Skill needs to make the dummies deleteable. Just plop them in a list and tell the user the id. Have a way to check what dummies are out there( /dummies ). And a /deldum
This is not a debate. This isn't even an argument. This is a free-for-all. Debate is representative; you don't just dump the entirety of both camps on a given issue into the pot and let them speak their two cents. If you really want to DEBATE this, you need to appoint a speaker - one per side - and deliberate in private amongst like minds before deciding on what to say. All of the pro-hack members would settle on a case to make, and the "team captain" would lay it out for the opposing side to consider. In turn, anti-hack members would consider logically sound counter-arguments and have their "captain" present it. It's back and forth until you reach a resolution, either by vote via jury or gross membership, or until a compromise can be reached. In this case, the goal obviously isn't to "win" because there is no one-sided answer that everyone can agree on and will abide by, and there certainly isn't anything ironclad to force them to do so. Therefore, the aim should be to find a compromise.
There are three primary arguments against hacks, but not all anti/pro hack people debate on all of these grounds.
1. Hacks were not meant by notch.
2. Hacks ruin the game.
3. Hacks increase griefing more than they do building.
Apologies if I forgot one.
So at least three different debates are needed.
Also Peri is right on needing a PM system to pull off a real debate.
TheOne actually managed to pull off a good real debate on IRC, showing that it is possible.
i searched google for "minecraft client bot" and the first result was.. this thread.
mind elaborating?
It's a theory. It would take hours of work to make one in practice, with block tracking and player tracking and auto opping and ungriefing and all those features.
Photon, the distance check will break that. I hope.
Quote from Snake »
^Which is why, like on Chariot's Realistic Landscape, a good setup to have is +ophax, -speed, and -noclip.
So the non ops are limited to flying while the ops can do whatever they want.
* rages *
They both are easy to modify, you just have to scroll down a bit past the IRC part.
OT comment aside, it is possible to get an anti-grief without a custom server. The solution is a client bot. It could lock the map by undoing all block changes, track block modifications, and alot of other features.
By this observance, hacks are easily double-edged swords, with the ability to create and to destroy.
I agree, but the griefing edge is much sharper than the constructive edge.
Take noclip. The legit uses are weak(maybe your too lazy to find the entrance for a waterdome), but the griefing use is significant(breaking into servers). Atleast WoM had the sense to make it off by default.
Autoclickers. They can save time on building, but for detailed work, they can make things work. Meawhile a griefer doesn't need precision when destroying.
Speed has stronger good uses(save time by getting around the map), but it is also useful in griefing along with noclip to get around and make holes in the map, or getting out of sight.
You don't really get what a hack is, do you? A hack isn't something you just choose to allow or not. Hacks are loopholes in the code that people exploit. In order for Notch to put an end to a hack, he has to add code to stop a specific hack, there isn't any magic bit of code he can add that just ends all hacks. Besides, once you do that, people will just find another loophole to take advantage of. Sure, it'd be nice if there was just some switch you could flip and ban hacks, but it doesn't work that way.
With client side hack protection that post is right. But with server side anti-hack, it is a wrong unless the server owner wants hacks.
0
0
There are three primary arguments against hacks, but not all anti/pro hack people debate on all of these grounds.
1. Hacks were not meant by notch.
2. Hacks ruin the game.
3. Hacks increase griefing more than they do building.
Apologies if I forgot one.
So at least three different debates are needed.
Also Peri is right on needing a PM system to pull off a real debate.
TheOne actually managed to pull off a good real debate on IRC, showing that it is possible.
0
I'm actually not sure of the behavior of the server when a valid client sends invalid chat chars.
0
0
0
0
0
It's a theory. It would take hours of work to make one in practice, with block tracking and player tracking and auto opping and ungriefing and all those features.
0
Wouldn't -hax +fly +ophax be shorter?
0
* rages *
They both are easy to modify, you just have to scroll down a bit past the IRC part.
OT comment aside, it is possible to get an anti-grief without a custom server. The solution is a client bot. It could lock the map by undoing all block changes, track block modifications, and alot of other features.
0
I agree, but the griefing edge is much sharper than the constructive edge.
Take noclip. The legit uses are weak(maybe your too lazy to find the entrance for a waterdome), but the griefing use is significant(breaking into servers). Atleast WoM had the sense to make it off by default.
Autoclickers. They can save time on building, but for detailed work, they can make things work. Meawhile a griefer doesn't need precision when destroying.
Speed has stronger good uses(save time by getting around the map), but it is also useful in griefing along with noclip to get around and make holes in the map, or getting out of sight.
0
It might be useful.
0
0
With client side hack protection that post is right. But with server side anti-hack, it is a wrong unless the server owner wants hacks.
0
Get visual C++ runtime stuff. Or something. I think that's what the error is.