Mojang chat report

[Amgelo563]

But this problem just does not exist in a relevant scale in Minecraft and is nothing more than a shady excuse for Microsoft to tighten their grip on our privacy. The only thing they want to achieve with this is gaining absolute control over the playerbase and maximizing their profit one day buy collecting our data and so on.

I personally don't see how this would be the case, from what I've seen Mojang only actually receives messages that are reported so I don't see how that's "collecting data" since the users are the ones who decide what gets sent to Mojang. There could be more policies in the future that help to actually gather data, but for now I don't think that's the case, nor what they're trying to implement.

Similarly, the only way I see that they would start "banning opposition" (reading that someone's mentioned TikTok), would be if someone started reporting messages like "Mojang sucks" or stuff like that, which happens in like every single social platform, so I don't think this is a case of Microsoft trying to be greedy or controlling either.

 

[Andre_601]

I can't wait for the first appearance of Mods that somehow allow to fabricate messages of players to report them... Will be a lot of fun to deal with those kinds of things for Mojang.

But knowing how most other companies handled stuff like this, I won't be surprised if the system will be partially automated where X reports for user Y results in a temporary ban out of "safety".

Regarding paper, if what Kenny said in that one issue (#8043) is true regarding SpigotMC would there probs be no work to be done here... Tho you never know...

 

[EterNity]

The latest information has been dropped and it addresses some issue and area of concern again.

https://www.minecraft.net/en-us/article/minecraft-1-19-1-pre-release-2

https://www.minecraft.net/en-us/article/addressing-player-chat-reporting-tool

 

[MiniDigger]

I can't wait for the first appearance of Mods that somehow allow to fabricate messages of players to report them.

I mean, thats mathematically impossible but ok

 

[Dukan]

I mean, thats mathematically impossible but ok

I am a bit concerned about malicious players recreating their own messages instead of modifying the messages of other players.

In a conversation between two players one can edit its messages (and re-sign them) to change context, omit messages (even from other players). The only thing is, that it has to line up with the timestamps of the messages sent by the other player(s).

The report to Microsoft would only contain messages with valid signatures. How would Microsoft know that the Messages have been changed afterwards?

Edit: Just read this. I’m exited to see what they‘re doing to solve the context issue. And hope they don’t release without the fix.

 

[Chifff]

then we know for sure there will be an appeal system.

what the point of getting banned if you can just appeal and get unbanned?

 

[Amgelo563]

what the point of getting banned if you can just appeal and get unbanned?

Quite literally almost every single moderation system (outside of Minecraft) has some kind of appeal system and people on those platforms aren't really concerned either with banned people being able to get unbanned easily by appealing, so I don't see why that should apply here.

 

[MiniDigger]

I am a bit concerned about malicious players recreating their own messages instead of modifying the messages of other players.

In a conversation between two players one can edit its messages (and re-sign them) to change context, omit messages (even from other players). The only thing is, that it has to line up with the timestamps of the messages sent by the other player(s).

The report to Microsoft would only contain messages with valid signatures. How would Microsoft know that the Messages have been changed afterwards?

Edit: Just read this. I’m exited to see what they‘re doing to solve the context issue. And hope they don’t release without the fix.

That's the only legit concern I am aware of too and we have raised that to Mojang a while back with ideas to tackle this, I am sure they gonna have a solution for that.

 

[Noah]

I'm definitely interested in seeing how they solve that, since intentionally leaving out context is a pretty important issue. One way they could solve this is by having some kind of counter that tracks how many player messages have been sent in chat (synced on join). This number would then be included in the signature and report, and if the numbers aren't sequential (missing or wrong order), the report gets thrown out. This type of system would greatly suffer from desyncs though, especially with fast-moving chat or high ping, so I hope Mojang has better ideas that break less quickly

 

[MiniDigger]

I'm definitely interested in seeing how they solve that, since intentionally leaving out context is a pretty important issue. One way they could solve this is by having some kind of counter that tracks how many player messages have been sent in chat (synced on join). This number would then be included in the signature and report, and if the numbers aren't sequential (missing or wrong order), the report gets thrown out. This type of system would greatly suffer from desyncs though, especially with fast-moving chat or high ping, so I hope Mojang has better ideas that break less quickly

I can't comment on what we have discussed with Mojang, but out of order chat is already a possible kick. Such a system wouldn't make that worse.

