6 ms·

They banned people for mass scanning billions of IP addresses then creating bots to automatically grief these small servers. I don't know how you can justify t

They banned people for mass scanning billions of IP addresses then creating bots to automatically grief these small servers. I don't know how you can justify this. This isn't someone being an asshole on 2b2t... this is someone destroying thousands of small servers just to be destructive.

jahsome 3y ago
There is some serious cognitive dissonance in the Minecraft community. There's a narrative that Microsoft is "destroying" the community that does not align with reality. Most recently, the outrage was over the (entirely optional!) chat moderation features on private servers, and the mindless recitation that it would lead to widespread abuse and false-positive bans. It didn't. I can only assume it's the result of non-technical people who know _just enough_ to think they know what they're talking about parroting misinformation in discords, Twitter, YouTube comments, etc. Perhaps it's a just a younger, more impressionable audience. There is seemingly no reasoning with them either. They will vehemently defend wild points with zero evidence, and often with evidence to the contrary readily available.
- Karrot_Kream 3y ago
  This is how outrage spreads on the Internet, through "very online" communities, and gaming tends to have a lot of them. People who have an axe to grind against X (big tech company, a streamer, a game, etc) exaggerate the truth and make lots of paranoid points. These communities tend to be very big about solidarity so everyone else in the community parrots the message and through a game of telephone fake rumors whip up outrage. It happens on HN a lot these days too on pretty much any Big Tech related topic.
- technerder 3y ago
  I could be wrong but IIRC the chat moderation can not be disabled on a per server basis. Microsoft forces it onto every server and if your account is banned because of something you said on one server you won't be able to join other servers, even those you run yourself.
  - nickelpro 3y ago
    Because of the pseudo-open nature of the MC source code, in practice it is trivial to run an authenticated server without signed chat
  - lyu07282 3y ago
    This was exactly the point of the outrage, servers ought to be able to opt out of this system but they can't. There are mods [1] that server admins can use to remove the chat message signatures, players are powerless if they strip the signature that certified ever message they send, vanilla servers will block them by default and prevent them from joining. It is true however that there wasn't really the wave of false positive bans happening that the community was expecting. At least as far as I'm aware. [1] https://www.curseforge.com/minecraft/mc-mods/no-chat-reports https://www.curseforge.com/minecraft/mc-mods/no-chat-reports
  - Andrew_nenakhov 3y ago
    Can't you just run a third party server?
  - jahsome 3y ago
    I run a server. Chat signing isn't enabled. Upon login, the user sees a message along the lines of "chat can't be verified on this server." Reporting doesn't work. Everything else works just fine.
    - aprilnya 3y ago
      But can someone who got banned by Microsoft still join your server?
      - jahsome 3y ago
        Why would I want them to?
        aprilnya 3y ago
        because Microsoft could get it wrong? isn’t that why we’re disabling chat signing?
- tehbeard 3y ago
  Let's actually give some context to the chat moderation issue rather than just your hearsay on the matter that dismisses without any consideration one side of it in favour of Mojang. 1. Chat moderation is *required*, unless you modify the vanilla game. There is no toggle for it on vanilla. You can choose to not enforce it for clients connecting to your server, but if they are a vanilla client they will sign chat regardless. 2. The initial wording of the rules that could result in a permanent ban, were incredibly loose & vague, allowing for bans for things such as swearing or alcohol/drugs, regardless of player age / legal status in their countries. This was something the community was able to change through pressure and the "outrage" you belittle. 3. > ...and the mindless recitation that it would lead to widespread abuse and false-positive bans. It didn't. The reason it didn't was that since this community has a pretty tech-savvy sub-community of modders, we pulled apart that section of the code to examine it. And what we found was horrifying from a security standpoint. Your message is signed by you (sig psuedocode in brackets): "Want to play a round of spleef?"(JohnCrafter) "Sure"(jahsome) Nothing, absolutely nothing in those initial few snapshots, ties your "Sure" to the context of a spleef match, or any proceeding chat. So with a burner account, one could change it to: "The gays sure have ruined America, they must be purged."