Search the Community

In this thread, we will keep a record of major changes and announcements under the head admin sphere. You are welcome to post comments here, and to keep the thread readable and uncluttered we will remove non-changelog comments upon each update, as in the server-specific changelogs. If you would like to privately speak to the admins as a team, feel free to send a message to admins@nerd.nu

On Feb 4th, 2015 Mojang added the ability to change your Minecraft username. Already, several staff have taken advantage of this with no clear policy on name changes and staff laid out. As staff you are in a position of authority on the server and people build a professional and personal relationship with you. It would be disconcerting for regular players to log in and see new staff members who have had no interaction on the server up to that point. For that reason, all staff name changes should be recorded in this thread so we can maintain continuity of staff. If you are on staff (Mod, Admin, etc.) and change your staff username, please leave a simple reply here with that name change like so: You do not need to give a reason for the change or any other information- just let us know that your name has changed so we can reference it when needed. You do not need to tell us about your Alts, secondary accounts, etc. You just need to let the community know about your STAFF account name change if you make one. Please Note: Name changes are a brand new thing. While our servers use UUID based permissions and should work fine, we use many 3rd party plugins which may have issues with name changes until they are updated. If you can wait a couple weeks to make sure all the bugs in all the plugins are worked out that would probably be for the best.

Our current policy is, that all ban appeals are handled publicly and old ban appeals are stored at the closed ban appeals forum. Mainly this is done in the name of transparency, but there's concern about these being viewed to be "public shaming" and some players read them for entertainment. We're going to discuss this during our next staff meeting, so we're looking for a wider community input for the discussion. The final decision if any changes are to be made will be done by the head admin team. Things to consider for example: - Overall transparency issues - Do public ban appeals and separately public ban appeal storage serve and fulfill a purpose? - Introduce the possibility to ask removal of old ban appeals and are there some cases where this would not be allowed (mainly because of the nature of the ban reason). After the staff meeting and next head admin meeting we'll have an update where this is heading, if not already a decision to give out. I want to point out, that this is not about the popularity of one opinion, but to be thought from the viewpoint of what's best for the overall health of the servers and make it user friendly and welcoming.

The following table represents a list of guidelines to be used by staff in response to dealing with players. Staff are encouraged to use their best judgement in all cases; this table is meant to help keep staff consistant however in the event that people feel it is reasonable or necessary to deviate from this list it is allowed. Offense 1st Occurrence 2nd Occurrence 3rd Occurrence 4th Occurrence Additional xray appeal - 7 day ban + rollback / inventory wipe appeal - 30 day ban + rollback / inventory wipe appeal - 30 day ban + rollback / inventory wipe hacking/cheating warning/kick warning/kick 24 hr ban appeal minor grief warn warn warn warn Considered "moderate" grief moderate grief 24 hr ban 48 hr ban appeal major grief appeal chat spam/trolling/disruption warn mute (~10m) mute (~30m) 12 hr ban bigotry/hate speech kick 24 hr ban appeal inducing lag (accidental) warn/ask to remove warn/ask to remove appeal inducing lag (Intentional) warn/kick/rollback appeal advertising/spam appeal NSFW/offensive builds/skins warn/ask to change appeal ban evasion appeal (2 weeks) Harassment appeal doxxing appeal ban baiting appeal staff impersonation Admin Discretion illegal pvp appeal

