Since people didn't like the derivative works prohibition of the TOS. How about this?
"You further agree not to create or provide any means other than through the Disruptor Beam Sites by which Disruptor Beam's on-line computer game may be played by others - for example, through server emulators"
And from the the user side.
"Abuse bugs or exploit features in the Services to gain unintended advantages over other players; create multiple accounts to artificially increase the ratings or scores; or to engage in any form of "sock puppetry,” or engage in any act which Disruptor Beam deems to be in conflict with the spirit or intent of the Services."
DB hasn't yet, but if they wanted to (and it my not be in their commercial interest to do so) they could say that users are exploiting the gauntlet feature by bypassing animations.
For the first one, depends on how you parse it. IAP doesn't emulate the server, it accesses it. Server emulation could be construed as "having a STT experience without at all using the STT servers", i.e., someone clones the game, functionality, and crew and simulates the entire game on their server - i.e., appropriating their IP. I agree there's greyness in interpretation there, but not black and white. The broader "any other means" would be stronger ground.
IAP is not abusing bugs or exploiting features. It does not create multiple accounts. I don't know what "sock puppetry" is so maybe some grey area there, and the last of course one could drive truck through :-)
You focused on the emulator and ignored the entire paragraph.
"You further agree not to create or provide any means other than through the Disruptor Beam Sites by which Disruptor Beam's on-line computer game may be played by others "
Iampicard is pretty clearly a means other than through DB sites that allows others to play DB's game.
I get it, it's a useful tool. We all like it. But just because we like it, doesn't mean it's not a violation of the TOS.
If DB wants to aquire the tool and provide it as an alternative for players, then it's fine. But until that happens it's a third party hacking into their servers.
Let's say you don't have a gauntlet or voyage running and you launch the Tool. It does not launch a voyage or start a gauntlet. Assume now both are ongoing.
It does not complete gauntlet battles every 4 hours. It does not resolve voyage dilemas every 2 hours. It does not recall a voyage when antimatter is low. It does not claim rewards at the end of a voyage or gauntlet.
What it does do is download data, process it and then present it.
This is the correct answer. It doesn't turn a player into a computer by automatically doing anything for you, it simply presents data to you. The player still has to make every decision.
I find it invaluable, particularly for inventory management, warning me of the limit of 1000. I have used it to unstick voyages. IamPicard exists because DB has been so slow to fix issues in the game and it would be absolutely unfair to ban the tool without fixing the problems.
The tool is not hacking anything, stop saying **tsk tsk**.
Exactly, it uses the developer's API, there is no hacking whatsoever
Hacking: "the gaining of unauthorized access to data in a system or computer."
Using the developers API when you are not the developer is the definition of hacking. Hacking is not just looking for unintended holes in security. Using a developer API when you are not authorized to use that API is hacking.
Since people didn't like the derivative works prohibition of the TOS. How about this?
"You further agree not to create or provide any means other than through the Disruptor Beam Sites by which Disruptor Beam's on-line computer game may be played by others - for example, through server emulators"
And from the the user side.
"Abuse bugs or exploit features in the Services to gain unintended advantages over other players; create multiple accounts to artificially increase the ratings or scores; or to engage in any form of "sock puppetry,” or engage in any act which Disruptor Beam deems to be in conflict with the spirit or intent of the Services."
DB hasn't yet, but if they wanted to (and it my not be in their commercial interest to do so) they could say that users are exploiting the gauntlet feature by bypassing animations.
For the first one, depends on how you parse it. IAP doesn't emulate the server, it accesses it. Server emulation could be construed as "having a STT experience without at all using the STT servers", i.e., someone clones the game, functionality, and crew and simulates the entire game on their server - i.e., appropriating their IP. I agree there's greyness in interpretation there, but not black and white. The broader "any other means" would be stronger ground.
IAP is not abusing bugs or exploiting features. It does not create multiple accounts. I don't know what "sock puppetry" is so maybe some grey area there, and the last of course one could drive truck through :-)
You focused on the emulator and ignored the entire paragraph.
"You further agree not to create or provide any means other than through the Disruptor Beam Sites by which Disruptor Beam's on-line computer game may be played by others "
Iampicard is pretty clearly a means other than through DB sites that allows others to play DB's game.
