Jump to content

Narissis

Members
  • Posts

    171
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Narissis

  1. Yeah, Didy mentioned the idea of having it be filled with Creeper spawners. I'm thinking... malfunctioning replicator machines pumping out copies of extraterrestrial life - AKA creepers. And the idea I mentioned would tie into a light parkour needed to reach the final objective. I'll probably start work on it as soon as I connect the road I'm building on P. :)
  2. So I've never actually built or even entered a buff tower before. Is the idea to create a sort of challenge where the player has to reach an objective to activate the buff? If so, I have the perfect idea in mind for the space battle...
  3. Damnit Twi, It's called Friday Night Gaming for a reason! :P
  4. Individual perspective is always going to exist; that's a side-effect of moderation by human beings and not robots. Regarding this particular ban, I feel it should be pointed out that you were given the opportunity to repair the blocks that you broke. Instead, you logged out when you were asked. Because you were uncooperative, you received a ban for griefing. The fact that it was only two blocks is irrelevant; the rules are clear that you should not be modifying other players' structures without consent. You could have avoided this ban by being proactive and replacing the logs when you were asked. That you deem the structure rule-breaking is also irrelevant; as has been pointed out to you, the proper course of action in this case would be to modreq the rule-breaking structure and let the staff sort it out for you. I'm also under the impression that the structure in question was accessible from another route (though I may be mistaken about this). If that is the case, then it was not rule-breaking. The rule states that structures need to be accessible; it does not state that structures need to be accessible from any and all angles. If there's an entrance to a structure and you want to gain access to it, then it's up to you to locate the entrance, not to make your own. I recognize that there is always room for improvement in moderation and ban enforcement policies, but if you're going to advocate for change, you need to own up to the reality of what happened in the incident that provoked your advocacy. Please don't play the victim card and make out like you were unfairly targeted when you have multiple instances of rule-breaking behaviour on your record and were even given (and subsequently flaunted) the opportunity to avoid the punishment entirely by simply fixing the two blocks in question.
  5. UNP, since you seem to have a hard time understanding why we're always calling you "toxic" and confrontational, allow me to assist you by rewriting your suggestion above (which is not a bad idea) in a way that is not toxic and confrontational: "If there's no way to get proof of cause of death and restore items directly, how about a policy whereby players can request a teleport back to their death coordinates to recover their items before they despawn? The rule could be that this option is available only after a noticeable lag spike, in order to prevent abuse." Notice how I did not sarcastically insult the people to whom the suggestion is being made, or accuse them of being actively malicious for no particular reason.
  6. Narissis

