Bring back our selfbots!
Non pianificato
-
This poses a huge security concern. People might not like your selfbot on their server, which is why bot users exist. You also are encouraged to get your own token, and most users have eval commands on their selfbot. That's why bot users exist, and you shouldn't automate your account.
-86 -
i want the music!!!!!!
-20 -
I disagree with SuperSajuuk Selfbots are just not controlled yes they basicly bypass it but Selfbots can be useful, you just have to controlle its usage!
37 -
Saying "No" won't stop people from using selfbots, so I think it would be a great idea to introduce a new API, or a better version of the current ones, that make selfbots less of a nuisance and more of a tool, or a bit of fun. As it stands, discord isn't just a "chat app for gamers" anymore. It's a place to hang out and make new friends, or show off your skills. programming is an extremely rewarding passtime and selfbots are interesting to work on, and its easier to show people what you've done, or help other people if you can run a self bot. Sorry for rant but selfbots are really neat
tl;dr Stop ignoring the community discord. you see how many upvotes this has80 -
Just make sure that other people/bots can easily detect use of selfbots, okay?
80% of selfbots are used to bypass some protection of other bots and services.25 -
Self bots are against the terms of service, if you want a bot then make one, if you want links create an adverts channel
Translated: Self bots are against the terms of service, if you want a bot then make one, if you want links create an ad placement-52 -
Tem meu total apoio para a volta de selfbots, é necessário e ajuda servidores pequenos à crescer.
-12 -
Thanks for the translation Daniel
My phone automatically translated but thanks-12 -
I would only want this added with restrictions. Self bots have only ever caused problems in my experience. This would have to be a permission to add, so that if you so choose, only mods, or the owner could do it.
3 -
I kinda miss my selfbot. It was very risky, and I don't use it anymore. But I loved the ability to embed content, and even find out what guild an emote was from.
If this comes back, that'd be cool. If not, whatever. I do see why Discord doesn't like them in the first place, because it's automating user accounts which is why they made bot accounts in the first place.
15 -
Selfbots is actually not a good idea. Even though only Nitro Users can make selfbots. Selfbots can cause raids which is actually not a good odea -32 -
Agreed.
1) Special, heavily ratelimited API
2) Option in server settings
3) Disallow fetchMessages, fetchUsers33 -
Would be nice if there were an alternative API which allowed registering commands in the discord client to do simple stuff on behalf of the user with its own set of permissions governed by whatever a guild has chosen.
10 -
Upvote! We need selbots again... Just deny some API endpoints like guild ban, etc, or create different user agent for handling selfbot requests, or different scope, example: in bots we use request header `Authorization: Bot DISCORD-BOT-TOKEN` they can add `Authorization: Self-Bot DISCORD-USER-TOKEN`.
16 -
And i don't agree with "nitro users only" stop making discord pay 2 win jesus.
12 -
Regardless of whether or not the user has nitro subscription, if there is no restriction of the API itself, users with nitro will abuse.
Example: Games that are paid and that have cheaters, they are banned and they buy the game again and this cycle stays.
As I said in my post above, it should have a separate dedicated API for handling selfbot requests (if the discord would like to add again).
10 -
If people want to use selfbots maliciously, they are already able to. If users want to make malicious selfbots, the API is already there. There will always be malicious users, but they shouldn't stop others.
Also, what about adding a Selfbot API, and a way of detecting selfbots through the API (would be useful for bots; they can ban selfbots in servers who don't want any selfbots at all).
20 -
Lol you saying it like it’s not possible anymore.. it is still possible the api supports it even.. but they just saying “don’t do it”
9 -
@PiggyPlex exactly!
@sOhEaB_ yes but discord developers (or whatever) team don't see in this way.
6 -
If you want to ban selfbots, at least give regular bots access to all features of the API! (User Connections?)
-7 -
It's mid-2019. I have made a self-bot and I intend to keep using it and here's why:
- When creating it, I wasn't aware there being a "ban on self-bots". I started simply from 0/scratch, because in the programming language I use, there was no discord bot code available at all.
- The bot is in development, as is my knowledge of the Discord-API. Right now I simply do not know yet how to achieve some features (DM talking, list of DM connections) with the "normal bot" API.
- The bot lives only on my server and it will probably never live on any other server and most certainly not without the server masters knowledge / agreement.
- The bot does none of the nefarious things I read about like scanning and storing history, spamming and similar. In fact, if you want something from the bot, you have to DM it.
So, assuming at Discord work some people who kept flexible thinking and common sense, I will assume - for the time being - that my little evolving self-bot is safe from being slashed.
- I may use the regular bot API some day, because real time, bi-directional websocket yadda yadda sounds really nice than the more primitive ASYNC pull/push I am doing right now, but I would like to develop at my own pace.
