Tentative formal declaration of bot approval procedure [DIS]

[wushin]

Requirements for bots: [DIS]

• Compatable with TMW's current Open Source licenses.
• When connecting to main server, runs on main server.
• Use test server for testing.
• Must do something useful (or interesting?) that is not already in other bots
• subject to code review & pen testing
• Respect conservative rate limits
• If the bot can talk it should not say anything offensive
• Acceptable actions are only being performed (i.e. anything in which code can be programmed to play the game? or looks suspicious)
• Should use the protocol.py library (if not written in python, add another code generator, currently there is one for C++ and one for PHP is planned)
• The bot must have a fixed location and a fixed name (there should be only 1 character on the account associated with the bot, exceptions will have to be justified and are subject to final TMWC review.)
• If it's running on main we will have total access to it.
• Approval subject to the discretion of the TMWC even if it meets every other requirement.
• Any vetoes over content or technical interences will come with a explanation of what isn't acceptable and should be changed.
• Consensus of a majority (3/5ths) if no vetoes stand.
• Bots are subject to the same rules, guidelines, penalities as player characters. Abuse is reported via @wgm or forums (viewforum.php?f=20).
• All rules are subject to change based on needs of TMW project. Bot owners will be informed of any changes in the rules via forum posts.

List of acceptable actions:

• chatting, heralding, including remembering messages for offline players, and including chat-like actions such as emotes.
• buy/sell/trade (should probably have a disclaimer for the possibility of lost items)

[Cassy]

We should avoid too much text if possible before it becomes a tl;dr
Also too many rules discourage people.

IMO these points aren't necessary:

• Use test server for testing.
• When connecting to main server, runs on main server.
• If the bot can talk it should not say anything offensive (that's within the game rules anyway)
• Must do something useful (or interesting?) that is not already in other bots

Maybe others too. I'm not sure if I understand everything correctly.
Btw what does "Respect conservative rate limits" mean?

[o11c]

We should avoid too much text if possible before it becomes a tl;dr
Also too many rules discourage people.

We don't want *too* many bots. I suggest that we phrase it like the GM questionaire checklist. Probably put the "subject to discretion anyway" line as a header. If they can't pay *that* much attention to detail chances are they won't make a bot that's any good either.

IMO these points aren't necessary:

• Use test server for testing.

Needs to be said; it has been a problem in the past.

• When connecting to main server, runs on main server.

Needs to be said; it has been a problem in the past.

• If the bot can talk it should not say anything offensive (that's within the game rules anyway)

But extra care needs to be taken with regards to accepting user input and repeating it.

• Must do something useful (or interesting?) that is not already in other bots

This could maybe be merged with the "subject to TMWC discretion".

Btw what does "Respect conservative rate limits" mean?

If the server has a rate limit of 10 messages / 10 seconds, the bot should have a limit of 5 messages / 10 seconds or something like that, and also avoid ever repeating itself or using TOO MANY CAPS.

Current bots run at @1 to avoid rate limits though - but they really shouldn't be producing too much output anyway.

Depending, they may also need to rate limit user input, both on an individual level, and on a global level.

[Cassy]

Oh good hell.
I think i better stay out of this.

[veryape]

After thinking for a while, i don't see why the default should be to ban something.
If it passes a botcheck, not botting.

If doing things that are not considered as giving a gameplay advantage - will not be botchecked.

The system in place does already work in my opinion.
I run a client that you guys have not reviewed the source code of. Am I breaching the rules?

Why should all clients be GPL? it is not the reach of our project imo. Everything that goes into the server should be GPL. If someone writes their own client, fair game IMO.

Why the default negativity? I think that it kills the fun of the project - we need to keep the fun and be an as open project as possible imo. Everyone wins out.

If the client becomes a problem for devs/GMs - then take action. By default they should be legal as long as they follow the rules and don't send malformed packages or cause havoc by being badly coded.

[4144]

I think this rules better remove or change:

When connecting to main server, runs on main server.

Here better use word "may" or "can"

subject to code review & pen testing

This should be for any code, but code may have bugs before and after review. This mean this rule cant block using bot.

Any vetoes over content or technical interences will come with a explanation of what isn't acceptable and should be changed.

