Minecraft Forums

facist much

naway18 you should look at BC's response if you haven't already.page 57

Quote from tsteele93

If we lined up all lawyers and shot them, the world would be a better place. And please, take no offence at that comment. I mean it only as a purely logical and factual statement, not as some kind of emotional or inflammatory and mean-spirited rant. :-)

How about the families of the lawyers?

Quote from aman207

Anybody know what's going to happen with donation plugins? Are they going to be removed from places like dev bukkit and such?

Why would they be removed if donating is still allowed?

Statement from an expert :

"Have you compared the two EULAs? Because the former, by omission, prohibited all of the things. That didn't prevent people from starting servers that gave people Sharpness X diamond swords if they "donated" 20 dollars, or giving exclusive perks or access to certain worlds or permissions if they did- but they were still, by the terms of the license agreement, not allowed, due to the whole "you cannot make money off of anything we made" thing. The changes are to make that monetization possible. The whining is because the way Mojang would like it to be is not the most lucrative.

As somebody who left multiplayer because Servers started to suck ass, I tend to like the changes. I've only played on two servers, both whitelisted servers originally (the latter became the very kind of pay to win "donation shop" heavy server that isn't allowed now nor then).

-Server owners qqing about "how will I make my living". I don't really care. I don't even know how "you took our jobs!" is really a valid argument when the entire basis for that "job" is a purposeful ignorance of copyright law, intellectual property rights and what you can sell.

-I've seen the "old old" EULA pointed out- the one from 2011 that said stuff about selling plugins for money. That's wonderful but it is no longer the same and that was changed because it was being exploited. Not to mention when you give equipment or access to certain worlds on your server for a "donation" you aren't selling plugins anyway, so that entire point is kind of moot, too.

-Another interesting point I saw brought up (on reddit) was something along the lines of, "you can download and use the server without reading or agreeing to a EULA, therefore the terms therein are not legally binding".

That seems to have merit- and is quite factual.

What it fails to realize is that an EULA gives you rights over and above what you are already allowed to do through fair use and copyright law. So the EULA not applying doesn't matter. By way of example, since I can download a Windows Disc image without agreeing to any form of EULA, I should be able to thus sell or give away as many copies of that software as I want. That isn't the case.

-In creating a plugin, you are creating a derivative work. There is no going around this- some argue that because you are only writing against a specific API, that you aren't really making a derivative work- that defense has already been tried and failed, it failed because that approach is a clear circumvention of the rules. Additionally, the creation of a deriviative work is controlled via copyright law which means the ability to create such deriviative works is licensed by the original copyright owner- and that is what teh EULA of Minecraft, in this case, allows you to do. Not agreeing to the EULA doesn't actually fix anything because that means you do not get the license to create any form of derivative work in the first place. Additionally, anybody using a derivative work needs to agree to the terms of the original product in addition to any terms of the second product; so while we do not have to say agree to a EULA in order to use CraftBukkit, that is because CraftBukkit has no terms- as a derivative work Terms of use from the original copyright owner still apply because it is the license to use the software through copyright law that allows you to even use the software to begin with. Watching tweens struggle with the concepts of law is entertaining but also kind of sad. the idea of "enforcing" EULAs only applies when the EULA removes rights already granted through fair use or copyright law. In the case of Minecraft, this is simply not the case, and lacking the rights granted by the EULA you have no license to use the software to begin with."

You can also sell access to the server. Also there is always the premium area server although it sounds kind of confusing.

Quote from Ecu

Greegy? Really? Wanting to be able to make a living providing other people entertainment (most of which is free) makes a server host greedy? In addition, you seriously likened pay for perks to slavery? How is anyone supposed to take you seriously?

Here is the problem.....
You say "making a living" which implies profit. Some people were so quick to turn their Minecraft server into a profitable business.

This is both morally wrong as it uses Mojang's intellectual property to make money without their permission to the point of hundreds of thousands of dollars even. Legally it is also wrong and if people didn't read the EULA then that is their own ignorant fault.


You dealt the cards you get what you played.

Quote from Pandaramic

When people donate, they should deserve their rewards, not everybody. This will make it more difficult and pointless for servers. Lot's of servers will become corrupt and lack of funds, less server use would take place, and I think that it's only fair to give the giver his gift.

If you're going to talk about fairness then ignore the p2w issue then you've failed.

