Greasy Fork

Remember Mute/Hide cams?

Awesome work on this script! Muting or Hiding a cam is forgotten when they recam. Any chance to have it reapplied automatically? By username and nickname.

Had a guy bothering us, so I went ahead and modified/added some functionality to your script. Feel free to add it to the original; then I'll disable mine to avoid duplication.

(link removed)

I appreciate your enthusiasm, but please edit out that link and refrain from redistributing my script like that. This project is only source-available, not open source. It uses the default Greasy Fork license, which is basically "don't redistribute without permission".

Anyway, the things I most consider when implementing new features are stability, usefulness, configurability, and performance. That requires more time-consuming planning and testing than other userscripts do, so I usually only add stuff that most users will use.

Your edits are well-written, but they don't fully meet the above criteria. They're either too niche, require rewrites of other components, or are simply outside of the project scope. This project is mainly UI and UX stuff, not something like a spam filter, mod bot, etc.

I'll keep these edits in mind, but for now the only patches I accept are bug fixes and short snippets that don't need to be rewritten much.

It's a great shame to hear that. I would think that spam filtering functions are as useful as alert phrases. But I understand that you'd like to keep this project within a scope, at least for now.

I kept my version private (unlisted), as it was needed for a specific room under attack. For this use, would you consider allowing my version to stand while kept private? Link not published anywhere, nor in the scripts listing on this site.

I would greatly appreciate your interest in this version, maybe with hopes of future official integration of at least some of the functionality. Just like you, I enjoy sharing useful scripts with others.

Proper anti-spam is too rare to warrant dev time and too complex to correctly implement. Just the basics like constantly analyzing messages for something that happens like 0.001% of the time would already be a waste of CPU. And since it would be hiding things rather than only enhancing them, there's no way to ensure it fails safely. Any failures would mean accidentally hiding a non-spam message. This is a topic that needs to be addressed by Tinychat itself server-side, or maybe mods with custom anti-spam bots like the old days. Client-side bandaids like userscripts aren't the way to do it.

And it isn't comparable to phrase alerts. That feature is predictable, simpler, fails safely, and is used more often.

As for your unlisted fork, I recommend just keeping it truly private by not uploading it anywhere.

Well, the dev time is given by me, so that's a boon. :smiley: But complexity only depends on the scope of the spam protection!

Currently my code hides the message, because it's easy. It does let this be toggled, live. But what if it turned the message into a small "message hidden" button that can be clicked, to display what was hidden. That would help catch failures, let users report them, and never prevent the user from seeing a message.

I'm the developer of the old notorious Tunebot. HTML5 letting us handle things on the client-side is great! While CPU was shifted towards the bot, the actual CPU usage in string checks and DOM manipulation is so small. Especially so, when compared to the audio/video protocol running on TC. Incomparably so, I'm sure you'd agree.

We both know Tinychat won't resolve this, sadly. A mate just told me that reporting nudity on cam doesn't even get a site-mod response anymore. :neutral:

@jamesKoss Can you send me this edit? Sounds Amazing