Survival [PMC] New Rules for Survival

[Mrloud15]

Edit for the archives, none of these rules have been implemented. For a list of the current rules, please see nerd.nu/rules.

 

The sadmins have decided to add these rules to Survival. Please comment below or send me a pm if you have a reason you think these should not be added or if you have any changes you think should be made to these rules. I will be making an announcement post about these rules around this time tomorrow soon.

• ​​​No inappropriate clan names or tags. 
  
• No creating clans with names or tags with the purpose of trolling an existing clan. For example, creating a clan whose tag only differs by one letter, or creating a clan whose name only differs by a word. 
  
• Any public admission of using an unauthorized mod or client will result in a kick or ban for using said mod or client.
  
  • You should almost never ban for this. You should /cmsg or kick them saying to stop, if that does not work you should mute the player, and if they still continue to the point where it starts to spam chat you should then ban the player.
    
  
  
• Any of these items used for doors will not be replaced if griefed. The player who removed said blocks may receive a warning or a ban.
  
  • Ice
    
  • Cobwebs
    
  • Huge Mushrooms
    
  • Mycelium
    
  • Glowstone
    
  • Diamond blocks
    
  • Emerald blocks
    
  • Emerald ore
    
  • Diamond Ore
    
  • Lapis Lazuli Ore
    
  • Coal Ore
    
  • Redstone Ore
    
  • Nether Quartz Ore
    
  
  

[TornadoHorse]

What counts as an inappropriate clan name? Earlier in the map the clan '4skin' was deemed inappropriate, where are we drawing the line with this? If it doesn't get defined in the rule there'll be loop holes that players will try to get around. Either make it clear what is and what isn't inappropriate or don't implement the rule.

 

I'm assuming this rule is being implemented due to the issue with the clan '[Redacted]'s name being taken before the clan; currently known as '[Redacted]', could get it despite it being known that that is their clan name. This is the only situation where this problem has come up that I've seen, so making a rule to just clear up that situation seems unnecessary.

 

What circumstances does this cover? Does it include joking around? Occasionally in chat you'll have people derping around saying that they have xray or other hacks. This rule seems a little unclear to me.

 

I may have missed the discussion about this, but I think the list for grief bait blocks should be edited slightly. Silk touch is a very easy enchantment to get now with enchantism, so it's fair to say that everybody would be able to get that enchantment relatively simply. Both coal and redstone ore are common ores found whilst mining. Getting these ores isn't too difficult, but isn't incredibly easy either. I think they should be removed from the list since they're not that valuable and easy to get.

 

• Any of these items used for doors will not be replaced if griefed. The player who removed said blocks can and will receive a warning or a ban.

 

I'm also not certain about the wording, it seems a little contradictory and unclear.

• Will these blocks be replaced if you use them not as a door, but as walls/ceilings/floors.
• If you get warned/banned for breaking those listed blocks (if they are doors), does that not mean that you can't break through unless you want to risk receiving a warning? Unless you have the means to replace said blocks, you're not able to break through making that base unreachable.

[Mumberthrax]

• ​​​No inappropriate clan names or tags. 
• No creating clans with names or tags with the purpose of trolling an existing clan. For example, creating a clan whose tag only differs by one letter, or creating a clan whose name only differs by a word.

What counts as an inappropriate clan name? Earlier in the map the clan '4skin' was deemed inappropriate, where are we drawing the line with this? If it doesn't get defined in the rule there'll be loop holes that players will try to get around. Either make it clear what is and what isn't inappropriate or don't implement the rule.

 

The thing is, though, that if you try to imagine all possible cases where the name would be inappropriate, you will likely not be as imaginative as someone who tries to bypass the rule. If you make it super specific, then you are creating the possibility for loopholes to be exploited, violating the spirit of the rule while adhering to the technical definition. The simpler this rule is, the better in my opinion. I imagine concerns about unfair application of the rule may be allayed by an appeal to admins on a case-by-case basis.

 

This is the only situation where this problem has come up that I've seen, so making a rule to just clear up that situation seems unnecessary.

 

This is not the only instance in which I have observed clan names/tags being used to troll an existing clan or individual. Such trollish or inappropriate behavior may be covered by our broad "don't be a dick" rule, and in this instance the saying "Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler" may be applicable. I am generally not in favor of making a new rule for every possible offense, and this one seems distinct enough that it deserves explication.

