Narissis

This is quite scary. And also exciting!

They work from home and are paid in the satisfaction of a job well done! Job interviews are never.

Taking my own last post and jchance's together, maybe another good idea would be to do something like have timed ban expiry for first infractions, and require appeals for repeat offenders and/or more severe offences.

I always thought that the reason for requiring appeals was so that we had a record, in writing, from the player that they agreed to reform whatever behaviour got them banned in the first place. I think, for this reason, there's merit to the system even in an environment where auto-expiry is possible. That's just one man's opinion, of course.

This is a good suggestion; it's not fair to people for not to be unbanned on the timeline that the appeals process guarantees to them.

Ditto.

Just an FYI so nobody will think I dropped off the face of the Earth or anything. That big Lego-related event that I've been preparing for is coming up on Saturday, and there are a few pre-events and a lot of prep I have to do before then as well. I may pop online a bit here and there but I won't have time to be on Minecraft much, if at all, for the rest of the week. The good news is that, after Saturday, I should be free to resume my pre-April levels of activity. Looking forward to making rapid progress on the Spleef Spire next week! So I'll see you all soon enough. :)

-34

I just put butter, lemon, and Mrs. Dash on salmon. I am a pleb.

That's a really spifftastic idea.

That's part of the point, though. If a valid argument can be made against the reason for denying a suggestion, then it should be entertained. And having that dialogue makes it more likely to find workarounds if the reason for not implementing a suggestion is a technical one. If the argument is "no, you're wrong," then the admins can just come back with "sorry, we're not" or even go the extra mile and provide the data. They aren't obligated to bend over backwards to explain themselves, but the initial explanation would be very valuable

While cmdrtbeok was very blunt in his post, Eehee, what he's trying to say is that if you have a certain persona that's going to colour the way people interact with you even if you're not displaying that persona during a particular conversation. It's a "respect is earned, not given" kind of thing. Treating other players in a hostile manner is disrespectful to them, and turning around and expecting them to respect you in the next instant when you are trying to contribute is not going to work, even if the contribution you are trying to make is a valid one. Having said that, I want to clarify that I think your comportment in this thread has been okay overall, Eehee. For what it's worth. I wouldn't hesitate to consider any suggestion you were to make if I were a staff member, because I think you've made it plain to see that you do want to genuinely improve the community. I think we all have a role to play in communication, and that it's a two-way street. Getting back to the main topic of the thread, one thing that I believe is fundamentally important is for the staff to explain their rationale for not accepting a certain suggestion. Instead of just saying "we can't do that", go into a little detail as to why. For example, "we can't do that because it was tried in the past and did not work out" or "we can't do that because it's incompatible with plugins x, y, and z". Or even if it's subjective, "we *won't* do that because it risks having such-and-such impact on the community". If people understood the rationale behind the decision to not implement their suggestions, they'd be less likely to assume the staff are ignoring them. Explaining the reasoning plays a double role: not only is it good in and of itself, it also demonstrates that the suggestion was heard and considered.

Not to single you out, Ridiculous, but I think this kind of logic is a big part of the problem. The staff don't moderate against "toxic" players because they "don't like them" or because they "disagree". At least not presently; I'm not bringing past drama into this. They have a responsibility to maintain a welcoming community in which players can be comfortable. If players are being disruptive, then it's their job to take action. It has nothing to do with whether they agree with or like the individual, and everything to do with the impact that individual has on other players. Now, I think the general thrust of this discussion is one we should be having. It's not fair to players for the staff to persecute and/or discriminate them outside of the bounds of the disciplinary actions incurred for specific disruptive behaviours. But let's not be disingenuous and attempt to muddy the waters by accusing the staff of arbitrarily hating on opposing viewpoints. That's a strawman argument.

...makes sense. I guess I just like avoiding conflict. :P

That surprises me; I'd expect the dangerous atmosphere to encourage people to build in hidden-away places, off the beaten path.

I actually do have a second set of the speakers. I'd had a third, but sold it to a friend.

So with that in mind, you can surely understand that some of the people who don't like you and wouldn't mind seeing you gone have that opinion because of your attitude and not because you disagree with them. :P Because you really love to fall back on this whole premise that people want you gone because of disagreement, when really it's because of conduct.

UNP, I have legitimate respect for your gameplay style and ethics. You seem pretty awesome when it comes to the whole "playing with blocks" thing. But chat etiquette is not your strong suit. If you legitimately think that everyone's an asshole except you, you're outright delusional. I have never seen you not be an asshole in chat. I'm not saying you can't be opinionated... but you could debate your opinions against others' in a much more respectful fashion than you presently do.

I'm not Troop, but... It's implicit in the way you keep posting "I may come off as a dick sometimes" as if admitting it somehow absolves you of it. Have you ever tried, y'know, not being a dick?

I especially like the part where he implores the admins to prove their trustworthiness, and then when MrLoud does exactly that, he sticks his fingers in his proverbial ears and posts equivalent to "La la la la la, I still don't trust you!" I'm not trying to take sides here, but damn, UNP. You're not even rational.

I actually had the exact same issue with mine! And same resolution; Logitech support is A+ Though the backlight is dead in my control pod now. First world problems.

I found it, UNP! The thing we have in common! Amazing speakers for what they cost.

UNP, you're trying to make the community out to be some kind of exclusionary sect. That's not the case at all. It isn't "think like us or leave", it's "behave yourself or leave". I don't feel as though you've grasped the idea that there's a difference between opinion and attitude. You're allowed to think what you want. You're allowed to bring up your grievances in a mature fashion. But if you deliberately get up in everyone's grill and then try to make the excuse "Well, I'm a blunt individual. That's just the way I am.", you can't expect it to go over well. It's not the thought dissent that people are trying to "get rid of", it's the shitty confrontational attitude. That's what gets people labelled as "toxic". All through this thread, the false equivalency is brought up again and again that the people considered "toxic" are simply people who disagree with the staff. And if you think it comes down to nothing more than disagreement, then you're failing to understand the actual problem. You're allowed to disagree with the staff, just don't be a prick about it.

Preach! Something that a lot of people fail to understand is that if their behaviour is not accepted, it doesn't necessarily mean the community is not accepting. Instead, it often simply means that their behaviour is not acceptable.

This is literally impossible, because it is a privately-run server and therefore the admins have no bounds to overstep. They can run it as they see fit. If you think he was dismissing you, you either didn't take the time to read what he said or didn't bother trying to understand it. You complain again and again about feeling like you're "not allowed to disagree," but that's exactly how you treat everyone else: anytime someone attempts to disagree with you, you write it off as a dismissal and whine that nobody listens to you. An interesting thing about psychology: people are more likely to suspect ill will of others if they, themselves, are predisposed to commit that ill will. For instance, a thief will often be more nervous about people stealing their stuff in turn, because they judge others based on themselves. You seem to be exhibiting that here, by treating any disparate point of view from yours as a dismissal in the same way that you perceive them dismissing you. Eehee's justification for making that statement is every bit as flimsy as your complaints about the staff. By all reasonable metrics, the server is doing just fine. That's because there's no real problem in the first place. It's hard to solve issues that don't actually exist.