PvE protections

[unce]

Hi Guys! Could I get a complete guide to the PvE protection standards? I can't seem to find them anywhere. Thanks PvE staff :D

[Guest Former Staff]

Hey Unce, there is a section within this info post for land claims which go alongside the pve rules regarding protection. Reply back if there's anything further you need. :-)

 

How goes Uncetown?

[unce]

Hi barlimore no UnceHaven this rev. Thanks for the reply but I've read your posts and none seem to describe what standards need to be met for a protection of a build. Just information regarding large claims.

 

 

My friend beedo was told that this is too ugly to be protected. It is early in the rev and he doesn't have many tools to build mansions like everyone else in the big towns. What could he add to make this protectable? An unfinished iron grinder in the basement?

 

EDIT: This protection is strictly to prevent greif, not to hold land. It is close to spawn and has a farm behind it so it is likely to be broken by griefers.

Edited September 4, 2015 by unce

[Guest Former Staff]

What could he add to make this protectable?

 

From the screenshot there, the build looks put together fairly quickly. A work in progress, I understand. Maybe if your friend put a bit more time into developing it a little more, having a significant number of edits then that should help to make it protectable.

 

No iron grinder needed but I hope to see a hot tub installed at some point. ;-)

[unce]

I'm sure things will be developed more over time, hot tub is coming soon :D

 

I think it would be a good idea to get a protection requirement list so players know when it is okay to modreq for it. Currently it is really inconstant. Beedo build this building a few days ago in the same area and it was protected without question a few minutes after the request was made.

 

You can see that this building probably took way less time and effort than the one I posted earlier. If players had a list of protection requirements they would be able to get there builds up to code and prevent lots of possible grief.

[Guest Former Staff]

Fair point Unce, I'm glad you shared this example. In that case I don't really have much more to add for the current build you're querying if this previous build by Beedo has been protected.

 

Detirmining whether each build per modreq is ready for protection requires a judgement call but a rudementary protection requirement list may be a decent guideline to add to help people have their builds protected from grief.

[c45y]

From a staff perspective I would have protected both builds, I was unaware there was a minimum requirement for a small protection around a build. ^edit that isn't obvious derp

 

Maybe it was just from missing my P specific moderator training, but I wouldn't mind a clarification. Having a farm attached and being near spawn I would have thought it logical to protect to prevent grief as has been stated

Edited September 4, 2015 by c45y

[Trooprm32]

Low quality, and hastily made builds are something we try very hard to avoid protecting, since more times than not, it's used to claim land. In this case, I would classify it as the latter, and from experience with seeing what you have built and how you are always outside of spawn, either laying claims with slabs or spammed fence blocks.

 

We intentionally set out this rev to block all claims from existing close to spawn, with favour to more high-quality builds that deserve to be there, rather than ample amounts of unused land.

 

Protection requests near spawn should and will be scrutinized to ensure that's the case.

[c45y]

While I understand the reasoning, I still question how to enforce it. If it has walls, a roof, a farm and a couple of chests does that make it eligible? Does it need to be a certain size? Do I have to have friends in high places? 

 

If we're going to have rules we need to document them such that as staff we can actively enforce them, otherwise whats the point?

 

When we refuse protection to a build, does that impact the griefing rule at all?

If at the end of the day, either roads lead to a protected build that nobody else can edit, but one requires manual intervention from staff to continually fix... I just don't quite understand why we care if its not particularly pretty

[Guest]

When we're going by P rules and the P training, the white "town hall" building should not have been protected.

[unce]

When we're going by P rules and the P training, the white "town hall" building should not have been protected.

What P rules are you talking about? Can I get a link to the protection standards?

[unce]

Low quality, and hastily made builds are something we try very hard to avoid protecting, since more times than not, it's used to claim land. In this case, I would classify it as the latter, and from experience with seeing what you have built and how you are always outside of spawn, either laying claims with slabs or spammed fence blocks.

 

We intentionally set out this rev to block all claims from existing close to spawn, with favour to more high-quality builds that deserve to be there, rather than ample amounts of unused land.

 

Protection requests near spawn should and will be scrutinized to ensure that's the case.

 

Did you even go to my town last rev? Full of skyscrapers, fancy buildings, and an 8 city express subway. If you don't think my city was "worthy" of a spawn build I don't know what is. No need to be a judgmental ass about it, admin.

 

All of my friend beedo's builds this rev intend to stay there, with or without a protection. If they aren't protected, you and the mod team will be creating unnecessary work for yourselves by having to roll it back all the time. Greifers doin't usually go far from spawn. Players should be able to have fun building here without worrying about other people judging their work. If you want to see beautiful creations build some, some people enjoy building simple things.

Edited September 4, 2015 by unce

[Guest]

What P rules are you talking about? Can I get a link to the protection standards?

 

http://wiki.nerd.nu/wiki/Rules

 

"Hastily made structures that serve no purpose other than to lay claim to an area will not be protected."

 

The white build is clearly a very hastily made structure.

[unce]

http://wiki.nerd.nu/wiki/Rules

 

"Hastily made structures that serve no purpose other than to lay claim to an area will not be protected."

 

The white build is clearly a very hastily made structure.

 

 

that serve no purpose other than to lay claim to an area will not be protected."

 

Those buildings aren't just to stake a claim. I think beedo plans on leaving them where they stand.

[schererererer]

Imo, the issue lies in the fact that the rule preventing protection of low-effort builds is quite subjective. You can't train mods for every aesthetic variation, and trying to go any further than "cobble/dirt/plank box is bad" quickly turns into a quagmire of increasingly complex pre-rulings. Add to this the fact that over the years, average build quality has risen and thus the perceived threshold of haste in making a build has likely risen in parallel.