[Mrloud15]

 

What counts as an inappropriate clan name? Earlier in the map the clan '4skin' was deemed inappropriate, where are we drawing the line with this? If it doesn't get defined in the rule there'll be loop holes that players will try to get around. Either make it clear what is and what isn't inappropriate or don't implement the rule.

For right now we are using our, sadmins, best judgement on what is considered an inappropriate tag. That is why the command to verify commands is now an admin only command.

 

 

I'm assuming this rule is being implemented due to the issue with the clan '[Redacted] name being taken before the clan; currently known as '[Redacted]', could get it despite it being known that that is their clan name. This is the only situation where this problem has come up that I've seen, so making a rule to just clear up that situation seems unnecessary.

Unfortunately the [Redacted] is not the only situation that has come up.

 

 

What circumstances does this cover? Does it include joking around? Occasionally in chat you'll have people derping around saying that they have xray or other hacks. This rule seems a little unclear to me.

For the most part jokes will be included. Most of the time after one person does it others will follow and it quickly spams chat. Also, a new player may not know players are joking and think it's ok to use said mods or clients.

 

 

I may have missed the discussion about this, but I think the list for grief bait blocks should be edited slightly. Silk touch is a very easy enchantment to get now with enchantism, so it's fair to say that everybody would be able to get that enchantment relatively simply. Both coal and redstone ore are common ores found whilst mining. Getting these ores isn't too difficult, but isn't incredibly easy either. I think they should be removed from the list since they're not that valuable and easy to get.

It's currently against the rules to use any ores as a door, but players have been asking for a list of what can and can't be used so we made one.

 

I'm not against removing ores from the list if, after a public discussion, we decide that with Enchantism they don't need to be on it.

 

 

 

I'm also not certain about the wording, it seems a little contradictory and unclear.

• Will these blocks be replaced if you use them not as a door, but as walls/ceilings/floors.
• If you get warned/banned for breaking those listed blocks (if they are doors), does that not mean that you can't break through unless you want to risk receiving a warning? Unless you have the means to replace said blocks, you're not able to break through making that base unreachable.

 

This list is specifically for doors, and is an addition to this current rule:

• Piston doors that are made of ore blocks are considered grief-bait (as discussed in the universal rules) and will not be replaced if griefed.

This part of the rule is because there have been quite a few players who will remove all of the ore for their own use. I changed the rule to "the player who removed said blocks may receive a warning or a ban." I don't see any reason to ban or warn players who makes the minimal amount of edits to get into a base, and this rule will only be used for the cases like the one I said above.

[TornadoHorse]

For right now we are using our, sadmins, best judgement on what is considered an inappropriate tag. That is why the command to verify commands is now an admin only command.

 

 

Unfortunately the [redacted] is not the only situation that has come up.

 

I think this is fair enough actually. I agree with Mumber that keeping it less specific would be good.

 

For the most part jokes will be included. Most of the time after one person does it others will follow and it quickly spams chat. Also, a new player may not know players are joking and think it's ok to use said mods or clients.

 

I can see that it might make it seem as if using hacked clients is okay, but for the most part I don't think that is the case. If people have read the rules and understand them then this sort of joking around in chat shouldn't affect that. Just the other day at the SAL a couple of players were messing around saying things like 'turn off your nodus'. I don't think it does much harm occasionally joking around about that stuff. There are other rules in place that would come into effect if this crossed the line for example if chat is getting filled up with it it'll come under the no spamming rule. 

 

It's currently against the rules to use any ores as a door, but players have been asking for a list of what can and can't be used so we made one.

 

I'm not against removing ores from the list if, after a public discussion, we decide that with Enchantism they don't need to be on it.

 

 

 

This list is specifically for doors, and is an addition to this current rule:

• Piston doors that are made of ore blocks are considered grief-bait (as discussed in the universal rules) and will not be replaced if griefed.

This part of the rule is because there have been quite a few players who will remove all of the ore for their own use. I changed the rule to "the player who removed said blocks may receive a warning or a ban." I don't see any reason to ban or warn players who makes the minimal amount of edits to get into a base, and this rule will only be used for the cases like the one I said above.

 

There's a mumble meeting this saturday that me and Four_Down are hosting. Could we discuss this with everyone there and get a final decision on what to do, or would you rather these rules be finalised before then? It was strongly suggested that redstone ore should be removed from the rules due to enchantism making things easier to obtain.