Hey! Please read the entire post before making a reply, as there's some useful information about my use case buried in a few paragraphs.

As some of you know already, me and a group of Scratchers are working on a forum bot for the ‘Requests’ subforum. Unfortunately, this morning I woke up to an email I hoped I wouldn't get.

Scratch Team wrote:

As for making a bot for the forums, no, this is not something that we would allow.

Here was my response:

BGMead wrote:

Hi there,

Could you clarify as to why this is not allowed? The project in question's goal is to make the lives of forumers easier, and I think it would be a bad idea to ban a project like this. We have already done lots of work and it would be a shame to stop now.

Here's some links where you can learn more about our project:
Bot information and FAQ (FP contains all the info, and you can read the thread for more information if you'd like)
API GitHub Repository (This is the main repository that has most of the code we've written so far)
GitHub Organization (Contains all of our code and repos)

Once again, while some bots could be abusive, this is one bot whose primary function is just to edit posts. We will never use any code for any malicious activity, and the API is impossible to use for anyone that doesn't understand authentication methods we used. I've already talked to lots of shop owners from the Requests forum who have said this would be a great addition to their shops.

I've also read the Community Guidelines and Terms of Use, both of which state nothing about bots not being allowed. I'm not sure if this is some sort of “unwritten rule” that's enforced, but I cannot find anything official from the ST stating the bot production is not allowed on Scratch.

Thanks in advance, BGMead

I think my reasoning as to why this should be allowed is pretty clear on my response. Feel free to follow the links if you want more info on the bot.

My question is, why is this not allowed? Shop members will spend upwards of hours on Scratch tracking orders in UOCs. Why not automate the process? The bot does all the work for them and makes it extremely easy to track orders in a shop. There is also nothing in the TOU or CG that say it's disallowed, so if someone could point me to a place where the ST says this is not allowed, please do.

I think the ST might be worried about people inspired by AutoUOC and wanting to make their own bots. If you read the project's FAQ, I clearly state that I'm not disclosing to anyone how to make a bot. While the code may be open source, it makes a knowledgeable person with experience of HTTP methods, cookie data, session managers, CSRF attacks and protection managers, and Scratch's endpoints to make a bot. The code hosted on GitHub is a hallow shell of what you'd need to make a finished bot.

If the ST is worried about the bot spamming the forums and creating abuse of the Scratch forums, then they can just ban it. I know they're already watching it closely, as I received a warning from them about disclosing CSRF bypasses on the forums.

If anyone (preferably an ST member) could please give an explanation as to why I would not be allowed to assist shops with their management through automation, it would be greatly appreciated.

The official thread is here for anyone that wants more info about the bot and development practices to protect Scratch's security. Thanks in advance.

I've found this post from Paddle asking for info on another's forum bot. He didn't outright say it was banned, just asked for more info. I think I've provided more than enough information about our project already.

There's this post stating the no bot on the forums would do anything useful. I disagree. This bot prevents the boring work of updating UOCs with new orders and keeping their status up-to-date.

This wiki article says spambots aren't allowed (duh). This isn't a spambot, it's a useful bot that helps out shop employees.

Theres also this random post about comment bots. Nothing of use there.

I would assume because people can also make bots for not so good things, such as spamming or overworking the servers. I don't see anything that's wrong with the bot, so I would just recommend providing enough evidence that the bot is working for good, not bad.

Here someone claims that their bot got deleted. Why? Unless it was a spambot or designed to create abuse I don't see why it should be deleted. In the same topic they talk a bit about the ST not liking OP's bot. I can see why, since it would lead to a lot of spam.

All this bot does is edit posts, it will rarely create new ones unless someone wants a new UOC

geometric_ghast wrote:

I would assume because people can also make bots for not so good things, such as spamming or overworking the servers. I don't see anything that's wrong with the bot, so I would just recommend providing enough evidence that the bot is working for good, not bad.

I did that, didn't I? Even in my original email I described it's functions.

BGMead wrote:

My idea was to use this method to create a forum bot called AutoUOC. The bot would be useful for shop employees in the Requests subforum. AutoUOC would look for new messages in a specific topic (the topic owner would have to opt-in) and the bot would automatically update an Unclaimed Orders Center with new orders, taken orders, and completed orders.

Turns out someone made a spam bot in the past. Same user who posted here. The bot's goal was to drive confusion and spam the suggestions forum, so no wonder it was banned. This bot is completely safe and enriches the lives of shop owners and employees.

also bump

Why are you arguing against the ST's decision? They aren't going to budge.

fdreerf wrote:

Why are you arguing against the ST's decision? They aren't going to budge.

I think they will, as there is nothing wrong with what I'm doing. Hopefully another member of the ST can review this and give the ok.

