Script to increase levels is possible?

(Eric) #1

So I understand how discourse works because of the forum im on currently… I would really appreciate a script that allows you to level up trust levels. Do you have a resident expert I can talk to. I have the know how…im a regular user on another forum…
Ive become aware its possible and I thought it would be cool to make a sample… i know im basic here but on my home forum im regular and have no use for it. I just want to learn.
Any help would be very much appreciated. Thank You so much .

By increasing levels i mean full filling the flags and attributes of that level… To do it /crawl the forum automatically?

Maybe a tombstone that hijacks my account and goes to fullfill the reqs… I am completely serious about seeing if this is possible… It will not be used for trolling purposes I dislike people who do that alot

Marking *all* new topics as new?
Marking *all* new topics as new?
(Logan Mathews) #2

Of course it’s possible to meet the requirements to go up in trust levels. However, no one here is likely to contribute to producing any such script as it complete invalidates the ‘trust’ in trust level.

(Jeff Atwood) #3

(Sam Saffron) #4

Feature request filed under “uncivilized Discourse spamming toolkit”

(Eric) #5

ill be transparent… the reason i was looking into it was to know how that worked so a bit banner could be implemented for it… of course whitelists probably also take care of that situation i would assume… just more of knowing your enemy (that is spammers) to completely prevent them from that sort of attack without labeling others as such and avoiding whitelisting

im sorry if I seem suspicious. I am just legitametly interested thats all…
I am a ECE student with a fair amount of interest in reverse engineering code… so if i could reverse engineer the way someone could do this I could also forward on how to prevent it to the admins over where i hangout. Mainly because at some point it is boumd to happen

(Mittineague) #6

If you want to do some sort of “script doing awards” thing, forget about Trust Levels.

There is plenty of potential to do “Custom Badges” limited only by your imagination.

(Eric) #7

I was more concerned about users making a crawler script that crawls eveyr posta nad pretty much gets all the hardest trust level up reqs out of the way… there seems to be a ton of people asking to be leveled up at the other forum… there doing a good job of controlling it but in background talk people are resorting to things like greasemonkey scripts and stuff…

Yeah the custom stuff sounds pretty awesome actually… I will look into that … Im just a concerned person thats all… but after seeing this I am pretty confident there is already a counter measure for this in place :smiley:

(Kane York) #8

/posts.json?before=111214 open in new tab

That’s not what you meant, but it’s what you’ll get.

It hasn’t been done yet because nobody that’s touched Discourse has had the requisite lack of morals. It’ll happen eventually, but cross that bridge when we get there

(Mittineague) #9

IMHO getting to Trust Level 1 is almost too easy. All that needs to be done is read a few topics other than your own and have a very little patience.

Getting to Trust Level 2 requires more involvement and more commitment, but is not that difficult to achieve.

Admittedly, getting to Trust Level 3 can be a bit of a feat requiring some dedication.

-But- if you are getting complaints that the requirements are too high, have you tried going into the Admin Settings pages and tweaking them down?

(Eric) #10

Im not an admin… im only trust level three but I know the admins and Ive talked to the mods they are planning to tweak them down apparently… yeah Im fairly dedicated :smiley:

(Mittineague) #11

Well then, there you go. Problem solved. No need for any Trust Level script. Discourse already provides your solution. :+1:

(Jens Maier) #12

Rule #1 of choosing moderators for your online community: He who begs to be made mod shall never be.

Have some self-awareness. You’re asking the people who make Discourse, who spend their time thinking about how to protect a forum against spam and abuse, how to manage users, how to distribute management tasks across a user base and how to protect those automated systems against abuse, to subvert their own efforts in making a stable, civilized discussion platform. Did you seriously think you’d get any help here?

Marking *all* new topics as new?
(mountain) #13

To play devil’s advocate here for the sake of discussion so it’s not a dog pile: the request is one of ‘concern’ to figure out if trust levels can be abused with a bot.

…And yet @Ayer31, you mentioned that you’re not the administrator of this proposed forum you are concerned for?

Then I suggest going to your administrator to address your concerns. Said admin is very welcome to come over here to Meta with their experience and collaborate on possible weak spots to benefit all Discourse-instance users.

However, @Mittineague already said the same in relation to my suggestion:

You really should contact your forum administrator first about these concerns.

(Jens Maier) #14

I don’t think concern over Discourse’s security and potential abuse of automated TL promotions played any role in the original request… :grin:

I would really appreciate a script that allows you to level up trust levels.

Perhaps I am a bit jaded in that regard, having been a community babysitter myself many years ago, but after that statement I instinctively mistrust everything else he has said so far. :confused:

(mountain) #15

I beg to differ! :stuck_out_tongue:

See below.

But I resonate with your sentiments here:

A healthy level of skepticism is a good thing.

(Jeff Atwood) #16

One thing @eviltrout we should have a fail safe that verifies a new account cannot reach TL1 until the minimum read time is at least equal to the age of the account (the time it was created).

(Eric) #17

Yeah Hey I have addressed it to 3 of our admins. They said that they are well aware of what I was speaking of and that it is a legitamate concern and that they wont really act unless something happens. But they are paying attention heavily with this. It is a worry due to some jerks being pissed that they have been around but are not trust level 3. They did say they could just lock someone to a level if they do anything bad . Which is cool. So my worry is alleviated. Thank you to all. and thank you to @purldator for defending my legitamacy. Yes I was extremely concerned about it being abused. I know a lot of people that would be very abusive and they ban evade so if the bot acheived it would be very bad. Sorry if it made me seem like I had malicious purpose

@elberet I had no intention of allowing spam. I explicitly wanted to help prevent it. See my job in real life is to think how malicious people think so I can stop them ahead of time. That was my purpose. I love discourse and would never want to see it abused. Ill just work my way up to trustworthiness here so I can prove im not malicious haha. In fact discourse is the best forum interface I have been on to date. Despite my dislike for ruby on rails. Its pretty damn amazing. That being said thank you for being skeptical. Thats a good thing to have. I probably would have reacted the same way if someone asked for this on the forum im at.

I do have another question that I dont feel like asking our admins about because I feel you guys know more .
see here on your discourse

(mountain) #18

It is good you brought your concerns to them. We honestly could not do anything because those admins were not involved in this topic to enact on anything mentioned. One of the biggest aspects of online security culture is to never, ever speak publicly about possible exploits. Even security-related bugs are reported in private. I have no doubt the developers for Discourse would take serious action if a major bug was found in any inner system.

Your concern is well and good, but direct it to something productive. :slight_smile: It’s easier said than done but asking what needs help is the first step to knowing.

(Mittineague) #19

Take your pick