Minecraft Name: Kirito32 Suggestion: I am suggesting a minor amendment to the server rules on the wiki as to have a bullet point added under Section 2 Clause 3 and/or Section 6 Clause 3 regarding harassment and exploits respectively. The bullet point in question will say something along the lines of: "Planting tnt on a spawn platform prior to deathmatch in sg is a form of harassment". I don't think a bullet point would be necessary under Section 6 however as that part of the rules is more generalized to any exploit and tnt planting would simply be classified as an exploit and dealt with normally. However, tnt planting is sort of not really an exploit but sort of is, putting it in a kind of limbo. Why do you think this is a good addition for EcoCitycraft? Please be as detailed as possible. The reason for this is because planting tnt has generally never been addressed as an issue (to my knowledge, don't quote me on that) on spawn platforms as a strategy in sg. I personally don't see it as a strategy, due to the fact that performing the act leaves almost no possible chance of surviving upon the player spawning into the location and results in instantaneous death. For this reason, I think it is an exploitation of the sg mechanic that freezes a player in place upon spawning players on the platforms upon deathmatch, were the planter takes advantage of the fact that players are helpless to defend against it to my knowledge, and if they do manage to survive, are usually damaged enough to get killed in one hit. As stated in Section 2 Clause 3: "Harassment constitutes as any form of action (chat or game play wise) that makes another player feel threatened or otherwise ruins their game play". I believe that tnt planting does involve a form of action game play wise that ruins a players game play, as it gives them no chance to participate in the deathmatch and have a chance to fight and win, which inherently lowers their stats slightly in the process and denying them a chance at an ecd award for possibly winning the match. Other Information: The main thing that I'm suggesting is not only to amend the rules to clarify that tnt planting in sg should not be allowed, but to make it clear that doing it is actually against the rules in a way and to make it known that doing this should not go unfiled and unpunished. I honestly believe that if this occurs, players should file a complaint and staff should in response respond in way to any other harassment or exploitation complaint and punish accordingly. Whether this act should be classified as just harassment or a full on exploit is at the discretion of the staff reviewing this, but either way I believe that this action should be considered rule breaking and handled as such. Link to this plugin/Is this a custom addition?: N/A **edit** Okay so I noticed that this suggestion comes off as the main point being that the rules need to be amended in some way to encompass tnt planting as being something against the rules, and that is not what I really wanted the gist of it to be. As I realized afterwards, amending the rules to simply state that "oh you shouldn't do that" is sort of ridiculous and if you did that for every rule breaking action the rule list would get very, very long. The main point of this I guess is to bring the issue to light that tnt planting is bad and is suggested that this action should be considered rule breaking and made aware of, because as of now people can do this with little to no consequence to troll and nothing is really done about it. There is a lot of suggestions to fix this, such as a thread to clarify that the act is banned, or just simple enforcement from staff and awareness of this as being harassment and/or exploitation from the community as a whole.
@Nicit6 Are you implying it isn't against the rules, or implying that the rules do not need to have any edits at all and already cover it under a more general scope and is just an issue of not being enforced enough under already existent rules. If it is the second, I understand that the rules do not need to be changed to include this in order for them to envelope tnt planting as not being allowed, but I merely suggest that like some other things in the rules, such as where it says "This includes, but is not limited to,"and then goes on to list examples, that tnt planting can be added as one of these examples to raise awareness that it is actually a rule violation. It's not necessary, but it could be helpful to include in my opinion. The main problem I think though is that people still do tnt planting and nothing is really done about it, and that shouldn't be the case.
I'm stating that it is entirely inappropriate for this to, either implicitly or explicitly, be against the rules. Killing people in SG is not harassment. If you don't like being killed in SG, don't play SG.
@Nicit6 Okay, I understand what you are saying. However, it is not explicitly "killing people" in sg that I am considering harassment. It is the action of denying the player a chance to participate in the deathmatch of an sg game, "to kill or not to kill". Setting up tnt at the spawn platform in my opinion to make someone explode and thus removes them from the match to either lessen the amount of people in dm or win the game entirely is still a form of harassment. Also, your argument "If you don't like "this", then don't do/play/whatever "this"", is not a very solid argument as it can be applied to almost any harassment case if worded in that format. For example, "If you don't like being cussed at or called racial slurs in chat, then don't read chat/leave channels", or "If you don't like a player trespassing/loitering just outside your plot, then don't give them a reason to do so". It's sort of a silly argument to make and just makes people take you less seriously.
I was typing up a long response but honestly I'm sticking with my original post This is entirely inappropriate for the rules. Just because you consider something harassment doesn't mean it actually is. This isn't.
