[Discussion] TNT Duping/Primed TNT Duping being allowed on EMC

Separate thread for this discussion which popped up at https://empireminecraft.com/threads/suggestion-fix-the-lag.84174/page-2#post-1585085.
Continue the madness here!

I'm mostly just confused at to how it would alienate players. It's just a way of farming resources, it wouldn't alienate players any more than a giant sugar cane farm would. Besides, if that really was the dev's reasoning (and not stubborn refusal) then it would come down to a vote/discussion thread on whether or not to allow it based on the opinions of the players. I could understand server performances reasons in the past, but with TNT optimizations and EMC's TNT explosions per second limit, that's not an issue anymore.

*It, here, refers to disallowing automation entirely. They didn't want to do that becasue it would ailianate players. I have edited that original post to make that more clear now.

---

Here is that post, for those wondering:

(I know this is quite a tangent, but here we go: )

There is a difference between "Primed TNT duping" and "TNT duping" The first is a beloved unintentional feature of minecraft, the second a glitch.

I made a thread about the differences between bugs and unintended features in 2018, in this case with 0-ticks (Which is NOT just something you can use for letting crops grow faster, but also the name of a part of redstone that is mostly used by the piston door community, for crying out loud.)
Recently, with the 1.13 update, this post has been proven right. Mojang changed pistons in a way that removed 0-ticks, and then, they added it back in, because it was a beloved part of the game. (Again, I am NOT talking about the crops here.)

The same is true for TNT duping.
First of all: It’s a misnomer. It’s “primed TNT duping” Basically: it is a way to make a TNT both create a primed entity AND continue to exist as a block in the world. This effectively means that it is a way to spawn a primed TNT item in the game, without using any recourses.
It takes quite a lot of time to set up, it is quite bulky, and far from as versitile as your comments make believe.

This is used a lot

I cannot name any servers here, but it is allowed on all the other servers that I have played more than an hour or two on, on most of those, it was the only 'glitch' allowed. Most YouTubers use it all the time, and it is, by now, a beloved part of the game. Even the larger Youtubers who are relatively bad at redstone, and not at all a part of the technical community, like MumboJumbo or Xisumavoid, have used this feature in their let’s plays.

The primary reason this is true is because it is quite a lot of work to pull off, and relatively complicated and hard to move, so machinery using it quickly gets really large, effectively making it impossible to make a system that, for example, can mine and collect any blocks faster than a player can by hand. It is really only useful for stuff like tree farms and cobblestone farms, where the module can stay in place. Farms that, now, use withers.
Realistically: allowing primed TNT duping really only decreases the amount of withers people use for farms, and makes people move those farms to town.

Standard quarries and world eaters wouldn’t work on EMC anyway: you cannot x-ray, and, therefore, quarries will just break. World eaters will be difficult, but need to be redesigned. I know *I* can do that, but I doubt to many more people can.
Aditionally: Complicated slimestone is something that very few people know how to not break on EMC anyway… There are quite a few less-than-trivial reasons why quarries wouldn’t even start on EMC.

Indeed, his argument was a non sequitur, but this is too. I know a *certain* person on SS would use this same reasoning to argue that automatic farms shouldn’t be allowed at all: “Let's get down to it, farming automatically vs farming by hand. There is already a system where there is a way to farm sugar cane by use of your hands so those are fair game.”
Saying that these two are not the same, which I guess you would, would bring to the actual point: want do we want to allow, what do we not want to allow? The only differences are in what they do, not in what they are. The only difference in what they are is semantic: idiolectic semantics, to be precies. That is not something to base a rule around.

Before, I argued this: (quoting from another thread)
“The goals of regulating capitalism in real life and regulating it in Minecraft are very similar: in both cases you’re trying to protect the people from themselves in and from the competitive system that is created. The ultimate goal of rules in general is to create a system that everyone is able to live in. You want everyone to be able to do what they want, as long as it doesn’t harm other people. This has always been at the bottom of all the rule changes and arguments on EMC: What behaviour do we want to tolerate, and what behaviour does more harm than it does good, and should therefore be outlawed. Good regulation then becomes regulation that does this job properly.”

