Talk:Tutorials/Block and item duplication

Dirt duplication is not duplication
I would not count dirt 'duplication' as duplication, as it costs gravel. I didn't want to just remove it though, in case people disagree with me


 * Dirt duplication can be considered "duplication" for the following reasons:


 * Very few people are aware of the full potential to be exploited
 * Gravel can be duplicated as well
 * Many servers frown upon dirt duplication


 * Also, all the other duplication methods also cost something (redstone, time, zombies, etc).


 * Gregatron6000 (talk) 06:22, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Crafting bench duplication
No mention of the crafting bench bug in 1.12? or the ender chest dup while dropping items in 1.11.2


 * There's no information about it here because I have never heard of those duplication methods before. If you have information on them, I'd be interested in hearing about it!


 * Whatever information you add, make sure the method works in the current versions on Minecraft.


 * Gregatron6000 (talk) 09:14, 8 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Well, the recipe book duplication glitch hit the news pretty hard, but Mojang kept it hidden in their bug tracker. Here is a thread on the Minecraft forum which showcases the problem. I can confirm that it worked. Just to show the seriousness: people even developed a Recipe book dupe patch to counter the effects on Spigot. However, this is also old news right now because 1.12.1 fixed this issue. - ShelLuser (talk) 09:29, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

TNT Dupication
Does this still work this way in the 1.13 snapshots? If so, can someone update the page to better explain how to do this? --MCweb 20:57, 18 August 2017 (UTC)


 * As far as I know, it is impossible to do in 1.13. If it’s still impossible by the update, then that section will be removed.


 * Gregatron6000 (talk) 22:58, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Bedrock/Java differences
It should be made clear which methods apply to which version (Bedrock, Java, or another), and noted which version update disabled them? None of these have ever worked for me and I don't know if it's because I'm just doing it wrong or if I'm on the wrong Edition. Jariesuicune (talk) 07:02, 20 July 2018 (UTC)


 * There are now separate sections for Bedrock and Java Edition exclusives as well a section for techniques that work in both editions.


 * Gregatron6000 (talk) 16:32, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Version Compatibility
Maybe we should include which update versions (ex. Java 1.2-1.3.4 or Bedrock ??-2.5) any glitch works on. A person may choose not to update/revert to a previous version (when possible, depending what hardware you are using) to be able to make use of that update's exploits? Putting the current/most recent at the top of a list, and past versions in order, putting a placeholder for when it's not apparent when it started being available?Jariesuicune (talk) 21:38, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

"The recommended build is not automatic (but that certainly can be done)"
The above quote references an AUTOMATIC piston chest duplicator but the section only describes a manual one. Having built a working manual duplicator and tried and failed to rig up an automatic one with a hopper and two chests, I'm curious if that claim is theoretical or supported by experience? Is there a trick to it I'm missing? ImmanuelCAN (talk) 07:16, 23 March 2019 (UTC)


 * I am not sure if an automatic chest duplicator can be built; I don’t play Bedrock Edition. However, the fact that you did not succeed indicates that such a build might be impossible to make automatic.


 * Gregatron6000 (talk) 07:42, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Player Data Editing is not duping
Player data editing, or in this case, duplicating the player-specific files in order to have two copies of the profile, should not be considering duping. Making the copy is on the same level as opening up MCEdit to copy a shulker box or just using an NBT editor to give yourself the items, being that you edit the files directly instead of through MC. 71.129.228.9 19:27, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Deleting this page
This page blatantly contradicts both the wiki's philosophy and how Mojang wishes to treat these bugs. All duplication bug reports are marked as private, meaning they aren't visible to most users. We've even had discussions about hiding the names of these private reports on version pages. And yet, we have an entire page dedicated to something Mojang has explicitly said is an exploit. The wiki is not meant to document blatant bugs in this way either. Not to mention, a great amount of the glitches here have been patched and most working ones will likely be patched soon. I very strongly believe that this page has no place on this wiki. -PancakeIdentity (talk) 20:17, 25 April 2020 (UTC)


