barneygale

FYI coolgamer, certain player builds have been protected before. Willravel's note block building (which played a tune in ~rev 12) and my automatic melon farm (~rev 13) were both protected. There may have been others As Four_Down says, most people who attended the survival meeting thought that protections for "public" buildings (which arenas would fit under) would be fine. This /could/ be player-run, but it would be nice for an admin to handle applications, schedule the fights, and give out extra prizes. Survival initiatives need just a little push from the admins and the players/clans will happily follow.

I love the idea of clans having their own arenas with home/away games.

You did great things for nerd totemo. Sorry to see you leave! Best of luck with future things.

trooprm, what if we ran roastnewt's plugin which disables fluid destruction of redstone? AFAIK there aren't any uses of that functionality since pistons were added.

3 minutes might be a somewhat conservative estimate.

Seems like a solid solution and more than adequate for a trial run.

buzzie, I think you overestimate the tenacity of griefers. Remember that only a tiny proportion of griefers will be savvy enough to request town membership, and of those griefers another tiny proportion will grief with liquids, and of those griefs yet another tiny proportion will make changes that LB doesn't track properly (rail orientation, redstone repeaters and comparators). Even without safebuckets, fluid grief is still possible. I occasionally saw grief of builds where there was already flowing water/lava on survival, and even the worst of these took ~10 minutes (not several hours) to fix. Remember at this time, a huge proportion of visitors were avo followers AND that logblock didn't really roll anything back right. I generally agree with slide that such a change shouldn't be an unnecessary burden on staff, my point is that I don't think it will be. I hate to keep restating the same point, but other survival minecraft also face the problem "what should we do about flowing water?" and in most other cases the answer is "log it!" rather than "disallow it!". I still haven't really seen anyone explain what important different MCPublic has that would justify taking a more restrictive approach. Other servers have staff who also deal with fluid grief!

For the record, I was talking about different subforums, not new instances of IPB (i.e. you'd go to nerd.nu/forum and click "survival")

slide23, please do not derail forum threads with personal whinging. You should bring personal issues to a Head Admin where they can sort it out, though my understanding is that you already have done this and the Heads do not share your very interesting viewpoint. Back on topic, have you considered running Glacier? It's a plugin similar to SafeBuckets, but it allows region members to flow their own water (and still use still blocks where they are useful). It wouldn't help on survival, but it would eliminate a whole category of fluid-grief on PvE that would be possible if we removed restrictions on fluids altogether. The source is available here: https://github.com/JunctionAt/Glacier

To clarify further: my point was that *servers of MCPublic's class* do not *need* to run safebuckets. Any reasons for *requiring* safebuckets must be MCPublic-specific, and not affect similar minecraft servers that don't run safebuckets. Arguing that MCPublic is understaffed, or has a unique staff-player relationship, are perfectly valid arguments for retaining safebuckets. Arguing that LogBlock isn't good enough, however, is not valid as many other minecraft servers deal with this exact same problem and solve it in a less restrictive way.

Just to be absolutely clear, are you saying that other servers doing something gives *absolutely no indication* that it is possible and practical in a general sense? E.g. if another server ran an anti-cheat plugin that catches hacking much better than NCP, you would give this evidence absolutely *zero* weight and say that it *does not* in any way indicate that such a plugin could be run on MCPublic? Because you seem to be not only missing the point, but harbouring a deep, heartfelt longing for the point that burns with the passion of a thousand suns. My mention of other servers not disabling water-flow was *only* indicating that SafeBuckets is not necessary and that other people do just fine without it. It's a weak assertion but it runs completely counter to your strong assertion that "we need to restrict flowing liquids".

Could you please tell me why you think I mentioned that other servers managed this, and how "we're not other servers" is in any way a rebuttal to this?

It would be great to see a tentative trial-run of this - perhaps restricted to water only. You two are extrapolating from a *single* incident on a server with poorly-defined rules, committed by one of *very few* regular players capable of being such a troll. You have no idea of: 1. How regular incidents of fluid griefing would be 2. How difficult they would be to clean up (am I the only person who found griefing modreqs the easiest to handle?) 3. How much of a positive impact this would have on players who don't have to wait (sometimes for hours) for a mod to do something they can do in singleplayer or other servers. If it turns out to be a nightmare then we can all STFU and try again in 2 years when LogBlock is even better at tracking fluids. I just think Asterix1806 has a very compelling case with various benefits that are not being addressed, and the impact of alleged drawbacks is far from settled.

This really is one of the weakest things I've heard a staff member say since JA said essentially the same thing, i.e. "we can learn nothing from other servers". What makes MCPublic such a special snowflake that it has to change vanilla gameplay, to the detriment of regular players, where other servers make do just fine? Contrast this with when SafeBuckets was first deemed necessary - liquid rollback was nearly nearly impossible and *nothing* rolled back right. Occasionally fixing rail orientation is the price *every other server* pays for not needlessly frustrating their playerbase by nerfing vanilla mechanics and requiring mod intervention for building *extremely common* things like grinders. Something something pot kettle.

For me, the whole point of subforums on a forum is to categorise things into different interests. I think most of our playerbase plays only one server predominantly, and for these people the signal/noise in the "Server Discussion" forum isn't great. From time to time people will remark how the subreddit is filled with PvE-related posts with few survival posts, though at the moment "Server Discussion" is showing the opposite trend. I think part of the reason for this is that different communities need different spaces. Like it or not, most survival players will associate more with the "survival community" than the nerd community in general. The only people who'd lose out are those interested in all 3 servers - they'd have to check 3 different forums (as you might check the Sports, TV and Technology forums of any other community). This seems like a small price to pay for making the forums less cluttered and more relevant for the majority of players who play <3 servers.

