UNP

I didn't name anyone specifically, did I? You and SwitchViewz' responses are partially why. You both refuse to accept the possibility that you're overstepping your bounds as enforcers. Go ahead and dismiss me all you want but don't act like I'm trying to throw anyone under a bus. It's a mod I was HAVING the pictured discussion with, which should tell you heaps about the state of the server. Like Eehee said, the server is "critically wounded". As for the "rule overhaul discussion", all I'm seeing is the same arguments back and forth over multiple pages with absolutely no resolution in sight. It's not there to actually result in changes, it's there to keep the plebs busy and distracted. Please don't act like it's anything more than that, because if it was, there'd be something to show for it.

Alright, I think it's time I brought this to the attention of more people. Due to a few things that have been happening, on top of situations that other players have discussed with me in their frustration, I no longer see any reason to keep this particular part of the discussion confidential. I have blurred out identifying details though, and I won't mention names, because I know those players will unfairly face reprisal and backlash over this, which is altogether not right. Salient points: Mods have "no real power" Discussing actually changing the rules gets shut down by higher-ups. Rules are selectively enforced, for unknown reasons. Admins can make choices unilaterally and ignore mod protest. A player who is actively trying to scam/steal from others is being allowed to continue doing so by the admin.

So figure out what it is and fix it. Just because it "could be a variety of reasons" doesn't mean you just throw your hands up and go "well, guess the server's gonna be an unstable piece of crap for the forseeable future".

Haven't you noticed there's been a less-than-subtle push to stifle conversation on this subject? Certain people don't want the status quo challenged because it currently works well for them.

Continually splitting up the discussion has a chilling effect on the conversation.

One of my pet peeves happens to be people who think they can dictate what you should and should not build your own things out of. I use a texture pack that makes cobblestone look like ACTUAL cobblestone, not that messy fractured stone stuff. It's actually quite attractive. Also, even if that wasn't the case - aesthetic taste is subjective.

Rev 14 wasn't like this. For some reason the server is having extreme issues balancing any kind of load or stress. It eventually results in either a complete server crash, or a kick of a random 50% of the players. I used to work for an ISP and if a core router experienced a load balancing issue it would display the EXACT SAME KIND of behaviour.

The more I think about it, the more this tactic strikes me as a subtle way of publicly shaming the person. Especially since the ban appeals are visible to everyone.

Once again a worthwhile debate is reduced to quibbling over semantics. Whatever. I'm sure the eventual overhauled rule will be just as ill-fitting, abused, lacking in intelligence and inconsistently applied as the existing one.

So because I disagree with you I'm a douchebag, is that it? Seriously, answer my fucking question: who decides what the baseline of empathy for the server is, below which you get banned?

Jesus fuck, enough with the "if you don't like it you can GIT OUT!" attitude. Fucking tired of being told to gtfo just because my opinion doesn't match someone else's. I never said anything about lacking empathy, I said it shouldn't be a mod-enforced aspect of any rule and it shouldn't be a requirement. Some people just naturally empathise less - just like those who naturally empathise more. How the fuck do you determine where the baseline is?

Well said.

Tobylane, empathy shouldn't be mandatory OR mod enforced. That's absurd.

I'm waiting to see d3north's point addressed by a mod. Why is this gigantic whatever allowed to remain, when cities are routinely told to scale back development? More inconsistent enforcement.

Not least of all because the more simple, straightforward and concise they are, the less likely they are to get twisted or abused.

I like how we're able to see who voted which way ("View voters".) Polls don't work that way. If you wanna adjust the rules in a more player-friendly way then you might start by not dropping the ball that badly in the poll set up to gauge who thinks what. I mean, the "who" isn't really important - so why include it? You don't want people to think you're trying to suss out dissenters, do you?

So your solution toward an ill-fitting rule that is inconsistently enforced is to... make the rule even BROADER, make it more likely that someone will break it, and do nothing about the obviously EXTREMELY biased enforcement of the existing rule, allowing the new, broader rule to be as abused as the current one is? Yeah, no. I can't get behind that. I'm also less than amused by the fact that the questions are written in a fashion that limits the choices to "old rule" and "new rule". It's especially implicit in the wording of the fourth one. Also, in the wording of the rule - what the hell is "etc" supposed to mean? Who interprets what "etc" covers? Who draws the line at where "etc" gets ridiculous? The same people that inconsistently apply the existing rule? Am I really the only one who sees a problem with this proposal, and the fact that it's either missing or dodging the REAL issue? Finally, both of the options (old and new) are essentially "zero tolerance" options. Zero tolerance DOES NOT FUCKING WORK. Anybody who's interested in looking will see reams of evidence of this every single time it's applied as a philosophy in ANY kind of enforcement. Instead of trying to ban everything and threaten players with expulsion from the group for stepping out of line, why don't you just MODERATE MORE INTELLIGENTLY.

I just can't wait for the shitstorm that happens when someone eventually uses the word niggardly. It has absolutely nothing at all to do with the other N-word that makes people flail, and the two words are etymologically distinct and unconnected.

Yes, because the community at large behaving in an exclusive and insular fashion is SURE to improve the general morale of the playerbase.

I have yet to see him trolling. I DO see him saying stuff you clearly don't like, though. I'm not sure if anyone's ever explained this to you, but that doesn't constitute trolling. Furthermore, you're in no way obligated to have people say or do only things that are approved by you. I think that's something that really, really needs to be clearly and firmly stated in the modern internet age: "trolling" and "things you don't like hearing" are in no way the same thing.

It's only a problem because the admins are in a position to make ban judgments on people, and players aren't. The people who have the power should not be insinuating that only the friends of "rulebreakers" would defend them, because that leads extremely rapidly to the "guilt by association" bans mentioned above.

My guess is his reasoning will be something along the lines of "because I don't answer to you". If it was just a player talking to another player, he'd be right. However, server admins should be extremely accountable to the playerbase - among other things, it's likely to keep them honest and non-tyrannical.

I wouldn't go so far as to say you suck, but I definitely don't agree with a lot of the stances you take. And no, he wasn't my friend. I didn't even know the guy at all, I just read the ban appeal. I do like the little implication you're making though that the only people who could/would defend him are people who are friends with him. It's my opinion that mods should be above that kind of attitude, but then again you've made it abundantly clear you couldn't give less of a shit about my opinion.

Yes, of course there were. There's always "other things" that are "taken into consideration" in these matters.

I'm sorry but no. When all the facts are compiled, as you said, jchance completely ignored factual evidence that Abroosky provided proving he'd been around longer than the other guy, in favour of using his dislike of said other guy to justify a permaban. So far three independent people in this thread alone have pointed this out. Surely you're not claiming that we all somehow independently reached the wrong conclusion from the same evidence?