Posts by StevenNL2000

  • Fleshly

    Banned. A vote is not required for a ban, but rather for an unban: the fact that we are on a new forum installation does not automatically invalidate all existing bans.

  • bring back rule 3o

    @elmon#669 Ideally it would be a filter that is applied when viewing the logs and not when writing them. The BukkitTelnet client for example already has similar filters. Not logging the fact that someone is constantly trying to join at all could be problematic for investigating some future case.

  • bring back rule 3o

    @Luke#664 I think you misunderstand my point. In your example of UnderTails, they chose to go AFK with automatic rejoin activated. I agree that spamming the logs as a result of that should not be allowed. However, you are saying that it should also have been a rule violation if UnderTails hadn't been banned at all, which does not make sense to me. My point is that players should be able to decide for themselves if they want to take the risk of going AFK with automatic rejoin enabled, instead of us babysitting them.

  • bring back rule 3o

    @Luke#659 As I understand it, what you are saying is that the stricter rule is better because it makes players less likely to break it. Is it the policy's job to safeguard players from breaking it, even if that reduces what the player can do?

  • bring back rule 3o

    I object. If the issue is that doing this spams the logs while you are banned, it should be forbidden while you are banned, but that's not an argument for forbidding it at all times.


    Regarding activity rewards, I think it would be good to introduce a system where you are kicked again much sooner the second time. If you were just kicked and automatically rejoin, it would for example only take 10 seconds to be kicked again if you don't move.


    Having said that, I am actually not convinced that we should be kicking AFK players in the first place, but that is probably best left for another thread.

  • reenable books

    @Telesphoreo#616 Command books are just books that happen to have ClickEvents in them that run commands. That is why "regular" books are currently unavailable as well.


    What you should do is try to get an understanding of the chat component API:
    https://www.spigotmc.org/wiki/the-chat-component-api/


    Then, use getPages() in BookMeta.Spigot to iterate over the BaseComponents of the book and override all the ClickEvents to do nothing. There is no event that is called when a player executes a command as a result of a ClickEvent, other than the regular PlayerCommandPreprocessEvent.

  • reenable books

    @Telesphoreo#612 They are referring to books with a ClickEvent that runs a command. Players used to troll others by telling them to click in the book, which immediately executes the command without revealing what it is.

  • sad minecraft error moments

    Various types of antivirus software interfering with Minecraft's network connection is a pretty common problem. The first step in debugging issues like this is to try again with your antivirus disabled.

  • Reform FSRs

    @Xen#400 Ah, you want forum sanctions to be handled the same way as ingame punishments, that is a much clearer explanation. That would definitely streamline the process, but we do lose potential valuable comments that would have been posted on the request.

  • Reform FSRs

    If the issue you're trying to address is that the wrong people are getting reported, this would not change the situation because the reports are the same; they just wouldn't be visible to others. On the other hand, if the issue is that people are not thinking about their vote, I am not sure that simply cutting them off is the correct solution.

  • trusted player system

    Your concern that things are blocked is valid, but it is much better if we can figure out ways to enable currently blocked features for everyone rather than only a few trusted players.

  • Indefinite Ban Request Template & Policy

    Indefinite ban requests are a way to request a player to be banned from the server for an indefinite amount of time. In principle, an indefinite ban lasts until the player submits an indefinite ban appeal and that appeal is approved. Players can only be indefinitely banned after committing one or more offenses from category 1 of the guidance for sanctions (available to admins at https://forum.totalfreedom.me/…nce-for-issuing-sanctions) or after submitting a self request. In the case that both a category 1 request and a self request exist for the same player, the category 1 request takes priority.


    Category 1 requests

    Requests for category 1 offenses can only be submitted by admins. Once posted, the request can be voted upon. Your vote should be based on the evidence in the thread, not your personal opinion of the player. The following points will be taken into account when deciding the outcome of a request:

    • The total vouch/object ratio
    • The ranks of the individual voters
    • Whether a justification was given for a vote

    More information about appealing indefinite bans for category 1 offenses can be found here: https://forum.totalfreedom.me/…definite-ban-release-form.


    To submit a category 1 request, post a thread in this section using following template:

    Quote

    1. Username, UUID, IP(s), and short ban reason for each offender. Format as follows:

    YAML
    Notch:  
  uuid: '069a79f4-44e9-4726-a5be-fca90e38aaf5'  
  ips:  
    - 1.2.3.4  
    - 5.6.7.8  
  reason: 'Example'

    Self requests

    Self requests allow any player to request an indefinite ban for themselves. Unlike category 1 requests, self requests and appeals are submitted privately, although a thread will be created in this section after the request has been approved to notify others. The appeal can be submitted at any moment and does not have a template.


    To submit a self request, send a private message to the Ban Manager (@"StevenNL2000"#2) via any official platform using the following template:

    Quote

    1. Your username, UUID, and IP(s). Format as follows:

    YAML
    Notch:  
  uuid: '069a79f4-44e9-4726-a5be-fca90e38aaf5'  
  ips:  
    - 1.2.3.4  
    - 5.6.7.8  
  reason: 'Self request'
    Quote

    1. Why you want to be indefinitely banned? We will not interrogate you about this, but a justification is required to prevent requests for fun.

    2. Do you confirm that submitting this request means that you will not be able to join the server in any way until you appeal your ban and the appeal is approved?

  • Archiver Policy Suggestion

    @wild1145#200 But that has nothing to do with backups, you are technically violating the GDPR right now by hosting this forum without having a privacy policy in place. My argument is that if we have that sorted, the privacy policy very likely already clears the owner(s) to have access to that data because they need it to run the community, whereas a separate archiver might introduce more liabilities.

  • Archiver Policy Suggestion

    Note that this problem essentially solves itself if we do end up switching to a split ownership system, because each owner can simply send their backups to the other owner(s), which not only guarantees that the holders can be trusted, but also that there is always at least one other person with access to the backup.

  • Edit ownership policy to allow ops

    I doubt we can currently implement suggestions for the ownership policy because we are about to invoke it. Making changes so soon before the vote makes it very likely that someone will challenge the outcome. That does not help with the stability of the community, especially since this is about the owner position, not just any admin.