Well, would you prefer permissions to prisons? Servers could still be labeled accordingly (i.e., Frank's Server (perm) or Frank's Server (open)), and that would give people something to do whilst waiting or in the event of missing admins. You're right in that it would reduce some freedom, but less so than prisons (which I think will continue to see use until a better alternative is presented). Perhaps the status of the server's type could even be presented automatically on the list, so that even creators that forget or are lazy will have their servers labeled.
They are both fine if they are labeled, so me and other users don't waste time / convenience, and those who want those things can easily find them.
What I hate is all those servers that look like someone vomited random blocks all over the place, with half-destroyed climbing towers everywhere.
Y'know, those servers where nothing but griefing happens. But that's kind of off-topic:
The most fun I've had on Minecraft at any time has been on servers with an active op who is paying enough attention to ban those who grief quick-smart. No spawn prisons, no jerky behaviour. If more than two people call out a griefer, they're teleported to and banned.
It's a lot nicer than spawn prisons, and it's a lot more effective. Server admins just need to choose their ops a little more carefully, I think.
Another good system, I believe, is server resets every few days or like, per week, depending how many people use it. It forces people to let go of their creations and make something new, and gives everyone a lot of empty space to do it.
I'd also have to agree with ninti. But one thing, I meant that grifers feed off making people angry. Getting angry with them only causes them to continue. I personally ignore them. After nobody pays them attention for a few minutes, they just leave.
And honestly, a spectate option would be so incredibly helpful. You could have a mod be on specific duty to just watch over the place. Boring, sure, but most helpful.
I think the underlying point here is this: We want to reduce the griefers, not get rid of them altogether. Getting rid of them completely would mean the game is so restrictive, that nobody could play freely. The problem is, nobody can agree on a method. Spawn prisons can be effective, but are frowned upon by too many people to get a "fix" (not to mention how easy they are to get out of). Block ownership obviously isn't going to happen, for technical reasons already discussed in these forums. A greifer tagging system is counter intuitive, considering they could just do the same thing to everyone else, rendering it untrustworthy. A count of how many blocks people have placed/removed is just silly (if you have a pro for it, feel free to speak up). So rather than argue about things everyone has agreed to disagree on, let's come up with something new.
edit: permissions idea came up as I typed this. That was quick. Already sounds like an interesting idea to me.
While the permissions idea sounds the most reasonable so far, I feel spectate is a better short term option. Or at least, it would be the more non-intrusive option. Permissions would do better than prisons, but I feel it still has the same basic drawback; you still just hope people won't greif once they're on their own. Sure, it'll weed out the impatient ones, but any griefer who feels like really doing damage will just wait it out, get their permission, and do what they came for.
Plus, you'll still need ops to hand out permissions to everyone who comes in. In effect, it'll be the same things as prisons, just without someone having to go over to it and let people out. Now, if we're talking some kind of crazy tiered, time based, or otherwise method, then disregard that. I'm just thinking along the lines of handing out some command to let people build/destroy.
The problem with the 100% freedom policy is that people are as free to destroy as they are to create. If you were presented with some land and one hundred people to live on it, but there were surely some sexual offenders / thieves / murderers in there, wouldn't you want to screen them before letting them in?
All anti-griefing tools should be server options and users should have the ability to see what is and isn't enabled before they join a server. People should be able to use filters so they can more easily select servers run the way they prefer to play.
The problem with the 100% freedom policy is that people are as free to destroy as they are to create. If you were presented with some land and one hundred people to live on it, but there were surely some sexual offenders / thieves / murderers in there, wouldn't you want to screen them before letting them in?
All anti-griefing tools should be server options and users should have the ability to see what is and isn't enabled before they join a server. People should be able to use filters so they can more easily select servers run the way they prefer to play.
Perfectly accurate. People aren't denied admission because they are assumed to be griefers; they're let in at a controlled rate and monitored. In other words, I still don't ban anyone until they have certainly griefed. The point is that the inflow is reduced and you can't be caught off guard by people who slip in while you're tabbed, afk, or simply offline. Further, because you can control how many new people are admitted at once, you have more control over how many people need to be monitored at a time. Larger servers with an extensive OP list may not have this problem, of course.
Edit: I certainly hope you read farther down the thread than the post you quoted that text from.
A lot of posts...I am just going to answer any points in one post.
"I find the whole discussion about ways to prevent griefing stupid, "
And I find your mischaracterization of the debate citric, not to mention your condescending tone, very insulting. Can griefing ever be done away with completely, of course not, no one has suggested otherwise. The problem is right now it is far too easy to do.
Poor wording on my part, I didn't mean to come across like that, maybe a better word would have been futile?
Quote from ninti »
"Minecraft as the game that is now requires freedom, every solution I have ever seen suggested is counter intuitive, it requires that people are limited in what they can do."
