Jump to content

thrawn21

Members
  • Posts

    105
  • Joined

Everything posted by thrawn21

  1. thrawn21

    PvE Map Poll

    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.
  2. Might just be a hiccup, none of your posts are hidden.
  3. Oooh I dig that idea.
  4. I agree, we'd just need to figure out what sort of budget is reasonable for the kind of advertising planned.
  5. 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.
  6. What about three teams? Still leaves the tactical side in, with hopefully less of one team being left in the dust.
  7. Welcome to our new moderators! Magnyus SwitchViewz djt832 TheKingDuff smdavis93 dizney07 kiwi99 Subreddit thread here
  8. 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.
  9. Alrighty, vote's been up a week, going to close it now and we'll have the final results posted within a weeks time.
  10. 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.
  11. 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.
  12. 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/ :)
  13. 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 :)
  14. 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.
  15. You then turned to allegations of Player A hacking. I said that if you had evidence regarding that, I would welcome seeing it and you said that you had a video that showed him hacking while pvping you. I asked to see it, but you said that you would rather post it on the subreddit instead. I asked that you not do that, for a) we do not want to start a witchunt against anyone and b) material related to bans does not belong on the subreddit. You then said that you would post the video anyways, calling it a "Let's Play," to which I advised you not to, and asked again that you send the video to myself or another admin. This ended the conversation on mumble, but when you returned to the game you continued to provoke Player A and make sexual jokes regarding him and his sister. I witnessed this in-game and messaged you To which you responded: At no point here did Player A contact me, and I had said so. MrLoud15 then informed me on irc that he had already warned you for your sexual comments towards Player A, and knowing that he was not the only one to have done so, I then banned you.
  16. Your third modreq was prefaced by this: Which was closed by MrLoud15 with "Discussed via mumble with you and thrawn." While you have at this point made three frivolous "harassment" modreqs, you mock the one serious one made by Player A: MrLoud15 contacts you later (a discussion which leads to a conversation between yourself, him and I in mumble which the closed msgs refer to) Again, you do not seem serious regarding this matter, with "dw about it, pop a molly or somthinf" and "I have an evil twin named Archiuz." At this point MrLoud15 asks me to hop in mumble with him, and I join the discussion with you two. I sorely wish I had recorded the conversation, for it was filled with what seems to be a pattern of you treating harassment charges in a mocking manner, and using them as an alternate venue for conflict (with phrases similar to "if he starts modreqing me, I'll get back at him"). MrLoud15 and I had both been under the impression that that discussion was to be regarding the current issue, but instead you told us that two months ago Player A outed an alt of yours on another server's subreddit, which was then linked in our mumble. You wanted us to ban Player A for doxxing your alt, but the subreddit link you gave us had been removed, and we do not ban for outing alts. From the rules: We both told you that it was not okay of Player A to have revealed your alt, but because the link was now empty (and had nothing but yours and a couple other player's word as to what it contained) and there was no further evidence of Player A continuing to harass you, there was not much we could do about the matter.
  17. You then file this modreq: Which was closed by MrLoud15 with "Discussed via mumble with you and thrawn." I looked into all the instances of Player A saying "maddy baddy" to see if it was possibly a racist or homophobic reference and found no reason to believe so, and in addition it has been applied to multiple people, and so does not seem to be a personally directed insult. At this point you mention Player A's modreq, and a Player D suggests you might get banned for it. Your second modreq, sparked by this statement: Which was closed by cab417 with: "There is the command for a reason. Don't want to hear him, /ignore come in handy." A couple hours later, MrLoud15 contacts you "and have not said anything since" -at this point this statement is true, you had not made any more incest jokes after being asked to stop by kitcatbar. However, you follow this with: Again, showing little respect for a matter which we staff take very seriously.
  18. Apologies for the delay. I banned you for repeated harassment of a player (who will be referred to as Player A) after multiple warnings. At this point Player A submitted this modreq: Which was closed by MrLoud15 with "Discussed via /m" Here are excerpts from that conversation: ‚ÄčI will be pursuing logs from that time, but feel that there is a very strong harassment case with just the material from the past few days. Here you were warned by kitcatbar, a Padmin. You mention being harassed by Player A, but at this point have made no modreqs nor other statements in chat regarding it. You also treat a serious matter in a flippant manner, with "that's what my lawyer said" and "yes ok mrs admin sir."
  19. Apologies for the delay. You were banned because you set off our No Cheat Plus warnings (which inform the mods when a player's client behaves oddly) on multiple occasions, and had been investigated by and warned against hacking by other mods. I took screenshots of you and your NCP flags, however I'd made the mistake of attempting to take these screenshots with my chat open, which in 1.7 does not work, and so they did not save. It's my screwup, and I would not want to keep a person banned without proper evidence, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and unban you. As a side note, you had also been warned and rolledback for minor crop grief, so please remember to always replant :)
  20. Barneygale, your actions in the past can be considered damnable, and you know that you have hurt many members of this community with your continuous violations of trust. However, the heads have conferred and decided to allow you back into irc, the subreddit, and the forums. That being said, I'd like you to consider this your one and only trial run. You will not yet be permitted back onto the nerd servers, but as we continue to build trust we will eventually revisit that limitation. We understand that you have not necessarily kept to the statutes of your previous ban - circumventing it with alts on the subreddit and in-game as recently as a few days ago. However as a sign of good faith, we are willing to look past that. On the opposite side, if you violate this trust again in any way or incite drama whilst in this trial period you will be removed and not welcome back under any circumstance. While we understand and appreciate concerns being brought forth, it needs to be done in a manner that does not induce such uproar within the community - this does not solve anything. This is your final appeal. After this there will be no more chances. Please refresh yourself with the rules thoroughly, reply here stating your understanding, and we will begin the unbanning process.
  21. All wrapped up, and here's the welcome thread!
  22. Hrmm, good idea, I'll look into that.
  23. Heyo everyone, in the continuous effort to improve transparency and keep the community in the loop, I've put into action an idea that's been bouncing around in my head for ages, and that is to have a personal head admin log. I'll be doing my best to write down what I've done as a head admin at the end of each day (and remind me if I forget!). A lot of head's job deals with personal conversations and private info, so I'll be writing these all in "corporate-speak" to try to balance between letting the general player base know what I've been doing as a head, and protecting the privacy of the people and problems dealt with. If you don't mind being named in an entry, just let me know and I will edit it. Likewise, if I have named you where you'd prefer not to be, I'll gladly remove it. Feedback is welcome!
  24. Alrighty, voting is closed, thanks to everyone who put their vote in. The heads will confer regarding the results here and pm's received, and will post the final results in a few days. :)
  25. I screwed up with the first poll and forgot to check the "make vote public" box, which doesn't seem to be undo-able, sorry to the 8 people who had already cast their vote on the other one :( My apologies for the delay, went straight from work to a friend's house yesterday and honestly forgot to post :P These following people are up for consideration for the mod position: Buchanman MrGauthier34 IDANUB Kiwi99 gdavison Mattgorecki CROCKODUCK sansapants Magnyus All players: If you have any comments (positive or negative) regarding these candidates, you are more than welcome to contact a Head Admin. All mods: Understand that a Yes vote means you would want this person in a mod position. A No vote can either mean that you do not want this person in a mod position, or you do not know them well enough to say. Voting will close on October 25th, a week from today. At that point, the Heads will gather the results of the vote and any pm's and then post the final results, and our new mods!
×
×
  • Create New...