thrawn21

Here's a place where you can look as cartos of old maps: http://redditpublic.com/carto/pve/ totemo, I think you might be thinking of rev 11's map (which was my absolute favorite to build), as rev 8's was wcs and I's first foray into world painter. Personally, I love a totally crazy landscape with secrets and specialty biomes, but on a larger map it would be easier to cater to multiple terrain tastes. You'll notice rev 11's map is only 4k, an 8k map would give map builders four times more area with which to work.

Might just be a hiccup, none of your posts are hidden.

Oooh I dig that idea.

I agree, we'd just need to figure out what sort of budget is reasonable for the kind of advertising planned.

Yeah, inactivity is something that we heads do recognise is a problem, and will be making changes to the head admin team in the near future that will hopefully help.

What about three teams? Still leaves the tactical side in, with hopefully less of one team being left in the dust.

Welcome to our new moderators! Magnyus SwitchViewz djt832 TheKingDuff smdavis93 dizney07 kiwi99 Subreddit thread here

Got open ears for suggestions, some complaints and ideas were brought up in the MCP thread and as soon as I'm past finals, I plan on pursuing them in a public thread. Yeah, it is nice to be able to remove the ambiguity with definitive "No's," but I'm afraid of it adding a bit more fuzziness to the final decision in terms of how much the "Don't know" votes should be counted against a candidate (if at all). With just yes and no, the headadmin call is just "where do we think the line should be drawn? 60% yes? 65%? 70%?" But with both no and don't know, it's not as easy to decide that, and it's something the heads are going to have to sort out with this vote.

Alrighty, vote's been up a week, going to close it now and we'll have the final results posted within a weeks time.

My personal opinion on the matter is that I prefer two-option voting. My reasoning was to try to give the mod who votes No (and means no) an out in case of this kind of situation: Player B: "Hey Mod, why'd you vote No on Player A? Mod: "Oh I just didn't feel I knew them well enough to say yes." I'm sure you can imagine a nastier version of this conversation happening, and I wanted to protect mods from that. However, I know this doesn't work when the mod and Player A do in fact know each other well. The reasoning for the three option voting is to make things clearer, both for tallying up the votes and making the final decision and for non-staff who are watching the voting.

Heyo everyone! As per this new mod vote, we'd like some feedback on the change to three option voting. If you have any opinions on the matter, or suggestions for improvement, we'd love to hear them.

We're trying out a bit of a change with this round of mod voting. Traditionally there have only been two choices: Yes and No, with No encompassing both "I don't think this person should be a mod" and "I don't know this person well enough to say." Splitting the No option has been discussed on and off for a long time and so we decided to try it, and see if it improves the voting process. I'll be posting a feedback thread for all players here regarding this change. As always, if you have any concerns regarding any of the mod nominees, please contact a headadmin. If you know of someone who you think would make a good mod, you're more than welcome to submit their name at http://nerd.nu/applyformod/ :)

Apologies for the delay, I banned you for griefing on the first day of a C rev a while ago. Regardless of who is playing, you are responsible for your account. Because the griefing was not major, I'll unban you right now. Please familiarize yourself with, and follow the rules at nerd.nu/rules and have fun :)

Because I have been friendly with Player A in the past, after these next comments I will be passing on the handling of this ban appeal to another head admin. As a side note, our rules state: However, as I was combing through the logs I found strong evidence that you were in fact spawn camping on multiple occasions. In addition, I wanted to mention that I do recognise a difference between "standard S banter" and harassing speech. In the logs I found these interactions between yourself and Player A which I would consider normal shit talking between two pvper's. However, the insults and innuendos (especially after being asked repeatedly to stop) you've thrown at Player A are way beyond the acceptable line. A Sadmin is more than welcome to weigh in further on this point if they would like. My final point is that I did not just look at your side of the conversation. I searched Player A's logs for any returned harassment and found nothing I would consider questionable. I would ask that the head admin who takes over this appeal check that for themselves.