TornadoHorse

If you will give them the group, why couldn't they just make the group and avoid all of this drama? Most definitely, and when they are inactive they get removed, as happens on the servers here. Not really, I don't see how that's a relevant analogy. Fault is with both sides here. If they had been totally accepting and just gone along with it there would have been little drama. If you hadn't been involved at all and Deaygo created the group there would be little drama. What has happened has happened, the fix is very simple.

1) Group should be owned by deaygo and heads 2) staff who plan on being active and doing stuff there should be added to staff 3) if there is still little activity, we look at options (swiftly) to change that, i.e. adding more steam-based staff to run the events It is very simple and there is no reason to over-complicate it. Whether we should be making everyone move over from the original steam group to a new one for little to no reason seems odd, but that's what has been decided.

All of the old players are in the old group and we wouldn't be able to get all of them to transfer over. If we can't change the name, I'd rather just stick with the old group. I'm not sure if this stuff was considered when we changed the name, but it seems a bit odd that our steam group keeps the old name, the subreddit keeps the old name, are we really changing that much at all? I'm also not sure how we're managing the owner's/admins of these new groups and such, but I think it'd be best to keep it to the current staff to avoid disputes and arguments.

No, I'm saying they've done nothing to prove that they deserve to be sadmins because they don't do anything.

I disagree, I don't think that's a better question at all. For far too long we have seen the sadmins do nothing, only occasionally would changes be made if the players push for them enough or we may sometimes see a quirky yet pointless minor change. I think any player here will say that they want anything to be done with S. So much help has been offered to the sadmins, quite honestly I have no idea what they're doing that earns their positions. Everyone has said what they wanted for S in one way or another. I'm on my phone so I can't link the numerous threads atm but if they cared, the sadmins could look those up.

This thread is asking for an update on survival revision 28 as we haven't heard anything in months and it doesn't look like that's going to change anytime soon. To put it bluntly, I do not care for your relationships outside of this community (I don't really care for them at all) and I think many others feel the same, please stop bringing it up unless it is absolutely necessary (it never will be). It is slightly disappointing that our 2 new techs have been appointed at what seems like a peak of their inactivity, but that's generally how this place works. So before we start petty arguments about anything else; sadmins, what is going on with S?

Hey, choopie1 is now unbanned. Welcome back!

yer mum

toxic

TornadoHorse

Getting rid of the affiliation to reddit wouldn't affect our posts on /r/minecraft, would it? I thought we were debating whether the little link in the sidebar there actually brought in any players and whether being related to reddit was harming our reputation.

To go one step further, I think it should be attached to the forums. If it isn't then anyone can enter any name with no means of verification. I could put my name as redwall_hp, for example, and then recommend a load of random players for mod and immediately it would seem as if they were genuine recommendations. Having it attached to the forums would mean you'd have to use your forum account so we can easily filter out some of the unnecessary spam. Other than that you idea seems great to me.

Over the Christmas period there was a peak in survival's player numbers so I asked the majority of them where they came from. I asked about 4 different people, but they each had groups of friends with them ranging from 1-4 others. 3 of the 4 players said they found out about the server from /r/minecraft. I initially doubted it and thought they were getting it confused with /r/mcservers but a couple of them confirmed it was the minecraft subreddit. Either way, we still get some joins from having our link in the sidebar and unless we're switching to some other form of advertisement I don't think we should abandon this small, free source of advertisement. I am, however, all for deciding on one single name for the servers to go by to make everything feel less disjointed.

Falling

Whilst I agree it could be seen as being a bit hypocritical, the hot tub is kinda creepy. Spawn hot tubs have been around ever since weizbox and it was always a fun running joke but having the "redwall and twilexis's super secret hot tub" isn't a server wide joke, but one that is just a bit too personal. Unless it's going to tear the server apart it would be a lot easier to just remove this sign.

I agree. Anyone can put down a name and you have no way of knowing whether they are serious or not. If we had proper staff applications with a way to verify who wrote what application i.e. linking the applications to the forums, then we could take every application seriously. At the moment, we don't do that on the /applyformod page, we just select the few names we like from it that would likely be brought up by staff anyway. We either need to properly utilise a staff application section or not do it at all, where we are at now is a total waste.

