Posts by wild1145

Please Note: The TotalFreedom Forum has now been put into a read-only mode. Total Freedom has now closed down and will not be returning in any way, shape or form. It has been a pleasure to lead this community and I wish you all the best for your futures.

    Hey folks,

    First off Merry Christmas, I hope all of you that are celebrating in some way or another are managing to get some much deserved time with family, friends and loved ones.

    I just wanted to post to say the forums are now back up and running, unfortunately an update went wrong and it took me a lot longer than I would have liked to have identified the issue and resolved it, but we are back up and running and we should be stable going forward.

    Hope you're all having a great Christmas and a happy new year to all!


    I'm trying to access the world download I was hoping since I'm a first-timer when you have time you can make a video tutorial and put it in the forms to help me thank you this may help other players that are having a similar struggle

    The world download tool is linked at the top of the forums and provides downloads of worlds, maps and other files. You should look for existing tutorials on how to import worlds to a server.

    As many of you will hopefully already be aware, yesterday we suffered two different attacks, one here on the forums requiring a few hours of outage to clean up a huge mess, very shortly after the forums came back online, a new individual to the server exploited a bug on a recent reboot of the physical host which enabled them to login as if they were me, with the full benefits that come with my account, this resulted in then op'ing a number of players who went on to do an unknown amount of damage throughout the network.

    As it currently stands, I have to assume such attackers have compromised all of our minecraft infrastructure, and as such everything has been isolated. My time for TotalFreedom is currently exceptionally limited, I have other projects currently which are significantly more important to me personally and to my and my companies goals in the future. It'll be 4-6 weeks minimum now before I can look into the incident in enough detail to assure files were safe.

    With this in mind, combined with the recent break and lack of change and support after our recent break, I'm taking the difficult decision to permanently close the Minecraft server with immediate effect. We won't be re-opening any of the servers.

    I have yet to fully decide what we will be doing with the Forums and Discord, however I expect them to start wrapping up over the coming weeks with further announcements to follow.

    If we find that the files for the worlds aren't compromised and we can retrieve them, we will look to get these uploaded onto the World Download tool in the near future. My current intent is to ensure the World Download tool remains online for the remainder of this calendar year as a minimum.

    It's been an absolute privilege to have taken on the owner role for coming up to 3 years now, and being able to see the server through COVID and a owner transition back then makes me exceptionally proud. I'm very aware of the positive and significant impact the server has had in some peoples lives, and I am thankful to all staff and contributors past and present, without you all we wouldn't have been able to make it here. It's been one of the most difficult decisions I've had to make, without TF I wouldn't be where I am in my personal and professional life, I owe a lot to TF and I can only hope my time as owner helped to pass forward some of the experience and gratitude I have towards the server for helping me as I was growing up.

    I'll be moving on to new projects, many of you know I'm already involved in Mastodon and decentralised social media, it takes up a lot of my time and is something I've found I'm passionate for. I suspect I'll be spending some time in the Minecraft space, creating environments like what I had planned for TotalFreedom when I took over is still something I'm excited to be able to progress.

    Again, thank you everyone from the bottom of my heart, without you all we couldn't have made it this far.

    - Ryan

    Caleb dead honest regardless of your opinion, slurs are not permitted in historical context. This suggestion should be to assist admins with the current rules as they stand, not where you want them to be.

    And slurs are permitted in evidence. But could you remind me in what situation exactly it would be important to say the full slur in evidence instead of just saying ‘the n word’ or the ‘the f slur’?

    I came here to say this earlier. Honestly in game use to explain historical context is even worse than using them in the first place. It implies this is a toxic hate filled environment and is incapable of changing.

    I'm the highly unlikely event we do have any actual historically accurate and cases where it's important it would he on here or on a wiki with my prior approval and done in a way that both people don't have to see it, and only if redacting those slurs would fundamentally make it difficult or impossible to articulate what the meaning of the message is.

    Slurs have no place on the network regardless of history, context or reasoning, especially in game.

    The intention would just to block them and potentially display a message to say the chat was not sent.

    If you are proposing that we use an intentionally basic chat filter that simply rejects messages containing slurs and explains why with no repercussions (e.g. like an automatic ban), then I'm willing to compromise with this provided it isn't used to censor actual legitimate topics and we don't expand upon it further.

    I'll elaborate further later today when it's not 5 am.

    Luke I'll respond to your post when I wake up in a few hours, I just want to do it when I am not on the verge of falling asleep.

    The point is, there is no legitimate topics where someone should be dropping slurs... We would instantly ban people for doing that anyway. This simply stops it happening in the first place and reduces the burden on admins having to be everywhere all of the time...

    Honestly this is a great idea as long as it doesn't auto-ban players. I'm all for a chat filter just to prevent the usual tweenager who has just discovered what slurs are, but if the system ends up auto-banning people for it, you wind up with the "/rl" and "/mat" situation where people try to trick each other into tripping the filter and getting banned. Even preventing only the base words from appearing in chat will help immensely to clean things up and prevent a lot of people from going further.

    The intention would just to block them and potentially display a message to say the chat was not sent. We've got rid of the auto eject stuff and it's not something we will continue with the replacement for TFM nor can the chat filters on the network do a auto kick / ban anyway.

    Ideally we'd log it somewhere so admins can be aware that player X keeps trying to drop Slur Y but that's not something in the scope of the suggestion. Just wanted to clarify that all we would do is block the message from sending.

    I want to nip the whole "Developer = Trusted" argument in the bud, no it doesn't. Our model fundamentally changed to move away from trusted parties because it's not really needed. There is a minimal amount of damage a developer can do with dev server access. Likewise we aren't screening people for access to the nuclear launch codes, the reason we've historically been more fussy is because removing someone has causes community backlash 99% of the time. If we're going to accept more risk with admins there has to be an understanding that they may get removed quicker than when we take less risk.

    I think it's because we're starting to move in a different direction for applications, and more aligned both to how hub mods applications work and how I've wanted applications to be moving for a while, to no vouch / objects and a data based discussion with evidence to back up your stance. This application does not need to be held to such a standard but I suspect it's part of the reason it's happening. I know erin is working on voting changes which I am hoping will encompass this and more changes.

    Yes but at the same time we would not want someone like Savnith or Scutix to become a developer on the server I would assume? Or Wilee once again? (If someone is to say yes to these dear god...) Just because we are not screening for trustworthiness does not mean that people don't develop a sense of a developer being trustworthy during the duration of their title, especially those who work(ed) directly with them. Of course I am biased because myself and the other developers, including Paldiu, have worked directly with Allink himself for months and have spoken with him and learned to trust him as a person.

    EDIT: I understand your last point about the risk but the issue is there is no possible way to determine the risk that is possible for any individual as an admin unless they have PREVIOUSLY shown it. We are not exactly fortune tellers and Allink hasn't shown any signs whether he would to impose a threat and break rules and go rogue as an administrator. My point is that we can't hold people back because of their friendships with others because we haven't done that in the past and it is unfair.

    Technically speaking there is nothing stopping any of those people becoming developers, they may not get access to the dev server or similar but it's besides the point.

    And on risk, I'm referring to our risk appetite. How much risk are we as a server willing to take, historically it's been nearly 0 when it comes to admins and therefore we have been very picky about peoples histories / potential, but if we're willing to accept more risk with the mitigation that we're happier to remove the bad eggs much quicker then it balances it out if that makes sense.

    I'll also say on your last point, we can 100% do that, we're a minecraft server and we care about our own interests only, right now we aren't accepting of great risk, so if we see a risk with someone's associations past or present, we are entirely within our rights to refuse to grant additional accesses.