All The Fuzz About That Bridge.

Tigershield

Tigershield

Joined
Oct 20, 2012
Messages
111
Reaction score
40
Points
0
Age
34
First of all sorry for bad English, It isn't my main language. But I will do my best.

Second, I want to give my view on this. About the bridge idea from Dworvin.

Woah! I just found the two closed threads about the bridge, I'm not very active on the forums so i did not even know there was so much fuzz about the bridge. Well I extended the bridge, without knowing it got deleted by one of the admins yesterday.

About the cobblestone problem. The only reason we use cobble on that bridge is for the skeleton. Every structure needs a frame. And cobble is easy to get. We dont want some hollow design. And the hard to get resources will be the skin on the frame.

Rome is not build in 1 day.

There is one big difference, when I roam massivecraft. I see so many ugly square buildings. And people start complaining about a bloody bridge. Almost everyone supports traveling instead of warping. Am I right? So instead of complaining about cobble help make a new trade/travel route, heck even help with construction or resources.

People judge way to fast on stuff. One simple reason is : Allot of kids play on Massivecraft, And most kids dont have patience. AndI dont mean this in a offensive way.

I do know i will get hate for this. So be it. It's human nature.
 
I don't see the logic in saying I should hold back my judgement because children don't have patience. We hold everyone to the same standards, adults, teenagers, children etc.
 
MonMarty said:
I don't see the logic in saying I should hold back my judgement because children don't have patience. We hold everyone to the same standards, adults, teenagers, children etc.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

I think the point he's stressing is that what was judged was a half finished product. One could easily judge a number of the greatest structures in Massive as hideous if they did so before they were even close to finished.
 
I've heard the reasoning before, and it's not entirely fail proof. People go around claiming all kinds of feats to be performed with buildings which have been removed but they always do so the wrong way around. Build pillars before building the platform. Build the palace before building the 100 block high wall around it, Etc. The policy on ugly buildings stands, and Ellador is the world that suffers the highest build code scrutiny.
 
MonMarty said:
I've heard the reasoning before, and it's not entirely fail proof. People go around claiming all kinds of feats to be performed with buildings which have been removed but they always do so the wrong way around. Build pillars before building the platform. Build the palace before building the 100 block high wall around it, Etc. The policy on ugly buildings stands, and Ellador is the world that suffers the highest build code scrutiny.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

I've never seen a rule that states what parts of a structure have to be built first, and there's really no way to know if a half-built structure will be ugly when it's done. It's hard to feel like you didn't cave to pressure here, because a bunch of people heard 'cobblestone' and went on a witch hunt. Whatever the case, when we're done with our current project, my builders and I will come help Dworvin build his bridge the 'right' way.
 
Every stage of construction matters, if we decide to destroy one building before it is finished when we know it is going to be ugly, we have to destroy another building before it is finished and it might potentially be pretty. We don't hand out exceptions of treatment to individuals, and although there is usually some dialogue between the staff and the person whose building is found to be damaging the image of the map, this particular case was more so influenced not by negative opinions from players per se, but the amount of drama and negativity it was generating between players, on the forum, and on the server. This is where we choose to shortcut conventional processes.
 
MonMarty said:
Every stage of construction matters, if we decide to destroy one building before it is finished when we know it is going to be ugly, we have to destroy another building before it is finished and it might potentially be pretty. We don't hand out exceptions of treatment to individuals, and although there is usually some dialogue between the staff and the person whose building is found to be damaging the image of the map, this particular case was more so influenced not by negative opinions from players per se, but the amount of drama and negativity it was generating between players, on the forum, and on the server. This is where we choose to shortcut conventional processes.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

But all the same, Dworvin is the one punished in the end. As a GM, would it not be better to tell the populace to calm down, and that you'll deal with it if it ends up being ugly in the end? If this weren't on the forums, I truly don't believe there would have been any GM action whatsoever, because there are still very modern looking skyscrapers and buildings in Ellador that have been hangin around forever without intervention.
 
I'm going to be honest: I don't know much about this bridge. However, if it was deleted prior to completion then I feel that the admins made a bad call. You cannot know the final product prior to completion. For example: Castle Mirk was quite literally a pit of stone with ugly stone towers prior to its completion. Gran Laurona started out as a cave with a cobble wall/structure to keep people from using the portal there. Both of these locations ended up very pretty, but started out butt ugly. I have used cobble to outline structures before, as well as in the final product of the structure. If you use cobble properly it can be made into a very impressive structure. If you reserve judgement until after a project is completed, you may well find that the project is an amazing piece of work. So, in the future, I suggest admins wait until project completion or abandonment prior to deletion.

On the subject of building specifications... I don't like them. I understand their purpose in keeping Massivecraft pretty, but... it seems stupid to just go around destroying stuff that people think is ugly. I find cobble in roads to be attractive, but most people find the exact same thing to be completely unacceptable. As such, I wouldn't dislike something with cobble, but some people would. One should not have their stuff destroyed simply because others feel it is ugly.

