Tharine

I was clarifying my particular circumstances in response to redwall_hp's comment, not addressing the initial post. Wasn't able to get quotes working earlier on, but I figured this was clear enough.

Yeah, you'll see a bunch on Survival that i've claimed at any one time for either one of two reasons. The first being that i'm waiting on another staff member to discuss it/confirm details for, or it's easier to hold onto that req whilst I wait for the player(s) involved respond to me (e.g. harassment, ongoing land claim dispute). Some people will see their closed modreqs, but not their /mail and it can be frustrating and open up more issues if they create new ones whilst it's still being sorted. I can't speak for others, but if I have a modreq claimed, it's almost certain that there's a good reason i've not closed it yet, so i'd appreciate leaving any i've claimed alone.

Thank you for the reminder Mrloud15, I figure everyone who has commented is comfortable with their responses staying as is, but I have given the thread a thorough read through again and it all looks good from what I can see. Moving this over to The Archives, thank you to everyone who helped to work on putting Revision 22 together

Please remember that any further incidents of logging past this point won't be tolerated, as you've declared that you've read and understood the rules. Unbanned.

Hey PvT, as I said in response to the first forum mail you sent me, i'm pretty busy. I can't respond to your appeal as soon as it goes up, nor am I going to go out of my way to handle it in a time that's more suitable to you. I'd appreciate if you showed some more patience in being responded to, it's not the end of the world if you can't play Minecraft for 48 hours. That said, Mrloud15 has clearly laid out what the rules regarding combat logging are. It's also listed at spawn, one of only six descriptive sign boards on the first floor: I'd like to hear a response from you in regards to your rule breaking, as opposed to just expressing your want to get back onto the servers. Edit: Fixed grammatical error.

My earlier curiosity about the situation regarding seeing all realms of chat as an admin stems from the fact that I would like to be able to moderate where possible, but not have my gameplay affected by the fact that I could at any time accidentally glimpse a coordinated attack by the other team and be given an unfair advantage in doing so. I'm not worried about my ability to act fairly, but it does ruin your fun a bit to know that there's something coming and you can't do anything about it because you were unintentionally privy to that knowledge. totemo and I have worked out that an easy solution is to simply put me into the moderator permissions group for the CTF event, which i'm quite happy with as it means I should still be able to moderate where necessary.

Only completely new players, hence why we removed it from the beginning of the revision (it would have meant a nice cosy first hour of the rev for everyone, otherwise).

I would agree with this sentiment, that we should be open with what we're planning on doing with the money that people have donated. This is tricky to do once the money has already come in - e.g. that £20 you donated 6 months ago might have been sitting in reserve until now, and now it's being used to buy X or Y thing that you might not have agreed to - so I think laying out what the plans are for using the money that we receive is great and people are able to better decide whether they want to donate their money. While I don't agree with the tone used here, I do agree that it's not sensible to expect people to be able to say specifically what every pound/dollar/penny/cent goes towards. This is why we should be laying it out clear on the table what the plans for the money are. No one will disagree with you about the money being used "for the servers", it's quite clear that we trust that people not to go buying themselves personal items with the money. IIRC Allnaturalx controls the bank account/funds, and someone like Deaygo or one of the head admins will get into contact with him when it's necessary to transfer funds (for things like server costs, purchasing the new forums, etc). No, of course not. But you can read about what the Red Cross will be doing with your money. I'm sure a fraction of donations will go towards things like reimbursing fuel costs required to reach particular activities (particularly relevant in places like Australia), but they list quite clearly what efforts their donations go towards, and people donate with the comfort of knowing that it will go towards something they support. If they didn't support it, they just won't donate. Currently we don't run any kind of monetary efforts to support individual servers. If we set up advertising specifically for s.nerd.nu and neither of the other two communities, I would absolutely be understanding if anyone who donated was upset with this. Similarly, and I think this is something others in this post have attempted to highlight, is that the decision to purchase the forums was sudden, and without decent prior public knowledge (I do know that individual non-staff users had access to the testing forums though, so it was known to some of the community, but certainly not all). We can argue for days about whether or not the new forums were necessary - so let's not get into that - but people who donated and saw the forums revamp as not necessary to the ongoing benefit of the servers will have been rightfully discontent with the fact that the purchase was done without their understanding or knowledge. We do say that donations go to the benefit of the servers overall, but it's not clear exactly what that entails. Perhaps when a previously unconsidered idea comes up that would benefit the servers, and it requires making use of our donation money, it should be proposed to the entire community first. Sort of like 'hey, we're considering rehosting the server to Australia because it will benefit us in x, y, and z ways*, but it will take a decent chunk out of our reserve funds - how do people feel about this?'. Nonsense surrounding the hilarious switcharoo of available ping to the servers aside, it would be nice for anyone who is considering or has donated to the servers to know that their funds are being put to good use. If we made the aforementioned decision without telling anyone, imagine the fallout there would be. There's nothing wrong with keeping people up-to-date and in the know on our plans to use the donation money, and there's also nothing wrong with ensuring the community actually has a say in that. * All of these are koala related ways.