 

[Noah]

but out of order chat is already a possible kick. Such a system wouldn't make that worse.

it would because the counter would count every message, not every message sent by a specific player. If player A has 300ms ping, and player B has 50ms ping, player B could send a message later than player A, but still have it arrive earlier. Player B would then 'get' the next message id (same as player A), causing player A to be kicked for posting with a too low message id, which is why my system wouldn't work.

 

[impmallet]

yes.
however, in the future, the client might reject such messages, there is already a client setting that comes close to this.
fighting mojang is never a good idea, you will loose.
the decided that they want to improve the player safety (and I and many others agree with them), so we will see more work in this area, especially if people circumvent the system.

not that any legitimate player has anything to fear, the only people that are are angry are scared about this because they have been terrorizing the community forever and rightfully fear finally having to face consequences for their actions.

This is an incredibly short sighted view point. To assume that only bad actors could be impacted by this change (which I disagree with) is far from the only issues with a system like this. The idea that Mojang can make moderation decisions for private communities is an overreach of power and yes is a form of censorship. They are effectively saying "please spend your time and money running your community, but we will decide what is best for you". If you cannot see the problem with this mentality then you simply cannot be reasoned with. Will this system cause bad actors to be caught and punished? I should hope so. However, the price you have to pay for that is effectively forcing unwanted and mostly unnecessary moderation into private communities who deserve to continue operating their fine communities autonomously and without the oversight of a corporation that has a history of amoral business practices.

I came here hoping to find some good discussion regarding this highly divisive topic, but I am sad to see that the paper team has staff that falls heavily on a side of bias, which is never a good quality for someone with any sort of power.

 

[Amgelo563]

The idea that Mojang can make moderation decisions for private communities is an overreach of power and yes is a form of censorship.

They can only intervene in reports, nothing else. The only way you'd get somehow "censored" would be if your friends reported you somehow, and again, they've already stated they're only punishing people that are the worst of the worst, we're talking stuff that could even be considered (and in most cases are considered) actual crimes.

They are effectively saying "please spend your time and money running your community, but we will decide what is best for you".

When you start a server you must first agree to Mojang's EULA, you're using their authentication system, their server software base, etcetera; you're already agreeing to a lot of stuff just when making the server, so them asking to moderate isn't that much of a stretch.

However, the price you have to pay for that is effectively forcing unwanted and mostly unnecessary moderation into private communities who deserve to continue operating their fine communities autonomously and without the oversight of a corporation that has a history of amoral business practices.

If private communities encourage the worst of the worst behaviors, it's probably not that bad to consider not having them on a game targeted for kids; if not, you're safe; this isn't affecting you at all, Mojang isn't in the "oversight" of things or your private stuff.

 

[impmallet]

They can only intervene in reports, nothing else. The only way you'd get somehow "censored" would be if your friends reported you somehow, and again, they've already stated they're only punishing people that are the worst of the worst, we're talking stuff that could even be considered (and in most cases are considered) actual crimes.


When you start a server you must first agree to Mojang's EULA, you're using their authentication system, their server software base, etcetera; you're already agreeing to a lot of stuff just when making the server, so them asking to moderate isn't that much of a stretch.


If private communities encourage the worst of the worst behaviors, it's probably not that bad to consider not having them on a game targeted for kids; if not, you're safe; this isn't affecting you at all, Mojang isn't in the "oversight" of things or your private stuff.

Well you're already wrong in your first statement. People are getting suspensions on bedrock just for saying words like "night" and simple curse words. There is plenty of evidence of it out there, but believe whatever you want.

If it is a private community and the community pays all costs of running the server, there is absolutely no justification to intervene or moderate that community. Those who do not wish to participate in that community can simply leave. You are literally saying "I want mojang to tell me what is best". Mojang never lifted a finger to help develop the multiplayer aspect of their game, all of that is thanks to the hard work of volunteers developing software so that we could moderate our communities, no thanks to Mojang. It's a slap in the face that all of the sudden they want to step in now and still not provide reasonable tools but instead employ a half baked vague reporting system that works on the basis of "trust me bro".

You are defending a flawed system that is already showing its cracks. I've run a community for 10 years with no need from mojang to police it and we're not exactly having problems. If Mojang wishes to police realms or official servers, that is up to them, but to tell me a player can't join my server because another player reported them for something on another server is absolutely insane.

