Mojang's recent EULA and TOS change megathread

[Nick3306]

Come on...they killed classic and are now making their first step to killing multiplayer.

Anyways, what are we going to do about it? I see there are three broad/general actions:

1. Remain unchanged, hopefully Mojang doesn't screw us up. Pretty likely because we aren't popular anymore.

2. Loophole. If we were to do this it would have to be insanely clever with absolutely no flaws, but then again falls under the "under the radar" section since we aren't popular anymore (again).

3. Remove donations entirely. This would really be a last resort to when Mojang finds out we are being super super illegal with our system.

Furthermore, what is the consequence for doing such a thing?
Seriously, I liked it way more when it was as simple as not distributing .jars.

The consequence would just be a seize and desist order.

[LIEKABOWSE]

http://notch.net/2014/06/literally-worse-than-ea/

[Mr_Mr_Mr]

http://notch.net/2014/06/literally-worse-than-ea/

I found a typo:
"These rules we’re posted in non-legal..."

[DeeKay]

Just the standard b/s https://mojang.com/2014/06/lets-talk-server-monetisation-the-follow-up-qa/

[Mattkkk12345]

How should servers deal with users who have already spent hard currency on features that affect gameplay?
Users may keep the perks they’ve paid for on the condition that the same perks are available to other players on the server (directly or purchasable using soft currency). It’s up to the server host to decide how to compensate users for previous transactions.

So what they're saying is if someone has donated for about 20 homes on opti... everyone is entitled to 20 homes...
(I think?)

[Chipaton]

How should servers deal with users who have already spent hard currency on features that affect gameplay?
Users may keep the perks they’ve paid for on the condition that the same perks are available to other players on the server (directly or purchasable using soft currency). It’s up to the server host to decide how to compensate users for previous transactions.

So what they're saying is if someone has donated for about 20 homes on opti... everyone is entitled to 20 homes...
(I think?)

No. They said you can not charge for gameplay features, not plugins. This includes in game money, though none of our other donations should be affected I'm correct.

Someone please correct me if I'm wrong but that is my understanding.

[TarynMai]

How should servers deal with users who have already spent hard currency on features that affect gameplay?
Users may keep the perks they’ve paid for on the condition that the same perks are available to other players on the server (directly or purchasable using soft currency). It’s up to the server host to decide how to compensate users for previous transactions.

So what they're saying is if someone has donated for about 20 homes on opti... everyone is entitled to 20 homes...
(I think?)

No. They said you can not charge for gameplay features, not plugins. This includes in game money, though none of our other donations should be affected I'm correct.

Someone please correct me if I'm wrong but that is my understanding.

Homes would count, since they give an advantage. Homes, money, tp, and xp would be affected. You could still have your two regular homes, but the rest of the homes wouldnt be allowed unless everyone was given the same amount.

[DeeKay]

How should servers deal with users who have already spent hard currency on features that affect gameplay?
Users may keep the perks they’ve paid for on the condition that the same perks are available to other players on the server (directly or purchasable using soft currency). It’s up to the server host to decide how to compensate users for previous transactions.

So what they're saying is if someone has donated for about 20 homes on opti... everyone is entitled to 20 homes...
(I think?)

No. They said you can not charge for gameplay features, not plugins. This includes in game money, though none of our other donations should be affected I'm correct.

Someone please correct me if I'm wrong but that is my understanding.

Homes would count, since they give an advantage. Homes, money, tp, and xp would be affected. You could still have your two regular homes, but the rest of the homes wouldnt be allowed unless everyone was given the same amount.

This is kind of hard for Opticraft based on the way the multiple homes donation reward works. The overall outcome needs to be that every player has to have the same amount of homes, so that no player has the advantage. The options here are either to set everyone's back to a certain amount (I'm sure donators wouldn't like this) or, to set every players homes to that of the player with the most homes (which in Opticrafts case, could be infinite because of the way the donation works)

Both of these options would seem outright unfair, and that rule added by Mojang leaves everyone in a predicament.

[Nick3306]

How should servers deal with users who have already spent hard currency on features that affect gameplay?
Users may keep the perks they’ve paid for on the condition that the same perks are available to other players on the server (directly or purchasable using soft currency). It’s up to the server host to decide how to compensate users for previous transactions.

So what they're saying is if someone has donated for about 20 homes on opti... everyone is entitled to 20 homes...
(I think?)

No. They said you can not charge for gameplay features, not plugins. This includes in game money, though none of our other donations should be affected I'm correct.

Someone please correct me if I'm wrong but that is my understanding.

Homes would count, since they give an advantage. Homes, money, tp, and xp would be affected. You could still have your two regular homes, but the rest of the homes wouldnt be allowed unless everyone was given the same amount.

