371–380 of 474 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It removes any and all reason to play online. Might as well play bots.
Rocket League has an option called quick-chat. It's only canned messages. And in QC mode you only see or reply QC messages. Make being real toxic difficult.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The MS controversy is that they implemented a centralized chat signing feature that is not opt-out. Most of the fun Minecraft servers are using a kind of server-side modding, but their users are playing with "vanilla" clients. So if you get banned by MS, you can't join those servers. MS is now the gatekeeper of offensive chat, not the individual servers.
You’re saying the servers are fun and that’s fine. However, I’m of the opinion that it’s the players who make the game fun and if the players choose to play on virtual LAN servers, then they, in essence, opt-out of the censorship.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think the issue is the ease of getting users banned, and the lack of actual moderating at all that is the problem. It literally is as easy as fill out the form, user is automatically banned, no verification required. Microsoft is not actually enforcing anything. My son is 10 and has been playing Minecraft for most of his life. I would consider him quite good at it. I sometimes watch. Every couple of months one of h…
> Every couple of months one of his friends will get banned for no reason. I know you want to trust your child’s friends, but “it happened for no reason” is exactly what kids say when they don’t want to own up to the consequences of their actions. Obviously, you can only monitor your own child’s gameplay and not what their friends are doing on their own time. I strongly suspect there’s more going on than you realize.…
I have exactly 0 trust in such statements after Amazon's "New world" fiasco. I mean, it technically might be processed by human, hired from 3rd world country and paid next to nothing but it doesn't change the result: large number of reports was enough to ban people, no one check if those reports made any sense. Nor if they were all made by enemy clan.
Minetest is probably the best Minecraft alternative; it's free and open source software, which avoids the danger associated with centralized retaliation systems like the one Microsoft is operating. Also, it's easier to write mods for, partly because mods are written in Lua, and you don't have to install mods on the client, just the server. https://www.minetest.net/ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g6Fyav6FiIs The vide…
I strongly disagree with Microsoft's stance. But I also think the issue is way overblown. You can simply mod servers so that they don't have this chat reporting. If everyone in the Minecraft community is so opposed, just create and exclusively join modded servers. Does not matter if they get labeled "Not Secure" if 90% of well-known popular servers have it, and there are tools and tutorials everywhere which make it s…
>barely legal (revoking people's access to what they bought ...) Kind of like when Microsoft bought Mojang and locked one of the world's most popular online experiences behind talking to M$ servers? There is no way to play the game you paid for - even offline - if you are not interested in creating a Microsoft account. They don't seem too concerned with the whole "terrible idea which is barely legal" thing when there…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They are not running the online service. These are community servers.
Microsoft's service is the account system that they also forced everyone to sign up for. They took a popular product that didn't need them and inserted themselves in-between the game and the players so they could collect the players money, take their data, and control their behavior.
It's apparently a minority voice opinion here on HN, but I for one appreciate what Microsoft is trying to do. As a parent of a 6 and 9 year old who have really gotten into Minecraft during COVID, I appreciate them basically deciding "We want Minecraft to be a game for kids and an online community that is nice." I get why people are frustrated, but I also like the idea of a global decision that forces servers open to…
At the end of the day individual servers are completely separate worlds that you cannot moderate as a whole due to differences in rules, expectations of their members and culture. You cannot moderate all of that by throwing a blanket rule system over it. Even the unofficial global ban system before this, mcbans.com, had a system to allow servers to only honor bans from specific other servers who they aligned with.
As for children I recommend keeping a mildly distant eye on what servers they visit, and this doesn't just apply to minecraft. As a kid I had a rule with my dad to consult him first about any terms of service I wanted to accept (for example for forums), so he could make sure it was safe. This worked until I became a teen and specifically started seeking out the bad things about the internet, but at that point no public ban system is going to help.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> For example, children should only be able to join under 18's Mojang hosted servers (realms) where conduct can be heavily monitored and 18+ players join multiplayer servers where children cannot play. Underappreciated aspect is that quite a lot, most actually, 18+ don't like unmoderated spaces either.
They are free to play on the moderated servers then.
Realms where expensive traps since the beginning, yall just refused to listen.