I get it, it's a useful tool. We all like it. But just because we like it, doesn't mean it's not a violation of the TOS.
If DB wants to aquire the tool and provide it as an alternative for players, then it's fine. But until that happens it's a third party hacking into their servers.
Not true. I am not facilitating others playing. It's my account that I'm logging in with, connecting to DB's servers.
Since people didn't like the derivative works prohibition of the TOS. How about this?
"You further agree not to create or provide any means other than through the Disruptor Beam Sites by which Disruptor Beam's on-line computer game may be played by others - for example, through server emulators"
Well it wasn't about 'disliking', it was about the legal definition.
You seem to labouring under a misunderstanding of how such tools work.
DB has a Timelines API, this is the server component, and it has various Timelines clients. The API supports other clients, one of which is the Iampicard tool. So there is no server emulation.
The API is, AFAIK, run over HTTP(S), and so qualifies as as a Disruptor Beam Site, so the tool is also not providing an alternative to that either.
Best way to think about is how something like GMail works - you have the GMail server, and you have the web client. You can attach any number of other clients - Outlook, Thunderbird, Samsung Mail, etc, - to the GMail server via the appropriate protocols and authentication. All have similar features, with the odd differentiator - such as layout. None of them could be regarded as emulating server features or circumventing the server. Same here.
"Abuse bugs or exploit features in the Services to gain unintended advantages over other players; create multiple accounts to artificially increase the ratings or scores; or to engage in any form of "sock puppetry,” or engage in any act which Disruptor Beam deems to be in conflict with the spirit or intent of the Services."
DB hasn't yet, but if they wanted to (and it my not be in their commercial interest to do so) they could say that users are exploiting the gauntlet feature by bypassing animations.
An 'exploit' has a very specific meaning with software, and this isn't an exploit. DB made a design decision on their client which slows down Gauntlet. Those animations are not part of the server functionality of Gauntlet, ergo, not part of Gauntlet functionality. They are a 'feature' of the Timelines client which uses Gauntlet functionality.
I can appreciate this seems like splitting hairs if you're not involved with software development, but it isn't. It is difference with distinction.
The only thing there that could be invoked is "engage in any act which Disruptor Beam deems to be in conflict with the spirit or intent of the Services" which is a backside covering catchall designed to patch any holes in the legalese. And I'm not seeing any justification for triggering that.
Since people didn't like the derivative works prohibition of the TOS. How about this?
"You further agree not to create or provide any means other than through the Disruptor Beam Sites by which Disruptor Beam's on-line computer game may be played by others - for example, through server emulators"
And from the the user side.
"Abuse bugs or exploit features in the Services to gain unintended advantages over other players; create multiple accounts to artificially increase the ratings or scores; or to engage in any form of "sock puppetry,” or engage in any act which Disruptor Beam deems to be in conflict with the spirit or intent of the Services."
DB hasn't yet, but if they wanted to (and it my not be in their commercial interest to do so) they could say that users are exploiting the gauntlet feature by bypassing animations.
For the first one, depends on how you parse it. IAP doesn't emulate the server, it accesses it. Server emulation could be construed as "having a STT experience without at all using the STT servers", i.e., someone clones the game, functionality, and crew and simulates the entire game on their server - i.e., appropriating their IP. I agree there's greyness in interpretation there, but not black and white. The broader "any other means" would be stronger ground.
IAP is not abusing bugs or exploiting features. It does not create multiple accounts. I don't know what "sock puppetry" is so maybe some grey area there, and the last of course one could drive truck through :-)
You focused on the emulator and ignored the entire paragraph.
"You further agree not to create or provide any means other than through the Disruptor Beam Sites by which Disruptor Beam's on-line computer game may be played by others "
Iampicard is pretty clearly a means other than through DB sites that allows others to play DB's game.
I get it, it's a useful tool. We all like it. But just because we like it, doesn't mean it's not a violation of the TOS.
If DB wants to aquire the tool and provide it as an alternative for players, then it's fine. But until that happens it's a third party hacking into their servers.
Not true. I am not facilitating others playing. It's my account that I'm logging in with, connecting to DB's servers.
Not you. Iampicard is facilitating others accessing their servers.
The tool is not hacking anything, stop saying **tsk tsk**.
