TheRandomnatrix

I agree and like most of Aypop's simplification. Players shouldn't be bombarded with rules when they join. It's important to make sure that the expanded rules are fully accessible ingame through /rulebook however, as you mentioned, to kill any possible rule lawyering. Edit: this post is a bit off topic since the thread deals with alt banning policy

The change was made by not 1, but 2 public polls complete with large amounts of discussion surrounding them. The first poll indicated a tie between downvote removal and keeping everything, with a minority suggesting removal of both. Assuming the people who want both removed also want downvotes removed, then there were more people wanting downvotes removed than keeping them. The second poll, after even more discussion and drama fueled partially by downvoting indicated a majority of users wanting removal of downvotes, with the second-most opinion being removal of both. With both of those, there was a strong indication that a large percentage felt a change in voting should be made, and of those two removal of downvotes was the more popular option. I question how many polls and discussions must be made before some are finally satisfied with the results. And after all that at the very least I suggest trying it out for a while to see what becomes of it. This change is intended to promote more healthy discussion in the future.

I don't see that as a good use of the voting system, no. But I don't see what you're getting at? Removing downvotes would prevent that from happening anyways. And I think that mentioned usage is fine. Sadly an emerging problem from that seems to be people doing nothing but upvoting friends and downvoting 'enemies' without adding anything else or even considering the opposing view's points. That's a bit dumb really. Attacking someone's argument=/=attacking them personally. It's not a hard concept to grasp, people.

I already addressed this in my earlier comment(scher did as well) that if you disagree with something you need to provide a reason for your disagreeing, or support a comment that disagrees with said comment. Upvotes don't have to do that because you don't necessarily have to add anything when you agree with someone(though it's a good idea to). Downvoting detracts from discussion by encouraging disagreeing without feedback.

Then let's make the problem more apparent than pointing out one specific case passive-aggressively aimed at the admins. Since my views haven't really changed, I'll just copy/paste what I said from the other thread: The way I treat upvotes is an acknowledgement that I read someone's post and agree with it, where I then either add onto the existing ideas, or leave it alone because there's nothing more to add. The issue with downvotes is that most of the time, exacerbated to even worse levels recently, is that it's just used as a dislike button without adding anything to the discussion. It also tends to be used as a petty form of personal attack where users just downvote each other because they dislike that person without putting much thought into what is being said. Unlike an agreeing opinion, with dissenting opinion you generally have to agree to someone else's arguments or present your own. As such, I'd like to see downvotes removed, since they're not useful for anything in particular that a well-written counterargument wouldn't do far better at. If they're being used to downvote trollish/counterproductive posts, it's better to just ignore them rather than start vote wars that don't add anything. Granted, there's still going to be vote wars with people upvoting their friends and ignoring other opinions, but at least it's better than yelling "I DISAGREE" and downvoting people while moving on without saying anything. To add, even though we're the "Official Reddit Minecraft Servers"(or at least like to cling to that title) it doesn't mean we have to adopt Reddit's philosophies and mechanics into what we do. To make a somewhat poor analogy It'd be like if a company based in Chicago had to do everything the "Chicago way" because that's where they happened to set up.

Let's not get into specific people please. I can point numerous cases from a variety of people(staff and nonstaff) downvoting posts certain people make just to downvote, with many recent threads providing excellent examples, not that this hasn't been an issue for a while now.

Unnecessarily large bold text aside, what else is there to add to the original topic? I'm genuinely curious. The OP was that players were upset that the admins closed the poll. The admins then replied stating that the reason it was closed was because it was a policy change that wasn't going to happen based on a private discussion between the admins. They went on to add that it might not have been the best idea to close the thread/poll, then suggested different discussion aimed at less radical change within the staffing system which is currently happening on an existing thread. The rest is just claims of being suppressed followed by 2 pages of bickering and a few sub topics thrown in here and there which are in themselves derailing and could be made in their own thread.

Wow. That exploded. I was one of the people calling for the vote, so I accept its results either way. I just said it reminded me of that quote because it was 51:49. Apologies if I didn't clarify that better.

BUMP. Looks like most people who care have voted at this point. The current results remind me of an amusing quote. "Democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where 51% of the people may take away the rights of the other 49%."

To what extent would they be rolled back? Perhaps if they know that one of their members is xraying then a full rollback is in order, but what if for instance one of the clanmates "finds" a base then proceeds to tell the others the coordinates without the others knowing it was xray.

Meetings almost always happen on Mumble, so yes. You can just use it as a chat client if you don't feel like/can't talk.

I say remove that box951 guy. He doesn't even appear on nerd.nu/staff. Pretty sketchy if you ask me.

Since this wasn't stated in the post, there was also apparently a regen beacon preventing said players from dying via starvation.

Well for starters, I don't think this convo is really needed for MCP or this thread. It's not addressing the original topic of players trapping people in protected prisons. Back on topic, I do think that being able to keep players in a reinforced box is extremely unethical. Not everyone knows that you can jump to death, and as dizney said you can put cobwebs that make it extremely hard to starve yourself. While you can technically get out, it would take an extremely long time assuming you have no tools, and not everyone has friends who can break them out. Unlike PrisonPearl where there's a large cost added to deter from doing it, these do not have that cost. I don't know if it should be bannable or not as I don't think it's a direct violation of any rules, but it certainly violates the spirit of the plugins, and massively detracts from the captured player's experience.

I think you're missing the point? One of the issues is people are abusing bounties to transport items across the map without having to worry about losing them. It's not an issue of trusting anyone.

Then all it would take is a 3 person team to transport items rather than a 2 person one.