This is kind of hard for Opticraft based on the way the multiple homes donation reward works. The overall outcome needs to be that every player has to have the same amount of homes, so that no player has the advantage. The options here are either to set everyone's back to a certain amount (I'm sure donators wouldn't like this) or, to set every players homes to that of the player with the most homes (which in Opticrafts case, could be infinite because of the way the donation works)

Both of these options would seem outright unfair, and that rule added by Mojang leaves everyone in a predicament.

No we would just stop selling the donation package. Everyone would keep the number of homes they currently have, as long as they cant trace it back to a donation of any kind it is fine.

[Nothing_]

Just as some players earn the right to be trusted you could say that some have earned the right to have more homes than others.

[DeeKay]

How should servers deal with users who have already spent hard currency on features that affect gameplay?
Users may keep the perks they’ve paid for on the condition that the same perks are available to other players on the server (directly or purchasable using soft currency). It’s up to the server host to decide how to compensate users for previous transactions.

So what they're saying is if someone has donated for about 20 homes on opti... everyone is entitled to 20 homes...
(I think?)

No. They said you can not charge for gameplay features, not plugins. This includes in game money, though none of our other donations should be affected I'm correct.

Someone please correct me if I'm wrong but that is my understanding.

Homes would count, since they give an advantage. Homes, money, tp, and xp would be affected. You could still have your two regular homes, but the rest of the homes wouldnt be allowed unless everyone was given the same amount.

This is kind of hard for Opticraft based on the way the multiple homes donation reward works. The overall outcome needs to be that every player has to have the same amount of homes, so that no player has the advantage. The options here are either to set everyone's back to a certain amount (I'm sure donators wouldn't like this) or, to set every players homes to that of the player with the most homes (which in Opticrafts case, could be infinite because of the way the donation works)

Both of these options would seem outright unfair, and that rule added by Mojang leaves everyone in a predicament.

No we would just stop selling the donation package. Everyone would keep the number of homes they currently have, as long as they cant trace it back to a donation of any kind it is fine.

I'm sure you're right in the sense we're a small server, and they probably won't give a crap who has more homes than others, but what if they do? They'll see Bob has 15 homes and John only has 2, and John will explain it's due to an old donation reward.

[Nick3306]

How should servers deal with users who have already spent hard currency on features that affect gameplay?
Users may keep the perks they’ve paid for on the condition that the same perks are available to other players on the server (directly or purchasable using soft currency). It’s up to the server host to decide how to compensate users for previous transactions.

So what they're saying is if someone has donated for about 20 homes on opti... everyone is entitled to 20 homes...
(I think?)

No. They said you can not charge for gameplay features, not plugins. This includes in game money, though none of our other donations should be affected I'm correct.

Someone please correct me if I'm wrong but that is my understanding.

Homes would count, since they give an advantage. Homes, money, tp, and xp would be affected. You could still have your two regular homes, but the rest of the homes wouldnt be allowed unless everyone was given the same amount.

This is kind of hard for Opticraft based on the way the multiple homes donation reward works. The overall outcome needs to be that every player has to have the same amount of homes, so that no player has the advantage. The options here are either to set everyone's back to a certain amount (I'm sure donators wouldn't like this) or, to set every players homes to that of the player with the most homes (which in Opticrafts case, could be infinite because of the way the donation works)

Both of these options would seem outright unfair, and that rule added by Mojang leaves everyone in a predicament.

No we would just stop selling the donation package. Everyone would keep the number of homes they currently have, as long as they cant trace it back to a donation of any kind it is fine.

I'm sure you're right in the sense we're a small server, and they probably won't give a crap who has more homes than others, but what if they do? They'll see Bob has 15 homes and John only has 2, and John will explain it's due to an old donation reward.

That's possible but really they would never have the manpower to join a server and start asking players about homes and stuff. The most they would do is check the donations page or something. Especially on a small server like this.

[butterflywolves]

I donated about a year ago for a title. Is a title considered an advantage since technically it enhances my usernames appearance? Also as much as I know I donated out of the kindness of my heart, I also donated in the intent that I would get benefit ingame (I know it's more minor than houses or ingame money) but what I think is unfair is that now according to EULA someone who wants the same title feature only has to work their butt off ingame for soft currency while I had to work my butt off in real life for hard currency which as noted by mojang soft currency has no effect out of the game and obviously anyone who doesn't have ties or an understanding of minecraft would find this soft currency useless and less desirable so basically I should have waited till Eula was in effect before getting this title benefit. Now I apologize for sounding selfish because I adore Opticraft and I don't regret helping Optical keep it running. I write in saying that this is less unfair to me than it is to Optical who needs this money so we can continue our enjoyment of the server.

[clawstrider]

I donated about a year ago for a title. Is a title considered an advantage since technically it enhances my usernames appearance?

It isn't.

[Nick3306]

The current problem is that all of our best sellers are not allowed. Homes, money, tp, and experience all are in violation.