Silversunset01

Hermits can come to haven too, we've always got freebies to share with people :D

Hahahahahahaha Looks like a visual glitch client side if you don't have the newer version of minecraft we fiddled with that last.

I guess just grab one of us when you're around. Not the best solution but it may be what we have to work with for now. :/

Again, we are actively going through all of the suggestions, concerns, and requests that have been posted here. I have spent quite a bit of time combing through the forums, the subreddit threads, and polls and pulling together a list that the padmins have been using to make sure we catch everything. We are trying to work out all of the hard answers to make any changes we implement as fair as possible to everyone. Let us do that. And if, when we have it finished, you're still unbearably unhappy with policies, we can discuss it some more.

Entirely possible. The big problem with that is no matter what math we use we still have to account for username padding (inactive, nonexistent, players who belong to multiple towns). Twilexis posed some very good questions about that, which I'm not sure can be answered without a lot of nitpicking and oversight. I really want to reiterate - we are trying to get rev 16 finished up. We can sit here and nitpick rules and math and player count all day long or we can get back to the policy discussions we've already started to finalize policies which I think will address a good amount of the concerns people have shown.

I am replying here only to expand on twilexis post, and to make it a little easier to visualize. There are some large towns who can easily have 50+ people on perms. Here is some math: 250/5 = 50m sq per player. 50m x 50players = 2500m sq So essentially a handful of large towns (or towns who add alts, nonexistent players, duplicate players, etc) could claim the entire map. And everyone else would be out of luck. I hope that helps clarify why this is not a rule that can be implemented in that manner.

Have you posted the link in-game? not everyone visits the subreddit as much as they are in game.

I believe i said that in a previous post, or something similar, that one must have been skipped over. we have been discussing rule changes for a good amount of time even before this post. The constant jabs about situations that have already been (or are currently being) resolved does nothing to further the situation.

When build removals concern an active player we like to try to make contact first before just tearing it down. As I believe we have discussed, under the current ruleset any modification to a players build without their consent constitutes grief. We have been in discussions over policy changes, however until those changes have been implemented the current rules stand as written. The rules are not written just because admins like to be bossy. They are done with the intent of making as little work as possible for those enforcing them. Repeated disregard for them is what makes more work for staff, not the rules themselves. If you have suggestions for rule changes, you're more than welcome to make a post about them in a constructive manner and we're more than happy to review them. This thread obviously shows there are some revisions to be made, however we can't just make them because a small group of people demand them. We as padmins have to make sure that all of the questions are asked and answered to keep the experience fair for everyone, not just those who are the most vocal.

zomise didn't you hear? we're changing the server address to haven.nerd.nu ;D

plz to not build closer than 5km to haven. It makes the residents jumpy. In all seriousness we've got some pretty decent things hashed out. We still have a bit of discussion left to iron out a few wrinkles but I'm hoping all of this will be finished up soon.

