WayneByNumbers

For the record, Schematica itself can do that. The only possible need for the server to handle an export would be if you try to save a section outside your chunk loading limit, and then you can probably just do them in sections and stitch them together in MCEdit or something.

I strongly support this idea, but I think there needs to be more organization of the video process. Saying you're willing to record things in HD is excellent (and rather envy-inducing on my part), but you don't seem to mention any specific plans of videos to make, and anyone with specific videos in mind might not know or remember your willingness to the cameraman. Would it be possible to have maybe a thread where people with recording capability and willingness to record for others could identify themselves as the server camera people? If we're going to produce videos as a community, I think that would be a good role to add. And (I've brought this up in the mumble meeting thread), who would be in charge of approving/posting videos? If anything comes of this, that would be too much for the HAdmins to make it another "side duty."

The WorldEdit moving things ruffles me just a little bit, since C has historically been dedicated to being a hand-building server. However, compromises have been made (like the /haste command and the compass), and I think that, as long as it doesn't fall into abuse, it could be integrated fine. And being one of what is apparently few who actually does use modmode, I'm all for that. As long as the /unvanish thing when you leave modmode works, that's still bugged for me sometimes.

I have a quick suggestion. I don't myself like the idea of "temporary bans," at least what I think I've seen so far in the discussion. I think needing someone to apply for access to a server is a perfectly fair step after they have broken the rules they already agreed to follow by logging in. It is up to the staff handling such appeals to be fair and avoid "public shaming," as some have put it. Deliberate humiliation, in my opinion, is not a valid punishment. On the other hand, there doesn't seem to be a whole lot of middle ground between warnings/kicks and outright bans. Perhaps something that compromises the idea of being warned and being banned could fit in and hopefully select for those who would actually be willing to adjust their behavior and play on the servers. I was thinking something like a "timed kick." I suppose it could technically be called a temp-ban, but I'm thinking of a duration of something on the order of 5-10 minutes, accompanied with a message explaining that someone can rejoin after the time is up (in addition to whatever kick message is typed in). For disruptive players, this could give both them and the rest of the players a moment to cool down instead of everyone jumping right back into the fray. Anyone who waits that long and continues their infractions will have earned their subsequent ban. And since we're discussing banning policy in general, I'd like to link this thread about the treatment of alternate accounts, and see if anything can come of that.

I believe that is in fact a reference to dobreira, not you.

Ah, the glamour and benefits of being a public server.

I didn't mean to say that I disagree with the idea of banning people and not accounts; as you say, that is the point of disallowing alt evasion in the first place. The problem I meant to get across is that it's darn hard to enforce, which is probably one of the reasons it has historically carried such a harsh punishment. It's similar to the stiff bans for xray--it's easy to do, difficult to detect, and goes strongly against the server ideals of fairness, so there has to be some kind of deterrent. I'm not arguing for keeping the permaban policy on evading alts. In fact, reading back, I don't think a single participant so far has argued for that, so that policy is probably on it's way out. Now I suppose we're trying to hash out what would replace it. So far everyone seems to agree that evasion should add time to the original ban as well as result in banning the evading account up to at least the point of appeal. The only variable left, it seems, is whether/how long evading accounts should remain banned after the main account has appealed successfully. I also think difficult1 brings up a good point. Not all ban situations are the same, and perhaps flagrant evaders could be dealt with differently. Legit alternates perhaps might be unbanned immediately, but accounts created solely for evasion might fall into a different category.

I don't think it's entirely nonsensical that some of a persons accounts might be dealt with differently than others, as long as those accounts were used differently by that person in the course of a ban. If someone uses an alt account to evade a ban, they are basically associating that account with the original infraction in addition to the evasion infraction, so there is some sense to keeping it banned longer than the main account, though not necessarily forever. As for banning people, not accounts, it's a nice ideal but the nature of the Internet makes it practically impossible. By that philosophy, someone who gets banned would have all of their alt accounts banned immediately, which would require the staff to have knowledge of those accounts (and any future accounts that individual might gain in order to evade, not to mention borrowed/hacked accounts). Alts can only be banned as they come to the staff's knowledge, which is often only after the fact of an evasion. Just some thoughts about the permaban policy; perhaps alt accounts used for evasion can be unbanned but have to be appealed separately, and maybe no sooner than a certain time period after the most recent appeal on other accounts. Whatever that time period is might be fixed, like a week, or perhaps be affected by the length set on the original ban. Anyone looking to appeal multiple accounts may end up with a lengthy process, but alting has to have consequences of some sort.