@Nicit6 While I respect your opinion on the subject, I still do no agree with you, as it is an action that ruins game play for the player in a legitimate mode of gameplay (sg) by offing players out of the game with out the choice to fight back or do anything about it. Being denied to play sg the way it was meant to be played through such means is harassment as per the wordings explicitly stated in the rules. Since I do not like arguing with people I will end it there, since to be honest I can respect where you are coming from and your viewpoints. Thank you for your input Nicit, also I really like your alliteration savvy title and Doctor Who profile pic btw
I wasn't going to make a long winded response at 5am but now I'm procrastinating on an assignment so here we go! "explicit" means: stated clearly and in detail, leaving no room for confusion or doubt. Let's take a look at the rule regarding harassment. The one I'm sure you're referencing is this: Harassment constitutes as any form of action (chat or game play wise) that makes another player feel threatened or otherwise ruins their game play. I've bolded the relevant portion. It doesn't mention SG at all. Your case isn't explicitly mentioned. The thing is, too, this rule can be used as justification to make anything illegal. It is a bad rule. I can say that I hate being killed in PvP, it ruins my gameplay. Does that mean killing in PvP is harassment? Despite what some on here would tell you, it isn't. I get that this practice may be annoying. It may not be fair. That doesn't make it harassment! Honestly I don't understand why you're proposing the most roundabout and problematic way to get rid of this. You could suggest that this be covered by the rules regarding exploiting bugs, you'd have a better argument. You could suggest SG be made so this can't happen (an easy fix), you'd have a WAY better argument. We just can't go calling every little annoying thing harassment and adding it to the rules, though.
@Nicit6 What I was saying was explicitly stated in the rules was not the sg related action itself, but the fact that it ruins gameplay, in my opinion. While I do agree that the term "ruins gameplay" can be taken loosely as you have stated and applied to basically anything, there is a difference between ruining gameplay as a fault on the account of the players side, and the fault of another players actions that can in no possible way be prevented by the "victim" of the action, and is a result of a systematic flaw, as per mentioned on the argument of it being an exploit. While you said that I could have suggested this be covered in the rules regarding exploiting bugs, if you actually look at the original post you will see that I also included this as Section 6 Clause 3, but I simply stated that the rule (any rule in fact) is not in need of editing, just the way the situation is handled through pre-existing rules. While I did go into more detail on the harassment aspect fault that you clearly disagree with, I will go into detail more since it seems it would be beneficial to go into the fact that it could be considered a sort of exploit and how to go about fixing it. If it were to be considered an exploit, it would be because players exploit the sg game mechanic that force teleports players to a set spawn spot that is the same everytime, and disables the players ability to move for the next 10 seconds whilst draining the players hunger forcing them to eat. The thing that is being exploited by the players is this freezing mechanic, which is taken advantage of by trapping the pre-determined spots that the players are teleported to by means of tnt, or in some other instances, cobwebs. The cobwebs is less severe if a player has a sword at the ready, but as most players prefer axes now as a weapon of choice, they will find themselves stuck longer than necessary and getting killed whilst entangled. The fix that I can propose is that instead of teleporting players to a set location that players will easily be able to predict where they will be spawned and trap accordingly, to have players teleported into the deathmatch at a random spot, in such a way that the players are shuffled, and if possible, kept a reasonable distance apart from each other. This would prevent players to accurately be able to trap spots, since tnting every possible spot at the right moment is difficult (if not impossible), and obtaining enough cobwebs to trap all the spots is extremely difficult and impractical. How feasible this is on the backend to setup, however, is unknown to me and I'd have to consult with someone more professionally atuned to working with that kind of thing, such as Jamie.
This ^ If something can be easily prevented at the root (i.e: fixing the mechanics underneath), then it must be: why delegate the task to the rules, which might (or might not) be followed by players? It's the same reason why, when you apply for a town, a new region is created accordingly by staff: so that for all non-members it's materially impossible to grief.
@Expipiplusone Thank you for your input. However, my last post and my first post also mentions that you can prevent the situation at the root and that the problem is potentially solvable by some means by fixing mechanics of sg. The main reason I did not address this problem the way you mention initially is because as JamieSinn had mentioned in one of my previous suggestions, SG seems to be in a "feature freeze" and new things won't be added or changed to SG at the moment. Why this is the case is beyond my understanding as to why, because there still is a lot of people during the day who play SG and enjoy it, and a lot of people also enjoy SG related events such as boss battles. Denying SG to change at a basic level, whether it be changing a map, a game mechanic or anything for that matter will allow it to evolve and grow, but if you just leave it in a state where you don't do anything to make it better and grow, then it will slowly die as a result. If it was already dying in the first place, then I can be pretty certain the reason for this is related to not having any change. That is why I went about the roundabout way initially to get the problem addressed, but to be fair I did also state that the situation could be classified as exploitation in my original post along with my claim of harassment that Nicit and I had already argued about, and I actually do agree with most of his points.
@JamieSinn I'm sorry but I have a feeling you didn't read anything that was said after the fact or got the point of the thread.
I have a question about that point, which also relates to the original problem. It has been a while since I played SG and even longer since I have done that actively, but I remember* that it was actually pretty rare for me to be teleported back to my original location. In a game that started with ~5 players I would often land around the 4th-9th position, sometimes around the 16th-21st. The suggestion implies that players are always teleported back to a predictable location. I am a little confused - was this changed within the past months, or is my experience based on a bug? * In this case, "remember" stands for "recalling from memory and the few SG recordings I made". I'm not sure whether I still have that video material because I lost a significant part of my archive a while ago.
I read the entire thread. Making a rule change on something that is a legitimate strategy which in my opinion is rather skill requiring because of the deathmatch timing. Denied.