Exactly, it uses the developer's API, there is no hacking whatsoever
Hacking: "the gaining of unauthorized access to data in a system or computer."
Using the developers API when you are not the developer is the definition of hacking. Hacking is not just looking for unintended holes in security. Using a developer API when you are not authorized to use that API is hacking.
Yes, and, stickying a link to the tool developed using the API, on the developer's website (up until recently) says something about whether use of the API for that purpose is viewed as hacking or not. Having the developer both okay the use and add a commendation from a level higher up than the CS rep says something. Those things may of course change, but this bit of the thread seems to be trying to ascribe things to the IAP coder's intent which aren't congruent with the facts or context leading up to where we are today.
Hacking: "the gaining of unauthorized access to data in a system or computer."
Using the developers API when you are not the developer is the definition of hacking. Hacking is not just looking for unintended holes in security. Using a developer API when you are not authorized to use that API is hacking.
No, it isn't.
Public APIs are just that, public. They exist for public consumption. Accessing them is not hacking.
Were DB to implement various methods of locking down their API to become private, and the tool circumvented them, then yes, that would be hacking.
Since people didn't like the derivative works prohibition of the TOS. How about this?
"You further agree not to create or provide any means other than through the Disruptor Beam Sites by which Disruptor Beam's on-line computer game may be played by others - for example, through server emulators"
Well it wasn't about 'disliking', it was about the legal definition.
You seem to labouring under a misunderstanding of how such tools work.
DB has a Timelines API, this is the server component, and it has various Timelines clients. The API supports other clients, one of which is the Iampicard tool. So there is no server emulation.
The API is, AFAIK, run over HTTP(S), and so qualifies as as a Disruptor Beam Site, so the tool is also not providing an alternative to that either.
Best way to think about is how something like GMail works - you have the GMail server, and you have the web client. You can attach any number of other clients - Outlook, Thunderbird, Samsung Mail, etc, - to the GMail server via the appropriate protocols and authentication. All have similar features, with the odd differentiator - such as layout. None of them could be regarded as emulating server features or circumventing the server. Same here.
"Abuse bugs or exploit features in the Services to gain unintended advantages over other players; create multiple accounts to artificially increase the ratings or scores; or to engage in any form of "sock puppetry,” or engage in any act which Disruptor Beam deems to be in conflict with the spirit or intent of the Services."
DB hasn't yet, but if they wanted to (and it my not be in their commercial interest to do so) they could say that users are exploiting the gauntlet feature by bypassing animations.
An 'exploit' has a very specific meaning with software, and this isn't an exploit. DB made a design decision on their client which slows down Gauntlet. Those animations are not part of the server functionality of Gauntlet, ergo, not part of Gauntlet functionality. They are a 'feature' of the Timelines client which uses Gauntlet functionality.
I can appreciate this seems like splitting hairs if you're not involved with software development, but it isn't. It is difference with distinction.
The only thing there that could be invoked is "engage in any act which Disruptor Beam deems to be in conflict with the spirit or intent of the Services" which is a backside covering catchall designed to patch any holes in the legalese. And I'm not seeing any justification for triggering that.
Except mail servers implement a standard protocol and our open to third party clients. STT is not. If DB chooses to open up it's api to third party clients, then iampicard is fine and can be one of many clients. But as of now it hasn't.
Try writing a 3rd party Facebook app. Limited APIs are available for Facebook apps, but not everything. If you want to display the users timeline you'll have to use a private Facebook API. I promise you Facebook will shut that down in a second. You're still talking to Facebook servers, you're still using the users account information, but the minute you go outside the public API you are in violation and will be stopped.
That's what iampicard did. It took the private APIs and wrote a new client. It doesn't matter that it's using STT's server API. It's using a non public API that is not intended for users outside of DB's official apps.
Except mail servers implement a standard protocol and our open to third party clients. STT is not. If DB chooses to open up it's api to third party clients, then iampicard is fine and can be one of many clients. But as of now it hasn't.
The STT API uses HTTP(S), which is a standard protocol, and has been since the late 1980s.
It is open to third party clients. If it was not, the Iampicard tool would have been lawyered out of existence by now.
