Should we allow macroing on cubecraft

[tiny flax]

ummmmmmmmmmmm let me think

no

[whole lark]

uh no

[oak wolf]

Care to give any actual feedback?

[whole lark]

common sense

[oak wolf]

No feedback great

Just baseless opinions

[terse flicker]

"please let me cheat 😰 "

[tame furnace]

Lol

[oak wolf]

If everyone in a private game agrees to it and it does not affect public matches or leaderboards, it is not cheating, it is just custom rules. By that logic, changing game settings in a private lobby would also be considered cheating, which makes no sense. This proposal is strictly for private games where every player consents, meaning there is no unfair advantage because there is no one being taken advantage of.

Care to give any actual feedback that isn’t a nonsensical joke?

[terse flicker]

That was pretty much my feedback

If you wanna cheat do It on your own server

[oak wolf]

How predictable

Instead of reading what debunks your cheating theory, you go back to your ignorant nonsense.

[oak wolf]

Icl people who refuse to read or acknowledge their mistakes, and instead just repeat the same unfounded claims before walking away from the discussion should not participate in discussions. It’s like arguing with Talking Ben. All they can say is “Yes, No” or “maybe”

https://tenor.com/view/talking-ben-talking-talking-ben-no-gif-25277070

[terse flicker]

He got people disagreeing with him so he got mad

Just the fact that you have macros available makes me know how much of a failure of a player you are

[languid gulch]

I think sentinel should optionally not apply to private games

[languid gulch]

what do you mean exactly? my mouse software has it by default

[languid gulch]

I don't follow. private games are private. You pay for them, should you not have a say in how that game is conducted? And we both know 'do it in your own server' is not a real answer

[oak wolf]

So by your logic, simply having a macro program installed automatically makes someone a bad player, regardless of whether they actually use it or not. That’s like saying someone with a fast car is a bad driver even if they follow every speed limit. The reality is that your argument isn’t based on logic or facts, it’s just an easy way for you to insult someone without addressing the actual proposal. If you can’t separate personal bias from a discussion about private, consensual games, then you’re proving my point about not reading and not understanding before speaking.

[bright bison]

And how would the mods know if everyone consented or not

Whether people agree or disagree with you, cubecraft adding this has a very rare chance of happening

If cubecraft bans auto even on Skyblock I doubt they wouldn't on private games

And I know auto and macro isn't the same

(macro also banned on skyblock)

[frozen leaf]

the server rules are to not cheat, i dont think it matters whether or not its in a private game

[oak wolf]

Thanks for giving some actual feedback instead of some others who just say no without any thought.

If the concern is “how would mods know,” that’s exactly why this suggestion applies only to private games. Mods wouldn’t need to police it because the players in that PG have already agreed on the rules. Private games are self-contained they don’t affect public leaderboards, competitive play, or other players who didn’t consent. Comparing this to Skyblock doesn’t work because Skyblock is still a persistent, shared environment where progression affects the wider server economy. A PG is isolated; the only impact is on the people inside it. If Cubecraft can trust players to set their own rules in PGs for kits, maps, and modifiers, there’s no logical reason they can’t trust them to allow macros when every single player present consents.

[oak wolf]

SS too

[bright bison]

What stops me from consenting and then reporting the person for macroing with video evidence

[oak wolf]

What stops you is that consent can easily be recorded or screenshotted before the game starts. If everyone agrees in chat or voice, that’s proof. If someone tried to report after consenting, that same proof would show they agreed, and the false report would be on them.

This one isn’t really a point but a lot of people wouldn’t report after consenting, it’s basic honesty.

[bright bison]

It could still happen and I don't think ppl would record/screenshot every single time

Not to mention, people will do it without consent if sentinel was deactivated in pgs

[oak wolf]

Staff can check chat logs no?

[bright bison]

And that is also not true about the Skyblock part

[bright bison]

only admins and there are 6 of those(I think) and they are extremely busy

Developers can as well but they are not mods

And admins don't handle moderation

And even just checking the chat log takes time pretty sure

[oak wolf]

So your argument boils down to “it could still happen” which is true for literally any rule in the game. People can cheat in public matches right now even with Sentinel on, and yet the solution isn’t banning the entire game mode, it’s dealing with the offenders. Chat logs, screenshots, and recordings exist for a reason, and if someone agrees in writing before the game, that’s evidence. Saying “admins are busy” isn’t a reason to kill an idea because by that logic, we’d remove half the server features because moderation takes time.

