TornadoHorse

If you want to go ahead with it be sure to make a forum/subreddit announcement at least 48 hours in advance to give everyone as much time as possible to free time and prepare for the event. I guess this is just going to be a normal arena, not part of the SAL, if so make that clear in the post too. Have an idea of which match types you want to do first, asking the players what they wanted to do never worked out very well and it all became very unorganised very quickly. I'm not sure if I can be around this weekend so I don't want to commit to anything but I'll try and be there to help out if needed :)

I don't think it was handled particularly well on either side. The thread shouldn't have been locked so quickly, at least not without a brief explanation of the reasons against having seperate mods for each server, that's already been said in the comments above. Also, some comments here accusing the heads of lying about ever even discussing the topic in private and the amount of downvotes handed out didn't make the situation any better. This very small issue has been blow right out of proportion but looks to have been sorted out now with Mrloud and Dumbo's most recent comments.

Since this thread is beginning to just turn into mud-slinging and the original intention of the thread has been answered, I think we should bring it to a close if that's okay with OP? As Dumbo52 said in his last comment:

Personally, I don't think we should have this meeting, most of the topics in the agenda could be sorted out with discussion threads. In the past when we've hosted general meetings they have been to inform people of what changes are coming, the big debates never really get a solution. I don't think there's much point in having a general meeting just for the sake of it unless there's anything that is in desperate need of being discussed?

A community vote involves everyone, the staff are players too. I thought that was the point of this vote, to see what everyone wanted, not just the players, although I may have misunderstood. If that is that case, then I think this will probably further increase the rift between staff and players, like we're trying to combat eachother's vote.

Well, if they don't get through the voting stage then it's fine as we won't be having an unknown player getting staff. If they do get through the vote (I'm assuming they will) then we have an issue because the players don't know who this person is. The only reason I voted no on that player is because nobody knows who they are. This is a case where I felt that the "Don't know well enough" option wouldn't fit right, since that is for me personally not knowing if they're ready for staff, nobody knows this player and unless they are happy to have everyone know who they are then it will be staying as a no vote for now.

That's not the problem. It's that an unknown account will be getting moderator permissions without anyone knowing who they are.

I don't think allowing everyone to have a vote would improve the nomination process as it stands - replacing staff vote with whole community vote, other things would have to change. Regardless of what happens in the discussion phase or vote, it comes down to the heads to choose from the bunch of nominees. If they believe a certain player can't be trusted or wouldn't be a good mod they won't get accepted even if the player has strong support. If we made a change like this I can only see the results being biased in favour of PvE. P outnumbers S and C's player bases by far, so any vote would probably go their way. Although the stereotype isn't true for all our players, it does exist that P, C and S players don't get along too well. I'm having trouble putting my thoughts in to words so I'll use an example: Four_Down gets put forward by S players due to having lots of support from on S but P players don't like him so all so they all vote no. Due to P having far more players than S Four_Down will get far more no votes than yes. I can see lots of situations like this happening without any easy fix. Without having a more equal representation of all players in this community at higher levels (admins, head admins) I can't see anyway of the nomination process getting any better. EDIT: Sorry if it doesn't make sense in some areas, very tired. EDIT2: Used Four_Down as an example because I found it easier to explain, what I said isn't actually the case however... S players hate him too >:)

Portugal are a 1 man team, when Ronaldo isn't on form they don't really amount to anything as proven by their results, just an average team.

Currently you either /modreq about being unmuted or discuss it with the staff member in game via /msg. There isn't an official place for it since we don't use mutes anywhere near enough and quite a few staff members prefer to just hand a ban to the player instead.

Everyone knew that permabans were never permanent, and as they were never handed out to brand new players it didn't matter that they were called permabans. I preferred the old system by far because it allowed the banned player to decide when to appeal and come back because they knew that they were more mature, now it has turned into us setting the date for them to have matured by. I have no idea why we changed from that system because it was working out fine, if there was a problem with the name 'permaban' then don't give it a name or a date on the ban appeal, tell the player to wait a few months until appealing and only appeal when they feel that they've matured. Now we're handing out 6 month+ bans fairly frequently, that sounds a lot longer to me than saying "come back when you feel you've matured and we'll reevaluate the ban"; especially when the ban reasons don't warrant anything more than a week. It is bizarre. He's allowed to play on the server, but also not allowed to play on the server? The logical solution is to unban all accounts when the main is unbanned, and if the main is banned then all other accounts are banned. The alts aren't something that you've given him, they are owned by the player, so by taking away what is theirs you are punishing the player. If 1 account is banned then all accounts should be banned. Although I totally disagree with what you are saying I can see where you are coming from and since this issue doesn't bother me too much I wouldn't have commented if it wasn't for this: This makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. You don't want a player using their alts because they misued them, but you're okay with them using other accounts as long as they buy new ones? It's similar to paying for an unban but you're not getting any of the profit!

Where the new players are coming from doesn't matter, there are more players this rev that there were the last. Everyone agreed that survival needed to change dramatically in order to survive, I'm sorry if that's not what you wanted but you should've given a solid argument against it at the time.

Not many players have actually been driven away by it, only those not willing to give it a try. We have lost far more from the revisions being dull and poorly organised before. Whether you like it or not, there are more players there are than last revision and that is an improvement. No one said we're going to stick with how the server is now, and I hope we continue to try new and different things to find what we really want to be as a server.