BGMead wrote:

fdreerf wrote:

Why are you arguing against the ST's decision? They aren't going to budge.

I think they will, as there is nothing wrong with what I'm doing. Hopefully another member of the ST can review this and give the ok.

I don't think having it be open-source is a great idea. Even though you say that it takes a “knowledgeable person” to make one, there are still plenty of knowledgeable people out there. A nuclear bomb would require huge amounts of skill, but you still wouldn't leak how to make one from scratch on the internet, mainly because it's illegal.

fdreerf wrote:

BGMead wrote:

fdreerf wrote:

Why are you arguing against the ST's decision? They aren't going to budge.

I think they will, as there is nothing wrong with what I'm doing. Hopefully another member of the ST can review this and give the ok.

I don't think having it be open-source is a great idea. Even though you say that it takes a “knowledgeable person” to make one, there are still plenty of knowledgeable people out there. A nuclear bomb would require huge amounts of skill, but you still wouldn't leak how to make one from scratch on the internet, mainly because it's illegal.

If the ST would like it to be closed-source, I will more than gladly make it closed-source. However, having it open-source means that anyone can contribute, which is heavily needed right now in our early stages of development.

I suggest you continue the discussion with whomever on the team you were working with that gave you your answer.

Paddle2See wrote:

I suggest you continue the discussion with whomever on the team you were working with that gave you your answer.

Actually, I got the answer from an ST member in an email.

EDIT: Wait, I'm dumb. He meant ST member. Lol, sry

Paddle2See wrote:

I suggest you continue the discussion with whomever on the team you were working with that gave you your answer.

i think it is within the rights of the community to discuss actions of the scratch team publicly. nobody here is saying they are going to do anything against the rules; they are just gathering information 1) as a useful compendium of information for those who are concerned about this issue in the future, and 2) so that team members discussing whether the ruling in that email is valid (or if their policy should be changed) will have access to all the information.

and yeah, this is driving publicity of the topic, but that isnt a bad thing. its just here to raise accountability and understanding of the scratch team, both of which are good things in a fair and positive environment, not bad. right?

_nix wrote:

Paddle2See wrote:

I suggest you continue the discussion with whomever on the team you were working with that gave you your answer.

i think it is within the rights of the community to discuss actions of the scratch team publicly. nobody here is saying they are going to do anything against the rules; they are just gathering information 1) as a useful compendium of information for those who are concerned about this issue in the future, and 2) so that team members discussing whether the ruling in that email is valid (or if their policy should be changed) will have access to all the information.

and yeah, this is driving publicity of the topic, but that isnt a bad thing. its just here to raise accountability and understanding of the scratch team, both of which are good things in a fair and positive environment, not bad. right?

I say not bad. I just want clarification as to why I'm not allowed to do this, and where it says I'm not allowed to do this. It took about two days to get a response originally, so I made the topic so I could get clarification faster.

_nix wrote:

Paddle2See wrote:

I suggest you continue the discussion with whomever on the team you were working with that gave you your answer.

i think it is within the rights of the community to discuss actions of the scratch team publicly. nobody here is saying they are going to do anything against the rules; they are just gathering information 1) as a useful compendium of information for those who are concerned about this issue in the future, and 2) so that team members discussing whether the ruling in that email is valid (or if their policy should be changed) will have access to all the information.

and yeah, this is driving publicity of the topic, but that isnt a bad thing. its just here to raise accountability and understanding of the scratch team, both of which are good things in a fair and positive environment, not bad. right?

I don't think @Paddle2See said this to try to decrease the amount of publicity. I think he said that so the OP can get the full reasoning behind why it is not allowed, all from a person who knows the situation and what the policies are.

Za-Chary wrote:

_nix wrote:

Paddle2See wrote:

I suggest you continue the discussion with whomever on the team you were working with that gave you your answer.

i think it is within the rights of the community to discuss actions of the scratch team publicly. nobody here is saying they are going to do anything against the rules; they are just gathering information 1) as a useful compendium of information for those who are concerned about this issue in the future, and 2) so that team members discussing whether the ruling in that email is valid (or if their policy should be changed) will have access to all the information.

and yeah, this is driving publicity of the topic, but that isnt a bad thing. its just here to raise accountability and understanding of the scratch team, both of which are good things in a fair and positive environment, not bad. right?

I don't think @Paddle2See said this to try to decrease the amount of publicity. I think he said that so the OP can get the full reasoning behind why it is not allowed, all from a person who knows the situation and what the policies are.

Thanks for clarification.

This topic did server another purpose though - I wanted a viewpoint from another ST member on this bot. (again, I didn't see anything anywhere saying it's disallowed)