After certain events, the rules are being revised. The discussion on Minecraft itself was hard to follow so I've moved it to the forum; but please do talk about it in mine craft. If any of your fellow citizens do not have a Cemetech account please encourage them to register or (with their permission) speak for them (I will follow up on requests made on behalf of other players).
Current Rules wrote:
- No cursing, harassment or homophobia
- Wild griefing is okay but lots or liquid is not okay.
- Stealing is okay.
- Make a town and cover chests to protect your things!
- Hacks, cheats and X-ray are an instant ban.
- This includes any hacked clients, radar maps and/or induced lag.
- Spamming and advertising are ban-able.
New Rules v1.9.0000 wrote:
- No cursing, harassment or homophobia.
- Direct or Indirect attacks will not be tolerated.
- If it's banned on the forum consider it banned on the server.
- Griefing is okay but excessive, liquid or explosive is not okay.
- Any sort of untolerated grief is prohibited; on this server Grief is defined as ruining someones establishment or property unless you have permission from the owner(s).
- Explosions from creepers or by you within your own plot(s) is okay.
- Stripping beaches falls under untolerated grief.
- Stealing is okay.
- Make a town and cover chests to protect your things!
- Hacks, cheats and X-ray are an instant ban.
- This includes any hacked clients, radar maps and/or induced lag.
- Taking advantage of lag, whether client or server side, is not okay.
- Spamming and advertising are ban-able.
- Spawn camping is not okay.
- Once you kill a player do not camp out at their spawn waiting for them to return.
- If you make an agreement, you must abide by the terms to the agreement.
- Do not spawn more mobs than are required to farm efficiently. Excess mobs will be despawned with or without warning.
- Breaking any of these rules will net you a strike. We are on a three strike system. One strike gets you a verbal warning, two is a temp ban and the third will result in a permaban. Length of the temp ban is dependent on the severity of the action(s).
There is already protest on Rule #6, #7 and #9. Feel free to ask for other rules and revisions on the old and proposed rules. Let's try and get this finalized by Saturday/End of Friday.
Bad things:
1) Direct or indirect attacks? That's super-vague. Do you mean PvP, or words, or what? It has too much vagueness to be a good rule.
2) Griefing: That rule is also way too strict. The "excessive, liquid, or explosive" grief line is good. The "untolerated grief" is not.
3) The lag rule would prevent ALL horse-glitching. Is that what you intend?
4) The spawn-camping rule is really terrible and should go.
5) The agreement rule is horrible. Trust and betrayal and plotting are vital to a good PvP server.
6) I would not make the three-strikes rule explicit. Admins should have the power to judge whether something merits strikes, immediate bannination, or just a warning.
Good things:
1) The first line of the griefing rule is good, as stated above
2) The lag addition is good
3) The mob-spawning addition is good.
Edit: I propose officially enabling Towny's idle-kick feature, with an interval of 30 days. This would remove players who hadn't logged on in 30 days from their towns and would help fix the frankly ridiculous town and nation sizes.
KermMartian wrote:
Bad things:
1) Direct or indirect attacks? That's super-vague. Do you mean PvP, or words, or what? It has too much vagueness to be a good rule.
I was going for words. Though harassment could cover being repeatedly killed by a player.
Quote:
2) Griefing: That rule is also way too strict. The "excessive, liquid, or explosive" grief line is good. The "untolerated grief" is not.
What's a better way of going about that line?
Quote:
3) The lag rule would prevent ALL horse-glitching. Is that what you intend?
Yes. I also intended to cover any future glitches that are dependent on lag as well. I won't be able to enforce deaths via lag, that should just be an assumed danger in PvP but glitching is more or less enforceable.
Quote:
5) The agreement rule is horrible. Trust and betrayal and plotting are vital to a good PvP server.
That's my take on it as well. I've also received feedback that the two parties may interpret the agreement differently and to make sure things are clear it can be a rather long agreement. I'm almost certainly going to throw this one out.
Quote:
6) I would not make the three-strikes rule explicit. Admins should have the power to judge whether something merits strikes, immediate bannination, or just a warning.
Fair enough! I was thinking warnings could be given for multiple violations: warning for cursing, warning for griefing, warning for excessive camping, etc. Then after enough warnings a temp ban then a ban. Or if a user repeats an action they were warned against, it jumps right to a temp ban (Two curse words in a row, either same day or with a period of time between).
