Okay, I've been playing with some ideas to

• put moderation more into the hands of the players
• while minimizing perceived mod abuse,
• make PVP less rule-encrusted
• without ruining the game for peaceful players.
• bother me with player and politics issues as little as possible in the future.

Among those are:

• rules for mods, especially for overruling other mods' decisions (this happens way too often)
• mod elections (who to elect and give voting rights to, and how exactly to run the elections is your job to discuss, also I will keep a veto right for myself)
• a public modlog where mod actions will be logged (minus sensitive stuff with IPs), that's mainly a technical todo for me
• opt-in “fight club”: Keep out of PVP and you won't be bothered, else you're in and nobody will help you. Basically. Perhaps there are ways to buy yourself free.

I'm open for other ideas, but:

• I won't make this a full PVP server. Builder rights will always trump nation autism.
• No heavy modding and especially nothing that requires client mods.

I've already moved a bit towards user moderation with the tool block and some of the work on CivCraft is inspiring, but their main player moderation tool (the Prison Pearl) is only half as useful here (pirate server) and creates nasty dynamics. Also, we don't have nearly as many players, so we'll have to keep the moderator approach. If you want to suggest plugins, do it, but I want to keep this server mostly vanilla. No asia grind MCMMO or shit. I'm open for new rules as long as you can fit them into at most three sentences. — tetete 2012/08/02 01:05

Answer in bullet points to keep the conversation threaded.

• like
  • this.

• >Elected Mods
  • Oh dear. -vlad
    • PS: http://dev-urandom.eu/doku.php/nations:privileges
  • I'm personally for a system where you can propose anybody as mod as long as they agree. Then, a wiki page gets put up and people discuss the nomination, and I'll approve the candidate about a week later depending on my gut feeling and the arguments brought forward. Same for impeachment. Does that sound practical to you? As for nation leaders getting a vote, anything that requires my intervention (promoting/demoting people, installing plugins, performance related policies) needs to get past me anyway. So, why not. — tetete 2012/08/02 18:48

• >Regarding the new mod rules
  • Oh yeah, I hadn't totally proposed that a long time ago. I guess I was not good enough mod for you.
  • Just make a system that doesn't need mods. Make them useless completely. Everybody will be happy trust me.
    • That barely works on premium servers. There need to be some trusted players able to do IP lookups and large rollbacks. I'd be happy abolishing mods completely, but I don't think it'd work. — tetete 2012/08/02 18:45

• >Builder rights will always trump nation autism.
• Just make something that works against those pesty builders that come to nations, build and later want to have nothing to do with the nation because “lol I didn't know this was a nation”. It reminds me of some underground rodents and some fantasy fucker I met in a past.

• — caBastard 2012/08/02 03:39

• me gusta t. mazznoff

• >put moderation more into the hands of the players
• >while minimizing perceived mod abuse,
  • You need more mods and in case of obvious mod abuse you should remove mods: that is; more mod rotation.
    • Once somebody gets demodded and not tempdemodded, it's usually for good. I don't want to just burn through mod material. We don't need that many more mods, but once the appropriate checks and balances are in place (public modlog and mod guidelines) we could try. — tetete 2012/08/02 19:19
  • Without any authority from above, players in their arguments will use force argument. Law, without proper interpretation will be bended to the absurd boundaries. Server has to base on some sort of hierarchy, unless you want place where stronger/more active/more aggressive players abuse weaker/less active/more peaceful players.
  • Also, most people who cried about mod abuse were people who had had been punished for griefing/assaulting other players/assaulting nations.
• >bother me with player and politics issues as little as possible in the future.
  • We had that year ago, when all/almost all mods were from Kurwa, and hell, there was lot of them.
• elected mods
  • pffffffft

• — Rosenmann

• FREE KOVIO 2012
  • stop mod abuse
• mod voting sounds swell
  • VOTE GREENKITTEN
• Unordered List Item
• — green kitten 2012/08/02 11:55