Hey folks, the purpose of this thread is to provide a list of changes/events/other things that the PAdmins are doing to/in/for PvE to keep you guys in the loop of what is going on. PvE Revision 19 Changelog: [27th December] Doppleganger names are no longer case sensitive. [28th December] Updated the Iron Grinder Spawner post on the subreddit for clarity -December 28th Updated the Rev 19 Info Post to include update on Iron Golem Spawners and ability to purchase and upgrade. Dec 28th [30th December] Totemo has updated the P admin doppelgangers to include my ugly mug. This means that four P admins will spawn when using doppelgangers. For spelling, the current P admins are; Barlimore, cujobear, defiex & Sapphric. Winter resource pack has been removed, Santa and Elves are gone for this year & the snow effect has disappeared. Creepocalypse is active on P as of this time. [31st December] All The Things Challenge started. [1st January] [Reminder] Here are all of our active custom recipes. [2nd January] Creepocalypse has ended for another year [4th January] [Clarity] Defiex has added a section on the PvE Information guide to clarify claiming and placement of custom spawners. The process hasn't changed, merely made clearer. [7th January] Added safeboxes to three locations inside the end and two inside the nether to prevent people with poor connections incorrectly teleporting to the overworld locations of the portals inside the other respective dimensions, resulting in death. [11th January] Due to a request in chat forwarded to us, we've reviewed and added the 'Better PvP "Fair Play"' mod with restricted usage to the approved client mod list. [12th January] Due to the prevalence of iron grinders since the introduction of purchasable spawners, the four places (IronGrinder-NE / SE / SW & NW) have been removed. [15th January] Following a padmin meeting last night, we've gone through and responded to all of the current suggestion box submissions to date. Announced the next upcoming admin hunts. [20th January] Valentines event has been announced. Changes & additions to sending /mail announced Mid-rev feedback topic is up. Forum topic added too. [23rd January] Horse pvp damage has been disabled. This will be primarily noticeable during future admin hunts. [25th January] CobraCorral has been removed, functionality has been transferred to EasyRider. [26th January] The EasyRider section of the information guide has been updated to reflect the changes to EasyRider. The custom recipes section of the information guide now includes images for easier dissemination. [2nd February] P updated to 1.11.2. Here is the official wiki feature list for the update. Animal spawning has been increased to help boost natural spawns for the new mob, llamas. We've added an update FAQ to the wiki. [5th February] Plugin BeastMaster added to restore wither skeleton spawning in the nether to 1.10 values. [6th February] Trial of the Lost scavenger hunt was sneakily added. [14th February] LovedUp Enabled. [15th February] LovedUp has been disabled. [21st February] Mapworld plot caps have been increased from 10 to 100. "*The plot limit is set to 100 plots per person so that the cap won't matter so much. Claim only what you need as excessive claiming will result in warnings and further punishments." [14th March] St Patrick's Day event announced. [17th March] Revision 20 tentative date announced. St Patrick's Day event begun. [6th April] Confirmed the revision 20 changeover schedule.

Hey folks, the purpose of this thread is to provide a list of changes/events/other things that the PAdmins are doing to PvE to keep you guys in the loop of what is going on. This idea was originally created by previous PAdmins here but we have decided to retire that thread as suggestions can go in it's own subforum now. I will be sorting all changes into revision categories to give time frames of when they happened. If you have any feedback please post in the subforum. PvE Revision 18 Changelog: May 26th 2016: Revision 18 Information Post made: Link June 6th 2016: The June PvE Admin Hunt has been announced! More details here: Link June 21st 2016: The PvE June Blog Post has been posted: Link August 22nd 2016: The August PvE Admin Hunt has been announced! More details here: Link August 24th 2016: New PvE Messages have gone live as of 5:32AM PST. You can view the full list of death messages here: Link

When we transitioned from the uservoice website to the nerd forums suggestion subforums, it was convenient because it is centrally located, players don't have to create a new account on another site to use it, and we already have familiarity with moderation tools. One of the defining features of uservoice was/is that players/users can vote on those ideas/suggestions that are important to them. Our forum software provides the ability to host user polls on forum posts, and these are enabled for other subforums on nerd.nu/forums, but are inexplicably disabled on the suggestions subforums - where it would make the most sense to have them enabled in order for the community to more easily offer feedback on suggestions made. Please enable the ability to host polls on posts to the suggestion subforums here.

This has been a recent annoyance of mine, especially since the introduction of worldedit. Region sizes seem to stretch what used to be unimaginable, even with little or no development. It's not outrageous any more to find a 1000x500 block claims, or 700x700 block regions with development only in a 200x200 area or smaller. I understand that worldedit allows much faster creation, but when a land area is empty and you want to build in it, it's stupefying to find out that it's at the corner of a 1000x1000 claim. Is there any policy on a certain hard limit to how big a region claim can be? I understand that there is a 1-month-no-build-no-more-region policy, but is that really enough?

Some of the old lobbies were pretty neat. Please consider publishing them alongside the old map downlods for the different nerd servers on http://nerd.nu/backups/

Around December 2014 I made a post regarding an overhaul of nerd.nu's ban policy in the admin-only subforum. Around the same time I also made a post about a "mass ban amnesty" event in the same admins-only subforum. I do not have links to these since they are in a section of the forums that is not visible to me, and I have since cleaned my web browsing history. I don't remember all of the ideas that I suggested in the posts, nor am I certain that I would still today support them or the sentiments i expressed, and I would like to see them again as well as the discussions from other admins in response to them at the time. Please consider moving these two posts/discussions to the public archives subforum. Thank you. (Link to previous request, just in case it is relevant: https://nerd.nu/forums/topic/3228-foia-requests/?p=28566)

nerd.nu has a rule against disruptive arguments/discussions in global chat. There is a sort of unspoken rule on PvE that "politics" and "religion" are banned topics except in clanchat, relegated to the #politics channel or similar. Is this in fact a policy that staff are supposed to enforce? If so, are there any guidelines or specific criteria for determining whether a given topic or phrase is okay or not?