Quote:
I propose officially enabling Towny's idle-kick feature, with an interval of 30 days. This would remove players who hadn't logged on in 30 days from their towns and would help fix the frankly ridiculous town and nation sizes.
Just to add on, what would users think about a rule where only one account per player is allowed?
I am in agreement with the already in place protest on rules #6, 7, and 9. #8 is conditional, but for the most part based on server history, a good thing.
#6-- Spawn camping is technically not allowed because they have 10 seconds grace when they spawn in to do anything except deal damage, or be damaged. Someone's town spawn cannot be immediately attacked upon their coming. I believe that with this grace period, people are allowed to do something without getting "spawn camped". This would allow for them to run and/or do something intelligent to stop the attackers. From experience, there is not really a time where either of the following 2 conditions happened, which would therefore justify the rule:
[1] I get "spawn camped" and cannot recover due to it.
[2] I have "spawn camped" to where I realize the enemy could not have done anything to stop me.
I have been attacked at my town spawn in my past, and even if it made things tougher, which it should anyway, I still very easily found a solution to the problem. I find absolutely no issue being the victim of people waiting for me to return, and it's quite fun doing abnormal things to keep myself safe.
I have also sat out at someone's town spawn before and continued to kill them when their timer wore out. However, this is because they never bothered to take any real action. Had they done more pinpointing of my home location, and also immediately ran away from town spawn to go take cover, they would absolutely be safe given their 10 second protection time upon spawning in. From experience, people getting spawn killed was always due to their lack of creativity and otherwise effort to prevent an attack. Therefore, the fate of the user who returns to town spawn where campers wait, is ultimately decided by themselves due to their grace period upon spawning. If there was no grace period, I would be in favor of a grace period.
In addition, this is also how sometimes you are able to get more treasures via PvP-- by waiting patiently for an opportunity to arise after you have killed them. Otherwise, the terms are not very well defined in the least. There is no specification of a time period in which the user must leave for, or what kills are defined as.
#7-- I don't believe in PvP anyone is obligated to abide by terms of anyone's agreement. I believe it's recommended you honor what you agree to, but you will suddenly become untrusted if you break agreements, forcing you to re-earn them as necessary. Agreements, should be up to the user to follow, whether if they wish to maintain a sense of integrity with other users, or be completely untrusted-- which is their own consequence they must recover from. It is definitely a critical aspect of PvP politics, in my opinion. Regardless, this has never really been a problem of anyone, not being able to make any deal with another person due to lack of trust. If someone broke a deal with me, I'd simply go after them instead of trying to tattle on them to get them banned for not giving me what we baragined for-- it's all about the politics.
#8-- I fully agree with not having excessive mob issues due to concerns for lagging other players and the server. I would just ask that spawning mobs recreationally still be okay, especially in PvP aid. Obviously, one should not spawn 300 wolves to assist them since that lags people and the server, but it is fun to have a few mobs to of any sort to assist.
#9-- Generally well put for many actions. However, I am in agreement that it should be administrative discretion to determine if something severe enough deserves an instant permanant ban, or a first warning.
comicIDIOT wrote:
Just to add on, what would users think about a rule where only one account per player is allowed?
As someone with multiple accounts, I strongly disagree with this.
I feel that using mobs spawned in by the player should fall under PvP rules; nothing stops a player from spawning in an excessive number of pigmen into a town's spawn *cough*kerm.
Enforcing a rule about following the terms of an agreement would be both difficult and nosy. Additionally, it undermines the nature of PvP.
comicIDIOT wrote:
After certain events, the rules are being revised. The discussion on Minecraft itself was hard to follow so I've moved it to the forum; but please do talk about it in mine craft. If any of your fellow citizens do not have a Cemetech account please encourage them to register or (with their permission) speak for them (I will follow up on requests made on behalf of other players).
Current Rules wrote:
- No cursing, harassment or homophobia
- Wild griefing is okay but lots or liquid is not okay.
- Stealing is okay.
- Make a town and cover chests to protect your things!
- Hacks, cheats and X-ray are an instant ban.
- This includes any hacked clients, radar maps and/or induced lag.
- Spamming and advertising are ban-able.
New Rules v1.9.0000 wrote:
- No cursing, harassment or homophobia.
