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.

Which I completely agree with, and I've praised the CTA designs twice so far in my messages. ----- I apologize if my previous statements were harsh and unclear (which have since been edited for clarity), possibly leading one to believe that I wanted the CTA abolished, but I'm simply looking for some sort of negotiations that would make both groups of players satisfied. Perhaps the CTA lines could be kept underground until they hit a small span of water, and then be allowed to surface and form a bridge over said water, but only if it doesn't landlock the body of water? From what I could tell, bridges and stations were the only deviations in the CTA lines, which had different designs for each one, so maybe these two types of structures could be allowed to be visible, while the lines themselves have to be kept hidden underground? This would come with the stipulation of only being allowed if the rail lines purposefully connected established areas that also have consent from the owners; no more arbitrary rail lines. I would personally prefer everything to be kept underground, aside from the stations, but this compromise is better than nothing. The people who work on the CTA would still get to choose how they design bridges and stations, just like they do now. Regardless of the outcome from this discussion, I believe there needs to be clarification as to who is allowed to construct rail lines, what kind of protocol needs to be followed when building the rail lines, and the options available to normal players who want to contest and/or alter the rail lines near them.

So, there isn't a limit on what people can build? You would be perfectly fine with me building my own Walmsley rail line along the CTA that is nothing more than my mini-statues from Trauma with the rail line running along their heads? What if a third person wanted to join in, or a fourth? At what point do you say enough is enough? I agree that there should be as few limits as possible on what people are allowed to build, 'unless' it is disruptive, and I feel that the CTA in its current form is overqualified for that description. You say to bring any disputes up with the owner, but what if they refuse to negotiate? Is the owner always going to be in the wrong and be forced to move? How do you determine what projects qualify to be treated as such? If instead of a Walmsley rail line, what if I decided to randomly populate the server with large statues of myself from Trauma everywhere and built shrines around them? (Which wouldn't be difficult at all, because I have Schematica, which I needed to use for the transfer of my pig head from single player.) I wouldn't see these shrines being much different from a CTA station. You could keep moving the shrines around, but eventually they're going to become a problem for someone else to deal with. Just because people might not make a fuss about it, doesn't mean that they aren't gritting their teeth while tolerating it. I think it's completely ridiculous that you're basically saying people shouldn't have to be considerate of others, and should only have to cooperate when someone complains. Well, I'm complaining right now; I feel that this issue requires administrator intervention, because from what I can tell, there is no single entity in charge of the CTA, and thus there needs to be a change to the rules themselves regarding this. The whole goal of my CTA complaint was to tidy up the lines and make them less intrusive, because I think allowing multiple people to build in unobstructed spaces is more valuable than a sightseeing tour.

1. I think the server would look more appealing if these test designs were hidden, since they're not meant to contribute to the server and be aesthetically pleasing; I imagine the area would end up looking like some sort speed building contest that someone forgot to erase. I agree that the plots should be wiped periodically (at least once a month or sooner, depending on how much room there is and how quickly it fills up), but people should also have the option to mod request immunity from this if they are working on something intricate, and put something around what they've built to indicate this. 3. My attitude towards Spawn City is 'go big or go home'; I don't think it looks particularly amazing unless it mimics some of the major cities that get warps. Revision 26 is a great example of Spawn City done well, but it was probably a massive undertaking, too, and I wouldn't attempt it unless people think they'll have the energy to see it through to completion. Yes, the suburbs this revision look decent now that the less than stellar houses have been removed, thus allowing the exceptional houses to shine, but it wasn't like this for quite some time, and I don't think anyone enjoys deciding which houses to remove that aren't deemed good enough. With that said, I would still rather see what a few other people have mentioned, which is reserving space around Spawn for winning contest entries and other special projects. I feel that by doing this, it could potentially motivate people to participate in more contests and incentivize them to produce quality builds. It could also leave a greater first impression on newcomers by being able to see some of the best work that our community has to offer. I'm not sure how much space should be allocated for this, though. In regards to abandoned projects around Spawn, I think most of us have seen 'Survival City' by now, and for such vacant lots of land, I think it should be completely rolled back if possible and the claim terminated. For projects that actually have something built on the land that they've claimed, but haven't been completed yet, I think an elegant solution would be to simply move it somewhere else on the map and leave the creator a message. I don't think it's unreasonable to consider an unfinished project abandoned after a maximum of one month of inactivity; obviously you would need to use your own discretion for what constitutes inactivity. If you catch the inactivity early enough, then maybe you could offer them a kind gesture by leaving them a message one week prior to any action being taken. I think anything that is visible by standing on the boundaries of Spawn should fall under these guidelines. If you're going to build in such a precious space with a lot of visibility, then you should be expected to take full advantage of what you have been provided with. In regards to 'derpy' projects around Spawn, maybe you could message the creator and give them two weeks to improve upon what they've started until it's acceptable, otherwise it'll be moved somewhere else on the map. If it's beyond 'derpy' with no hopes of redeeming itself, then maybe just move it immediately and leave a message for the creator telling them where it is and why it was moved. I know that's a position that nobody wants to be put in, but those actions need to be followed through on if the server is going to be kept presentable - at least around Spawn.