(BurnerAccount) "Sure"(jahsome) It took several more snapshot releases before they started to actually implement a chain of context with signing, where one could prove what you replied to, or that a report had be adulterated. Again, psuedocode for how it's signed now after the "outrage": "Anyone selling saddles?"(TexRanger) "Want to play a round of spleef?"(JohnCrafter+saddleMessage) "Sure"(jahsome+saddleMessage+spleefMessage) 4. The planned release schedule, and the "community consultation" Something that seems missed to the history books, is that the development cycle for this was going to be one snapshot, one pre release, then release (In total, 2 weeks for community at large to see and respond before it's live to all) That seems, rather short compared to most other previous releases that featured such a big feature? If it was adding emojis, sure. But a signature system, and full reporting framework? Turns out, from leaks, they had consulted a very, very small subset of the community under NDA on a private discord for about a year... And it instead took 8 weeks to be launched. Due to the above mentioned issues with both the vagueness of planned rules, and the severe holes in the implementation as well as debate over the "stigmatization" being applied to unsigned chat messages. One should also factor in that at this time, a prominent content creator within the community died. Which is never going to go well for "emotional stability" with young fans and likely contributed to some of the vitriol thrown about. The Java community where much of this stemmed from, also has some trust issues with Mojang/Microsoft over previous debacles such as the ownership of Bukkit, and licencing around obfuscation mappings that were presented as a "here, use these to help with modding" but licenced very much more as a "look, but don't you dare touch". And finally, Mojang had been, having issues shall we say, with their content release schedule up to that point (tl;dr the "Caves & Cliffs" update was understandably split in two during the start of the pandemic, but then further features from it slipped to the Wild update which even before chat reporting, had it's own drama surrounding "removed content" and reasons given by Mojang for it). Mojang had "used up" a lot of community goodwill before dropping a controversial feature in. This in no way excuses the doxxing and personal attacks/threats levelled at the employees of Mojang. It was abhorrent and detracted from getting the real issues with this release/feature, resolved. But at the same time, claiming it was all hysterics washes away alot of the problems with how it was implemented, and the sheer lack of consideration for the optics of adding a feature quickly with little to no public consultation, on a game that has been "public" in it's development for years.
- mort96 3y ago
  Microsoft turned every PC user who doesn't use Windows from a first-class player into a second-class player who can't play what's now branded as "Minecraft". It's impossible for Linux and Mac players to play the game with any of the consoles, and there's a good chance you can't play with Windows people thanks to how Microsoft railroads you away from "Minecraft: Java Edition". They've split the community and shown clear hostility to people who aren't using Windows. What more do you need to conclude that Microsoft is "destroying" Minecraft?
  - jahsome 3y ago
    Could you please explain your points?
    - mort96 3y ago
      There used to be a game called Minecraft. It was written in Java, and was the same on Windows, macOS and Linux (and any other platform with a Java runtime). People on all platforms could play the same game with each other. They also made a C++ reimplementation of Minecraft – codenamed "Bedrock" – which they used for the console and phone editions of Minecraft. Eventually, they released a "Windows 10 Edition", based on the Bedrock code base. This version is incompatible with Linux and macOS, and can't play multiplayer with the Java client. Later, they renamed the Java client from "Minecraft" to "Minecraft: Java Edition", and renamed "Minecraft: Windows 10 Edition" to "Minecraft". They also started railroading buyers towards this game formally known as "Minecraft: Windows 10 Edition". As a result, the definitive version of Minecraft, the version someone gets if you just tell them to "buy Minecraft", does not work on Linux or macOS. If you're a Linux or Mac user, and you want to play Minecraft with a friend who uses Windows, you're probably going to find that their game is incompatible with yours. Because as a Linux or Mac user, you don't get to play the version branded as simply "Minecraft". You're off in your own separate world, playing the incompatible game known as "Minecraft: Java Edition". To add insult to injury, there's nothing technically preventing the game now known as "Minecraft" from working on Linux and macOS. "Minecraft Education" is a product based on the Bedrock code base which is available on Linux (well, ChromeOS) and macOS. Does that make it clearer?