- Direct or Indirect attacks will not be tolerated.
- If it's banned on the forum consider it banned on the server.
- Griefing is okay but excessive, liquid or explosive is not okay.
- Any sort of untolerated grief is prohibited; on this server Grief is defined as ruining someones establishment or property unless you have permission from the owner(s).
- Explosions from creepers or by you within your own plot(s) is okay.
- Stripping beaches falls under untolerated grief.
- Stealing is okay.
- Make a town and cover chests to protect your things!
- Hacks, cheats and X-ray are an instant ban.
- This includes any hacked clients, radar maps and/or induced lag.
- Taking advantage of lag, whether client or server side, is not okay.
- Spamming and advertising are ban-able.
- Spawn camping is not okay.
- Once you kill a player do not camp out at their spawn waiting for them to return.
- If you make an agreement, you must abide by the terms to the agreement.
- Do not spawn more mobs than are required to farm efficiently. Excess mobs will be despawned with or without warning.
- Breaking any of these rules will net you a strike. We are on a three strike system. One strike gets you a verbal warning, two is a temp ban and the third will result in a permaban. Length of the temp ban is dependent on the severity of the action(s).
There is already protest on Rule #6, #7 and #9. Feel free to ask for other rules and revisions on the old and proposed rules. Let's try and get this finalized by Saturday/End of Friday.
#1: I think this is a good rule, though has never been used while I've been here.
#2: I think this is a good rule, and I agree that griefing via explosions is too much, mainly in the case of "a lot of griefing" + TNT, such as in the case of Kerm blowing up the entire town of Shoeblox.
#3: I think this is a good rule too.
#4: This one's always been here except for the lag clause, which is fair enough, as it has been pointed out it levels the field for those with fast internet.
#5: Yeah
#6: I think this is a good rule. Killing people at their own spawn renders them incapable of doing anything and is very mean, I'd classify it as a sort of harassment. Also, Charles is entirely wrong about a 10-second grace period - as far as I can tell it's a blatant lie, but if not, my slower internet renders it useless. In either event I have never had 10 seconds to react after teleporting to town spawn, he has always killed me immediately. Again, staying there murdering them as they try to come in is unnecessarily mean.
#7: It's an okay rule, but I'd be concerned about the difficulty of implementation, plus so far we've not had a lot of trouble with the honor system.
#8: Yeah, the excessive mobs rule is good
#9: I like the leniency system of strikes, but I think some rules can be broken thoughtlessly, which I think is less heinous than purposefully. For example I still think x-raying should be an instant permaban, because everyone knows (unless they're brand new) that it's just wrong. But something like foul language or excessive mob spawning aren't as bad.
- Caleb "Parse34" Hansberry
charlessprinkle wrote:
Had they done more pinpointing of my home location, and also immediately ran away from town spawn to go take cover, they would absolutely be safe given their 10 second protection time upon spawning in. From experience, people getting spawn killed was always due to their lack of creativity and otherwise effort to prevent an attack.
I wish there was a 10 second protection, but in reality, there isn't. For me, it takes about 30 seconds for those new chunks to load in after tping, so when the client finally catches up and I can do something, I'm already dead. charlessprinkle wrote:
In addition, this is also how sometimes you are able to get more treasures via PvP-- by waiting patiently for an opportunity to arise after you have killed them.
What treasures could you possibly get from killing someone constantly after they just tped from spawn? KermMartian wrote:
Bad things:
1) Direct or indirect attacks? That's super-vague. Do you mean PvP, or words, or what? It has too much vagueness to be a good rule.
2) Griefing: That rule is also way too strict. The "excessive, liquid, or explosive" grief line is good. The "untolerated grief" is not.
3) The lag rule would prevent ALL horse-glitching. Is that what you intend?
4) The spawn-camping rule is really terrible and should go.
5) The agreement rule is horrible. Trust and betrayal and plotting are vital to a good PvP server.
6) I would not make the three-strikes rule explicit. Admins should have the power to judge whether something merits strikes, immediate bannination, or just a warning.
Good things:
1) The first line of the griefing rule is good, as stated above
2) The lag addition is good
3) The mob-spawning addition is good.
Edit: I propose officially enabling Towny's idle-kick feature, with an interval of 30 days. This would remove players who hadn't logged on in 30 days from their towns and would help fix the frankly ridiculous town and nation sizes.
