Jump to content

House

Trade With Caution
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    510

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Feedback

    97.4%

 Content Type 

Posts posted by House

    Dispute against House

    in Dispute Archive

    Posted

    2 minutes ago, Alek said:

    Oh so you think you know more than me? I'm actually looking at the source you sent MattchuPichu and Montana of 300. They look pretty identical, even with them being two different versions. 

     

    Not saying i know more than you at all, i'm not sure how you took that away from what i said.

    Maybe its up to opinion then i suppose how unique the code can get huh :)

     

    If you want to decide its not unique enough go ahead do what you want / need to do.

    Obviously what i say has no impact where this is going.

    Dispute against House

    in Dispute Archive

    Posted

    Just now, Alek said:

    You know what, tell me which obfuscated classes are different, I'll look at it myself. I have 3 different decompiled sources. 

    If you are playing at me saying "there is no difference" then you can have it.

    There is no difference because CMDrake and Montana Of 300 received the SAME FILES as explained with reason twice now.

     

    This is actually some great stuff here.

     

    @Alek i can send you source code to show the different versions which are how they are meant to be.

    Dispute against House

    in Dispute Archive

    Posted

    Just now, Alek said:

    This is ridiculous, I keep asking you specific questions and you keep not replying to them. I asked you to do this:
     

     

    Instead you post a picture of something Montana already posted. Don't respond anymore, you're not being helpful. 

     

    I have responded to you actually how you asked. Kept is short too.

    6 minutes ago, House said:

    1. The portion of the script which interacts with the world of runescape is not identical and does not behave the same as another copy would with different code.

    Nuff said.

     

    Dispute against House

    in Dispute Archive

    Posted

    5 minutes ago, Montana of 300 said:

    I didn't ask prior to purchase because House sent me this on the 27th February, where I bought the script on the 6th march (my birthday!). The script was first discussed on the 27th February; where I agreed I'd buy it and we would do the deal when he had done the script + back from holiday etc; ensuring every "every script I sell to a customer is unique by code so that's not a worry". This lead me to believe it wasn't necessary to ask it was private. 

     

    Proof of it being 'unique by code' on 27th February:

     

    e6c674f290c8000dd02b2c9babdd80e7.png

     

    Proof of payment on 6th march:

    952da6dde61dec4efd5020200e77cbe1.png

     

     

    If i did not accidentally send the wrong files to CMDrake no one would have ran the code that was written for your script.

    If you want to play with wording then be my guest i'm not going to join in.

    Dispute against House

    in Dispute Archive

    Posted · Edited by House

    6 minutes ago, Alek said:

    Please tell me who you were talking to in this conversation:

     

    6f716d5dcff34b9ba77e10f8553ee5d7.png

    May i know how this has to do anything in relation?

    edit: i do not claim or attempt to sell the script i sold to Montana Of 300 to John Devola. 
    I do not claim i have not sold another script which does not preform the same / similar tasks to a script i have written prior.

    Dispute against House

    in Dispute Archive

    Posted

    1. No. i did not try sell the same script i gave to Montana Of 300 to anyone else.

    2. Yes their scripts are more unique than that, the logic of determining situations and such is the same, such as reading configs and manipulating files in the data folder are the same / similar because it serves no purpose to change them. Interaction and and logic such as the dropping of a list of items is done in a different way to provide an example.

    3. The script Montana Of 300 saw was identical because of the mistakes i made as stated above.

    Montana Of 300 did in no shape or form ask me or require it to be "unique" when discussing it or ask before purchase.

    Quote

    "The exact script you bought is unique to you", then you go on to explain that if someone else ran it, it would "not affect the outcome" and "not affect the situation". It looks like the only part which is "unique to you" is the username check, and the core of the script is the same.

    He asked me if it was "unique" after he had accounts banned, i responded to him with those words in answer to that. i told him it is unique because i had no intent or knowledge that CMDrake mistakenly posses files that he should not have received.

     

     

    Dispute against House

    in Dispute Archive

    Posted

    Montana Of 300 asked me if it would be a private script and i responded with what the says photo that posted in his initial post.

    It would mean that i told him it is unique to him, yes.

    CMDrake never asked me nor minds that it is not unique, no.

    Dispute against House

    in Dispute Archive

    Posted · Edited by House

    39 minutes ago, Alek said:

    Then explain this:
      

    
if ((!getClient().getUsername().equals("House")) && (!getClient().getUsername().equals("CMDrake")))
    {
      log("This is not your script! >:(");
      stop();
    }

     

    If you tell the truth and don't lie, I usually try and defend the script writer. 

     

    I can try explain what happened again although it is shown above.

     

    ---

     

    Initially the same URL was sent to both of them by mistake.

    CMDrake told me it was not working and would not start so i checked the code, recompiled, reobfuscated it then sent it to him with a different URL for sure as Montana Of 300 has confirmed.

