totemo

I have dealt with many bans where people will say whatever it takes to get out of trouble. It is a sad fact that I no longer trust players to tell me the truth in these situations and simply rely on the logs. Sadly, your conduct does not dissuade me of this.

Here are what I see as the facts of this matter, reconstructed from the server logs and my own recollection: To set up the Shopkeepers plugin on PvE, I copied the configuration folder from testing. This had the unfortunate and unintended consequence of copying some "test" villagers to PvE. The villagers were located approximately 700 blocks from spawn, and therefore their presence went unnoticed by the staff. One of the test trades was to sell diamonds for 1 dirt apiece. Rokku117 found the villagers and called ghrey303 to bring dirt to trade. They also excavated dirt from the area surrounding the Shopkeeper villagers. Rokku117 made an attempt to contact tompreuss to ask about the trade. However, the admin hunt was in progress and tompreuss was distracted by that and messages from other players. Rokku117's message was vague and did not convey any sense of the severity of the issue with the villager. It was easily misinterpreted as a query about the legitimate shopkeeper at spawn. 2013-12-11 22:46:23 | [Rokku117 -> tompreuss] What do we do about these villagers? 2013-12-11 22:46:33 | [tompreuss -> Rokku117] uh 2013-12-11 22:46:35 | [tompreuss -> Rokku117] busy 2013-12-11 22:46:38 | [Rokku117 -> tompreuss] Can we have them? 2013-12-11 22:46:44 | [tompreuss -> Rokku117] busy 2013-12-11 22:46:48 | [Rokku117 -> tompreuss] ok... 2013-12-11 22:46:54 | [tompreuss -> Rokku117] admin hunt 2013-12-11 22:47:01 | [Rokku117 -> tompreuss] I know Another player was also present, but did not use the trade and consequently was not banned. He in fact warned the others that it would be unwise to use the trade. I discovered the use of the bogus trade in the Shopkeepers trading log file, teleport to Rokku117 and deleted the villagers. I misread the log file, due to my unfamiliarity with the plugin, interpreting the number of trades executed as the number of items actually traded, and asked for that many diamonds to be refunded. At which point I had initially thought the matter to be closed, with no significant harm done. In reality, Rokku117 and ghrey303 had each acquired on the order of 1500 diamonds over the course of 18 minutes, trading dirt that they had on hand and what they excavated from the site. When asked about the trade, I clarified in chat that: 2013-12-11 23:06:26 | <totemo> it was a mistake and obviously not intended 2013-12-11 23:06:35 | <Rokku117> Oh. Weird 2013-12-11 23:08:40 | <totemo> it was a test trade that got copied across by mistake 2013-12-11 23:08:44 | <Rokku117> Ahh ok 2013-12-11 23:08:46 | <Rokku117> lmao Immediately after that, Rokku117 decides to discuss the situation with ghrey303 "off the record": 2013-12-11 23:09:31 | ClanChat: [wofficers]<Rokku117> Ghrey do you have xfire or steam,? 2013-12-11 23:09:39 | ClanChat: [wofficers]<ghrey303> steam, yup! ... 