XXX

This has been the most fun I've had with Minecraft in quite some time; I enjoy small / medium projects that can be completed within a few hours. Great job to everyone involved in setting this up!

XXX

What if we took your font, marting11's glasses, Tomzski's nose, and then someone made eyebrows and a mustache? Yes, please.

I appreciate the diversity of noses, Tomzski; no discrimination. Sometimes it's difficult for me to feel accepted while having a Pinocchio nose.

Although barneygale's farewell post may have been a bit abrasive, I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing; sometimes beating around the bush is ineffective. I believe that barneygale had every right to voice his criticisms, just like anyone else. When someone silences opposition, things become stagnant, and any problems that exist will only perpetuate and/or escalate. Nothing changes unless someone starts a discussion about a problem, and barneygale took the initiative to do exactly that, by providing several 'sensitive' issues that he felt needed to be addressed. I would not call this: "shit stirring". I actually applaud barneygale for not sugarcoating anything, as I feel the community could use more of that. I may not completely agree with you, cdmrtbeok, but what you are doing right now is a great example of that. What I 'do' agree with you about, cdmrtbeok, is the ridiculous amount of leniency shown towards troublesome players who are allowed to continue being a part of this community. Some people could write short novels with the sum of their ban appeals, and yet they're still here. I feel that this leniency has slowly deteriorated the community and driven away mature players who are fed up with these individuals. It is blatantly obvious that some players will never learn their lesson, and it is futile to continue granting them opportunities to redeem themselves.

Thank you.

I'm not sure if this is a known issue, but the /Ignore command doesn't block players when they use the /Me command. Players on C abuse the /Me command quite regularly by having entire conversations in third person, which defeats the whole purpose of the /Ignore command. I'm forced to turn off chat entirely due to how obnoxious a large portion of the community seems to be, but I have to leave chat turned on while inputting WorldEdit commands, which is when I have to tolerate this problem. ----- Slightly off-topic. I'm aware of a few reasons as to why there isn't a permanent /Ignore command, but I don't agree with them. Not all of us are forgetful of who we've ignored, and not all players who deserve to be permanently ignored are breaking the rules and warrant a moderator request. Perhaps there could be some sort of compromise, though? What if we also had the option to set how long we wanted someone ignored for with preset amounts of time? Having to ignore the same people a few times a day after server resets is a real hassle. I can assure you that I did not return to C because of the overall community, and having to put up with juvenile people is what will eventually drive me away. I love C as a server itself, with its infrastructure, ease of accessibility, and tools at my disposal, but that's only half of what makes a server - the community and what they build is the other half. I do appreciate having any sort of /Ignore command at all, though.