    The problem was that when i checked the code i had the project open which was intended for Montana of 300 however the source java files had the auth check checking for the username of CMDrake.

    The way i can see myself making the mistake is i know i copied over the auth check , a few simple lines: 

    if ((!getClient().getUsername().equals("House")) && (!getClient().getUsername().equals("CMDrake")))
    {
      log("This is not your script! >:(");
      stop();
    }

     

    However it remained saved incorrectly, i saw CMDrake in the auth check as it is visible on the main class onStart.

    I then compiled that script, obfuscated it and uploaded it under a new URL and sent it to CMDrake.

    Essential this meant that the files were identical except the auth check part which had different names.

     

    Quote

    If you tell the truth and don't lie, I usually try and defend the script writer. 

    I do not with to be sided based on my rank or position but rather i hope people understand the mistake i made and how it was not malicious.

    edit: What bothers me the most is i always try and mostly succeed in providing a good customer experience and to my knowledge i have been doing so all along, it rather how can i put it.. sucks that Montana Of 300 jumped on the bandwagon and made a dispute rather than being able to properly discuss it or knowledge what i had to say.

     

    ---

     

    I was in contact with Montana Of 300 however he chose to keep going on and on after i tried to puzzle the situation together, i told him i was not sure how posting a dispute would benefit his situation as the URL / link can not be unseen by CMDrake.

     

    To my knowledge CMDrake is aware of what happened and i explained to him what i have written above as well.

    I state this after speaking CMDrake on skype.

    It would be great if he could post on here with something to say regarding his involvement with this situation.

     

    Montana Of 300 has not requested a refund and nor will i be negotiating one with him.

    Dispute against House

    in Dispute Archive

    Posted

    ----------

     

    Quote

    I've tried speaking w/ house on skype about this; however he's not co-operated very well

    @Montana of 300 You did speak with me, i am cooperating as i explained the situation to you.

    You have been responded to by me saying what happened which i will also state below.

    I also stated what will happen as a result.

     

    ----------

    Initially you both received the same URL on accident.
    @CMDrake realized it was not working which made sense as @Montana of 300 's forum name was checked at script start.

    @CMDrake requested me to fix it obviously so when i went to compile the file i saw @CMDrake's name in the name check portion of the script, compiled it and sent it to him, correct URL and all.

     

    Little did i know that the project was the one i was working on for @Montana of 300 's script and the last time i saved it which was after i sent him the latest compiled version, and has @CMDrake's name in the auth check.

    How did that happen? An error on my part which happened while copying the name checking code and leaving it in that state when saving it last.

    I have explained the error to @CMDrake on skype if you need to ask him too.

     

    ----------

     

    You then got the member @CMDrake to send you a script which i sent them which is not ok to redistribute.  (Because of this situation has occurred this can be argued as valid and not a problem).

    You then brought it to my attention and i replied and after what you told me pieced together what happened.

     

    ----------

     

    You then demanded that you wanted to see another persons script which is not for you to have a copy of or own.

    I have apologies for the mistake and i will again here.

    My apologies @Montana of 300.

     

    ----------

     

    @Montana of 300, i have told you that making a dispute would not help the situation at all.

    #FreeZerker

    in Spam/Off Topic

    Posted

    2 hours ago, ProjectPact said:

    30 posts, joined 6 hours ago, saying Dex is a power abuser, haven't been a member long enough to know how he works. Well mi amigo, this is one way to get your account flagged real quick. 

     

    You know a lot about inactivity don't you :doge:

    iStock_000016172223Small-451x300.jpg

    Its only a joke man <3

     

    Funny trade with a member on OSBot

    in Spam/Off Topic

    Posted

    5 minutes ago, Wolverine said:

    And I was okay with using an MM I said that aswell, but when it comes to amounts like 12m, its a little annoying to go through that process. And you don't even do any of the work. I was the one who got the MM everytime..

    He didn't show the full convo, its not exactly sketchy, He was just wasting time over 12m and he can't even find an MM, so I had to go through the process of finding one for him.

    Also my problem with him was that he was more negative than sketchy. Why can't you just say Ty for selling 12m? He's devaluing me as a person which is what pissed me off.

     

    Do you also want a cookie and warm milk before we tuck you into bed? :gnome:

    • Like 2

    Allow custom amount purchases for vouchers on the new store system.

    in Resolved

    Posted

    7 minutes ago, Crime said:

    YES!!!

    Definitely need something like this as scripts are @ random costs and not in even amounts compared to the options in the store.

     

    Think about it.

    You want a script for 6.99$ but you can only buy 5$, 10$, 25$ as an example.

    You have to purchase 10$ of credit in order to get your script, this way the store owner gets more money which you might either never spend OR you end up buying more credit in order to spend the left over credit after the initial purchase.

     

×
×
  • Create New...