Try writing a 3rd party Facebook app. Limited APIs are available for Facebook apps, but not everything. If you want to display the users timeline you'll have to use a private Facebook API. I promise you Facebook will shut that down in a second. You're still talking to Facebook servers, you're still using the users account information, but the minute you go outside the public API you are in violation and will be stopped.
I've written several for clients over the years.
Questions - if the Iampicard tool breaches a private API (it doesn't) then:
1) Why have DB given implicit support via links on DB websites?
2) Why have DB not locked down their API in order to block access by Iampicard?
3) Why have the developers of Iampicard and GitHub not been served takedown notices?
That's what iampicard did. It took the private APIs and wrote a new client. It doesn't matter that it's using STT's server API. It's using a non public API that is not intended for users outside of DB's official apps.
Since people didn't like the derivative works prohibition of the TOS. How about this?
"You further agree not to create or provide any means other than through the Disruptor Beam Sites by which Disruptor Beam's on-line computer game may be played by others - for example, through server emulators"
And from the the user side.
"Abuse bugs or exploit features in the Services to gain unintended advantages over other players; create multiple accounts to artificially increase the ratings or scores; or to engage in any form of "sock puppetry,” or engage in any act which Disruptor Beam deems to be in conflict with the spirit or intent of the Services."
DB hasn't yet, but if they wanted to (and it my not be in their commercial interest to do so) they could say that users are exploiting the gauntlet feature by bypassing animations.
For the first one, depends on how you parse it. IAP doesn't emulate the server, it accesses it. Server emulation could be construed as "having a STT experience without at all using the STT servers", i.e., someone clones the game, functionality, and crew and simulates the entire game on their server - i.e., appropriating their IP. I agree there's greyness in interpretation there, but not black and white. The broader "any other means" would be stronger ground.
IAP is not abusing bugs or exploiting features. It does not create multiple accounts. I don't know what "sock puppetry" is so maybe some grey area there, and the last of course one could drive truck through :-)
You focused on the emulator and ignored the entire paragraph.
"You further agree not to create or provide any means other than through the Disruptor Beam Sites by which Disruptor Beam's on-line computer game may be played by others "
Iampicard is pretty clearly a means other than through DB sites that allows others to play DB's game.
I get it, it's a useful tool. We all like it. But just because we like it, doesn't mean it's not a violation of the TOS.
If DB wants to aquire the tool and provide it as an alternative for players, then it's fine. But until that happens it's a third party hacking into their servers.
Not true. I am not facilitating others playing. It's my account that I'm logging in with, connecting to DB's servers.
Not you. Iampicard is facilitating others accessing their servers.
That's what I'm saying. It's not. Everyone that uses the tool is using their own log in credentials. The tool is not facilitating others accessing the game. The tool is not letting others who don't have their own credentials access the game.
If you don't put in your DBID and password you cannot access DB's servers.
Since people didn't like the derivative works prohibition of the TOS. How about this?
"You further agree not to create or provide any means other than through the Disruptor Beam Sites by which Disruptor Beam's on-line computer game may be played by others - for example, through server emulators"
Well it wasn't about 'disliking', it was about the legal definition.
You seem to labouring under a misunderstanding of how such tools work.
DB has a Timelines API, this is the server component, and it has various Timelines clients. The API supports other clients, one of which is the Iampicard tool. So there is no server emulation.
The API is, AFAIK, run over HTTP(S), and so qualifies as as a Disruptor Beam Site, so the tool is also not providing an alternative to that either.
Best way to think about is how something like GMail works - you have the GMail server, and you have the web client. You can attach any number of other clients - Outlook, Thunderbird, Samsung Mail, etc, - to the GMail server via the appropriate protocols and authentication. All have similar features, with the odd differentiator - such as layout. None of them could be regarded as emulating server features or circumventing the server. Same here.
"Abuse bugs or exploit features in the Services to gain unintended advantages over other players; create multiple accounts to artificially increase the ratings or scores; or to engage in any form of "sock puppetry,” or engage in any act which Disruptor Beam deems to be in conflict with the spirit or intent of the Services."
DB hasn't yet, but if they wanted to (and it my not be in their commercial interest to do so) they could say that users are exploiting the gauntlet feature by bypassing animations.