Staff members: admins and mods in ModMode, will see team-only chats by both teams, as well as global chats. I just wanted to clarify, will this be on for admins all of the time, or just admins that are using ModMode?

There's already a message in the [server] rotation, and i've been meaning to add a sign at spawn when I have the chance. I'll be updating some of the signs in spawn within the next couple of days for when we bring back on the first-join protection from PvPTimer, so it's on my to-do list.

Running through some old threads to do a bit of tidying up of loose ends, and I see this one fell through the cracks pretty early on. I see that they've updated the mod once again for 1.6.2, and in the next couple of days i'll take the opportunity to test this out and see how it fares (and ultimately update the approved mods list accordingly). Bumping this thread now (instead of later) as a sort of self-reminder.

Now logging modreqs for Revision 22 here. Will endeavour to update these as frequently as possible, however it's interesting to see how many modreqs we received in the first week

I'd be all for this, I know i've had some people request from me personally that they be given another rules book, but i'm afraid I don't know an easy way of doing so currently. If a way doesn't already exist (and/or there's been no response to this thread from a tech admin in the know in the next few days) feel free to submit a ticket to the NerdBugs page to get this in motion.

Just linking this as it's not already been, but GMMan opened up a ticket here for this to be handled on our NerdBugs page on GitHub as well, so the issue has been seen and recognised. Also figure it worth mentioning that from what i've seen in recent weeks, totemo is our only active tech admin, and his focus has been required elsewhere - on things like getting the new revision(s), updates to 1.6, and some of the other heavier tasks that require doing under way.

I've redacted a link from one of my own comments above, but other than that everything looks good. I'd say give maybe a day or two for anyone who commented in this thread who might not be comfortable with their comments being made public say so, and then move it over to the archives.

Updated the section of the wiki here to include the amendment to this rule. If you're in the possession of any locked containers that were previously fine but are now determined as against the rules, we will simply ask you to unlock them/make the necessary changes if you have not already done so yourself.

Wasn't sure where best to place this, but as a friendly reminder, if you're adding notes to players (whether through the /warn commands, or by hand) please endeavour to check that they haven't already been warned recently for similar things. I've removed a couple of notes the past two days for players that were warned for the same thing only hours apart, when all of their grief would have occurred prior to the first note. You can check notes using /lookup, and the times of when these were issued on their MCBouncer page (http://mcbouncer.com/user/playernamehere/notesFor), or more easily run the command '.notes playernamehere' in the IRC and our Modreq bot will list at least the first 5 notes for that player (unsure if it still limits on that), with all of the relevant information for that note.

Blah, so many things to do for Survival that are getting lost in the shuffle. Revisiting this now because i've learned that the end grinder issue has arisen once again, so it's now more than necessary for us to properly address this. In the absence of any further discussion from anyone else, my proposal is to go ahead with supporting the current ruling and amending it only as such: No use of LWC-locked blocks for the purpose of base defense or any other use than to protect the items within the locked block. Valid protection extends to locking containers involved in larger, 'machine'-type builds such as auto-brewers and auto-furnaces. We will investigate any edge cases and aim to develop and uphold an objective handling of any cases which are deemed to be excessive use and/or abuse of the LWC plugin.Admins reserve the right to remove LWC-locked blocks used for base defense. Chests and other lockable items may not be used to obstruct movement or access to an area.Going to be doing some general 'housekeeping' tasks in the lead up to doing the usual check-in following the conclusion of the first week of the new revision, so I will aim to have this, amongst a few other things, sorted and announced by then.