That is one possibility, but I can foresee some issues arising from this alternative. I don't know how the CTA lines are protected on C, but here are a few scenarios: - If the protection extends the entirety of the Y-axis, then anyone trying to make a land claim or build above the lines is going to wonder what is preventing them from doing so. I'm assuming this option would not be chosen, considering how many issues it would cause. - If the protection only surrounds the lines themselves, then what happens when someone makes a land claim above them and/or digs down to find them? It seems like an awful lot of hassle to continue moving the lines until they are no longer contested and/or intruding underneath the projects of other people. Like I mentioned in my previous post, some people may not even know that the placement of the line can be disputed, and could potentially leave out of frustration upon finding it. How many times would these hypothetical situations actually occur? Who knows, but it's still something to consider. Don't get me wrong, my intention isn't to prevent people from connecting to each other; like I said in my previous post, I'm simply against the CTA's current form. I feel that the arbitrary CTA lines that were not intentionally built for the purpose of connecting people, and only appear to serve this purpose by pure luck that they hit something, need to be done away with, condensed, or hidden somehow. Basically, if it's not a rail line connecting areas after they have already been established, and that haven't also received consent from the owner, then I don't think they should be allowed; it would be ideal if some of these lines ran along, below, or above the roads already connecting the cities, like the one leading to Pinkerton. I just feel that it's unnecessary to have a line running to 8-bit, or sightseeing lines like the one skimming the border of the map, for example. I'm sorry if I've offended the people who have worked on the CTA this revision, because I did enjoy the designs of the stations and lines, and they're a big improvement from what they use to be in past revisions. I'm just against how they've been chosen to be placed is all. EDIT: - Removed some redundancy and made my thoughts more cohesive. - Removed some personal opinions that were irrelevant.

Originally, I was going to refrain from saying anything due to the backlash I expected to receive, but I feel like this is too important not to talk about; I've personally been affected by this on at least three different revisions, and I've had enough. The CTA in its current form needs to be prohibited on C from this point forward and altered somehow, because it is little more than intrusive and obstructive lines in the sky. The CTA lines dissect the map into hindered or unusable sections of space, and either ruin projects that they run along or lower the land value by being visible in the distance. Examples: http://nerd.nu/maps/creative/#/-473/64/672/-3/0/0 This forest has been divided in half, and only accommodates smaller projects now. http://nerd.nu/maps/creative/#/38/64/-1321/-3/0/0 Ditto. http://nerd.nu/maps/creative/#/508/64/-1529/-2/0/0 Even though the creators originally did it to themselves with the gazebo, these ships are completely landlocked. (The CTA line in general in that part of the ocean completely killed off any illusion of a vast ocean with ships being able to sail on unobscured waters.) http://nerd.nu/maps/creative/#/1420/64/1275/-2/0/0 This castle(?) has had its completion prevented. Not everyone is aware that they have the ability to dispute the CTA's placement, and could potentially log on one day to see that their project and future plans have been stifled by a line in the sky that has appeared next to them, which they think cannot be adjusted. Nobody should ever have to work around the CTA lines or be dissuaded from building in a space near them, either. The CTA lines may have been incorporated tastefully into some of the major modern areas/cities and Spleef, and have connected them together throughout the map, but I feel its limited usefulness is overshadowed by how invasive and disruptive it is to the overall server. This revision was especially absurd, because someone else felt the need to make their own CTA lines, thus giving us two identical lines parallel to each other. EDIT: - Added clarification. - Reworded some absolute statements. - Added another example. - Removed some anecdotal evidence and personal opinions that were irrelevant.

I've already spoken to Dumbo52 through private messages and he has agreed to preside over my appeal.