Mumberthrax

Can you help me to understand what staff in exhibit A treated you in a discriminatory of unfair way, and what they did specifically? Are there deleted comments that we cannot see? Or is this one less about staff and more about other players? If so, can you help me to understand which of your comments were picked apart, and by whom? Currently this exhibit is a little opaque to me, and I am supposing it is because I am not looking in the right spot, or for the right things. I can appreciate the irony of the situation here, that it may seem that I am picking apart your comments. I intend no disrespect in this, I am trying to understand the problem, to help build/clarify your case for you and identify a solution. Was the discussion about one of your ban appeals, or someone else's? Was it something that may have related to another players privacy? What was your intention in this discussion? Is it possible the head admin had a legitimate reason for saying "I will not discuss this matter any further with you"? There is a lot of missing information here, meaning to me that we cannot adequately gauge whether this is an example of systemic prejudice and discrimination against you or others without more context - in my opinion. Similarly for the other head admin, I can appreciate that you may have perceived their response to have been snappy and unrelated, but without context it is difficult to tell whether this is a legitimate example of discrimination against a number of players, or if it is something else. If any other players who feel they are slighted in a systematic way, discriminated against as part of a "toxic" label would like to offer any examples or evidence of that discrimination, to put some weight behind the allegations made here, I am sure that it would contribute to a resolution of the problem. I think right now the opposition to all of this takes the form of "there is no toxic debacle other than the contrived drama that you are creating. You act like a dick, you're going to be handled per the rules, and probably treated with less cordiality than you otherwise would as a consequence". therefore, the burden of proof, as it were, is on the claimants in this case. edit: if there really are 30 to 40 people who feel they have been oppressed or discriminated against by staff, being viewed as toxic, then surely some of them are reading this thread and can present some specific examples of this systemic widespread problem.

From what I've gathered, the point is that there are some people who are upset about the way they are treated by staff, and feel that there hasn't been a successful resolution to that achieved. Maybe I've overlooked it, but the only solutions I've seen presented so far are: and now the latter seems to seek to resolve the problem of the use of a label explicitly, but according to eehee it's not just about the label literally itself, but about discrimination that the label is a symptom of. The former seems to be a plausible solution, but despite it being expressed at the beginning of the thread it doesn't seem to have done anything to stop people from feeling discriminated against, implying there is something more going on than just being treated poorly for being asshats - that's why I'm asking for specific grievances, specific examples of this unjust behavior so that we can identify whether there truly is discrimination going on or if its just people being butthurt over getting slaps on the wrist for being buttheads, or people who just like feeding into drama and controversy whether there is substance to it or not. Just because a few people derail a discussion doesn't mean the thread should be shut down before a careful examination of the allegations has been conducted. Then again, maybe yet another thread discussing this should happen with pre-set rules about attacking one another.

I don't know if they are using the /rulebook CH thing i wrote or not. If so, and its a problem with my code, then I apologize. Its like the first thing i ever wrote in CH and its derpy as all hell. @admins if you *are* using it, then /book should have all the relevant commands. If you can't get it to work then i recommend just going back to the old version that doesn't have all the neat features in mine. edit: relevant github junk: https://github.com/NerdNu/nerdCH/pull/24

Ok, so disregarding for the moment how many people are upset, moving on to the next question I have asked Eehee, do i understand correctly that you are unhappy because you perceive there to be a pattern of unfair treatment toward yourself and several other people by some members of the staff at nerd? Or is it something other than just unfair treatment, something more specific or of a different nature? What behaviors specifically can we point to that are causing the problems? Can we refer to some concrete examples of actions that have caused this grievance? I'm not looking for an exhaustive list necessarily.

I am not certain, but it seems like a Mumber could thrax as much as a Mumber could if said Mumber could indeed mumber thrax. So maybe about 3 or 4.

You're saying that people have been banned unfairly, because they unjustly were labelled "toxic", and that there is a problem that exists which the bans were intended to remedy - but the bans did not fix it, so a possible solution is to not only unban these ostensibly unjustly banned players but to add them on as staff members. Did I get that right?

TNG. Both have their flaws, and the high points in TNG far outshine the high points in TOS in my opinion. DS9 may be my favorite trek series, though I disliked the ending, and I think sisko's acting in the first part of the series is a bit weird, and the long story arcs in the latter part kind of put me off - but the characters are great.

