Don't use shubla's client(Purus Pasta), it's spyware

[Astarisk]

As I said, if you did your due diligence (aka joined the Discord and asked about the map feature), you would have known that the client was collecting your data and uploading to shubla's server.

As for the folks who don't speak English, that's not our responsibility. The onus is on them to either painstakingly translate everything or deal with not knowing information. I'm saying this as someone who's played games in other languages I couldn't read before.

It is quite your responsibility -- this entire argument is just flawed and terrible. Most players I've asked or whom have contacted me had zero idea that his client was harvesting this data. This client is posted on the public forum for the game and is easily accessible to others. The onus is not on the folks, but rather the developer to be as openly honest as possible and to take any opportunity to be up front and provide ways to opt-out (opt-in preferably) to the harvesting of their data. This type of information gathering should entirely be an opt-in system so people are fully aware of the potential ramifications. There is literally no valid argument to the contrary. Most of what is being gathered is not needed to make a community map and can used in a harmful or malicious manner. It is really that simple. The fact that we even have to argue this point is ludicrous. The solution is simple and any counter argument against making it an system based upon personal choice is just bad faith and shows a negative light onto the character of the individuals who support such data gathering.

viewtopic.php?f=49&t=70172&p=876524#p876524

That is a fair point. Looking back at the format of the data he's actually sending, there may be a case to be made that it is needlessly revealing if the point is merely to build a public map. It should be possible to batch collected grids together every half hour or something. If that is a non-trivial implementation, I would in fact strongly suggest that Shubla turn his telemetry off until he has the opportunity to implement that.

I'm glad to see that Loftar has taken a stance on the matter and hope to see Shubla turn off this telemetry. I've been merging the latest updates to Shubla's client in my own version with the telemtry turned off (viewtopic.php?f=49&t=70172#p876190). Despite there being a few updates today, I have not seen any removal of telemetry and hope Loftar follows up on the matter. There is simply no need to have such invasive features on a client publicly distributed on the game's forum.

[wolf1000wolf]

If you think that was an attack, you should be the one growing a thicker skin.

What i don't like is when someone takes advantage of other people while simultaneously bitching about people doing things that are nowhere near as malicious as what he is doing. If you think that's OK and people should just ignore it, that's fine, but don't expect other people to. Shubla is very quick to complain about factions and anyone doing better than him, in fact, almost weekly, he offers (mostly backwards) ideas to nerf things that don't benefit him personally, he complains about botting, he has botted himself and will continue to do so, all the while he has had the biggest advantage of all. How do you feel about the code he stole and then asked for financial contributions to? Do you think that's ok too?

I'm not bothered by it but calling someone stupid and not a decent person is personal attack by most definitions.

My 'argument' is specific to your previous quote of "He is collecting data from players unknowingly, its wrong. It doesnt matter who said it or why, the fact is that its wrong." <- This is the part I don't agree with.
My point was that
1) It's not unknowingly. If you're going to download a random program from someone online, the onus is on the end user to do their due diligence
2) Why is it wrong? There is no universal definition of right and wrong for data protection. Everyone being riled up about this is bringing their own personal opinions and morals into this.

Now here you're talking about talking advantage of other ppl, bitching, offering biased complaints, etc etc.

I'm not going to argue about shubla as an individual. But the problem I have here is people seem to be arguing that the client that shubla made is somehow this outrageous offence based on shubla's past history/personality along with their own notions of what is acceptable data collection.

[wolf1000wolf]

It is quite your responsibility -- this entire argument is just flawed and terrible. Most players I've asked or whom have contacted me had zero idea that his client was harvesting this data. This client is posted on the public forum for the game and is easily accessible to others. The onus is not on the folks, but rather the developer to be as openly honest as possible and to take any opportunity to be up front and provide ways to opt-out (opt-in preferably) to the harvesting of their data. This type of information gathering should entirely be an opt-in system so people are fully aware of the potential ramifications. There is literally no valid argument to the contrary. Most of what is being gathered is not needed to make a community map and can used in a harmful or malicious manner. It is really that simple. The fact that we even have to argue this point is ludicrous. The solution is simple and any counter argument against making it an system based upon personal choice is just bad faith and shows a negative light onto the character of the individuals who support such data gathering.