• So, what is the definition of modabuse?
  • Is it building too much with creative?
  • Is it banning and/or kicking players for personal reasons?
  • All of the above?
• This, because I believe there isn't that much harm if creative abuse is confined to one place (ie. Wizard University, new spawn/Mari, playground above Nether). Banning/kicking is harmful, I agree, and should be dealt with. It should be noted, however, that I see some players challenging mods, by annoying them, into giving them bans, then yelling “MODABOOS!1”.
  • Mari is an official project, the wizard university is awesome, the playground doesn't harm anybody and is out of everybody's way. What I'm not so happy with are Tang's ice tower (nice enough, but well, ice is a creative only material) and the badfacian pyramid (unless the materials became legit suddenly). Wouldn't destroy them though. — tetete 2012/08/02 19:08
  • If a player is being an abrasive cunt to a mod, it's the mod's right to ban them. However, don't overdo it and remember, it always takes two to Tango (I just don't want to arbitrate it every time, perhaps use the arbiter more often). Also we have the jail function now. — tetete 2012/08/02 19:00

• Also, I don't see mod election/rotation as a bad thing per se, but then there needs to be a fixed number of them, and they need to be in different time zones. It's no use if the majority of bernds is German, so only European mods will ever be on. So, maybe 4 American modslots, 3 Asian modslots (quietest time on the server) 5 European modslots, plus the current admin team.
  • Sounds reasonable. — tetete 2012/08/02 19:07
• PS. Kovio will get elected using this scheme, FYI.
  • Lol, not if I have my say. — tetete 2012/08/02 19:07

— Koentinius

• About elections: A system would have to be devised where nations and other groups are limited to a number of votes. The naive solution would mean that power begets power, leading to an unstable system. Perhaps a system where free builders' voices in total account for 50% of the total vote, and the nations collectively for the other 50%. Those 50% would then have to be fairly divided between the nations based on some balancing algorithm. All in all it sounds like a way too complex system, but at least “some of the poles would be in the left-hand portion of the s-plane”. – Bragzor
  • There will always be an admin in the loop because it needs one to promote players to mods. So, gaming the elections is rather pointless. See also the answer to v1ad. — tetete 2012/08/02 19:10

• >mod elections (who to elect and give voting rights to, and how exactly to run the elections is your job to discuss, also I will keep a veto right for myself).
  • I like the idea of putting moderation in the hands of the players where this means new plug-ins like tool block and cozy block. I don't think moderators should be elected though, modship should not be based on popularity but on merit. It also could be dangerous if we reach a point where other players can simply vote another player off the server.
    • Don't worry, I've considered that, as long as admins/humans are in the loop it's going to be pretty hard to game the system. — tetete 2012/08/02 19:39
      • Okay. How about a referendum on whether or not to keep the current mods, taken individually? — Sikandar 2012/08/05 06:07
        • I think the current mods are fine. I wouldn't have appointed them otherwise. — tetete 2012/08/06 22:30
  • I don't mind “mod abuse” when it comes to building server or personal projects, but mods must be careful that creative inventory shit does not reach the hands of players.
    • LC (Limited Creative) prevents most of that, and technically everything is logged though it becomes a bit messy when the data is buried in the logblock database. The mods mostly get that building with expensive “creative” materials is a no-no. — tetete 2012/08/02 19:39
  • Certain people cannot handle modship as the power goes to their head, they favor certain people over others and become rather elitist. Of course players will follow their own interests regardless of whether the mod has made an objective or unfair judgment concerning the rules, so player opinion should be taken with a grain of salt, but the mods should be reassessed. Maybe each mod could report on the others.
    • “Maybe each mod could report on the others” I encourage that, with a modlog it should become practical for players too. — tetete 2012/08/02 19:39
  • Rotating mods just for the sake of fresh mods would be a horrid idea.
    • Agree totally. — tetete 2012/08/02 19:39