Bad:
1) Agree
2) I don't think it is too strict, but I do think it needs to be clearer
3) I also think going through one block thick walls should be allowed
4) I think that spawn camping should not be allowed, it is a cheap way of getting many kills and making someone ragequit. Because of spawn camping, the Cemetech Minecraft server has been losing players and that is not what this server needs.
5) I think it is necessary because I don't like paying someone 50kd and them breaking the agreement soon afterwards
6) Agree
Good:
1) Agree
2) I think glitching through one block thick walls should be allowed
3) Agree
The Edit:
I 100% disagree with that. I have worked the entire summer having people joining my town and nation. The more people you can bring on, then the more power you should receive, without it going away in 30 days.
FrozenFire49 wrote:
I wish there was a 10 second protection, but in reality, there isn't. For me, it takes about 30 seconds for those new chunks to load in after tping, so when the client finally catches up and I can do something, I'm already dead.
That's true. In addition it takes longer before I begin teleporting, in which time the server might be updating my position while I can't see that.
FrozenFire49 wrote:
I 100% disagree with that. I have worked the entire summer having people joining my town and nation. The more people you can bring on, then the more power you should receive, without it going away in 30 days.
I guess it'd probably cause a gigantic member loss for both of the largest towns, Arcadia and Shoeblox. I'm mostly indifferent because of that, but don't mind the way it is.
I have done some testing with Pyrot3chnic on the server of the teleportation protection time. Our tests show that the first couple to few clean hits upon a spawn in, are uneffective, both from my point of view which particles fly off of the person, and from his, in which he sees me swinging my sword at him.
Tests show that 5 seconds of protection is the result. However, I would like to note that in the town of Shoeblox, I have done so, and was not able to land any hits at all in the first 10-15 seconds, despite the particle spam from swinging the sword. This may be a lag issue of some sort.
Regardless, being conservative that it is 5 seconds, as KermMartian has mentioned on previous occasion, I am in favor of bumping this time up to 10-15 seconds, which is more than reasonable to do something.
In any case in addition to the 10-15 second protection PvP protection proposal, it is the duty of the town mayor to assure that their town spawn is protected from outsider influence, and not put it out in the open where outsiders may freely walk about to.
If someone gets banned on the Minecraft server, does he get banned on the forums, SAX and IRC channels as well?
ComicIDIOT wrote:
Just to add on, what would users think about a rule where only one account per player is allowed?
As I have multiple accounts I use on the server, I am personally against this (unless we grandfather in people who are already knowingly using the multiple accounts). That being said, rules should be enforced on the player, not the account. If I do something to break the rules on Hawthe for example, The_Rivereye should see the same punishment as well.
Kerm wrote:
Edit: I propose officially enabling Towny's idle-kick feature, with an interval of 30 days. This would remove players who hadn't logged on in 30 days from their towns and would help fix the frankly ridiculous town and nation sizes.
Says the owner with the largest town in game. Would you shrink your town down the appropriate size if we removed all your idle residents?
DJ_O wrote:
If someone gets banned on the Minecraft server, does he get banned on the forums, SAX and IRC channels as well?
I would say case by case here. If you are banned because you kept overloading the servers with your mobspawner, I don't think it should follow onto the mediums (as it is MindCraft specific). However, the bans that would be a breaking of a forum rule (e.g. Cursing), than I would not be opposed to it following onto the other Cemetech mediums.
charlessprinkle wrote:
I have done some testing with Pyrot3chnic on the server of the teleportation protection time. Our tests show that the first couple to few clean hits upon a spawn in, are uneffective, both from my point of view which particles fly off of the person, and from his, in which he sees me swinging my sword at him.
Tests show that 5 seconds of protection is the result. However, I would like to note that in the town of Shoeblox, I have done so, and was not able to land any hits at all in the first 10-15 seconds, despite the particle spam from swinging the sword. This may be a lag issue of some sort.
Regardless, being conservative that it is 5 seconds, as KermMartian has mentioned on previous occasion, I am in favor of bumping this time up to 10-15 seconds, which is more than reasonable to do something.
In any case in addition to the 10-15 second protection PvP protection proposal, it is the duty of the town mayor to assure that their town spawn is protected from outsider influence, and not put it out in the open where outsiders may freely walk about to.
