I don't understand the problem. What difference does it make if your play habits are sent to Mojang? I feel the same way about similar things. It doesn't bother me at all if Steam is recording my gaming. Why does everyone get so worked up about it?
Well, people have this kind of thrauma that they are going to track everything you do in your computer and send that info to the FBI or something.
People just got a huge load of marihuana before posting.
You guys are the ones who are claiming sinister intent, or at least sinister possibilities. It's up to YOU to back up those claims, not to others to disprove them.
This is also something that happens far too often online.. where believers of nonsense constantly challenge skeptics to disprove them. But it doesn't work that way. The onus is always on the claimant. You claim sinister intent or desire, well PROVE IT.
I know this post was made over a week ago, but I have seen the idea of "onus probandi" misused far too often online that I had to say something. Let me give you a generic example:
Person A: (makes statement)
Person B: That's ridiculous! Prove to me that what you said is true!
Person A: You're the person claiming that my statement is ridiculous, so the burden of proof is on you.
That's essentially what's happening here. The pro side is claiming that data tracking is a good idea because it will help make the game better. The con side is claiming that data tracking is a bad idea because this data could be misused or used with evil intent. Both sides are making claims. Just as the pro side is justified in asking the con side to explain the reasoning behind and evidence for their claims, so the con side is justified in asking the pro side to do the same.
Mind you, I'm on the pro side on this one--I have no problem with Mojang collecting non-personally-identifiable data about how I play Minecraft. So I guess I'm on Whiplashr's side, I just think that the logic is flawed in this particular instance.
(For the record, I do think that information sent to Mojang could help improve the game, although it is not a silver bullet. If Minecraft sends back player stats, for example, this will give Mojang an idea of what sort of tools most players use, how much they mine, etc. Whether or not this is helpful boils down to how successful Mojang is at interpreting all of this data, since data is worthless unless it can be placed in the proper context. For example, say that the data shows that the most used pick in the game is the stone pick. What does this mean? Does this mean that most players stay on the surface and don't mine much? Does it mean that players avoid using other materials for their picks because they are technically non-renewable? That will be the trick, I think--not to misinterpret data. But I think if Mojang handle it well, it could give them valuable insight into the game that could help with future development. There are a number of "if"s there, I know--but not as many as required by the con argument, I think, especially since we are given the option of not participating.)
I know this post was made over a week ago, but I have seen the idea of "onus probandi" misused far too often online that I had to say something. Let me give you a generic example:
Person A: (makes statement)
Person B: That's ridiculous! Prove to me that what you said is true!
Person A: You're the person claiming that my statement is ridiculous, so the burden of proof is on you.
That's essentially what's happening here. The pro side is claiming that data tracking is a good idea because it will help make the game better. The con side is claiming that data tracking is a bad idea because this data could be misused or used with evil intent. Both sides are making claims. Just as the pro side is justified in asking the con side to explain the reasoning behind and evidence for their claims, so the con side is justified in asking the pro side to do the same.
Mind you, I'm on the pro side on this one--I have no problem with Mojang collecting non-personally-identifiable data about how I play Minecraft. So I guess I'm on Whiplashr's side, I just think that the logic is flawed in this particular instance.
(For the record, I do think that information sent to Mojang could help improve the game, although it is not a silver bullet. If Minecraft sends back player stats, for example, this will give Mojang an idea of what sort of tools most players use, how much they mine, etc. Whether or not this is helpful boils down to how successful Mojang is at interpreting all of this data, since data is worthless unless it can be placed in the proper context. For example, say that the data shows that the most used pick in the game is the stone pick. What does this mean? Does this mean that most players stay on the surface and don't mine much? Does it mean that players avoid using other materials for their picks because they are technically non-renewable? That will be the trick, I think--not to misinterpret data. But I think if Mojang handle it well, it could give them valuable insight into the game that could help with future development. There are a number of "if"s there, I know--but not as many as required by the con argument, I think, especially since we are given the option of not participating.)
I personally do not care as long as they only use the information gathered for the developement of the game. If they start trying to sell me **** based on information they gather it will become a problem.
Well, people have this kind of thrauma that they are going to track everything you do in your computer and send that info to the FBI or something.
They don't even really think that. They are just idealists. They hold to some strong ideal on this subject, and stand against it solely on the principle. That is obvious to anyone who observes these debates.
They don't actually have any good reasons against such simple data mining. They just knee jerkishly respond against it because they foolishly hold to some absolute ideal with regards to the idea of "freedom of speech" or "privacy" concerns.
I'm really sorry to see this thread got necro bumped. I'm sick of reading these peoples whining. So I'm unsubscribing from this mess. Let the drama queens continue to rant..
