schererererer

Can we change the setup on P so that /mute operates as a blacklist, preventing the use of global chat, /me, and clanchat commands. I thought we already changed this, but it looks like it wasn't. Thanks!

I actually personally kind of like the general concept. I can see how the culture clash could be a problem - perhaps something like a multiverse with multiple pvp and pve worlds would allow more aggressive/passive (or competitive/collaborative) cultures to find distinct niches in a broader system. Having richer resources in the pvp enabled world, including relative ore plumping, unique mob spawners, etc. would incentivize development in the pvp areas and thus encourage the risk of pvp for the ambitious and adventurous (rather than just gathering resources in pve zones to battle in pvp zones without any stakes). The very casual players could still spend most of their time in the pve zones and only venture out when they feel like it, but would naturally miss out on the advantages of working in the more dangerous and lucrative environment. One potential drawback that I've thought of is that people would tend to use the pvp worlds as a resource farm, and just take all their gains after a quick mining trip back to use in building at their pve homeworld base. There are many possible ways to counter this - for example, having a number of permanent KOTH points in the pvp world each yielding a cross-server buff would encourage a long-term presence. Perhaps even the potential for raiders to attack resource extractors would be sufficient for gameplay purposes. Note that this is a very loose idea, and I haven't thought very deeply about all the implications, but I feel that most of the prior objections to a carefully crafted combination of S and P could be ameliorated. Of course, such a massive change would have to have broad feedback and support from across the community as a whole, but I feel that such a setup would allow people to either continue with mostly the same playstyle as in the past or try out a new dynamic at their own pace. As a disclaimer, the above are all my personal thoughts and do not reflect any sort of official position on the subject.

Bumping due to relevant appeal: https://nerd.nu/forums/index.php?/topic/2663-barneybot-vivalahelvig-head-admin/#entry20150 The public discussion on this topic was closed by cyotie in August, and this admin discussion saw its last post over a month ago. Due to this extraordinary delay, the implication to the greater public is that we've decided to keep permabans on alts and have neglected to tell anyone our decision, despite this being far from the case. Stagnation like this is ultimately incompatible with a vibrant and active server - we need to set hard deadlines to take action. Can we make a final, public decision on this?

This is more useful for previous revisions: http://redditpublic.com/wiki/Minecraft-overviewer Edit: Some of the latter revision cartographs are either missing or incorrect. I will attempt to fix those that I'm aware of once the wiki is editable again.

If your main concern is mobs being able to get onto the platform, asking for region protections to cover a block or two around it should usually do the trick. If someone builds right up to the platform before you're able to get a protection, you can do the standard procedure of getting in contact with them to negotiate, and modreq'ing if that pans out.

I think there was a locked version of zyins HUD that didn't have the xray suboption - I've seen some posts around saying that, at least.

Just an update on this topic: PAdmins spent a couple of hours on this topic along with interconnected issues, but have not yet come to a conclusion on land claims. There are a lot of subjective measures that come into these and complicate the applicability of policy, and we're still hashing it out. Aca: I think you should go ahead and share your ideas on the matter here - perhaps you've thought of a potential solution that we haven't.

Since it's been almost 8 months since my last summary list, let's assume that nickeox's most recent list is the complete one. Also, is there or can there be a directory setup for nerd.nu/maps - something like the redditpublic.com carto portal?

Yes please! This would get me playing again on C - anything that allows player to make more fantastic builds is great in my view. From what I remember on the plotted lobby contest server with a controlled implementation of worldedit, the load seemed quite manageable. The whole "building things by hand is more impressive" viewpoint really loses its potency in the context of creative mode - the object should to make as amazing a work as possible, not put unnecessary walls in the way of completing a vision.

Imo, mod protocol is specific enough in that we don't refund on deaths caused by bugs or lag. I'll bring this up with the padmins for review in our discussion thread of doom though.

I thought this bug was fixed a while ago but it's apparently rearing its ugly head again - getting stuck in an infinite fall in a block can cause you to "accumulate" falling distance. Hitting the ground after a tp would then trigger the damage from falling for such a long time - I've experienced this 5-10 times, mostly in the distant past. With this case we technically should treat it the same as if you glitched into a block and suffocated - tp'ing a player back to their death point from a glitch would squarely fall under mods arbitrarily stretching the rules and their settled interpretation. On the other hand, if the mod accidentally tp'd you 50 blocks into the air and that caused your death, that should immediately be resolved with a tp back to the death point.

