DKK Scripts - removed
Started by DeKleineKobini [2114440] Committee on in Tools & Userscripts.
Posts archived: 189 / 189 posts (100%) · the total is Torn's reply count + the opening post at the last fetch
Was that bug where it would continue to use items such as beer without stopping?
Not that I know of. It was a 'bug' where it would open all presents in your inventory, which would probably be illegal too, but also annoying.
I don't know if it's just me, but Stat estimate now doesn't work on faction info page
For the pages that I use (profile and factions war) there doesn't seem to be any problem.
I have some bad news tho.
For everyone: I'd recommend to subscribe to this thread I will be posting something important in the next few days. It's not good news tho.
I have some bad news tho.
For everyone: I'd recommend to subscribe to this thread I will be posting something important in the next few days. It's not good news tho.
Announcement
When I started creating scripts, I never imagined that I'd ever make script with this much downloads.
But sadly, this weekend something happened that put me in a hard position. I won't go into the full long details, but NoConfirm was deemed illegal by IBF and that it never was, which I had to learn by someone (non-staff) messaging me after he asked IBF. While this on it's own wasn't a surprise, I have multiple problems with this:
What does this practically mean?
TLDR; f**k you, read it if you want to know
Thanks for reading,
DeKleineKobini
When I started creating scripts, I never imagined that I'd ever make script with this much downloads.
- High/Low Helper with over 5,000 downloads
- Stat Estimate with over 3,750 downloads (split over 2 sites)
- CT2019 with over 2,500 downloads
- NoConfirm with over 1,250 downloads (2 sites)
- Item Value with over 1,000 downloads (2 sites)
- a lot more with under 1,000 downloads
But sadly, this weekend something happened that put me in a hard position. I won't go into the full long details, but NoConfirm was deemed illegal by IBF and that it never was, which I had to learn by someone (non-staff) messaging me after he asked IBF. While this on it's own wasn't a surprise, I have multiple problems with this:
- I literally asked whether or not it was legal 4 times, starting 9 months ago. I even asked specifically about the part of code that now is labelled as illegal. This established the '1 click for 1 action' term which we (scripters) abide by.
- The current rules are so vague, it isn't clear whether it is illegal or not just by reading the rules. This is also means that it's open for interpretation, and thus inconsistent ruling.
- Even after being confirmed illegal, it's still up and working. Including a link here in this thread. Neither did I get any message by staff requesting it's removal.
What does this practically mean?
- No bug fixes on any existing scripts, not even critical bugs that break the whole script.
- No updates on any existing script (which was paused for longer already)
- Removal of all links to my scripts (they still can be found and used (including NoConfirm, at your own risk), but not on here.
- I won't allow anyone to fork or update my scripts. If I find any of my scripts forked, or remade with too much similar code to my liking, I might and very likely will remove all of my scripts that are currently online).
- I won't help anyone with creating any scripts.
- I also will spent a lot less time on Torn (or related stuff, like Discords).
TLDR; f**k you, read it if you want to know
Thanks for reading,
DeKleineKobini
> I won't allow anyone to fork or update my scripts. If I find any of my scripts forked, or remade with too much similar code to my liking, I might and very likely will remove all of my scripts that are currently online).
I understand your frustrations, but why not let people at least fix your scripts in case they break?
Anyway, I'm going to update those of my scripts that use your js library to stop doing that. Thanks for the warning.
I understand your frustrations, but why not let people at least fix your scripts in case they break?
Anyway, I'm going to update those of my scripts that use your js library to stop doing that. Thanks for the warning.
I think the main reason is that if they do something wrong, people will run to him about it, and if somebody alters it to make it illegal, he'll be the one in trouble. being the author ect
It might have something to do with the fact that people will take the work he has spent time on and make a fix then declare it as their own.
Also as Hemigidius said, people could make a "fix" that doesn't work or makes it illegal and he will get the blame.
Also as Hemigidius said, people could make a "fix" that doesn't work or makes it illegal and he will get the blame.
