Changelog 15/11/2020:
I'm more than happy for us to disable it especially in the shorter term. Longer term while I'm not expecting us to move back to Offline mode for various reasons I'd equally say let's just not remove it from TFM as it stands, and if the developers add it to the re-write or not is their call and if we do need it again it can be re-visited then. I'm not sure it's worth spending dev effort removing something that should in theory work, it can just cease to be formally supported...
Does that sound fair?
The maintenance of the Minecraft server is complete. We will pick up the work to upgrade the Forum to the new DB tomorrow.
The forum maintenance I've postponed to tomorrow due to the issues I've had getting the Minecraft server DB migrated as quickly as I'd hoped - https://status.atlas-media.co.uk/maintenances/HEm7HSzYTmvI
Sorry everyone, we're still having issues getting the database restored back in and we're hoping to now have service restored by 20:30 GMT to the freedom server.
Things aren't quite going as smoothly as I'd hoped, so we're going to have to extend the server maintenance window a tad - https://status.atlas-media.co.uk/maintenances/az9IwudIqevb
I'm confused as to what you're asking for...?
Hi Folks,
In order to both roll out some patching that needs to be deployed to maintain our security patch requirements on some of our other infrastructure, and to look to move us over to the new database service that I'm working on today, there will be a small outage of the Minecraft server later today, and the forums also later today.
The server will be down between 4PM GMT and 5:30PM GMT and updates can be found here - https://status.atlas-media.co.uk/maintenances/az9IwudIqevb
And the forums will be down between 7PM GMT and 7:30PM GMT where updates can be found here - https://status.atlas-media.co.uk/maintenances/HEm7HSzYTmvI
My hope is the Db upgrades will help to speed things up both in game and on the forums.
Thanks everyone.
@Xen#1034 The difference in game though is the player can come here to make their case for why they think they were wrongly sanctioned. That's not exactly the same with the forums because you can e-mail appeal and that's it... So I personally think it's fair to hold people to a higher burden of proof when actually you should be reporting someone and taking action as a much more "last resort" compared to that of the server, but that's just my 2 cent.
If these threads are going off topic / similar, then they should be being moderated is my general thought, I just find it more useful when people provide evidence or similar to support a report compared to just saying yay / nay which ultimately isn't super helpful...
Quote@Xen#1028 I agree, but I think those comments should go on the ban appeal made by the person who has been banned. Forum staff should be competent enough to know when it is appropriate to punish someone and in what way.
I disagree, that would be a bit of a "Shoot first ask questions later" sort of approach imo.
My thought is if you're reporting someone for breaking the rules or otherwise, having meaningful evidence / supporting content is more useful to be than having 20 people reply "Vouch" or "Object", a lot of this is about knowing why someone has said they vouch or object, and that's what I'm keen to encourage with these sorts of suggestions. That's why I was proposing that if we're going to implement this sort of suggestion that actually it makes sense I think to try to reform this fully, and use this process as a pilot / exemplar of what we could do elsewhere.
If books can be enabled in a sensible way that doesn't cause us to risk crashing things, then I'm happy with that.
The command books I'm less sure on because as has been highlighted, we would need it to either honour the existing permissions system, or alternatively we would need to lock them down so they can only run a set of whitelisted commands that only ops could run.
Once I've got some guidance from Telesphoreo on what looks to be practical, we can go from there I'd say.
Good luck Everyone!
Ultimately there is an issue with how our CoreProtect is setup in some way and needs investigating, I'm not sure rolling back is the answer but it's something that needs to be worked through.
So let me share my 2 cent on this, because it's an interesting suggestion, but not one I fully agree with myself.
My current thought is anyone of any rank should be able to report someone on the for breaking the rules.
I think the decision on punishment and such should ultimately be left to the forum staff, as the in-game administrators handle the reports in game in the same way.
I also agree that commenting on reports need to be changed, and it's something I'm keen to roll out everywhere, but would like to trial here.
I'd like to get rid of "Vouch" and "Object" and "Neutral" as valid responses to the forum reports, I think the comments should be providing comments to help support the decision making progress, so if there is evidence to support the case, or to support the person being accused, or if there are personal experiences that are relevant, that should be in there. But it should ultimately be there for the exclusive purpose of helping form an actual decision.
I'm keen that this is the approach we take more generally anyway, because I dislike points based voting and all that rubbish, because you end up with far more clicky groups of people running things, and ultimately the decision shouldn't be exclusively a vote call, it should be based off of the facts provided and an informed decision by the person empowered to make that decision.
I'm open to critique, on this thought, but yeah, I agree with pretty much everything else on this thread, requesting specific sanctions is ultimately just backseat forum administrating which isn't something we really want.
Subject to this not breaking things in the other plugins and such I'm happy to approve this.
My current thought is if the server is under 50% capacity, and if we can exclude players AFK time from auto-joining, then I'm not going to say auto-reconnect should be banned.
If we're over 50% capacity then I'd be more inclined to be tempbanning those who constantly re-connect because they're taking up slots that we want active players to be able to use.
Would appreciate peoples thoughts on this as I'm hoping that if we can do this through this route it should keep everyone happy?
(The 50% is a fairly random figure, but wanted to draw a line in the sand somewhere... )
If Telesphoreo is happy that this is technically viable, and as long as we have a way to warn the player that they're exchanging the coins for that item (Potentially some sort of pop up or message in chat to confirm) in case people accidental click or are tricked, I'm happy to approve this to go on to the backlog.
My knowledge on how our plots world works is a bit limited, can you provide more context? Or can anyone else if not.
So I'm still a firm believer that this is the right way forward, however given the community view I'm going to leave this on the back burner for a while, and see if my mind is changed going forward and then will re-visit this.
I would still very much welcome feedback and thoughts from those who have not yet voiced their views here.
Approved.
If it needs some additional work to transform the punishment logs into the DB then so be it, but happy for this to be implemented, at least if we can get it in to a format that we can query we can build on that if we so desire in the future.
