This story was submitted[0] four days ago, but got no traction and sank without trace. The only comment[1] was mine, and I repeat it here:
I know this is something of an internet meme, and hence
somewhat out-of-place here on HN, but, in short:
This is why we can't have nice things.
It would be really cool if we didn't need passwords. It
would be really cool if we could have globally editable
documents that stored and connected all our knowledge.
It would be really cool if we ... well, you get the idea.
What if clever people, really clever people, stepped up
and started to think at a level higher than the single
point fixes and managed some sort of meta-fix.
How clever can people be? Anyone care to speculate?
So, after hearing of something rotten in Minecraft Denmark, you delivered an anguished soliloquy wondering whether it's nobler to suffer these slings and arrows of outrageous fortune, or take arms against a sea of troubles, and by opposing end them?
Very interesting.
This incident is also suspiciously like the plot of "The Lego Movie". Are those sneaky Danes doing some metadiegetic guerrilla marketing in advance of the DVD release?
Why does it matter that some specific server has been vandalized? Can't other people just spin up a different server with an earlier copy of the dataset?
Exactly. This complaint cuts both ways. I often expressed a very similar sentiment but in defense of the "perpetrators". Remember all that kids who get expelled/prosecuted for playing around their school/university network and pissing off their lazy/clueless sysadmin? All that science stuff you could do then but you can't do now because terrorism (or because helicopter parenting)?
Where's the place for creative pranks? Practical jokes? In today's society, exploring, poking around, doing things for laugh seems... forbidden.
So wading in to someone else's construction and destroying it counts as "fun"? Kicking over someone else's sandcastle counts as "fun"? Kicking someone else's car to put a dent in the door is "fun"? Torching someone's house is "fun"?
Slippery slope, drawing the line, yadda yadda yadda, I'm interested to see what people think is "fun" and where they would draw the line. Given that it had no protection, how does destroying it gain or prove anything?
Finding weaknesses in a system that's intended to be secure is different, destroying something simply because you can is something I genuinely don't understand. No challenge, no victory, no benefit. I someone can help me understand the mindset of the griefers I'd be grateful.
Things like this always bring to light a particular side of the internet population that is fascinating to watch but very frustrating to participate in an activity "against".
These people immediately take an incredibly negative approach for their own short term enjoyment without any apparent thought of the longer term effect of their actions, and what people will do to counter that style of behavior generally making things worse for everyone, both grierfers and legitimate players.
I'd be curious to know what kind of "motive" for want of a better word underlies these kinds of actions, and why this destructive "fun" is so popular on these "infinite freedom" style games in particular.
> Moving forward, the map will have to be rebuilt. Said Hammeken, "We don't have a complete overview yet, but we'll probably choose to reconstruct Copenhagen and the other cities."
By this wording, it seems they will rebuild it by hand instead of restoring a backup. They have backups, right?
I got the impression that the Danish model contained actual buildings and features, whereas the OS map of Britain contains just the geographical features.
I used that form of words because, for most readers, the term "Great Britain" isn't well defined, and is often incorrectly taken to denote the same entity as the "The UK". I also don't like the "Great" prefix because it appears aggrandising, even though the derivation [1] disproves that.
Surely whatever program they used to create it could just be run again. It used data from maps etc so it must be able to run the same input again. Although if its >1tb of data thats gonna take a while...
The creator points out they only initially intend to restore Copenhagen. As the data they have are stored in 10×10 km blocks, this should be fairly trivial to do.
I think the real reason they have been hesitant with doing that is because it was supposed to be used for creation purposes, that were at least educational.
Surely there is a backup. You can actually download the original world but it is about 1TB.
I think it would probably happen again if they restore the original version. Here is a comment from danish GeoData Agency spokesman:
"We consider that as a nature of playing Minecraft – elements are broken down and new are being created. Therefore we will not reboot the demonstration of Denmark in Minecraft. But occasionally we will rebuild minor areas if buildings are removed and nothing new is being created."
> Typically, server mods can take certain precautions to ensure that their particular areas of their Minecraft "worlds" can't be altered, but that would have destroyed the point of the creation. The original concept was meant to be educational.
I think they don't want to drop it and recreate it because somebody might have used it in the way it was intended to
Back ups are good to guard against all kinds of mishaps. Still, to see something like this intentionally destroyed is really bad. It's akin to the people that would post google docs documents here for community collaboration and within seconds griefers would go there to trash them.
I always wonder what kind of mindset it takes to show that you are capable of destroying something just for the heck of it.
So your 'kinda had it coming' to me is akin to blaming the victim, you create something you can expect that there will be people hell bent on destroying it and that's somehow 'normal'. It isn't normal.
Oh I certainly think it's pretty screwed up that someone would do this, and entirely blame the people who did it.
Having said that... these kinds of things happen in to minecraft servers all the time. I certainly do not think they deserved it... but if you don't back up something important to you... you can expect to eventually lose it.
There are children who make sandcastles and children who knock them down. It happens so early, you'd swear they were born that way. I just imagine the latter are getting started early on their political careers.
This was never educational in so much as it's just a game. Kinda bored with people just making up pedagogy cause.
What's more boring and uneducational than a recreation of your country with a bunch of blocks. The attempts of the article to make it educational and fun for students are laughable.
What's fun, interesting and educational is messing around with it and seeing possibilities.
Personally I doubt anyone would have even visited if this hadn't happened. This kinda made it interesting and put it on the map so to speak.
And possibly this is exactly what the makers wanted, toss it out there, see what happens and go with it.
Small countries like Denmark tend to have a much more well-behaved population than large countries. I.e. they queue nicer, they are more likely to return something they found, etc. (game-theoretic research suggests that such a culture is a symptom of having a high likelyhood of meeting again - thus offering more opportunities to punish bad behaviour).
That background might explain their optimistic expectations.
> Small countries like Denmark tend to have a much more well-behaved population than large countries. I.e. they queue nicer, they are more likely to return something they found, etc. (game-theoretic research suggests that such a culture is a symptom of having a high likelyhood of meeting again - thus offering more opportunities to punish bad behaviour).
The likelyhood of meeting again also depends on population density and the migratory patterns of the society in question. I'm guessing that this research you refer to assumes that the society is fair and each member is treated equally.
Punishing someone on the internet is very hard, especially if they retain their anonymity.
Excuse me, but what is this based on? Do you perhaps mean small communities? Because I can tell you from my experience being Swedish in Sweden (~9M inhabitants), that your assumption seems to be false.
Studying in Sweden right now. Compared to the states your countrymen are much more conscientious of each other and public spaces. I joke with my friends that they could get away with soooo much more, but the fact is that everyone takes some more personal responsibility than we see in the states.
I'm Swedish too, and I disagree. I have often heard that Americans (and others) are surprised at the willingness of most Scandinavians to follow the official and unofficial rules of society. We are likely blind to it as we experience it every day.
What are you disagreeing with? The question of what Hermels assumption is based on?
I'm open to the idea that my opinion regarding the environment I live in might be biased/skewed and I might not see a representative part of the society or that I be ignorant about what I see; that's why I asked what Hermels assumption was based upon.
[1] https://hackernews.hn/item?id=7687637
Edited to correct tpyos.