The impression I got was that it was more than just being explicitly labeled "toxic", rather also being viewed as exhibiting those attributes when it is allegedly unjust to do so, and consequently being treated with disdain or disrespect in certain ways because of being viewed as having the attributes of a "toxic" player. But that's rather vague, hence my desire for clarification, in simple, readable terms, from the people who are upset. edit: and really, if this is the case, I think jchance put it pretty plainly in reasonable phrasing early on in this thread:

Can we get a ballpark figure of how many, and how we know how many? Not that I distrust anyone here, but I would like to be sure there is an upset mob and not just a handful of people claiming there is an upset mob. That is, how many people are upset/unhappy specifically about issues related to this topic of the "toxic debacle". If I were to guess, including people who haven't participated in this discussion directly, I would estimate the figure of potentially unhappy (regarding this subject) people to be at around 16. That's based on a combination of 1) people who seem to be unhappy in this discussion 2) people who are more or less regular and/or oldtimer players/members in the community and: 2a) who have been trolls or dicks in the past or 2b) who have been drama-magnets in the past or 2c) who are currently banned and/or have been banned in the past for disruptive behavior. (or some combination of those) But I don't know for certain that they all feel persecuted and discriminated against, or like they are being called "toxic" or whatever the actual issue here is. But that metric above is how i come to the number of players who might feel comfortable identifying as part of the so-called "toxic" group being around 16. Would you say that number matches up with your estimates or knowledge, kittypuppet?

Like this whole question of "what is the toxic debacle that the post title refers to?" What even is the problem? Someone help me here. Lets lay it out in clear straightforward concise English. Who is unhappy? What are they unhappy about specifically? What do they want to happen? Is that desire appropriate to implement? If so, what needs to be done to make it happen? Will they still be unhappy when that's done? --- edit: so far I count: eehee, unp, roastnewt, darkelmo as having something they are unhappy about. Is that all? Anyone else I missed? edit2: are they even all still unhappy, or did we get enough drama and emotions out in the preceding discussions that everyone is good now?

Neat. Thank you for sharing this.

just leaving this here, for reference: https://nerd.nu/forums/topic/2640-list-of-approved-pve-mods-and-macros/ edit: and this, for S: http://www.redditpublic.com/wiki/List_of_approved_client_mods edit: also, I recommend keeping an eye on the curse client in case you intend on continuing to develop this modpack. http://beta.cursevoice.com/games/minecraft

: O Can you describe the light? What was it about the light that made it seem "really, really odd" to you? Size/distance/color/shape/etc.? Did the light move or blink or change in any way? Did you see it through a window, or were you outside at the time? Were there any unusual sounds apart from what you and the girl were making? How long did you see it for? What time of year was this?

Have you ever encountered a ghost or ufo before?

Discuss. Edit: Context:

I disagree. I think that with such a dramatic discussion about the term and its usage, we need to come to a common agreement about what the fuck we're even talking about. Semantic differences in the use of a word can contribute to lots of misunderstanding and needless conflict. I think thats an ok definition too, though obviously not the same as the way that I normally understand the term. And I think that us using two different definitions like that could cause misunderstanding. Lets say that I think a behavior can be toxic even if it isn't calculated. Or lets say that I think a behavior can be toxic even if it has a "reasonable" end. Bob is being a dick on a regular basis, pissing people off and making people uncomfortable, and like they don't even want to play on the server because of his presence. He isn't always breaking the rules when he does this (maybe he's been banned a few times for it), but he's still not conducive to a fun place to play. He doesn't have any grand plan to disrupt the servers, he's just being an asshat and that naturally leads to disruption. By your definition he is not toxic. By mine, he might be. So lets say that someone calls his behavior toxic. He cries oppression, saying oh woe is me the admins are against me and my friends who also happen to be asshats. If I say, well he is being toxic. He might adopt your definition and say, no he wasn't being toxic, i don't have some grand scheme to destroy the servers, i'm not working with my friends to make everyone leave, you're just a powermongering biased admin. You see how the different definitions can cause problems on a topic as emotive as this one is for some people? Ok other example. Lisa has a plan to be disruptive, to rabblerouse, to create conflict, because she has a reasonable objective in mind to promote an improvement to the servers. There is some problem, like biased admins, or a shitty arena selection process, and nobody will pay attention unless she manipulates the situation through disruptive and offensive behavior. She has reasonable and potentially good intentions, but her methodology is questionable. By my definition of the term, she would be exhibiting toxic behavior. By yours, and hers if she agreed with yours, she would not be. If someone calls her toxic and tries to excise her from the community, she raises hell saying the admins are biased and called her toxic when really she was just trying to improve the servers by trying to attack this or that admin who obviously don't deserve to be there because this biased action even proves it. They're slanderous and using toxic as a pejorative! They might not even use the word "toxic" but they're thinking it, they're all conspiring against us "toxc" players who just care enough to raise a little fuss. You see how this makes a difference? If they had a common agreement on what the word means, or at the very least an understanding of what the other person means when they use the word, things would be easier. Your definition is a decent one, it is reasonable. I don't think our two definitions are the only ones used by all of the people involved in all of this drama.

