[PMC] Should we allow the use of logblock to give players count of global edits/amount of blocks in a build?

[TheRandomnatrix]

It was brought up ingame under what is currently modreq #1283 on PvE:

 

"Could you tell me how many oak wood and oak leaves make up my tree?"

 

There have been cases in the past where we have allowed players to ask what their total edits are for a particular block(barring ore edits), but there are also those who feel logblock should be a tool use solely for tracking grief. I'd like to see a discussion and ultimate decision on what should and shouldn't be allowed so that we may reference it in future instances.

[totemo]

If we're just talking about giving players access to /lb me, then I'm fine with that (more below).  If it's to do a selection for them and count blocks... :/ I'm not sure I want to dob in the mods for the extra work.

 

I can't recall the exact reasons behind removing /lb me permission - whether it was concerns about people loading the server by spamming the command, or whether it was a worry about sophisticated xrayers attempting to game the system by boosting their stone counts to look more innocent.

 

If it's the former, we could wrap '/lb me' in a new command like '/stats' that throttles it to once every 5 minutes or so.  If it's the latter, those xrayers would be in the extreme minority and I think our xray detection practice is too sophisticated for it to matter.

[Trooprm32]

As for the main topic, I could see a lot of people wanting to know how big their build is block wise, therefor more modreqs. Personally I have nothing against doing modreqs, so it wouldn't bother me. But I am not everyone, just my opinion

 

I remember hearing this quite awhile ago about /lb me, but here it is; it was disabled due to griefers using it to equalize their edits so the logs appear to not show pure deconstructive edits? I know on C I mainly look for the people who have a lot of edits and no creations when checking out their trace.

 

Also to the xray'ing point, them equalizing stone to dia ratio would do them no good, as totemo said.

[buzzie71]

As a first opinion, I don't see a problem with players having access to /lb me, unless there was a technical reason for removing it (increased server load from frequent use of command) or a gameplay reason for removing it (xrayers attempting to fudge block edits to make their ratio look legitimate).  I admittedly have no context for either cases and am curious to see how this discussion unfolds.

 

That said, if I may add another question for discussion: what do we think about giving players access to their kill data from /lb kills? (We could disable this in the End; last rev more than 4 million Endermen were killed and querying LogBlock for that information took noticeably longer.)

[WayneByNumbers]

 last rev more than 4 million Endermen were killed

 

Holy crap.

 

I wonder whether this thread has any effect on this discussion, since it concerns player access to LB?

 

I'm also curious as to what kind of requests we're talking about; players wanting to know about their overall activity and wanting block totals, or players wanting to know about specific builds and how much work went into them?  Req #1283 looks more to me like the latter.

 

I don't see any problem with asking for a count on the number of blocks in a build; I had the same curiosity when I built an Orthanc out of pure obsidian in Rev 9.  That was accomplished with //count rather than LogBlock, though; the build had taken over a month, and many of the edits would have expired.  I wonder whether, in those cases of players wanting to know how impressively huge their stuff is, this would be more a discussion about permission for and use of //count rather than LogBlock policy.  As I understand, //count was made admin-only after a nasty incident where a mod accidently made too large a selection (the whole map) and ran //count, resulting in a server crash.  While I can see the danger, I'm inclined to think that this was a rather unlikely incident in the first place, and that the WorldEdit CUI has reduced the chances even more.  Perhaps //count could be made staffwide again for such build-quantifying requests.

 

But I digress.  In the case of requests for global LB data, I feel just a little more cautious.  While I don't really believe that LB should be absolutely for grief tracking/repair only, I do note the possibility of griefers or x-rayers using /lb me or such info cleverly.  In the most extreme griefer case, a griefer would probably destroy something completely, run /lb me and take note of what types of blocks he destroyed, and spam those elsewhere on the map so his creations still outnumber his destructions.  This strikes me as both very unlikely (seriously, who would do that?) and not particularly effective; whatever has been destroyed can still be noticed by the builder, and now there's this suspicious blob of blockspam somewhere else.  /trace-r commands would easily reveal the truth.  As for x-rayers, I've less experience.  Does detection rely on ratios that much, or are they more of another nail in the coffin for suspicious tunnels?