You guys really love bringing in personal ethics into arguments.

I just find it ironic that in an open world pvp game where the common response to "help please, my sprucecap buddy got wrecked by some faction marauder" is "git gud, learn how to better protect yourself" that you can argue the individual is not responsible for their own data safety.

Sure, in an ideal world, the dev should be open and honest and we shouldn't have to jump through hoops to find out the information... but this is HnH.

[springyb]

O hey Shubla is still doing the same thing he's been doing for 3 years now and suddenly the community cares because he took one step too far over the line.

I'm glad someone mentioned it. This is not the first time he's been caught hiding malicious shit in his client.

[cherryquartz]

If you think that was an attack, you should be the one growing a thicker skin.

What i don't like is when someone takes advantage of other people while simultaneously bitching about people doing things that are nowhere near as malicious as what he is doing. If you think that's OK and people should just ignore it, that's fine, but don't expect other people to. Shubla is very quick to complain about factions and anyone doing better than him, in fact, almost weekly, he offers (mostly backwards) ideas to nerf things that don't benefit him personally, he complains about botting, he has botted himself and will continue to do so, all the while he has had the biggest advantage of all. How do you feel about the code he stole and then asked for financial contributions to? Do you think that's ok too?

I'm not bothered by it but calling someone stupid and not a decent person is personal attack by most definitions.

My 'argument' is specific to your previous quote of "He is collecting data from players unknowingly, its wrong. It doesnt matter who said it or why, the fact is that its wrong." <- This is the part I don't agree with.
My point was that
1) It's not unknowingly. If you're going to download a random program from someone online, the onus is on the end user to do their due diligence
2) Why is it wrong? There is no universal definition of right and wrong for data protection. Everyone being riled up about this is bringing their own personal opinions and morals into this.

Now here you're talking about talking advantage of other ppl, bitching, offering biased complaints, etc etc.

I'm not going to argue about shubla as an individual. But the problem I have here is people seem to be arguing that the client that shubla made is somehow this outrageous offence based on shubla's past history/personality along with their own notions of what is acceptable data collection.

I didnt call you stupid, i said your response was stupid. I stand by that comment.

The whole point is that Shubla is known for doing shitty things, this isnt the first time and it wont be the last, but its time he was held accountable. You might not see it as a shitty thing, but clearly, alot of people do and are making their opinions known, as are you. Shublas past behaviour has made people suspicious of him, thats his own fault, if you act like a dick, people will treat you like one.

How can you say it wasnt unknowingly? If they didnt know, it was unknowingly, they shouldnt have to join a discord in order to be warned that someone is collecting unnecessary data from them, what part of that are you having an issue with?

[wolf1000wolf]

How can you say it wasnt unknowingly? If they didnt know, it was unknowingly, they shouldnt have to join a discord in order to be warned that someone is collecting unnecessary data from them, what part of that are you having an issue with?

We must be working off different definitions here. I don't see us resolving this quickly so let's just agree to disagree?

[Astarisk]

You guys really love bringing in personal ethics into arguments.

I just find it ironic that in an open world pvp game where the common response to "help please, my sprucecap buddy got wrecked by some faction marauder" is "git gud, learn how to better protect yourself" that you can argue the individual is not responsible for their own data safety.

Sure, in an ideal world, the dev should be open and honest and we shouldn't have to jump through hoops to find out the information... but this is HnH.

There is a fundamental difference between actions taken within (while playing) the game itself and that of software running upon someone else's computer. I'm not sure what university Shubla may have went to, but at the one I graduated from we are made to take a course talking about the ethics of Computer Science. This is beyond any sense of "personal ethics", it is the opinion of the community by far that such blatant information gathering by as up front as possible while including the possibility an opt-out system at the bare minimum (though opt-in is much better). Shubla barely even meets the first half of this by offering a vague warning and a weak "promise" not to do anything harmful. It bares repeating once again, this client is being publicly distributed on these very forums. I have personally asked several groups if they even knew what this client did and not a single person responded yes. I should also mentioned that some of these groups do not understand English at a fluent level and are even more unaware than the average poster here. You argue that the onus should be on them, I in fact argue that the onus should be on the developer not to release such bad faith features -- and if they do it should be an opt-in feature. This is the most sensible solution that strikes a balance of good faith and understanding. Any attempt to the contrary just paints further potential for abuse.