I think this is nice on paper, but things don't always work out that way. When you are in a position of responsibility, sometimes you have to make decisions that upset some people because it is the right thing to do. When that happened to me as an admin, i made some very vocal members of the community very angry, and became one of the bad guys. I received regular harassment, and at least one serious borderline threat against my life outside of minecraft. The head admins would do nothing about it because most of them were inactive. It would be nice if we could all get together and sing kumbayah and have a fun time playing blocks, but some people who skirt the rules and try to do all they can to cause others problems find infinite pleasure in doing shit to try and upset or piss people in admin positions off, taking advantage of good will as much as they can, crying oppression when they are finally held accountable. Or playing mind games, pretending to be contributing members of the community while trying to sabotage shit behind the scenes. You can go into this with an optimistic collaborative attitude, but as long as fucked up people like this are not excised from the community, you will have these trends of increased professionalism and distance. We talk about power corrupting people in positions of influence in politics. I think that it is less-so that, and more that the relationship naturally brings out these conflicts that drive a wedge between the stewards of the medium we are enjoying and the people enjoying it. Anyway, 98% of the players don't get involved in the drama bullshit. But its easy to lose sight of that when you have people who have a lot of practice in getting under your skin doing just that.

oh boy.

I am not sure if this is a joke or a jab but I think with the amount of silliness that has been demonstrated in this thread I'd be on the safe side to use this image:

What's the process for requesting a post in the admin forum or private mod chat forum be made public? (like the freedom of information act in the USA) There are a few that I posted and/or upvoted in those forums as an admin that I believe the players would find valuable, including but not limited to discussions about a modded server, our admin meeting notes, ban system overhauls, land claim policy on PvE, and a minigame server. edit: if I recall correctly, I don't think any of those had personal information or anything sensitive on them. I imagine they are no longer actively being discussed (most were basically dead threads before I was removed as admin) so it is not like non-admins or non-staff will be disrupting the planning process.

To get back onto the original subject of the "toxic" problem, I'm going to put forth some conjecture and pseudo-intellectual rambling: Some definitions: A toxin is something that is relatively small compared to the normal inputs or to the scale of a system which can cause a breakdown in normal functioning, especially when it is a catastrophic breakdown leading to death when not treated. It is basically synonymous with poison. Toxic actions and behaviors are similar. Prolonged exposure can cause a breakdown in normal functioning, and left unchecked can cause catastrophe in a relationship or in a community. A toxic individual would be one who has a habit of or exhibits a pattern of performing toxic actions. A toxic group would be more than one individual who exhibit a pattern of performing toxic actions, especially when they act in concert. ----- Other terms related to toxic in the context of human actions or behaviors are: destructive disruptive harmful baleful cancerous detrimental debilitating damaging evil hurtful diseased noisome pernicious venemous corrupting corroding malignant sinister subversive unhealthy foul fetid malevolent wicked ---- Some thoughts and discussion topics: 1) how does one determine what is toxic and what is simply annoying or undesirable? 2) just because someone performs a toxic action does not mean that person is categorically bad or beyond redemption. 3) just because an action is disruptive does not mean that it is a threat to the stability of a system on the whole. (I am of the opinion that some apparently toxic behavior can actually be a good thing. See: immunotherapy, vaccines, discordianism, homeopathy) 4) It is not surprising or novel that being a dick is generally undesirable, and tends to engender dislike, distrust, or a reputation for being a dick 5) Understanding the underlying psychological motivations behind disruptive behavior may help in mitigating and managing it