You and others keep bringing up the EULA. This isn't a question of what is legal and what they can do, that is not an argument at all, please stop with these strawman tactics. The point is that this is anti consumer and there is a LARGE rejection of this feature (all you have to do is look, and if you don't want to I have nothing further to say to you).

Again, I don't care if they want to employ this feature as long as there is a way for servers to opt out.

 

[Amgelo563]

Well you're already wrong in your first statement. People are getting suspensions on bedrock just for saying words like "night" and simple curse words. There is plenty of evidence of it out there, but believe whatever you want.

That's already a fallacy since we're not talking about bedrock here. They've already stated what will and won't be moderated on java, specifically stating that just curses won't be reasons of bans, covering that argument. This is all on the FAQs that Mojang has been releasing.

If it is a private community and the community pays all costs of running the server, there is absolutely no justification to intervene or moderate that community.

"If it's my shop and I pay for the rent, there's is absolutely no justification for the government to intervene if there's a criminal here."

It's a slap in the face that all of the sudden they want to step in now and still not provide reasonable tools but instead employ a half baked vague reporting system that works on the basis of "trust me bro".

If you'd like to suggest some enhancements to the reporting system, you're free to do so, there are ways to do that. For the latter, there's probably no way to get around that, there's always going to be some kind of group that doesn't trust the moderation system at all, but that doesn't mean that it shouldn't exist.

I've run a community for 10 years with no need from mojang to police it and we're not exactly having problems.

Just because you haven't had any problems doesn't mean the problems don't exist. Just about every single social media platform has their own moderation system, it was just a matter of time before one of the biggest games (and even targeted for children) had their own. There are lots of reasonable reasons why you'd want someone banned from the entirety of the multiplayer features. To quote a known Syscraft (a known Minecraft server administration community) member:

This was meant for public servers, which deal with disgusting things (racism, nazism, hell, even child predators and grooming type stuff, terrorist type stuff, proper suicide encourangement) on the DAILY. We asked for this feature. We've been asking for YEARS, and it's finally been delivered. Please do not hate on mojang for this, if you want to disable it on your private, whitelisted servers, by all means, go ahead. But for those of us who run larger servers and know firsthand the disgusting things this community does, I'm happy, HAPPY, to get those accounts permanently banned. They have no place on a children's game.

but to tell me a player can't join my server because another player reported them for something on another server is absolutely insane.

That could actually be a favor since you don't have to deal with that type of people anymore. What would you do if you found someone who is encouraging and/or saying horrible stuff? Right now, you can only ban them; they go to the next server, no problem. At most you could report it to the authorities, given you know how to do so. This system is made just to put a solution to that kind of problems, with people who are already trained on how to act with this kind of stuff.

This isn't a question of what is legal and what they can do, that is not an argument at all, please stop with these strawman tactics.

I was not bringing up the EULA to talk about the legal stuff, sorry if I wasn't clear with that, but rather how you're already agreeing to Mojang's rules just to start your server, which is why people shouldn't act surprised Mojang wanted to impose some rules or shouldn't feel like they've been "alienated" from this. You've agreed to the rules from the very beginning.

 

[impmallet]

That's already a fallacy since we're not talking about bedrock here. They've already stated what will and won't be moderated on java, specifically stating that just curses won't be reasons of bans, covering that argument. This is all on the FAQs that Mojang has been releasing.


"If it's my shop and I pay for the rent, there's is absolutely no justification for the government to intervene if there's a criminal here."


If you'd like to suggest some enhancements to the reporting system, you're free to do so, there are ways to do that. For the latter, there's probably no way to get around that, there's always going to be some kind of group that doesn't trust the moderation system at all, but that doesn't mean that it shouldn't exist.


Just because you haven't had any problems doesn't mean the problems don't exist. Just about every single social media platform has their own moderation system, it was just a matter of time before one of the biggest games (and even targeted for children) had their own. There are lots of reasonable reasons why you'd want someone banned from the entirety of the multiplayer features. To quote a known Syscraft (a known Minecraft server administration community) member:



That could actually be a favor since you don't have to deal with that type of people anymore. What would you do if you found someone who is encouraging and/or saying horrible stuff? Right now, you can only ban them; they go to the next server, no problem. At most you could report it to the authorities, given you know how to do so. This system is made just to put a solution to that kind of problems, with people who are already trained on how to act with this kind of stuff.