In the C redstone area I recently noted that this melon tower was cycling two rows of its pistons continuously (about once every 15 seconds). After noticing that I went in search of the potential clock to make sure it is left in an off state but found none. Instead I found a BUD switch, which ideally only triggers when a block updates, however with melon growth disabled in this area I'm rather mystified as to how it is continuously being triggered. While my technical understanding of the phenomenon is lacking, I do understand that it is continuously cycling pistons, a cause of some lag, which our "no continuous clocks" rule seeks to address. I would like to suggest that, that the rule be expanded (at least on C) to include that continuously active BUD switches must have an off switch and be left disabled when users are not present. You can observe the phenomena by tp'ing to modreq 1332 (as it only occurs in this specific area of the redstone device). Otherwise you can view triggered and untriggered states in the images below. Whole melon tower view Untriggered: Whole melon tower view partially triggered: BUD switch view triggered:BUD switch view untriggered:

This post is meant strictly as an amicable means through which all players, mods and admins can openly and freely discuss the current rules regarding region protections on PvE. It is not the purpose of this post to start or continue arguments. However, personal experiences and opinions are encouraged. The current rule on region protections states: "Protections are only to prevent grief and other unauthorized edits. Protections are not used for "claiming land". Mods will only protect builds (houses, rail, farms, etc.) and clearly established large projects, such as cities. Requests to protect empty land or to protect a very large buffer around a structure will be denied. Land that has been significantly improved through road/plot making or terraforming can be protected at staff discretion." First let me ask/address some issues with how these statements are written: "grief or other unauthorized edits." Please give me an example of an "unauthorized edit", under this rule. "Mods will only protect..." "... and clearly established large projects, such as cities." How do we make our future city a "clearly established large project, such as cities"? "Land that has been significantly improved through road/plot making or terraforming can be protected at staff discretion." Why is this "at staff discretion"? Can't we just say that, if a city makes plots or does "significant ... terraforming", it can reasonably expect said terraformed land to be protected under a region? ​In my opinion, this is an example of a rule that is neither clear nor needed nor followed by mods and admins; especially for cities. It is flawed, in my opinion, primarily because of the word "discretion". Discretion means that there is no set rule and that each situation could be handled differently by different mods and admins. This type of discretionary rule, IRL, is the cause of many controversies and has been the source of many controversies in Nerd for the last four years. Discretion is defined as "... the freedom to decide what should be done in a particular situation." If all mods and admins are required to "use their discretion", rather than follow hard-and-fast rules or policies, then there are no solid rules or policies, which leaves a lot of room for interpretation, discrimination and unfair treatment. However, the rules clearly state that mods will protect "clearly established large projects, such as cities". By making a cobble fence, my community said, "This is where we want to build as a city." Is that not clearly established? Furthermore, in an always-evolving map with unset boundaries and limitless possibilities, it simply does not make sense, in my opinion, to attempt to restrict undeveloped land protections in any way. The map is not short on building space, like the old days. There are no borders. So, not being able to reserve and protect undeveloped land doesn't add up. In fact, as was noted by several communities in the other thread, it becomes an inconvenience for players in way too many ways, which were covered in the previous thread. ​I will assume that the members of my community are not the only Nerd PvE users who have had similar difficulties. Although we may not hear from them here, if there is one community with those complaints and concerns, logic dictates there is, at least, one other ... and more-than-likely far more than that, who share these experiences. If there is any doubt, I would recommend a new poll. The question should be phrased as: "Do you believe region protections should allow players to protect undeveloped land? (Yes or No)" An easy solution might be to base protections on number of players active in a build. For example, 50 square meters per person seems acceptable to me; in which case, if a town has 5 residents, said town could have 250 square meters of undeveloped land protected. In my opinion, there should also be a poll concerning allowing cities to govern themselves, including removing evicted players' structures, but I'm prepared to take it one step at a time. Let's work on this first. This is a forum, so let's talk about it. I look forward to any and all supportive or critical responses. Respectfully Submitted, -Vykoden