To get back to the original topic, let me address each of your suggestions separately Allow players the freedom to do anything they want outside of griefing. I think what you are really asking for here is a looser definition of what griefing is. According to our rules, griefing is essentially the modification of something that you did not build, without the permission of the original builder. I really don't know how to better define it that is fair to everyone involved. Any region or build that hasn't been touched within one month should be cleared for removal, so others can use the property. This is an interesting proposition, however it does come with some challenges. How do you propose the builds be removed and who will do the removing? If we leave that decision and action on players it can cause a whole host of problems, not the least being that if/when the original builder does return and modreq the removal as grief mods will see that it was removed by another player and place a warning on the remover. Safest bet would be staff intervention, but to that end: how do we decide which builds stay? Just the ones that someone doesn’t like? There are quite a few very impressive and useful builds (such as the end grinder) where the owner may or may not be available or active in the immediate area, should that be removed? There are also less-impressive builds by players who may not have the same skill as others, who decides when these stay or go? The biggest challenge I can see, if we could overcome those obstacles is the time commitment. Having builds ‘age’ and be removed is a huge challenge, time wise. This would likely take up a good chunk of playtime from staff which isn’t fair to someone in a volunteer position. Allow players to place running water and lava. I can see how this is annoying, however I think the benefits outweigh some of the annoyances. Things like water and lava grief, even accidentally, are all too easy to do. Staff could potentially be spending an enormous amount of time cleaning up leaks if something goes haywire. I know that behind the scenes this is something that does come up as a topic for potential change, and i’m sure if a better solution does become available in the future it will be implemented. Keep "fire spread" off, so running lava doesn't cause destruction. Fire spread is already off, no worries here! Allow city builders to reserve and protect large areas of land ahead of time ... or as soon as they spawn in and find a location. This also seems to be one of the main points of contention. How do you propose towns reserve land? Are you looking to have it protected with a region, or some other means? the current popular method is for a player/town to fence or wall in the area they wish to build in and then start building. most players will honor this as a claim. Rarely someone will not, and a land dispute may arise out of it if players are not able to come to an agreement on their own, and at that point an admin would be more than happy to assist in moderation. I understand the desire to know that your desired area will remain untouched until you are ready for it, however there are a few challenges to this proposal that make it difficult to implement. The most obvious being that there are often more desirable areas to build (directly outside spawn, around a portal, on a main road, etc) - what happens if someone claims all of the most desirable land for themselves. Other players i’m sure would be angry with this, as it would be unfair to them. And what happens if the town goes inactive - is there some system in place to un-claim this land? What if we can’t get in touch with the mayor of the town, and they come back and see their ‘claim’ has been used? There are so many ways that this can end badly that the easiest solution is to not have official land claims at all. The same would go for large swaths of land outside of the normal ‘desired’ area (not on a main road, far from spawn, etc). There is enough map space available that everyone should be able to find a place to build without overrunning anyone else. Only use moderators for griefing, region protections, "harassment issues" and land disputes. Harassment and land disputes really fall more into the admin responsibilities as they often time require a better understanding of current policies, but otherwise that is the moderator's job. in addition they flow water and lava, help players who are stuck, and keep an eye on general chat to make sure that no one is breaking the few chat rules we have. My last thought is this: Rules and policies that were in place in the past may have been changed or updated to reflect current opinions on the server. There are reasons behind it, staff doesn’t just make changes because they feel like it. Everything we do is very intentionally done in the best interest of the server to provide a fair and enjoyable gaming environment for everyone who comes. When we find rules that no longer apply or are out of sync with the server culture they should be changed, and from your post it seems like some of our current policies may need to be revisited. That does not mean they will change overnight, or even into the form you think you want at this point in time. We as admins need to make sure that the rules we put in place are fair to everyone, not just a small portion of the server. But we do look at them, and we do discuss them, even if it is not apparent at the time. We play on these servers in the same way that you do, we are subject to the same rules. The only difference is that not only do we have to play by them, but we must also enforce them fairly amongst all players. That in itself can be challenging, but I believe that we all do it as fairly as we can, to the best of our ability. I look forward to your response, it may give us some guidance on policy changes that can be used to better the experience for everyone.

I agree - I would think that sort of metric would only be a concern if there are mods online with a queue building. But i know there have been plenty of times when i was on with 1 other mod and due to my amazing internet lag i wouldn't be able to claim *any* modreqs (by the time i'd see them in chat they'd already be filled). We just need to be careful we are taking that into consideration or else it may become more of an argument over reqs.

I do like the revised policy a bit better, it creates more opportunities for communication amongst staff and allows for real life to happen. To sir_didymus point in the mod forum we have to be careful about not just counting modreqs as some members are quite quick to scoop them up, or are just on at the right time. And some help out with grief that isn't always clear in reqs. As long as all of that is taken into consideration I don't see anything out of place with the reworded policy.

inb4 everyone fighting over flowreqs.

I won't be able to make that one, 9am my time I'll be happily (lies) at work :) it went well last week, they ended up playing cards against humanity with no drama. Good luck!

that unfortunately is not me. i'm not good with "landscapes" yet :D

I know you're working hard on this policy, I just want to throw my $0.02 in. It's quick don't worry. I would think you'd want to have a "job description" (for lack of a better word) in place before you would be able to determine if someone was or was not doing it.

could you clarify, as i am just now coming into this - what sort of events are you envisioning players hosting? currently on P there are quite a few spleef and deathmatches hosted that run fine with no intervention at all, so i'm wondering if you're referring to these events or something additional. - event tools: > easy signs: what would these be used for? are you talking of things like gear or notifications? > broadcast: would this be to announce the event, or run during the event periodically? > Teleportation: this would only really be an issue for S and P, as they do not currently have teleportation. where are you envisioning this to happen?

Just make a giant pond and copy and paste the cat tails everywhere!

Would you be looking to include only current staff or non staff as well? The only concerns I'd have about having non-staff helping out is that their eteam perms need to be structured in a way that only allows them to be used on e for those purposes (ex: I wouldn't want to give someone helping on an event but who may not be a moderator permissions on any of the other servers that any non staff member wouldn't have). It sounds like an interesting idea but I'd just be cautious that it doesn't become a back door for people to get abilities they wouldn't normally get.

I hope we don't need to cancel too. I agree a few simple rules can't hurt, especially if we want to keep it going.

You can text in mumble, don't see why not.

Oh geeze I missed that :) excellent!

So...is there a fireside chat tomorrow/Saturday? If so what time? Hadn't seen the official post yet and wanted to plan.