[Policy on Banning Alt Accounts]

While I agree with what you say, I also personally think that the rules are way to massive at first glance. When a new player joins they are greeted with a rule book full of rules and tons of signs at spawn. I think that some people see this and think "holy crap I don't want to read all these" so they don't and then they either quit or end up breaking them. We need to simplify the rules into something short and simple and then have the expanded rules page in a different book and here on the website. Aypop did a great example of simplifying the rules here.

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

[Only having up votes is ridiculous]

I feel like this is a perfect explanation of how I feel.

I find it very ridiculous still no matter what anyone says. Plus on top of everything this poll was made by a user and no one knew if it was going to be put into affect and many people didn't vote at all. Could we get a more official vote for an accurate count of what the community wants instead of people following a certain "click".

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.

[Up votes and down votes.]

What about the people who open your profile page and downvote every post you make?

Is that a valid use of the voting system?

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.

Okay, so with the current system, I downvote the comment I disagree with and then upvote someone elses comment explaining why I disagree.

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.

Without downvotes, you have to make a comment entirely about how that person is wrong, which is much more confrontational, and will lead to more arguments, hurt feelings and "drama."

That's a bit dumb really. Attacking someone's argument=/=attacking them personally. It's not a hard concept to grasp, people.

[Up votes and down votes.]

If people decide to take the downvote button for something they aren't, there is no defense against that.  If upvotes are being taken as "I agree", downvotes should be treated as "I disagree".

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.

[Up votes and down votes.]

I was only pointing out the most egregious example. I don't want people to vote in ignorance.

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. 

[Up votes and down votes.]

They're pointless and abusable, as we saw when slide downvoted every post gsand had made until that point. No admin had enough balls to call him out on it and put up a rule against malicious use, so the 2nd best option is to remove them altogether IMO.

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.

[Why was this thread locked without a little more discussion?]

Anyways, Back on Topic.

Stop trying to derail the thread. D:

 

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. 

[Forum rule request: use of up/downvotes]

Sounds like something a member of the 49% might say.

 

What?

 

This was a fair and square vote. Every forum user had the same opportunity to vote, no one was oppressed or their vote denied.

 

Just because the vote didn't go the way that you wanted it to, doesn't mean it's any less valid..

 

Also, you say "taking away rights", but voting is already here, so the people who voted for votes to be removed would be the people "removing the rights" of those people, not the way you implied it.

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.

 

 

[Forum rule request: use of up/downvotes]

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%."

[Team xray rollback on Survival]

I don't think this what he meant. If I'm wrong, please correct me. I'm understand this to be the case of a team of people who get into a base through the use of xray. The thing is that only one person on the team is actually xraying and the others just follow him in. Should they all be rolled back? Just the xrayer? Etc.

 

In my opinion, they should all be rolled back, since the gains were made through the use of hacking, regardless of who was actually xraying.

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. 

[MCPublic General Meeting. Please read and share your ideas.]

Sounds good, but do I need mumble for any of the meetings?

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.

[[PMC] Redditmc subreddit moderators]

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

[[PMC] Trapping players in Obsidian Prisons?]

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

[[PMC] Trapping players in Obsidian Prisons?]

 

Have you actually tried to fight against it? No, not many people have on S. The PvPers are absolutely loving this revision because that's what we wanted the server to be more focused on. The only ones who I've seen complaining most bitterly are those who don't want to PvP. Get in a clan, get some armour and organise something. So many of the S players are willing to team up against the Civ players.

 

 

A waste of time? I think not.

 

I'll lay this out in simple terms for you torn, we are NOT a civcraft server last time I checked......Our job is to make everyone happy, not half the population or less, but that also seems to be lost with our identity...

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.

 

 

Please correct me if I am wrong, but if you summon a player doesn't that mean that the cost for the prison pearl is no longer in effect? If that's the case then they are abusing the plugin to avoid the cost which in my opinion is not only eligible to be rescued from, but also a bannable offense. They are abusing server plugins to there advantage. Please excuse me if I am wrong, I am only starting to get involved and learn all the new S plugins.

 

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.

[Survival Suggestions / Feedback]

No, what it would mean is that the person who is offering the bounty can decide if a potential collector is worthy of their trust.  If you don't know or trust a potential bounty hunter then your bounty is safe.  Nobody would lose a bounty to someone that they don't trust.

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.

[Survival Suggestions / Feedback]

I haven't messed with collecting bounties yet, but if it's possible to abuse them in the way you're describing, we could solve it by simply having a way for the person who wants to collect the bounty to get approved to do so by the one who placed the bounty before they go off to kill the victim.  This would keep bounties in place (which I REALLY like), but would also avoid the possibility of the abuse you describe.

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

[Randomdoor/Randomdoor/Randomdoor/Randomdoor AMA]

How did you create CARBON? (Sorry about mentioning your invention after you quit from head)

Wrong Random, dude. :P

[Survival Suggestions / Feedback]

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?

[Forum rule request: use of up/downvotes]

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

[Survival Revival: Take it old school.]

Can we please just go back to how the server once was..

If you check the mcpublic reddit posts regarding the new direction people are really unresponsive. Veteran players all hold the same views that the open grief and lack of ruling will kill the server. And trust me, these server vets know their shit as most have been around twice as long as the current server staff. Myself included.

We aren't a citadel server. We're a survival server.

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?

[Forum rule request: use of up/downvotes]

If up and down votes are based on whether or not you agree with an opinion, then you would expect that people who share the same opinion would vote the same way.  I don't think it's a team battle, but just a sign that a lot of people hold the same opinions on recent threads.

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.

[PvE mumble meetings?]

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

[PvE mumble meetings?]

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.

[Allow new blocks on PvE for next revision!]

Second, can we please possibly create a new thread for TNT as it has nothing to do with this thread. Trying to keep this a focused discussion lads.

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. 

The problems with this is it can have impact on the server performance (I.E: lots of TNT explodes at once) so for now I am just sticking to requesting decoration blocks be added in this thread. 

What I suggested would essentially only render tnt a decorative block. But whatever, it's your thread, so I'll drop it.

[Allow new blocks on PvE for next revision!]

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).