You are now unbanned, welcome back! :)

It isn't a problem that the community may influence a staff's vote. We're meant to be a community server and the staff are meant to represent the players, what's so bad about them doing just that? You're absolutely right, this poll doesn't prove anything, but it may show if there is a problem. That's exactly what it's meant to do and I'm glad that you can see that. If there's not a problem there's nothing to show and it just acts as a fun vote than shows that the community supports the staff's decision. Well, they're not children. We don't need to tell the heads exactly what to do in every situation, and also because that's their job. If there are problems and issues with the vote (which this vote shows them) then they can look into it. At that point, those who have brought up concerns will likely be spoken to. That doesn't happen in any of the public votes anymore. I'd be inclined to agree that if we aren't saying why someone isn't fit for the role then they simply won't learn what they need to improve on, however that hasn't been how these votes run for many nomination rounds now and since this way doesn't seem to be broken, there's no reason to change it. I also agree that if players take these votes to heart and get upset about it then they probably aren't ready to be staff, maybe we could work on a way to give feedback to the unsuccessful nominees in future. I still have to disagree that it's passive-aggressive and it can show problems and/or support whilst not being negative. But I understand what you mean now that if anyone has any important concerns they need to be brought to the heads rather than covered with a vote here.

Hey Martie, On survival earlier today there was a modreq about a cobblestone tower you built on another players land. There were already some warnings for minor grief and being warned for homophobia. Please re-read the rules and I'll be happy to unban you.

What do you mean "where applicable"? If lots of players support a nomination, that may change someone's point of view. The nominee may act differently to players than they do staff, this vote would help show that. In an ideal world that would be the case but I don't think it is. Many players have felt this also as is apparent from many of the forum and subreddit threads. Not all no votes mean the player is an insult saying that the player is awful, it's just that you don't think they would make a good moderator, that you don't think there needs to be any more mods or any number of reasons. A no vote isn't a complaint, it just isn't support. I understood you the first time, but I disagree. This way is totally acceptable and appropriate and as I have said many times, there should be no way for anyone to get offended by it so there's no reason for it not to be here. Pointless was the wrong word. I meant to say that nothing negative will come from it. The positives are that the right people get modded and the community supports the staff decisions.

Not at all. This vote is no different to the staff vote apart from who can vote. It may not effect the final result of the staff vote, but it gives an idea of which people are supported amongst the community, after all were meant to be a community server, right? I think doing this is a good compromise between allowing players vote on staff and not having any say at all. Unless you are overly sensitive and looking for negatives there are no downsides to this poll. It might be a bit pointless in the end, that's fine, no one is forcing you to be a part of it. Why are players not allowed to vote no here, but staff are allowed to vote no in their thread? Everyone is allowed an opinion and if it's presented in an appropriate way as it is here then that's fine. I don't really follow your argument and this really isn't a major issue. No one should be offended by this and it's fine if you don't want to be involved.

Natdog has done this for a few voting rounds now, I believe it started off when players weren't happy with the votes being unrepresentative from the staff so it was quite an interesting experiment. Unless there are inappropriate comments then I don't see how this thread is any different to the staff vote. If there are inappropriate comments then they will be removed instead of the whole thread being locked. If you don't want to be a part of the vote then you don't have to.

I don't think anyone is arguing about this. A discussion, maybe, thinking for the future, sure. The time it has taken everyone to write out comments here in response to what I said here will have taken no more than 30 minutes, and this isn't stopping anyone from discussing anything else about the server. If you read my above post, I think the idea for the survey is to gather results then discuss, rather than do it all at simultaneously. It's not really that minute, it goes hand in hand with what the server is going to be like. I'm genuinely surprised at the amount of negative reactions there've been to me asking such an innocent and relevant question like this.

Sure. My comments were about the name as this was the only part that I was curious about. Generally I ask questions to further my knowledge on a subject, and now having had that question answered I am more informed about the subject. I'm not sure if you have a problem with me asking that, not sure why there would be either. My 'focus' isn't on the name, that's just part of what I wanted to know more about, however my other concerns for survival aren't relevant for this thread so I'll keep them out. Definitely not. I would like whatever type of server we create to be called a relevant name to the game type so that new players can know what kind of server they are joining. I asked this as, from TheAcademician's list, not many of the options look like ones for a survival-type server (on most servers out there, 'survival' generally means PvE servers). If we end up being an RPG server with quests we shouldn't be called 'survival' just to stick with tradition - that would make no sense at all. I'm very happy that we're finally moving on from trying to patch up the broken server we have, but I would like it to be done right, not marketing it as something it isn't as we did in R26 with civcraft. As I've basically covered already, we can have more than 1 focus, in fact we probably should have more than 1 focus. I'm sorry that my question seems to have angered you, I'm really not sure what was wrong with it. On the other topics of this thread, I don't think there is much up for discussion right now. Currently Aca is just gathering opinions and votes through the survey, the discussion will come after the results have been gathered I would assume.

We've all known this for months and months and I guess I'm glad the sadmins have realised it too, but this doesn't really answer my question. Are we going to be closing down survival and opening a completely new server starting fresh or will we carry on marketing it as 'survival', despite it not being anything like survival from your description?