Then you haven't looked very hard. Teleport is an excellent anti-griefing tool, and is not limiting in any way. Keeping track of blocks deleted by users and allowing a reset of them upon discovery that that person is a griefer is not limiting in any way. Allowing ops to look through the eyes of any user is not limiting in any way. Tracking and reporting how many blocks are deleted and created for each user is not limiting in any way. And that's just off the top of my head, there are plenty more.
And then there is the fact that forcing a server to be private just to combat griefers is way more limiting than most of the most limiting suggestions that you so casually dismiss. Most servers are private right now, and I would guess that most of those are private to combat griefers. If you had a "/noalter username" flag that is set for all users when they come in, people could have those servers be public with no fear. How is that option more limiting than closing the server per your suggestion? You want to limit what server admins can choose to do to please your own personal Anarchy bias. If you don't want to play on a server where you are "limited to where we could place or when we could place"...then go to a server where the admin has turned those features off.
That won't work though. I agree that on paper it's a brilliant idea; People can only control specific blocks without permission, but there are a multitude of things you've overlooked: Firstly, the map size will increase a lot, every block will have to have a username attached to it, secondly it's going to create more griefing. if I join a server as a griefer I could be "clever" about it, if I find specific structures and alter them "sneakily" by replacing certain blocks with mine or just running around replacing hundreds of blocks, then I go on a rampage and you do /ban and /undo, you've now got even more of a broken map because you didn't know what I was doing. I have yet to see a single legitimate way that permissions could work, I'd have no problems if permissions existed but in a state that worked, I have never seen a good suggestion.
Quote from ninti »
"make the game pay only."
Again, limiting. Some of the best builders haven't bought it, and would never have started it if it wasn't free. And that would be disadvantages both to the community and to Notch's bottom line at this point.
Making it pay only is a silly idea, but giving server administrators the option to run without letting free players in is a good option, I think. While preferably such a thing wouldn't need to exist the ratio of paid griefers to free makes it something I think would work.
Quote from ninti »
"we just need votekick and voteban"
I personally don't see that is a great solution. On any server worth its salt, if there is enough people to create a kick quorum, there is an op on there too that can do it faster and better. But it's certainly ok to have it in there, as every anti-griefing measure helps, it just isn't nearly enough.
...so you disagree with giving players the option to kick others because there are enough operators on a good server? Surely if that was the case we'd need none of the aforementioned tools
Quote from ninti »
I agree with allnatural about spawn prisons, for the most part. They do suck because people can't look around, which is what a lot of people just want to do. And maybe in looking around they will get inspired and have a great idea. That's what makes this game great, and spawn prisons squash that. With the "\noalter username" flag, you get the best of both worlds, reasonable safety from random griefers and yet they can look around.
The point I'm trying to make is: I want to join a server and build, nothing more nothing less. Every suggestion I've ever seen changes that. I assume noalter would be applied as default on entry, this means I've got to wait for an operator which I'm not going to do because I just want to build. Everyone seems to be overcomplicating minecraft with these ideas; it's a game, a simple game, that's the beauty of it.
Quote from ninti »
"Why should legitimate players be restricted in their creativity by stupid rules to stop griefers when those who are upset by griefers can play elsewhere?"
WTF, that is just ass-backwards. Why should legitimate players be restricted to private servers by griefers.
There is no "restriction" with private servers, they provide exactly the same freedom with public servers just less people. Look, what you don't seem to understand is that for minecraft to be good we need freedom, every suggestion I've seen removes part of that freedom and the people with these suggestions are the ones who want their ego massaging when they build huge things. If I want to build a massive castle that I don't want to be griefed I go into a private server and do it there, if I want to build for fun I do it in public, why is it unreasonable to suggest that for everyone? Every single measure I have seen suggested could easily be bypassed and abused, I could join a server and behave really well and eventually become an OP then quickly remove every block placed by specific people, which is more griefing that any single non op player could cause with the current system. You seem to overlook the fact that the majority of griefers do it to **** you all off and such a feature would be so easy to **** you off with.
Quote from ninti »
"As he said it is unreasonable to expect your work to be there when you get back."
I don't find it unreasonable at all.
You understand what a sandbox is, right? It's freedom, freedom to make the game however you like, if you want to build a castle you build a castle, if you want to build a house you build a house, you're not restricted. So if I'm in a server and I'm building this amazing castle and I see someone has built a house in the way, I'm going to take that house down and I wouldn't expect the person to be upset because that is natural evolution of a level, if we start limiting where I can build and how I can build what's the point in playing? I may as well go and **** about on gmod.
Quote from ninti »
"If you do get upset, you've only done exactly what the greifers want, to make you mad."