This post is meant strictly as an amicable means through which all players, mods and admins can openly and freely discuss the current rules regarding region protections on PvE. It is not the purpose of this post to start or continue arguments. However, personal experiences and opinions are encouraged. The current rule on region protections states: "Protections are only to prevent grief and other unauthorized edits. Protections are not used for "claiming land". Mods will only protect builds (houses, rail, farms, etc.) and clearly established large projects, such as cities. Requests to protect empty land or to protect a very large buffer around a structure will be denied. Land that has been significantly improved through road/plot making or terraforming can be protected at staff discretion." First let me ask/address some issues with how these statements are written: "grief or other unauthorized edits." Please give me an example of an "unauthorized edit", under this rule. "Mods will only protect..." "... and clearly established large projects, such as cities." How do we make our future city a "clearly established large project, such as cities"? "Land that has been significantly improved through road/plot making or terraforming can be protected at staff discretion." Why is this "at staff discretion"? Can't we just say that, if a city makes plots or does "significant ... terraforming", it can reasonably expect said terraformed land to be protected under a region? ​In my opinion, this is an example of a rule that is neither clear nor needed nor followed by mods and admins; especially for cities. It is flawed, in my opinion, primarily because of the word "discretion". Discretion means that there is no set rule and that each situation could be handled differently by different mods and admins. This type of discretionary rule, IRL, is the cause of many controversies and has been the source of many controversies in Nerd for the last four years. For example, "police discretion" is what caused the riots in Ferguson, MO. Discretion is also what killed Trayvon Martin. And, discretion was used by every Nazi SS soldier during WW2. These might seem extreme, but they are all only examples of discretionary rules. The rules clearly state that mods will protect "clearly established large projects, such as cities", but Placenta couldn't get its building area protected even after constructing a cobble fence around our desired building area. How much more of a "clearly established large project" could we have made it? By making the fence, we said, "This is where we want to build as a city." Is that not clearly established? Furthermore, in an always-evolving map with unset boundaries and limitless possibilities, it simply does not make sense, in my opinion, to attempt to restrict undeveloped land protections in any way. The map is not short on building space, like the old days. There are no borders. So, not being able to reserve and protect undeveloped land doesn't add up. In fact, as was noted by several communities in the other thread, it becomes an inconvenience for players in way too many ways. The players involved in Placenta, although Nerd veterans, have only been back on Nerd for the last 8 weeks. However, in that time, because of this rule, we have experienced the following: We could not protect our undeveloped but clearly-defined building area. We could not demolish an abandoned, unprotected derp shack. We could not prevent two strangers from building within our community; Nor can we remove what's left of their buildings, after they left our community. We could not effectively evict a non-contributing player; Nor could we remove their structure. ​I will assume that the members of Placenta are not the only Nerd PvE users who have had similar difficulties. Although we may not hear from them here, if there is one community with those complaints and concerns, logic dictates there is, at least, one other ... and more-than-likely far more than that, who share these experiences. If there is any doubt, I would recommend a new poll. The question should be phrased as: "Do you believe region protections should allow players to protect undeveloped land? (Yes or No)" An easy solution might be to base protections on number of players active in a build. For example, 50 square meters per person seems acceptable to me; in which case, if a town has 5 residents, said town could have 250 square meters of undeveloped land protected. In my opinion, there should also be a poll concerning allowing cities to govern themselves, including removing evicted players' structures, but I'm prepared to take it one step at a time. Let's work on this first. This is a forum, so let's talk about it. I look forward to any and all supportive or critical responses. Respectfully Submitted, -Vykoden