An 'exploit' has a very specific meaning with software, and this isn't an exploit. DB made a design decision on their client which slows down Gauntlet. Those animations are not part of the server functionality of Gauntlet, ergo, not part of Gauntlet functionality. They are a 'feature' of the Timelines client which uses Gauntlet functionality.
I can appreciate this seems like splitting hairs if you're not involved with software development, but it isn't. It is difference with distinction.
The only thing there that could be invoked is "engage in any act which Disruptor Beam deems to be in conflict with the spirit or intent of the Services" which is a backside covering catchall designed to patch any holes in the legalese. And I'm not seeing any justification for triggering that.
Except mail servers implement a standard protocol and our open to third party clients. STT is not. If DB chooses to open up it's api to third party clients, then iampicard is fine and can be one of many clients. But as of now it hasn't.
Try writing a 3rd party Facebook app. Limited APIs are available for Facebook apps, but not everything. If you want to display the users timeline you'll have to use a private Facebook API. I promise you Facebook will shut that down in a second. You're still talking to Facebook servers, you're still using the users account information, but the minute you go outside the public API you are in violation and will be stopped.
That's what iampicard did. It took the private APIs and wrote a new client. It doesn't matter that it's using STT's server API. It's using a non public API that is not intended for users outside of DB's official apps.
This is also not true. The APIs do not work unless there is a valid token that has been created using the authenticated player's credentials.
There is no such thing as public or private in this context.
I would be ok if the web interface for Gauntlet and Voyages went away.
I would not be ok if the spreadsheet interface for downloading data for spreadsheets went away,
This is a very valuable tool and some things just cannot be replaced...
E.g. the ship overview. I use it to determine which schematics I can throw into the replicator. Easy way to find out which ships are max level and have schematics left.
At least starting a gauntlet and starting a voyage would be a must, since calculating the crew and then switching to STT back and forth is tedious (ok, Gauntlet is no big deal).
Albeit I like playing Gauntlet in IAP, this isn't a must have, since it isn't important how good you are for getting Armus.
It seems I am not able to start a new thread since I hardly post. So I misuse this thread.
Support for IAmPicard
As Kahless says, the Tool is gone. The website is gone, Github is gone. A fellow Trekkie, who loves this game so much that he is willing to dedicate hundreds of hours of private time to program a great tool has been chased out of town. Gene Roddenberry would not have been proud of this day.
IAmPicard, I do not know a way to address you in private, so I do it on this forum. Thank you for the tool. I was one of the 1000-so people who used the tool regularly. I'm not sure if the interacting part should have been in it, but the informing part was definitely of great value. And I do admit I preferred playing the gauntlet and Voyage using your tool.
My grasp of English fails me to find the right words to express my true opinion on those who made you feel compelled to quit your endeavor. Live long and prosper.
To those of you that accused, complained and threatened the developer.... shame on you. Timelines has just become a whole lot more tedious with the closing of this app.
To the developer - many many thanks for providing such a fantastic tool and sharing it in the spirit of Trek. I hope the lessons you learned from developing and supporting this tool help you wherever life takes you in the future.
Personally I found it so useful to save some of the tedium, especially in the gauntlet. But I also had my first 10 hour voyage thanks to iampicard.
I always thought people who played this game have been very polite, respectful unlike other games. It's disappointing but I guess not surprising to find there are the same group here as elsewhere.
I can't believe that 10 angry whales managed to ruin the game for thousands of players.
I can't believe that the creator of the tool has been insulted, accused of hacking and threatened for helping so many players.
To all those who are damaged by this: stop spending money!
I can't believe that 10 angry whales managed to ruin the game for thousands of players.
I can't believe that the creator of the tool has been insulted, accused of hacking and threatened for helping so many players.
To all those who are damaged by this: stop spending money!
I am also very close to just quit the game altogether. Reading what the developer of the tool had to endure from some people publicly and even worse privately I don't really feel like I want to be part of this kind of toxic community anymore. And with no tool to make the game manageable, it will not be fun to play it anymore at least for me.
I can't believe that 10 angry whales managed to ruin the game for thousands of players.
I can't believe that the creator of the tool has been insulted, accused of hacking and threatened for helping so many players.
To all those who are damaged by this: stop spending money!
