Object, your appeal shows no sincerity and it's been far too short of a timeframe since your suspension & ban for anyone to forgive you...
Posts by Allink
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.
-
-
-
I suggest that they're removed from blocked-versions in the ViaVersion plugin configuration. I don't think much effort should be put into supporting these versions beyond that.
Versions before Update Aquatic have been reported to have marginally better performance, which I think would benefit both people with lower-end hardware and people who don't want Minecraft to eat up their CPU and RAM.
-
-
Quote
If Mojang has half a brain, they won't let the client sign chat messages sent by click events. But honestly, it's Mojang, predicting what they're going to do is like trying to predict an earthquake...
-
I think a large majority of the criticism waged towards the chat reporting system is unfounded and purely fearmongering
Here's my post debunking and offering my thoughts on most of these things.
Chat Forging & Fradulent Reports
No, 1337 hackers cannot haxx into the Big Mojang mainframe and file billions of reports against your account, doing so would most likely get THEM permanently banned from Minecraft instead. And also, I imagine the endpoint would be heavily limited.
False banning
This is happens with every sort of moderation/report system that's ever been invented. Of course, Mojang have an appeals section, in-case you truly were falsebanned.
Anarchy servers
Seeing as the biggest anarchy server as of the moment (2b2t of course) is running on 1.12.2, which entirely lacks any sort of chat signature system (the thing that allows chat reporting to be feasible in the first place), it's not going to affect it. At all.
I'd like to bring attention to this section of the Minecraft Eula (which every server has to agree to):
QuoteIf you are going to make something available on or through our Game, it must not be offensive to people or illegal, it must be honest, and it must be your own creation. Some examples of the types of things you must not make available using our Game include: posts that include racist or homophobic language; posts that are bullying or trolling; posts that are offensive or that damage our or another person's reputation; posts that include porn or someone else's creation or image; or posts that impersonate a moderator or try to trick or exploit people.
Any content you make available on our Game must also be your creation or you must have permission or the legal right to do it. You must not and you agree that you will not make any content available, using the Game that infringes the rights of others.
We reserve the right to take down any content in our discretion.
tl;dr This means Mojang are allowed to moderate (or take down) anything that occurs on the server, for any reason.
Anarchy servers may have no rules, but Minecraft does and it has since 2014 (when the EULA was introduced). It's just that now, Mojang have allocated more resources towards enforcing it. By agreeing to the eula in eula=true, you're agreeing to Mojang being able to moderate your server for you, even if you don't like that.
Spigot
The chat reports don't work on Spigot anyways, as said by kennytv here (a maintainer of Paper).
In Conclusion
This won't affect the end player in any way. Unless you're spamming racial slurs or making bomb threats on Minecraft, you aren't going to get banned from the entirety of Minecraft. And also, if you're going to do that, I'd recommend choosing a better place than a block game...
-
↩ videogamesm12 It's a very vague statement. I don't think it's really fair to make any sort of assumption from it... but from what I can guess from that vague statement, it means that the moderators will know that the message has been forged. That doesn't imply they're going to ban anyone for it.
-
The only thing updating ViaVersion does is allow 1.19 clients to connect to the server. That's it. I highly doubt there being an existence of a "magical ViaVersion chat signature packet".
-
Vouch you're funny
-
Object, I don't think enough time has passed for you to be sincere in your appeal.
-
Object for @Alco_Rs11's reasoning
-
-
Vouch more admins is betterChanging to object due to reasons outlined in fyyv, Luke and root's replies.
-
↩ @'Ryan' Last time I checked, TFM was being actively maintained and the NetworkManager integration you're asking for is complete(?) or nearing completion.
Also, I believe it'd be better to give administrators Network Manager permissions instead of using TFM to sync permissions.
-
Quote
↩ MagAgentV3 new report system
It's not new on Bedrock lol
-
Vouch: I think you've displayed in previous threads that you regretted your previous behaviours.
Just make sure to follow the rules next time and not allow your emotions to get the better of you and end up harming the server out of rage.
-
↩ Deauthorized That would eliminate the reason editing exists...
-
Quote
and if you redacted personal information and a forum mod wasn’t online/didn’t notice, the edit would be completely worthless as somebody would just be able to view the edit history to gather that information.
-
I fundamentally disagree with this idea since: if you're asked by an admin to redact information from your post (i.e. you leaked something you weren't supposed to) having the edit history as public would interfere with that. Also, if you accidentally leak personal information, you wouldn't be able to edit it out.
It might be possible to redact edit history but that would probably be a stupid thing to do if edit history was public anyways... and if you redacted personal information and a forum mod wasn't online/didn't notice, the edit would be completely worthless as somebody would just be able to view the edit history to gather that information.
-