Wrong Random, dude. :P

How about as a compromise the areas near the roads form a special region where the old S style applies(no griefing allowed/players can break in but have to replace blocks) and players can claim land and stuff like the way it used to be. Players can still use Citadel in order to reinforce their bases to prevent people from getting in immediately. I think banning player placement of obsisian in this area would also be good, but that's up for debate I guess. The land around the roads would be relatively limited and no ores generate in that area. Then, outside the region the current rules and ore generation are in place, albeit with some tweaking to make things more fun/balanced. In this way players are forced to go outside of the center in order to get materials, but those who get a plot near the roads are afforded relative security as their builds can't be griefed. The plots would be limited meaning that once they're full players are forced to build outside of "spawn". Thoughts?

Not a huge fan of this poll. It only allows 2 options: remove them completely or keep them as is. There's no third option to remove just downvotes

The thing is, a lot of these new plugins and features were tested and are being introduced because of discussions and meetings, many of which said server vets participated in. This wasn't done on some whim by the server admins. Survival isn't going to be 100% perfect in one rev on this, but it should at least be given a chance so more accurate feedback can be taken. Also, the old server style everyone was so accustomed to was clearly not bringing in success, so why should we go back to it?

The way I treat upvotes is an acknowledgement that I read someone's post and agree with it, where I then either add onto the existing ideas, or leave it alone because there's nothing more to add. The issue with downvotes is that most of the time, exacerbated to even worse levels recently, is that it's just used as a dislike button without adding anything to the discussion. It also tends to be used as a petty form of personal attack where users just downvote each other because they dislike that person without putting much thought into what is being said. Unlike an agreeing opinion, with dissenting opinion you generally have to agree to someone else's arguments or present your own. As such, I'd like to see downvotes removed, since they're not useful for anything in particular that a well-written counterargument wouldn't do far better at. If they're being used to downvote trollish/counterproductive posts, it's better to just ignore them rather than start vote wars that don't add anything. Granted, there's still going to be vote wars with people upvoting their friends and ignoring other opinions, but at least it's better than yelling "I DISAGREE" and downvoting people while moving on without saying anything. Lastly, if it's so important polls are much more adequate for discerning popular opinion on one idea vs another, where personal matters are less of an issue, though I recognize we can't put polls on everything. Which is why I agree we should make another forum poll, since the last one is a bit dated, to decide what the voting should be.

BUMP. Is a date currently in the works? Seems we have a pretty big list of topics at this point.

Awesome list Switch. I think we need to be careful not to do 50 things at once for these meetings. Discussing everything at once then having nothing else to talk about for 4 months didn't help much in terms of keeping the meetings a regular thing. I think 1.8 already has a lot to bring to the table as is, many of which I doubt will drastically change this late in the update's development, on top of the big list Switch just compiled. To suggest some more things for discussion: Experimental PvE Revisions 1/1.5 month P revisions where we play around with a few things, such as portal policy and interesting new plugins, similar to what S just did. I think these would also be good for killing a rev if it ever gets too long, without necessarily having to go to chaos. This is not a suggestion necessarily for right now, but something to look into for future revisions to come, and I want to know how the PAdmins/community feel about them. Changing The Nether Ratio As an obviously huge proponent of infrastructure on P, I think fast travel can be a little too powerful with the current 1:8 overworld/nether ratio. I'd like to see to the possibility of changing it to something like 1:4 or 1:6 in order to encourage overworld travel more. There is already an existing plugin for this change and it has been tested on S. Trade Chests Every rev I see little shops get made by players that quickly die out because they tend to not work trade-wise. It requires both players to be on at the same time, which tends to not be convenient. Technically shops can be made using hoppers, but let's face it: they're big, bulky, and a pain to set up for the average player on top of being slow due to hopper tickrate along with terrible user interface. I'm a huge supporter of increased trade because it encourages people to move around the map and see new places, and I think plugin based chest shops would help facilitate that more. I feel rather than hurting player-to-player interaction it would instead encourage more advertisements for towns. I briefly touched up on this with the PAdmins but I think public discussion on it would be good since it may require some work on the technical side.

I was under the impression that the thread was titled "allow new blockS on pve for next revision". So far only 1 block was brought up. And smooth stone slabs are not new to minecraft. What I suggested would essentially only render tnt a decorative block. But whatever, it's your thread, so I'll drop it.

I've been trying to push TNT blocks for a while now. Was waiting for the mumble meeting(still waiting on a date for that btw) to bring it up in detail but here works too I guess. There's pretty much little reason to not add them at this point. C currently implements a plugin that renders TNT activation via redstone and fire impossible, and iirc WorldGuard prevents TNT from doing any block damage anyways. If for some reason in the unlikely event it was activated, it would presumably only cause damage to players and entities(I think it might be possible to disable that too), and the staff could easily treat it like any other player trap. It's not like there aren't numerous other easier ways of "PvP"ing other players, such as using flint and steel or a lava bucket, and both of those are allowed because most players are responsible enough not to do that because it violates the rules. The only other argument I heard against allowing it was that players might use it to grief their build post rev. I also think that's also silly, because if someone wanted their build griefed they could do it while the rev was still going. I think most people appreciate their work enough not to grief it. It's not like we can't at least try it for a rev and see what the effects are. In regards to the smooth stone slabs, I like the idea of giving them a crafting recipe. Under the same vein smooth sandstone should also be allowed. Back in rev 7 they were possible to obtain via block transmuters and were incredibly popular as a building block. Currently I'm too reluctant to use them from doppels because it has the "too rare to use" effect. I also think an interesting block to look into would be burning furnace, which could be used as a replacement block for at least one of the doppelganger slots. It makes for a very useful lighting block for some builders, and despite the name doesn't burn things infinitely(the fuel portion is handled via a separate NBT data).