Finally, I feel that no one has the right to decide what is 'ugly' and what is 'pretty'. RP-wise, most every major structure in Massivecraft isn't possible. Valyria's fortress, Deathfist's soulsand castle, my factions giant tree (still under construction, btw, don't delete it) are all good examples (there are also some in Regalia). Other structures may be attractive to some people, but ugly to others. Argonia's unfinished castle/palace thing, for example(also Valyria's tower/fortress). I dislike the entire design and structure and choice of materials, but I'm sure many people find it attractive. The fact remains that everyone has a different opinion of 'pretty' and 'ugly' and no one person or group of people should claim their idea of pretty and ugly is better then anothers.

All in all, I dislike the very idea that admins can simply shut down/destroy a build project based on nothing more then the thought that it could become ugly. I dislike the concept that some things can be judged ugly or pretty and suffer a fate because of that. I loath the idea that someone's hard work could be destroyed at all, regardless of the reason. It goes against some of the basic concepts of massivecraft (like no griefing and player equality and such).
 
Mecharic said:
I'm going to be honest: I don't know much about this bridge. However, if it was deleted prior to completion then I feel that the admins made a bad call. You cannot know the final product prior to completion. For example: Castle Mirk was quite literally a pit of stone with ugly stone towers prior to its completion. Gran Laurona started out as a cave with a cobble wall/structure to keep people from using the portal there. Both of these locations ended up very pretty, but started out butt ugly. I have used cobble to outline structures before, as well as in the final product of the structure. If you use cobble properly it can be made into a very impressive structure. If you reserve judgement until after a project is completed, you may well find that the project is an amazing piece of work. So, in the future, I suggest admins wait until project completion or abandonment prior to deletion.

On the subject of building specifications... I don't like them. I understand their purpose in keeping Massivecraft pretty, but... it seems stupid to just go around destroying stuff that people think is ugly. I find cobble in roads to be attractive, but most people find the exact same thing to be completely unacceptable. As such, I wouldn't dislike something with cobble, but some people would. One should not have their stuff destroyed simply because others feel it is ugly.

Finally, I feel that no one has the right to decide what is 'ugly' and what is 'pretty'. RP-wise, most every major structure in Massivecraft isn't possible. Valyria's fortress, Deathfist's soulsand castle, my factions giant tree (still under construction, btw, don't delete it) are all good examples (there are also some in Regalia). Other structures may be attractive to some people, but ugly to others. Argonia's unfinished castle/palace thing, for example(also Valyria's tower/fortress). I dislike the entire design and structure and choice of materials, but I'm sure many people find it attractive. The fact remains that everyone has a different opinion of 'pretty' and 'ugly' and no one person or group of people should claim their idea of pretty and ugly is better then anothers.

All in all, I dislike the very idea that admins can simply shut down/destroy a build project based on nothing more then the thought that it could become ugly. I dislike the concept that some things can be judged ugly or pretty and suffer a fate because of that. I loath the idea that someone's hard work could be destroyed at all, regardless of the reason. It goes against some of the basic concepts of massivecraft (like no griefing and player equality and such).
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Here here, you glorious bastard.
 
Mecharic said:
I'm going to be honest: I don't know much about this bridge. However, if it was deleted prior to completion then I feel that the admins made a bad call. You cannot know the final product prior to completion. For example: Castle Mirk was quite literally a pit of stone with ugly stone towers prior to its completion. Gran Laurona started out as a cave with a cobble wall/structure to keep people from using the portal there. Both of these locations ended up very pretty, but started out butt ugly. I have used cobble to outline structures before, as well as in the final product of the structure. If you use cobble properly it can be made into a very impressive structure. If you reserve judgement until after a project is completed, you may well find that the project is an amazing piece of work. So, in the future, I suggest admins wait until project completion or abandonment prior to deletion.

On the subject of building specifications... I don't like them. I understand their purpose in keeping Massivecraft pretty, but... it seems stupid to just go around destroying stuff that people think is ugly. I find cobble in roads to be attractive, but most people find the exact same thing to be completely unacceptable. As such, I wouldn't dislike something with cobble, but some people would. One should not have their stuff destroyed simply because others feel it is ugly.

Finally, I feel that no one has the right to decide what is 'ugly' and what is 'pretty'. RP-wise, most every major structure in Massivecraft isn't possible. Valyria's fortress, Deathfist's soulsand castle, my factions giant tree (still under construction, btw, don't delete it) are all good examples (there are also some in Regalia). Other structures may be attractive to some people, but ugly to others. Argonia's unfinished castle/palace thing, for example(also Valyria's tower/fortress). I dislike the entire design and structure and choice of materials, but I'm sure many people find it attractive. The fact remains that everyone has a different opinion of 'pretty' and 'ugly' and no one person or group of people should claim their idea of pretty and ugly is better then anothers.