I am also very close to just quit the game altogether. Reading what the developer of the tool had to endure from some people publicly and even worse privately I don't really feel like I want to be part of this kind of toxic community anymore. And with no tool to make the game manageable, it will not be fun to play it anymore at least for me.
I am also very close to just quit the game altogether. Reading what the developer of the tool had to endure from some people publicly and even worse privately I don't really feel like I want to be part of this kind of toxic community anymore. And with no tool to make the game manageable, it will not be fun to play it anymore at least for me. (Not just copied and pasted. It is exactly how I feel and is well articulated).
Comments
You focused on the emulator and ignored the entire paragraph.
"You further agree not to create or provide any means other than through the Disruptor Beam Sites by which Disruptor Beam's on-line computer game may be played by others "
Iampicard is pretty clearly a means other than through DB sites that allows others to play DB's game.
I get it, it's a useful tool. We all like it. But just because we like it, doesn't mean it's not a violation of the TOS.
If DB wants to aquire the tool and provide it as an alternative for players, then it's fine. But until that happens it's a third party hacking into their servers.
Um, that's why I said "The broader 'any other means' would be stronger ground" ...
Exactly, it uses the developer's API, there is no hacking whatsoever
This is the correct answer. It doesn't turn a player into a computer by automatically doing anything for you, it simply presents data to you. The player still has to make every decision.
I find it invaluable, particularly for inventory management, warning me of the limit of 1000. I have used it to unstick voyages. IamPicard exists because DB has been so slow to fix issues in the game and it would be absolutely unfair to ban the tool without fixing the problems.
Ahhh, thank you, that was the only part I was wary about.
Hacking: "the gaining of unauthorized access to data in a system or computer."
Using the developers API when you are not the developer is the definition of hacking. Hacking is not just looking for unintended holes in security. Using a developer API when you are not authorized to use that API is hacking.
Not true. I am not facilitating others playing. It's my account that I'm logging in with, connecting to DB's servers.
Well it wasn't about 'disliking', it was about the legal definition.
You seem to labouring under a misunderstanding of how such tools work.
DB has a Timelines API, this is the server component, and it has various Timelines clients. The API supports other clients, one of which is the Iampicard tool. So there is no server emulation.
The API is, AFAIK, run over HTTP(S), and so qualifies as as a Disruptor Beam Site, so the tool is also not providing an alternative to that either.
Best way to think about is how something like GMail works - you have the GMail server, and you have the web client. You can attach any number of other clients - Outlook, Thunderbird, Samsung Mail, etc, - to the GMail server via the appropriate protocols and authentication. All have similar features, with the odd differentiator - such as layout. None of them could be regarded as emulating server features or circumventing the server. Same here.
An 'exploit' has a very specific meaning with software, and this isn't an exploit. DB made a design decision on their client which slows down Gauntlet. Those animations are not part of the server functionality of Gauntlet, ergo, not part of Gauntlet functionality. They are a 'feature' of the Timelines client which uses Gauntlet functionality.
I can appreciate this seems like splitting hairs if you're not involved with software development, but it isn't. It is difference with distinction.
The only thing there that could be invoked is "engage in any act which Disruptor Beam deems to be in conflict with the spirit or intent of the Services" which is a backside covering catchall designed to patch any holes in the legalese. And I'm not seeing any justification for triggering that.
Not you. Iampicard is facilitating others accessing their servers.
Yes, and, stickying a link to the tool developed using the API, on the developer's website (up until recently) says something about whether use of the API for that purpose is viewed as hacking or not. Having the developer both okay the use and add a commendation from a level higher up than the CS rep says something. Those things may of course change, but this bit of the thread seems to be trying to ascribe things to the IAP coder's intent which aren't congruent with the facts or context leading up to where we are today.
No, it isn't.
Public APIs are just that, public. They exist for public consumption. Accessing them is not hacking.
Were DB to implement various methods of locking down their API to become private, and the tool circumvented them, then yes, that would be hacking.
Except mail servers implement a standard protocol and our open to third party clients. STT is not. If DB chooses to open up it's api to third party clients, then iampicard is fine and can be one of many clients. But as of now it hasn't.
Try writing a 3rd party Facebook app. Limited APIs are available for Facebook apps, but not everything. If you want to display the users timeline you'll have to use a private Facebook API. I promise you Facebook will shut that down in a second. You're still talking to Facebook servers, you're still using the users account information, but the minute you go outside the public API you are in violation and will be stopped.