 * , not much to add other than what you said above. Even leading aside the fact that the glitches listed here are almost always intended to be private, most of them have been patched in recent updates and the others will be soon, making this page pretty much useless.--Madminecrafter12 (Talk to me 20:22, 25 April 2020 (UTC)


 * But then where can the players get information on how to duplicate items? Minecraftexpert123 (talk) 15:55, 3 May 2020 (UTC)


 * It is not the wiki's job to tell players how to execute game-breaking exploits. If someone wants to, there are usually videos on duplication methods. But again, providing this info is not the job of the wiki. -PancakeIdentity (talk) 22:47, 3 May 2020 (UTC)


 * What is the wiki's job exactly? Last I checked, it's information shared and edited by the community. Google and YouTube can provide any and all information contained in this wiki, wiki's are always just nice collective focused information points.174.116.217.190 07:20, 1 June 2020 (UTC)


 * It is the wiki's job to provide information on all aspects of the game, though. The page should stay up because, despite discussing an unintended portion of the game, it still discusses things that are or were in the game at some point. 67.143.192.220 05:49, 7 May 2020 (UTC)


 * We also don't list crashes as if they were mechanics of a feature. Stuff like this usually gets documented in some form as bug fixes, but having a page dedicated to exploiting private issues is unnecessary and, in my opinion, inappropriate. -PancakeIdentity (talk) 06:16, 11 May 2020 (UTC)


 * How is it inappropriate? It's not like it's intimate secretive information? A quick google and YouTube search will yeild results.174.116.217.190 07:20, 1 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Yes, it's the wiki's job to document as much as possible about the game, but imo it's not ok to document game exploits. If Mojang eventually fixes these bugs, they will be documented as a bug fix in their respective fix version's page. Elite hog (talk) 13:06, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , nothing to add to the initially provided reasons. FVbico (talk) 12:10, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , nothing to add. User:Goldenghost1000 (talk) 16:54, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * . We shouldn't document exploits on the wiki. If this somehow doesn't get deleted, at least clean up this abomination of a page. — Thomanski | t | c | 20:01, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

. Unsure why some mods are approaching this on a personal biased view; every wiki of every game has a bug/glitch/exploit section as they are just that; it's the nature of games. Discussions on the morality of items is not a matter of the wiki; it is here to document all information of the game. The broader issue is if it's of benefit to seperate it from the other bug reports or have its own article like it currently is. It's apparent some users have a personal grudge against the topic as opposed to actually supporting why it should or should not be present. No where in the terms of service of a Mjoang account does it actually say you're not allowed to take advantage of exploits or bugs; they actually acknowledge they will happen.

https://account.mojang.com/documents/minecraft_eula

So using buds before observers, and using cart boosters before powered rails were an unintentional use of a feature in the game; were they not listed in redstone components and minecart components? Lastly, there are ways to detect duplication with negative block value ID's, so also including on this page a means to help servers detect and prevent *may* be better then removal, as it appears that's why people are upset on the information of duplication. Otherwise you're going against Wikipedia's foundation of sharing knowledge regardless of content and moral view of said content. Yes, this may not be wikipedia, at the same time, it is in it's heart.174.116.217.190 18:20, 13 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Tbh from several comments made here I've been switching back and forth, still leaning towards supporting deletion. I do wonder what Mojang would think of having a page like this in particular? I'm not sure how much of a difference it would make in the final decision, but I'd be curious. However, I'm not sure why you're assuming that we're approaching this on a personal biased view; my support certainly wasn't due to a "personal grudge." Just because we're considering what Mojang would think of this page doesn't mean we're only supporting for personal reasons; after all, this is the official Minecraft Wiki so it's indeed something to keep in mind. I would like to note as well that if we were to keep this page it would need to be heavily rewritten; currently most of the bugs listed on the page have actually been patched.--Madminecrafter12 (Talk to me 16:44, 18 May 2020 (UTC)


 * By making a comment like "I do wonder what Mojang would think of having a page like this in particular?" Is a biased view. They have expressed they have no control over the content included in the gamepedia or anything else out there, as it's not wrote or maintained by them. As far as duplication itself is concerned, they've expresses in Podcasts and twitch streams that they personally don't care for it, at the same time any unintentional bugs try to get squashed eventually - they view it as any other bug.


