ROCKONN

I was under the impression it was a 4-6 cap

Just wanted to pop in and say, while not saying one group of people is more competent than the other, that immediately after creating his group d3 sent out group invitations to all past members who had used steam in the past month/so. I've yet to see anything from the new group created by slide. Had I not looked through these messages, I wouldn't even be aware that a new "official" group existed in the first place.

We could always get around to using this: https://nerd.nu/forums/topic/832-c-contest-voting-zombie-survival-event-base/

I'm 100% certain, as I was the only one rolling back your edits. These were 2-3 player statues that were not created by you, but were "added onto" "appropriately" depicting racial stereotypes.

As I recall, I banned you during Creative Revision 25 after finding a hill with player statues on it covered in swastikas & phallic objects. The racism portion of your ban was based on the fact that your phallic objects were sized & colored appropriately to the statues they were attached to. The griefing was from the defacement of the statues, as well as cutting into other builds for your swastikas. The lag machine was in fact a door spammer, you're correct. We classify all running-clock devices as potential lag machines on C, which is why we've included in the rules "All running redstone devices must include an on/off switch." As I'm no longer an active staff member, I no longer have the authority to unban you. This is simply a clarification of your actions for use in deciding the result of your appeal. Another staff member will be along shortly to handle your appeal properly. I hope to see you on the server soon, hopefully with more appropriate actions in tow than the last time you were with us.

So you suggest that we incorporate a server that, unlike the existing ones, cannot immediately be gotten onto, must be waited on, must interupt gameplay on another server to be apart of. I get that these postings of yours are all just suggestions, I do, but I see a number of flaws with them, glaring flaws, which seem to stem from your own lack of knowledge or at the very least clarity on what you're proposing. "Not a stand-alone" but still "a seperate server in a physical sense" is still a stand-alone server. Cross-server queueing be damned, its still a seperate entity. All you'd be doing with that most recent idea of yours is implementing an unnecessary waiting time onto a feature that's inherantly quick to access. When you've been playing as long as I have, you tend to pick up on how the masses act when presented with certain scenarios. While there are always exceptions to the situation, the generalization that "The majority of players lack the inherant interest or attention span to explore beyond what's immediately presented to them" is usually correct. This can be observed not only in Minecraft, but in any other media. As for my own opinions on how we can attract new players, or how we can drive interest back into seemingly decaying aspects of the server, this isn't the place for them. My sole point here is that these suggestions of yours seem to not be enhancements to what currently exists, but an entirely different topic altogether (if not a detriment to what exists currently).

There's a bit of a difference in the default Minecraft experience being overdone & the KitPvP Minecraft being overdone, namely it being a voluntary addition. If you want to dedicate a server to it, regardless of the amount of power/space/etc it takes up, you're still dedicating a server to it. There's no "running in the background" of the other servers, it either is a standalone server or isn't. You mentioned the class-based combat system, controlled by sign kits, which boils down to a KitPvP server setup. You speak of arenas for these kit-based combat scenarios, built by towns as a way of advertising their presences, and you additionally speak of the many people who are attracted to KitPvP servers for what they are. Allow me to challenge that line of thinking with one that asks this: Of the people who join a server that offers KitPvP, how many stick around to see what else the server offers? How many go & look up who made the arenas they fight in? How many dedicate an extra second of thinking beyond the experience directly in front of them? The answer is very few. Our objective is to drive interest to our servers as a whole, not just to draw in players for a cheap, quick experience seperate from everything else we have to offer.

Bleh. Just call it a kitpvp server & leave it at that. Boring, overdone, not worth devoting an entire server to in the current Minecraft entertainment market.

Steam: gunitsolaris

Starcraft, Hearthstone, and the occassional game of Diablo. ROCKONN#1178

Kitty please, Evangelion. You know nothing of pain.

Appears to be a dancing Asuka. Huh.

Because flame felt it necessary to refine poke's opinions into a more concise plan. A fine notion, its clarified a few questions I myself had about the concept, though jllmprrt's question is certainly valid. Not really a need for another post. That being said, I'm curious as to the need for only two opposing factions. It's perfectly concievable, for the size of our combined server populations, for there to be more than two sides in this War. There are also a large number of independant players who may simply want to loan their services to the factions. These players would benefit most from the ability to create their own smaller settlements.