I would personally argue that primed TNT duping does good for the game: Realistically, the only prices that would go down are cobblestone, stone, smooth stone, the wood types, bonemeal and normal concrete, realative to powder.
I don’t think that, for any of these, a lowering of the price can be a problem, for many, it would be a good. The fact that the wood market, after all these years, has not jet stabilised, and I still sometimes have problems getting enough wood, even though I have all the rupees in the world, shows that there is a problem there. Concrete being roughly the same price as concrete powder would just be nice, a good way to make one of the most useful building blocks more obtainable, and I don’t really care for cobblestone or smooth stone. bonemeal would be the outlier: with primed TNT, it would also be possible to make bonemeal farms since 1.16, something that, I think, is a nice addition to the game, as I would otherwise make a large crop farm and compost it, anyway.

*tree farming only, it’s hugely impractical for anything else because of its complexness.

Griefing is a good point. Sadly, griefing with large flying machines is already very possible in minecraft, also on EMC.
Luckily enough: making a system with which you would really grief a place, in a way that breaks it more than, let’s say, a similar flying machine spreading water around, would be an end-game project to say the least. I doubt newer players could pull it off.
Let’s be clear here. This type of redstone is huge

The point I am making is this:
Primed TNT duping isn’t some overpowered glitch thing, it is a rather complicated and bulky thing, that has become a beloved part of the game for many people. It is allowed on virtually every survival server I played on, and used by most large YouTubers (meaning quite a lot of people find it being disabled a limitation, and a change from vanilla.)
Recently, assuming what Extendingskys said was right, the general minecraft development team have started to acknowledge that this is true, and they stopped trying to “fix” it out of existence. It is an unintentional feature: something that had a messy start as a bug, yes, but something that, too, is now a part of the game that the development is no longer trying to remove.

Contrary to what you might think based on this long post, I am not under the delusion that the development is going to choose to add it, that is also why I posted it on this [Not the one you're reading right now, the original one] thread. Having talked a lot with quite a few EMC devs, it seems to me that most would rather disable redstone altogether, and only focus on the “casual” players, than adding Primed TNT duping. This last point is not a hyperbola: When I talked about a server I briefly played on that had automatic farming *in general* as something that was now allowed, two EMC high-up-staff said disallowing automation entirely was something they thought would be better for the game, but they weren’t going to add solely because it would alienate a large part of the EMC player base.

My point with all this is this: Though I fully understand that it will not be added, given the stance SS has on automation in general, I want to show you that this disabling of Primed TNT Duping is not, like you seem to argue, just common sense, but a choice the development has made regarding the direction of the server: a choice many people rightfully disagree with, and a choice that has many arguments for and against it.

The end result is the same from my post from that other thread, regardless tnt duping or primed tnt duping. They both achieve a manufactured block used for explosions for free, the argument of the two being different doesn't work

As I mentioned before though, there are plenty of ways of duplicating items. Step 1, plant bamboo, step 2, wait. Step 1, plant sapling, step 2, wait. EMC even added infinite shulker box and diamond farms, arguably way stronger, far ahead of when vanilla minecraft is adding them. You're only thinking of TNT duping as "bad duping" because it's called duping. What if it was just known as "TNT priming"? It would have a different reception. You're also not actually duplicating any real items, only creating an extra primed TNT, so it's not even really an item dupe, and is only useful for farms. TNT Priming is an intended game mechanic just like growing a sapling is, and it's no more duping than mining two saplings from the leaves of a tree you grew.

Wither cages, something EMC made extremely easy with protected blocks, are also a source of infinite, free explosions. The only different here is that TNT priming can be used to make perimeters and mining machines, something that EMC has no substitute feature for but is an incredibly important and useful part of minecraft.

*I didn't read the large post by Egeau so sorry if I repeat something he said*

As much as I'd love to have a method like this be legal. It is duplication nonetheless. 1 + 1 =2 is the math EMC operates on rule-wise, not 1+0=2.

