Tharine

An idea I played around with earlier this revision, but didn't get set up because i'm apparently a dunce and didn't realise the full potential of Google Drive, from now on whenever I go to reset the modreq queue (using /mr-reset, for any that might need a reminder of the command) i'll be logging all of the modreqs on a spreadsheet found here. I'll open up a new sheet for each different instance of logging them, so that there are no overlaps in numbers/any inconsistencies with modreqs currently open at the time of logging can be found as closed in the following sheet. There might be easier ways to do this realistically, but this lets us access them at our own leisure without needing to go through someone else. The current modreqs page can hold around 1000 current modreqs at a time, so at the very least I will be pulling the data whenever we reach around modreq #900. However, to making things easier for moderators, i'll probably be doing this much more often. cmchappell/draykhar: Pm me when either of you are about in IRC/Mumble to get added to edit perms, I didn't want to assume what e-mail you preferred to be added on for this. And to open up a question for consideration (and because making two posts would be unnecessary), how do either of you feel about making the Survival modreq page open to the moderators? I feel it's of more benefit than detriment to let them have access to it, and i'd really rather we have as many avenues for easier moderation as possible. Also, I know we usually converse via -sadmins, but I wanted to eventually push this into the private mod chat section of the forums if we go ahead with deciding we want to do so. Two birds, one stone and all that. Let me know what you think~

Just giving my notice that i'll be stepping back from helping out with the preparation side of things, as well as holding my punt event. I've been under a lot of strain recently and I know I won't have the time to commit to helping out with this, and I don't want to leave people hanging about my involvement. Providing nothing comes up, i'll be available on the day. Being that i'll be one of the few certainly available in the Australian peak time, i'll ensure i'm available during that time to moderate anything that comes up. Will we be running a modreq queue for this event like we did the last? I feel that might beneficial to have again. I know you had your meeting in mumble earlier on, but if you've not already begun work on the KOTH arena, some tips from someone who enjoys building them: - Build it with the goal in mind that the king's position is not easily defensible. Getting to the top should reward you with the buffs, but not a cosy position that you can easily snipe down attackers from. - Make several routes to the top, as opposed to just one that can be easily camped. There should be a mixture of both (mostly) straightforward and parkour routes, typically with the parkour routes being the ones to take when you want to sneak your way to the top. - Give some spaces for people to step behind and defend themselves (and regain hunger), but try to make them points that you wouldn't be able to safely take shots from. Being that the game is made of blocks, this might not be so easy to achieve. - We've usually had a layer of water at the bottom to cushion the fall and give people a second chance at climbing up to the top, but depending on how difficult you want to make it, you might prefer not to include something like this. - If you can add in any kind of cool redstone/piston machinery to make things more interesting, I would definitely recommend it. - Consider having mob spawner rooms on standby for if you might like to make it a little more difficult to obtain KOTH status at your choosing. - Include an easy escape route for players to kill themselves if they decide to stop defending the hill. Usually I just put fire or lava in each of the corners. I'd also suggest considering combat logging as against the rules during the CTF event. I feel like that brought down server morale a great deal to know that people were fine to get away with such things, and it was a great issue to tackle initially because it had slipped our minds to consider prior to the event. I'd recommend taking from Survival's rules regarding PvP and applying them to the event as well. Spawn camping shouldn't be possible if we set up regions similar to last time, base camping is well, the point of the game really so ignore that one. Give me a poke on IRC or in Mumble if you need any more input on the PvP side of things, i'll try to be as available as possible in that regard.

I would encourage anyone to take their life lessons from the good book: Matthew 28:19 - Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Potato

Having finally managed to acquire enough time to sit down and concentrate on putting this together, I am pleased to present the official discussion thread for Survival’s upcoming Revision 22. I would like to preface this post by emphasising very clearly that there are no set plans for the ending of the current revision and the starting of the new one at this stage. This post does not aim to suggest that the change in revision is imminent, only that we are now ready to move forward together as a community in discussing how we would like to approach this transition. To start things off, I have prepared a not-too-lengthy poll - which you can find here - with a range of questions that i’m hoping will help to spark some proper discussion on where we stand in this uncertain territory as a server in need of a fresh revision, and especially as one awaiting the long-overdue 1.6 update from Mojang. Poll formatting doesn’t allow a lot of room for the necessary in-depth descriptions for particular questions, so please be sure to read through the entirety of this forum thread for the appropriate, relevant text that accompanies this poll. You might not be able to accurately respond to some of the questions without referring to what is written in the remainder of this thread. As a final note before getting into the accompanying descriptions: I have been working on preparing some form of discussion thread for some time now, ultimately deciding that a good place to start would be to focus solely on improvements and changes we could make that surrounded the change in revisions. However, this is by no means the only ongoing discussion that pertains to Survival. Following last weekend’s staff meeting, several players from the community (predominantly Survival players) were prompted to open up some serious discussion about where we stand as a server, what changes that might be beneficial to our community as a whole, as well as some specifics for Survival in particular. You can find and contribute to this particular discussion here on our subreddit. I would encourage anyone interested in the betterment of our community to get involved with this, no matter what server you call ‘home’. Accompanying details for the poll: Revision 21 Revision 22 Rules & Guidelines Upcoming Features Feedback If you have any comments in addition to the points already brought up for discussion, please feel free to post them!