Quote from Batman8199

At the moment I am am not happy or disappointed on the EULA changes. I just have a few question. I am making a MineZ themed server and I was wondering if I could have a VIP group (that you would have to pay for) and the begining of the the game you would have the ability to select a shotgun or something that default players can't start with, but both default players and VIPs can buy it ingame with soft currency? Would something like this be allowed? On my server nobody can win you just go as far as you can until you die or log off, then you start all over again, so there is no pay-to-win aspect(similar to temple run or COD zombies- you never win you just get as far as you can to set your own personal record).

No.

If anyone didn't know yet....

• Huge Mushrooms
• When harvested with Silk Touch enchantment they drop blocks with corresponding mushroom texture (red or brown) on all sides rather than the one with spores

Quote from Rampage_x

The thing is, it's been going on too long. It is ingrained in most of the younger players, (even some of the older players) that in order to donate to help with server expenses, something is expected in return other than a simple "thank you".

If players like a server they play on, like the staff, they should donate (if able) without expecting something in return.
That would be in a perfect world, and is not the case though.

Well the reality of the EULA is going to smack their faces. (assuming the EULA succeeds)

In a perfect world, there would be no need to have a job.

Quote from Da_Docta

You are over dramatizing what pay to win is, even worse than mojang it. Even if it is not perfectly 100% balanced it makes the servers more competitive and fun. Where is the fun in playing a server where every has the same exact stuff?

That's where skill and luck comes in. You don't need p2w to have different stuff or have fun..... infact p2w can detract from the "fun"

Quote from DannySan626

Idk, I just wish I could of kept my server the way it was... I was fair and did not charge too much for anything... I had donation ranks at $30

Some Mojangsters mentioned how ridiculous it was that 'donation' ranks cost more than the Game itself.

Quote from ArkSeyonet

So I have two questions...

1) Let's say you have /kit starter available for everyone. When they use it, it has a cooldown before they are able to use it again. Are you able to charge hard currency in order for them to bypass the cooldown time?

2) Pixelmon. Does this make it where if they wish to sell a legendary "Pixelmon" for hard currency on their website, are they allowed to do so as long as the "Pixelmon" has a CHANCE of spawning in the wild on the server?

Both are direct violation of EULA.

Quote from TheMinecrafterTippydaug

Exactly! Notch doesn't care about Minecraft anymore, so instead of leaving it alone he decides to be a jerk and make things WORSE!

I'd like to clear something up....

The reason why Notch didn't answer those questions thoroughly is because (Source : REDDIT)

http://www.reddit.com/r/Minecraft/comments/28dz59/notch_responds_to_polygons_biased_questions_like/

(Note how it says bias)

A user then explains :



Now you see, I would love to see these questions asked without the horrible bias and answered.
This really is poor journalism (lazy, in particular), and certainly not what I would have expected from Polygon. The loaded questions are simply shameful.

===

Then another user says

I tried to "un-load" the questions:

1. What do you think about the blog posts and efforts to explain Mojang's actions?
2. Some people think that changing this policy so late into Minecraft's life is unfair. Just as many disagree. What do you think about policy changes on a game that has been out for so many years?
3. What caused you to make this change in policy?
4. How do you think some servers, which have previously thrived on the old policies, will react? Do you think they'll be alright after the change?
5. What different advice would you give to new servers as well as old servers to make for a more smooth transition into this new policy?

EDIT
I studied this kind of bias in my AP statistics course, it's called wording bias in which the question either hints at a correct answer or is worded in some way to influence the answer. If I were to say, "What do you think about the scumbags at Nintendo ruining the smash bros series, and making another one just for money?". This question is wording bias because it calls the people at Nintendo scumbags (not true), says that they are ruining the series (not true imo), and that their only motivation is money (I hope not true). The question is worded so that when you hear it you want to agree with it; it's almost as if it's a rhetorical question because it so heavily implies the answer. Every question this guy from Polygon asks has wording bias.

It insinuates people don't understand Mojang's motivation and that the blog posts aren't really helping
It is essentially a statment asking Notch to affirm that the policy changes are unfair.
He uses a non-sequitur fallacy in an attempt to create the premise that the servers are a 'valuable part of the ecosystem' and they 'need' the 'pay-to-win funcionality to survive'. Then he uses bandwagon appeal saying that 'people enjoy them' then a non-sequitur again saying that since people enjoy them, they should be left alone
This question is literally littered with non-sequiturs, ad hominems, false assumptions. I could write a whole paper on how ­ty and loaded this single question is.
It insinuated that others think servers can't thrive, and by asking for his advice, it also implies that the servers are in need of advice because since the policy change things have gone to hell.

