[Minecraft pet-peeves thread]

The 1.8 update broke my GUI text.  Now my chat bar appears blank even as I type, and several buttons in the options menu are missing their titles.  I haven't heard of anyone else having this problem either, so it must be some arcane problem with my elderly pizza box laptop.

[The "Toxic" Debacle]

Jchance said don't do what other people see as a sign of a label you don't want.

 

Eehee said people should have a thicker skin.

 

I was implying that everyone should notice that their first view is subjective and possibly argumentative, and try to form an objective view.

 

True, true, and true.  I was just paraphrasing a few small selections, not writing a thesis summary.

[The "Toxic" Debacle]

So far 15 people (16 including me) have posted in this thread.  Has a single one made an actual suggestion?

 

And I don't just mean a generalization.  jchance's "Become a better person and Nerd will get better," LRO's "Own your actions," and Eehee's "Listen even to those you disagree with" are certainly good advice for all, but not exactly a plan of action.  What should actually happen, and how would it be done?

[Wiki updates]

Blah blah blah "should" be done.

 

Revving in neutral here.  We should focus more on who should do it and when and how often.  Probably Head Admins and Now and Regularly (maybe at the end of each admin meeting?).  Shoot them PMs, get their attention.

[Name change Discussion]

I can see how that could go wrong, because anyone can hop on a proxy and an alt and feign innocence, but I'm also assuming this is a case by case thing, no?

 

Assuming?  Scher has said it verbatim twice...

 

I think everyone can agree on the bottom line.  Changing names can be fun, and we should let it be fun.  Unless it's ruining the fun for someone else, only then does it even become a "case."

[Name change Discussion]

Evidently there seems to be some confusion over this.  I think it would be better clarified sooner rather than later.

 

With easier name changes, username trolling will be (and has been) more common.  I think that the harassment rule applies more directly than the impersonation rule, really.  Staff members aren't the only ones with usernames, after all.

 

I suggest we interpret changing a username to obviously mimic/mock another player to be considered trolling/harassment unless that player gives explicit permission.  Staff members, because of their positions and responsibilities, wouldn't have the option to give that permission.  Inadvertent similarities would be handled on a case-by-case basis.

[Part of the Problem (stepping down)]

I admit it.  I'm part of the problem.

 

Due to my recent inactivity, I feel I can no longer justify holding a staff position.  My interest level in Minecraft is waning (no pun intended).  PvE is too socially involved for me, S too aggressive and competitive, and now, being out of building ideas, C has lost much of my interest as well.  I don't expect to be around much in the near future, though I may pop in now and then, and will probably keep tabs on the subreddit and forums.

 

No, I haven't been "driven away."  Maybe I'm just a placid person, but all the various drama storms have little effect on me.  They're a nuisance, yes, but no more.  Nor do I think they're a result of some cultural "toxicity" unique to our community.  It's all human behavior.  People acting lazy, cruel, prideful, contentious, indifferent, ignorant, unforgiving, etc.  We do it.  We're human beings.

 

I've held on this long simply thinking that there wasn't much reason to leave modship.  Even if I signed on less than once a week, that was one more pair of hands that night for modreqs and griefers, right?  I can still provide a little insight and level-headedness to mod discussions, right?  I certainly haven't done anything that would get me kicked off staff, right?  But these reasons, though not entirely invalid, have worn out.  The servers need people that are truly interested in them, players and staff alike.  If it's become a chore to me, I'm just deadweight.

 

Like everyone, I would love to see Nerd.nu regain at least some of its former glory.  I can still remember chatting casually in C with dozens of other online players as I determinedly traced out contours on the Enterprise.  Or developing scoreboard redstone nice enough that I was allowed to replace the /warp spleef existing system (and commissioned for several revs).  Or even my earliest days, on good ol' Chaos.  My underground living space was a mere 400 blocks from spawn, and never found.  Dang, was that really 3 years ago?

 

I haven't lost all hope.  If I get any big ideas for creative mode, I know where I'll want to put them.  One thing I'm sure of; if/when I return, Nerd.nu will still be there.

 

I formally request my mod privileges be removed, and bid you all a fond and probably temporary farewell.  See you around.