• >rules for mods, especially for overruling other mods' decisions (this happens way too often).
  • Who will enforce these rules, it would be creating more work for the admin.
    • Other mods and an impeachment process for bad cases. Perhaps tempdemod powers for other mods if the problem is acute. — tetete 2012/08/02 19:39
  • Any rule that cannot be enforced absolutely by game mechanics should not be strictly enforced.
    • Any current example? — tetete 2012/08/02 19:39
      • For example, the nation threshold of 10 people. That really isn't that much of a requirement though and I probably shouldn't have made a problem out of it when ca removed Bremen. Currently there is a possible problem that nations use dual citizens to reach that number, and also use citizens that have not logged in in months to years to reach that number. I have been historically against nations having thresholds but if we adopt Kovios plan I would agree that they are necessary. Otherwise mods have been pretty good recently about not being dicks (except Tang). — Sikandar 2012/08/05 05:51
        • I'm hoping for a nation law overhaul anyway. — tetete 2012/08/06 22:30
  • The way it works currently is that certain mods hold more legitimacy in the eyes of players and so their rulings are more respected, see v1adimirr. There is also the issue of respect among mods.
    • That's just how it works. However, overruling another mod should be an announced exception. — tetete 2012/08/02 19:39

• make PVP less rule-encrusted
• >without ruining the game for peaceful players.
  • There should always be an out for those who just want to build, but we also need to incentivize pvp in some way, and punish those who try to have it both ways (without being so harsh that they leave the server). It would be nice if there was some attractive plug-in that only full nations could use, even if it was only informational and lacking in content (I think there was something like this that we considered once, that gave the name, list of players in the nation, etc.)
    • Like factions? Some of its functionality looks nifty but I don't want the whole package (I don't really like area protection). There are alternative permissions plugins like Privileges that would make managing group membership a lot easier (finally enabling proper group chests). — tetete 2012/08/02 19:39
      • That might have been it. Would it be possible to disable area protection and basically everything that adds some sort of mechanic, allowing it to be informational only? — Sikandar 2012/08/05 05:51
        • Privileges is pretty much the most minimal change I can introduce in this direction. — tetete 2012/08/06 22:30

Adjourned:

00:01:15 <@te3> orz
00:02:01 <@te3> why must all permissions plugins either be a pile of crud, do nothing, do things weirdly or be "special" and "unique"
00:03:26 <@te3> I mean, bpermissions' mascot is a fucking man coming out of a banana
00:04:22 <@te3> privileges looks nice, but some stuff is expert only, "unless you're comfortable with the configuration process, as it may cause interesting errors"
00:04:39 <@te3> pex is just broken
00:04:49 <@te3> factions isn't a permissions plugin
00:05:20 <@te3> permissionsbukkit does its work, but only ops can reliably administrate it
00:05:28 <@te3> *pulls hair*

— tetete 2012/08/10 00:07

• The requirements for nations are not really necessary so long as they accept all of the consequences of nationhood. Even now the nations rules (which are not really server rules anyway but agreements among players) are pretty laxly enforced.
  • Those definitely need an overhaul, they only grew in complexity to become shako- and yugo-proof. — tetete 2012/08/02 19:39
• It would be cool if there was some way to enforce the fight club list, having it so individual players have pvp toggled on or off for their character.
  • I've already thought about such a plugin, I'm pretty sure I'd need to write that myself. Basic idea: Hit a player who isn't a part of the club and nothing happens, hit one who is and you become a member if you aren't already. There needs to be a mechanism for indirect weapons such as lava buckets, but that could be managed by mods. — tetete 2012/08/02 19:39

— Sikandar 2012/08/02 17:27

• Everything except >mod elections sounds pretty neat. Please don't do this. I would also support war on chat spam. For all the other topics I actually put my trust in the sovereign(s). I also want to state here that cats are really adorable. — _glo 2012/08/02 18:88
  • Chat spam as in? Also, 1.3 will let you hide the chat. — tetete 2012/08/02 19:16
  • e.g. free kovio spam, gratuitous use of text color, massive use of ¬english language — _glo
    • There it's fixed, you can hide chat now. — tetete 2012/08/09 21:04

~I have no idea how to format things~

Okay so here's some random ideas.