 

So basically, I agree with totemo.  I don't see any ironclad reason to disallow /lb me (and I like his idea of a throttleable command if server load is an issue).  For things like req #1283, I think that's a legitimate interest, but //count would perhaps be more useful, and that doesn't seem like a dire enough request to have to get automatically bumped up to admin level.

[totemo]

As for x-rayers, I've less experience.  Does detection rely on ratios that much, or are they more of another nail in the coffin for suspicious tunnels?

 

Ratios are just supporting evidence.  I regard them as most helpful in putting some suspicious looking mining into context and thereby rejecting xray as the explanation.  They're useless for the current crop of xrayers on P who are spelunking for already-exposed diamonds with xray texture pack.

 

I'd be wary of handing out //count permissions just because WorldEdit is one of the easiest ways to inadvertently take down the server. 

[NatalieIsNot]

First off, I'd say we should not advertise that we will give block counts per requests if we do decide to allow it, as that could get out of hand.

 

Though, if we do allow it, I think we should limit it to giving block counts on land or builds that player has permissions or a claim on. There should be no reason we would give Player A a count of the number of stone brick in Player B's build.

 

If we were to follow a guideline similar to that, i'd personally have no problem doing a modreq for this. But as Trooprm32 said, that's just me.

[WayneByNumbers]

I'd be wary of handing out //count permissions just because WorldEdit is one of the easiest ways to inadvertently take down the server. 

 

Noted.  Can't say I'm surprised, just thought I'd ask.

 

One reason I'm in support of letting players ask for a block count on their stuff is because I did the same, so I not only understand the interest but also don't think I should have access to that request if others don't (speaking of cases when LB logs have gone stale).  I suppose, as [ADMIN] reqs go, a simple run of //count would probably be a welcome break, so in the (unlikely) event that I run across such a request, nobody would mind my elevating it?

 

I agree with everything tristan said.  No need to advertise, people can only ask about their own stuff, but if they're curious, sure.

[Cyotie911]

What about making a new command like "/countme". This command could give players a set command to do a "/count" on themselves amd restrict it to, say 50 blocks radius of wherever they run the command. This might satisfy someones curiosity, but limit their ability, to take advantage of / modify, the parameters of the command.

[tompreuss]

I don't feel granting any additional WorldEdit permissions outside of the way they are set up now is a good idea. Like totemo says, WorldEdit is one of the easiest ways to take down a server.

It seems like the information wanted is a total number of blocks in a build. In addition to a method as simple as counting the blocks as you place them, there are client side modifications that can do this. Schematica is one.

My LogBlock queries take long enough and put enough strain on the server as it is and I don't feel having a few hundred more people having access to querying that database is in our best interest. Also, it seems like the reported total number of blocks created in a LogBlock query wouldn't even accurately report the number of blocks in a build anyway, since builds have plenty of create/destroy/create happening.

The best way to get that information is //count or //distr, and as I said, I'm not comfortable giving out WorldEdit permissions to anyone who does not currently have them.

That all being said: totemo, if you think a watered down or wrapped version of /lb me wouldn't be too bad on us lag wise or query wise, I'm interested in hearing more about how you could go about implementing that.

[tompreuss]

That all being said: totemo, if you think a watered down or wrapped version of /lb me wouldn't be too bad on us lag wise or query wise, I'm interested in hearing more about how you could go about implementing that.

Bumping for totemo.

[schererererer]

I was also wondering about the use of lb to track a leaderboard for community digs. This is standard on C and it has been done before on P, but is it legal now?

[schererererer]

I was also wondering about the use of lb to track a leaderboard for community digs. This is standard on C and it has been done before on P, but is it legal now?

[tompreuss]

I was also wondering about the use of lb to track a leaderboard for community digs. This is standard on C and it has been done before on P, but is it legal now?

Random already asked us about this privately and we replied privately thusly:

We feel that you and he should not use logblock to give stats unless we allow for all players to lookup their own stats.

I bumped this thread with the the hope that totemo can possibly implement something that would allow for that.

[schererererer]

Alright, thanks!