Probably worth noting that, at least in the case of stolen accounts, this rule is not heavily enforced. Most appeals I've seen involving someone showing months or years after a ban, claiming their account was stolen, end up with the simple request that they acknowledge the rules and affirm their account is secure. I don't recall ever seeing an instance of someone hearing, "Sorry, looks like your account was stolen and used to evade, so it won't be unbanned." (For good reason, that would be quite the dick move) It does indeed seem odd, I must agree. However, since in this case your alt was your own account and so used intentionally, then while you are considered a normal player, that account itself may still be considered not a "normal" account. On the other hand, this rule is one that has nibbled at my mind occasionally, especially now that "permanent" bans seem to be going out of style on MCPublic, being replaced by 1- or 2-year long sentences. Alting has always been considered one of the larger in-game offenses, since it is an act of defiance and may also facilitate further rule-breaking/disruption, and the perma-ban threat can serve as a deterrent. However, there are a few legit uses of alt accounts, such as cosmetic preference, anonymity,or limited AFK activities (to say nothing of testing relays), and permanently cutting off players who have otherwise regained equal standing in the community from that does seem a little unfair. Of course, it's a long-standing policy, and remains so until it's changed, but maybe we could discuss some adjustment.

I'll second this. Money matters are typically not a subject for normal conversation; putting a constant reminder of it next to every chat message or on every login would not be a good thing. Things like subreddit flairs for in-game achievements or distinctions, however, are something I can support (being one of those lucky few Switch mentioned--I have a pickaxe next to my name). The only thing those would incentivize is further participation in the community, which we want to encourage openly anyway. I've already submitted an idea via MrLoud's Google form, but since you brought it up here... I was thinking that perhaps MCPublic's advertising efforts could be concentrated in some kind of position or committee, someone people would know they could go to with their ideas and who would have the community-invested authority to go ahead and post (subreddits, youtube, twitter, PMC, etc.) without having to wait for HAdmin or whatever go-ahead. Our current ad system is pretty much spread thinly across the entire admin team, which, as you mentioned, doesn't produce much, since it's more of a side project compared to the usual admin duties. And we do need to advertise, the server's "heyday" that everyone keeps rose-tinting was a result of people knowing about the server and logging in. Besides, just try to tell me you can read the word AdAdmin and not smile. ;)

The MCPublicServers Youtube channel seems pretty underused, perhaps someone could put together a quick trailer? I'd volunteer, but until I have access to a computer that will handle screen recorders, it's not an option.

I knew this day would come... but I must admit, I kinda forgot. Phooey. Good luck in the Navy, and always know that whenever you log back in, "welcomed" won't be quite a sufficient word.

You are unbanned. Go build stuff!

Hello Galaxy562, please reply here stating that you have reviewed our rules, and I'll go ahead and unban you.

I think I'd like to help out on this one, could you whitelist me?

Well, like I said, if you need any help building it, I'd be up for it, and I'm sure there are plenty of other mods who'd love to lend a hand as well.

Cue the amazing sandstone domes!

I, for one, like the change. It does remove the ambiguity of a "no" vote, but on the other hand, in the older system, that ambiguity was given equal weight to more decisive votes, skewing the percentages down. As for the problem of people seeing decisive no's on their name, I admit there's no way around it. Nominees are contacted beforehand, so anybody on the list has promised to be able to handle that, but I'm sure some minor tensions could still form. This might skew the percentages upwards as people are less willing to showcase their reservations about handing someone modship, but if the decision must be between bias in the nominees' favor or bias against, I prefer the favor. If anyone can come up with a completely unbiased system, of course, then the problem is solved, but I sure can't think of one.

I think that, rather than trying to engineer the gameplay, truer chaos might be better achieved by keeping the conditions themselves more chaotic. Last rev, the survival chaos period was publicly announced well in advance. Within a day, it was clear that was a mistake--bedrock and god-gear stashes everywhere (I cannot claim complete innocence there, you do not want to know what I tried to put in my ender chest). People were too excited to cancel the event, so it went ahead and was fun, but the effect on the map was awful. Fortunately, the admins realized this and took it upon themselves to clean up the map as best they could before backing it up. So instead of trying to remove any attempts to leave stashes, don't give people the opportunity to use them. Have creative chaos first. Bedrock will be destructible, so people won't bother. Most chests and other storage blocks will probably be destroyed, or even hunted down by people anticipating the survival chaos to come after, so making caches won't be worth much. Perhaps during creative chaos, placing any inventory blocks can be deactivated to prevent any last-minute hoarding. Only then, in a tortured, blasted landscape peppered with the remnants of the valuable builds missed by the bombs, have survival chaos. Hopefully, people wouldn't be so motivated to ruin the map by having conditions be competitive right out of the gate. Rather, the incentive will simply be to destroy as much as possible during the TNT period to level the playing field. Another, less desirable but perhaps safer, method, would be to simply not have survival chaos at the end of the rev, at least not with the most recent map. Knowing people wouldn't have access to their hidden goodies anyway would make caches utterly useless. Even the knowledge that the current map might be used someday in chaos wouldn't make stashes very appealing.

