SRL Archive - Discussions and Debates

I recently noticed a quote from marpis from this thread:

From: marpis
All you voters: remember that our beloved leader WT-Fakawi has stated that the threshold for SRL Members status should be lowered.

I don't agree with this. Back in the past, forms were considered hard, that's because they were really ambiguous - not many knew about them, thus there were very little tutorials. Back then, DDTMs were only existent in very very few scripts. Back then, TPAs were considered a really difficult concept to grasp, now they're everywhere and our standard for object finding.

An SRL Member should have the ability to create a current RuneScape script that can bank. This to me, nowadays, is no longer as hard as it has once been, due to the fact that a variety of resources (i.e. tutorials, IRC, the community [more of us know and understand these concepts than ever], etc), including the ever increasingly simple and expanding library, SRL.

SRL Members should be able to dissect other scripts, learn and understand their concepts, and implement it into their own and add to it.

Please discuss. I don't want to see people getting in with scripts that were acceptable a couple of years ago, today. Of course, attitude is a major factor for me (but that doesn't go without the ability to script a current script), but that is not what this thread is about.

NOTE: This thread is not about member applications, merely the scripting aspect/requirement to them.

I agree. People who apply nowadays have more resources available to them than when WT-Fakawi posted that message(which was on: 09-21-2008, 09:10 PM ). So i guess we need to create some standards or something so that we can give the people who apply some sort of marks or something we can grade them on.

I think attitude is more important. If a new member writes 2 or 3 decent scripts in his first month, explores SRL functions and edits them to fit his own purposes, then that clearly means he's very interested in SRL library and willing to learn, and will produce more scripts.

Decent code, learning-oriented attitude and maturity are enough for me to vote Yes.

—

EDIT: reread your final point in your original post, now talking on-topic:
I don't think we can set any techniques as compulsory for every applicant. Why use TPA if you don't need them? Just because you can? Why spend 2000 lines on walking from Falador to Rimmington when you can do it shorter with SPS and add a couple failsafes? Just because you can?

An overall look is important on the script. I think it's a big plus if the applicant has used modified SRL functions, it means he's aware of the library and it's content.

When I vote on a scripting application I look for two things (mostly);

1. Attitude; If the scripter looks like (s)he'll be a good addition to SRL Members, or this forum in it's whole, and seems sincerely interested in becoming an SRL Member then I'm much more likely to vote yes.
2. Scripting ability; I look for logic and good program-structure. I do not look much at what methods (s)he has used as that can be learned over the night, opposed to good logic and good program-structure that takes time to build.

If the user has excellent attitude, is active, seems interested but did not use i.e TPAs but has procedures / functions in his/her script and knows about local variables etc, then I vote yes based on attitude and basic scripting knowledge.

My view on SRL Members is this; a group of good people that are interested in this community. The good scripters gets the Azreal Cup, and the masters get the Scripting Masters cup, SRL Members shouldn't really be about being really good at scripting in my opinion.

From: Zyt3x
When I vote on a scripting application I look for two things (mostly);

1. Attitude; If the scripter looks like (s)he'll be a good addition to SRL Members, or this forum in it's whole, and seems sincerely interested in becoming an SRL Member then I'm much more likely to vote yes.
2. Scripting ability; I look for logic and good program-structure. I do not look much at what methods (s)he has used as that can be learned over the night, opposed to good logic and good program-structure that takes time to build.

I also check when the account was created and how many posts have been made since then, if the person has been an active contributer to the forums I am more likely to select yes. If the person created the account a month ago and has 5 posts then I am more inclined to select no

From: cycrosism
I also check when the account was created and how many posts have been made since then, if the person has been an active contributer to the forums I am more likely to select yes. If the person created the account a month ago and has 5 posts then I am more inclined to select no

Going in with that is the quality of those post. If they spam a lot and generally make life harde on the staff. Are they asking good questions? Are they using the search button to find the answer instead of just posting a new thread.

From: marpis
I think attitude is more important. If a new member writes 2 or 3 decent scripts in his first month, explores SRL functions and edits them to fit his own purposes, then that clearly means he's very interested in SRL library and willing to learn, and will produce more scripts.

Decent code, learning-oriented attitude and maturity are enough for me to vote Yes.

I agree with the attitude, but I also think they need to be here for a while before they apply. I think I was here for over a year atleast before I applied, in this time I learnt a lot about the community and the people in it

Of course attitude for me is the deciding factor, however that was not the intent of this thread.

From: Zyt3x

2. Scripting ability; I look for logic and good program-structure. I do not look much at what methods (s)he has used as that can be learned over the night, opposed to good logic and good program-structure that takes time to build.

