Accepted [Suggestion] Transparency

Lol, funny how some people give potatoes when they don't know how to reply to faultless logic

 

First of all, let's try to steer this clear of a flame war please. Minor discourse on a suggestion is great, but personal attacks are simply silly and unjustified, from both points of view.

Secondly, Expip, I feel the main flaw in your logic is the fact you assume the only people who argue about ban reasons are the people who are "that annyoing". If my best friend on ECC turns out to be an alt of Kcon, (or whatever ban reason), I might be angry, or think this player is innocent. I might decide to take this to the higher-ups, or voice my concerns in global. Instead of this player being forgotten after their ban, and the community moving on, this information sits on a database where it can be constantly be brought up again, and again, and again. That's simply not healthy for a community.

It's not even like you can't get this info. already. If you are super duper attached to your ECC friend, but he gets perma'd and you don't trust him to give you the ban reason, then you might not have made the best choice in friends to be honest. Infomation like this spreads easily, and putting on a permanent database will clear very few thing up yet cause a multitude of problems...

...that's why a permanent ban listing could never happen.

-1

 

If someone were to start an endless personal crusade against staff because one of their friends got banned, they would do that regardless of whether there's a public ban list. It's not like "oh, it's passed 5 days since I started the crusade and there's no written reference of the ban in the forum to remind me of it, therefore I will automatically forget this in 5 seconds and my memory will be wiped as if none of this ever happened". If someone is going to bring something back again and again because it became personal, they are going to do that regardless of a public record. So your point is empty.

You're completely missing the point: I'm not concerned that one of my friends is going to be banned, because I'm used to chose my friends wisely. I'm concerned about the risk of dealing with someone with a criminal record without knowing it. Let's make an example: say someone was permabanned (which means a rather big offense) because staff saw him directly (i.e: there's no complaint on the forum) and then appeals directly to andrew: there will be absolutely no written record of the offense on the forum and, not finding anything in the complaints+appeals archive, I would (wrongly) assume that that person has a clean criminal record. Yes, in principle I could ask staff, but in practice it would be ridiculous to ask staff every damn time you do business with someone, and therefore I'll be forced to take risks and on average I'll be less willing to trust people. And this is not healthy for the community.

You listed only one problem, not a multitude, and moreover it was moot, as explained.

 

Meh, I'm not really interested in having discourse with someone who is taking what I say out of context.
No one is starting a "personal crusade" against staff, but if there's a public listing a ban reasons it helps very few and hurts many.
That's all I'll really say, and if you disagree, I respect your opinion completely, I just don't feel this suggestion will benefit the server more than it will help it as others have stated before me.

 

What did I take out of context, exactly? I just replied to what seemed to be the meaning of your words. If you think I misinterpreted your words, why don't you just explain yourself better and clarify the misunderstanding, instead of playing the "out of context" card? Because all I see now is someone avoiding to enter into the merits of the counter-arguments, which is a pretty sad way to leave a discussion.

 

If I may say something here...

The argument concerning a public ban list is slowly going towards a rude discussion instead of the constructive dialogs that should happen here.

Both "faultless logic" and "out of context" are rather subjective opinions that are being used here to emphasize the own and invalidate the other opinion. Would it please be possible to have both sides agree to either return to a dialog of facts or accept each other's - and their own - standpoint as personal opinion?

 

He's chosen to take the higher road out of the two of you. Respect it, as he respected you. Why call him out when he did nothing wrong? Why? It's not his fault if ignorant [Mod Edit], such as yourself, come along and think that their opinion is the only one that can possibly be correct. In no way is he obligated to adhere to what you believe. He doesn't have to answer your demands and I respect him for ignoring your stupidity.

 

Development: @JamieSinn will try to provide information where ever possible on what our todo list is, but really with the amount of stuff I update on a daily basis, I'm not going to waste my time writing:

- Updated plugin 1
- Updated plugin 2
etc - X 10 daily updates. (All with internal changes no one would ever understand unless they develop plugins / etc)

When it comes to ToDo lists, I don't provide ETAs because I don't meet them. Providing ETAs just makes people rage more when not met.