2013-12-11 23:11:26 | ClanChat: [wofficers]<Rokku117> Then we shall talk where we arent being recorded Neither Rokku117 nor ghrey303 volunteered any information to staff about the number of diamonds that they had acquired. I subsequently discovered the full extent to which the trade had been utilised in other logs. ghrey303 did not return to his chests because of a desire to exploit the mistake as quickly as possible before they were caught: 2013-12-11 23:32:19 | ClanChat: [whiteoak]<Rokku117> Welp, i guess we need more dirt lol 2013-12-11 23:32:27 | ClanChat: [whiteoak]<ghrey303> I have a double chest still haha 2013-12-11 23:32:31 | ClanChat: [whiteoak]<Rokku117> D: 2013-12-11 23:32:36 | ClanChat: [whiteoak]<Rokku117> Why didnt you grab it! 2013-12-11 23:32:44 | ClanChat: [whiteoak]<Rokku117> Dont worry about it ;D 2013-12-11 23:32:48 | ClanChat: [whiteoak]<ghrey303> because I figured we would be caught by the time I got back When prompted as to whether he might not be telling me everything, Rokku117's response was obtuse. He took a full 10 seconds to think about it: 2013-12-11 23:36:37 | [totemo -> Rokku117] do you need to tell me something mate? 2013-12-11 23:36:47 | [Rokku117 -> totemo] ? Rokku117 and ghrey303 were then banned to prevent them from moving any diamonds, which might complicate recovery. To summarise: Due to schedule pressure, mistakes were made in setting up the special villagers and in correcting those mistakes. Rokku117 and ghrey303 attempted to exploit the situation. Their communication to staff was ambiguous and staff were distracted by seemingly more important matters. I've deliberated on this matter for longer than I would care to admit. I've also consulted with all of the P admins at length, on several occasions over the last few days. One of my difficulties in making a decision on this is that the situation arose as a consequence of mistakes made by myself. The heart of the matter, therefore, is to what degree the players are to be held responsible when such mistakes happen. What I have concluded is that: Though I try to avoid them, mistakes will occasionally happen, particularly when people are under schedule pressure, as occurred with the update to 1.7. You took advantage of these mistakes. Incidentally, I see that Rokku117 has decided to engage in rule lawyering in his appeal: you should by all means try that with a real world judge some time. I'll quote from the PvE rules: "No use of bugs or exploits to gain an advantage over other players". It was a bug in our configuration. End of Story. I consider that bugs are, in fact, inevitable. What matters is not whether they exist or who put them in, but how you as players deal with them. In this instance, you attempted to exploit the situation to the maximum degree and did not volunteer any information that might have been utilised by staff to correct it. Both Rokku117 and ghrey303 assert in their appeals that they were unsure whether the trade was intended or not. I have several thoughts about that: Firstly, no reasonable Minecraft player who is familiar with PvE, as you both are, would consider a trade from dirt to diamonds to be balanced or in keeping with the style of play that the staff have configured. If you wish to argue otherwise, I will be happy to replace all of your diamond gear with the equivalent number of dirt blocks. Secondly, you both acted guiltily. It is clear that you were aware that what you were doing is wrong. Rokku117 decided to discuss what to do with the diamonds off the record; ghrey303 expressed his fear of "getting caught". Overall, you both acted in bad faith. You could easily have avoided a ban by clear communication with staff and by not exploiting the mistake. Ultimately, you gambled on not getting caught and being able to weasel out of it if you were. I'm setting the ban duration to 2 weeks. You can each open an appeal on the 25th of December. Read the rules (http://nerd.nu/rules) in the meantime.