    PvE protections

    UNP, I don't think there's anything that anybody can say to you that will make you finally understand that it's not your opinion that gets you criticized and/or banned, but the confrontational way in which you communicate it. Anyway, more to the point of this discussion, I don't know if there is a way to make this issue objective. Whether a build is "hastily made" or not will ultimately come down to mod discretion; that's just how it is. To zburd's suggestion, how are we to judge whether a build took one hour or six? Different players build at different speeds. I probably spent about six hours building the foundations and framing the arch for my giant bridge; another player might barely complete a pier in the same time if their access to resources is less. Here's my thought on the matter: judgement on protections ought to be based more on permanence than on effort. Meaning that if it's plain that a build is an attempt to claim land (only just started, or a bunch of cobblederp shacks scattered over valuable land for instance), it should not be protected. But if the build appears to be something meant to remain in the long term, even if it's a small or "hasty" structure, it should be eligible for protection. Taking beedo's structures above for example: the little house and farm may be small, but they're not going anywhere. They're plainly intended to remain as-is. I feel like this should be protected. If someone griefed it, we'd roll it back anyway. So why not take the measure pre-emptively? The town hall I would say needs a little more construction because it obviously has a lot of growing yet to do and is nowhere near the state in which it will be complete. But I wouldn't ask for a whole lot more work than what's in it so far. Even if the builder never finishes a structure, it's still griefing to damage the work-in-progress. So why is that structure not eligible for protection just because it's only 50% done instead of 100%? If the building languishes and the player abandons it and an admin removes it down the road, it can't be that much trouble to remove the region at the same time. Obviously we shouldn't be protecting big empty plots with scrambled derp buildings, but what's the harm in issuing a small region to protect a little build that's clearly intended to be a permanent structure?
  7. Didy has asked me if I'd like to do the center buff 'tower'... so, uh, I guess I'm doing that.
  8. I will be hosting a big Spleef event in the End on Saturday, in the 5 hours leading up to the opening of Creative's new revision. Come say goodbye to PvE Rev 15 and hello to a new Creative Rev with a fun-filled afternoon of spleefing! Events start at 2:00PM EDT and continue until the Creative restart at 7:00PM. The top prize: I will come to your town and build you a spleef stadium in PvE Rev 16! For more details, check out the Reddit post here.
  9. This. There's a curly pube in front of your spacebar, for crying out loud.
  10. I'll be driving all the way to Toronto for Brickfete, so I'll be offline from July 1st until Tuesday or Wednesday the following week. Try not to miss me too much.
  11. That "contradiction" was my attempting to reach a middle ground with you. :P
  12. There may be an added dimension to this, though... it doesn't seem as though it was communicated clearly exactly what the log would entail. People who supported the idea of a log that shows a moderator took an action on a thread may not support a log that actually shows the thread in question, thereby making it functionally impossible for problem threads to actually be removed.
  13. I don't know how you can claim I didn't account for metrics other than overland connections when I specifically called out the Beauharnois DC's proximity to transatlantic cables. And thanks for assuming that I think the U.S. is the only country that matters, but I'm actually in Canada... which is why I took offense at your earlier implication that Canada isn't part of North America, and that a server hosted in Canada is somehow inherently worse-connected than one hosted in the U.S. From your country to Phoenix is about 100ms better than from your country to Quebec... okay. And I bet there are other countries where it would be the other way around. So, is there not a case here that you're actually the one ignoring the existence of other countries than your own?
  14. I'm a person, not a billboard. The purpose of the merchandise is to raise money through community members buying the apparel... so if I wear the T-shirt, I've paid for it and contributed to the campaign. I don't want to be a walking advertisement. There's no reason why we can't have multiple designs in a hypothetical nerd.nu store, though. I think it would make sense to have 'glasses-only' designs for people like me who want that, and labelled ones for people like you who want to use the shirt to advertise.
  15. You said the DC is in Beauharnois, QC. That's just south of Montreal. The location highlighted in that map looks around as far north of Montreal as Florida is south of it. Quebec is big. It's also a map of submarine cables, and doesn't have any representation of overland connections. Montreal is close to all the major Northeastern US cities and is closely connected to plenty of North American backbones. It's also a short hop from the main transatlantic cables running from Nova Scotia.
  16. Isn't that what we've had in all prior revisions except this one? Is the idea basically just to scale back down from the expanded number of portals in this particular rev, then?
  17. "nerd.nu gaming community" doesn't tell the whole point, either... but I see what you're getting at. Maybe just the glasses with "nerd.nu" printed under them or something like that. That way, someone would have the URL to get more information. I mean, the purpose of branding is recognizability, not necessarily advertisement. And in this case, the purpose of the branded merchandise would be to fundraise by selling it to community members. I don't want to wear a T-shirt with tacky oversized text written all over it in an ugly font. I'd like something minimalist.
  18. I concur; a tee with just the glasses logo on its own would be very nice.
  19. Voted! These sure are some fantastic designs!
  20. It's not about catering to the lowest common denominator. The reason for discouraging lengthy religious and political discussion in chat isn't to avoid offending anyone, it's about avoiding the drama that those topics inevitably cause. There's not necessarily an assumption that these things are being discussed in a negative light, but that still doesn't make them productive topics of conversation. Even a mature and well-metered conversation about these kinds of issues risks inviting drama. That's why they're asked to bring it to clanchat. Not because it's offensive or even hostile, but because it's a drama magnet. Taking it to a clanchat allows the discussion to continue without this liability. As to the rules... going by the "golden rule" requires the maximum amount of staff discretion, because the interpretation of that rule is up to the staff any time it's potentially infringed. The purpose of making more explicit rules is to assuage complaints of poor staff judgement by making things more clear-cut. So, I'm not sure what you're trying to say by bringing up the "golden rule"... that the solution to what you consider poor staff discretion is a less complex system that, by nature, has more staff discretion? This doesn't make sense. Of course people will talk, and about a variety of topics. But that doesn't mean that every single potential topic belongs in the chat, just by virtue of being a topic that somebody might talk about. People could also discuss topics like murder, rape, and abortion... but they're obviously not appropriate. Religion, politics, and sexuality are more permissive in that there's no outright ban on such topics... it's simply asked that they move into