Catching this before we have an unnecessary array of mods step into this appeal like i've seen in several others this past week - I think you need to take a break from the server, leemur89. We're incredibly understanding of the issues that you face, but your actions are affecting other people on the server in a way that we deem unacceptable. You have been asked/warned/muted several times since the revision began in an effort to stop you from flooding the chat with whatever it is that you end up typing (the hashtags are of great note, although not the only thing you've done). You've expressed that you experience mental health issues, and whilst everyone here wishes you the best in handling those, we're not going to give you a free pass to continue to disrupt the community like you are. Please be patient for kitcatbar to respond to your appeal, i'm sure she will get back to you shortly. Edit: Noticed that you commented for your appeal in another section of the forums. I've since removed those comments from the unrelated thread, but here they are for good measure: http://i.imgur.com/nEMFWPY.png

In an effort to try and round up a lot of the miscellaneous discussions that go on either on the subreddit or forums, i've decided to make this thread for any Survival-related discussions that come up. I've pinned it so that it doesn't get lost in the shuffle like the other threads, and i'll be using it as a directory that's easy to link to (inspired by the need to have an easy link available for the [server] rotation). That said, i've put together a bunch of threads that I feel are either directly related to Survival, might interest Survival players, or will in some way have an effect on how Survival operates. Any discussions that come up following this thread, I encourage people to link here as well. Plugins "Vanilla PvP is broken in 1.6" - A thread that aim(s/ed) to pinpoint and counteract some of the changes that Mojang brought in with the 1.6 update that negatively affected PvP. We've since debuffed strength potions to the values they held in 1.5, but we are still looking to see whether other changes suggested need to be made. "Enchantism plugin" - An earlier thread from when we were discussing the possibility of bringing Enchantism on board in the first place, this thread showcases some of the discussion that went into the consideration for what Enchantism would actually provide, and in what ways it would change gameplay "Enchantism - Vanilla Level Enchants" - The enchanting plugin we brought on board with Revision 22, Enchantism, provides room for allowing enchants to go up to level IV, where in the vanilla game they would otherwise be unable to (e.g. Knockback IV). This poll aims to identify whether people are interested in capping particular enchants at their vanilla levels, or opening up the ability to enchant them at higher-than-normal levels. "Suggestion: Disable hurting people from the same clan on S." - Title describes it well. Although an old post, one I would like to see given further consideration. "Searching for the /ignore command" - A mildly redundant thread now that we do indeed have an /ignore command on Survival, I hope to revisit this at some point in order to establish whether we could get an ignore command set up to work alongside our /msg system (as it currently only works for text 'spoken' in public chat. [NEW] "Anachronos - Automatic Rollback" - Taken from it's GitHub description, "Anachronos is a plugin developed with PvP servers in mind. After a configurable interval, any blocks broken or placed in a region that weren't by the region owner are "reset" and rolled back." This thread aims to propose it's implementation and enable discussion on whether it is suited to the Survival community. Policy "Redefining 'dicks'" - An older thread, but certainly one that still needs greater consideration. The "don't be a dick" rule has long been ambiguous and subjectively applied from both player and staff alike, and this thread aims to find a better understanding of what this rule actually means. "Protections on Survival. Shut up and read it first >.<" - An apt title, given how contentious of an idea protections on Survival are. The suggestion has taken a back seat in the face of other topics/issues, but it is definitely one worth looking into. "Discussing the /duel command" - An idea that's been floating around for at least 8 months now, the /duel command would allow players to engage in organised fights with one another, perhaps with the ability to gain rewards for doing such. This command is nowhere near being implemented due to a lack of discussion on what it should involve, and should perhaps at this stage be considered an idea stashed away for another time. "SMP Client mods." - A thread started and maintained mostly by one player, the aim of the thread was to provide room for suggesting client mods that are of interest to Survival players, and whether or not they were suitable to be permitted on the servers. Other server demands have drawn my focus away from this thread, but I hope to revisit it sometime in the near future. ""Hopholes" discussion" - A thread discussing a previous suggestion of banning hopper-lined traps as their existence provides "an unfair hopper structure which avoids item loss from PVP". An interesting topic, and certainly one that deserves greater discussion. "Spawn Camping" - A thread for discussing the issue of spawn camping, what it entails, and how to best go about dealing with it. General threads for Survival "Bringing on board another Survival admin" - We're scouting interest from anyone on who they might like to see join myself and Draykhar as part of the Survival admin team. See information in that thread on how to contact me about this! "Revision 22 Change & Discussion Thread" - A poll and discussion thread that aimed to assess what changes people would be interested in seeing be brought into the new revision. Whilst the new revision is now in place, the lack of discussion has stalled some decisions from being made and though some have since been implemented, other things remain unchanged. Some topics have branched out into threads of their own, and we'll be moving to do similar with some of the remaining changes that were up for suggestion. "Saving S" - Copied over from his original subreddit post on the matter, TheKingDuff endeavours to establish some ideas on how we can improve and better our Survival server. "Changes on Survival" - A poll put up by TornadoHorse, his aim was to first establish what types of things people were interested in seeing changed, and to move on from there once he had gathered some results. "Changes on Survival: Part 2!" - The accompanying discussion thread to the aforementioned poll, a lot of great conversation takes place in this post that is worth reading. General threads for the entire server community "Should we get votifyer?" - A discussion on whether we should look to making use of a voting system that could encourage greater advertisement of our community on Minecraft server listing websites. "New command: /painting" - Not a discussion as such, but something that many people might not be aware of. On all three servers you are now able to select what painting you would like to place ahead of time, avoiding the hassle of trying to find the right one. "Two new commands for players" - Two more commands provided by totemo, we now have commands that allow you to check when the upcoming restart is, as well as see who owns what pet on the PvE server. "Summer Mod Nominations Vote" - Although now closed, here's the most recent moderator nominations thread, which included some players from Survival. "Clanchat Changes" - zifnab06 writes of some of the changes made to the Clanchat system we use on all three servers. "Mining diamond below lava with optifine" - A thread that was spawned from the misunderstandings between staff on whether or not using Optifine to be able to see clearly under lava was deemed an illegitimate practice of finding diamonds. An all around interesting discussion, and worth the read. ----- The /r/ama section of the forums may also interest anyone in better getting to know some of their fellow Survival players.