What vetoes? Was no any rules who have this rights and how it works.

[gumi]

@veryape to clarify things a bit, accepted bots *need* to run on the tmw server itself so they *need* to be GPL because they become part of the tmw project itself.

According to o11c, bots that do not run on the main server can not be controlled or monitored and therefore are not secure. Having the bot on the server also reduces the latency.

IMO I think it is also good to put bots on the server because it ensures 99% uptime and the creator of the bot do not have to keep his/her pc open 24/7. It also ensures that the bot will stay on tmw and not be removed by its creator for whatever reasons (ie Confused Tree).

[veryape]

@veryape to clarify things a bit, accepted bots *need* to run on the tmw server itself so they *need* to be GPL because they become part of the tmw project itself.

According to o11c, bots that do not run on the main server can not be controlled or monitored and therefore are not secure. Having the bot on the server also reduces the latency.

IMO I think it is also good to put bots on the server because it ensures 99% uptime and the creator of the bot do not have to keep his/her pc open 24/7. It also ensures that the bot will stay on tmw and not be removed by its creator for whatever reasons (ie Confused Tree).

I just don't see the need to run them on the server. That makes them "finished", we could host bots upon request - but i do not see the urge to have them all hosted at the server. The uptime thing is up to the bots creator imo.

Say that the bot-maker coming up with a new cool/fun feature, he could implement it straight away if he hosts it himself. As long as we don't have any reason to think that it is breaking the rules or making life hard for us in any way I don't see any reason to ban it.

[gumi]

I do not think the bot creator should be able to update the bot while it is in use; The bot should be in a tmw-controlled github repo so that we can see and approve any commit being made. And if the bot is not hosted on the tmw server then we can not ensure that the code that the creator sent for review is the same code that is being used.

[jasm]

i dont think hes coming back any time soon

[o11c]

I just don't see the need to run them on the server. That makes them "finished", we could host bots upon request - but i do not see the urge to have them all hosted at the server. The uptime thing is up to the bots creator imo.

If it's not "finished", it doesn't belong on the main server. The ability to update the bot while it is running is explicitly forbidden. We *must* have access to the exact version of the source.

Say that the bot-maker coming up with a new cool/fun feature, he could implement it straight away if he hosts it himself. As long as we don't have any reason to think that it is breaking the rules or making life hard for us in any way I don't see any reason to ban it.

Other than the fact that it's against the current rules (which admittedly, we are working on policy for making exceptions to)? There's also the fact that it's using a stable server as a playground (which is a really bad idea), and that it will develop unsustainable expections on our playerbase (since we have no way to actually keep it running if the whims of its developer take it away).

[veryape]

In my world people are not guilty until proven otherwise, it's a principle that has served the world quite well since Ceasar started practicing it.

I just don't see what we are so scared about, I for one thinks that the alternative cost of full control is bigger than what we gain from it.

We are running a game, it is supposed to be fun. It is open source so that people can actively help on improving it.
In my opinion a totalitarian rule where the TMWC has to approve anything before it happens kind of kills both the fun and the ease of making stuff for the game.

Us gm's don't find it as a problem that we have to judge a plethora of bots every day, it is not a burden to us. Let us handle it in the first instance, if the devs like the bot so much that they are interested in hosting it - approach the one that made it.

Why make it complicated and go after a problem that doesn't really exist?
It just has the cost of us seeming like control-freaks and the step to entry into development bigger.

Because of the above I just don't think that it makes any sense to set strict rules.

[o11c]

Why make it complicated and go after a problem that doesn't really exist?

The fact that it was even *possible* for Confused Tree to dissappear forever violates your assertion that it's "a problem that doesn't really exist".

[veryape]

Why make it complicated and go after a problem that doesn't really exist?

The fact that it was even *possible* for Confused Tree to dissappear forever violates your assertion that it's "a problem that doesn't really exist".

Not having it in the first place is a even greater problem.

[o11c]

Not having it in the first place is a even greater problem.

Not really, players don't Female dog, wolf, fox or otter nearly as much about that. And the less players Female dog, wolf, fox or otter, the more *actual* stuff we can get done.