Was banned by me originally for excessive trolling, griefing, & abusive behavior to a number of users. https://nerd.nu/forums/index.php?/topic/1167-dunk514-rockonn/ Was unbanned, came back again, got himself banned at least once more, possibly twice, by buzzinbee. https://nerd.nu/forums/index.php?/topic/1360-dunk514-buzzinbee/?hl=dunk After several attempts to troll on the forums, his original account here was removed. He reappealed previously under another name, while playing on another account. By my count, this would be the third or fourth account he's created on the forums. There are several other appeals scattered through the archives, duplicates & not. One of the more interesting ones tracks a successful appeal & unban, only to be repealed within 6 hours for a new offense. On another note, we've gone through the same story with him on multiple occassions, on how appealing his ban means so much to him. Cyotie, among others, can atest to that. It has yet to lead to any results other than a new ban for the same reasons. Caution is advised to whoever takes over this appeal, as both Buzzin & myself are no longer active staff members. I recommend cyotie911 take over the appeal, as he had a fair amount of experience in observing this user's antics. I can be reached for any specifics you'd care to have on this user's activities that may or may no longer exist in the logs. I hope this information serves you well.

...the overall goal sounds exactly like the Castle Wars minigame, with a higher emphasis on creating fortifications than just flat-out storming the keep. Not exactly a new concept, though would be interesting for a week/2. Side note, who else remembers war.nerd?

<3 Bae. See you around.

Unless you have something to add to a point that's been made, there's no reason to write out a full explanation saying you agree with something. That's just a drawn out "^" posting. The upvote system simplifies that, saving time & space. It's absurd to think that you'd need to completely restate your approval of a post in another posting. What issue is/isn't that? People downvoting posts en masse and not posting a counterpoint? I believe this is a suitable solution. All that it needs now is a new name besides "upvote." If you feel strongly enough to publically disagree with something in any way, you should be expected to voice your reasoning for it.

If you have an issue with a post, you can make a counterargument instead of just blindly & seemingly without reason downvoting a post, like I'm doing right now. If you agree, that's what the upvote's for. I see no issue with this system's logic. If you can, please enlighten me. EDIT: Perhaps continuing to call the upvotes is the issue here.

That was indeed my suggestion. As I went on to say, the current method does not allow sufficient time for potentially relevant information that may have been overlooked to be presented. A period with potential names being listed BEFORE being voted on, say of 2-4 days, would be an easy remedy to this.

That was a suggestion for an addition to the current methods, which I should have cited. Final nominations should also not be voted on until potential candidates are asked, and until potential names have been posted. Should've made the intention there a bit clearer

Community-wide voting is just as susceptible to any form of tampering as staff member-only voting is. The only real way for a voting system to work is for it to be a blind voting session, with reasoning attached to each vote for yes, no, or neither. No results should be given as they are received. Final nominations should also not be voted on until potential candidates are asked, and until potential names have been posted. The time during this interim could be used for voicing concerns against a certain user's potential moderating abilities. The current system allows for no such interim, a serious drawback in my eyes. Seeing as the final results of nomination voting are not definite, there is no reason why a blind voting session should be an issue. Opinions are already voiced in MCP, and though some of them may disturb some of the potential staff members, they should be able to handle critical evaluations of their actions before even considering a position as a staff member.

Maybe she's born with it. Maybe its a cat thing.

On a scale of one to ten, mrow?

Believe you've misinterpreted Diznatch's question. Diz was asking what staff members use for a general criteria, which schererererer went over briefly- not what you've guessed at through the MC/MCP wall. Or is this finally an answer to MrLoud's question, what your own criteria for the initial list you posted was?

This tends to prompt other users to downvote/upvote a user's post to balance out the flood of karma change based on user interactions (not the content being discussed). This is a good time to say that the voting system needs to be changed to something more specific. A karma scale reflecting the users post as a whole can be too easily manipulated into giving a user a "bad rep." The voting system should be a simple post-specific add-on that states whether a user agrees with what's said, or disagrees. Leaving it as upvote/downvote is too ambiguous.