Because this is my first writeup here, I need to take the opportunity and would like to thank the whole Discord Team for Discord.
Thank you.
15 -
Such rebel.
Anyways, one of the biggest reasons I think most people want selfbots is because they want to expand the possibilities of their user account. It'd be so dang useful to be able to easily make calls to certain api's without having to have a bot hosted somewhere. Also polls, giveaways, quizzes, even -- everything small you have a bot for can easily be made into a selfbot to provide a clean and better approach at utilising all of Discord's features.
As I said before, Discord can easily limit certain things (such as spamming). It could be made that only the account owner can use it (not only owner messages come through, but it can only respond (usually edit or add a reaction) to the owner's message. i.e. it can't manipulate others' messages), the selfbot cannot create its own messages, read history, etc.
There could be a few options in the server settings:
- Allow self bots (general, would make the rest unusable if false)
- Receive other messages (only give the selfbot the owner's messages if set to false)
- ...
Selfbots could be hosted much like normal bots, but due to them having a limited api you should be able to somehow maybe select a local folder where your selfbot is located. You also enter a command to start it and Discord runs the selfbot much like a normal bot, but in the background. I have no idea how it was done before, I wasn't there yet back then.
11 -
IMO bring back self bots BUT just limit then ie cant send 5 msgs in 2 seconds or smth like that to stop spam and a few other thing too. So im agreeing to bring back self bots
3 -
What upsets me is that, as a bot developer- having a self bot with it's own methods kept me from needing to refresh/reload my own bots i'm writing on the servers i'm writing them on- in their own development environment(my development server). Things such as capturing custom emotes, etc. etc. become more tedious and annoying, as i need to include other modules I've written into said bots for their own development- on the servers the bot is expected to be on, which sucks. Where I understand why they are banned, and don't entirely disagree- A blanket ban really hurts those who were using them for positive reasons.
Where all of this is stated above by people who miss it as a feature, just figured i'd toss in my chips and back how much I miss my self-bot.
Edit- I'd imagine it'd be possible to enable a permission that grants access to "self-bots api channel" on specified servers.
EG. Users with permission X on server Y may receive api information on the self-bot API channel on server Y. I'm not sure if there is a solution for "illegal" self bots, as i'm not sure how those are tracked I don't work for discord, unfortunately :(, but a permitted channel would be nice for those who would like to use it, i'd imagine? Especially when the permissions are governed in that aspect. Of course self-bot users already can't access information in channels/servers they are restricted from- so this extra flag in my mind follows that architecture, but prevents information on that channel for the bot- as stated above, and if that makes sense.
Just an idea :) Din't want to just post without submitting one of those as well. I'm sure with enough ideas, features we want can come to the platform, right?
7 -
- Things such as capturing custom emotes, etc. etc. become more tedious and annoying, as i need to include other modules I've written into said bots for their own development- on the servers the bot is expected to be on, which sucks.
Ugh, yes! This is pretty annoying. I keep having to eval stuff, making need for an eval command which is later removed anyways.
6 -
Hi there,
If you own a big community and you can't use a selfbot, then you're screwed. People are contacting me just because I'm the owner...
0 -
The only reason i want self-bots back, because i want to be able to show online 24/7
0 -
Agree, but with limits. Can't DM with selfbot, no loud music, no raids, no exploits and etc.
0 -
As much as I'm not keen on the idea of having a bot connected to a user's account, it can help out a lot in areas where a normal bot account can't function properly. For instance if you restrict user accounts from changing their nicknames, due to them possibly trying to use profanity, a bot is useful to automate that, but what if you were to use a bot to automate it for a game? The biggest problem with automation of changing a nickname is the bot isn't allowed to change the nickname of the server owner at all. Even if it's given admin privileges, it still can't change the nickname of the owner, so they end up being singled out and left to do it manually for themselves when they might want to have it handled by the bot they trust on their server. So if they had a bot they trusted implicitly, even one they built and host on their own PC or personal server, connected directly to their account, then they'd have everything necessary. Even could have it connect with a standard bot account to ensure a higher level of separation and functionality.
1 -
This is never gonna happen
When a company makes a change and the people vote to reverse that change, that is proper. But doing that without a justification is not proper. For one, people have mentioned the security issues already, if you have a lever that leads to a virus, but you get to eat a cookie, and it is pulled you get a virus for a object that isnt worth much, they didnt pull the lever leaving that cookie. Point is, the use of self-bots is a massive security issue that causes tons of issues with discord, and imagine the uses for people making viruses, you get random links that take your account and dm the rest of your contacts? A cookie is not as worth as much as discord
Get over your need for self-bots and maybe try finding work arounds or just give up
-9
Accedi per aggiungere un commento.
Commenti
58 commenti