As a long-time Nerd PvE veteran user, it's easy for me (and others in my community) to see how and why the Nerd population has dropped as drastically as it has. Please consider this post merely as a constructive observation and suggestions; not as a negative criticism. There is no reason any of you should be offended by what I'm about to say. In the beginning, PvE was chaotic. Players could do practically anything. The Nerd servers were attractive, because they weren't "vanilla", and "don't be a dick" was the law of the land. But, as the server grew, more "dicks" began appearing. And, instead of simply kicking or banning the players, mods and admins who were ruining the Nerd experience for others, The Nerd Collective chose to start handling every complaint diplomatically; in an attempt to retain users ... dickish or not. With that attempt to retain as many players as possible (and often more players than the server could handle) came more so-called problems. Land disputes were settled by towns and among players. The only time a mod was called in was to protect a region, to investigate griefing or to place water or lava. Since then, even more rules have been created to protect players' "rights" ... even after said players abandon their builds and the server. Creating more rules is the logical "next step" when running any community; be it in gaming or IRL. Most gaming communities overreact to what they see as ongoing problems. But, those rules are a double-edged sword. When the average post-16-year-old player is faced with all these rules, they become less enthused about the server. Although those rules are implemented to protect the players, too many rules can deter players (see Communist Russia). And, with more rules comes more complaints, more violations and thus more work for the mods and admins. For example, take our community's issue with mrstone's birch derp house. This is an issue where the player (mrstone) still hasn't returned to their derp shack since the middle of May. Had our community simply taken it down, per the old rules, your mods and admins never would have been involved, because you never would have noticed, because mrstone never came back. But, I chose to handle the issue "legally", and doing so caused more work for the mods and admins because of the new "user friendly" rules and policies. Soon, that tiny abandoned house became a property that was regularly monitored by mods. It became the source of discussion, debate and controversy in our community and with your staff. In all, more than three hours of mod/admin time and more than 10 hours of player time was devoted to this tiny house, in the middle of nowhere, which remains abandoned, to this day, since the middle of May. Now, here's the kicker: YOU'RE NOT GETTING PAID. This fact is key, because the only reimbursement you are receiving for doing "your job" is the satisfaction of knowing that others are doing what you're saying ... which, although most of you are great people, is rather narcissistic. The consensus in my community is that, if Nerd wants to to attract more and more-regular players and put itself back on the map, it has to take a serious look at all its policies, rules and procedures, because, clearly, how you are currently thinking isn't working to your benefit. Although you are mods and admins, you should be having more fun than headaches. You should be able to play, without feeling like babysitters or hall monitors. By adding more rules, you have more than doubled your workload, which will only lead to one thing: Burnout ... especially because YOU'RE NOT GETTING PAID. Moving forward, we recommend you roll the Nerd clock back a couple years and make the following changes: Allow players the freedom to do anything they want outside of griefing. Any region or build that hasn't been touched within one month should be cleared for removal, so others can use the property. Allow players to place running water and lava. Keep "fire spread" off, so running lava doesn't cause destruction. Allow city builders to reserve and protect large areas of land ahead of time ... or as soon as they spawn in and find a location. Only use moderators for griefing, region protections, "harassment issues" and land disputes. By making these changes,: Players will be attracted to build large cities again. Players will be able to do almost anything they want without doing modreqs. The server will grow and be more fun again. And, You will cut your work, at least, in half, which will increase your fun and decrease your stress, because you're NOT getting paid to work so hard. ​ We're all here to have fun. For that to be achieved, rules must be clear, concise and minimal. We don't need events and prizes to attract players; we just need more reason to keep building, and your current policies make even that, at least, fairly undesirable for most players ... and, obviously, for most moderators and admins. (If you haven't noticed, your unpaid turnover of mods and admins is HUGE). Give the players what they + Moderators work less = Community is more fun and thus more attractive to new users. It's simple, but to see it, you, the mods and admins, have to admit that you are not always right and that your way is not automatically the best way .... because if that's what you believe, then Nerd has become nothing short of a modern-day embodiment of fascism. "Don't be a dick" was a great blanket policy. It demanded respect between everybody on the server. It's time we revert back to that policy, respect everyone and remember why we're all here ... (and respond reasonably when we're not here and haven't been here for several months). Thank you for your consideration, maturity and objectivity while reading. -Vykoden (p.nerd.nu player for six years)

Edit== Please Click here to go directly to the 2nd and final draft policy for the Inactive Staff section. == Further below I'll have both the Returning Staff Policy and the Inactive Staff Policy for you to view and share feedback upon. We [head admins] have already discussed these and have them in our final draft format as we feel that these policies are fair, will allow us all to take action and above all this was all constructed with communication in mind. The sooner we can put the finished policies into motion, the sooner our next staff clean-up can begin which I will ensure that tools are ready, in tandem for that moment. So please, ask any questions you may have below. This dual-policy isn't yet set in stone but we're happy with it so far. Returning Staff Policy Over the years, we have had a number of both inactive and past staff re-join the team to assist the community once more. With few exceptions we have always tended to add former staff back onto the moderating team at the very least. However it isn’t fair on the community to add people back onto staff who aren’t active. We want to ensure that there is a clear process for returning staff and that it isn’t just a case of pals being added to sit in a position without the knowledge of how to help effectively. If you’re looking to return to staff, please use the following steps: Contact any / all head admins to state your intent with assisting on staff once more. I would recommend a group forum pm because it is easier to track and has timestamps. Show that you’re involved in the community by being active for 28 days (for example: spend some time bringing up your usage on the servers from your current point). The head admins will communicate your desire to return to staff in the private mod chat forum, allowing up to one week for any potential feedback. After 28 days of engaging with the community, provided your activity is in-line with the kind of average levels that our other staff have on the servers, we’ll move forward with updating your permissions and providing re-training. Re-training will vary per person depending on the length of time since last helping out on staff. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Read the 2nd Draft here. Inactive Staff Policy With this Staff Inactivity Policy, we aim to address the activity issues experienced across staff for years by having a clear process documented for updating permissions of people deemed inactive. Members of staff are active if they are fulfilling their responsibilities and investing an appropriate amount of time in doing so (on the same order of magnitude as their compatriots). While some may go above and beyond, taking the time to assist in areas not expected of them, we primarily expect each person on staff to tend to the tasks underlined in their current role. Staff who significantly drop their activity levels below those of their counterparts over the course of a three week period will be deemed inactive; these will be moved to the inactive section on our website and notified of this change. Admins, due to their responsibilities toward greater involvement with the community, have a threshold of two weeks. Exceptions can be made for people who inform us of planned inactivity. Staff members who plan long-term inactivity (four weeks or more) will be moved to the inactive staff section and have permissions updated to ensure that the current staff list accurately reflects personnel status. Movement to the Past Staff section will occur after four weeks of time in the Inactive Staff category (in addition to standard resignations and removals). For people who are completely inactive, we will send a forum pm informing them that their permissions will be updated to be moved to the inactive staff section and will be further moved to past staff one month later should they not wish to return to the staff team at that time. We cannot take people’s word that they will start to be active just because we have sent this pm, from our past experience, this just leads to our staff list remaining inactive. To those staff who are active in the community but are not engaging with their responsibilities to a level similar to their counterparts then we will contact you privately to discuss options such as stepping down to take a break or finding out ways in which we can support you.

