Another Wave of Suggestions from a Dying Breed of Roleplayer

[Cerce]

This information is no longer available to the public. Please see your local moderator for explination.

Any attempts to re-instate or change this post whatsoever will be met with legal retaliation due to pending copyright on any and all information created by Gavin N. Partridge reguarding Cerce, Cerantia, Sarkom, Teevanah, and it's associated information.

Thank you.

[yottabyte]

Commenting in your post with bold text

Anyways... I'm firstly going to be going off on the server rules. Firstly about my first thing (heheh, repition ftw): Moderation should be done outside of the game ideals. Try not to bring the roleplay or the game or anything else into the moderating world. I know, I know, most of the people who complain about this are just little whiners - but still, it can be improved.
It's on the game moderator rules to keep moderation and character actions separate.

Allright: Now for the meat of the server rules.

1) Be Mature, aka "Don't be a Douchebag"

I have seen this rule broken time and time again through trivialtries. People seem to wiggle out of this one by backing up that they had a right to do this, or that what they did wasn't really that bad, or by stating that they were in the right because no rules were broken.

Now; let's exactly establish what a douchebag is. According to Wikipedia, the term usually refers to a person, usually male, with a variety of negative qualities, specifically arrogance and engaging in obnoxious and/or irritating actions, most often without malicious intent. Urban Dictionary refers to the term as: "Someone who has surpassed the levels of jerk and asshole, however not yet reached fucker or motherfucker" and "somebody who you think is a complete retard and doesn't know anything about what they're talking about."

Using these rather... selective descriptions of what exactly a douchebag is, we should be able to determine what exactly breaks this rule. I say that this should be used as a template reguarding the breakage of rule one.
We let the mods decide whether we want someone on the server. If they are constantly being rude in OOC and not respecting people, we usually ban them.

1.1 Moderators are always right.
Mods are entrusted with full authority to make decisions based on game rules. This means, when a mod makes a ruling -- do not argue with them in places like the OOC chat or a forum thread!

If you believe the ruling to be unfair, you may file an appeal on the forums. The issue will be discussed among the staff and community. Do NOT spam the forums as that will lower your chances of getting your voice heard, and your thread will be locked.

If your ban appeal thread is locked, there is no second chance. You are permanently banned, please leave.

I do not think that this should be changed, except for in one aspect. Should a moderator be excesively abusing their powers, they could effectively lock a forum thread after sumarrily turning the person down on their appeal, solidifying their ban. Measures should be taken to ensure that someone should get annother chance should something like this happen.
We have recently updated the GM rules to include not locking threads until something is set in stone.

1.2 Respect your fellow players.
If you treat others the way you would like to be treated, people will generally return the favor. Respect others and they will respect you.

A moderator might decide that you are not respecting other players and are being rude out of character. If they find this to be unwanted on the server, you might face a punishment.

If you find someone to be rude to you as a person (not your character), we recommend you to take screenshots and post in the ban section of the forums.

Again, we need to define exactly what this rule is referring to. Respect is defined as: A feeling of deep admiration for someone or something elicited by their abilities, qualities, or achievements. This should not be taken as "Everyone should be reguarded as someone to admire"; but instead "Everyone who has shown a level of gratitude and admirition to you should be in turn reguarded with the same or greater level of gratitude and admirition." I don't believe much should be changed with this one.

1.3 No Flaming
Don’t use the OOC chat (/ch ooc) or the forums for flaming other members.

A "flame" is a comment intended to be an out-of-character (OoC) insult with the intention of making another person angry. If you want to argue with someone about a personal matter, use /msg or forum PM's! We don't care about your personal views towards others.

If you want to report abuse, /msg or PM a mod or admin on the forums

Seing as how Flaming has been accurately portrayed here, I will not define it again. I find this happenening quite a lot over the forums. I try to stay out of them... but hey, it's me. I get ticked. I'm guilty of flaming just as much, if not moreso, than the next guy. Anyways; I personally think that this specific rule should have a little harsher penalty than some of the other rules, as I have found flaming to be one of the major drawbacks of the forum community. In-game, there's little flaming (that I have seen), other than those recently threatened with a ban retaliating verbally.
Yep, I think we can agree on this one.

Skipped 1.4 - 1.5 as they are good as is (in my opinion).

2) No Griefing

2.1 Griefing is not tolerated.
Generally, "griefing" is anything you do that interrupts another player’s game experience. It can be as simple as jumping up and down in front of them while they’re having a legitimate RP coversation to destroying another player’s building for no valid reason.