I think this is fair, and a completely understandable response. I feel it's important to continue to foster much greater discussion in any way we can, and whilst the upvotes/downvotes don't immediately distract from the conversation, they open up an avenue for people to not fully voice their opinion on matters. I would much rather hear qualitative responses (however simple or detailed) than see hard numbers on points of discussion. Numbers work well when you're trying to gauge the amount of people that agree with something, but it doesn't tell you to what degree they're in agreement or what their proper personal opinions of said point are. This is doubly so more of an issue when it comes to downvoting, as this is an avenue where people can express disagreement, but not voice why or provide countering debates. In an ideal world, people who provided a vote would comment in addition to doing so, but we don't really operate in such an atmosphere.

Was curious to know: what happens when you die in either the event world or your enemy team's world? Do you respawn back in your own?

The exits on the second level weren't actually there originally, I just put them in when we moved the clan hall because people liked stepping over the heads to get out of spawn that way and I figured i'd just make it easier for them. Is anyone else having issues with the official drops? I can always add a few more layers of water to the bottom to cushion the fall, but nothing's changed in the actual spawn design recently that should have contributed to this happening all of a sudden.

One thing that you might like to keep in mind is that in the 1.6 update they should be bringing in Attributes: http://www.minecraftwiki.net/wiki/Attribute which add a bit more flexibility to changing the difficulty of things outside of the strict peaceful/easy/normal/hard options.

Tim, I thought you were blonde?

Took me a long time to get around to responding to this thread just on the basis of how many mods you proposed [1.5.2] BSPKRS' MODS (ARMORSTATUSHUD V1.7, DIRECTIONHUD V1.13, STATUSEFFECTHUD V1.10) - ArmourStatusHUD = Fine to use - DirectionHUD = Fine to use - StatusEffectHUD = Fine to use [1.5.2] [FORGE] [V3.0.5] TUKMC - THE SLICKEST LOOKING HUD YOU'LL SEE FOR A WHILE [11K+ DL] - Unclear from the videos/screenshots and little information provided whether or not the player distance shown in this screenshot are a part of the actual mod (or an accompanying one). In the absence of finding further videos of the HUD's usage, I will have to say no to this one at the moment. [MOD] LunaZ Released! | The FREE Mod To minecraft! - I would say no based off of the 'friend' and 'enemy' features of the mod, but i'm going to try looking into that a bit more. Video provided on that page wasn't incredibly helpful (and frankly, a struggle to get through ) MineZ Tactical HUD Mod - No, based on the name tagging feature. [1.5.2] [MAY 3] [sMP] S.T.F.U. – CLIENT SIDE /MUTE COMMAND FOR MUTING PLAYERS IN SMP - I see no immediate issue with players using this mod. Bear in mind however that if you use this mod and receive any kind of warning from a staff member and you have them muted, we will treat you no differently from someone who has deliberately chosen to disobey said warning, and you will not be excused by any means. I don't have the energy to dedicate to watching the videos for the remaining mods tonight, but I wanted to submit what I had so far so as not to lose what I had written :P

Hey sshadow04, i’d like to apologise for taking much longer than I had anticipated in returning to your appeal, things have been pretty hectic as of late and I needed to converse with some of the other admins before finalising things. I think you’ve come to the conclusion on your own that we’re at that point where we’re no longer going to tolerate your antics on our server - and you would be absolutely correct. In your time since making the pinnacle move from our PvE server to Survival, you have consistently shown yourself to be an incredible toxic influence on our community. Your previous ban appeals show quite clearly your dismissal of our rules, and your conduct both in and out of the appeals section shows your unwillingness to take things seriously. Following your ban from, what I believe was February this year, you responded to the situation by acting out in Mumble - eventually earning yourself a ban from there too, for calling one of our moderators a nigger. After being issued your current ban, you did the exact same thing again. You have no respect for the rules we put in place, and this has been very clear for a long time. Previous banned offences aside, you take an unhealthy amount of enjoyment in occupying the grey area that exists in some portions of our ruleset - oftentimes exploiting it when the opportunity to do so arises. You have been combative in almost every incident that has required us to moderate your actions, and any attempts at cooperation made by our staff have been met with outright dismissal on your part - no matter how fairly we exercise our assessments and ultimate handling of these situations. You have proven yourself unfit to adhere to our server’s rules on several occasions, and your behaviour shows no indication of improvement even after all this time. As such, you will be given no more chances. Disappointed that it's come to the point where I have to say this, but you are no longer welcome on any of our services. You’re permanently banned from nerd.nu and you will not be allowed to return in the foreseeable future. I’ll leave this appeal open for a short time for any final response from yourself. Former bans: Notes:

Hey northhockey7, this appeal totally slipped by me, my bad for not catching this sooner. I don't have on hand the screenshots that pertain to this ban, but given the wording of the ban reason, you're more than likely correct about the situation that lead to it. I'll only ask that you make sure to read the rules in spawn when you join the server next, as a couple of them will have been updated since you were last online. Other than that, welcome back, unbanned

Hey monfmonf, my apologies for taking my time in responding to this, things have been pretty hectic for me lately. As I said before, myself and two other staff members witnessed your hacking the other day. Draykhar and I personally monitored you for at least thirty minutes, watching you demonstrate clear use of a hacked client. Initially this was limited to the high jump feature, which you used for a decent amount of time walking down the road, even at one point entering the KOTH arena and jumping around with it on. You later played around with speedhacking, as well as that derping around motion that a lot of people really get a kick out of using. Unfortunately i've not got any kind of video software set up on my computer at the moment, so these various screenshots will have to suffice as evidence of us being present whilst you used it. If you're having trouble trying to visualise that in motion, hopefully this helps out a bit: It was pretty clear that it was the client doing this, and not yourself, as you were able to open chests and continue to move around in that 'derping' fashion at the same time. As for the xray, you only had a few suspicious edits amongst the ones you had made in your entire time on the server this revision, but I feel pretty confident about my assessment of them as xray. Particularly so now because you've admitted to using a hacked client which contains such a feature, and these edits are all from the day that you were banned. As with any xray case, I prefer to use imgur albums to type up the accompanying descriptions, which you can find here. The final leg of your ban reason states combat logging, which I appended as a reminder of something we need to discuss whilst we're here dealing with the rest of your ban. In the event that you do not trip the NoLog plugin when another player has reported you for combat logging, we take into context the surroundings of the situation and attempt to determine whether or not conscious logging took place. It's not foolproof, and more often than not we're heavily lenient with this because there's not always a clear way to tell that it happened. However, with your case, it was evident that you were likely facing the direction of the person that made the modreq about you, and they were within clear name-viewing distance, coming down the staircase to the mines that you were currently in. This alone isn't always proof enough that something happened, but I was in Mumble with you at the time that you logged out. You very worriedly uttered the name of your friend, and upon hearing no response you swiftly logged out. Following logging out from the game and my asking what was wrong, you very hurriedly attempted to change the subject on what we were talking about. I wouldn't have taken this as further proof by any means, but it made it really clear that something happened and you were trying to divert attention away from it. Regardless, this was your first incident of any kind that involved logging, confirmed or not, and for that you will only receive our standard warning/reminder that logging to avoid combat is absolutely against the rules. However, this all seems a bit moot in the face of why we're actually here. You're a regular player on our servers, and you should know full well the rules you're expected to follow and you disobeyed them incredibly the night of your ban. I've provided the evidence that you rightfully asked for, and so in return I only ask that I hear a response from you, here, before finalising where your appeal stands. Your ban reason, just for future reference: Ban for monfmonf on c.nerd.nu for Xray; Extensive hacked client usage; Logging to avoid combat nerd.nu/appeal by Tharine on 2013-06-10 06:04:01 (no more bans, 1 notes)

Love the dedication in moving this over to the forum. Similar to draykhar's comment, i'll make sure to leave my own response when i've got the time to sit down and write something out.

I really welcome zifnab's post, as for some of us bans are something you handle so often that you can get caught up a bit in what you're doing and not realise that something might need changing. We have a lot of methods for contacting people prior to a ban, be it /msg, /mail, or even moving them over to jail (i'm not sure if PvE or Creative have jails, though) if they respond to neither. Issuing a /kick usually happens for griefers or players using some form of hacks that are caught in the act. I've not really thought about it before, but you're right Lord_Munkee, the rules page is super long. I think we should probably look into reviewing our rules as a whole, and I know it's something we've been keen to do for Survival in particular for some time now. When it comes to new players, at the very minimum I expect them to have read and understood the rules at spawn. I wanted to make things a bit more descriptive when I wrote up the rules board for this revision's spawn, to make sure the rules were clearer, as well as not looking too boring. This is how the rules board at spawn currently looks, but I already have in mind from some suggestions for how we can improve that next revision (linking to nerd.nu/rules for client mods, for example, whilst it fits on a sign it's a bit of a hassle to navigate the actual webpage).