CTF is not representative of regular server play. Most other servers, including much larger ones, do not put restrictions on flowing liquids. SafeBuckets was implemented mostly because LogBlock's recording of fluid destruction was weak. It's now much better. Anyone who says otherwise either has a short memory or is ignorant of the realities.

[deleted]

Creative mode hasn't been improved much since 1.0, whereas SMP is constantly added to. As TornadoHorse says, the main audience for creative servers is roleplayers and freebuild/megaproject people. There are a number of servers already filling those requirements so reddit creative gets a weird bunch of people, most of whom don't stay very long. Projects like Dome don't make sense anymore as most people are used to terraforming with WE, WP, etc. Frankly I think even part-allowing WE or allowing roleplaying with proximity chat wouldn't increase numbers that much. Creative is a dead game mode for 95% of minecraft players, and those that do use it mostly plan builds for survival.

Good luck with that Warchamp. While avo was actively attacking nerd, Carver was a moderator defending against griefers and hackers, while you set up raids and caused a huge amount of damage. After avo stopped attacking nerd, you got bored of them and moved on to other things, while Carver joined them and helped them turn from "griefing team" to "gaming forum". I don't know whether you should be unbanned, but you certainly did a massive amount of damage while carver did almost none. edit: my downvote on buzzin was accidental :/

While carver helped avo in general, he never helped them grief/hack/troll MCPublic. Ever. Considering a head admin stated incorrectly that LRO wasn't forced out, I think the staff are still at a "fact finding" stage. Specifics plz. What rules has carver broken since he was banned? What involvement has avo had with MCPublic in the past 2 years?

I think there were more factors at work than that. It was a complicated situation, where: 1. The head admins' view of avo lagged behind that of the general playerbase 2. Both sides became steadily more entrenched in their views, and more convinced that the other side wouldn't give any ground 3. The "inner circle" became a much more exclusive clique of good friends, rather than disparate colleagues 4. "Don't betray your weaknesses or mistakes" became the Prime Directive - any question over whether to unban included giving a great deal of consideration to the political impact of a U-turn 5. Trusting our friends to be right, and assuming they are until convincingly proven otherwise, meant maintaining carvers ban had *at least* weak support from people who otherwise didn't care. In my opinion, two important qualities of MCPublic leadership are "good" and "open", with either being sufficient for quality leadership, "good" being preferable to "open", and having both being a bonus. MCPublic certainly started out with both, but under Skuld, Pilot and Lude it drifted towards merely "good". Carver's ban was a notable exception to this period. Under JohnAdams/jcll, in my personal opinion (and through neither ill intentions, nor lack of hard graft from JA), the leadership was neither good nor open. Beginning with Barlimore, and now particularly with thrawn21, Denevien and Draykhar, we're making good headway in both departments. I can see things getting better - community suggestions are being listened to, tech things are progressing and seem well-organised, admins are dealing with difficult situations in a timely and well-considered fashion, etc. I think an important part of this would be righting the wrong of Carver's ban, but it should be done with understanding and respect for the complex situation that it was borne from. To say it's just an "emotion based" ban won't convince those who back the ban for logical reasons, and it certainly won't serve as a warning for future admins of the kind of mistakes that can arise when the factors enumerated above come about.

I agree absolutely with what buzzinbee said. Carver has never participated in, nor organised, nor condoned any avo activity on MCPublic to my knowledge. While he was a moderator he actively fought against avo's raids on the servers. The rainshadow thing was a genuine mistake and Carver took every step possible to correct it. The original ban was a ridiculously bad decision from one of the most difficult periods in MCPublic's history. I would advocate for a complete unban. Carver has kept his hands clean for 18 months (conservative estimate) despite the original ban being highly controversial and outright wrong in many peoples books. Adding another month as a "trial period" will achieve nothing given the trial Carver has faced already.

To my knowledge LRO was never banned. She was removed as moderator because of the feared damage it would do to MCPublic's reputation if players knew an MCPublic mod was dating an avo member. In actuality the admins (myself among them) greatly overestimated the threat of avo, who publicly stated they were done griefing/trolling MCPublic and wanted to make peace. The fact that LRO was removed over such a ridiculous thing is a matter of deep personal regret to me - I supported her removal and spent a good week in Skype with her trying to talk her into a peaceful resignation. That it happened shows just how crazy the mccarthyist attitude toward avo was at that time. Carver's ban was a product of the same atmosphere and die-hard "us vs them" attitude that got LRO demodded. I wrote up a personal recollection of carver's ban and appeals for the previous thread, but it was locked before I posted. I sent a pastebin'd version to the head admins a couple of days ago. I am currently requesting permission to post it here. Here it is: https://gist.github.com/barneygale/954af825ba4731580a9b EDIT: I would also like to say it's bloody fantastic that MCPublic is at a stage where we can have these kind of threads and discuss/debate these issues without them being locked down as "drama-stirring". These threads only seem like "drama" because they're so rare. Once we get used to solving problems by talking them out like rationale adults, rather than bitching behind peoples backs or mounting a unified PR message, we will be a much stronger and healthier community where people feel free to discuss the issues that are important to them, and feel empowered to pursue new/crazy ideas.

This is totally incorrect and I suggest you edit or remove your post. Edit: to clarify, I am not taking either side on the questions "should LRO be a mod?" and "did her re-modding have sufficient oversight?". I just wanted to point out that she *was* forcibly removed simply for dating an avo member. I would like to request that a staffer lists out all interactions between MCPublic and Avo since carver's last appeal.

If anyone wants working: https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=pi*1000^2%2F4000^2 Even if the split was reversed (i.e. 20% amplified, 80% normal) that would still surely have a big effect on mob spawning