Make a new map, now this would only work if multiworld every works again. Make a new map with the Huge Biomes setting for world generation, and limit the size of the map. Add borders with the plugin so say, only 20-30 biomes encompass the map. Now this would be very very good for politics because a nation could claim an entire biome, and there would be visual boundries. This would also be great because, you wouldn't have a nation that's supposed to be say snow people, who only have 200 blocks of snow, and then a desert next to them. To avoid mass butthurt, we could let all the players keep their items(i dont actually support this at all, I want a fresh start on an even personal and political playing field, but i just know people will threaten to leave) and take them to the new world and go back and forth. This however, would be damaging because i assume lots of people who have invested lots of time on the 1.1 map wouldn't want to leave their map. I just think with the whole new huge biomes thing, it would be fucking awesome. It could also stop people like us(mongols) from just going to every desert we see and setting up camp. However, I still like us being nomadic. Also this isn't to say that more than 1 nation couldn't be in a nation, that would be more interesting of course.

• I'm really in favour of a limit, as limited clay forces conflicts or cooperation and interesting things in general. World limiting could be done through this plugin: http://dev.bukkit.org/server-mods/worldborder/. Separate inventories should probably be implemented. I'm actually neither for nor against keeping Oceania, it doesn't give me the feels 1.7/1.8 gave, but continuing NR would be nice. Once Timber is tested, it should also be added to the server. —Koen
  • I don't mind a limit, but I also like building far from civilization. How many blocks were you guys thinking? 6000 block radius seems fine to me. I wouldn't mind starting over. Maybe we could have some rules like no expansion in non-contiguous territories to stop the mongol thing from happening again, at least in the way it did. Also this would be a boon for trade if certain nations held only certain kinds of resources. I think as you said above, have each biome comprise a region, require nations to only be able to hold territory region by region and not split the territory. Seas could be carved up and controlled to allow for colonies. As for certain buildings (new spawn library, perhaps the memorial hall, and others that are necessary), they can be edited in with worldedit in real time or mcedit before the map is released. Spawn could comprise a central region. How would regions be divided/captured especially initially? How does claiming land work? It would make it kinda like risk in a way which is ebin. — Sikandar 2012/08/05 05:20
    • I support having a new map with large biomes - — Uxbridge 2012/08/05 06:04
  • I'm already using worldborder for the main map, but the borders are at ~32k. What kovio is suggesting sounds nice, but I'm somewhat against splitting the player base (though I'm not that adamantly against it as I am against abolishing the old map). — tetete 2012/08/06 16:04

Change the PvP rules a lot. Keep the PvP list for people who agree to random PvP, but also change the rules. As of now, if someone of a nation who you are at war comes into your territory and attacks you, and you take their stuff. You must give it back or you can be banned(see my 1st ban in caveats), now the 'rules' say otherwise so it's more of an issue with mods taking different stances. So going on to my proposal; If you have a nation and someone else comes on your territory this should work in a more realistic manner. If someone is on your land, and you ask him to leave and he doesn't or refuses you can kill him and take his stuff. If someone from an enemy nation that you're formerally at war with comes onto your land you can kill them etc. Also you should be able to have a list somewhere that says if x persons come onto our land, they will be killed on sight. This would also go hand in hand with a new map with huge biomes. So borders were more noticable. Like, 'oh man I shouln't go in the swamp someone from swampland might kill me“.