That's what iampicard did. It took the private APIs and wrote a new client. It doesn't matter that it's using STT's server API. It's using a non public API that is not intended for users outside of DB's official apps.
The STT API uses HTTP(S), which is a standard protocol, and has been since the late 1980s.
It is open to third party clients. If it was not, the Iampicard tool would have been lawyered out of existence by now.
I've written several for clients over the years.
Questions - if the Iampicard tool breaches a private API (it doesn't) then:
1) Why have DB given implicit support via links on DB websites?
2) Why have DB not locked down their API in order to block access by Iampicard?
3) Why have the developers of Iampicard and GitHub not been served takedown notices?
Again, the API is public, not private.
That's what I'm saying. It's not. Everyone that uses the tool is using their own log in credentials. The tool is not facilitating others accessing the game. The tool is not letting others who don't have their own credentials access the game.
If you don't put in your DBID and password you cannot access DB's servers.
This is also not true. The APIs do not work unless there is a valid token that has been created using the authenticated player's credentials.
There is no such thing as public or private in this context.
I would be ok if the web interface for Gauntlet and Voyages went away.
I would not be ok if the spreadsheet interface for downloading data for spreadsheets went away,
E.g. the ship overview. I use it to determine which schematics I can throw into the replicator. Easy way to find out which ships are max level and have schematics left.
At least starting a gauntlet and starting a voyage would be a must, since calculating the crew and then switching to STT back and forth is tedious (ok, Gauntlet is no big deal).
Albeit I like playing Gauntlet in IAP, this isn't a must have, since it isn't important how good you are for getting Armus.
Support for IAmPicard
As Kahless says, the Tool is gone. The website is gone, Github is gone. A fellow Trekkie, who loves this game so much that he is willing to dedicate hundreds of hours of private time to program a great tool has been chased out of town. Gene Roddenberry would not have been proud of this day.
IAmPicard, I do not know a way to address you in private, so I do it on this forum. Thank you for the tool. I was one of the 1000-so people who used the tool regularly. I'm not sure if the interacting part should have been in it, but the informing part was definitely of great value. And I do admit I preferred playing the gauntlet and Voyage using your tool.
My grasp of English fails me to find the right words to express my true opinion on those who made you feel compelled to quit your endeavor. Live long and prosper.
To those of you that accused, complained and threatened the developer.... shame on you. Timelines has just become a whole lot more tedious with the closing of this app.
To the developer - many many thanks for providing such a fantastic tool and sharing it in the spirit of Trek. I hope the lessons you learned from developing and supporting this tool help you wherever life takes you in the future.
LLAP.
Personally I found it so useful to save some of the tedium, especially in the gauntlet. But I also had my first 10 hour voyage thanks to iampicard.
I always thought people who played this game have been very polite, respectful unlike other games. It's disappointing but I guess not surprising to find there are the same group here as elsewhere.
I can't believe that the creator of the tool has been insulted, accused of hacking and threatened for helping so many players.
To all those who are damaged by this: stop spending money!
1. I will drastically reduce my playtime
2. I won't spend a dime
You whales can compete against yourself have fun with winning an empty game
I am also very close to just quit the game altogether. Reading what the developer of the tool had to endure from some people publicly and even worse privately I don't really feel like I want to be part of this kind of toxic community anymore. And with no tool to make the game manageable, it will not be fun to play it anymore at least for me.
I am also very close to just quit the game altogether. Reading what the developer of the tool had to endure from some people publicly and even worse privately I don't really feel like I want to be part of this kind of toxic community anymore. And with no tool to make the game manageable, it will not be fun to play it anymore at least for me. (Not just copied and pasted. It is exactly how I feel and is well articulated).
This is my crew list that I have to manage.
I don't need to play this game. I think that games are a waste of time. This is the only game I am playing.
This game on its own isn't that fun, it feels like a chore. Few months ago I was ready to quit but then I saw IamP.
It reduces the chore part of the game and was the only reason I am still playing.
But now I could very well delete STT and never even look back.
It was
Play the awful game known as Customer Support Roulette...the odds of winning are about the same as real roulette, and it’s not nearly as fun.