I never said that I disagreed with the community influencing the staff's decisions - assuming their influence is in the form of proof. I said that I have a problem with inapplicable statistics potentially peer pressuring a staff member into making an irrational decision. There's a difference. You can't show that a problem exists with these poll results alone, though; the poll results can only be used 'in conjunction' with proof from other sources, which is why I said that the poll results only "lent themselves" in showing that a problem exists. Even though you may vote together unanimously against the staff, it doesn't mean that everyone is going to have identical and coherent reasons that led them to their vote. This is why everyone needs to share their opinion individually, because these poll results will not display everyones' diverse reasonings, and it allows the head administrators to weed out any irrelevant and/or invalid opinions before taking the poll results into consideration. Even then, the leftover poll results would only serve as a tally of the people who have voiced relevant opinions, because you've already shown that a problem exists by providing your proof that the problem exists. So why do you need to provide the head administrators with a tally of these people? Do you think that the head administrators are incapable of accumulating the opinions of these people and piecing them together amongst themselves to paint a picture of the communities' opinions without a tally? If what Nickeox said is true, and the head administrators are indeed incapable of doing this, then you should be seeking to rectify 'that' problem, while 'also' showing and proving that the consensus of the staff is wrong at the same time. You should be requesting that there be a place where you can submit your opinion on each separate candidate, which has a further subdivision of 'Yes' and 'No' sections for the sake of tidiness; only the head administrators would have access to viewing the submissions. If there needs to be clarification on something, then a head administrator can message the person and paste the conversation into this person's submission for the rest of the head administrators to read. You would no longer need to cherry pick one of the head administrators and hope that your opinion gets shared with the rest of them. This solution would also reduce the amount of messages being sent to the head administrators that they have to sort through. You would still need a way to gauge whether or not the head administrators actually listened to the community, though. How do you propose that be done? Do you expect each individual head administrator to publicly share how they voted and why, so you can scrutinize them if their reasons are bogus? Yup, all of your problems will be solved, just as soon as they get around to reading your mind. Yeah, no. That's why it took so long for the staff to comprehend why they needed to split the 'No' vote into 'No' and 'I don't know this person well enough' when voting for moderators. I complained to a moderator about it more than a year and a half ago, back while I was being nominated for moderator, but nothing was done about it until recently. After I was voted in, I declined the moderator position, because (among other reasons) a lot of the people who voted 'Yes' for me hadn't even met me, and I was told by the same moderator that they were likely basing their decision on anecdotal evidence they had received from others, instead of making an informed decision based on first-hand experiences. Whose fault is it that it has taken so long for the 'No' option to be split? I could sit here and easily place the blame on the staff, but how were they to know if I wasn't making certain that they were aware of the issue? Should the moderator whom I complained to done a better job of echoing my voice? Perhaps, but people only have themselves to blame if they don't speak on their own behalf to ensure that their voice actually gets heard. I apologize for being unclear, I did not mean that people should be voicing their opinion publicly. I assumed that since I had repeated myself so many times with "message a head administrator", that I was merely being redundant, and no longer felt it necessary to include. Also, when I said that I didn't care if the candidates had their feeling hurt, I meant by simply receiving a 'No' vote in this poll. Oops.

How? You just run into the same problem that you do by voting 'No'. It doesn't matter if the opinion of the public outweighs the opinion of the staff, because the numbers from this poll don't prove anything; the majority is not right by default. The poll results may lend themselves into 'showing' that there is a problem, but they don't 'prove' that there is a problem, and nothing gets accomplished unless you provide proof. You can kill two birds with one stone by providing proof, because it also shows that there is a problem at the same time, thus making this poll completely unnecessary, because you can't provide proof of the problem with it, only show it. If you want to prove something, then outline 'why' the opinion of the staff is wrong. How can you expect to fix something if you aren't telling the people in charge what to fix, how to fix it, and why they should fix it? I find it unsettling that you think inapplicable statistics potentially peer pressuring a staff member into making an irrational decision is a positive thing. There seem to be some misconceptions here, so I will attempt to clear them up. Regardless of why people are voting 'No' (or 'Yes' for an inverse situation), they should be constructive and provide their reasoning along with it. I couldn't give a fuck if you hurt the feelings of the candidates that you are voting 'No' for, and that is not why I wrote these posts; when I said that this poll would only serve as the catalyst for drama and friction within the community, that is not what I meant by it. What I was trying to get across, is the fact that people who choose not to fully express themselves and deal with the problem in the moment are only allowing the problem to unnecessarily perpetuate and/or escalate. This poll may not be doing any apparent harm, but it's passive-aggressive and doesn't solve anything, either. That's really the whole point of my posts, is to show everyone that there are far more productive ways of achieving their goals.

Please provide an example of where the measurement of "support" is applicable. You 'do' have a say in the matter, though. If you disagree with the consensus of the staff, then I see no reason as to why your complaint (if it's valid) would be viewed any lesser than that of a staff member; the truth is the truth regardless of who says it. I've already addressed this, but I guess I'll repeat myself. This is 'not' an appropriate way for people to express their viewpoints, because all it shows us is that people are dissatisfied, but we're left without reasons as to why. Taking the passive-aggressive approach is a very roundabout way of achieving your goals. Allowing things to snowball just turns headaches into migraines for everyone involved. Nobody is going to take you seriously if you're off in the corner throwing a temper tantrum over something that others are oblivious to. Like I keep saying, if you have a problem with a nominated candidate, then take that up with a head administrator in private. The fact that I have to repeat myself just goes to show that this conversation is going around in circles. You yourself have agreed that this poll is a bit pointless in the end, so I don't know what else there is to discuss.