• Sounds good to me. —Koen
  • Sounds interesting. They do need to be changed. I'd like to see nationplay incentivized and more following from that more battles. I think the current (planned, with the option for the two opposing sides to set up their own plans) battle system is best for deciding on territorial control but would be open to more frequent border conflicts and raids. — Sikandar 2012/08/05 05:32
• If “two maps” happens, I'm in. — tetete 2012/08/06 16:11

Last idea for now is sort of dumb, but if implemented right it could be great. Add 3 types nation, a nation can choose to be when they become a nation. Civilised, Uncivilised, and Primitive. This would only have political restriction and pluses for the nations, and would obviously have no personal restrictions, or building restrictions etc. Just political. A civilised nation would have set boundries and in political interactions would have to act more 'civilised'. They would also have to be more nice on killing people, maybe having to give items back when killing people on their territory etc. They could also be required to have an actual cause for war if they decide to declare it. I don't have many ideas now but I think the premise is good. You know, civilised nations would have to act politically, and only politically like a civilised nation would. An uncivilised nation could declare war more easily for stupider reasons, could kill people if people came onto their land etc, but wouldn't have as much right to land that they claim. I think that sounds a little overpowered for the uncivilised nations. A primitive nation would be like a settlement essentially.

• This sounds unnecessary to me. Nations don't choose to be civilized or uncivilized, they just are. Like, WR and Kurwa were civilized, Breshik was not. —Koen
  • Agreed with Koen, too much like Victoria. Dunno how non-political settlements would be handled. Would they have their own building area? Or maybe a better idea would be for them to just be completely neutral, and the settlements would nominally be part of the nation controlling the region but entirely autonomous, switching hands depending on the conqueror. Nations like Badfacia and other currently peaceful areas wouldn't exist however. Anyway I think if we implement this we need to do a massive overhaul of all of the rules and a codification of the new ones in a central location — Sikandar 2012/08/05 05:32
• second koen, unnecessary codification. — tetete 2012/08/06 16:11

— cool dude 2012/08/05 02:54

• This format sucks
• I for one support our new map overlords. I haven't liked a map since 1.7. Giant biomes would be great, fuck this tiny snowlands in the middle of a desert and jungle.
• If we started a new map I would be happy to revise the nations/PVP rules for the new world (1.3?). I wrote most of the current rules and I agree they are ridiculous at this point. As people have already stated, it wasn't always like this, but more and more restrictions had to be added because of shako, yugo, kovio etc. ruleslawyering or taking the rules in the wrong direction. A clean slate would be healthy I think.
  • How about war rules that work like the fight club rules, just for nations? — tetete 2012/08/06 15:54
• I also like the idea of making giant biomes distinct territories. If we make it so that nations can kill people trespassing, we better make sure anyone who joins knows this. That's more of a discussion for the rules though. Having biome territories will be nice though for roleplaying and for border wars. Some people have said they don't want rigid borders, but perhaps the single biome system could just be a minimum for a nation– if you want to expand you can. We'll see.
  • Sounds nice, but even if I can make 1.3 produce large biomes with oceania, the current map will persist as core. — tetete 2012/08/06 15:54
• Back to moddage: respect has to be earned, don't try and force it.
• I support giving nation leaders additional rights but not shit like creative or flying. Letting them vote in but not call mod votes would be good.
• Did I mention new map for 1.3?
  • nope.
• Probably should start a new map for 1.3.
  • nope.
• If we can bring over the new spawn te3 has made (including the library) that'd be noice.
• Also new map for 1.3.
  • I support the new map movement. — bh42 2012/08/06 10:16
    • My body is ready. — ruba 2012/08/06 11:30
  • nope.

I know this isn't actually the topic of this page but as more and more people here keep bringing up a map change, I’d like to add the view of someone who doesn’t participate in politics.

It is certainly understandable that PVP players would like a new map (especially with large biomes), but changing the map so frequently is a kick in the teeth for the more creative players, who invest(ed) huge amounts of time in a single (or many) big project(s).

PVP players often don’t have that much to lose in a map change. The Mongols, for example, mostly built very simple yurts that were put up in a few minutes before they moved on to another desert.

For non-PVP players on the other hand, there will be no incentive left to even start big projects. They know that they will lose it in a couple of months or not even be able to finish it. I wasn’t done with Fort Pen when the current map was put up but and I certainly am not finished with my island now.