Fallacies I use above explained:
non-sequitur = an illogical conclusion: The drug on wars has failed therefore we should make all drugs legal
Ad-Hominem = name calling: The policy changes made by that ­ Notch are totally out of line
Bandwagon appeal = everyone is doing it so why aren't you?: Dude, everyone is voting for Reagan, why aren't you?
My credibility(ethos)? Studied bias and fallacies in AP English and AP Statistics
tldr:These questions are loaded

=====


Then Notch comes along and answers the unloaded questions from above



These are questions I don't mind answering, and if anyone is curious: I was hoping it would calm things down, but it seems to just have made things worse. People less stressed than me tell me this doesn't have to be a bad thing. Hopefully we can reach some better results now that it's being talked about instead of people breaking the rules in silence. For the last several years, these have been the rules. People didn't realize or chose to ignore that they were building the businesses around something that breaks the rules. The "new rules" we've added adds new ways for people to be able to run legitimate servers and still make money, for the people who want to not break the rules. Hopefully this includes all big companies. First of all, people think we changed the rules to make them worse. We didn't. There were some way more lenient rules back in alpha when I was working alone, but that changed a long time ago into the too restrictive rules we had up until recently. The changes we made were all allowing people to monetize. Just how we think streaming and youtube are important for the community, we think running a server is something important that we want to allow, and the changes only happened because this got discussed. I feel sorry for the ones to based their business around something we don't want Minecraft to become (ie a game where you pay for gameplay). Unfortunately, these were the rules since before they started their business, and hopefully they will be able to transition into something in line we don't disallow. My gut feeling is that most should be able to survive the changeover. This is very difficult to give a general response to, as all servers have different setups. Perhaps "talk to your players". I would appreciate not telling the players that there are new rules, though.

http://www.reddit.com/user/xNotch




========

I have posted the notch questionnaire three times in this thread and no one took notice... Then people make speculations based on polygon's bias questions.....

really shows the incompetence of some people on the mcf compared to reddit's community.

Also shows how some people are looking at the situation the wrong way.

Quote from Netpatham

NOONE has answered that question.

Look at the comments section from the previous EULA news posting.

omg people look at the post where notch answers the questions. That will possibly tell you why.If you're going to argue against Mojang then at least use their words instead of of speculation.

Quote from hardcorerobot

Restrictions on how software may be used have never been of benefit to the user.

One does NOT gain more rights or a better experience when use becomes even more restricted.

Stop being an apologist - it is sickening.



Oh, the horror.

Instead of replying to an apologist, why don't you reply to Notch's answers.

Look at this post! Notch replies to questions

Notch responds to Polygon's biased questions like a boss by motmthrowawayin Minecraft
[–]xNotch 194 points 1 hour ago


These are questions I don't mind answering, and if anyone is curious: I was hoping it would calm things down, but it seems to just have made things worse. People less stressed than me tell me this doesn't have to be a bad thing. Hopefully we can reach some better results now that it's being talked about instead of people breaking the rules in silence. For the last several years, these have been the rules. People didn't realize or chose to ignore that they were building the businesses around something that breaks the rules. The "new rules" we've added adds new ways for people to be able to run legitimate servers and still make money, for the people who want to not break the rules. Hopefully this includes all big companies. First of all, people think we changed the rules to make them worse. We didn't. There were some way more lenient rules back in alpha when I was working alone, but that changed a long time ago into the too restrictive rules we had up until recently. The changes we made were all allowing people to monetize. Just how we think streaming and youtube are important for the community, we think running a server is something important that we want to allow, and the changes only happened because this got discussed. I feel sorry for the ones to based their business around something we don't want Minecraft to become (ie a game where you pay for gameplay). Unfortunately, these were the rules since before they started their business, and hopefully they will be able to transition into something in line we don't disallow. My gut feeling is that most should be able to survive the changeover. This is very difficult to give a general response to, as all servers have different setups. Perhaps "talk to your players". I would appreciate not telling the players that there are new rules, though.