Tentative formal declaration of bot approval procedure [DIS]

[wushin]

PS we should either @ban or git push guild bot.

[veryape]

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

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

Look, there are two ways to think about this, either you want to maximize the utility or minimize suffering or how to call it.

If we go the maximize route (my choice) we will get a living game with loads of stuff to do and some problems along the way. If we go the minimize route everything except jacking the cord out of the wall is a halfassed solution.

[o11c]

PS we should either @ban or git push guild bot.

Ugh, how much I wish we'd had our (current, informal) or (imminent, formal) rules for approval of bots when guild started to exist - they never would have allowed it at the time, and we undoubtedly would have had a more reliable alternative by now.

Maybe I could write one against protocol.py, now that we have it. There's just way too much stuff going on for me to do everything.

[wushin]

Contended items all line up with whether or not Player's can run bots under a limited scope.

Veryapes note: If it passes a botcheck, not botting.
(viewforum.php?f=20).

Requirements for bots on main: [DIS]

• Bots are subject to the same rules, guidelines, penalities as player characters. Abuse is reported via @wgm or forums
• If it's running on main as a TMWC official bot TMWC will have total access to it.
• Compatable with TMW's current Open Source licenses.
• Use test server for testing
• Respect conservative rate limits
• 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.)
• 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.
• 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.
• Must do something useful (or interesting?) that is not already in other bots (merge with TMWC discretion)

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)

[AnonDuck]

With these rules in place (must be open source, must run on main server, needs code review before pull) I would not have bothered writing any bots for TMW. That was one of the few things that kept me around over the years, so I probably would not be here now. I *strongly* disagree with these provisions.

It's no fun to work on something dynamic and evolving if you can't see the results until someone approves it. Nobody will bother to write friendly bots under these types of restrictions.

So I don't have to reiterate too much here's a pastie from another topic in the TMWC private forum:

I've always asked to review the source code before approving anything. I know TradeBot was an exception back in the day. Was Confused Tree? Was Quiz?

Yes they were exceptions. [Tree and Quiz] The reasoning was that they did not do anything that could affect gameplay, potentially steal items, etc. All they were able to do was talk and emote, so there was no potential for abuse.

I refused to release the source for these and argued my case well to be granted this exception. As the original author of both of these, what was I supposed to do? The code was embarassingly bad, could very easily be misused by others if made public, and was under constant evolution. People had even suggested that the bots should run on the server and every change to them no matter how small should be reviewed before updating them.. This would have ground their development to a standstill and made them entirely not worth working on.

I think any policy on friendly bots really depends on what the bot does. If there is a large potential for abuse(ie ManaMarket) it should have it's code reviewed and run on the server itself. If it's just a harmless toy people should relax. Remember, we want to encourage people to experiment. That's how developers/contributors are traditionally born.

[wushin]

Would it make more sense to have categories of How much of what is allowed how?

We could have:
A simple Player run bot Dos and Donts

1) Don't break any of the player rules.

2) Don't break the "botting" rule as defined by GMs & their discretion.

Then use a separate formal bot adoption procedure for the Project to host and support the bot.

Requirements for bots on main: [DIS]

• Bots are subject to the same rules, guidelines, penalities as player characters. Abuse is reported via @wgm or forums
• If it's running on main as a TMWC official bot TMWC will have total access to it.
• Compatable with TMW's current Open Source licenses.
• Use test server for testing
• Respect conservative rate limits
• 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.)
• 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.
• 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.
• Must do something useful (or interesting?) that is not already in other bots (merge with TMWC discretion)

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)

[/quote]

IMO, test server is free range so long as the bot is not interfering with testing.

[prsm]

I think we can simplify it even further,

No afk activity is allowed that gains xp or items or that insults.

this would allow for the continued use of guild, confused and crazy tree, afk whispers.

my 2 cents

Prsm

[wushin]

What about trades/selling? As in ManaMarket.

[wushin]

Bot Rules further refined:[DIS]

1) Game Rules (Implied)

2) No afk activity is allowed that:

• gains xp, jp, bp or dp (Exp, Job, Boss, Daily points.)
• gains items from mob drops or questing
• Insults, offends, trolls, etc.

3) GMs retain ban discretion same as if it was a player or "botting" bot.

This would allow for the continued use of guild, confused and crazy tree, afk whispers, Manamarket, & Manaplus's Shop feature.

Leaves delegation and administration of "Bots" under GMs preview where bans, blocks, & kicks belong.

[gumi]

rule 3 is implied by rule 1 and rule 2c is implied by rule 1
so it can be simplified to this:

1) Game Rules (Implied)

2) No afk activity is allowed that:

• gains xp, jp, bp or dp (Exp, Job, Boss, Daily points.) <== we could add karma here
• gains items from mob drops or questing

[wushin]

Mmmmm yeah, that looks nice and simple but covers all bases. Lets see what others say.

[AnonDuck]

Looks simple and sane enough. I think one more provision should be added:

• Bots that trade GP or items must be code reviewed and run on the TMW server

We don't want someone making a trade/auction/market/lottery/whatever bot and using it to stiff the players.

[prsm]

along MadCamels thinking, perhaps we only allow "one of each" bot.

Better said by me, we have a manamarket bot we don't need another, nor do we need 30 confused trees.

[wushin]

*has visions a confused tree party wearing MadCamel's Boat Hats using the sit spam script running around in candor.*

[AnonDuck]

along MadCamels thinking, perhaps we only allow "one of each" bot.

Better said by me, we have a manamarket bot we don't need another, nor do we need 30 confused trees.

On one level that makes sense. On another level, it's good to encourage people to write things that work with TMW.

It'd be annoying to have a Tree and a Bush chatting it up with eachother for example. Or chat bots absolutely everywhere. But the GMs could request an end to that if it's a problem.