Have you actually tried to fight against it? No, not many people have on S. The PvPers are absolutely loving this revision because that's what we wanted the server to be more focused on. The only ones who I've seen complaining most bitterly are those who don't want to PvP. Get in a clan, get some armour and organise something. So many of the S players are willing to team up against the Civ players. A waste of time? I think not.

You can jump in any space, you can starve yourself in any space, although it could seem harsh to have that attitude with new players. You can't give an advantage to some players and then not to others, so this has to stop right here. Having something like a new join protection could work. Not being able to pearl or be pearled for the first 3 hours. Another idea is increasing the price of diamond to keep someone imprisoned as time goes on. First day is only 1 diamond for 2 hours. Second day, 3 diamonds per hour. Third is 5 and so on. Although I don't like the idea of not being able to imprison someone permanently (applying a cap on prison length) because that takes away the need to then go and save your friends, which is the reason for a lot of PvP and raids, this solution makes it very difficult to keep someone pearled for a long amount of time. I don't think this is the problem though, big clans won't be imprisoned forever because they have clan mates to help them out, but it's when new players are getting pearled for long periods of time is the problem.

This isn't the PrisonPearl plugin, but just a vanilla plugin. Either the player walked in there themselves or the holder of the PrisonPearl summoned them inside of the vault. Because it is one of the plugins we run, and in my opinion it was wrong of you to basically free the player from the box, although the holder of the pearl would probably have just summoned them back when they noticed they were missing. I thoroughly enjoy this plugin along with many others because there's a risk to PvP, there's something to fight for, always an objective. I agree that pearling new players isn't very smart, but we can't and shouldn't just implement rules for that, but instead handle it in the community which is what we're trying to do. Once everyone gets used to this plugin and knows the risks then it should be a lot more even but please don't go around helping people out of it whilst in modmode. I don't know what the sadmins have to say about this, but I think this is something the players have to sort out on their own without staff using their powers to fix it. EDIT: These people can jump themselves to death or get friends to free them, never use your mod powers to do this unless they are naturally stuck. Hopefully we can have a discussion about this with the sadmins to sort this out.

So what you mean is "Make griefing against the rules." Everyone needs to chill out. How you consider the server to be dead despite this change bringing on a large number of players is beyond me. The few people complaining about the server that I've seen are old MCPublic players who weren't keeping up with the changes, so when they logged on to see how the server was doing that were shocked that it had changed so much. So, just to repeat myself and what numerous others have been saying the whole time: THIS IS A TEST REVISION. Survival was shitty with a very low player count, many meetings and discussions found that almost everyone wanted a change. A change was made. Give your feedback, sure, but don't whine about how the server is dead just because you're not having fun.

I still like to use the jail, especially when it comes to hackers and griefers. Put them in there for a few minutes and speak to them ensuring they know what they did wrong and why it isn't allowed. Not speaking down to them or anything, just be friendly and helpful and they're more likely to stop and continue playing. Jail is for when they're doing physical things that you want them to stop without removing them from the server. I think we need to get into the habit of muting players, also. There've been numerous bans recently that could've been sorted out by muting a player, for verbal things like harassment or excessive chat spam. I believe players can still message whilst muted so you can speak to them quickly and they shouldn't continue. They're both good steps to use before kicks/bans because the player never leaves the server, if they get kicked they'll be more inclined to stay off and not return.

My concern with this is that the server admins would have to basically do everything, and that isn't always possible. The sadmins have been having to completely recreate survival as well as doing most of the head admin tasks too, from a player's point of view anyway. I wouldn't want any of them to get burnt out or have the job half completed due to them having to many responsibilities. In the past this has been a problem. When there is a head admin who isn't too popular, they tend to select someone similar to them to take their place. We then just get a chain of poor head admins that the players can do nothing about because they have no say. I can't really think of a solution for a fair way to choose the next heads, but if we were choosing candidates now I'd say Mrloud, kitcatbar and Dumbo in place for Draykhar, WCS and thrawn. We don't really have any active heads currently and although I think that those 3 did fantastic jobs whilst they were around and involved more frequently, I think a reshuffle could be refreshing for the servers.

I believe that he asked to be moved to inactive when he was contacted by Mrloud, though I may be wrong. He could simply ask for the powers back when he returns, I'm sure he'd be welcomed back.

I don't think anyone has ever complained about a poor reputation earned by voting on the forums.

Not the rules though, many people will downvote for things they disagree with. You should be allowed to up/downvote whatever you want, they really don't impact anything. People need to stop getting so hung up over them.

If Mrloud said something that players disagree with and S players are saying things that people do agree with, how are votes being misused?

Or just have 1 book with a short summary of the rules in there somewhere, with the rest informing players of plugins, commands and making the server feel like a fun place to be. All relevant rules are listed at spawn, links to the rules page on every site we have and the in game book - I think that should probably be enough. We may need to change our moderation style slightly from a "You knew what you were doing wrong, banned!" to a "Ah, well we don't allow that here, thanks for understanding". It'll make us more approachable and probably more cooperative among the current community also.

Having been active is not the same as being active. He hasn't been on in a month, therefore he is inactive.