If you need help building/setting up/testing your map, buch, I'd love to help. Perhaps you could host it on a server, or convince the techs to set it up on event.nerd.nu or something. If past organized events are any indicator, we should probably test it thoroughly.

According to our wiki page, the servers first started operation on June 10, 2009 (I found a possible reference to an earlier date, but it doesn't look all that reliable). June 10th is only about 6 weeks away, I think we should put some kind of major event together. I don't think there's another public server in the world that has ever celebrated a 5 year anniversary. What would it be? CTF? That space thing? Building contest? Admin hunt? Twitch broadcast? Youtube video? Fundraiser? Something new? Any combination of the above?

To be honest, I'm interested in the idea of command blocks as well. It's true that they can imitate a lot of redstone functions, but there are a lot of Command Block functions that redstone cannot imitate in return. Such functions can enhance interactivity and ambiance, and I think C could perhaps use a little of that kind of enhancement of the server experience. I also think it would be best, however, if Command Block use around the map were infrequent, an exception rather than the rule. Obviously, strict controls would be needed. One bad or exploited command block can send the whole server to crap instantly. My initial thoughts about how to perhaps keep command blocks from catastrophe; Command blocks can only be placed/edited by Admins (maybe even only relevant Server Admins or only Tech Admins). No modreq for a Command Block to be placed/edited is ever guaranteed, no matter how big/famous your build is. Any Command Block request can be refused for any reason. Unreasonable/frivolous requests may result in disciplinary action for needlessly spamming the modreq queue. All Command Blocks must be protected by a region inaccessible to even the build owner; don't ask for it unless you're finished building in that area. Requests for Command Blocks must contain the exact command you wish implemented and the exact location it is to be placed. If the command is too long to fit into an in-game modreq, the modreq must direct the Admins to (insert method here; not sure what would be best on this one. Forum msg? /mail? Written books?). If the command is constructed incorrectly, it is not the Admins' responsibility to debug it; the player must revise the command and make a new modreq. If a Command Block does not perform the intended function, a new modreq must be placed to have it edited, with the revised command included or referenced in (method above). Any abuse of/attempt to abuse Command Blocks, your own or anyone else's, will result in a lengthy ban. Abuse can include attempts to lag the server, lag players' clients, activate Command Blocks in a method or to a frequency not originally intended, maliciously use non-default-player functions, or deceive Admins into placing/editing a Command Block that would have abusive function. Certain commands will never be approved. These include moderation commands (/mute, /kick, /ban, /vanish, etc.), commands that include @a parameters (which affect all players), and WorldEdit commands. Requesting such commands may be considered frivolous. Only one Command Block can be requested at a time. Devices requiring multiple Command Blocks must have each one requested seperately. Dang, that felt Draconian to write. But even though I like the idea of Command Blocks, they have ridiculous potential for abuse. Such situations have to be headed off in advance rather than cleaned up afterwards.

Gameplay implications aside, I don't see how this would be possible in the suggested form without a client-side mod, since things like UIs and gamertags are handled by the client. Some possible workarounds might be having the server generate an entity over each mob's head that uses existing textures, but that would effectively double the number of mob entities the server has to handle--bad idea. Another option might be to use the name tag function and display the health as a percent, but that would only work when looking right at the mob at close range, it would be broken by actually naming any mobs, and of course I don't know what kind of server load it would be to change a mob's name to match the health stat every time it takes damage.

As someone who originally joined nerd on the chaos server and only switched to C after X was taken down (not that I regret that), I think since then nerd has gotten a rather skewed idea of what chaos is. Specifically, almost everyone here seems to be talking about Event Chaos, which is a different sort of gameplay; destruction, bloodbath, sustained high-intensity. A permanent chaos server cannot, of course, keep that level of intensity up, fun as it may be. My memories of chaos are of a more long-term playstyle, where to thrive is to be winning, teams are maintained (or ruined) on trust alone, raiding and fighting are rare, but intense, high-stakes deals, and getting raided/griefed is an opportunity to start over--after a brief interlude of rage, perhaps. Granted, things have changed a bit since then. For instance, we've witnessed the terrible effect a wither(s) at spawn can have, and our box is now running 4 servers. Also, there might be some concern about sapping Survival's playerbase, since of our 3 servers, it is the closest to Chaos. The everpresent threat of x-rayers and pvp hackers ruining the game is an issue with particular bite on Chaos. These are some of the challenges that face us if we want to bring back X. But if people want X, maybe we should start looking at getting over these hurdles instead of just counting them.

The 1.8 update should fix it, the outer head layer will then render on skulls IIRC.