I understand your stance on this issue, however it was an unintended glitch that if Mojang removed or patched it, it would cause mass backlash and such so they left it in. Just like getting on the roof of the Nether, players were never meant to get there, but if they removed/revoked it there would be backlash. So while it may be in "vanilla," I would not say it is a feature by any stretch of the imagination. It is an unintended aspect of Coral + Slime + TNT + Rails.

Okay, so let me ask you this. Suppose I had found a way to have the effects of duping tnt using some server mechanic: same as duping tnt for all intents and purposes, such as farming, making quarries, making big holes in the ground, etc, without any resource cost. Now, it's NOT duping tnt or any item, or anything like that. Simply a method that has the same impacts and repercussions as being able to dupe tnt, but without any sort of duping. Would this be allowed?

We could speak in hypothetical situations all the live long day, but we are discussing TNT dupers. According to the official EMC Rule #3: "Even if it's a server-side or Mojang-side bug, do not abuse it." as well as "EMC reserves the right to indicate any 'intended' behavior as not allowed if Staff deem it necessary for the server." This wording should kill any thoughts and queries about exploits in any manner. Exploits are not, and never will be, allowed on EMC. TNT Duping is considered an exploit along the rules and staff of EMC, so it will never be allowed.

Who said anything about hypothetical? Besides, that's the whole point why I'm asking. EMC reserves the right to indicate any intended behavior as not allowed, so I'm asking if this intended behavior would be not allowed. No item dupes, no glitches, no tnt.

That is hypothetical.

It would not due to that method of removal being an exploit. ANYTHING not intended via the game's design is an exploit. It may be hard to pull-off or do consistently but it is an exploit nonetheless...

Why do you assume it's an exploit? I'm talking about a method using confirmed intended EMC mechanics. Not even in a particularly fancy way, no glitches or strange unexpected behavior. It's just an application of a relatively new EMC mechanic that I don't think anyone has thought of yet. And it's not hypothetical, by the way.

So you are saying if EMC implemented a feature on their own, as a substitute for TNT quarries? If so, of course it would be allowed since EMC themselves made it.

Mining Events exist, thus yes. They are allowed and encouraged by staff... There is even a Haste 3 boost and EXP multiplier for it...

I don't understand what's so hard about this question... I'm saying, suppose there is currently with the existing game mechanics a quarry substitute, TNT duping 2.0 if you will, but it doesn't involve TNT, duping, glitches, or exploits. Would it be allowed, or is the idea of having quarries etc banned outright on its own as an idea?

The question you raised in the OP was, "Should TNT dupers be legalized on EMC?" We have thoroughly answered this question. Now as to quarries in general, if there was a vanilla block, event, something that was added to the game and was intended to perform the action of quarrying large blocks with no resource gain; Then it would be allowed on EMC seeing as it's a vanilla feature. The only issue would come in with anti-grief, but that's a whole other issue. I hope this was a lot more clear of an answer.

"There are multiple ways to skin a cat" counter argument again already mentioned seemingly multiple times, this opens up many different systems that risk too much for what ecosystem we have, intentional or not by devs by MC.

This doesn't work from your first counter argument for wither cages because those are stationary, where risk is involved and the system needed are different. Primed tnt however is an entity where it can be mobile and with those systems you are implying, would make the wastelands similar to a anarchy server spawn. (need I say more) "Oh but I am controlled and staff can catch it early enough before enough damage is dealt to the lands". You may be responsible, but you know better that new players can be a mixed bag of intentions for the server and it isn't simple to catch one individual who is seemingly playing the game. One person with a intention of creating mass destruction to the lands for one outpost can be a player killer, which EMC as a community can't loose.

The risk factor, creating endless tnt for nothing, and the fallout of economy/community as a whole is plenty to say no. I want to read what Elfin stated...

For those tuning in why I am majority concerned with this and why to keep this banned, I advise you to watch this video



For 1 tnt and not a whole lot of flying machine components, you can have a inf "primed" tnt duplicator. Any counter arguments of this design will be ignored because this is implied to all primed tnt duplicators and their function, to explode something with little investment and to bypass creating tnt which takes a bunch of resources.

Will you please stop arguing over semantics?