Here are what I see as the facts of this matter, reconstructed from the server logs and my own recollection: To set up the Shopkeepers plugin on PvE, I copied the configuration folder from testing. This had the unfortunate and unintended consequence of copying some "test" villagers to PvE. The villagers were located approximately 700 blocks from spawn, and therefore their presence went unnoticed by the staff. One of the test trades was to sell diamonds for 1 dirt apiece. Rokku117 found the villagers and called ghrey303 to bring dirt to trade. They also excavated dirt from the area surrounding the Shopkeeper villagers. Rokku117 made an attempt to contact tompreuss to ask about the trade. However, the admin hunt was in progress and tompreuss was distracted by that and messages from other players. Rokku117's message was vague and did not convey any sense of the severity of the issue with the villager. It was easily misinterpreted as a query about the legitimate shopkeeper at spawn. 2013-12-11 22:46:23 | [Rokku117 -> tompreuss] What do we do about these villagers? 2013-12-11 22:46:33 | [tompreuss -> Rokku117] uh 2013-12-11 22:46:35 | [tompreuss -> Rokku117] busy 2013-12-11 22:46:38 | [Rokku117 -> tompreuss] Can we have them? 2013-12-11 22:46:44 | [tompreuss -> Rokku117] busy 2013-12-11 22:46:48 | [Rokku117 -> tompreuss] ok... 2013-12-11 22:46:54 | [tompreuss -> Rokku117] admin hunt 2013-12-11 22:47:01 | [Rokku117 -> tompreuss] I know Another player was also present, but did not use the trade and consequently was not banned. He in fact warned the others that it would be unwise to use the trade. I discovered the use of the bogus trade in the Shopkeepers trading log file, teleport to Rokku117 and deleted the villagers. I misread the log file, due to my unfamiliarity with the plugin, interpreting the number of trades executed as the number of items actually traded, and asked for that many diamonds to be refunded. At which point I had initially thought the matter to be closed, with no significant harm done. In reality, Rokku117 and ghrey303 had each acquired on the order of 1500 diamonds over the course of 18 minutes, trading dirt that they had on hand and what they excavated from the site. When asked about the trade, I clarified in chat that: 2013-12-11 23:06:26 | <totemo> it was a mistake and obviously not intended 2013-12-11 23:06:35 | <Rokku117> Oh. Weird 2013-12-11 23:08:40 | <totemo> it was a test trade that got copied across by mistake 2013-12-11 23:08:44 | <Rokku117> Ahh ok 2013-12-11 23:08:46 | <Rokku117> lmao Immediately after that, Rokku117 decides to discuss the situation with ghrey303 "off the record": 2013-12-11 23:09:31 | ClanChat: [wofficers]<Rokku117> Ghrey do you have xfire or steam,? 2013-12-11 23:09:39 | ClanChat: [wofficers]<ghrey303> steam, yup! ... 2013-12-11 23:11:26 | ClanChat: [wofficers]<Rokku117> Then we shall talk where we arent being recorded Neither Rokku117 nor ghrey303 volunteered any information to staff about the number of diamonds that they had acquired. I subsequently discovered the full extent to which the trade had been utilised in other logs. ghrey303 did not return to his chests because of a desire to exploit the mistake as quickly as possible before they were caught: 2013-12-11 23:32:19 | ClanChat: [whiteoak]<Rokku117> Welp, i guess we need more dirt lol 2013-12-11 23:32:27 | ClanChat: [whiteoak]<ghrey303> I have a double chest still haha 2013-12-11 23:32:31 | ClanChat: [whiteoak]<Rokku117> D: 2013-12-11 23:32:36 | ClanChat: [whiteoak]<Rokku117> Why didnt you grab it! 2013-12-11 23:32:44 | ClanChat: [whiteoak]<Rokku117> Dont worry about it ;D 2013-12-11 23:32:48 | ClanChat: [whiteoak]<ghrey303> because I figured we would be caught by the time I got back When prompted as to whether he might not be telling me everything, Rokku117's response was obtuse. He took a full 10 seconds to think about it: 2013-12-11 23:36:37 | [totemo -> Rokku117] do you need to tell me something mate? 2013-12-11 23:36:47 | [Rokku117 -> totemo] ? Rokku117 and ghrey303 were then banned to prevent them from moving any diamonds, which might complicate recovery. To summarise: Due to schedule pressure, mistakes were made in setting up the special villagers and in correcting those mistakes. Rokku117 and ghrey303 attempted to exploit the situation. Their communication to staff was ambiguous and staff were distracted by seemingly more important matters. I've deliberated on this matter for longer than I would care to admit. I've also consulted with all of the P admins at length, on several occasions over the last few days. One of my difficulties in making a decision on this is that the situation arose as a consequence of mistakes made by myself. The heart of the matter, therefore, is to what degree the players are to be held responsible when such mistakes happen. What I have concluded is that: Though I try to avoid them, mistakes will occasionally happen, particularly when people are under schedule pressure, as occurred with the update to 1.7. You took advantage of these mistakes. Incidentally, I see that Rokku117 has decided to engage in rule lawyering in his appeal: you should by all means try that with a real world judge some time. I'll quote from the PvE rules: "No use of bugs or exploits to gain an advantage over other players". It was a bug in our configuration. End of Story. I consider that bugs are, in fact, inevitable. What matters is not whether they exist or who put them in, but how you as players deal with them. In this instance, you attempted to exploit the situation to the maximum degree and did not volunteer any information that might have been utilised by staff to correct it. Both Rokku117 and ghrey303 assert in their appeals that they were unsure whether the trade was intended or not. I have several thoughts about that: Firstly, no reasonable Minecraft player who is familiar with PvE, as you both are, would consider a trade from dirt to diamonds to be balanced or in keeping with the style of play that the staff have configured. If you wish to argue otherwise, I will be happy to replace all of your diamond gear with the equivalent number of dirt blocks. Secondly, you both acted guiltily. It is clear that you were aware that what you were doing is wrong. Rokku117 decided to discuss what to do with the diamonds off the record; ghrey303 expressed his fear of "getting caught". Overall, you both acted in bad faith. You could easily have avoided a ban by clear communication with staff and by not exploiting the mistake. Ultimately, you gambled on not getting caught and being able to weasel out of it if you were. I'm setting the ban duration to 2 weeks. You can each open an appeal on the 25th of December. Read the rules (http://nerd.nu/rules) in the meantime.