Using the definition of "Anything you do that interrupts another player's game experience" for Griefing... quite frankly, I don't understand how I'm not banned yet, or how thieve's aren't banned yet, or how we can kill and not be banned. Does this not interrupt another's game experience? I don't understand it. So, instead, I will provide an alternative definition of griefing:
"A griefer is a player who does things in a game to deliberately cause annoyance ("grief" in the sense of "giving someone grief") for the griefer's own enjoyment (or "lulz"). Such a player is a particular nuisance in online gaming communities, since griefers often cannot be deterred by penalties related to in-game goals.

[*]Written and/or verbal insults
[*]Exploitation of unintended game mechanics
[*]Stealing other players' items and/or experience
[*]Any methods of reversing another player's progress
[*]Intentional friendly fire or deliberately performing actions detrimental to team members' game performance
[*]Saying or doing something just to irritate, upset, or otherwise harass someone

As a result of this new definition of griefing, we can now discard war-time or roleplay-related killings, thievings, and such, and focus instead on the true griefers - those that just do it for the adrenaline rush of "Hahah, that idiotic *&$%er never saw that one comming!". Back before I roleplayed, I enjoyed that hilarious rampage that those idiots that spoke weird went on when I killed them for their experience. It reminded me of the Angry German Kid video. I didn't care if I got banned, I just did it. And that, my friends, is wrong. So, instead of focusing on the previous definition of grieving, I would highly reccomend using this new definition, which plugs up a lot of the loopholes that the former sparse description provided.
Agree, this definition should be changed.

2.2 Replace any removed blocks!
In case of a robbery where you are breaking in through a wall or a ceiling, replace any blocks you have removed. This also applies to when you are searching for hidden chests. Blocks in natural environments such as caves or the wild do not need replacement. Not replacing blocks you destroy counts as griefing.

I, for one, do not like this. I don't like this one bit. At all. How can a scout that is finding a weak spot in an enemy's lines break an unprotected block open for troops to move in? He can't. How can an assasin lay a trap for someone right in front of their own door to fullfill a contract? He can't. Of course, these former go back to griefing - but with the new definition, it clarifies that griefing is done only when it is for malicious intent. Roleplay, in my honest opinion, should be excluded from this. Of course, we then run into the problem of people claiming it was part of roleplay when really they just wanted to laugh as they saw the person fall 100 blocks to their death. If there was some way to get rid of that problem, boy I would be so much happier. Untill then... you can't really change this rule much, can you?
Exactly. We would love to have RP traps and raids but immature kids will use that to grief.

2.3 Exceptions
There are some blocks that are not considered building blocks and may be stolen (removed) at any time. These are Iron block, diamond block, gold block, lapis lazuli block and TNT. You may steal them at any time.

If your character is planning on attacking something, but you are not sure if it will be considered griefing, ask a Mod about it. The Moderators are there to help you with just this sort of thing!

I suggest adding the following to blocks that can be destroyed: Wheat, melons, pumpkins, reeds, flowers, cake, enchanting tables, and any other high-end monetarilly valuable OR imediately usefull material. Example: I just got attacked by two creepers. I see a melon patch. I eat from the melon patch. This should be allowed. However, as it is considered a 'block'.... I have seen people banned for harvesting someone else's wheat. I mean, really!
I can let you know that it is pretty frustrating when you have spent hours on making a big farm and see everything is stolen or walked on within the first day. That, in my opinion, is griefing. No one needs that much wheat. It's just a dickmove.
For the new blocks, yes I agree. We haven't updated this list in quite some time.

2.4 Absolutely no griefing of official roads and/or minecart tracks at any time.
Official roads/tracks are those roads leading directly to or from Mavenholm. Roads and tracks are essential for travel around the world of Kiwike. Any direct griefing of the roads is severally frowned upon. If a road or track is damaged due to an RP reason or creeper, repair the road as soon as possible.

I think that war-time reasons; such as inhibitting troop movement, or throwing off caravan routes, should be allowed. Otherwise, love this rule.
Same as with 2.2, we can't allow this

Skipped spawnkilling and hack-related rules.

4) Maintain the theme of the server.

Kiwike is at an era where technology is equivalent to the late Middle Ages of Earth. Do not build structures that do not fit within that theme, such as futuristic or unrealistic buildings.