What I really wanted to say is that the requirements for (new, or in general) maps are fundamentally different for PVP players and non-PVP players, to the point where they directly oppose each other. PVP players want a fresh start often and non-PVP players look for continuity. Multiworld might be the answer here. The huge drawback is the split of the server population, which isn’t very big to begin with at the moment.

Another thing that bothers me about frequent map changes is the “loss of history”. I like a map where you can see (and nostalgia about) past projects and/or abandoned settlements. 1.7 was awesome in that regard. I spent hours exploring the map and find other people’s homes or mines (especially the small most likely single-player ones in the middle of nowhere). 1.8 benefitted from the 1000×1000 build limit which meant most settlements were very close together, giving the map a very lived-in feeling.

I completely agree that the current map is horrible. It should have been deleted after the first week, when it became apparent that it is almost exclusively water. People hadn’t invested much time at that point. I guess as things stand currently, a new map would have more benefits than drawbacks (especially with the numerous terrain generation changes). However, if it does happen there should be some kind of indication for new players how long they can expect it to be used. Alternatively, a way to make sure it (or part of it) stays permanently should be found. The only thing I can think of would be to restrict the borders and – should the need for a fresh start arise – move the spawn past that limit. That way, people could still access their old projects without splitting the community (multiworld). The file size of the map might become a problem at some point (I don't know shit about the technical server stuff).

Also, it should be made certain beforehand that the seed of a new map doesn’t suck.

— PenOpener 2012/08/05 08:44

• I agree with Pen. The people proposing new maps are being selfish and arrogant. — caBastard 2012/08/05 09:49
  • I agree with Pen and Ca. History and continuity are very valuable and cool to have. It's just that 1.2 map generation is the most incredibly boring generation I've ever seen. The only cool terrain I know is in NR and is 20k blocks away. That won't work. If we can keep the map with multiworld, that would be the best, but the huge ocean and the lack of a limit makes this map barren. A limit, a new terrain, and some of the proposed rules could bring old players, bored with the game, back. — Koen
  • te3, how possible is to copy chuncks of the current map and move them somewhere else (new map)? I remember AlphaBernd proposing this in a past but he never implemented it for whatever reason. — caBastard 2012/08/05 17:41
• I agree completely on the continuity part and I'm more of a builder type myself (sorry vlad), it's my main reason for keeping the map. The spawn will be moved here with 1.3. As for the the map being mostly ocean, I'm pretty sure this is independent of the seed and other seeds will generate similar amounts of ocean, just differently distributed. @cabst, it's possible, but ugly and a fuckton of work and all the supporting structures (mines, railroad) will be lost. @Koen, if only MC's map generator were moddable. But find me another one that's up to date and creates more land and I might try it. — tetete 2012/08/05 20:04
• PS: I'm currently generating two random maps to test my theory that it's the generator that sucks and not the seed. — tetete 2012/08/05 20:56
• I agree with limiting the map in some form, thats what made the last map interesting in a political sense. Everyone was fighting over land, maybe some unneeded drama but it kept people playing. This map is getting stale because if your nation is defeated or if you just don't want to fight you can just travel to a new location and set up there, while in the old one it was difficult to find a nice spot that wasn't already claimed. I do think we should get a new map though and just reopen multiworld. — greenkitten 2012/08/06 03:02
  • I don't really want to split the player base. Btw, I tested the map generation: 1.2 with a random seed, 1.3 with a random seed. If you want I'll render a few more. — tetete 2012/08/06 13:42
    • PS: I exchanged the maps and let 1.3 generate the outer portion of the 1.2 map and vice versa. Then I forgot to put the maps back and confused overviewer, so I'll rerender the googlemaps. Just come back in a few hours to look at /testing/. — tetete 2012/08/06 22:06
    • What if you limit it to 40000×40000? That way no one is cut off and the map won't get too large. It'll keep people somewhat closer but still gives lots of space to explore and build. — green kitten 2012/08/09 10:39
      • Already did that :3 (radius of 32768) — tetete 2012/08/09 16:05
• As seen on the pre-rendered map te3 posted in #chat, the new spawn is on the edge of a relatively dense landmass with mostly ocean in the -x direction. It would be beneficial to make new players aware of that at the spawn (ingame) to reduce the number of people that set out on retardedly long sea voyages in search for land in an endless ocean. It might even be beneficial to guide them in a specific direction (or set up a warp) to concentrate population on one of the greater continents in particular. — PenOpener 2012/08/10 22:50
  • That part about the directions is a good idea, remind me to do that later. As for warps, I'll set up one to the old spawn, but overall I'd like to keep a lid on warps to not get a 1.7 situation. Mari should get a limbo rail station though. — tetete 2012/08/12 21:22