clanchat so as to prevent drama from unfolding. There's nothing unreasonable about that. Regarding the bolded text, that's just nonsense. You can't conflate the request for sensitive topics to be discussed privately with the idea that nobody should discuss anything at all, ever. No one's asking for silence, only a thoughtful approach as to what topics are and are not appropriate or tactful to carry on at-length in the public chat. Segregating the life out of chat is what makes the chat on the server manageable. It would be next to impossible to communicate on P if all chat were in one common channel all the time. People in Argoth don't want to hear the intimate details of the next Rose City building being planned in the Rose clanchat. People working on their own builds halfway across the map don't want to be spammed relentlessly for three hours at a time with irrelevant messages during a Spleef tournament. Compartmentalizing chat allows people to customize which chat they see based on their own interests and activities. The chatbox in vanilla Minecraft is simply not designed for very high volumes of chat - even now, when the main chat gets busy, it becomes extremely difficult to keep up. If all clanchats were eliminated, that problem would be exponentially compounded. And as annoying as the clanchat's UI can be, not everyone wants or is willing to use voice chat. An in-game chat management system is essential to ensure that everyone can manage and filter their communications at their own discretion, and clanchat is the tool we have for that, for better or for worse. While it's true that managing clanchat in vanilla can be a real pain, that's just a limitation of the game. If you'd like to make your clanchat more user-friendly, there's always Tabbychat. Certainly, installing a Minecraft addon is every bit as reasonable as installing a third-party voice chat client. The lack of common sense demonstrated by anyone suggesting that a single unified chat is a good thing is palpable. The amount of cumulative chat messages generated across those "wannabe secret societies", if constricted to a single global channel, would completely overwhelm that channel and render it unusable. If the goal is to foster and improve communication, this would be a terrible way to go about it. The intent of clanchat is not to create cliques. It's to provide channels of interest where topic-specific conversation can go on without disturbing the majority of players who have no stake or interest in that topic. Regarding the staff and "wild stabs in the dark", that's not the point. It's not so much that they're worried the discussion might go off course - obviously, as you've pointed out, the solution if that were the sole concern would simply be to monitor it and step in if necessary. The problem is that the simple presence of a discussion on sensitive topics will be off-putting to many players. And while some players may speak up and ask the others to take the conversation to private chat, is there any reason to draw a distinction between whether or not those players are the individuals actually made uncomfortable, or the mods looking out for the community? Another problem is that carrying on a discussion like this, even when the participants are being mature and civil and not speaking negatively about the subject, is still a very tempting bait for other players to step in at any time and spark a drama shitstorm. Anyway, I'm rambling now, so let's be succinct here. No, the staff are not trying to say that you can't discuss sensitive topics. No, the staff are not assuming that people will necessarily be offended. No, the staff are not saying you can't talk at all. How ridiculous. But sensitive topics of conversation can make players feel uncomfortable, they can invite third-party players to jump in and start shit, and they can make the atmosphere of the server very hostile, especially if the discussion becomes a strongly-spirited debate. Such a controversial discussion or debate is completely fine - but most players simply don't want to see it. So take it to a clanchat, where you can discuss it all you like without the risk of stoking drama on the server. This is not about censorship or denial, it's about placing sensitive discussions in a venue that will allow them to continue without disrupting players who want no part in them. It's not about censorship or silence, it's about respect for your fellow players.
  21. Not having a spawn portal is an interesting thought. I mean, it kind of makes sense from a travel perspective - getting to anywhere from spawn via overworld travel isn't too big an obstacle because our spawn is always in the centre of the world. But going between cities at the extreme ends of the map would definitely benefit from portal travel.
  22. I think there's merit on both sides of this argument. It's true that censorship of level-headed, rational discussion is not necessary. But at the same time, religion and politics are hot-button issues that could potentially lead to less mature players involving themselves in the discussion and starting a shit-show. A short conversation about such a topic doesn't seem like any sort of problem, but if you're going to talk about it for 10+ minutes, being asked to bring it into a clanchat seems reasonable. This isn't censorship; it's for your benefit as much as anyone else's - the idea is that you'll be able to freely carry on the conversation, you won't have to worry about immature players jumping in with unwelcome commentary, and the rest of the server won't have to worry about the potential for drama to begin. There are also people who are too polite to speak up but will nonetheless be uncomfortable when a discussion about religion or politics goes on and on before them. My take on the situation, for what it's worth, is that starting up in public chat, and then moving to a clanchat if the discussion continues for long enough, is the best course of action for such a line of conversation. They shouldn't be censored when they're starting up, but once the topic has attracted all the participants that it will, clanchat is a more diplomatic place than public chat to carry on with it. Nobody's telling you that you can't talk about politics or religion, cmdr. They're just saying that the best place to do so is in a clanchat. And Eehee, regarding this bit: It's as clear as day; if the discussion is actually "excessively negative", it should be moved to clanchat. Take note that "negative" doesn't mean the same thing as "excessively negative". I appreciate that zburdsal queried for the opinions of other staff when dealing with political discussion earlier, as this does a lot to remove the idea of someone being politically/religiously biased and silencing discussion for their own purposes. You're misinterpreting this rule. The wording is "excessively negative comments or disruptive arguments/discussions", not "excessively negative and disruptive comments". Most of the things listed in there, including religious/political commentary, fall into the category of "disruptive discussions". Not because they're inherently bad, but because many people online have difficulty handling them with maturity (or are made uncomfortable by them). For this reason, it's best to talk about such topics in private. Again, nobody's saying that religion and politics can't be discussed at all. No one's silencing these conversations. The mods are just directing them to an appropriate venue where they won't risk inviting drama into the chat.
  23. If the issue with this is that the moderator log tool in question would create links to removed content, maybe the solution would be another tool? One that shows "<moderator> removed <thread> for <reason>" but does not actually provide a link into said thread? Just a thought. I don't think such a log is necessary at all, but if it has the support of the community, then it's worth looking at appropriate options.
×
×
  • Create New...