I have a Christmas event for PvE in the works, subject to some final tweaks, testing and approval by the P admins. I did look at a Bukkit plugin a couple of weeks back that implements a special portal to the North Pole, if I remember correctly. There are some cute ideas. However, what I have implemented is unique to Reddit Public. You will not get it anywhere else. And I think you'll enjoy it more.

The normal ban duration for xray is one month. You are due to be unbanned. Please read the rules and reply below stating that you will abide by them. Here are some screenshots of your xray tunnels.

Please read the rules (http://nerd.nu/rules) and reply below when you have done so. Please note that the alternate account that you used to evade the ban will not be unbanned.

The issue with stained glass blocks is that the data value of the block in your hand is set to 0 when you break those blocks. It was present for stained glass panes, podzol, the new flowers and dark oak leaves. I upgraded WorldEdit to an unstable build, which fixed the issue for everything except stained glass blocks at this stage. That part of the problem will take some time to track down.

We're busy at the moment sorting out the exact details of what was done. However, lack of communication would seem to be more your problem than my own, considering that you and Rokku117 exploited this mistake to the tune of nearly 7 stacks of diamond blocks and were not at all forthcoming with that information. I will determine the exact details and discuss this more fully when my priorities allow.

So what is your relationship to PunchMyTree? How come you always share the same IP?

I'm posting to simply acknowledge the appeal but have much to do today. I will deal with it within 48 hours.

It would be handy. I wondered whether having players bounce around with a compass would be a hindrance to following griefers, but then they can already /home and /warp all over the map. Tentatively in favour, but I'll wait and see what the other side of the argument is before voting.

Whereas the phrasing is rather succinct and informal the purpose of the rule is clear, and without it the people who cause us the most problems would cause us further consternation by productively arguing that their behaviour was within the scope of the written rules. Aint nobody got time fo dat. Here are some relevant discussions by other server owners for comparison: It may surprise you to know that "don't be a dick" is not unique to the reddit server: http://www.reddit.com/r/admincraft/comments/18yetn/server_rules/ For contrast, an opposing opinion on "don't be a dick": http://www.reddit.com/r/admincraft/comments/18zfh9/tutorial_server_rules_the_right_way/ http://www.reddit.com/r/admincraft/comments/1s7r9y/whats_the_worst_type_of_player_youve_dealt_with/ http://www.reddit.com/r/admincraft/comments/1h4xua/server_rules_opinions_suggestions/ http://www.reddit.com/r/admincraft/comments/1psvnd/lets_talk_behaviorpunishmentsstaff/ http://www.reddit.com/r/admincraft/comments/1r9g82/how_to_defend_against_hordes_of_bad/ Here's the Minecon 2013 "Running a Server" panel, which I watched a few weeks ago. I can't recall if they address catch-all rules or not, but it's worth a watch, regardless. And this is not directly related to the topic at hand, but it came up in my search and I enjoyed it so much that I'm gonna link it here just to be a dick. http://www.reddit.com/r/admincraft/comments/zthhg/the_top_lies_of_smp_players/

This is cool. What about updating the subreddit title image with a montage, in addition?

So let's sort this out. Skewer: you have the same IP address as PunchMyTree. You're the same person, aren't you?

So the VanishNoPacket developer got back to me and it turns out that VNP was deliberately caching player permissions and therefore does not deal with players who change their permissions unless we make special provisions. I have changed ModMode accordingly and vanishing now works as expected.

First off, I'm concerned that cyotie911 may have jumped the gun a bit in closing Skewer's appeal (https://nerd.nu/forum/index.php?/topic/1291-skewer-totemo/). Is Skewer your alt? You have the same IP.