[bright bison]

no, that is not the same. In normal gamemodes there is sentinel and there are mods and ppl are free to report, chat logs do not exist for this reason and not everyone is gonna screenshot and record, infact many won't and saying admins are busy is pretty reasonable, those 6 admins have their own job that isn't even related to moderation and are busy to check the chat logs for every report about it

[oak wolf]

You’re basically saying the idea can’t work because not everyone will record or screenshot, but that’s not a real argument because evidence is optional for any report, not just this. Players already report hackers in public games without proof, and staff still investigate. The existence of Sentinel in public modes doesn’t magically stop rule-breaking, it just helps detect it, and private games already run with far less oversight. If someone really cares about enforcing their own PG rules, they can get proof just as easily as they can for any other offense. Acting like it’s impossible because admins are “busy” ignores the fact that the same workload already exists for every other type of report, and the server still manages it.

[bright bison]

no, evidence isn't optional, if I were to report someone for auto right now I need evidence

Idk what you mean by that

[bright bison]

And the last part is just simply not true

Also I don't even think they are allowed to use the chat log

Except for like important reasons

Or would be against the law or something

[oak wolf]

The requirement for evidence in reports is exactly what makes this enforceable, since if someone breaks the agreed PG rule, the reporter must provide proof just like with hacking or any other offense. Private games already rely more on player responsibility than automated systems like Sentinel, which is why custom rulesets work without constant staff oversight. Your own screenshot confirms staff can access chat logs when context is necessary, so the claim they “can’t” or “aren’t allowed” is false. The “admins are busy” point also falls apart because moderation workload is based on report volume, not whether a specific rule exists, meaning this wouldn’t add an unusual burden. Either the current reporting system is sufficient for enforcing all other rules, making this no different, or it’s unreliable, which would undermine far more than just this idea.

[bright bison]

Would break this rule I believe

[bright bison]

And I don't get what you mean at the start, I can simply tell people that I consent for macroing to be allowed and record the part where they macro and not the part where I consent

[oak wolf]

The policy you just posted actually proves my point because CubeCraft already logs all chat messages, both public and private, specifically to monitor behaviour and check for irregularities, which means consent in private games can be verified if needed. As for your “I could just fake the evidence” scenario, that is not unique to this idea since you could just as easily crop a hacking clip to hide context in a public game, yet we do not ban all PvP because of that possibility. Falsifying evidence is itself a punishable offense, and with chat logs, full recordings, and other players present, it is extremely easy to disprove. If your argument relies on deliberately removing context to frame someone, then you are not pointing out a flaw in the suggestion, you are describing how to break the rules in general, which is not a valid reason to prevent a consensual and isolated private game rule from existing.

[bright bison]

no, how would I crop a hacking clip to hide the context

What can I possibly crop when reporting someone that is flying

[oak wolf]

If someone is flying, you could still trim the footage to remove any context that shows it was part of an agreed custom PG rule, just like you could crop out your own agreement to allow macros. The point is that selective recording or editing can misrepresent any situation, whether it is macroing, flying, or anything else. That is why chat logs, full-length recordings, and witness accounts exist; to provide the missing context. Your example actually proves my point, because if you can record someone flying without showing the part where it was allowed, the same flaw exists for any report, not just this suggestion.

[bright bison]

no, that is just not true

You can't submit edited footage

[languid gulch]

but its not possible to tell if a video was cropped

[oak wolf]

Lmao selective evidence can occur under any ruleset, and the potential for a bad-faith actor to omit context does not uniquely undermine the idea of consensual macros in private games. It simply illustrates that dishonesty is a universal risk in any system, and if the mere possibility of it were grounds for rejection, then no ruleset or feature could logically withstand that standard.

[bright bison]

How would you crop reach

Or auto

Or really anything

[bright bison]

This makes it way easier

Faking then is like 100x easier and faster to fake anything else

And what can you even fake

[oak wolf]

Dude claiming it is “easier” to fake in this case ignores that the ease of falsifying context has no bearing on whether the rule itself is viable. The critical point is that the potential to fabricate exists across all contexts, and once that possibility is acknowledged, the only logical position is to evaluate rules based on their merits and enforceability, not on the assumption that bad actors will always succeed. If your threshold for rejection is simply that something could be faked with relative ease, then by that reasoning you would need to discard any feature where proof relies on player-provided evidence, which would dismantle far more than just this proposal.