Once again I do hope that Loftar keeps following up on the situation, as his strongly suggestion seems to thus far have been ignored.

[wolf1000wolf]

There is a fundamental difference between actions taken within (while playing) the game itself and that of software running upon someone else's computer.

As the information being collected is game information I'm not sure why there's a distinction.

I'm not sure what university Shubla may have went to, but at the one I graduated from we are made to take a course talking about the ethics of Computer Science. This is beyond any sense of "personal ethics", it is the opinion of the community by far that such blatant information gathering by as up front as possible while including the possibility an opt-out system at the bare minimum (though opt-in is much better).

Fair enough, I'm not a member of the programmer/dev community so I'll trust your claim of the community ethics.

I have personally asked several groups if they even knew what this client did and not a single person responded yes. I should also mentioned that some of these groups do not understand English at a fluent level and are even more unaware than the average poster here.

That is the sad downsides to playing a game in a foreign language. One must rely on others to help translate or inform if they choose to participate in an activity where they're not fluent in the language? As for those who ARE fluent in English, I maintain they're at least partly responsible for understanding what they're getting into by downloading a random 3rd party client from someone they don't personally know. Isn't this basic internet literacy skills in this day and age?

You argue that the onus should be on them, I in fact argue that the onus should be on the developer not to release such bad faith features -- and if they do it should be an opt-in feature. This is the most sensible solution that strikes a balance of good faith and understanding. Any attempt to the contrary just paints further potential for abuse.

I like this version of your argument much better and I can mostly agree with it.

That said, I support either opt-in/out and not a wholesale removal of the telemetry function.

[Astarisk]

There is a fundamental difference between actions taken within (while playing) the game itself and that of software running upon someone else's computer.

As the information being collected is game information I'm not sure why there's a distinction.

I have personally asked several groups if they even knew what this client did and not a single person responded yes. I should also mentioned that some of these groups do not understand English at a fluent level and are even more unaware than the average poster here.

That is the sad downsides to playing a game in a foreign language. One must rely on others to help translate or inform if they choose to participate in an activity where they're not fluent in the language? As for those who ARE fluent in English, I maintain they're at least partly responsible for understanding what they're getting into by downloading a random 3rd party client from someone they don't personally know. Isn't this basic internet literacy skills in this day and age?

There is an expectation that when running a certain piece of software that it connects only to the entity that it is expected to connect to. In terms of the hafen client the default and only expected behavior is that it should strictly be connecting solely to the hafen server. Shubla's implementation breaks this common understanding by introducing his own third party connections to his servers without the potential to opt-out of it at all. We can put some blame on foreign users for their failure to read and understand fluently but it is Shubla who has broken the commonly understood expectation -- while only providing at the time the most minimal of warning. Though even now he just offers up a more upfront than before but still vague enough warning.

[wolf1000wolf]

There is an expectation that when running a certain piece of software that it connects only to the entity that it is expected to connect to. In terms of the hafen client the default and only expected behavior is that it should strictly be connecting solely to the hafen server.

Ok, a solid point that I agree with.

Shubla's implementation breaks this common understanding by introducing his own third party connections to his servers without the potential to opt-out of it at all. We can put some blame on foreign users for their failure to read and understand fluently but it is Shubla who has broken the commonly understood expectation -- while only providing at the time the most minimal of warning. Though even now he just offers up a more upfront than before but still vague enough warning.

This is less straight forward though, right? While I do agree that it would be better to have opt-in and in all honestly, shubla SHOULD put in some sorta optin/out at this point from an ethical pov, saying it breaks the understanding of a program "only connecting to what it is expected to" isn't quite correct because one of the main features of shubla's client is the "map site". The understanding of folks using the client is that it is connecting to some sorta other server beyond hafen's servers, no?

I don't think the argument here that ppl can't or didn't read the post from where they got the client would make as much sense here. It's less "not reading the TOS" and more "did not read the feature set"?