 * I also made an assumption on saying people (Pancake) are taking it personally by throwing around things like breaking terms of service, when they haven't read the terms of service, and "how to execute game-breaking exploits" as a form of stiff arming or threat. Duplication bugs are not marked private; you can view them in the bug tracker for any of the related blocks (popular one being piston and chest) - Mojang initially removed the ability for pistons to move chests because of that bug, then they re-added that capability without patching the bug. Clearly, they don't care, or it's low on the radar. It's also not game breaking; anyone's choice of how to play a game is their own - only time it's game breaking is on a server, and servers have ways to detect, prevent, and punish if they have a rule against it. Lastly, Mojang has confirmed them not to be exploits, but bugs ; that's a key and significant difference in discussions around convincing if an article should exist.


 * I agree the page should be rewritten - there are many that need to be. It should still exist, in my opinion.174.116.217.190 04:59, 19 May 2020 (UTC)


 * You're putting a lot of words in my mouth and making a lot of assumptions about me and what I think. First off, I never once mentioned Mojang's TOS. Second, the fact that Mojang doesn't directly control the content of this wiki is not necessarily an excuse to operate directly against how they (the company, not the devs, as they do not speak for the company as a whole) have shown how they want these exploits to be treated. (not saying we have to follow their every whim, but yknow). Third, duplication exploits are not just "any other bug"; all duplication exploits are marked as private on the bug tracker. I'm genuinely not sure where you're getting your information, because it's false. Any duplication exploits you've found on the wiki that are not private should be made that way; I've just asked multiple Mojira moderators and this is the information they've given me. (Edit: Seems you're likely referencing the Bedrock side of the bug tracker. According to the mods I talked to, this is just a result of less moderation on the Bedrock tracker, not a statement about the status of "exploit" of these issues.)
 * In addition, the wiki does not even show private report titles, which are usually extremely vague anyway. It seems deeply inconsistent to not even display those titles, which rarely (if ever) give details on how to perform the exploit, while we have a page on the wiki documenting the intricacies of executing these exploits.
 * Also, we have no rules or policies stating that discussions should be absolutely devoid of opinion, and your automatic dismissal of points because they're "biased" is inappropriate and unfounded. There'd be no need for discussions if opinions weren't allowed.
 * Finally, whether or not Wikipedia does (or does not do) something is not a valid point in favor of or against something. See WPNOTWP. -PancakeIdentity (talk) 17:42, 22 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Seeing as in the terms of service of both Mojang and Microsoft have no issues with taking advantage of exploits or bugs, there is still not valid reason to remove this as it is information on the game. As others have expressed TNT's bore machine's, flying machines, all taking advantage of bugs and Mojang encouraging people to use them in creative ways. I'll quote Jens talking about the nitwit "Whenever we discover we have a bug which is used by the community we just see it as 'undefined behaviour' - and ‘fix’ it by making it a feature." And you mentioning how the bugs are tracked on Java vs bedrock again, further shows how Mojang and Microsoft don't care. Bedrock is now their bread and butter seeing as it contains the monetary revenue system that java will not be incorporating so you'd figure anything that's "ruining the experience" would be removed asap. Again, it's up to a person to decide how they want to play a game. There's no justification on deleting this information, just wether it should be reformatted.174.116.217.190 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Also, there are a few other pages that document advantageous glitches. (breaking bedrock, resummoning the ender dragon with fewer crystals, xray glitches to name a few.)Minecraftexpert123 (talk) 15:04, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