As I said before, it sometimes takes 30 seconds after tping to do anything, so I'm afraid 10-15 seconds isn't enough. Also, how do you expect the mayor to do anything if they are killed instantly? CalebHansberry wrote:
FrozenFire49 wrote:
I 100% disagree with that. I have worked the entire summer having people joining my town and nation. The more people you can bring on, then the more power you should receive, without it going away in 30 days.
I guess it'd probably cause a gigantic member loss for both of the largest towns, Arcadia and Shoeblox. I'm mostly indifferent because of that, but don't mind the way it is. Very true, with that rule, only about 10-20 people would be left in towns, server wide. Also, I don't think that the towns and nations are getting too big. We already have 6 plots per person instead of 8 and outposts disabled, having large towns and nations make up for them. rivereye wrote:
Kerm wrote:
Edit: I propose officially enabling Towny's idle-kick feature, with an interval of 30 days. This would remove players who hadn't logged on in 30 days from their towns and would help fix the frankly ridiculous town and nation sizes.
Says the owner with the largest town in game. Would you shrink your town down the appropriate size if we removed all your idle residents? Looks like someone hasn't done "/towny top residents" in a while
charlessprinkle wrote:
I have done some testing with Pyrot3chnic on the server of the teleportation protection time. Our tests show that the first couple to few clean hits upon a spawn in, are uneffective, both from my point of view which particles fly off of the person, and from his, in which he sees me swinging my sword at him.
Yeah, it's different on my end, on my end as soon as I tp in I'm receiving damage. Also since you bring up the mayor protecting his town spawn, we could consider restrictions on where homes are set...? As your home was set at town spawn, so better security would help only in one sense (the sense wherein you should never have been able to get in), not for if you keep simply teleporting back to our spawn even if it's secured.
I'm more in favor of banning (excessive) spawn camping than regulating homes.
EDIT: as Frozen said, his being spawn killed prevented him from moving town spawn to security.
FrozenFire49 wrote:
Also, how do you expect the mayor to do anything if they are killed instantly?
Instantly is the wrong word to use. The town mayor at the least would have to be more clever and give a little time for the person to leave, or simply come back in a little in any case. 30 seconds is not half bad. I have only a decent computer, but never take 30 seconds to load. Perhaps you may want to consider having less things in town that cause personal lag, if so? Also, is that on tiny render distance? That should be debated amongst everyone for what a reasonable time is. Plus, with a reasonable protection time, that would allow no excuses for not being able to do anything, and it would truly be based upon one's effort and creativity to change the conditions to be less vulnerable.
CalebHansberry wrote:
Also since you bring up the mayor protecting his town spawn, we could consider restrictions on where homes are set...?
Why put restrictions on a homeset, when you fairly and cleverly manevured your way to get it set where it's set? If you spent 2 hours on an elaborate scheme to get your home set in someone's important location, you should well deserve the reward for your troubles of being able to utilize your homeset.
Of course, if we implement a 30 second rule of some sort, having a home set in a town spawn cannot possibly be considered camping when used, and the homeset serves it's full, fair purpose.
charlessprinkle wrote:
Perhaps you may want to consider having less things in town that cause personal lag, if so?
That was already taken care of with lots of TNT.
The protection would be nice, but it would also be unfair. For example, with a 30 second protection, I would only get to use about 5 seconds of it, while you could use 25 seconds. Then there are the people with an even worse connection than I do. They wouldn't be able to enjoy any of it, that's why I think a rule should be in place. CalebHansberry wrote:
charlessprinkle wrote:
I have done some testing with Pyrot3chnic on the server of the teleportation protection time. Our tests show that the first couple to few clean hits upon a spawn in, are uneffective, both from my point of view which particles fly off of the person, and from his, in which he sees me swinging my sword at him.
Yeah, it's different on my end, on my end as soon as I tp in I'm receiving damage. Also since you bring up the mayor protecting his town spawn, we could consider restrictions on where homes are set...? As your home was set at town spawn, so better security would help only in one sense (the sense wherein you should never have been able to get in), not for if you keep simply teleporting back to our spawn even if it's secured.
I'm more in favor of banning (excessive) spawn camping than regulating homes.