[bright bison]

Can you give an example of what you can fake

[oak wolf]

How pitiful. You claimed that faking in this case is “100x easier” than anything else, which assumes you already know exactly what can be faked and how. Now you are asking me to give an example, which shifts the burden of proof onto me and shows you do not actually have a concrete example yourself. That means your original claim was based on assumption rather than evidence, which undercuts the certainty you started with.

[bright bison]

Why not answer the question

And it is true

I claimed that faking the evidence is 100x easier mostly cause you barely can, which is why I asked for an example of where it would be comparable to just sending a vanilla normal clip of someone macroing without showing consent

Us debating this isn't even really useful since I already know cubecraft won't be implementing this

[oak wolf]

You are asking for an example after already claiming faking is “100x easier,” which means your certainty was based on assumption, not actual evidence. That alone weakens your argument. As for the “CubeCraft won’t implement this” point, that is irrelevant because this was never placed in the suggestion tab or the forums to begin with. It was made for community feedback, which is exactly what I have been engaging with from the start. Dismissing the discussion on the grounds of implementation sidesteps the fact that your reasoning against it has been inconsistent and based on speculation, not substance.

[bright bison]

You still haven't answered my original question

[bright bison]

^

[oak wolf]

An example would be trimming a clip to remove the part where you gave consent in a private game, then presenting the remaining footage as if the player macroed without permission. That is the same principle as removing any other context in a report to make a situation look like a rule break when it was not. The fact that you asked this after repeatedly dodging direct points, shifting the burden of proof, and sidestepping clarifications about the purpose of this discussion shows you are more interested in avoiding engagement with the actual argument than addressing it honestly.

[bright bison]

You can't give an example of something that isn't implemented...
You also mentioned it being the same principal as removing any other context in a report to make a situation look like a rule break, I would want an example of that

[oak wolf]

You have been demanding examples while simultaneously dismissing them on the basis that the feature is “not implemented,” which is just a way to avoid addressing the point. The principle I mentioned applies to features that already exist, for example, a clip of someone flying in a PG with a custom rule allowing flight could be trimmed to remove that agreement, making it look like a rule break. That is the exact same manipulation risk you claim is unique here. At this point, you have turned into an example merchant, constantly asking for them while sidestepping every example given, which just highlights that you are more focused on moving the goalposts than actually defending your argument.

[dusky mural]

Add pg lobby and Allow them to selectpg lobby

DDuring When pg creating

if pg start add cancel option to stop pg starting

Add all maps in pg pls because there was only some maps

Add in Party social side pg invitation and add inviting pg player gui in pg option invite all and select player and after inviting cubecraft sent msg to the player to join

Players Can invite from pg there friend in pg

[bright bison]

That is not how it works, you are avoiding my question. I can't just give you an example which is not possible since it isn't a thing, I didn't ask for you to explain to me what faking footage means, since you are unable to answer the question I'll excuse myself to leave

Also the fact this isn't a suggestion makes debating this useless

[oak wolf]

You are claiming it is “not possible” to give an example because the feature is not implemented, yet I already gave you one using mechanics that exist right now, which you ignored. That alone shows you are not actually looking for an answer but for an excuse to bow out without addressing the flaws in your own reasoning. Leaving the discussion does not make your argument stronger, it just makes it clear you cannot defend it when pressed. And as for “this isn’t a suggestion so it’s useless to debate,” that is wrong from the start — it was created for community feedback, and you chose to participate. Dismissing it now is just a way to avoid admitting you have been losing the argument from the beginning.

It really is as if you read the first two lines and respond based off of that

[bright bison]

The only reason i first participated in this debate was cause alot of people use this channel as suggestion, and you didn't give me an example

[tiny flax]

def a good idea, let's all cheat

[oak wolf]

Again with the brainless & baseless comments people post without reading 🥱

[oak wolf]

You keep asking for examples but then dismissing every one I give by saying the feature is “not implemented,” which avoids the point. The principle I mentioned applies to existing features—for instance, a clip showing someone flying under a custom rule could be edited to make it look like they broke the rules. This is the same kind of manipulation you claim is unique here. At this point, you’re just demanding examples while ignoring them, showing you’re more interested in moving the goalposts than defending your argument.

