schererererer

I already addressed this with respect to the example given in voting on a ban, where one of the highest comments was a vote to ban the player in question because "He's a tool". People who end up getting an actual vote held on their bans are likely to be more prominent members of the community, and thus have more friends (or "enemies") among those active users of the forums/subreddit. People with abrasive or irritating personalities would also tend to acquire a disproportionate number of votes to ban due to this factor. People seem to use upvotes and downvotes on the subreddit to indicate approval or disagreement, sometimes based on a username alone; it's not a stretch to think the same could easily happen with votes on bans. I've seen enough personal attacks and hostility on both the subreddit and forums to doubt the maturity of a not-insignificant proportion of the community that actively participates off-server.

Important to note is the fact that in this poll, the worldpainter/terraincontrol vote is split between two options, and in fact currently holds a 53% to 41% lead over the option with a plurality.

You can check to see if a chest has protection on it by typing /cinfo and then punching the chest. You said you used /cprotect, try using /cprivate

On the subject of mod nominations, I concur with both points, that more noticeable players have a higher chance of getting nominated, and that visibility is at least partially linked to participating in cities that happen to have greater numbers of mods. I've had a tendency to refrain from nominating mods from my town to reduce this sort of bias myself, but these have been problems from the very beginning. Outright voting is, in my opinion, a bad idea because 1)it turns the process into a popularity contest, and 2)it removes ways to bring up potential issues with a nominee without publicly dragging their name through the mud. Candid debates over the suitability of people to be mods would make for a terribly ugly thread. A possible solution is to have anyone be able to nominate (either publicly or in private) and then have staff debate over the names and get to know nominees a little better. This allows for candid debate yet opens nominations a bit. A potential downside is flooding the pool with names (though in the worst case this would result in a reversion to the status quo of mods highlighting particular nominees). Ultimately though, this is barely different than pm'ing a name to an admin/mod. On the topic of head and server admin selection, the same issues as before come up for straightforward public voting. Expanding the selection process to head/tech/server admins basically means voting among nominees, a strange choice. Expanding voting to mods could work, though this introduces a political element to the selection that could provoke tension. Honestly, I'm not sure which of these is the best option. Open voting on bans is a terrible idea that one can see just by looking at the linked thread, with someone voting to ban because "He's a tool." Rather than a popularity contest, we have a popularity jury. Voting among mods reduces this problem some, but ideally we'd have an impartial judiciary of sorts (which the head admins are intended to be, though very often they become involved in the situation). I would say have an independent court system, but that strains manpower, proportionality, and credulity. One more related topic I'd like to bring up is how votes/polls are handled on subjects of policy. Should we limit ourselves to either binding votes or advisory polls? We seem to have some of each every once in a while, so this might just be a matter of semantic clarification.

Unbanned

Per totemo and jcll, we're waiting until we're fully moved over to the new box before implementing this, as there may be a better way to do it then. Once that is done, JohnAdams1735 will set up a shared admin account to keep the server profiles on minecraftforums up to date.

Might be a good idea to clarify the "Reset the Revs" section. Right now it seems like PvE would be getting a new map upon an update to 1.6.2, whereas everyone asked about that has said that we have no plans to reset the map anytime soon. This implies either a miscommunication or that we have no plans to update to 1.6.2 anytime soon, lol.

This was recently featured in a custom biomes post on reddit, and makes a wonderful approximation for badlands striation.

Standing by.

Any update to this?

Bump at the two week mark. I think we were shooting for this upcoming weekend?

Thank you for appealing, and apologies for the delay. Thank you for reading the rules, and make sure you have uninstalled all illicit client modifications. Unbanned.

Sounds brilliant. Also, someone brought up a good point about access to netherwart, glowstone, and blaze rods for potion making. Are we going to include these somewhere on ctf or use potions as prizes?

Wow, totemo, amazing work! I suggest keeping the nether star as the wither talisman, but make access to the wither much rarer: perhaps a prize for finishing the maze? This would help to balance out access to beacons.

Couple of questions: Are beds enabled in the lobby? I'd like to set up checkpoints in the maze so people don't have to start over every time they die. If not beds, a set spawn sign? Will drops be enabled in the lobby? Currently they're not, but there's a nice trap that works using drops that we have. Do we have a contingency plan if we happen to get ddos'd like some previous events?

I say we can always try implementing fire with wg alerts for a over certain number of them placed. We can always roll it back if it doesn't pan out. The biggest concern with them is clientside lag from all the particles and animated flames. The most pressing problem would then be for a griefer to spam fire while no staff are online to witness wg alerts. Concerning alts check, I'm now opposed to allowing mods to use it. We already have stringent oversight and relatively severe penalties for other forms of mod abuse, yet people still do it. Combine this with leaks of modchat/mod irc channel to non-mods and you have a recipe for various people having de facto access to alts check.

Just as a reminder, from the creation of the server until WickedCoolSteve's joining the Head Admin team, PvE went 22 months without a "representative" in the Head Admins. During this period, P grew and flourished despite myriad technical problems, so having a head admin "in your camp" isn't an absolute necessity for successful growth. That being said, having a diversity of backgrounds on any team is always a good thing, and personal experience with the day-to-day operations of each server is a boon for the head admins as a group.

If the purpose of a thread is to gauge reaction to an idea, a poll would be used. Replies are more for the expression of reasons for/against.

The server list here appears to only list servers by the number of players online, no advertising fees as far as I can see, yet this is what the entry for c.nerd.nu looks like, and this is what the entry for P looks like. There is no s.nerd.nu listed. I'm not entirely sure what is meant by "doesn't respond to public queries" but assuming this can be rectified, why not "claim" the servers there, add a description, and open up a free avenue of advertising?

I was a strong proponent of raising the difficulty when I was a P admin, for reasons stated above to fulfill the proper role of the server in the context of C and S. Since then my position has switched as I've come to accept PvE as being a laid-back community, and also agree with ne0codex's remark that this would be a regressive policy change to make. It's not a necessary change, but it wouldn't be a horrible change either.

+1 the suggestion for larger biomes; having a large distance between biomes is a good thing in my opinion. It gives an incentive to travel and trade between far-flung regions.

A jail is just a confined space you tp a breaker of rules to get their attention if they arent responding to messages or kicks, usually for minor but persistent infractions. We used to have one on P, with a specific command /jail to prevent teleporting away, but it never saw much use except for the few times our banning system went haywire. Typically now we go warn with a message or mail, kick, ban; though skipping a step often happens if a moderator is being swamped, the offense is not minor, or it's clear there's malicious intent.

Another feature that would be nice to have is the option of a direct overhead birds-eye view.

I could help with map/base building.

I want to second the thoughts of MasterCommaThe. The vast majority of people build their things on a flat surface (hence the popularity of plains) and thus clear/level a large area, a time-consuming and not terribly aesthetic process. Flatlands style areas would be great for both these people and those who wish to build supertall skyscrapers.