Because the people who show their disdain for the candidates by voting 'No' are being just as unconstructive as those who downvote someone's post without an explanation. If you have issues with the nomination of one of the candidates, then express them to a head administrator, instead of being passive-aggressive with a poll. To summarize, anything other than 'No' is irrelevant, and 'No' is only relevant if people provide their reasoning along with it. I doubt everyone who voted 'No' has provided their reasoning to a head administrator, but if they 'have', then what good is a tally of dissatisfied people going to do to dissuade the head administrators from promoting someone to moderator if the reasonings provided haven't already done so? EDIT: The opposite situation would also fit, if the public was overwhelmingly voting 'Yes', while the staff was overwhelmingly voting 'No'.

What exactly do you hope to accomplish by posting this? The public's positive reception towards candidates has no direct influence on the outcome; that is solely for staff to decide amongst themselves. If anyone has objections over the nomination of a candidate, then they can bring up their concerns with the head administrators - just like the announcement says. If you want to nominate yourself or someone else for the position of moderator, then use this link: http://nerd.nu/applyformod/ The only purpose I see this poll serving is being the catalyst for drama and friction within the community.

I was originally hoping to remove as much of this burden as possible from normal players by relocating the CTA lines underground, given how vague this option appears to be; I didn't learn about it until I saw people in chat mentioning it. Yes, I could've complained about the lines that were only affecting me and avoided this whole discussion, but I was trying to look out for those who are less informed and also being affected. I thought that many of the CTA lines were placed inconsiderately and/or arbitrarily, and wanted to 'tidy up' the server. I realize that it's an impossible feat to 'tidy up' the whole server, and that there are many potential slippery slopes involved when determining what to remove, prohibit, or restrict, but I felt that the CTA was different, given that I think it's the biggest offender by a landslide, a recurring problem, and something that can be controlled more easily than other projects. I admit that it was probably selfish of me to go about this by seeking alterations to the CTA itself, instead of simply requesting that knowledge regarding disturbances be more readily available. I guess I'm just afraid of it being more likely that people will leave out of frustration, rather than them being aware of their options, taking action, and staying. My desperate attempts to accommodate players and retain them might just be a bit 'too' desperate. ----- In a similar vein, I would appreciate it if the 'random location' command and links to the live map and cartograph were more prominently displayed; if it isn't already, maybe turn it into a server message. Finding a suitable location is probably one of the most important decisions when building, especially for those with large projects in mind, and I would like to make it as easy as possible for people to find a spot. I see people complain about being unable to find a suitable location quite often, and this issue only worsens as the map ages and fills.

If I'm understanding you correctly, then this seems similar to what I've already suggested (aside from the restriction of being underground). So long as the arbitrary rail lines are done away with, then I'm satisfied. If the outcome is to be any different from our current situation, though, then there needs to be emphasis placed on enlightening the community about what options are available to them when they are bothered by not only the CTA, but any other project going on around them. Like I keep repeating, not everyone is aware that they can submit a moderator request for such a thing; I see no specific mention of this at Spawn or in the rulebook.

May I please receive an update as to what is going on regarding the CTA issue? The responses from the three C administrators have all been mixed, with no apparent verdict. - Diamond_Lover123's response did not seem to pertain to the topic being discussed; prohibiting something completely and prohibiting a form of something are two different things. - LetsBFehr's response appears to be on the fence. - SirTacoface's response was to pick my brain for a solution, but has now stopped communicating with me, and has gone so far as to delete one of his messages.