Words like "duping," "exploiting," or "glitch" aren't coined terms. This means that different people will have different ideas on what they mean. It differs from culture to culture, from person to person, from era to era. Dictionary definitions, or whatever you have been trying to come up with, are not prescriptions of what those words should mean, nor are they definite descriptions of what they mean to everyone: they are descriptions of what a majority of the people would say they mean. In this case: the meaning of those words differs from playing style to playing style.
Saying that the meaning of words that come from natural langue can be prescribed or universally defined hasn’t been academically viable since the 1950s. Wittgenstein’s Philosophical Investigations put the final nail in that coffin.
I pointed this out in the post up above: “Idiolectic semantics” being the academic field of study of the differences between the meanings of works from one person to the other.

This has been my major criticism of the rules of EMC in general: They use terms that differ from person to person to try to describe.

Here is the general case for those interested:

Most rules on this server are kind of vague. Not only are the borders of the rules poorly defined, but the rules additionally use a lot of langue that can mean something completely different when you’re not raised in the same way as most of the staff, white American middle-class.
The clearest example I have seen is a discussion a friend of mine had with a staff member on what “family friendly” means, as used in the rules.
When this person thinks of “family friendly”, they explained to me, they usually imagine a young person sitting next to them as they, themselves, talk to another person their age, (20-30 sr so.) to find out what they can and cannot talk about. In the Netherlands, (from my own experience,) that would mean that marijuana or light sex talk, like discussing different ways of birth control, or something that describes “having sex” without actually talking about the different actions that that consists of, would be totally fine, but showing a picture of yourself posing with a gun, or shooting, would be frowned upon. Swearing etiquette is also really different in the Netherlands compared to the US.
The person from my example had problems with a different cultural barrier, (The lgbt- non lgbt, which can have quite different cultures,) but the point is that that barrier exists, (and I do not what to get into lgbt rights on this thread.)
These cultural differences are really frustrating to people who aren’t American, as they sometimes end up breaking the rules whilst trying to follow them, but it does not need to be a problem. The problem is probably best showed with a quote from the staff member with whom this conversation was. This is what they said after they tried to explain the cultural differences:
“Not reading the rules is not an excuse to willingly break them.”

What is showing here is a staff culture that does not understand the limits of their own rules. This server is extremely US-centred. I know most people in the states tend to think “Isn’t America basically the planet,” (quote from a YouTuber) but the rest of the world really doesn’t see you as that anymore. To most of Europe, the USA is that narcissistic uncle you have, you don’t really like talking to anymore, but he’s a part of your family, so he’s still there, talking about how great he is and everyone nodding hoping he will stop talking soon. In short: it would be unrealistic to ask Europeans, let alone people from non-western countries, to learn about US culture to be able to understand the rules.
So, no. “Just think Disney channel” (The answer staff has repeatedly given me personally) is not going to cut it either. At least partially because Europeans have to google what that is.

I think I can generalise this one step further, and say that most staff is hostile towards a misunderstanding that is created by differences between people, which creates a large group of people to get annoyed by the staff, (and especially their leader,) most of whom don’t seem to understand these problems.

In short, saying that primed TNT duping shouldn’t be allowed because “it is a glitch, plain and simple” is not viable, illogical and very poor communication.
Most of the technical minecraft community would disagree with that statement. Looking at the different servers I have played on, I think I can say, with relative certainty, that weather you think of primed TNT duping as a glitch, or as a misnomer because “it isn’t really duping” depends on the way in which you play Minecraft.
This is, I assume, why Extendingskys continually compares it with plants growing. To me, personally, I would classify primed TNT duping and quasi-connectivity under the same name: not originally intended features, the latter being something that is used in literally every piston door, and something that sparked such a large controversy upon its removal in 1.13 that it has been re-added and properly coded in, much like Primed TNT duping.

Simply put: if it is a glitch to you doesn’t mean that it has to be a glitch to me. Arguing that it inherently is or that it inherently isn’t a glitch is a rationalisation of idiolectic semantics. Doing so would be illogical and not linguistically viable. It’s simply not how langue works.