Hey their everyone, this is something I have always wanted to do and I intend to push really hard to get this going. I want players to be able to host their own events on the server with staff assistance if needed. When I was a player I always wanted to host official Mob Arenas or Spleef Matches but was turned down by staff because we don't do that. I want to change that and open event hosting to all of the community. I want to do this however without granting any sort of extra perms to players and to do this they will need staff assistance and support. This is what I propose for Player-Ran-Events. Info Players submit a document following a specific format (that I will write up at a later date) that will include information about the event. Such as what server they want the event to be on, what kind of staff assistance is needed, what the prizes are (if any), and other details regarding the event. The goal here is to have the player completely run the event and only have staff assistance for things they can not do. These are the things that I feel we should offer to players: /o and /broadcast usage (announcement on the servers) Teleporting short distances Prizes EasySigns All of the above would be done by a designated staff member for the event and not done by the player. The player(s) running the event would be in a clanchat to communicate with the designated staff member. The initial launch of PREs would not include players building something on E in Creative and then having it transferred over to P, C, or S. However this is something I would like everyone to comment on as I think it is a neat idea. Essentially a player would submit a idea proposal, let's say a 5K for PvE. They would build it on E, then next rev PvE it would be transferred to the map. How would server admins feel about something like this? If it is on S or P it would not be put in the world, it would be put in a MV World or under spawn where players can not do block damage or bring things back to the overworld. Rules Draft Event must be hosted on P, C, S, or E Event must not take down any other servers (You can not do something like the fundraiser where all servers are taken down) Prizes can include any item that is obtainable through survival gamemode. Can have a custom name or enchantment (such as a fish with Protection 2). Can not be anything to ridiculous if on PvE or S (ex: giving out stacks of diamonds). Staff reserve the right to halt an event if problems are to arise Approval Process The approval process would work like this: Player posts event submission in the correct format EAdmins overlook it to see if anything seems unusual or a bit extreme (such as huge prizes) If nothing is wrong, it will be overviewed by that servers admin team If all server admins and EAdmins see nothing wrong it is approved Event is built/hosted This is my initial proposal of Player-Ran-Events to you guys and this is definetly subject to change. Please leave any feedback you have and if you would be okay with something like this.

Hey there everyone, I've been thinking about this idea for awhile and spoken to a few of you about it. With E currently being restructured I'd also like to expand the EAdmin role. Right now there is just a single EAdmin with a second one coming soon and various people on staff helping. I would like to start up a "Event Team" that is made up of staff and community members. There would be 1-2 EAdmins that coordinate and run the team and then any number of members on the team. Everyone on the team would be listed on nerd.nu/staff in there own area under "Event Team" and on the forums, and would be in there own perm group on E called "eteam", but listed in regular groups on P, S, C. A new forum board would also be introduced under "Staff Discussions" above PMC titled "Event Discussion & Planning" that everyone in the Event Team would have access to. All staff would also have access to this board but the public would not. Community members would be able to apply for the team by PMing an EAdmin stating that they are interested and how they think they could contribute. Depending on the need for members and the skills a person applying has we would decided if we want to add them or not. As an example, if this were put into action today, this would be the team I would start out with: SwitchViewz, Skraps, zburdsal, JudgeDread, kittypuppet Thoughts?

Sometimes I think we pass over certain nominated moderators because we have questions about their character/integrity/whatever. Would we ever consider creating a new classification of player used to trial candidates that have a questionable history by giving them a limited set of Moderator powers (e.g. Region creation, invisibility, chat muting, trace, coal ore, notes)? The intent would be to trial test their ability to act responsibly without the ability to cause serious problems for other players (logblock, ban, lava, water, portals). From the player's perspective we are simply offloading work. From staff perspective we would then informally use these players as a selection pool to consider for moderators.

