TornadoHorse

I agree with everything SwitchViewz said above. I think this policy is stupid, however it is the current policy so Mrloud has done nothing wrong by simply enforcing it. I may have misread your appeals, but I misunderstood what you were asking. It seemed as if you were asking why the accounts were not unbanned, to which the answer is obvious and Mrloud and others stated many times. I didn't realise you were asking why others received a different outcome to you, although the situation being the same. I can't speak for Mrloud, but he didn't handle those other appeals afaik. Maybe those other staff were being lenient, maybe they didn't know about this rule at all. Mrloud has just gone by the rules and enforced them properly here, he is not at all in the wrong. A discussion is currently happening in modchat about this policy, hopefully it can be cleared up soon enough and I hope this answers yours concerns.

Are we definitely going to be having arenas and a spawn for revision 28 then? The reason I ask it because when we've been trying out new things like in revisions 25 & 26 we've had random spawns and not actually hosted any arenas. Players designed spawns and arenas only for them not to be used or seen very much at all.

How long will it take to get the new revision up? The map looked close to completion on the dev server when I was there, couldn't we just go ahead with the proper revision instead?

I disagree. Everyone has to deal with glitches, it's a part of minecraft and if we have to refund everything for something that's completely out of our control then it'll all get a lot more complicated and confusing. In the instance that Rokku presented, he died directly due to the moderators intervention. He probably would have died regardless unless someone came to dig him out, but the moderator got involved and due to the teleport out he died. I don't think we should be refunding anything either in the sense that we spawn in items, but teleporting the player back to their original location does no harm and gives no unfair advantage to that player.

I think I would teleport them back, I believe I have done so before a couple of revisions ago. The way I see it, it was directly the moderators fault for their death as it was the original teleport that killed them, so teleporting them back so their items aren't lost isn't really abuse or anything, the player isn't gaining an unfair advantage from it. I don't play on P too much so I'm not as clear on the policies like you may be, but the player wouldn't have died if the moderator hadn't made the original teleport, so I think it's only fair to then bring the player back.

What does this mean? I always thought this (credit /u/barneygale) was a great idea, not sure what happened to it. Looked good, seems functional, a huge step up from what we have at the moment. As stated here by roastnewt, we can't properly discuss any of these topics without first discussing advertising and finances. "Flow of progress" - What does this mean? How quickly and efficiently we can provide our services? Which ones are you thinking aren't being provided well enough? I could list through things that I don't think are done well enough but it would definitely be seen as 'hostile' or 'personal attacks'. If things aren't getting done fast enough - add more admins to the area in need. If things are being done well enough - replace the staff doing a poor job with those who can work at a higher quality. I'd rather we put our money towards advertising than additional servers. I'd like to sort out what we're doing with S before expanding the network. P and C are functional and seem to be doing well without need of major overhaul. S currently seems to be taking up space which could be put to better use, whether that's a rejuvenated Survival or different server type.

Sounds like a neat idea. Before you go ahead with it, have a serious think that you're willing to be committed to it and actually host the arenas. For the last 2 times that we've had the SAL it's been very disappointing with only about 3 arenas hosted over the 2 revisions with the turnouts each time being very low. Please don't promise us something that you can't provide again. If you need help then ask, I'm sure there are plenty of players who could lend a hand.

I agree. This revision we had citadel and prisonpearl which were great plugins which constantly encouraged PvP. It's all very well having an arena or two now and then but not everyone enjoys that kind of organised fighting and many would rather not be restrained to just an arena. I'm very disappointed by the proposed changes, we took a huge step in the right direction by trying out new things this revision and now we're just throwing it all away to go back to how we used to be - a worse version of PvE.

A question for the current sadmins: What do you feel is currently overwhelming you? What can you not handle and deliver promptly and efficiently? To have mods do some of the admin's job seem strange to me if they can handle it fine, although I think it's good that more people would be able to get involved.

What a waste of advertising, if what you're offering isn't appealing to a wide audience then the advertising isn't going to work very well, it won't make the players be inclined to stay anyway. It depends on how you want to measure our success; by the current survival community being pleased with the server or how many players you can have online at a time. For me, I'd rather it be the latter even if some of our oldest players don't enjoy it. I'd love to see the server thrive again and if that means we change to something I or any of the other 'old timers' don't like then so be it.

That's just reverting back to what we had been doing before with the addition of some events. As a majority we were clearly unhappy with how the server was then, why would we want to change back to it? I enjoyed this revision, i'd been involved in more PvP and raiding than I ever have before and I know many others feel the same. It started to not be very interesting when players dropped off and there wasn't anyone left to raid. Before creating the next revision, I'd like to see if we can actually prepare some advertising for it to coincide with the launch. This revision would have been hugely enjoyable if the player count was kept above 30 or 40 and if marketed right then we could get numbers like that - the game type is appealing to lots of players. The best plugins we have this revision are the Citadel and PrisonPearl plugins because they encourage PvP and raiding. That plan seems to me to be taking out the the better but more controversial plugins and just reverting back to how S used to be with a couple of minor changes. Why? This revision was the first big step towards the future of this server, we'd actually changed away from what we were and now because it wasn't an instant success we're going to go back to our old setup and take the safe bet of making small changes, I'm disappointed.

Before thinking of additional ways to encourage donations, I think we need to discuss what we're spending our donations on. Is this going to be for advertising or just general upkeep of the servers? I wasn't aware that we were in a bad place in terms of donations, are we planning on spending more money on something, if so, what?