By futuristic, we mean the following types of structures: modern-looking sky-scrapers, large glass domes, replicas of the Starship Enterprise…these don’t belong in Kiwike. Instead, keep structures world appropriate. For example, build epic wizard towers, elaborate towns , or massive wooden sailboats.

For unrealistic, consider this example: if you make a long bridge it needs some kind of support. It can NOT float in the air. If you claim "magic” holds it up, be ready to defend the magic you used and how you portrayed that during the building process.

Structures built that violate the above guidelines may be removed by moderators. Again, if you are unsure about your building, do not hesitate to talk to a mod. A mod will come and judge it for you, or discuss your idea before you begin.

The only thing that I can see that I would like changed is this: I once was a member of another midevil-era type server.... but they had something out of that midevil era time setting. They had redstone morse code lines. It was freeking epic. But the ammount of griefing possible might be more than it is worth... Other than that, I like this rule.
We're changing this soon.

Skipped tree rule.

4.2 No huge ugly box buildings. Build things that look nice.
A town/city full of shoe boxes isn't fun for anyone. Minecraft allows for wonderful things to be built. Use two or three different materials and you will see a vast difference in the look of your structure.

I find it funny that I have yet to be banned for this. My castle is litterally a stone box. Granted, I've added some stuff onto it - but a few months ago? Just a box. A really big box. Also; this rule should not apply in certain circumstances. For example: What if the town is a race of barbaric dwarves that only know crude rudimentary building designs, like boxes, and only have stone to work with? If it ties into the roleplay; I say go for it.
This will be changed later

4.3 Don't build over the town height limit.
This rule is essential to the realism and theme of the realm. Any town with a structure that exceeds the limit will be asked to abide by the limit. If the structure is not fixed immediately after the warning is given will be subject to demolition.
4.4 No 1x1 towers

I wonder daily why no-one has banned me for not having fixed my castle. It's at least 38 blocks high. Otherwise; I think that this rule should be removed, and instead, reguarding skyscrapers, the rule about technological era should be taken into account.
Yeah, pavja's casino is one block too high. This rule is really just there to stop people from building 64 block high wooden boxes and call it a house. Agree, 4.2 is very similar to this one.

In no way are single 1x1 towers allowed. They may not be used to enter into protected cities or to get a quick view of the land. They are an unrealistic eyesore and therefore not to be used.

I know for a fact that at least three of such towers were used in the seccond Grand war, one was used in Cerantia in the first Grand war, one was used in the Viking war to get into a mine on the side of a mountain, one was used in the capture and griefing of the Cerantian Power (my favorite Kiwiship - and my only one - may she rest in piece. Oh, and those at fault have yet to be punished - something I'll most likely rant about, and then someone related to the incident will come on and say how they were in the right, and yadda yadda yadda). In no instance was a perpetrator ever banned. Either this rule needs to be enforced much more stricktly, or it needs to be removed.
Yeah, we have to change the definition of this rule. The towers are allowed in panic or war situations, but they must be removed ASAP. If a player finds a tower older than a few hours, it's a bannable offense.

[Nightmare]

I shall always support the dying breed of role play. But. Who says it is dying. Also, Who says I will help it in a good way.
Fear usually brings men together.

[Android]

I don't really think it's a dying breed, maybe you personally think so, Cerce, because you leave so often, but I've seen improvement, and the team has much more to implement into Kiwike's roleplaying world that most would be suprised about.

[geckosquid]

I agree with basically everything except for allowing enchanting tables to be taken. Here is my reasoning:
You need to put them down to use them
People will have enchanting tables in their houses. That's inevitable. It's ridiculous that you would have to put it down to use it and then pick it up and put it in a locked chest. I personally like the idea of breaking into someone's house to use their enchanting table better than going in and taking it. Besides, they really aren't that hard to make. The last point I'll make is that they're too essential of an item to be stolen. Actually, one more point: You can fence off your crops. You can easily refrain from building with valuable blocks. But you can't just hide your enchanting table. That's plain idiotic, I think.
My apologies for the rant, but I really don't want enchanting tables to be stealable.

[Alphonse]

I would like to ask that lapis blocks be non-griefable. They hold no use whatsoever besides making blue wool and making solid lapis that look nice, but you can't display for fear of someone ripping it out of your walls.

[Cell]

You do have a point. It is a purely decorative block. I second that vote.

[geckosquid]

But... But... Enchanting Tables shouldn't... Be... Either... Sigh.

[Android]

Lapis will stay thievable, and we'll further discuss enchantment tables.

[geckosquid]

I'd like to be in on that discussion, if I may.