EDIT: as Frozen said, his being spawn killed prevented him from moving town spawn to security. I like the home regulation idea. I would be for a rule that doesn't allow any homes to be set within the town's home block. That would allow for more strategic placement of the town, town spawn, and homes.
I second the motion to ban the players and not accounts; we'd see people "borrowing" accounts to break the rules and not see any repercussions of that themselves. Though, that's a dirty tactic I realize none of our citizens would use but it would be a possibility; and if any one did pull that you can expect an super-ban on that player.
Spawn protection seems split. If I implement a server side plugin I'd have to find a way to disable damage dealt from the player as well as to prevent invincible attackers. Again, if I implement a server side plugin it appears our users different connection speeds would render that timer useless.
The "Horse Glitch" as it's called seems to be split as well. If we allow this type of exploitation what other types of "beneficial" exploitation do we allow? Do I not extend server side spawn protection and call it even? If your connection lags enough to enable horse glitching but you're connection isn't fast enough to save you during the vanilla spawn protection, do I just say "Tough luck, lag can be beneficial and detrimental to different users." But it also swings the other way, "Yeah, horse glitching is banned but at least you have a rule where the attacker must not attack you again unless they are attacked by you or reasonable time has elapsed (2 minutes?)."
One group isn't going to find one of those outcomes fair but one of those will become a rule. You guys just need to decide which of the evils you want or I will select it for you.
Regarding Townys 30-day active thing. That's not so much a rule we need to discuss as it is auto enforced. I agree it's something we should discuss, let's get through the rule revisions first.
If a player is banned on MC they will not be banned on the forums; if I recall we have a user who is on our server but banned on the forums.
comicIDIOT wrote:
The "Horse Glitch" as it's called seems to be split as well. If we allow this type of exploitation what other types of "beneficial" exploitation do we allow? Do I not extend server side spawn protection and call it even? If your connection lags enough to enable horse glitching but you're connection isn't fast enough to save you during the vanilla spawn protection, do I just say "Tough luck, lag can be beneficial and detrimental to different users." But it also swings the other way, "Yeah, horse glitching is banned but at least you have a rule where the attacker must not attack you again unless they are attacked by you or reasonable time has elapsed (2 minutes?)."
I think glitching through one block should be allowed either way. 2 and even 3 blocks are also possible with instant mining, and more can be achieved by combining different tactics and glitches, all while having a good connection to the server and not implementing lag. Honestly, I don't think it should be banned at all, because of the reasons stated and it makes no base safe.
Well, perhaps 30 seconds would make it possible for a user to escape and perhaps not. In our case we'd need to break blocks to leave town spawn, which means the enemy could simply follow the player (and /home back when done), which also applies for the player attempting to get needed supplies out of a chest from town spawn - the attacker would simply get the chest as soon as it was opened. In other words, there's not always a /way/ to leave town spawn when the enemy is right there, especially when he's invisible as Charles was.
EDIT: I'm also fine with the horse glitch being allowed to all extents, as our lag level feels normal, but since Kerm has insisted his internet makes it impossible for him to do it, I'm fine with leaving that at his discretion whether it might be impossible or not.
FrozenFire wrote:
Honestly, I don't think it should be banned at all, because of the reasons stated and it makes no base safe.
FrozenFire wrote:
I wish there was a 10 second protection, but in reality, there isn't.
Pardon any conclusions I may have preemptively came to but... Do you want bases to be safe or not? It seems like you're advocating for horse glitching and for the spawn protection timer to be extended; both of these are the result of lag to the server. I'm not going to allow extended spawn protection and horse glitching for your, or anyone else's, benefit while those with faster connections can't benefit from horse glitching but they do benefit from the spawn protection that's already available*.
*If such protection exists.
You're either keeping horse glitching and any spawn protection that's there or losing horse glitching and gaining a spawn protection rule.
CalebHansberry wrote:
... since Kerm has insisted his internet makes it impossible for him to do it, I'm fine with leaving that at his discretion whether it might be impossible or not.
It's not at his discretion. The discretion is mine and for the most part I'm going to amend the rules to what you guys want but if there's a pretty even split between how a rule should be implemented then I will decide on how that rule will be written. It's also at my discretion to ignore the democratic arbitration here and to rewrite/remove/add any rules - but I'm not going to add anything out of the blue and make it law there will be due process where it can be challenged and/or amended.