That just seems silly. Talk about blaming the victim.
haha, welcome to life. The griefers only goal is to annoy, if you get annoyed you are at fault. Stop being such a big girl about it and get over it: If you care about your structures so much you play privately with people you know you can trust.
No offense, but it sounds as if your mind is already made up. What then of labels on server that use prisons or permissions, that way you know which servers to avoid when you simply want to build? And before you suggest that including the option will cause every server to lock up, think about it again; every server doesn't already have a prison, and permissions work on the same premise.
No offense, but it sounds as if your mind is already made up.
I assume you're addressing me; My mind is made up based upon the current suggestions and evidence. If a permissions based solution was suggested and was viable then I'd have no problem agreeing that it was a good idea, but right now every solution based around permissions that I have seen will totally change the way that the game is played.
No offense, but it sounds as if your mind is already made up.
I assume you're addressing me; My mind is made up based upon the current suggestions and evidence. If a permissions based solution was suggested and was viable then I'd have no problem agreeing that it was a good idea, but right now every solution based around permissions that I have seen will totally change the way that the game is played.
I'm sorry, but I don't understand how permissions would be any different from the prisons already being used. (Other than it will afford people on the waiting list the opportunity to look around).
No offense, but it sounds as if your mind is already made up.
I assume you're addressing me; My mind is made up based upon the current suggestions and evidence. If a permissions based solution was suggested and was viable then I'd have no problem agreeing that it was a good idea, but right now every solution based around permissions that I have seen will totally change the way that the game is played.
I'm sorry, but I don't understand how permissions would be any different from the prisons already being used. (Other than it will afford people on the waiting list the opportunity to look around).
Please explain exactly how you propose that the permissions system should work and I'll point any pros/cons I can find.
Very well. Permissions is implemented, and server owners are able to set it to default on or off. Prisons become obsolete as servers which prefer to use them opt for the total safety of permissions off by default. Ideally, setting this option adds a label to your server name in the list ("perm," perhaps), making potential joiners aware. Forcing players to wait for status promotion is no different from waiting to be let out, I believe.
Very well. Permissions is implemented, and server owners are able to set it to default on or off. Prisons become obsolete as servers which prefer to use them opt for the total safety of permissions off by default. Ideally, setting this option adds a label to your server name in the list ("perm," perhaps), making potential joiners aware. Forcing players to wait for status promotion is no different from waiting to be let out, I believe.
I mean, what sort of permissions would there be? Would I join the server and not be able to place until granted? Once granted is it the same as how building is now? Who can grant, OPs?
Well, I can't speak for what everyone else's image of a permission system is, but yes, I had envisioned edit mode on or off by default, with OPs being able to change your status. I think removing someone's editing permission for a set time would be more effective than a kick, too (because honestly, who cares about being kicked?) without being quite so final as a ban. Yes, if you joined a server that had permissions on by default, you would have to wait to be elevated by an OP before you could place. Once granted, the game would be exactly as it is now.
They are both fine if they are labeled, so me and other users don't waste time / convenience, and those who want those things can easily find them.
Y'know, those servers where nothing but griefing happens. But that's kind of off-topic:
The most fun I've had on Minecraft at any time has been on servers with an active op who is paying enough attention to ban those who grief quick-smart. No spawn prisons, no jerky behaviour. If more than two people call out a griefer, they're teleported to and banned.
It's a lot nicer than spawn prisons, and it's a lot more effective. Server admins just need to choose their ops a little more carefully, I think.
Another good system, I believe, is server resets every few days or like, per week, depending how many people use it. It forces people to let go of their creations and make something new, and gives everyone a lot of empty space to do it.
And honestly, a spectate option would be so incredibly helpful. You could have a mod be on specific duty to just watch over the place. Boring, sure, but most helpful.
I think the underlying point here is this: We want to reduce the griefers, not get rid of them altogether. Getting rid of them completely would mean the game is so restrictive, that nobody could play freely. The problem is, nobody can agree on a method. Spawn prisons can be effective, but are frowned upon by too many people to get a "fix" (not to mention how easy they are to get out of). Block ownership obviously isn't going to happen, for technical reasons already discussed in these forums. A greifer tagging system is counter intuitive, considering they could just do the same thing to everyone else, rendering it untrustworthy. A count of how many blocks people have placed/removed is just silly (if you have a pro for it, feel free to speak up). So rather than argue about things everyone has agreed to disagree on, let's come up with something new.
edit: permissions idea came up as I typed this. That was quick. Already sounds like an interesting idea to me.
Relic of a bygone age.
/spectate would make it all irrelevant.
Plus, you'll still need ops to hand out permissions to everyone who comes in. In effect, it'll be the same things as prisons, just without someone having to go over to it and let people out. Now, if we're talking some kind of crazy tiered, time based, or otherwise method, then disregard that. I'm just thinking along the lines of handing out some command to let people build/destroy.