[There are two ways to make something transparent]

All decisions that come from the staff, come from all of the staff and the staff are expected to support all decisions that are made.

 

I am against mod votes being made public. I got over ruled. Therefore I support the decision.

 

Usually that should go without saying, but I suppose in context it's worth articulating.

 

Any moderator or admin that can't adopt this attitude should ask themselves if they really want to be on staff, because, as you say, that's the expectation.  That "negative vibe" you mention, nickeox, shouldn't really be there.  That's what the staff members are supposed to be; the players who can get past that kind of thing.  If you were voted in, then you have the support of the entirety of the rest of the staff, including those who apparently felt you weren't right for the position (or you should, anyway, and anyone who sticks to their "no" vote is as guilty as any grudge holder if not more).  As long as the community understands this, then seeing some of the process of how some things get hashed out shouldn't be a danger.  Anyone who would try to gain advantage by driving a wedge between staff members should be beating their heads against a brick wall.

 

While it is important for the sake of consistency in moderating, we shouldn't need to keep everything under wraps just so we present that "united front."  With transparency comes some accountability, another thing staff members are selected for being able to handle.  If people are more careful about what they say because more people can read it, so much the better.  Disagreeing in public is not something we should be afraid of.  The nerd.nu community isn't something we should be afraid of.  We're supposed to be part of it.

 

And there's another thing I would hope we could chip away at.  For a few of the players and a few of the staff, it's clear from what they say that they don't trust each other anymore.  nerd.nu has existed for over 5 years and all sorts of trusts have been burned this way and that.  But the staff's authority is supposed to be based on that trust, with the force of permission settings a fallback.  If we let ourselves get cynical and jaded, we might slightly reduce the total volume of disruption, but we all have less fun.  Which is kind of the servers' root issue right now.

 

Oh, and reading back through my posts, I suppose I'd better reiterate here that I'm not advocating making everything open.  There are still issues for which the private channels exist in the first place, and they should stay there.

[There are two ways to make something transparent]

I agree for the most part with this post.   I've always been big on admin transparency (which is why I started the changelog thing for C that all other servers have followed suit) and at the last admin meeting, which we have once a month, I urged the other admins to communicate with mods and players more.

 

However, I can tell you that there have only been 2 new threads in the head admin forum and 8 new threads in the admin forum this month so its not like an incredible amount of discussion is happening on the forums.  The vast majority of discussion happens in other threads throughout the forums and in IRC where we discuss what people are suggesting in threads, personnel issues, technical issues and requests for tech admins, and  if we need to take action in a scenario, etc.

 

I think the real problem with having policy discussions in the most public venue available is that the signal to noise ratio gets dramatically worse-  you go from 5 or 6 opinions of admins to 30 opinions of mods with cross talk and banter mixed in and it takes 3 pages to get to some sort of conclusion, if ever.  If you try to do that in IRC it becomes an impossible to follow wall of text where nobody can really tell what is going on in the end.  I'm not sure what the best solution to that problem is.

 

I wasn't really referring to IRC (this idea, you're right, would apply quite poorly there), and my biggest point really is that Mod Chat is terribly underused.  I don't see why, for example, discussions about policy or moderating practice couldn't be made here, unless the discussion for some reason includes sensitive info.  I agree some threads could get rather long, but if an admin needs to speak up now and then and get things back on track, well, that's what admins are for.  In the current system, things often have to "trickle down" in order to get anybody in the loop.  If threads start to peter out without getting anywhere, the rest of the community know who to poke, and about what, rather than soapboxing and hoping the right person is listening.  Players can only see one channel of the Staff Discussion, and it's practically a ghost town.

 

But another reason for opening staff discussion a bit would be as a way to combat some of the "divide" between players and staff and even between the staff roles.  Nobody creates this divide on purpose; it's a side effect of private discussion.  The more you discuss with just a few people, the more time you are spending with only those people.  They'll probably, on average, know each other better and become closer friends, leading them to trust each other's judgement all the more, and feeling less need for further discussion.  This kind of thing happens naturally and gradually, which is why it's so easy to overlook and why it needs to be actively countered now and then.