Also ", not recording information about the people playing the game, and maybe later what other things that person plays, what websites they visit, and other stuff that is equally valuable to 'development' and can easily be adjusted in the EULA to be unnoticed by most."
Slippery Slope falacy, I don't see Mojang being interested in those things. And in case you didn't notice, Notch said they would be transparent with the information they collect, if they decide to collect it.
Then they should have no problem allowing us to review all that information before it being sent.
I don't have to justify my reasons for being against the data harvesting to you or anybody else. I'm against it, that's all you need to know. Minecraft has over 3 million units sold, 70,000 people who voted yes is an insignificant portion of the user base and does NOT represent the opinion of the majority of the players. It represents the opinion of the people who read the forums, follow the Twitter, and bothered to vote.
This should be a purely volunteer program, not an opt-out situation.
As for your claim that this amounts to the 'slippery slope fallacy' you are engaging in Reductionism which is a much worse logical pitfall.
Then they should have no problem allowing us to review all that information before it being sent.
I don't have to justify my reasons for being against the data harvesting to you or anybody else. I'm against it, that's all you need to know. Minecraft has over 3 million units sold, 70,000 people who voted yes is an insignificant portion of the user base and does NOT represent the opinion of the majority of the players. It represents the opinion of the people who read the forums, follow the Twitter, and bothered to vote.
This should be a purely volunteer program, not an opt-out situation.
As for your claim that this amounts to the 'slippery slope fallacy' you are engaging in Reductionism which is a much worse logical pitfall.
a good point of view, of course 70.000 does not represent the 5.000.000 people who have the game ( yes, now its 5 million ).
But, the as the days pass those 70.000 increase, to 80.000, 90.000, 100.000, and at the moment it is at 146.209.
What does this means?
Those 140.000 people of course do not represent the whole community, but as this numbers keep getting bigger means that in time that will get a really big amount of people.
If numbers keep getting bigger it means a significant amount of people is agreeing with it, even if it is not everyone, in some months it will be everyone as the votes increase and increase at the exact moment in posting this.
Some data i got when posting this :
- When i started writing this post : 146,198
- At the middle of the post : 146,209
- When i finished writing this : 146,220
The road to Hell is paved with good intentions. This isn't some logical fallacy but rather the trend of how humanity behaves. Think of the children is a good intention, but some of the laws passed regarding that idea are absolutely horridly draconian as to be unimplementable. Enforcing your copyright is a good idea, but installing a root kit to make sure it happens is decidedly bad.
Perhaps Notch has good intentions for wanting to know how people play the game he created. What difference does it make? The deal that was struck was this: He made a game, people who bought it wanted to play it. That's it. If he wants more, he should ask the player. It's pretty easy, when it logs in for the first time following the update containing the 'call home' code, display a dialog that says "We want to make the game better. Can we collect information on how you play the game?" with buttons Yes and No. Not default to enabled on and make you hunt for the option to turn it off.
What assurances do we have that he will enumerate all the pieces that he's collecting, and then stick to that? Sounds like a fallacy as well, except people have gotten burned by 'scope creep' on other companies that start small and expand their collection after they've gotten in the door, or never bother to name the specific pieces of data they're collecting.
My biggest turnoff for the whole idea is the way he asks ("can we snoop" on a blog I don't read, making it opt-out not prompted or opt-in), the lackadaisical attitude he's had so far to Minecraft's development, and that I just feel he has any right to that information about me.
If you actually took the time to check his post you would know that the game will only send generic data.
Data like your gamemode, how long you've been playing and things like multiplayer and singleplayer.
It makes sense that he wont receive advanced data or really specific data like how many logs you have punched and how many chickens you killed.
Not only would the package become too big, it will not be useful to Mojang in the slightest.
Many people recognize this and thus support it.
You aren't being spied or monitored, the game just sends data to Mojang about your mode and other generic information like that.
well, because it is completely anonymous, he isn't holding any personal data so what does that matter? if it weren't to be anonymous, a message would be sent to you directly asking whether you want this to happen or not. so what he is doing isn't going to affect your game play, or create any personal data of you. it's all legal and fair in my eyes =)
It's amazing that you can identify people when you aggregate non-personally identifiable information (see: Data Mining). It all depends on what you consider personally identifiable. It has been said at least once before that the logon to Minecraft carries with it your user/pass/IP/timestamp. Knowing the metaupdate interval, you can calculate when the update would occur to identify one user from a mass of data. Also, you can use IP address, since it's really not likely to change during the course of a game session.