I've always wondered why NoConfirm and Doctorn's quick bust/bail functionality were allowed. I honestly didn't understand and in my view they clearly violated the rules, but, I too spoke with IBF about this a while ago and he specifically said it's fine. This wasn't very long ago. So while I do agree with the judgement made here, I completely understand your point that they way it's been handled is a joke. And I do hope the same judgement will be applied to Doctorn's quick bust/bail etc functionality (I'm using a legacy version so I can't check), else, something needs to be looked at there as to why it's receiving special treatment, providing it's using the same implementation as NoConfirm.
It's the loss of the Torn community, you've made some great scripts.
It's the loss of the Torn community, you've made some great scripts.
Well, both points have always been the case for DKK's scripts (as well as for any open source code, for that matter) - as soon as you've published anything open source, anyone can copy your work and try to claim it as their own. Or add some malicious functionality.
I don't see how recent events change anything here.
But, of course, it's up to DKK to decide what to do with his code - I'm not trying to take that right from him.
I don't see how recent events change anything here.
But, of course, it's up to DKK to decide what to do with his code - I'm not trying to take that right from him.
DoctorN is allowed because it replaces the first button with the second one.
NoConfirm is not allowed because it also (it also uses the first way in a place) clicks the second button after you've manually clicked the first one.
Same result, but the first way isn't always possible which is why I did the second, which isn't allowed.
NoConfirm is not allowed because it also (it also uses the first way in a place) clicks the second button after you've manually clicked the first one.
Same result, but the first way isn't always possible which is why I did the second, which isn't allowed.
Actually, open source doesn't give you any right to even use it. No license means full copy right to me, but I don't really care. It's indeed because of the reason that Platinum said.
If you fork my script, people will still link me to it. I'm trying to cut most links with userscripts so that isn't what I want.
Previously I did allow it, under the condition that I was inactive, as preventive measure. I only allowed while inactive because I'm not a fan of someone taking my script, while I'm still inactive.
If you fork my script, people will still link me to it. I'm trying to cut most links with userscripts so that isn't what I want.
Previously I did allow it, under the condition that I was inactive, as preventive measure. I only allowed while inactive because I'm not a fan of someone taking my script, while I'm still inactive.
Is there an archive available where we may see your scripts? I feel like I've missed out on some treasures since this has happened.
![[image: i.pinimg.com]](https://i.pinimg.com/originals/47/55/a3/4755a3cbaf8b5a976ec059934463545c.jpg){kind=link}
damn thats sad
It sounds like the rules are fairly clear then? You acknowledge that a script making clicks for you is not allowed. This has been clarified when you then asked this with IBF.
I don't know what further clarification is required? We even made an announcement on this in the past: https://www.torn.com/forums.php#/p=threads&f=1&t=16119253&b=0&a=0
It sounds like someone messaged you saying it was illegal before we had a chance to get there first due to discussions taking place, but you have since clarified this with IBF.
Am I missing something here please?
I don't know what further clarification is required? We even made an announcement on this in the past: https://www.torn.com/forums.php#/p=threads&f=1&t=16119253&b=0&a=0
It sounds like someone messaged you saying it was illegal before we had a chance to get there first due to discussions taking place, but you have since clarified this with IBF.
Am I missing something here please?
Mentions: Malicious scripts
To quote merely a few posts above this one:
"
"
- I literally asked whether or not it was legal 4 times, starting 9 months ago. I even asked specifically about the part of code that now is labelled as illegal. This established the '1 click for 1 action' term which we (scripters) abide by.
- The current rules are so vague, it isn't clear whether it is illegal or not just by reading the rules. This is also means that it's open for interpretation, and thus inconsistent ruling.
Yes. It sounds like it was a simple misunderstanding that has since been clarified then? A reason that we changed the policy on after that to ensure this doesn't happen going forward, and this instance just unfortunately pre-dates that.
If that was the case then I can only apologise for this and hope that this is clear now.
If that was the case then I can only apologise for this and hope that this is clear now.
Huge loss, thanks for your hard for in this time anyway.