tobylane

Is it worth having someone else already dislike something about you before you ever have a chance to make a direct first impression? It's very public for a private joke. Maybe it doesn't suit being in public, but I would like you to think about one of the times a head admin was defensive about your idea rather than your attitude in an objective way. If you still find something substantial then tell another admin.

Lag and the questionable outcomes of it. I was building a half slab platform which has always been a frustrating experience. Usually it just meant I'd drop for a split second then be rubber banded back to the piece I just placed. But recently there seems to have been a change where if you are standing on one half slab you can be occupying the space for one right next to it. This means you can place the block, move onto it, then be in the way of it and the server removes it. I died about once per hundred slabs even going slowly.

Jchance said don't do what other people see as a sign of a label you don't want. Eehee said people should have a thicker skin. I was implying that everyone should notice that their first view is subjective and possibly argumentative, and try to form an objective view.

It depends what the current version of spigot is trying to be. Since 1.7 its changed from seeing naturally made blocks only, to bedrock only, to no bedrock. I think 1.8.1 is bedrock only.

Plus a fusion drive.

When it tries to fly out of the region it becomes inert and loses all momentum?

Because apparently this is a Bridges thread, and the new Tron is underloved.

Darkelmo could you match up what the problems are and the evidence (your summary is good enough) for it, I'm struggling to understand what you've said but I think it can be useful. edit: What I'm trying to say is that, to roughly quote someone else recently, it seems like you're angry and trying to find something to blame. Show me something objective or I'll just wave away things you say as angry and biased, because that appears to be the case.

Because you think I disregard what you say because of how you say it, it's OK for you to disregard what I say because you don't like it? If I'm saying it wrong, please reword what I said, keeping the same intention, but in a way you find acceptable. Just like I did for your ban appeal a few weeks ago. An admin may have biases, just like you may have biases. The general assumption, like in life, is that the people in charge are (relatively) in control of their biases. It would be really egotistical to assume that you're always better at that than they are. You were planning to launch a minecraft server a few months ago. Maybe if you went through with that you'd get some useful experience of being on the other side.

If an admin said that you shouldn't have said dickhead, then yes a simplistic but safe rule would be to not say dickhead, including nicknames. When you learn the ability to have a sensible way of playing around near the edge of the rules then do so if you really must (but don't stay there all the time), but I don't think you're there yet. Your words working against you and you being who you are are the same thing, the only difference is the point of view.

I quoted Mag talking about Darkelmo earlier because it applies to you too. Your choice of words for getting your point across are working against you. This community has many friendly disagreements, but its when people start talking like you and Darkelmo that it becomes unfriendly disagreements. There is a impossible to measure thickness of skin that I believe the admins have determined. Because it's impossible to measure it's a "I'll know it when I see it" thing. Below this, a person could be told you were harsh but not too much. Over this line they could be told you were too harsh, don't do that again. You can have your own line, but you should only live by it in communities you set the rules for. I still consider this on topic, because what I think is toxic is people making up their own standards of acceptable behaviour and the outcomes of that.

I'm talking to Eehee on mumble, and posting/summarising bits here with his permission. I'll clarify, you don't have the right to say whatever you want however you want. You can't stick racial epithets between every other world because there is a hard rule against that. You can't call the entire staff the harem of Notch,because that's needlessly inflammatory, even though there isn't a rule against it. It's the admins prerogative to create, keep and use the don't be a dick rule. You're disagreeing with that. You're wanting there to be a rule against rude names on IRC if we don't want you to use them in a rational conversation. It's basic decency. I'm unable to detail that any further because any time I've needed to it's either to an adult who knows what the real world expects of them (and can accept that the online world expects the same at times), or a young child who will come to learn it soon. You're admitting non-specific guilt, but say that there's no one area that you did wrong/could change. I'm wondering if I should bother continuing, if you want to have something to rebel against then you'll always find something. I'm not wording my side perfectly, but you're picking fault with words that are a perspective. I think you're being argumentative, you may not. But why bother disagreeing with a perspective?

Eehee you don't have the right to say what you want so say it in a nice way. If (perspective) you are being so unproductive in trying to get your point across we can assume you don't care about the point and just want to be angry. You're wasting time and relative dimension in space just to be angry, so that is why you get told to shut up, or get silenced. Once you are being productive, getting your point across in a non-antagonistic way, it'll be fruitful and you will be better for it.

I can't, but I don't need to. Now your turn. Mag I don't believe Eehee was a problem when he first joined, I think I knew him on C as a reasonable person. Maybe he got 'mad' when he was first banned, maybe he just copied what others did for a laugh and went overboard. A ban is a ban and you're not living with it, you're trying to raise hell to prove you never did anything hellish.

Eehee if you're talking about when you used the nickname oi_dickhead as evidence you can be tame but get called toxic, then there's so little you'll agree on with the staff. It may be better for you to just accept that and stop trying to 'correct' their idea of what is acceptable behaviour on the servers they are administrating. You're welcome to think you're right as well, but that doesn't stop the admins thinking they are right, and them acting on that.

For clarification, what is your idea of on topic for this? For carrying on with the last topic, are we OK with calling it toxic for the time being, or will there be research papers written about the 250 words we used instead?

Yes a flow diagram please, as long as each point is given something more substantial than 'inconsistencies that some people see'.

Have you really?

In no particular order - idiot, imbecile, moron, stupid, mentally disabled, mentally challenged, moral defectives, feeble-minded, retard, special, lunatic, dumb. Here's a paper listing 250 https://www.academia.edu/5358888/250_labels_used_to_stigmatise_people_with_mental_illness. I'm not calling you any of these. They are all words that were once the official description of a group of conditions, but people mis-used the term and we needed to find a new one. Low IQ isn't avoidable. Being toxic is avoidable.

People love to cross the line, then say the line is blurry and are they really over it? Is there anything in this area you have a problem with that you, or a neutral bystander wouldn't see as a reaction to something a player did? If you want the topic closed just because someone stress tested your argument then was it really strong enough to post in the first place? Have a pm with a head admin on IRC where you can name names, that way you can be specific and not unhelpfully broad.

Could you describe how you'd separate selective enforcement, lack of any perfect objective viewpoint, prior history, moderator discretion and ban commutes?

The problem comes up when players, usually long term, get banned for something that they know is in the second book, is in the current rules, but as it's not in the short-form they don't follow it. Or those same people over-defend newbies who just go by the first book. How about a server message to a new player of each revision that says something like "You are bound by both books, it will be assumed you read both" - 30 seconds after they join and when they drop/chest those books?

Unce's problem, if I understand him right, is that it is assumed staff don't give permission. That the staff member doesn't need to say anything for a complaint to be made from them.

How would you draw the line between the two? It's a fuzzy line where the admins lose out heavily if they get it wrong.

It's an issue other people thought of. I'm just repeating their thoughts. I don't see how spawn and exit matters. They won't read signs and books, we've covered that heavily before. They could get annoyed at slower mining when they go to it, as it is fundamental.