• I don't know where people get this idea that I haven't built anything on this map, I bet I've done more than you have ca. I just don't have any attachment to the stuff I've built because this map is ugly as fuck. Are any of the nations that exist actually even a shadow of 1.7 nations? Soviets seem to have collapsed, GAM is pretty cool but seem to have left, mongols gonna mongol, NR would be better if we restarted it on a new map..

• Disregard ca, remember that he was calling for a map reset just as many had accepted the current map and had got a good start on their towns when he thought he wouldn't be able to play in a convenient jungle.
• You could move some structures into the new map with MCedit, it would be easiest to do this with single self-contained structures (maybe an island fortress or the memorial hall). Whole towns (especially ones like Al-Iskandariya and NR) would be a pain in the ass to fix and wouldn't come out nicely enough to be salvaged so aren't really feasible. It won't work for everyone.
• Perhaps it would be better to wait a couple updates before even thinking about a new map. Some people who have supported the map change have said that they likely will not be around much over the next few months with fall semester starting.

Settlement rules (just to make that clear):

• Settlements may claim land to a lesser extent than nations (like now)
• Settlements may defend their land, but they are not allowed to take over foreign territory

General nation rules:

• Higher standards/requirements for war declarations, unlike 'XY WE WAR YOU'; for example more specified reasons, threats or even actual attacks
• Limits for land claims, depending on the current population, especially the active players, and other criteria
• Minimum 10 players and 4 or 5 active players (= players who logged in during the last week)

Neutral nations (we already had something similar in another proposition):

• Neutral nations may not attack or be attacked, as long as their citizens do not take part in any battles; maybe except for consensual PvP or other individual actions; otherwise, they can lose their status
• Nations engaged in an international conflict are not allowed to become neutral for 30 days or without the consent of the opposing nation, which may demand e.g. land or materials in return

Also, there should be such an option for players to opt out of PvP individually - if they don't belong to a political nation. For the same reasons, citizens of a neutral nations shouldn't be allowed to be part of the fight club.

Taking items from public chests (seems to require some regulation, this proposition is a bit random):

• Taking items from public chests is prohibited if it happens against the will of the 'owner' (e.g. signs allowing only limited use; death chests; possible protection bugs)
• Stolen items must be given back on demand
• If the 'owner' is inactive, some items may be taken, but not the most valuable ones; however, the owner can demand their return if he becomes active again (after a certain time)
• Exceptions: gross negligence (= player just failed to protect his chests), PvP or battle agreements

Moderation: The public mod tools are fine and a public mod log is okay, too - if there is no potential for abuse.

Players should be allowed to propose moderators and to discuss these propositions - an election can go a bit too far.

By the way, I don't think that mods want to question someone else's authority by overruling decisions. This can happen accidentally if another mod didn't notice the original punishment. Anyway, this should be reduced.

Also, for me, there is no significant mod abuse. I'm still trying to limit actions other could perceive as abuse, but sometimes, they are just necessary, for example flying when repairing stuff in creative mode - if somebody even complains about that. On the contrary, nobody notices when mods work on their own projects without using mod powers (there are justified exceptions). That's how it works, so it's not that important to discuss that.