"He isn't holding any personal data so what does that matter?" is akin to saying 'If you have nothing to hide, you wouldn't mind being searched.' Frankly, it's that he isn't asking the right way, or that it's frankly none of his business if I choose not to give him that information. It isn't REQUIRED to play the game, as in access the network is a fundamental requirement of playing multiplayer.
Privacy? People, Mojang already has plenty of personal information on you. All they want to know is how many hours a day you play Minecraft. It does not monitor your chat or monitor what you do, it just sends basic usage statistics. Windows does it, Apple has gotten sued for it, most if not all cell phones do it, your cable/satellite box does it, your broadband router does it, Steam does it...
Nobody complains about any of that.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The Internet is a big place, friend. I've been places you've n͍̺e̩v̦e̦̰͍͓̩ͅr̜̭̝̬̬͉̤̬ ͙ịm̖͇a͍͇̤͙̥g̤̘i͔͖̤̼̪̬n͖͔̳̬̯e̩̘ḓ͈͔̠̙͇̼̯.͎
Privacy? People, Mojang already has plenty of personal information on you. All they want to know is how many hours a day you play Minecraft. It does not monitor your chat or monitor what you do, it just sends basic usage statistics. Windows does it, Apple has gotten sued for it, most if not all cell phones do it, your cable/satellite box does it, your broadband router does it, Steam does it...
Nobody complains about any of that.
What personal information does Mojang have about me? A username and password? My IP for sure. Probably an email address. Perhaps payment information since I actually paid for Minecraft, but that could be a Paypal account using the same email address given before. That's about it, to be honest. Certainly not very much, and nothing that, by itself, comes to identify me. With other pieces of information, however, it very well may. Mojang has yet to specifically state what information they're going to collect. The statement seemed like it summarized to just 'Can we snoop on you to figure out how you play the game?'
And besides, who are you to suggest that, in my specific instance, I'm complaining on one hand about Mojang and not about Windows, or Apple, or Android, or anything else that may be reporting on my behavior. Have I given my opinion on Carrier IQ? I don't recall that being the scope here, nor do I recall saying I'm ok with that either. This discussion is specifically Mojang's desire to collect usage statistics. Besides, one can be ok with one group collecting it and not with another, based on the level of trust those two entities have earned.
Try not to put words or a particular stance to people without finding out their stance first. It helps make your case later.
If one was to be technical, Mojang actually already collects user information via the statistics, though they probably don't read them. Would people suddenly complain if Notch, Jeb, or anyone working at Mojang took a look as those numbers? I'm not implying anything with this post, it's a straight answer.
Yes, if this gets added the community will get a great benefit.
They want to track down what we do in minecraft.
To see if more players use their time to kill monsters, or to collect blocks and build.
Lets say some random day jeb decides to look at the statistics.
60% likes to collect blocks.
Next update will be 10+ blocks to add more to that.
Well, people have this kind of thrauma that they are going to track everything you do in your computer and send that info to the FBI or something.
People just got a huge load of marihuana before posting.
I know this post was made over a week ago, but I have seen the idea of "onus probandi" misused far too often online that I had to say something. Let me give you a generic example:
Person A: (makes statement)
Person B: That's ridiculous! Prove to me that what you said is true!
Person A: You're the person claiming that my statement is ridiculous, so the burden of proof is on you.
That's essentially what's happening here. The pro side is claiming that data tracking is a good idea because it will help make the game better. The con side is claiming that data tracking is a bad idea because this data could be misused or used with evil intent. Both sides are making claims. Just as the pro side is justified in asking the con side to explain the reasoning behind and evidence for their claims, so the con side is justified in asking the pro side to do the same.
Mind you, I'm on the pro side on this one--I have no problem with Mojang collecting non-personally-identifiable data about how I play Minecraft. So I guess I'm on Whiplashr's side, I just think that the logic is flawed in this particular instance.
(For the record, I do think that information sent to Mojang could help improve the game, although it is not a silver bullet. If Minecraft sends back player stats, for example, this will give Mojang an idea of what sort of tools most players use, how much they mine, etc. Whether or not this is helpful boils down to how successful Mojang is at interpreting all of this data, since data is worthless unless it can be placed in the proper context. For example, say that the data shows that the most used pick in the game is the stone pick. What does this mean? Does this mean that most players stay on the surface and don't mine much? Does it mean that players avoid using other materials for their picks because they are technically non-renewable? That will be the trick, I think--not to misinterpret data. But I think if Mojang handle it well, it could give them valuable insight into the game that could help with future development. There are a number of "if"s there, I know--but not as many as required by the con argument, I think, especially since we are given the option of not participating.)
This to the infinite degree.
Here we go again with the "DONT LIKE IT PRETEND LIKE IT DOESN'T EXIST".