[bright bison]

First are you using chatgpt? And then I want an actual example that could happen in the game, right now, that is possible for me to do rn. I don't want you to explain to me how to do it or if it is possible or not, cause I know that. If you avoid the question then I'll simply just stop debating and go

[tiny flax]

even on private games, its not allowed at all

[oak wolf]

It is disingenuous for you to repeatedly demand a literal, immediate example while dismissing every instance I have carefully provided as “not implemented,” which is nothing more than a deflection from the substantive principle I have outlined; your insistence on this narrow framing avoids engaging with the actual argument, and if you are unwilling or incapable of reading and processing what has been presented, you are free to leave, but that does not invalidate the conceptual validity of my claims, which demonstrate that manipulation or misrepresentation is already possible within existing mechanics, and at this point, continuing to demand examples you refuse to consider only exposes that your goal is not debate but circular evasion, and this conversation ends here.

[oak wolf]

10/10 rage-bait.

[tiny flax]

what a great answer

[clear comet]

what in the actual hell are you thinking.

no.

[oak wolf]

Again with the brainless & baseless comments people post without reading 🥱

[clear comet]

i read it already.

just no.

[oak wolf]

Again, no feedback at all. Just baseless opinions from nons. 🥱

[clear comet]

https://tenor.com/view/death-stare-black-snake-moan-samuel-l-jackson-shocked-wide-eye-gif-7922961204564264622

[terse flicker]

never seen anyone get so mad because people dont want him to cheat

[iron wasp]

you can already macro you just might get banned if you do it

[clear comet]

exactly what im sayin'.

just a big big no.

life lessons kids,
do not cheat.
end of conversation.

[oak wolf]

It’s funny that you’re reducing this to “getting mad about cheating” when the whole point was the logic of my argument; mocking it just shows you’re not actually reading or thinking about what I’ve said, and saying this changes nothing; Your comment doesn’t touch the point, it just makes your take look shallow.

[oak wolf]

It’s not cheating if there’s no unfair advantage. This just proves you only read half of the title and started running those fingers.

[clear comet]

i mean, you shouldnt be macro-ing in EVERY occasions.

[oak wolf]

When did anyone ever say anything regarding every occasion?

[iron wasp]

me i said it

im the one who said it

[clear comet]

but sure, you can just do that, but it has a higher risk of either being kicked or banned.

[oak wolf]

Sherlock Holmes here

[clear comet]

yes he said it.

[oak wolf]

If you actually read what has been going on, you’d know that bans wouldn’t be an issue. In this situation, everyone would consent and have their consent recorded. Even if someone is ‘slow’ enough to report anyone, they’ll get unbanned.

[clear comet]

mhm.

[oak wolf]

Note that macroing is not allowed on Cubecraft. Hence the “in this situation”. Just thought I’d clear that up since both of you have trouble using context.

[iron wasp]

also you should probably stop arguing about this and ask a mod if this even has a possibility of happening

cuz the situation youre describing is very similar to if the last 2 teams in a game agreed to allow macros which was already denied

[oak wolf]

I know it might look like a suggestion based on the title but it’s not a suggestion. That is why I never put it on the forums. This was merely opened to debate.

[oak wolf]

I’ve said this before too. Please just read instead of repeating things I’ve already responded to.

Should we allow macroing on cubecraft

There we go, I changed the “can” to a “should” to clear up confusion for the people who can’t take a couple of minutes to read.

[tiny flax]

so its a question, then no

[oak wolf]

It’s always been a question, just like how you have always been making baseless claims with no feedback or support.

[oak wolf]

That’s the entire point of the post

[tiny flax]

wait fr ? I didn't know 💀

[oak wolf]

Based on your wording, it seems you may be under the impression that I am advocating for macros to be permitted universally across all games. That is not the case. My argument pertains specifically to whether macroing should be allowed in private games where all participants provide their consent.

Repeating what everyone knows won’t change anything.
I KNOW it isn’t allowed. That is why I made this post.

[tiny flax]

u made this post because its not allowed ? 😭

[oak wolf]

Try reading the title.

[oak wolf]

Context is an issue for you guys

[terse flicker]

Nobody gaf about what you wanna do in your private game bro

Just do your thing you wont get banned anyway

[oak wolf]

Hahaha the little boy got angry

Typical

[terse flicker]

Angry?

Little boy? 😂

[whole lark]

is this post ragebait?