But with that said if @JamieSinn wants to give you guys a small technical list of what's to be done etc he's allowed to do it.

It won't come from me personally. When you run a server this big the last thing I want to do is manage an additional change log.

Ban reasons:
You can see if a user is banned or not.
You can research ban reasons yourself.
You can contact banned users if you want to know the reason should they wish to share it.

ECC WILL NEVER provide a public ban list, it hasn't for 5-6 years and it NEVER will. This is my decision and it's how it has always been.

I'm marking this suggestion accepted on the basis of Jamie's development information but past that I can't give you much more.

Locking thread as its turned into an argument.

 

Added a recent chat log from shoutbox:

1. 13 minutes ago - andrewkm:
   https://www.ecocitycraft.com/forum/threads/suggestion-transparency.152827/
2. 13 minutes ago - andrewkm:
   There a reply has been made and locked to prevent arguments.
3. 13 minutes ago - andrewkm:
   TLDR : things won't change much, other than Jamie possibly providing a small todo list.
4. 13 minutes ago - andrewkm:
   Although my recommendation to him stands, don't waste time on a todo list, instead lets get things done.
5. 12 minutes ago - andrewkm:
   When new things hit the server they will be announced in the news and on Twitter.
6. 12 minutes ago - andrewkm:
   The last thing I wanna bother with is a change log.
7. 12 minutes ago - andrewkm:
   Not a shot in hell I'll be managing one.
8. 12 minutes ago - andrewkm:
   You can easily ask me in shout box "yo Andrew what's the plan lately with ECC"
9. 12 minutes ago - andrewkm:
   I'll shoot you a response
10. 12 minutes ago - Canadian_Apple:
    *asks*
11. 11 minutes ago - Canadian_Apple:
    sorry, I just popped it
12. 11 minutes ago - Canadian_Apple:
    in*
13. 11 minutes ago - andrewkm:
    Don't expect a fully managed change log, I'm not interested in adding to my work load I rather actually just get work done.
14. 11 minutes ago - andrewkm:
    What's on the list now Canada?
15. 11 minutes ago - andrewkm:
    Let's see...
16. 11 minutes ago - Canadian_Apple:
    Eh
17. 11 minutes ago - andrewkm:
    Add new disguises, fix pets, fix LWC crap, release the END world which is basically ready.
18. 11 minutes ago - iTzXtremeGaming:
    yo andrew what's the plan with ecc lately
19. 10 minutes ago - andrewkm:
    And before that stuff release my new forum sportsbook addition.
20. 10 minutes ago - andrewkm:
    That's the current plan.

 

Yesterday's change log as requested. (Literally everything that was updated merely yesterday)

Code:

#1859: Entity attach is an int - Fix
Update to 1.10.2 for Protocol
Simple and incomplete implementation for ICollideRayVsAABB.
Let DataLocation extend IGetPositionWithLook.
Complete initial draft for ICollideRayVsAABB.
Add convenience method to set the AABB.
The idea of choosing a simple implementation was to skip debugging.
Add a sequence count to DataPacketFlying.
Consistency fixes.
Allow thread-safe fetching of instances (for now).
Add a method to test activation via AlmostBoolean for all configs.
[BLEEDING] Overall packet spam check for pre-1.9.
Proper activation check.
Another reason for dynamic check type registration.
[Forge] Fix //regen + improve performance.
Try to fix commands being requeued
Send plain text instead of JSON
Add Beetroot to herbalism skill
Fixed the second place where Sapling should be used in 1.10
Call player tick specifically
Don't wipe tiles if type is still the same
Make much of Bukkit locale independent
Fix air setting block updates
Improve DoubleChest semantics
Send additional lighting data
Compute attributes one last time after quitting
Improve setBlock for tile->tile transitions
Bump MC version
Update to Minecraft 1.10.2

Now tell me, do you really care about any of the above crap, or would you rather just ask me in shoutbox what's up and what I'm working on in simple terms.