- pbhjpbhj 3y ago
  Meta comment. This comment is a great example of doing what you accuse others of: -- makes grand claims without evidence being presented -- accuses others of making grand claims without evidence being presented Whilst also pre-empting any dissent by stating that any counter-arguments are "wild", and that people who aren't on your side are deficient. It's bad logic and bad rhetoric.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]

jahsome 3y ago

There is some serious cognitive dissonance in the Minecraft community. There's a narrative that Microsoft is "destroying" the community that does not align with reality. Most recently, the outrage was over the (entirely optional!) chat moderation features on private servers, and the mindless recitation that it would lead to widespread abuse and false-positive bans. It didn't. I can only assume it's the result of non-technical people who know _just enough_ to think they know what they're talking about parroting misinformation in discords, Twitter, YouTube comments, etc. Perhaps it's a just a younger, more impressionable audience. There is seemingly no reasoning with them either. They will vehemently defend wild points with zero evidence, and often with evidence to the contrary readily available.

Karrot_Kream 3y ago
This is how outrage spreads on the Internet, through "very online" communities, and gaming tends to have a lot of them. People who have an axe to grind against X (big tech company, a streamer, a game, etc) exaggerate the truth and make lots of paranoid points. These communities tend to be very big about solidarity so everyone else in the community parrots the message and through a game of telephone fake rumors whip up outrage. It happens on HN a lot these days too on pretty much any Big Tech related topic.
technerder 3y ago
I could be wrong but IIRC the chat moderation can not be disabled on a per server basis. Microsoft forces it onto every server and if your account is banned because of something you said on one server you won't be able to join other servers, even those you run yourself.
- nickelpro 3y ago
  Because of the pseudo-open nature of the MC source code, in practice it is trivial to run an authenticated server without signed chat
- lyu07282 3y ago
  This was exactly the point of the outrage, servers ought to be able to opt out of this system but they can't. There are mods [1] that server admins can use to remove the chat message signatures, players are powerless if they strip the signature that certified ever message they send, vanilla servers will block them by default and prevent them from joining. It is true however that there wasn't really the wave of false positive bans happening that the community was expecting. At least as far as I'm aware. [1] https://www.curseforge.com/minecraft/mc-mods/no-chat-reports https://www.curseforge.com/minecraft/mc-mods/no-chat-reports
- Andrew_nenakhov 3y ago
  Can't you just run a third party server?
- jahsome 3y ago
  I run a server. Chat signing isn't enabled. Upon login, the user sees a message along the lines of "chat can't be verified on this server." Reporting doesn't work. Everything else works just fine.
  - aprilnya 3y ago
    But can someone who got banned by Microsoft still join your server?
    - jahsome 3y ago
      Why would I want them to?
      - aprilnya 3y ago
        because Microsoft could get it wrong? isn’t that why we’re disabling chat signing?
tehbeard 3y ago
Let's actually give some context to the chat moderation issue rather than just your hearsay on the matter that dismisses without any consideration one side of it in favour of Mojang. 1. Chat moderation is *required*, unless you modify the vanilla game. There is no toggle for it on vanilla. You can choose to not enforce it for clients connecting to your server, but if they are a vanilla client they will sign chat regardless. 2. The initial wording of the rules that could result in a permanent ban, were incredibly loose & vague, allowing for bans for things such as swearing or alcohol/drugs, regardless of player age / legal status in their countries. This was something the community was able to change through pressure and the "outrage" you belittle. 3. > ...and the mindless recitation that it would lead to widespread abuse and false-positive bans. It didn't. The reason it didn't was that since this community has a pretty tech-savvy sub-community of modders, we pulled apart that section of the code to examine it. And what we found was horrifying from a security standpoint. Your message is signed by you (sig psuedocode in brackets): "Want to play a round of spleef?"(JohnCrafter) "Sure"(jahsome) Nothing, absolutely nothing in those initial few snapshots, ties your "Sure" to the context of a spleef match, or any proceeding chat. So with a burner account, one could change it to: "The gays sure have ruined America, they must be purged."(BurnerAccount) "Sure"(jahsome) It took several more snapshot releases before they started to actually implement a chain of context with signing, where one could prove what you replied to, or that a report had be adulterated. Again, psuedocode for how it's signed now after the "outrage": "Anyone selling saddles?"