Isn't this fun?
(I mean the arguing, think about it).
Puyo, I'm willing to try /spectate first and see what effect it has, both on grief count and prison usage; but my money is on permissions.
Relic of a bygone age.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_positive_paradox
How accurate is your screening process?
All anti-griefing tools should be server options and users should have the ability to see what is and isn't enabled before they join a server. People should be able to use filters so they can more easily select servers run the way they prefer to play.
Perfectly accurate. People aren't denied admission because they are assumed to be griefers; they're let in at a controlled rate and monitored. In other words, I still don't ban anyone until they have certainly griefed. The point is that the inflow is reduced and you can't be caught off guard by people who slip in while you're tabbed, afk, or simply offline. Further, because you can control how many new people are admitted at once, you have more control over how many people need to be monitored at a time. Larger servers with an extensive OP list may not have this problem, of course.
Edit: I certainly hope you read farther down the thread than the post you quoted that text from.
Relic of a bygone age.
Poor wording on my part, I didn't mean to come across like that, maybe a better word would have been futile?
That won't work though. I agree that on paper it's a brilliant idea; People can only control specific blocks without permission, but there are a multitude of things you've overlooked: Firstly, the map size will increase a lot, every block will have to have a username attached to it, secondly it's going to create more griefing. if I join a server as a griefer I could be "clever" about it, if I find specific structures and alter them "sneakily" by replacing certain blocks with mine or just running around replacing hundreds of blocks, then I go on a rampage and you do /ban and /undo, you've now got even more of a broken map because you didn't know what I was doing. I have yet to see a single legitimate way that permissions could work, I'd have no problems if permissions existed but in a state that worked, I have never seen a good suggestion.
Making it pay only is a silly idea, but giving server administrators the option to run without letting free players in is a good option, I think. While preferably such a thing wouldn't need to exist the ratio of paid griefers to free makes it something I think would work.
...so you disagree with giving players the option to kick others because there are enough operators on a good server? Surely if that was the case we'd need none of the aforementioned tools
The point I'm trying to make is: I want to join a server and build, nothing more nothing less. Every suggestion I've ever seen changes that. I assume noalter would be applied as default on entry, this means I've got to wait for an operator which I'm not going to do because I just want to build. Everyone seems to be overcomplicating minecraft with these ideas; it's a game, a simple game, that's the beauty of it.
There is no "restriction" with private servers, they provide exactly the same freedom with public servers just less people. Look, what you don't seem to understand is that for minecraft to be good we need freedom, every suggestion I've seen removes part of that freedom and the people with these suggestions are the ones who want their ego massaging when they build huge things. If I want to build a massive castle that I don't want to be griefed I go into a private server and do it there, if I want to build for fun I do it in public, why is it unreasonable to suggest that for everyone? Every single measure I have seen suggested could easily be bypassed and abused, I could join a server and behave really well and eventually become an OP then quickly remove every block placed by specific people, which is more griefing that any single non op player could cause with the current system. You seem to overlook the fact that the majority of griefers do it to **** you all off and such a feature would be so easy to **** you off with.
You understand what a sandbox is, right? It's freedom, freedom to make the game however you like, if you want to build a castle you build a castle, if you want to build a house you build a house, you're not restricted. So if I'm in a server and I'm building this amazing castle and I see someone has built a house in the way, I'm going to take that house down and I wouldn't expect the person to be upset because that is natural evolution of a level, if we start limiting where I can build and how I can build what's the point in playing? I may as well go and **** about on gmod.
haha, welcome to life. The griefers only goal is to annoy, if you get annoyed you are at fault. Stop being such a big girl about it and get over it: If you care about your structures so much you play privately with people you know you can trust.
Relic of a bygone age.
I assume you're addressing me; My mind is made up based upon the current suggestions and evidence. If a permissions based solution was suggested and was viable then I'd have no problem agreeing that it was a good idea, but right now every solution based around permissions that I have seen will totally change the way that the game is played.
I'm sorry, but I don't understand how permissions would be any different from the prisons already being used. (Other than it will afford people on the waiting list the opportunity to look around).
Relic of a bygone age.
if you wanna keep it, grab a screenshot of it before someone inevitably destroys it
nothing will last forever
Please explain exactly how you propose that the permissions system should work and I'll point any pros/cons I can find.
Relic of a bygone age.
I mean, what sort of permissions would there be? Would I join the server and not be able to place until granted? Once granted is it the same as how building is now? Who can grant, OPs?
Relic of a bygone age.
That's kind of the whole point we are making. Both prisons/permissions suck and go against what the game is about, freedom to do whatever.
Votekick/voteban, remote access, automated backups, cross-platform and more.
Control your server.