 

And if there have only been 2 or 8 threads made in admin level forums, maybe those are currently being a bit underused too.  Real-time discussion is inestimable, no question.  But they do leave out anyone who's not "there" at the time.  And if discussions are being born, growing, and dying in there with no sign or record, then the illusion of inactivity remains, and I think that's something we need to push back a bit as well (although the changelogs have taken that pretty far already, it's true).

[There are two ways to make something transparent]

A lot of the more vocal elements of the community, on the forums especially, have been complaining about a lack of "transparency" in the servers in terms of policy and process recently.  I believe there is a very easy way to begin to address this.

 

A wall can be made to be seen through in two ways.  One way is to set up a camera on one side, run a wire through the wall, set up a projector on the other side, run power lines to both, have the projector put the camera image on the other side of the wall, aim and calibrate everything, and then actively maintain the whole system.

 

The other way is to make a window.

 

I think one of the problems with nerd.nu's openness in terms of process is not so much secret-keeping conspiracy or callous disregard.  It's because we've been relying on the camera/projector setup, which is a friggin' hassle.  A good example is the old thrawnlog.  Everyone thought it was a great idea and a good step for the staff in general--and it lasted 5 days.  With all the other stuff the admins do (which we got a glimpse of in said log), keeping up a little "minutes" thing every day, single-handedly, must have seemed pretty low priority.  The new changelogs are working out much better so far, I think, but it's still a just summary of a conclusion that someone has to put together, and its setup seems to be geared mostly towards major announcements.

 

So forget the projector, why don't we add a window.

 

To clarify;

 

It should be standard forum practice to hold staff discussions in the most public staff channel possible.

 

i.e. most mod discussions would happen here in Mod Chat, and would only take place in Mod Chat Private if privacy is absolutely necessary (e.g. nomination discussions or plans for surprise events).  Ditto for Admin Chat and Head Admin Chat; only if really necessary.  Ideally, HAC would become a pretty sparse place.  Really, I don't think there should be much discussion in there, that level of privacy is pretty high and should be reserved for when needed.

 

One reason I am suggesting this is because it would be very easy to implement.  No new plugins, no editing permission files, no website code changes--all it would take is for the staff in general to agree on it and then start doing it (which requires no more effort than clicking on a different link before hitting the "Start New Topic" button).  Think we can manage it?

[[PMC] Brainstorming on Improving the Mod Selection Process]

I had some thoughts on this and Mumber asked me to share them here, so I will attempt to do so.

 

The current moderator nomination system isn't broken, but it certainly seems to be less effective than it really could be due to the nature of how it is done. Every few months we combine and toss names around en masse and try to come up with a list of potential candidates. This usually leads to a very bloated thread where it becomes very easy to lose track of who is being discussed and what names are in contention.

 

My proposal would be to do away with the mass nomination thread and instead utilize a sub-forum to PMC that would allow anyone, at any time, to nominate a player for a moderator position. Discussion would then center around 1 person per thread, and people could provide testimony and evidence of their reasoning for/against the candidate. Server admins could also post criteria they are looking for specifically at the present time like, "We really need more moderators during X time, please focus on finding someone who is active during this time that may be valuable."

 

Anyway, those are my thoughts :D

 

I was just about to suggest myself that, after the initial "name-triage" removing the obvious cases, each name be discussed one by one rather than an open floor.  This, however, could result in some quite long threads indeed if we have to finish one discussion to start another.  I like your idea much better, allowing more specific and informative/informed discussion for each candidate simultaneously.

 

As a small detail, if we're going to be making a list of such "character evaluations," a sticky post on top reminding people that future mods will have access to their own evaluations (and other decorum guidelines) might keep things a little more on the civil side.

[Opportunity for Comment: World Edit Changes on C and new Policies]

 Poly Regions can no longer be used

 

The world edit / world guard plugin we are using does not support poly regions.  Only cuboid regions can be used on C once the new plugins are activated.  Poly regions still work for protection, but you can't use world edit in poly regions you are an owner of- only cuboid regions.

 

A little confused by this one.  Does this mean that poly regions have been disabled/disallowed completely, or that we can still make them for protection if a player doesn't care about world edit in that region?