For clarification, we're having these discussion threads instead of a mumble meeting, correct?

I've brought this up before, but I'd like to see a section of the map dedicated to flat plot land. I know our completely open world makes us fairly unique; I've seen several players come on and say how they enjoyed this different style, but we could cater to players who want to build small, quick builds as well. The only reason I use creative or freebuild servers is to test out builds for other servers, very rarely do I just build for the sake of it. I am a bit discouraged by creative for this purpose because I have to clear a plot of land first and level it out before I can start building. With plots I could just get on with a build straight away. I'd love to be able to do /warp plot as soon as I join and to be able to build immediately, I think it'd make c.nerd.nu more available to a brand new audience of players.

The community? Not at all, I still enjoy speaking and playing around with everyone here, I and many others have fun just hanging around. The game? Eh, PvE is great, Creative looks to be a lot better, Survival is ever changing and I'm happy with that. I don't think the community is anywhere near dead, the servers will eventually become less interesting but I don't think there's any chance of the actual community going.

I don't think any threads have been closed due to personal problems with the content. The several most recent threads that were full of arguments and unproductive discussion in the end were rightfully closed when we'd reached a conclusion.

The questions in the poll aren't just about feedback for this revision, so the title of the thread is a bit misleading. To answer questions on where we want the server to go, we need to know what we're working from. We can't work from a blank slate because everyone has different ideas and suggestions for what they want the server to be. A lot of these questions are depend on each other, for example, the layout of the nether portals depends on if we have roads, whether endermen drop enderpearls or not is dependent on what happens with the prisonpearl plugin and so on. To give actual feedback on this revision alone, I really enjoyed it. It was a great change of pace and really enjoyed it as a novelty, but I don't think it's sustainable as the current low player count shows.

What? There is no point in arguing this anymore, there were 2 discussion threads, 2 polls and everyone had ample opportunity to have their say and get their points across. As stated by cyotie: I very much doubt that upvotes will also be removed in the near future, if a head could say whether they're open to change or if it's staying as it is for now that'd be good because it'd put an end to these discussions which are currently just repeating what has already been said.

I don't think that's a valid reason at all, the two aren't brought together because we can upvote and downvote ideas. If removing downvotes makes the discussion better, I'm all for it. They really don't and shouldn't impact anyone's opinions, they're just an extra to show if you support an idea or not. I never understood why anyone might take a downvote as a personal attack and if you did think that you were being ganged up on with votes, so what? Grow up and ignore it. The time for discussion on votes has now passed, for now we will only have upvotes. Give it a few weeks and everyone will have stopped caring that downvotes were removed, it's such a small change.

I feel like the issue was that we put a lot of effort into those meetings, a lot of players turned up and spent a huge amount of time discussing things but no big, successful changes really came from it. At the time a lot of players wanted a more equal representation of Survival among the admins, more PvP based admins. This, along with announcements and transparency, were our main requests because if they were completed then all of the other problems would be able to be sorted out as well. I don't think the meetings were a total waste of time, I'd like to think that they made some difference and maybe even influenced the survival meetings that follow (but probably not). If anything, it was nice having the whole community together and actually speaking about what we wanted from Survival... even if it did take over 3 hours... To answer the original question of this thread, as many have already said - of course! We should always be trying to improve ourselves. For survival in particular, I'm eager to see what the admins will do next. This revision was great to try out something new and started off looking like a great improvement but as big groups of players left we seem to be back to how we used to be with a low player count. I really enjoyed the citadel plugin as a change and novelty from what we've been so used to, but it doesn't look like it's going to be any permanent solution.

Well, the discussion isn't really about the players in the vote, but in fact how a vote conducted by the players would work. If you wanted to go down that route, however, then it may be advised that VarukaSalt gets to know more of the players, bare in mind that not too many players from PvE actually voted in this poll, so results are a bit biased towards S and C.

Stop trying to insult people, it's not at all productive. Roastnewt answered your question: You may see the vote as having no effect, but I think it was an interesting experiment to see what the players thought about the nominees. The vote also helps support the discussion and vice versa.

And once again, this thread has turned into a petty little argument. Seriously, stop with the bitchy comments and stay on topic. If you think what someone is saying is unjust or unfair against you, report it to a staff member or take it up with them via PM. I 100% agree with this. I really am shocked by some of the childish responses, sort it out or don't get involved. If you have nothing constructive to say, don't say it.

Hopefully situations like this won't happen too frequently, and I'm sure that we've all learned from this example that it's a lot easier and more productive to let the discussion happen and only step in with locking threads if the OP has requested it or the thread has come to a conclusion and run it's course. I think there was and is no reason for accusations like that to be made, if players want to have arguments then they can take it to PM, keep it out of where we are meant to be having constructive discussion - that goes for both the accuser and accused. We got the forums to have a sensible place to discuss the server without having opinions and comments pile up and hidden. If we get rid of downvotes then I'd like to see everyone acting more maturely in the discussions, if there are comments that are totally irrelevant and only take away from the post then they should be removed.

I agree, djt. Voting had never bothered me or affected me negatively so i didn't think a change was needed, but i understand now about how seeing a lot of downvotes on a post can tint the actual content poorly and how frequently topics are derailed into arguments about why downvotes are being used. I think we should try removing downvotes since they're the ones that are causing the problems.