[cerevox]

Alright. 2 more cents from your most favorite hole puncher and princess. I will hit specific points, then at the end i have a few comments on the whole thing.

1.1) Spawn camping is still not defined. Ive mentioned this before. You only say that pvp near spawn might be spawn camping. You don't say "Spawn camping IS blahblahblah" which is what needs to be there. Also, how near is near? Just put it in arbitrary block count like 20 or 30 from the spawn border to make it precise instead of wishywashy.

1.2) Conflicts directly with 1.1. 1.2 starts off with

Player versus player combat is completely and utterly allowed in the wilderness.

But the area around spawn is wilderness as well. So is spawn camping allowed via 1.2 or not allowed via 1.1? Add a clause to 1.2 excepting spawn camping.

3.1) Mis-labeled as 2.5. Also, not a rule, merely a suggestion. Why is something that is not a rule in the rule list?

2.3) Conflicts directly with 3.1(2.5). States that interuption of a trade is bannable. 3.1 states that interuption of a trade is not bannable. Reconcile please.

6.2) No mention of xray mods. These do not fall under texture packs as they do not alter the textures in any way, shape or form. Just tack them onto the end of the list of hacks.

7.4) Best addition ever. No complaints on this.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Overall comments-
This list of rules has a few places where it goes all soft and squishy by being either vague or unsure. These are the rules. They should be 100% solid. No coulds, or mights, or maybes. Define everything. Be exact and precise. It is either against the rules, or its not. If you absolutely must be ambiguous then use phrases like "At the mod's discretion" or something similar so that the rules themselves are exact and un-arguable while the mods have more flexibility.

Not sure if that kind of thing even matters to most, but it bugs me.

[Blackhawkonfire]

Maybe add something about repeated begging? Such as new players joining, and demanding a starter kit, someone who got robbed/died demanding a mod spawn them stuff, or players demanding a server-wide change (e.g. turning on mobs on creative, tnt in the wilderness). Or put that under spam.

[panthers17nfl]

Maybe add something about repeated begging? Such as new players joining, and demanding a starter kit, someone who got robbed/died demanding a mod spawn them stuff, or players demanding a server-wide change (e.g. turning on mobs on creative, tnt in the wilderness). Or put that under spam.

This is already an infraction of (7.4)

[panthers17nfl]

Hotfix April 30th:

-Spawn Camping is not a rule infraction anymore
-Updated (1.2)'s definition
-Fixed the (2.5) tag which was intended to be (3.1)
-Updated (6.2)'s defintion
-Updated (6.5)'s defintion

Mega-Awesome Hotfix April 30th:

-Updated (1.5)'s definition

[dragoncrystal24]

I'm not sure, but I think the hacking part has a fault in it. An x-ray mod is NOT a texture pack. The transparent texture pack only shows places with air in it, while an x-ray mod can show anything you want it to, air or no air.

[cerevox]

The hacking section is still wrong. As i have said multiple times, an xray hack is not a transparent texture pack. They have nothing in common. They don't work the same way, they are not installed the same way, they don't function the same way, and they don't have the same end result.

Panther, go get a transparent texture pack and an xray mod and try them out in a single player world for a bit so you understand the difference.

Other than that though, the rules seem fine for the moment. If i spot anything else though, ill be happy to let you know :lol:

[panthers17nfl]

The hacking section is still wrong. As i have said multiple times, an xray hack is not a transparent texture pack. They have nothing in common. They don't work the same way, they are not installed the same way, they don't function the same way, and they don't have the same end result.

Panther, go get a transparent texture pack and an xray mod and try them out in a single player world for a bit so you understand the difference.

Other than that though, the rules seem fine for the moment. If i spot anything else though, ill be happy to let you know :lol:

You have an irritating tone about you cerevox, but I get what you're saying.

[cerevox]

I find that people take more notice when they are irritated than way they are soothed and happy. Soothed people are content and don't do thing. Irritated people have lots of energy.

[pds314]

Guilt By Majority Verdict (7.3)???
thought this wasn't ever gonna be acceptable proof unless mods voted for the ban/testified in favor?

If so Lightbulbs could be instantly banned for something with no evidence (flying or speedhacking while nobody was on, killing people with LOCAL chunk errors) or truly impossible to accomplish (ie griefing the bedrock, witchcraft-pvp, being 3 places at once) by majority vote, of course, the mod who banned him would be banned for ideocy I assume, But still, how much majority vote will be required, if 3 people say so? 5? 10? 20? 30? 50? every active member? every member or ex-member? a significant percentage? almost any of these save maybe 50, every active and every member/ex-member would instant-ban Lightbulbs without evidence! for something like placing bedrock at level 0 no less.

[Aelcalan]

Guilt By Majority Verdict (7.3)???
thought this wasn't ever gonna be acceptable proof unless mods voted for the ban/testified in favor?

If so Lightbulbs could be instantly banned for something with no evidence (flying or speedhacking while nobody was on, killing people with LOCAL chunk errors) or truly impossible to accomplish (ie griefing the bedrock, witchcraft-pvp, being 3 places at once) by majority vote, of course, the mod who banned him would be banned for ideocy I assume, But still, how much majority vote will be required, if 3 people say so? 5? 10? 20? 30? 50? every active member? every member or ex-member? a significant percentage? almost any of these save maybe 50, every active and every member/ex-member would instant-ban Lightbulbs without evidence! for something like placing bedrock at level 0 no less.

You're misunderstanding what's going on in that rule. It's more along the lines of: "Nobody got any solid evidence, but a significant number of people were around for it, and at least one person who's known to not be an idiot has come forward along with the other witnesses, so we can be pretty sure this person was causing trouble." It IS NOT "Lightbulbs, the rabble has spoken. You must leave the island."
Also, Lights isn't going to get the entire server against him, even if he is an unrepentant jerk. He's chased off any number of idiots who would've been even more detrimental, as well as gotten a number of actual griefers banned, and those same respected players are also aware of this, so you're going to be lacking that component anyway.
I would also add that I suspect the rule is intended to catch cases where the evidence that was gathered is just a little too week, so we have grounds for the eyewitnesses to tip the case into a conviction.