barneygale

I don't care if the admins are slow to update the list provided they don't start grant exceptions to individual players in the meantime.

I can understand the confusion. Currently the wiki says: Any client mod on the NOT APPROVED list may NOT be used on the server, period.Which in my opinion is incredibly vague and open to interpretation.

Apparently this has been resolved by giving the mod in question permission to use the (previously banned) mod. I will update the wiki page to reflect this retroactive permission. edit: apparently it's only editable by staff.

Made a modreq with undeniable evidence of a staff member using a banned client hack yesterday. He still isn't banned, so I'm making this post so everyone has a little background. -- After initially being a "risky choice" (in the words of a then-survival admin) for being a moderator, he was added because of the chronic shortage of mods at the time, over 2 years ago. Within days he was caught rifling through hundreds of chests belonging to a clan. When asked what he was doing, he replied "I'm bored". His moderator powers were temporarily removed. Days later he was caught xraying on the first day of a survival revision, using hacks for serious material gain by becoming the first player with full diamond gear. He voluntarily resigned as moderator (something he is keen to point out) but if he hadn't, he would certainly have been demodded for hacking and various minor abuse of his powers. Less than a week later he had created a huge lava moat by spawn, to cause FPS lag for new joiners. His request was initially denied by an admin, but he asked around until he found a mod willing to do it. Other mods reported griefing on the same day. The next day, a moderator asked in IRC: "so what are the qualities we're looking for in mods, exactly?". The answer came from a head admin: "the primary focus nowadays is non-cheating, sadly.. X damaged our trust". 10 days later a note is added to his account for combat logging. This player spent the next 6 months trolling on mumble (to the extent where even Warwick thought he was trolling too hard) and accumulating dozens of nearly-rule breaking infractions. Mercifully he began to play less and less on survival. Eventually he decided to squeeze MCPublic one last time by logging in and advertising his rival server to everyone online via PMs. For this, he was banned. -- Imagine my shock when I heard he had become moderator again. In all the time I'd known him on survival he was never good mod quality, and after he resigned in disgrace his behaviour became as bad as any of our "trouble players". "Unbelievable," I thought, "that he could come back and have such a positive impact that he was nominated for mod again. What a turnaround! He must have dedicated months to showing how much of a changed player he is!". So I went looking for his nomination thread... ... and I couldn't find it. And then I heard that it was *never voted on*. It was never even announced! Apparently, he just asked for his mod powers back.. and they were given to him! Why? Because he was mod for about 2 weeks in 2011. Does it matter that he spent most of that time abusing his powers, hacking and being a complete pain to staff and players? Apparently not! Once a mod, always a mod! Who cares why you left?! -- And then, in a turn of events that surprised ABSOLUTELY NO-ONE who knew him before he got his mod powers back, he recently (few days ago) inadvertently revealed he was using a client hack. This mod is *specifically listed* on the disallowed client mods page, and it has been on there for a long time now. This hack has a known flaw which makes it easy to accidentally show that you're using it, but *most hacks don't*. Given this user's history of unfair play I have *zero* confidence that this is the only hack he's using. *At the very least* his mod powers should be temporarily removed while this issue is looked into. Yet it hasn't happened. If I proved to everyone that I was using a hack, would I be given 24hr of free play while the admins kick the issue around? I'd be banned in a fucking instant. Please hold your staff members to the same standard you hold us players. Cheers

Quick idea: when new players join, send something like: "Welcome to s.nerd.nu! Can you tell us how you found us? Type /found <where you came from>" Might be handy to know, right?

Yeah but I'm still well-liked enough that old players PM me when they see me online, which has happened more this rev than last. I've seen players who've been gone since rev 7 come back.

More old players came back than left

Sounds fucking intense, I'll ally

Stats for first 5 days, compared to revs 12-25 * 91 peak players (historical average 105, last rev 45) * 29 average players (historical average 39, last rev 19) An improvement from where we were. Lets hope the numbers keep up and next rev maintains the recovery.

Are we expecting big above-ground builds at some point? Cities? Or is that not how civcraft works?

Lets hope the solution isn't simply to inject more old-guard players into a system that seems to make every head admin lost to the world within a few months

What's the HAdmin problem?

Drawing a line between revertable and non-revertable griefing will be fraught surely

Woo thanks this is very handy!

I think you need to give it more time. If a couple months down the line we're still dropping players then fine, we can go back to oldschool survival. However, I'd like to play with decent numbers even if that means sacrificing the gameplay I've known for years.

Really loving be able to place my own water, and the protection mechanic is dead interesting. Will be interesting to see how it plays out. I agree with Willravel that we might not see huge builds anymore, but this is early days and I'm sure we can come up with something. We could offer protection for public-use builds (as has been suggested before)

Yeah but could you see someone being made mod today for hosting a wiki, assuming we never had one? They both came in when the meaning of "being on staff" wasn't as clearly defined as it is today. Not that I'm opposed to them being there, I just think it's worth noting they're special cases

Agree there - my post only applied to old-formula revs

I'm in!

I think darkskynet is an honorary mod like muldoonaz and most previous admins

People wishing to see something done about voting should vote for "only remove downvotes". Currently complete removal is a wasted vote, unless the admins are planning to combine the totals from the last 2 choices.

Survival will die completely if we continue with vanilla. It's a tiny niche that gets smaller every day.

what say dr dray?

A bunch of people instantly upvote/downvote based on the player who made the post, without even reading the post. It doesn't promote good discussion, it just forces people to pick sides.

Lol this thread is a perfect example of why forum voting is such a bad idea