What if we play SMP? What if we dont like the unlicensed copy thing?
Honestly could not be screwed reading that
They don't even really think that. They are just idealists. They hold to some strong ideal on this subject, and stand against it solely on the principle. That is obvious to anyone who observes these debates.
They don't actually have any good reasons against such simple data mining. They just knee jerkishly respond against it because they foolishly hold to some absolute ideal with regards to the idea of "freedom of speech" or "privacy" concerns.
I'm really sorry to see this thread got necro bumped. I'm sick of reading these peoples whining. So I'm unsubscribing from this mess. Let the drama queens continue to rant..
Then they should have no problem allowing us to review all that information before it being sent.
I don't have to justify my reasons for being against the data harvesting to you or anybody else. I'm against it, that's all you need to know. Minecraft has over 3 million units sold, 70,000 people who voted yes is an insignificant portion of the user base and does NOT represent the opinion of the majority of the players. It represents the opinion of the people who read the forums, follow the Twitter, and bothered to vote.
This should be a purely volunteer program, not an opt-out situation.
As for your claim that this amounts to the 'slippery slope fallacy' you are engaging in Reductionism which is a much worse logical pitfall.
a good point of view, of course 70.000 does not represent the 5.000.000 people who have the game ( yes, now its 5 million ).
But, the as the days pass those 70.000 increase, to 80.000, 90.000, 100.000, and at the moment it is at 146.209.
What does this means?
Those 140.000 people of course do not represent the whole community, but as this numbers keep getting bigger means that in time that will get a really big amount of people.
If numbers keep getting bigger it means a significant amount of people is agreeing with it, even if it is not everyone, in some months it will be everyone as the votes increase and increase at the exact moment in posting this.
Some data i got when posting this :
- When i started writing this post : 146,198
- At the middle of the post : 146,209
- When i finished writing this : 146,220
Perhaps Notch has good intentions for wanting to know how people play the game he created. What difference does it make? The deal that was struck was this: He made a game, people who bought it wanted to play it. That's it. If he wants more, he should ask the player. It's pretty easy, when it logs in for the first time following the update containing the 'call home' code, display a dialog that says "We want to make the game better. Can we collect information on how you play the game?" with buttons Yes and No. Not default to enabled on and make you hunt for the option to turn it off.
What assurances do we have that he will enumerate all the pieces that he's collecting, and then stick to that? Sounds like a fallacy as well, except people have gotten burned by 'scope creep' on other companies that start small and expand their collection after they've gotten in the door, or never bother to name the specific pieces of data they're collecting.
My biggest turnoff for the whole idea is the way he asks ("can we snoop" on a blog I don't read, making it opt-out not prompted or opt-in), the lackadaisical attitude he's had so far to Minecraft's development, and that I just feel he has any right to that information about me.
the only ones who really should be nervous are the kids who go and pirate the game, even then if there is DRM there will be a way around it.
this exactly.
And that's it?
......
*Walks off*
It's amazing that you can identify people when you aggregate non-personally identifiable information (see: Data Mining). It all depends on what you consider personally identifiable. It has been said at least once before that the logon to Minecraft carries with it your user/pass/IP/timestamp. Knowing the metaupdate interval, you can calculate when the update would occur to identify one user from a mass of data. Also, you can use IP address, since it's really not likely to change during the course of a game session.
"He isn't holding any personal data so what does that matter?" is akin to saying 'If you have nothing to hide, you wouldn't mind being searched.' Frankly, it's that he isn't asking the right way, or that it's frankly none of his business if I choose not to give him that information. It isn't REQUIRED to play the game, as in access the network is a fundamental requirement of playing multiplayer.
Nobody complains about any of that.
What personal information does Mojang have about me? A username and password? My IP for sure. Probably an email address. Perhaps payment information since I actually paid for Minecraft, but that could be a Paypal account using the same email address given before. That's about it, to be honest. Certainly not very much, and nothing that, by itself, comes to identify me. With other pieces of information, however, it very well may. Mojang has yet to specifically state what information they're going to collect. The statement seemed like it summarized to just 'Can we snoop on you to figure out how you play the game?'
And besides, who are you to suggest that, in my specific instance, I'm complaining on one hand about Mojang and not about Windows, or Apple, or Android, or anything else that may be reporting on my behavior. Have I given my opinion on Carrier IQ? I don't recall that being the scope here, nor do I recall saying I'm ok with that either. This discussion is specifically Mojang's desire to collect usage statistics. Besides, one can be ok with one group collecting it and not with another, based on the level of trust those two entities have earned.
Try not to put words or a particular stance to people without finding out their stance first. It helps make your case later.