I think there's no harm in using something like votifyer, but I do agree that receiving perks is something that doesn't mesh well with the sort of attitude we've maintained about providing a place where you're not required to bring anything with you (be it something like client mods, or even physical money) in order to play here / stand a better chance at playing than others. If it's not game breaking, and is advertised well within the community as something that we provide and people have access to, I don't find a huge issue with the idea of providing 'perks' on the whole. Trying to find something that works well is the issue, I suppose. Experience doesn't sound too bad on Survival imo, as experience is cheap with the XP plump, but I feel like most people we have in our community will vote regardless of any benefits we provide (and those who wouldn't might only be tempted by more lucrative perks). I'd like to see us at least move to using something like votifyer (with no perks), either way. I feel like such a thing has been brought up before, but i'm not sure how that's progressed at all.

Put up that subreddit post I mentioned earlier on in IRC. Just confirming as well that we'll go ahead with adding in the crafting recipes for horse armour and saddles that are currently in use on PvE (but not the one for name tags, if it's possible to disable that one separately). I don't believe we have any more planned changes in regards to that sort of thing, everything that needs updating/changing has already been presented.

Adding this as a comment as it doesn't necessarily merit a separate post, here's the updated information for Revision 22, cross-posted from the subreddit here: As the stickied post at the top of the subreddit announces, Survival's Revision 22 will be launching this weekend, planned to start: Sunday 11th August, at around 9:30am Australian Central Standard Time <- Click this link to have it converted to your time zone! That said, we've followed through with some of the minor changes mentioned in that previous thread. This post is both a reminder of the launch time, as well as a tying up of any loose threads that we've accumulated in the past week or so. Enchantism - TornadoHorse has kindly offered (and of course, followed through) on setting up a poll discussing whether or not we should include some of the non-vanilla enchants that Enchantism provides options for, such as Knockback IV. That poll is ongoing, and I would love to see more input on it in the upcoming few days. However, going ahead with the start of the revision, we will be running with this config for Enchantism ("-1" marks an enchantment that will be made unavailable). My proposal is that we disable all of the non-vanilla enchants at the very least for the first week (that way ensuring that if we do want to remove particular enchants, they're not in the game already for those who had the chance to get them before being removed). Following further progression of the poll, we will add in the non-vanilla enchants that people desire to keep. You may also notice in this updated config that smiler100 (the creator of Enchantism) has also now enabled it so that you can require bookshelves in order to obtain the higher level enchantments offered. In order to try and balance out things a bit more, at this stage we're going to go ahead with including this and having the number of bookcases required as set out in the default plugin. Rebalance Villagers - totemo has worked around the issues previously presented by this plugin and managed to get it up and running successfully on s.nerd.nu's current chaos round. I was testing this earlier today and can confirm that new villager spawns do indeed contain all of the new trades set up with this plugin. During preparations on the day of launch, i'll be checking whether these trades will be in effect for already-existing villagers. If not, it just means that you will not see these new trades until new villagers are born. If you're planning on building a villager farm for this revision, take my advice - grab those on the first day because otherwise they will more than likely end up being killed. Their trades are designed with the idea in mind that farming diamond armour will not be easy, whilst still allowing for a villager economy to exist. As previously provided by Draykhar, here is the full config and trade settings for Rebalance Villagers. If you're interested in finding out about these trades first-hand, simply don't click on that link. We won't be providing the trades anywhere in-game, but we will provide and re-link this if asked and you're not forbidden in any way from inquiring about it at all. Strength potions - As mentioned elsewhere about the subreddit and particularly forums, the changes made to strength potions in 1.6 have had an undesired effect on the state of PvP. To curb