Narissis

I'm sorry, Elmo, but I just feel as though you're outraged because you want to be outraged. I don't see any consistent evidence of these systemic problems, only isolated examples where a mod may have shown poor judgement, or chronic problems that once existed but have since petered out.

Toxic players aren't "toxic" because they play on S; they're toxic because of their attitude. I think we all understand that there are serious problems with the S server, as Eehee so kindly enumerated. But the solution to those problems isn't to be confrontational with the staff, and certainly not with other players. Obviously, you need to make your concerns known, and it's frustrating as hell when they don't appear to have been taken to heart. I get that, and I know it's tough. But acting like a dick is only going to add fuel to the fire. There are plenty of S players, I would say the majority of them, who are awesome people. I'll call out Unce as an example - true, he can be argumentative at times, but that's because he has strong opinions and he doesn't resort to personal attacks or flaming or 'toxic' behaviour to make them known; he's just very outspoken. That's fine. When he visits P to build Unce Haven, he respects the differences between the two servers and conducts himself according to the social conventions of P. On the same token, there are players on P who could be described as "toxic". It's a description of attitude, not a summation of server stereotypes.

I just love it when I ask for examples and get a gigantic essay in response that boils down to "they happened in the past, learn your history bro." I don't give a flying fuck what happened in the past. It's in the past. Staff members are human and they can change, not only as individuals but also in the literal sense with turnover. There's no point bringing up and bemoaning old grudges if we're talking about the present ruleset and actions of the present staff. There's also no sense running around proclaiming that the sky is falling and that the community is crumbling before our very eyes... because it's not. Sorry. A few perceived slights does not a failed community make. I feel as though this whole debate about the rules is rooted in the salt of a few people who pushed their luck too far and got burned for it. Is it really that hard to just be a considerate person and exhibit common sense in your online interactions? Is it just luck of the draw that the staff don't shit on me, or is it maybe that, I don't know, I try to be a civil person and not rile anybody up?

I'd like to hear more about this alleged "selective enforcement of rules" based on who moderators "like", because I think it's a fabricated problem. I've seen some of the most well-known members of the community get handed bans for committing bannable offenses, and I've seen some complete unknowns receive their proper due diligence for minor infractions. The only cases I've seen where the mods have been harsher than normal have been people with a long-standing hostile attitude toward the staff. It's almost as though there are consequences for testing the limits and deliberately antagonizing the disciplinary body of the community! Imagine that!

My blatantly honest opinion of the matter is this: The more detailed and concise the rules become, the more inclined people are going to be to try to "rules lawyer" their way around them. I like the idea of having a "code of conduct overview" for new players to read that's short and to the point, with a more in-depth explanation available for clarification (I'm not a big fan of the term 'rules'; it feels juvenile to me). But at the same time, unless your rules are dozens of pages long and written in dense legalese, you will never manage to account for every single violation in every single context at every single level of severity. At some point, you have to draw the line and leave the fine details up to staff judgement. I do think that communication should be encouraged between staff members regarding punishments, in order to maintain a professional degree of consistency. But it's ludicrous to expect the regulations for something as casual as an online gaming community to be as comprehensive as a corporate HR policy or legal document.

...I've never heard of /cr; what is this sorcery? Does it auto-send to the last clanchat you received a message from in lieu of your present default?

Yeah, there will always be ways to get XP. If not an end grinder, then some other sort of mob grinder. Besides, there are plenty of people on the server with limited time to invest in levelling / enchanting. Having a faster route to accomplish these things frees up more of their time to invest in building. So I don't really see it as a bad thing. Using myself as an example, if I didn't have an end grinder to use for enchanting and repairing tools, I'm not sure I would have had the time to build noRTh to the extent that I have.

I don't know who these people are who were afraid of building around a volcano. I'd build the fuck out of a volcano mountain. Awesome forges that redirect lava into huge furnaces, bridges soaring above the flows.... hnnngh.

saberfysh's idea of having a pre-determined end date is interesting, though I'd say it would be best if left ambiguous. We could have something like "approximate new rev date" that would only be as specific as within a certain two-week timeframe or something, and then the official new rev announcement would provide the exact timing when the date approaches. Regarding the whole player retention thing in general, I'm TL;DRing most of this topic so this may have already been said, but... I think the answer lies not in direct interference with the gameplay "process", but rather, in what can be added above and beyond. Instead of making progress slower (which, let's be honest, wouldn't add any more than an extra day or two to the rev-start "establishment" of towns & infrastructure), we ought to have "stretch goals" for people to work toward once things are established. For instance, we could have long-term tasks, something implemented by a plugin that would function as a "quest" of sorts, that would take an average player a few weeks to complete and would reward a beacon or a pot of rare blocks. MMOs do this kind of thing well; just some sort of optional timesink that people can invest hours into for a reward - not large enough to be game-breaking, but enough that the player will feel as though their time was well spent. Another idea would be to offer some sort of reward for 'finishing' a build. This might help to keep players around and reduce the number of Freyhills and other half-finished towns on the map. A player could apply to the mods for this, and a mod would, in turn, inspect the build to judge whether it's honestly finished and award a prize proportionate to the build's size. This prize could be something like, say, a grant of materials to get that player started on their next project (the player could request certain things). This would help to promote the starting of new builds after a build is completed, giving players more incentive to stay around. These are just a few hairbrained ideas, of course... but all part of the brainstorming process! :D

Regarding the minor controversy in this thread: I think it's important to look at the results from a mature, objective standpoint, which means understanding that a "No" vote does not mean "I dislike this person" or really anything negative about the individual. It only means that the voter does not necessarily see that individual becoming a moderator. Most likely because they've already voted "Yes" to somebody that they feel is more deserving. That should be interpreted as a compliment to the person that they're supporting, not as an insult to those whom they are not. To be completely frank, if any of the candidates takes "No" votes personally, I would see that as a sign that they are not cut out for a moderator position. People who hold this role should be mature enough to understand that not everyone will agree with them or support them every time, and that's okay.

Well, it was bound to happen: a post that would finally prompt me to make a forum account to respond. :P Here are my thoughts on the map size discussion: I think the ideal map size depends on the type of terrain generation. Vanilla Minecraft biomes and terrain work best for smaller maps, but become increasingly staid and repetitive as map size increases. There are a lot of words being thrown about regarding maps being 'too big' leading to things being too spread-out, but my take on it is that the bigger the map, the more ocean there should be. That limits the amount of actual real estate, so builds don't get as spread-out as they would if the world was mostly dry land. And it comes with the perk of the world having a more immersive, realistic feel. What I would love to see more than anything else is a combination of a few of the ideas already presented in this thread. My ideal map would be something like this: 8k x 8k with oceans at all borders and terrain laid out in "continents". Could be one huge island or several landmasses. If possible, have the edges wrap so that 'sailing off' into the infinite ocean would see you re-emerge at the other side of the map. Realistic World Generation. Reduced plumping around spawn; increased plumping beneath more remote regions. Land further from spawn becomes more "extreme". Equatorial layout with a distinctive warm "equator" (deserts/jungles/mesas) flanked by "temperate" regions (forests/swamps/hills) giving way to remote subarctic (taiga/extreme hills) and finally, assuming 1.8 world features, a tundra of ice spikes biomes at the furthest reaches. I think an 8k map is a good size, but not if it's mostly land. Such a map should be taken as an opportunity to build realistic continents. I do think large biomes are a good idea, but would be better with realistic world generation that provides natural transitions between them instead of a map that looks like a patchwork quilt.