From my understanding of the rules, the first build would be close to an an edge case which reasonably either could or could not be protected, while the latter ("town hall") should not have been protected.

[Sapphric]

Moderators are trained to identify builds that qualify for protection, but we can't lay out exactly what constitutes a protectable build. This is because in a game like Minecraft, with literally infinite possibilities, it's impossible to objectively say what should or should not be protected. This is why protection is usually subjective; that said, mods are taught what kind of builds should qualify.

For your two examples, I would maybe have protected the first one, as it seems relatively finished/complete. But I would not have protected the second one. We only protect finished builds, or builds that are incomplete, but have shown a considerable amount of progress towards completion. Low-quality, hastily-built structures are not usually protected because of people abusing protections in the past in order to get essentially empty land protected.

[Trooprm32]

Did you even go to my town last rev? Full of skyscrapers, fancy buildings, and an 8 city express subway. If you don't think my city was "worthy" of a spawn build I don't know what is. No need to be a judgmental ass about it, admin.

 

All of my friend beedo's builds this rev intend to stay there, with or without a protection. If they aren't protected, you and the mod team will be creating unnecessary work for yourselves by having to roll it back all the time. Greifers doin't usually go far from spawn. Players should be able to have fun building here without worrying about other people judging their work. If you want to see beautiful creations build some, some people enjoy building simple things.

 

Are we even talking about last rev? No.

 

Your "city" had effort put into it, therefor had the right to be protected as such. The dispute we had last rev was the eligibility of having a /place, so don't come bringing bad "evidence". Your builds this rev are of less quality and hastily built, therefor they won't be protected.

 

This is something I even said last night, before you made this post;

 

 

2015-09-04 01:40:10 | [Mod - Trooprm32] hes proved that he has the ability to build atleast semi-decent builds

2015-09-04 01:40:27 | [Mod - Trooprm32] i dont understand why hes trolling this again

2015-09-04 01:40:42 | [Mod - Trooprm32] last rev's uncehaven wasnt that bad in actuality

2015-09-04 01:40:48 | [Mod - Trooprm32] seen worse

[zburdsal]

Could we maybe say for the hastily made part, if a build is complete and looks like it would take more than an hour to make, protectable, if it's incomplete and looks like it took over 6 hours to make, protectable?

Times changeable to whatever sounds right, and pure (but time costing) derp could be excluded.

We'd still have the subjectivity of that mod deciding if it looks like it would take a certain amount of time to build, but it would be a more clearly defined and hard to loop-hole limit.

[UNP]

That first build Uncle posted looks fine. The guy used a variety of different materials, he put some effort in to make it look like a house and not a derp shack, and it actually has a design instead of just being a bunker.

So the mods reward his efforts by saying it's too ugly and thus they couldn't be bothered protecting it.

There is way, way, WAY too much subjectivity and discretion used in the enforcement of rules and guidelines on this server.

Edited September 11, 2015 by UNP

[SwitchViewz]

There is way, way, WAY too much subjectivity and discretion used in the enforcement of rules and guidelines on this server.

I have an idea! How about instead of complaining and groaning about how staff is to "subjective" you provide a actual solution or alternative to the current policy? Eh? If you got better ideas we'd love to hear them.

[UNP]

I've tried. I got told off for being negative, aggressive and "toxic". And then I got banned.

You guys don't handle your authority being questioned (even politely) very well at all.

[zburdsal]

Is... is my suggestion ok? Could I get some input on that?

[UNP]

Is... is my suggestion ok? Could I get some input on that?

It's a very sensible suggestion. Personally I think it actually provides some kind of even partially objective metric to judge it by.

That's why I expect it not to get addressed. I wouldn't hold out hope, man

[zburdsal]

... that's a pretty bleak view to hold.

[Narissis]

I've tried. I got told off for being negative, aggressive and "toxic". And then I got banned.

You guys don't handle your authority being questioned (even politely) very well at all.

 

UNP, I don't think there's anything that anybody can say to you that will make you finally understand that it's not your opinion that gets you criticized and/or banned, but the confrontational way in which you communicate it.

 

Anyway, more to the point of this discussion, I don't know if there is a way to make this issue objective.

 

Whether a build is "hastily made" or not will ultimately come down to mod discretion; that's just how it is. To zburd's suggestion, how are we to judge whether a build took one hour or six? Different players build at different speeds. I probably spent about six hours building the foundations and framing the arch for my giant bridge; another player might barely complete a pier in the same time if their access to resources is less.

 

Here's my thought on the matter: judgement on protections ought to be based more on permanence than on effort. Meaning that if it's plain that a build is an attempt to claim land (only just started, or a bunch of cobblederp shacks scattered over valuable land for instance), it should not be protected. But if the build appears to be something meant to remain in the long term, even if it's a small or "hasty" structure, it should be eligible for protection.

 

Taking beedo's structures above for example: the little house and farm may be small, but they're not going anywhere. They're plainly intended to remain as-is. I feel like this should be protected. If someone griefed it, we'd roll it back anyway. So why not take the measure pre-emptively? The town hall I would say needs a little more construction because it obviously has a lot of growing yet to do and is nowhere near the state in which it will be complete. But I wouldn't ask for a whole lot more work than what's in it so far.

 

Even if the builder never finishes a structure, it's still griefing to damage the work-in-progress. So why is that structure not eligible for protection just because it's only 50% done instead of 100%? If the building languishes and the player abandons it and an admin removes it down the road, it can't be that much trouble to remove the region at the same time.

 

Obviously we shouldn't be protecting big empty plots with scrambled derp buildings, but what's the harm in issuing a small region to protect a little build that's clearly intended to be a permanent structure?