That's the same as me, as you can observe from that application that I linked to in the first post quoting marpis.

What I was getting at, though (concepts). But, applicants should not just use a FindColour result as their only type of object finding, etc, things that were acceptable a couple of years ago, not today.

I look for their activity, their knowledge of SRL, and the logic used to creat the script. They could have perfect walking in their script, but several ugly and inefficient methods. It all plays apart.

Attitude plays a nice part as well. There was an applicant who posted a "poor me" post after not getting in. I was already thinking about voting yes, until I saw that. Even if you have to apply 20 times to get in, keeping a good attitude will go a long way.

Hell, my application script was pathetic, looking back at it now. I established myself before applying, and also used it as a learning experience.

I don't think going all elitist will generally improve quality of members getting in.

My standards for a color script are still mostly from the 06, as I left in early 07 for javabots, however I dare to claim that my scripts work just as well as the ones using "more advanced" ways of doing the stuff, for no reason obviously.
I do not see a point in using something more advanced if simple works just fine ?

If script has been proven to have stabile runtime, I don't really see whats the problem if it uses bitmap instead of DTM for recognizing an item in your inventory. Hell, why force the usage of TPA/DDTM walking when theres now SPS which is probably the most reliable positioning system there ever has been for color.

I could walk with FindColorSpiralTolerance like many people actually did back in the pre-SRL days, but why would I ? Just to torture myself and waste bunch of time ? Same goes for TPA/DDTM, why waste time perfecting something that can be done in a minute using SPS now that its out there for everyone to use ? People ditched FindColorSpiralTolerance for better ways to walk, well, I think SPS is the best way of walking there ever is going to be, and at the sametime, most userfriendly.

Should applicants be forced to use more/less advanced ways of doing the things just because it takes more time and ends up in the same result?
If it works and the script has a good structure, what is the problem in what techniques it uses as long as its not blind coordinates? Why force something complicated if simple does the exact same thing ?

I look through their entire script to find logic flaws and point them out for everyone else. Often, it's shocking what slips through unnoticed and it's worrying to me that the voters do not pick up on them. No, I do not expect every applicant to be perfect, but if I can spot a problem that means a script should not work and they cannot explain it, then they haven't tested it and if they haven't tested it then there is no doubt a lot more problems with it than those I can spot.

As much as people talk about raising or lowering standards for membership, it is one of the few democratic processes at SRL, so you don't try and produce new laws but influence others decisions through attractively advocating your ideas. This is an important morsel to digest, because it's not about logically sound arguments and instead politics. Saying that people should vote higher because Fawki said so is not logically sound, but is politically sound. Appealing to peoples' sense of superiority would probably work well in the opposite direction - "Everyone in SRL Members is a skilled scripter and we need to keep standards high to keep it that way," as an example.

Of course, it could also just be the case that the standards for membership doesn't matter, so long as there's a democratic approach to electing them that organically filters out the harmful from the harmless from the beneficial.

Or this could all be a dream and, in the waking world, we're all butterflies.

I support what you do for applications like that. When you did it to me, it made me see all of the flaws in my application script and I now am much more careful about what you pointed out.

When someone picks things out of a script and critiques each incorrect thing in-depth like that, it helps the creator and only serves to further them. What they do with that critiquing is up to them, though.

From: mixster
I look through their entire script to find logic flaws and point them out for everyone else. Often, it's shocking what slips through unnoticed and it's worrying to me that the voters do not pick up on them. No, I do not expect every applicant to be perfect, but if I can spot a problem that means a script should not work and they cannot explain it, then they haven't tested it and if they haven't tested it then there is no doubt a lot more problems with it than those I can spot.

I completely understand where you are coming from. The idea is not to make it harder for someone to get in its to spark that interest in them to learn more. For example, when i joined this community, I saw a couple of scripts that i was intrigued by, I can't even come close to writing those scripts.
I had never scripted before nor did i even think about doing it but my passion for programming wanted to me just learn even if it takes time, why not. Thats what i did, what kept me from not giving up was not that passion anymore, was the people i talked to motivating me to do better…People Like Camo, luffs, euphemism, mixster and etc., helping me understand even the stupidest of concepts but thats why i kept going at it. The point of this community from what i have learned is not to make scripts for runescape but in general learn about programming and what not. It helps using Runescape to learn the language because its practice.

I have learned so much in the month i have been here not by using tutorials or anything, not saying they didn't help but my interaction with the community helped me learn…All i am saying is that people need to be judged on how willing they are to learn and participate in the community not by post counts or how great of an idea it is…its the effort…IMO…