I was not bringing up the EULA to talk about the legal stuff, sorry if I wasn't clear with that, but rather how you're already agreeing to Mojang's rules just to start your server, which is why people shouldn't act surprised Mojang wanted to impose some rules or shouldn't feel like they've been "alienated" from this. You've agreed to the rules from the very beginning.

I had a giant response typed out to you to dismantle your frankly delusional takes, but then I realized it's pointless. You're not going to change your mind even if you are confronted with irrefutable proof, so this conversation is literally a waste of time. If you really want to discuss this further with me, please feel free to send me a private message and I will go into detail, so that we don't clog up this forum, but I know you won't so it's moot.

Anyway, I posted here to state that I stand against this new EULA and I hate that paper staff seems to align with it and I will no longer be using or promoting this server software. I am a long time user of paper and I am saddened and ashamed at the current state of Minecraft and Paper.

Note: Again, you keep harping on the EULA like it's some unchangeable commandment and that we agreed to it from the "very beginning" and that simply isn't true as they have changed it multiple times. This is me literally NOT agreeing with it, I am not sure if you picked that up. And yes I have sent every possible official manner of complaint I can to Mojang to let them know that, as have MANY MANY others who actually understand the ramifications of this change.

 

[Amgelo563]

You're not going to change your mind even if you are confronted with irrefutable proof

There's no provided proof. You've only mentioned bedrock bans, which don't apply here since again, this is not bedrock, they aren't applying the same system they're applying there, so there's no correlation. If you don't trust Mojang because of the bedrock history, that's fine and up to each one's opinion, but it shouldn't be passed on as a fact.

If you really want to discuss this further with me, please feel free to send me a private message and I will go into detail, so that we don't clog up this forum

This thread is made just exactly to discuss this, other people can have other arguments about the conversation or provide other points of view.

Again, you keep harping on the EULA like it's some unchangeable commandment and that we agreed to it from the "very beginning" and that simply isn't true as they have changed it multiple times.

I never mentioned it's unchangeable.

This is me literally NOT agreeing with it

There's a file called eula.txt inside your server files. If you don't agree it, set it to false. You won't be able to start the server anymore, though.

And yes I have sent every possible official manner of complaint I can to Mojang to let them know that, as have MANY MANY others who actually understand the ramifications of this change.

Why do you think you're the only ones who "understand the ramifications of this change"? As mentioned, there's a moderation system on about every single public internet community of any kind. There's nothing special about this, other than the fact that most actually do moderate on stuff like insults, whereas Mojang has explicitly stated that this won't be the case.

 

[impmallet]

There's no provided proof. You've only mentioned bedrock bans, which don't apply here since again, this is not bedrock, they aren't applying the same system they're applying there, so there's no correlation. If you don't trust Mojang because of the bedrock history, that's fine and up to each one's opinion, but it shouldn't be passed on as a fact.


This thread is made just exactly to discuss this, other people can have other arguments about the conversation or provide other points of view.


I never mentioned it's unchangeable.


There's a file called eula.txt inside your server files. If you don't agree it, set it to false. You won't be able to start the server anymore, though.


Why do you think you're the only ones who "understand the ramifications of this change"? As mentioned, there's a moderation system on about every single public internet community of any kind. There's nothing special about this, other than the fact that most actually do moderate on stuff like insults, whereas Mojang has explicitly stated that this won't be the case.

I said IF provided proof, notice the IF, meaning I am not bothering to discuss with you because you've demonstrated a lack of reasoning skills (not an insult, just an observation).

I also don't need instructions on how to configure the EULA file as I already know how and I also won't be using 1.19.1, so no need to accept the EULA, I am not sure how you even arrived at this statement, it's baffling and wholly irrelevant. It feels like a desperate attempt to get a jab in, and it's simply not relevant or necessary.

Again, I have no further desire to talk to you about this because you are unreasonable and won't stay on topic, and instead wish to strawman everything to your advantage. The reason I know you don't understand the ramifications is because of you're utter and complicit support of this feature without even considering any negative impacts or the message it sends (which you actually already did because you acknowledged that the bedrock moderation has issues). As I suspected, you won't engage me in direct discussion, and I really don't see the need to tie up a public forum with a petty back and forth squabble.