This would be absolutely wonderful. The way we do ban appeals now is pretty crude and slow - inconvenient for all.

The use of /mute is ostensibly an intermediate step between a warning and a ban, used as a response to infractions specifically in chat. However its use to enable semi-normal gameplay is hindered by the fact that innocuous commands such as /lwc, /place, etc. are disabled with a mute. Along with these, would it be possible to make it so that a muted player can message moderators so that they can respond without spamming modreqs?

Missed that one. Discussing automation further is on our agenda for the continuation of the padmin meeting (on Thursday), but one key thing that we've agreed on is that any automation should not reach superhuman levels relative to a vanilla client (a sometimes subjective evaluation). Personally, I think using a keybind to craft an entire inventory of paper at once would exceed this threshold, while shift-clicking would be acceptable - however, take this only as my opinion for now. We will be able to add this clarification shortly to the approved client mods list.

Just making a reminder to roll out the list today.

Well, even if you don't publically announce a mass amnesty, those who disagree would undoubtedly still find out about it and then explode about not only the amnesty itself but the lack of transparency in its implementation.

He means how we keep track of people who have been unbanned (for purposes of identifying repeat offenders) - afaik MCBouncer doesn't keep records of unbanned players. We could use a bot to auto-populate notices of amnesty in the ban appeals section (basically appeal for them).

If there's anywhere near the number of grief-focused accounts now as in the past, I would definitely avoid announcing a wipe of the ban list. At one point on C we considered making worldguard protections effectively mandatory for all builds (especially near spawn) because the rate of new griefers appearing and proceeding to break things exceeded the rate of mods rolling things back, especially with the then-unremoved exploits of sanddropping and bonemealing trees being unlogged in logblock. It wouldn't be so bad now due to a much-improved set of mod tools, and many of those accounts are likely long bored of griefing and/or trolling in minecraft, but the sheer number is still a concern. Also, many ban reasons were extremely vague in the past; an instance of minor grief and a wild spree of thousands of block destructions might both be characterized as simply "griefing". I'd also like to know how many of the bans on our list were compromised accounts - I remember them being a quite large number, and I'm not sure whether or not these should even be included in an amnesty.

I'd also include under those special circumstances offenders who clearly only came to the servers to grief - e.g. people without constructive edits on C who have thousands of block destructions. We have a ton of bans for minor things back when the policy was to try to clear out griefers as fast as they appeared; thus we have tons of bans for minor griefing and crop grief - those would be great to grant amnesty. I know some of us really don't want to give the impression we're "caving in" to demands, but I expect this discussion to take long enough for this ddos to be all but forgotten anyways by the time an amnesty would be implemented/revealed to the public.

We've already gone over the arguments for and against this extensively in two separate other threads, so I will just remark that this decision was made in accordance with the results of the most recent poll.

I don't see how explanation of how/why you disagree with someone is necessarily more confrontational than downvoting. Making a comment or upvoting one that reflects your opinion allows for a progression of debate, whereas downvoting is the equivalent of just booing - it just says "I don't like this" without anyone stating why - which I find much more confrontational. Naturally, someone could make a vitriolic comment that aspires to confrontation (just as someone could go through and blanket downvote every post someone has made), but I'd rather not set the atmosphere of discourse to the lowest common denominator. Without downvotes, counterarguments have to be presented or joined to show your negative opinion, an inherently constructive setup. It's not as trivial as clicking downvote, but I'd consider having to collect your thoughts and read the thread to be a benefit rather than a deficit.

Let's be honest, the little red button has the same problems ascribed to it. Downvote sprees instantly get characterized as personal in all but the most unanimous of cases. At least responding allows for a conversation for the amiable among the opposition.

By making and upvoting threads like this.

I'd say the division here can still allow for disagreement. If you agree, upvote and either leave it at that if there is nothing more to say. or add a reply that elaborates upon and adds to what has been said. If you disagree, post a dissent as a reply - if someone has already made the dissenting point you hold, upvote that comment. This would tend to neuter knee-jerk reactions and promote thinking and discourse about why something garners your opposition.