Generally foul language (curse words and other explicit remarks) is socially unacceptable in public around children. As such when our players use it, younger players find themselves excluded from our community because it can't be avoided in global chat currently. I would like to propose that we add "Please keep language in global chat PG." I think this will be accommodating to the varied audiences we have on our server, while unrestricted (assuming it is not abusive) speech can still be carried out in clanchat and PM. Admins, please consider the above rule proposal.

What's the process for requesting a post in the admin forum or private mod chat forum be made public? (like the freedom of information act in the USA) There are a few that I posted and/or upvoted in those forums as an admin that I believe the players would find valuable, including but not limited to discussions about a modded server, our admin meeting notes, ban system overhauls, land claim policy on PvE, and a minigame server. edit: if I recall correctly, I don't think any of those had personal information or anything sensitive on them. I imagine they are no longer actively being discussed (most were basically dead threads before I was removed as admin) so it is not like non-admins or non-staff will be disrupting the planning process.

Allow pvp areas to be built without being entirely enclosed with walls and roof, but still prevent players from entering except at the specified iron doors by using WG regions. Require *some* kind of barrier to provide a visual demarcation of the region and to prevent players from believing they could casually walk into the area (eg. a fence, a wall, etc.). This way the pvp areas can be open on the top, or have more creativity and freedom of aesthetics in design, open air wilderness themed arenas would be possible for example. The way this can be done is relatively simple. In addition to setting up the WG region as usual with the PvP: allow flag, an admin would create a second region shell outset from the pvp region by 1 meter, with the entry: deny, and enderpearl: deny flags. The pvp-enabled region would have entry: allow flag set and its priority set 1 integer higher than the shell region (eg. /rg setpriority regionname 1). Then set up an easy-sign behind the normal iron door+button entry area to teleport players into the region, and set up an easy-sign immediately adjacent to that location inside the pvp region to teleport them out. There is no way that players can enter a pvp area without seeing a sign warning them, no way that players can be tricked into being killed, and pvp area designers have much more freedom than having to have a 6-sided container to completely enclose the area. Its an almost negligent increase in the amount of work for the admin, is not susceptible to abuse, is not any less vanilla than using WG regions to enable pvp and rules restricting build design in such cases anyway, does not affect the "the map must be free to explore" rule as pvp areas are already completely inaccessible except via the iron doors with warning signs. And its trivial to implement immediately. Requires no additional plugins. Here's the current policy statement on the rules page: Here's my proposed revision: The flags to be set would be: Inner region: pvp allow, enderpearl allow, entry allow outer region: enderpearl deny, entry deny The inner region would have an elevated priority. /rg setpriority regionname 1 The easy sign command would be just a simple teleport command, just enough to pass through the entry-deny region into the pvp area, and conversely back out again through another sign with a simple teleport command of the same kind.

What is everyones thoughts on allowing people to change their forum names? It is easy to do, and there is a record of it in the admin control panel. All posts by the user will show with their new name.

I would like to propose a change to one of the rules in the Universal section of nerd.nu/rules. The rule as it exists currently is: My proposed change is the following: I originally wrote this as part of an overhaul of nerd.nu/rules that I attempted, in which I created two forms of the rules, a simplified succinct version for the casual player, and a more verbose and precise version to be used in cases of ambiguous violations or in moderator training. The above version of my proposed rule is essentially from the latter, whereas the simplified version includes only the first sentence: I rewrote this rule because I perceived there to be three issues with the current rule and its enforcement. These are not monstrous issues threatening the stability of the server or the community, but I feel they are appropriate nonetheless to address rationally. 1. Sexism, Racism, and "homophobia" are not the only forms of bigotry. Maybe the "or any type of hate speech" bit is supposed to be a superset of those, but the way it reads is as though hate speech is a specialized and extreme kind of bigotry separate from the other three. Maybe just rearranging it to "No hate speech, including but not limited to racism, sexism, homophobia", following the pattern of the other lists in the rules, could work. 2. "homophobia" is a crappy word for bigotry against gay people, since someone can have a fear of a thing and not be bigoted to people about it, someone can be bigoted without having some fear, and calling bigotry a fear just confuses everyone and kills brain cells. Also, it puts the focus of the issue of gender identity and sexual preference all on the gay/straight dichotomy, leaving transgender people for instance out in the rain. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homophobia#Criticism_of_meaning_and_purpose) 3. Lazy-Hypervigilance born out of a fear of appearing bigoted leads to occasional heavy/nervous moderation of otherwise civil discussions, speedy moderation of specific offensive terms but hesitant moderation of situations not conforming to a watson-highlighted signal. This is less about the rule's contents as it is, and more about what has filled the void that it leaves open. HOWEVER, this is all meaningful only if the rule is there to deter bigotry and intolerance on principle. If the rule is there just to cut down on the most common crap like people trolling and spamming terms that watson highlights then it's probably fine as it is. Again, the situations that these changes are intended to help with are not common, and nerd's defacto moderator discretion policy on these things *usually* takes care of things well enough. I'd just feel more comfortable with the rule written better. Anyone have opinions or suggestions for modification of this proposed change? Does anyone here on the forums support or object to this proposal? I'd like to request the comments here remain civil and respectful. Thanks. Edit: I'd like to clarify regarding the third issue I noted with the current state of moderation of bigotry/intolerance, that I do not believe that all or most moderators moderate these matters in the way I described, but I have observed it happening on a few occasions, and I myself when I was on staff have even been perhaps too zealous or quick to /ban on a few occasions for homophobia that may not have been warranted so soon.