I know i've not had time to comment my own response on this post, but i'd like to encourage discussion here on the forums, rather than specifically in the meeting alone. We can't dedicate a huge amount of time in the meeting to this, and it's not going to be a five minute discussion. In addition, as far as i'm aware only draykhar from the S admins will be available to attend the meeting (it's going to be about 3am my time). We should never discourage discussion, and the whole point of these threads is so that there is a conclusion. Let's not try to stifle such things, please.

From what you've described, I feel like the auto-brewer should be classified as a legal (such a weird word to use, can't think of a more appropriate one). Following our current setup, it's technically within the rules, as you are protecting the items - but not in said block, rather a series of hoppers and brewing stands as well. Perhaps we could better clarify that LWC is permissible for particular setups like this? I'm struggling a bit to think of a way to phrase such an allowance to make it clear that the use of LWC on trapped chests in such a scenario is because it's feeding into a setup that would already be covered by the owner's LWC protections, it just being that the 'trigger' is also LWC-locked.

In addition to that, unless things have changed since I last used it, the actual fading out is a nightmare if you have epilepsy issues or similar. I would not recommend repeated usage of /nv if you have any triggers from a lot of bright flashing on your screen. I like the idea of the /mytime command as it is, but it would be a great solution for this sort of thing as well.

Just popping in with a politer reminder that we keep this conversation civil. We can discuss our stances on spawn camping and what we feel it entails without pointing our fingers at particular individuals.

Commenting just to state that your ban has since been handed over to the admins for discussion. I'll try to set aside some time to respond here within the next 48 hours, but please feel free to bump your appeal if either myself or another admin has not done so by that time.

Hey monfmonf, i'm not going to process this appeal until you're completely honest with us. Three individual staff members witnessed your hacking earlier, and it was quite clearly not just an 'AutoAimBowBot' that you used. Being dishonest about your ban is only going to prolong this ordeal, and not in your favour.

We started this discussion about a month ago over on the old forums, but I think we all ended up getting distracted by various issues as well as the move to the new forums, and we never picked it back up. In various talks with a number of people, and having played this revision out a bit more, I feel like a lot of us came to our own conclusions on how we would like to handle this particular issue, but I would like us to have some kind of concluding decision on the matter. As it stands our current rule for use of LWC states: 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.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.The rule (as is) does indeed cover using trapped chests to block off particular areas of the map from others (that aren't on the protection) - and should we stick with the current ruling, my only proposal would be to perhaps better clarify this for other circumstances that are a bit at odds with the current wording. For example, the end grinder where a locked, trapped chest controls the functioning of the grinder is not specifically an 'area' (it drops the platform for the mobs) nor does it technically speaking 'obstruct movement' (except for them poor endermen). I'd be keen to perhaps reword the rule a bit to account for more things like that. Personally speaking, I would be in favour of keeping/honouring the rule as it stands, and declaring that trapped chests are no different to any other container and should not be used for any purpose other than protecting the items inside it. I would like to hear others' opinions on how they might like to see us handle this particular issue, even if you're not a Survival regular.

I would support the suggested change for this, and maybe only make sure it specifies what particular kind of admin you are, for clarification when you speak officially on a topic. Certainly, there is a need for distinction in some areas, but I have felt the current tags make too much of a show out of the whole ordeal. We're also not always acting in a staff manner, and I liked the option of being able to 'distinguish' comments over on the subreddit. Not sure that something similar is feasible, but we could always put emphasis on something in our actual comments to declare that we're speaking in an official capacity.

Honestly, context is a huge factor in handling situations like these when they crop up. To put it in perspective, anyone else not in your group of friends at the time would have only seen your comment and not the fact that you were jumping on a bed with two males. Without that, and given that it's not commonplace nowadays to use the word 'gay' to describe something in a positive light, it's pretty reasonable to assume that it was a derogatory comment you were making. After explaining your side of the situation, I think things would have been understood by all parties involved and there would be no issue. I think a general rule of thumb to go by is that if it's a characteristic someone has little to no control over (e.g. gender, disability, sexual orientation, race, etc.) then it's generally considered not alright to use in a derogatory or mocking fashion. Not to seem like i'm advocating such behaviour, but obviously mocking someone for their interest in a particular game (for example) typically isn't going to warrant some kind of staff involvement, whereas doing the same for someone's race or gender, or similar, typically will.

I think out of all the comments in this thread, this one is probably the most important counterpoint to outright banning the method. My suggestion would be that we move to, as moderators, not be dismissive of mining in lava as simply a feature of Optifine and therefore 'alright to do', as I think a fair amount of us currently do. So we might not be able to determine lava-surrounded diamond edits as sure-fire evidence of xraying, but we can consider the potential that their method of finding said diamond involved using this feature of Optifine - ultimately assessing it as 'suspicious' but not definite proof. I feel like this, along with emphasising that this method is not considered legitimate means of finding diamonds, is probably the most appropriate solution to this issue.