[Proposal: Merge P and S]

I'm not an S player and probably never will be, but I too am sad to see it dwindle.  There's one aspect that I think hasn't been much addressed, one I'm rather sensitive to, being such a non-competitive sort; what is there for players who "lose?"  Most old guard S players have fond, satisfying memories of being a member of a widely feared clan, pulling off heists and assassinations, winning duels and arena fights, etc.  But what about those who die and lose their gear/load of goodies/chest of valuables?  This applies to new players especially, which we always need.  What reason can we offer them to keep playing?  And how do we offer such a reason without sucking all the fun out of "winning?"

[[PMC] Alt accounts]

This has turned from a post about alt accounts being banned to how long we ban people for using alts. Why don't we just set a 1 month ban for any and all alternative accounts to a player, this will give us time to process if they are going to be a constructive member of the community again, and not leave us with rediculous ban lengths... Do we really think minecraft as we know it will remain exactly as is by 2025? Let's face the facts we know since 2012, many people got banned by people who no longer visit the servers, perhaps they did something more or less serious than someone were permabanning... We don't know when the banning moderator or admin or head admin is no longer around, and this is only a 2 year timespan. And nor will the staff of nerd.nu in 2025... Leaving our server to hold an endless grudge on their other accounts... A ban length of 11 years is rediculous.

 

That whole 2025 thing was a joke... Dumbo was pretty clear that he didn't like the exponential "doubling every time" idea.  I don't see what's so complicated about the idea of a ban length either resetting or adding 2 weeks minimum (if the ban length being reset was too short) in the event of an alt evasion.

[Newspaper]

I've actually been ruminating a bit on an idea like this myself, MCPublic could definitely benefit from a regular newsletter.

 

Running it would require a lot of effort and collaboration, so hopefully this is something people would be committed to long-term.  Articles, editorials, quotes-of-the-week or something, staff/admin public notices, even comics, etc. are all things the community could contribute, but there would have to be someone prodding everyone for this information and putting it all together.

[[PMC] Alt accounts]

In the case that a player gets banned for a month, they're looking at over two and a half years for 5 evasions, or upwards of 21 years for 8

"Please reply to this thread no earlier than Nov. 1, 2025 to be unbanned."

[[PMC] Alt accounts]

Per this thread, our current policy of banning accounts permanently for alt evasion has historically had a spotty enforcement and has apparently lost much popular support.  The issue was raised by barneygale, who obviously has some alts banned under this policy, bans he recently appealed and had denied.  The rules have not yet changed and his appeals kind of jumped the gun, but most participants in the thread seem to agree that that rule should be altered.
 
Dumbo52 had some suggestions in that thread that would replace the permaban practice that seemed popular.
 

My proposal is that if a banned player is caught alting, the new unban date will be set to the latest of either:
A) Two weeks after the previously declared unban date; or
B) The addition of the previous ban length to the time of the most recent evasion.

For example, if I were banned for one month for x-raying (we'll say 4 weeks for simplicity) and I evaded one week into my original ban, two weeks would be added to my ban, pushing the unban date to 6 weeks after my original ban. On the other hand, if I were to evade my ban 5 weeks into my original ban, the new unban date would be set to 4 weeks after this ban evasion, or 9 weeks after the original ban. When my unban date is reached, both my main and alt accounts would then be unbanned.

This method of banning would ensure that at least two weeks are added to the ban for each evasion. This length can, of course, be changed depending on how severe an offense we consider ban evasion to be, but I think the basic model is sound.

There is also the bridge we would need to cross between compromised accounts and ban evasion: where do we draw the line? It's not infrequent that we have griefers on Creative who repeatedly log in from other accounts as soon as they are banned, but from my experience, very few of these players tend to appeal their bans. If a player with 20+ banned alts were to appeal, we can't necessarily unban all of these accounts, as they are more than likely compromised. If this situation does arise, I recommend we just unban the main account after the given ban length (the main account being the one which was first used to log onto our servers), and keep the rest banned as compromised accounts. In most cases, it isn't difficult to tell whether a player is using legitimate alternate accounts, anyway.