Invite the /u/publicmodlogs account to be a moderator of /r/mcpublic with no permissions enabled for it. When this happens, a public log of moderator actions on /r/mcpublic will be visible at the following two urls: https://modlog.github.io/#/r/mcpublic http://www.reddit.com/r/mcpublic/about/log/.rss?feed=c7b83b457469643f1912d5fee30e18dba808f351&user=publicmodlogs No other actions need be taken to maintain this public log by moderators of /r/mcpublic. It is a set-it-and-forget-it kind of deal. Some arguments for: Strengthening Relationships: It will promote increased trust in the relationship between the community and the moderation team. Safeguard against Misconduct: It will deter misconduct, removals of posts and comments which do not violate the rules by keeping those who abuse mod abilities accountable - so long as someone is watching the logs. Deter Unwarranted Witch Hunts: A public register of all mod actions means it is easier than ever to prove that a mod did not remove someone's post or comment without reason, or was doing any number of things that mods on reddit occasionally must defend against without the ability to prove their innocence. Easy and free: It costs nothing to setup and maintain. Non-binding: It is easily reversible - just remove /u/publicmodlogs as a moderator. This means it can be run on an experimental basis, and if problems occur it can be cancelled with no worries. Secure and Trusted: The data is provided by reddit.com directly, so there is no risk of tampering via other cumbersome third-party public modlog workarounds. Lead by example: It will show mcpublic/nerd.nu is forward-thinking and an ally to transparency and honesty, a community that can lead other communities by example through this small action and stay true to its principled roots as the Reddit Public Servers. Community Supported: As of today (9 days since posting) the respondents of this poll favor it, 21 to 2, with 6 undecided. https://nerd.nu/forums/topic/3416-transparency-and-accountability-what-does-the-community-think-of-public-subreddit-moderation-logs/ Schererererer Endorsed: One head admin has offered support in the comments of that post, stating that "In general, I think this is a harmless showing of transparency (for us, really more demonstrative than substantive)" and that he "would be fine with implementing it." Some concerns and arguments against: Personal Information: if personal information is in the title of a removed post, it might still be visible in the moderation log. There is a site-wide Reddit rule against posting personal information, so the reddit admins would be empowered to remove the post, its title, and any harmful information. Witch hunts: one of the most noted concerns expressed in this three year old discussion between mods of large subreddits and the reddit admins was that users would go on witch hunts against moderators who remove content. I personally believe that having a public log would be a safeguard against unwarranted witch hunts. I do agree though that an official public log as the reddit admins originally intended to provide would have superior features which would deter witch hunts, such as anonymized moderation in the logs. Regardless, there is as yet no evidence I am aware of to support the notion that these logs promote or empower witch hunts to any amount greater than they occur without public logs. May help spammers: spammers who can study public moderation logs and identify when mods are active, or what kinds of content is caught and removed may be able to use this tool to create more sophisticated spamming techniques. Unneccesary and a waste of time: /u/curtisdelsol in the comments of a post i made on /r/mcpublic about this essentially said nerd isn't important enough to need this. Edit: Trooprm32 points out in a comment below that there is not much of interest in the moderation log. Subreddit Security: There has been some concern in the past that use of this workaround with the published RSS feeds may pose some security risk to the subreddit. As someone who has been intimately involved in the business of setting up and using these links, I can affirm that I am not aware of any security risks, and have not yet heard of any reported in any of the subreddits which have been using this method, including several of mine which have been using it for over a year: https://modlog.github.io/ [Edit:] Removed things should not be public: They are removed for violating the rules. Making them and the fact that they were removed visible defeats the purpose of removing them in the first place. If anyone has any other concerns or arguments in support, please share them and if not already covered by the above I'll include them.