If this gets deleted, we would probably have to get rid of any other article or section covering glitches as as well, since they are also ‘against Mojang’s philosophy’. 184.96.242.82 16:19, 21 May 2020 (UTC)


 * I'd support removing exploits. Like I said above, duplication issues are not merely "any other bug". -PancakeIdentity (talk) 17:42, 22 May 2020 (UTC)


 * . Some stuff like TNT dupers are probably as important as flying machines in the construction of Rube Goldberg-style machines in vanilla minecraft. These redstone-powered tunnel bores and farms are in every way consistent with the Mojang philosophy (SciCraft interview by Mojang). The same can be said of speedrunners breaking records with or without glitches and people opening on SkyBlock with vanilla for the thrills of it. Let people play and say wow. --Arthur200000 (talk) 10:31, 28 May 2020 (UTC)


 * This is the whole point of this not being an unofficial wiki. Not everything we say here has to agree with what Mojang says. Minecraft thrives on being a free and open game, let players have this knowledge. If they don't want to use it, it's up to them. There is no reason to censor ways to get large amounts of virtual items. I do think we should remove the outdated ones though. --MMK21stream (talk) 07:29, 1 June 2020 (UTC)


 * , since this page provides legitimate technical insight into how certain mechanics of the game work. Also, most of the duplication glitches documented here no longer work on current versions of Minecraft, so I find the rationale for deletion to be kind of moot anyway. I would support removing currently working dupe glitches, that is, dupes that work in the current stable version of Minecraft (1.15.2 Java as I write this, with 1.16 on its way, dunno about Bedrock), but only if they're either recently discovered or already have a private bug report on the tracker. But don't throw the entire page out simply based on how the developer company wants to treat the bugs. --Letcreate123 (talk) 06:24, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Review
Points made:
 * 1) [Delete] Dupe bugs/exploits are against ToS.
 * 2) * Apparently, this isn't actually true. Outright bans on exploit use are common in MMOs (for more or less obvious reasons), but this seems to be different for Minecraft.
 * 3) [Delete] Mojang wish to treat dupe bugs/exploits as private, apparently even having been criticized in the past for revealing issue names.
 * 4) * While the Bedrock issue tracker marks such bugs as private less often, this is alleged to be due to less functional moderation in that bug tracker section.
 * 5) [Delete] Dupe bugs/exploits are unethical to disclose to other players even if allowed as this may help with griefing.
 * 6) * Notably, there are no ethical concerns with single-player cheating (to the point that I'd say the word "cheating" shouldn't even apply to SP). I can also imagine how some player maps are based on the idea of using game exploits to win. (I can't say any such maps exist, but I wouldn't be surprised if they did.)
 * 7) [Ambiguous] Dupe bugs/exploits tend to be fixed. A major portion of them in the page are outdated.
 * 8) * While this means they are less relevant (as in, not modern info), they are also less harmful for this exact reason.
 * 9) * As an inversion of the previous sub-point, people may choose to play on less-than-newest releases. For example, they may dislike newer changes or play with mods (both single-player and multiplayer).
 * 10) [Keep] This is relevant information with no apparent reason to delete outright (not illegal). Such information provides valid insight and should be kept.

In the end, I see this discussion as converging to a conflict of two points: 1) delete as contributing to unethical behavior; 2) keep as relevant and accurate information.

I'm not sure which one's more important though. Thoughts? --AttemptToCallNil (report bug, view backtrace) 16:04, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * For point 4, bullet 2, documenting because "people may choose to play on less-than-newest releases" is directly contradictory to keeping it updated to the latest version. If one is purposely not updating this page because it is useful information, then wouldn't that make it not consistent with every other example on the wiki where a similar logic applies? Does the fact that this is a tutorial page make it immune to the need to be updated? I haven't read the style guide in full but a quick look through for the word tutorial turns up no such exception. -EatingSilencerforBreakfast (talk) 00:22, 19 June 2020 (UTC)