Ban appeals to a higher authority (= te3) are another problem. For some players, it seems to be the natural reaction to supposedly unfair treatment. For example, maybe I or other mods lack in authority for some of them, so I'm not sure what the reasons are and how to change that. However, I think that's just how some of the players behave.

Okay, I'm away for two weeks now, so I can't answer here. I expect a good result of the discussion because some of the posts were really worth reading. Also, I don't want to repeat some arguments others already mentioned, so I'm posting this here, trying to add other propositions.

PS: By the way, it's just too late to start a new map. We could have done that when the map was new - now, some parts of the map are quite developed and it's almost impossible to impose new limits. Changing the spawn is nice for more space and the arcology looks quite good, although larger landmasses are still rather far away from it.

— Enton 2012/08/10 06:58

• new pvp/nation/settlement rules - meh, if anything I wanted to make them less complicated.
• open chests: 1, 2 and 4 sound ok, three meh.
• ban appeals - I rarely grant those anyway. Don't be deceived :3 (but that's something an arbiter could do, there are few technical reasons for me to take that position)

— tetete 2012/08/25 00:21

I already know that bans are (usually) justified, so it's not the actual problem.

Also, the proposed nation/settlement/PvP rules (and also, rule 3 on public chests) are too complicated. I know my proposition sucks now, but maybe there is a way to improve that. Unfortunately, I don't have the time to discuss that now.

— Enton 2012/08/25 09:55

PVP stuff + Territories

• Any territory that is not populated can be claimed by a nearby nation. However, if nothing is built on it, other factions are allowed to fight for it and take it over.
• Once another faction takes over the land, the previous owners have the right to start a fight/war and the winners can keep the land.
• If a land has infrastructure on it, it is not allowed to be taken by other factions (gaystuff like dirt houses doesn't count)

Mod Elections

• I support the idea of having mods from all around the world to cover most of the time zones if possible.
• Newfriends that arived 2 days ago should not be allowed to candidate for mods, since newfriends can't take even a pinch of butthurt etc etc.
• Everyone should be allowed to vote, candidates should give a little CV of sorts (why would you elect them, how long are they here etc bullshit etc)

On Enton about public chests

• I am heavily against prohibiting public chests usage. There is a tool called “Lock the chest”, if one is too dumb to use it he does not deserve his stuff. There are also passwords, so the owner can give the password to a certain amount of people.
• It makes the server even more peaceful, and it is already too peaceful. I support all the PVP ideas but never to the extent of destroying someone else's infrastructure. Killing and raiding is OK.

Mod Abuse

• Mods should keep their rights to build with creative, I have nothing against it. It makes the server more beatiful (note: Koen's island).
• Mods should not be allowed to overuse materials that cannot be obtained without creative (ice, sponge etc)
• Mods should not be jews otherwise a lot of nazis on this server would be butthurt.

New Map proposal

• I support Cabst in that we don't need one. We have been building our settlements for long enough, I dont want to start from wooden tools again.
• If we do get one, I think someone mentioned moving the buildings/cities via some tool to the new map. Perfectly fine and is actually great, but only completed towns should be moved so that we dont have storms of shit on our map like we have at the moment.

-BarabaDruze

• Defining territories by infrastructure + buildings sounds good to me. Of course, in a proper war, nations could still concede territories.
• mod elections: you suggest people, throw as much mud at them as possible, and if they come out clean I might elect them. No easy takeovers here.
• creative: agree on the materials. As for building, the mods aren't overdoing it so it's fine currently.

— tetete 2012/08/25 00:27

• Fuck off Yugo You've played maybe 10 minutes on this map in total and have no vested interest in keeping it. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean the rest of us don't — Chris 2012/08/15 11:06
  • Hear, hear! — _glo
  • Maybe new map + copy to it the currently developed cities from this map. The entire map would be more ordnung, huge biomes + we wouldn't lose our current projects. -BarabaDruze
    • That sounds like a major pain in the ass for me, a lot of work and not much added benefit since there are a fuckton of structures already that are quite well hidden sometimes. A lot will stay behind. — tetete 2012/08/25 00:15