I made no attempt to do any more about that. If it was not fixed by build 120 (we've been on it for a while) then it's not fixed. It seems to be an issue caused by the permissions changes associated with ModMode transition. I'll raise a bug against the VanishNoPacket plugin and see if that gets us anywhere. EDIT: https://github.com/mbax/VanishNoPacket/issues/478#issuecomment-30074940

We've been testing Spigot builds for a while now as well as tracking the major bugs in vanilla and/or Bukkit. Things are starting to look pretty good. The crashes generating ice spikes, for instance, some duplication glitches and some major problems caused by async command execution are fixed. My feeling is that we are pretty close to being able to go to 1.7 with confidence and that it would be a shame not to have a 1.7-generated map. But please be aware that many staff have sunk considerable time into creating a nice map for 1.6.4 and it will take a few days to rework that for 1.7 (pasting in spawn, smoothing up terrain, fixing regions, roads, portals, secrets). As to 1.7 client mod support: there's no MCP yet and hence, no Forge. It's livable for a little while, on the assumption that it's not far off, but honestly it's anybody's guess really. Someone ask SeargeMP how he's going.

The way that ModMode handles vanishing for admins (that you always join vanished) has been bothering me for a while. In addition, the requirement on Moderators to vanish the first time they enter ModMode, and to remember to revanish if they temporarily unvanish during a ModReq strikes me as wrong. So I've fixed it and will be installing this build of ModMode shortly. From the commit message on GitHub: Refinements to vanish behaviour for Moderators and Admins. For both types of staff: Always vanish when entering ModMode. Join silently if logged out vanished. Moderators:Keep vanish state (vanished or visible) across logins.Admins: Always vanish if joining the server in ModMode. Keep vanish state across logins (vanished or visible) when not in ModMode. The upshot of all this is: Nobody needs to change their vanish state in order to be certain of being vanished when they enter ModMode. It will just "do the right thing". Admins can signify that they want to join silently and vanished by logging out in their normal mode vanished, or by logging out in ModMode (vanished or not). To show a login message, leave ModMode and ensure you are unvanished before logging out.

Please fill in your correct player name next time when you appeal again and maintain a civil tone when addressing or referring to staff. Since you evaded your ban on Chaos on the 23rd and 24th I'm extending your ban by two weeks and taking over your ban. Re-appeal to me on the 19th of December, using your correct in-game name and don't be a dick about it.

Mrloud15 has pointed out to me that your in-game user name is PvtSnowball971 and that you have a current xray ban which I now recall. https://nerd.nu/forum/index.php?/topic/1164-pvtsnowball971-trooprm32/?hl=pvtsnowball971

Is this a mumble ban? Do you know who banned you? You don't have any in-game bans. http://mcbouncer.com/user/PvtSnowball

slide and I have been working on a BungeeCord setup for Survival, and ultimately all the servers. If you're not familiar with it, BungeeCord is a proxy that sits in front of the Minecraft server and handles all incoming clients. It can dispatch clients to a specific server and allows them to switch servers with a command. BungeeCord also supports its own kind of plugins (different from Bukkit plugins) and we've installed Deaygo's MCBouncer plugin. It's a subset of the MCBouncer you're used to. The only supported commands are: /kick <player> [optional reason] /ban <player> [optional reason] /lookup <player>

Following up on that: There is no API in Bukkit that allows us to get or set a horse's speed. Since that functionality is not covered by the Bukkit API, we would have to resort to a plugin that manipulates the Mojang net.minecraft.server ("NMS") classes directly, which are specific to a particular version of Minecraft and therefore presents an additional obstacle to upgrading the server when a Bukkit build becomes available. We are trying to avoid the use of NMS classes in our own code and avoid the use of plugins that use them because they take more time and effort to update with each new Minecraft version. EDIT: buzzie and I must have been reading those API docs at more or less the same instant. =D

dobreira was asking me these exact questions today, actually. Allowing horses to be damaged while ridden is by design. Perhaps the implementation could be improved for PvE by giving the option of disabling player-vs-horse damage for P. The current mechanism was implemented with applicability to either S or P in mind. It's not possible at this time to give an exact replacement of a horse. I don't even know if there is a Bukkit API that enumerates those statistics, but we certainly don't log them.