This sounds pretty good to me, but the rules don't change until they change.  Figured I'd throw this into the staff chat to help speed that process.

[Permabans for alt evasion]

I would like to hear someone explain how the current formula is better than Dumbo's suggestion. Mrloud15, would you like to take it away?

 

Ok, so I'm not Mrloud.

 

The problem with this case, I think, is not so much which policy is better, it's which one is, to use your own words, current.  Personally, I expect this policy will be changing soon, but my (or anyone else's) thinking so does not negate its existence.  We can't just start obeying a new set of rules because we think we have better ones, no matter how many people agree.  We have to wait for the rules themselves to be updated.  If getting that done requires some poking...

 

And as for staff discretion, we can't claim it doesn't exist just because it doesn't fall our way.  Mrloud didn't not make a decision, he just made one you disagree with vociferously.

[Discussion on Donating]

I'm generally opposed to donation perks, even cosmetic ones.  Any such visual identification places a separation between donators and non-donators that doesn't need to be there.  Our main donor incentive should be people liking the servers and wanting to stick around and so wanting the servers to stick around.  We've scraped by on that for 5 years.

 

One idea I do remember reading and liking, though, is some kind of in-game message about donations made during donation events (can't credit author because can't find link, our search bar is crap).  Such events are already geared towards the subject and don't really count, I would say, as "normal" gameplay.  A quick "Thanks to [Player] for donating!  See nerd.nu/donate for our donation history or to add a donation" would be horrible normally, but appropriate during events.

[Post your ideas here (Creative mostly)]

Thread is nearly a year old, I think it's outlived its usefulness.  Four pages of ideas all mashed together, some already having been implemented (i.e. mobs), isn't contributing much now, just taking up space in the stickied posts.  Fresh ideas need fresher threads.

 

Close?

[[PMC] Recent staff dilema]

The right message, coming from the right place.  It takes more effort than most people will admit (since they're usually trying to get someone else to do it) to swallow one's pride and back down from an escalating conflict.  I have seen, even in my relative absence, the tension building around the forums, and it's a bit of a relief to see something like this.  Would that it continues in this vein.

[Suggestions for Security, Permissions, and Griefers]

I would just like to point out one quibble; hopper minecarts.  I recall one incident where a lag machine using hopper carts took down the C server (the server, not people's clients) repeatedly.  How many carts were involved?  Two.

 

I don't fully understand how that worked, and I know hoppers in general are risky (I myself took C down for a bit with a bugged hopper, still don't know how), but the carts in question had been placed by a griefer, so there must be some kind of control players can have over that kind of thing.  I'd vote for keeping those unplaceable, unless of course they can be made reliable.

 

Another small cart issue: minecarts of all kinds are despawned on C every 2 minutes.  That would make many uses of chest and furnace carts pointless, while removing that server behavior would open possible exploits.  Can that be resolved somehow?

[Thrawn's Head Admin Log]

I'm kinda sad that this stopped being a thing shortly after it began being a thing.

 

But it was a detailed, daily log updated by only one person.  How long did anyone expect that to last?

 

Something more like a weekly report/summary might be more sustainable.

[AFK Command]

What about if we could get a custom AFK command?  Instead of announcing in general chat, it could just shoot a quick message to anyone who types the AFK person's name in chat or tries to send them a /msg.  This would also have the added benefit of informing people of AFK status even if they missed the initial "/me is AFK" message.

[[PMC] Head Admins]

However, I do want to comment that there are a lot of things that we do as a part of our positions that don't require us on the servers a lot, and while I do like to come on the servers to help out with modreq's and such, finding time to play (which I'm going to assume is what most of the above login counts are about) isn't necessarily going to portray an accurate representation of our activity levels.  That's like trying to say Deaygo doesn't do much for the servers because he's not logged into them.  I just wanted to point this out.

 

Remember this?

 

A lot of what the HAdmins do is "behind the scenes" stuff, which can give the false impression of inactivity (which makes real inactivity that much harder to spot).  I thought this was a great idea, but obviously it petered out fast.  And no wonder, thrawn was trying to single-handedly make a blow-by-blow daily account, no way that was sustainable.  But what about a weekly summary, contributed to by the whole team?