some of these issues, we've gone ahead with nerfing strength potions so that they're back to acting how they were in 1.5. Great thanks to zifnab06 for making this possible! Crafting recipes for horse armour and saddles - We've gone ahead and borrowed the recipes as provided for PvE in their adjustment for updating to 1.6.2 during a current revision. The crafting recipes, whilst not available in the current vanilla game, provide an opportunity for everyone to have something that may otherwise be completely unobtainable on a multiplayer server. The recipes for horse armour are as such - their cost rather high to somewhat offset the reduced rarity of such an object - and saddles can be crafted like so. You can also buy saddles from villagers, if you find yourself with access to one that sells them. We've made no changes to how we'll monitor horses at this stage but i'm planning on setting up a post on the forums for us to discuss whether or not we might like to control horses as the PvE server has done recently, and if so, how we might like to go about it. Anyone else is more than welcome to set up this post themselves, as I won't be dedicating the time to doing so until after we've gotten the new revision up and running. If you're keen on acquiring yourself a horse early on, and particularly if you're planning on doing something like setting something involving villagers - grab them early and hide them as best as you can. Horses do respawn, but at a lower rate than other non-hostile mobs, and villagers won't respawn naturally at all. That said, I hope everyone is looking forward to this new revision and that we can make the transition as smoothly as possible. We have an ongoing checklist up on the forums here for what we need to have done on the day of the launch. Survival-related topics to check out: Revision 22 Changes and Discussion thread (I'll be unpinning this following the start of the new revision) Redefining 'dicks' (aka discussing the 'don't be a dick' rule)Vanilla PvP is broken in 1.6 (Discussion of how we can help remedy this) Enchantism Plugin (Discussion of the Enchantism plugin in general) Enchantism - Vanilla level enchants poll Discussing the /duel command (Lack of discussion is holding this back from being developed/implemented) Spawn camping (a bit of an older discussion surrounding the topic of spawn camping) Previous subreddit threads discussing the progression of Revision 22/s.nerd.nu: "Chaos Events: Concluding this weekend" (8 hours ago) "Revision 22 - Launches next weekend..." (6 days ago) "Revision 21 - Survival Arena League (SAL) Results!" (6 days ago) "Revision 22: Keeping everyone up to date!" (13 days ago) "General Post ... updates regarding Revision 22" (26 days ago)

As per this updated subreddit thread, we've gone ahead and included a nerf for strength potions so that they should now have the same effects that they did in 1.5 (thank you zifnab06 for getting this done!). Personally speaking, i've been incredibly busy this week and have not had the chance to look into the other suggestions just yet, so we'll hold off on making any decisions about those just now as there obviously isn't the time to do so prior to the launch of the new revision. We'll definitely take these into consideration when we have the chance following map launch.

Linked this as per the subreddit thread I just made for rounding up some final changes in preparation for the new revision - I would like to go ahead with this redesigned config for the start of the new revision. The plan for this is to disable all of these additional, non-vanilla enchantments from the start and enable the ones desired once this poll has received much greater input. The idea being that if we enabled these enchants from the get-go and later removed them, some of these would already exist in-game for those lucky enough to have had the opportunity to obtain them. I would like to avoid such a scenario, hence why i've made the decision to hold off implementing them until we've finalised decisions. I've also gone ahead and included the requirement for bookcases, as recently added by smiler100 (the plugin's creator), to even out the easy by which Enchantism provides you with good gear. I would like to hear any feedback on this idea that people might have, as it was a last minute decision made so that we wouldn't need to drag out decision making right up to the time of the launch of the new revision. We can easily remove the bookcase requirement at a later stage if people are not interested in seeing it. That said, and to move along discussion, what sort of level requirements would people be interested in seeing for these otherwise unobtainable enchantments? Whilst a single level up from usual is not game-breaking, it does make a difference to what is an otherwise vanilla playing field (in terms of enchantments offered, that is).