EeHee2000

Yes, I do have the right to say what I want to say. Fuck you. How am I being unproductive? In what way does my supposed unproductivity mean that I don't care about the topic? How does this mean that I 'just want to be angry'? How am I wasting time? Where have I been told to shut up in this thread? How can I be productive like yourself? How am I being antagonistic? All these questions and I can't really think of many answers for them; enlighten me, but try to refrain from getting the topic locked.

removed

Just to clarify, tobylane, I'm not a 'problem', I'm someone with opinions that differ largely from yours. If you view that sort of person as a 'problem', I'd suggest you take your leave as those 'problems' don't have any solutions to them.

Tobylane, The person in question wasn't staff, if you haven't picked up on that. I'm not trying to correct anything, I'm voicing a fucking opinion, which I don't even seem to be allowed to do anymore thanks to people like yourself. There's plenty I agree on with the current SAdmins, and they don't inaccurately use the word 'toxic' - why, a couple of them once very nearly fit into the seemingly very wide boundary of the word itself. Huh, funny that, I agree with people that don't overcompensate to prove other people wrong. The username 'oi_dickhead' is not toxic, that much should be clear. If you can't accept that I can't do much about it. However, charging into a thread pulling chat logs out of your arse about the smallest little tidbits that you and you alone take a small amount of offense to in order to prove someone else wrong out of spite due to a confrontation that happened well over two months ago - that, if anything, is toxic.

You say we should stop doing whatever it is that makes us look like an ass, but then you see that yesterday I was called 'toxic' in IRC by someone who then used a brand new alt account to bring up logs of me doing nothing other than suggesting a new channel for Mumble, and to top it off my response to that particular post (which was so tame, might I add, that I didn't even screenshot it for fear of it being removed) was removed/hidden, yet the person stirring shit in that thread didn't have their post removed; not to mention that the thread was later locked due to them. What? No, sorry, that doesn't look like a possibility, given those circumstances. Once people start using the word correctly, then yes, we'll be able to follow those instructions. However, as I said, when I'm being censored no matter what I say, it's a no-can-do.

Okay, we've already gone through two posts on this matter, let's stop derailing them. Can we pick up where we left off?

The 'toxic' insult is basically a really effective way of splitting the servers into two factions - the toxic and the non-toxic, which isn't helping anyone. Let me get something straight - when you call someone toxic, you're furthering the divide between the two factions that now exist. Stop using the fucking word as an end-all solution to everyone you disagree with.

Yeah, edges on that are a little strange, but I very much approve of the idea.

Spot on. I don't really have much to add to this other than that the 'toxic players' (myself included) and the staff that happen to disagree with them need to actually sort of take things into consideration when interpreting what their 'opposing' side says. We've really dug ourselves quite a large hole here, comparable to the size of the hole that Ubisoft dug themselves in 2014, but I think overall we can all agree that we'd like to sit down and play games without arguments. There really isn't a simple way to fix the divide between us, other than for both sides to start actually, y'know, listening to eachother; and now that the Survival server feels that (for the most part, at least) they have suitable admins, the process should become much easier over time. Now, to give a rundown of why Survival players were getting pissed off in the first place; Survival's population started to dwindle, because people got bored and moved on with life. Survival got admins that didn't PvP or even regularly play on the server, let alone casually interact with its playerbase. Because of this, the SAdmins made some pretty bad choices over time, and Survival players noticed this - take into account that Survival players had been throwing suggestions at the admins non-stop for quite some time. Survival players start getting really quite pissed off, because there was a constant pattern of admins not listening to players and admins then fucking up. From there it just becomes a sour apple, with the situation degrading over time and with both sides refusing to reason with eachother. It's been getting progressively worse for about 2-1.5 years, with a fucktonne of faults to both sides.

Yeah, to add to what I said above, the team fights were the most fun. I think Diamond 1v1's would be much more fun to watch rather than Leather gear 1v1's, as well. The kitted FFA was actually really enjoyable, as biased as I might be about that. I personally prefer arenas where gear is supplied, it means that everyone can participate which just means a better time for all.

Ayy, sign me up amigo. If a lot of people sign up, put me down as a backup as I may need to leave an hour before the event ends. https://steamcommunity.com/id/Eehee333/

Yeah, the arena was baller, hope to see more of these being run through both Chaos and the new Revision, if possible. Keep it up, gents.

I agree with what you're saying, but that doesn't mean that the rules shouldn't be more concise. There's plenty of room for improvement; I understand that some issues just can't have a clear outline of 'how2handle', but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't define rules past that point. To simplify, the rules system needs a lot of spit and polish overall.

I'll enter everything except the BYOG Tournament because I'm a poor sod. Looking forward to it amigo! :D

There isn't really a very effective way to 'fix' the wiki per se, however it should be common practice to keep the Rules section updated, as it's one of the most important parts of the wiki overall. Every single little rule change and policy change needs to be reflected as soon as possible on the wiki.

EeHee2000 - Eehee

I think the line should be drawn at the point where a player has both a similar name to - and the same skin as - a specific staff member. Otherwise I think using common sense and not banning people that can't help the fact that they have a similar username is the right way to go. There really isn't a definitive way to determine what the policy on this should be, as I'd expect each case would be very context-sensitive. So yeah, it just comes down to the context and a little common sense.

8 whole months of non-stop harassment? Heh, don't act as if you've been 'harassed' the entire time you've been here. If you have to exaggerate, chances are the real story isn't anything to take note of. Whether or not you asked for your post to be removed is irrelevant, it was - and still is - the prime example of the type of post I'm talking about.

Ayy, glad to see you finally got the spot, let's hope you do some rad shit with your new demonic powers. ;D

They'll read anything that's convenient to read. If signs are placed in such a way it's impossible to ignore them at first glance, they'll read them and from there they can be directed to the rulebook - which, might I add, we need to start simplifying.

It does depend on what the post actually contains though, no? I don't think all of these 'hit&run' posts are the same, some have brought up some very relevant issues with nerd.nu such as Tharine's and arguably, barneygales. I don't think blacklisting those types of posts is a good idea, because the way nerd is administrated means that everything is very open to interpretation. (I don't mean that in an offensive way.) Had Tharine's leaving post been initially hidden fast enough to prevent anyone from seeing it, there would've been no outrage or demand to bring it back, whereas if that sort of thing were blacklisted/against the rules it would technically be completely justified to have censored it in the first place. I'm going to go a bit against the flow here and say that the current way we handle these is fine. We're removing things that go over the rails (twilexis' leaving post is an example) but things that can accomplish something (Tharine's post is the top dog here) should stay fully within the rule boundary. It's a slippery slope, because barneygale's post did have a lot of reasoning in it, but it was also considered to be rather offensive to a lot of people - that's where the admin team's interpretation of the post(s) in question come into play. Summary: no, do not make a rule/policy surrounding this, it will serve to complicate the matter and at the moment it frankly isn't needed - nerd.nu isn't going to be obliterated by the next "fuck all you cunts" post, nor the one after that, or the one a dozen after that. Sure, keep hiding/archiving the angry 'fuck you' posts, but there's no need to actually ban the people that make the posts unless they break a rule.

The co-optional and the Monstercat podcasts are really the only ones I pay attention to, but the Upvoted podcast isn't too bad either.