(TexRanger) "Want to play a round of spleef?"(JohnCrafter+saddleMessage) "Sure"(jahsome+saddleMessage+spleefMessage) 4. The planned release schedule, and the "community consultation" Something that seems missed to the history books, is that the development cycle for this was going to be one snapshot, one pre release, then release (In total, 2 weeks for community at large to see and respond before it's live to all) That seems, rather short compared to most other previous releases that featured such a big feature? If it was adding emojis, sure. But a signature system, and full reporting framework? Turns out, from leaks, they had consulted a very, very small subset of the community under NDA on a private discord for about a year... And it instead took 8 weeks to be launched. Due to the above mentioned issues with both the vagueness of planned rules, and the severe holes in the implementation as well as debate over the "stigmatization" being applied to unsigned chat messages. One should also factor in that at this time, a prominent content creator within the community died. Which is never going to go well for "emotional stability" with young fans and likely contributed to some of the vitriol thrown about. The Java community where much of this stemmed from, also has some trust issues with Mojang/Microsoft over previous debacles such as the ownership of Bukkit, and licencing around obfuscation mappings that were presented as a "here, use these to help with modding" but licenced very much more as a "look, but don't you dare touch". And finally, Mojang had been, having issues shall we say, with their content release schedule up to that point (tl;dr the "Caves & Cliffs" update was understandably split in two during the start of the pandemic, but then further features from it slipped to the Wild update which even before chat reporting, had it's own drama surrounding "removed content" and reasons given by Mojang for it). Mojang had "used up" a lot of community goodwill before dropping a controversial feature in. This in no way excuses the doxxing and personal attacks/threats levelled at the employees of Mojang. It was abhorrent and detracted from getting the real issues with this release/feature, resolved. But at the same time, claiming it was all hysterics washes away alot of the problems with how it was implemented, and the sheer lack of consideration for the optics of adding a feature quickly with little to no public consultation, on a game that has been "public" in it's development for years.
mort96 3y ago
Microsoft turned every PC user who doesn't use Windows from a first-class player into a second-class player who can't play what's now branded as "Minecraft". It's impossible for Linux and Mac players to play the game with any of the consoles, and there's a good chance you can't play with Windows people thanks to how Microsoft railroads you away from "Minecraft: Java Edition". They've split the community and shown clear hostility to people who aren't using Windows. What more do you need to conclude that Microsoft is "destroying" Minecraft?
- jahsome 3y ago
  Could you please explain your points?
  - mort96 3y ago
    There used to be a game called Minecraft. It was written in Java, and was the same on Windows, macOS and Linux (and any other platform with a Java runtime). People on all platforms could play the same game with each other. They also made a C++ reimplementation of Minecraft – codenamed "Bedrock" – which they used for the console and phone editions of Minecraft. Eventually, they released a "Windows 10 Edition", based on the Bedrock code base. This version is incompatible with Linux and macOS, and can't play multiplayer with the Java client. Later, they renamed the Java client from "Minecraft" to "Minecraft: Java Edition", and renamed "Minecraft: Windows 10 Edition" to "Minecraft". They also started railroading buyers towards this game formally known as "Minecraft: Windows 10 Edition". As a result, the definitive version of Minecraft, the version someone gets if you just tell them to "buy Minecraft", does not work on Linux or macOS. If you're a Linux or Mac user, and you want to play Minecraft with a friend who uses Windows, you're probably going to find that their game is incompatible with yours. Because as a Linux or Mac user, you don't get to play the version branded as simply "Minecraft". You're off in your own separate world, playing the incompatible game known as "Minecraft: Java Edition". To add insult to injury, there's nothing technically preventing the game now known as "Minecraft" from working on Linux and macOS. "Minecraft Education" is a product based on the Bedrock code base which is available on Linux (well, ChromeOS) and macOS. Does that make it clearer?
pbhjpbhj 3y ago
Meta comment. This comment is a great example of doing what you accuse others of: -- makes grand claims without evidence being presented -- accuses others of making grand claims without evidence being presented Whilst also pre-empting any dissent by stating that any counter-arguments are "wild", and that people who aren't on your side are deficient. It's bad logic and bad rhetoric.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]