I stand by my words. I do not stand with Mojang or Paper on their views.

 

[unimatrix999]

As someone who has played minecraft since alpha have seen this game transform to what it is. I was there when Hmod was a thing , saw bukkit beeing born. Saw team Avolition cause chaos on servers. I have always ran a minecraft server and still do. I myself have no issue with the chat reporting thing if it was on servers run by mojang. However Mojang does not pay for my servers nor do i make any revenue whatsoever from mojang & their game. There is no donation , shop , ot whatever to my server therefore i feel it should be well within reason to disable that feature on my server.

And i can say beyond confidance that the second i find a plugin to disable this on my server i will do so. I dont find it a wrong concept as it will ban spamaccounts usualy used by griefers/hackers. However as mentioned before i pay for my hardware which are in europe & one in usa and i dont think this falls under the GDPR guidelines. Granting a third part access to server data ( chats happen on the server ) is a breach of GDPR.

 

[theshypig]

I personally don't see how this would be the case, from what I've seen Mojang only actually receives messages that are reported so I don't see how that's "collecting data" since the users are the ones who decide what gets sent to Mojang. There could be more policies in the future that help to actually gather data, but for now I don't think that's the case, nor what they're trying to implement.

Similarly, the only way I see that they would start "banning opposition" (reading that someone's mentioned TikTok), would be if someone started reporting messages like "Mojang sucks" or stuff like that, which happens in like every single social platform, so I don't think this is a case of Microsoft trying to be greedy or controlling either.

As regards gathering data, snooper was re-installed in 1.18 and cannot be toggled off by players as previously

 

[Amgelo563]

As regards gathering data, snooper was re-installed in 1.18 and cannot be toggled off by players as previously

That already happened way back in 2021, and they already gather much more data from the very OS or software that we use daily that belongs to them

 

[killermantv]

Let's stop debating semantics with bad analogies please, that's a waste of time.

No matter what you say, this is the most hated feature in entire minecraft so pick your side carefully, it's a good opportunity to boost your platform by adding support to block this and if you don't a plugin or mod will. I am still not updating my servers to 1.19 and staying on 1.18.

But if you chose to join mojang and support them in any way, i will completely migrate.

 

[killermantv]

As someone who has played minecraft since alpha have seen this game transform to what it is. I was there when Hmod was a thing , saw bukkit beeing born. Saw team Avolition cause chaos on servers. I have always ran a minecraft server and still do. I myself have no issue with the chat reporting thing if it was on servers run by mojang. However Mojang does not pay for my servers nor do i make any revenue whatsoever from mojang & their game. There is no donation , shop , ot whatever to my server therefore i feel it should be well within reason to disable that feature on my server.

And i can say beyond confidance that the second i find a plugin to disable this on my server i will do so. I dont find it a wrong concept as it will ban spamaccounts usualy used by griefers/hackers. However as mentioned before i pay for my hardware which are in europe & one in usa and i dont think this falls under the GDPR guidelines. Granting a third part access to server data ( chats happen on the server ) is a breach of GDPR.

Exactly i didn't think of that, i'm running my servers in eu as well.

 

[Andre_601]

No matter what you say, this is the most hated feature in entire minecraft so pick your side carefully, it's a good opportunity to boost your platform by adding support to block this and if you don't a plugin or mod will. I am still not updating my servers to 1.19 and staying on 1.18.

But if you chose to join mojang and support them in any way, i will completely migrate.

Let people choose what they want. Not everyone hates this feature as much as you do. It's a bad argument to say that this would "boost the platform" by blocking the feature. It could also have the opposite effect. That you lose people because you now don't support better security or smth.

"Pick your side", yes. But do not guilt-trip others for not choosing what you choose.

 

[MiniDigger]

i will completely migrate.

Cool, bye o/
Paper (and all forks of Paper) allow plugins to support chat reporting via various apis.
If you don't want that, you are free to disable it via a plugin or whatever, but leave us alone.

 

[mbaxter]

No matter what you say, this is the most hated feature in entire minecraft so pick your side carefully, it's a good opportunity to boost your platform by adding support to block this and if you don't a plugin or mod will. I am still not updating my servers to 1.19 and staying on 1.18.

But if you chose to join mojang and support them in any way, i will completely migrate.

I can think of tons of features actually hated more than this. Easiest one at the top is the pvp changes. Then you can get into different biome changes. Some mob behaviors. Villager-based lag. Single-threaded nature of the server. And those are just the ones I thought of in a few seconds. Personally, I "choose the side" that wants to rid the community of bigotry, grooming, and threats without any sign of false positives on reporting so far. This will all blow over when people realize they were raging over nothing, and eventually the only ones left on that 'side' will be those who will get banned for their abhorrent behavior.

 

[killermantv]

Let people choose what they want. Not everyone hates this feature as much as you do. It's a bad argument to say that this would "boost the platform" by blocking the feature. It could also have the opposite effect. That you lose people because you now don't support better security or smth.

"Pick your side", yes. But do not guilt-trip others for not choosing what you choose.

Cool, bye o/
Paper (and all forks of Paper) allow plugins to support chat reporting via various apis.
If you don't want that, you are free to disable it via a plugin or whatever, but leave us alone.

I can think of tons of features actually hated more than this. Easiest one at the top is the pvp changes. Then you can get into different biome changes. Some mob behaviors. Villager-based lag. Single-threaded nature of the server. And those are just the ones I thought of in a few seconds. Personally, I "choose the side" that wants to rid the community of bigotry, grooming, and threats without any sign of false positives on reporting so far. This will all blow over when people realize they were raging over nothing, and eventually the only ones left on that 'side' will be those who will get banned for their abhorrent behavior.

How funny all of you replied to a troll post but completely ignored the GDPR one
Like that wouldn't affect your project with mojang altogether

 

[killermantv]

I can think of tons of features actually hated more than this. Easiest one at the top is the pvp changes. Then you can get into different biome changes. Some mob behaviors. Villager-based lag. Single-threaded nature of the server. And those are just the ones I thought of in a few seconds. Personally, I "choose the side" that wants to rid the community of bigotry, grooming, and threats without any sign of false positives on reporting so far. This will all blow over when people realize they were raging over nothing, and eventually the only ones left on that 'side' will be those who will get banned for their abhorrent behavior.

Either way banning you from singleplayer because of actions in multiplayer will make this the most hated feature period

 

[Noah]

Either way banning you from singleplayer because of actions in multiplayer will make this the most hated feature period

That's only on Bedrock, you can still play singleplayer if you get banned from multiplayer on Java edition.

 

[electronicboy]

1) as a server platform, we're generally not picking a side and just opting to remain in the center, ofc, while some individuals around the team are for this system, some are also not as favourable of it, but, this isn't the first time we've decided not to add such types of botchery to the server which can easily be handled by plugins (which already exist), and will deal with the burden of ensuring that such a thing will work as expected, especially with vanillas own built in formatting stuff and all that crud. We'd rather just ensure that support exists for servers which want to use it, and let individuals disable it using plugins or whatever, we wanna focus on API and fixing things.

2) The GDPR argument is a weird one, nobody here is a lawyer so literally everything here is purely pissing in the wind to try to find an argument. I'm far from a GDPR pro, but, to my understanding

a) The server is purely a processor of data here, it's only routing and formatting messages, it's not producing them, so it's likely 100% irrelevant here that a server which is not directly in the hands of mojang exists within the routing of messages here, given that you are using mojangs platform and under their legal agreements, etc; It's not clear where much of this is going down the line, many entities are requiring that platforms step up on moderation

b) Messages you as a user send over the network on these platforms, to my understanding, is not considered personal information, and as such is generally not privy to the GDPR and it's restrictions, this is why many sites will just anonomise information like usernames, while still keeping the users actual content online

c) even if B wasn't true, it's likely that this would be covered under the exemptions to consent, i.e. the legal obligation towards platforms to report certain activities

ofc, all of this would need to go through several dozen lawyers, of which I'm not interested in paying for a consultation for over a block game, (if people think that there is an actual GDPR argument against this here, feel free to create a pot somewhere and hire a lawyer), but, things like the EUs digital services act creates a lot of headaches here as to determine how much of it applies to Mojang and in particular 3rd party services, many governments have been stepping up, or at least talking about, the requirements for platforms to implement moderation tools and all that jazz, intentionally disabling this thing could actually have legal implications down the line, but, that's purely speculation on my current understanding of what's going on here; ofc, only time (or a bunch of money being thrown to a lawyer) will tell