All in all, I dislike the very idea that admins can simply shut down/destroy a build project based on nothing more then the thought that it could become ugly. I dislike the concept that some things can be judged ugly or pretty and suffer a fate because of that. I loath the idea that someone's hard work could be destroyed at all, regardless of the reason. It goes against some of the basic concepts of massivecraft (like no griefing and player equality and such).
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

You sir, while i don't envy you for the hate more then likely coming your way, i do envy the fact that you put this out there, and so i say to you....bully!
 
First of all, i like the ide of a bridge, second: I dont like the bridge itself :P
You should download that part of the world and make a test bridge. Also, I like the ugly building removal thing :P Yes, it is a matter of opinion, but i think a lot of things can be considered ugly in general..
 
DanyWood said:
First of all, i like the ide of a bridge, second: I dont like the bridge itself :P
You should download that part of the world and make a test bridge. Also, I like the ugly building removal thing :P Yes, it is a matter of opinion, but i think a lot of things can be considered ugly in general..
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
This is the first time I agree to you Dany...:p
 
Art starts out looking like crud
250px-Rodin-cropped.png

we might be putting dirt markers on the bridge ever so and so.

And if the policy is to shoot ask questions latter I think that needs to change.
Maybe we should make a pole and let it be written.
 
You don't have to make a hundreds of blocks long skeleton of the entire bridge before completing a small section to show what it will be like. You could have just made a small bit of it to prove it would be good.
 
simple solution add a build time to allow construction, warn player that's it will be checked in 5 days if ugly it will be removed. if it looks bad and the /he tool says that it's bin ugly for over 5 days it should be allowed to be removed,

Problem = solved

cobble can be deleted
Mods = happy

Players can make it look good before mods delete it
Players = happy

Tigershield said:
First of all sorry for bad English, It isn't my main language. But I will do my best.

Second, I want to give my view on this. About the bridge idea from Dworvin.

Woah! I just found the two closed threads about the bridge, I'm not very active on the forums so i did not even know there was so much fuzz about the bridge. Well I extended the bridge, without knowing it got deleted by one of the admins yesterday.

About the cobblestone problem. The only reason we use cobble on that bridge is for the skeleton. Every structure needs a frame. And cobble is easy to get. We dont want some hollow design. And the hard to get resources will be the skin on the frame.

Rome is not build in 1 day.

There is one big difference, when I roam massivecraft. I see so many ugly square buildings. And people start complaining about a bloody bridge. Almost everyone supports traveling instead of warping. Am I right? So instead of complaining about cobble help make a new trade/travel route, heck even help with construction or resources.

People judge way to fast on stuff. One simple reason is : Allot of kids play on Massivecraft, And most kids dont have patience. AndI dont mean this in a offensive way.

I do know i will get hate for this. So be it. It's human nature.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

MonMarty said:
Every stage of construction matters, if we decide to destroy one building before it is finished when we know it is going to be ugly, we have to destroy another building before it is finished and it might potentially be pretty. We don't hand out exceptions of treatment to individuals, and although there is usually some dialogue between the staff and the person whose building is found to be damaging the image of the map, this particular case was more so influenced not by negative opinions from players per se, but the amount of drama and negativity it was generating between players, on the forum, and on the server. This is where we choose to shortcut conventional processes.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
 
gridiron1024 said:
The idea is that you report ugly structures, and they get deleted, the staff cant magically find them.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

In that case, there is a base called 'Renegade' at -3300x and -1688y in Ithania that is an ugly piece-o-crap, delete it for me. It's also too close to my base (within 16 chunks) and did so without my permission. DELETE! DELETE! (don't actually delete their stuff)
 
Mecharic said:
In that case, there is a base called 'Renegade' at -3300x and -1688y in Ithania that is an ugly piece-o-crap, delete it for me. It's also too close to my base (within 16 chunks) and did so without my permission. DELETE! DELETE! (don't actually delete their stuff)
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I meant in rp, not ugly, my bad.
 
Mecharic said:
snip
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

You're making a number of assumptions which skew your call for justice.

I visited the construction site, and it was literally just a cobblestone rectangle 4 high 6 wide if I remember correctly, crossing the river at 10 blocks high with one edge of stonebrick, and then it was called "no longer fully cobblestone". This was not just framework or inner preparations, some effort had been made to decorate the cobblestone with cobble fences, though not successfully to a satisfactory degree. So it wasn't just a husk or preparation build, what I deleted was the actual bridge without pillars.

You may not like building specifications, but I think if the staff stopped apprehending offenders, you wouldn't be happy with how the world started looking. You may not venture into the wilderness often enough, I don't know, but how would you feel if you walked trough an idyllic valley, and suddenly you are met with a 100 block high cobblestone wall expending trough the length. Structures like these get deleted on a regular basis so you hardly get to see them, and they quite obviously only exist to deter attackers, there is no way that faction could have made that look good. (note the owner also called it a mountain)

Because these things happen, we need some people who decide what gets to stay and what doesn't. If there wasn't anyone with the authority to decide what is ugly and what is not, then nothing would get deleted and the longevity of worlds would diminish. Ceardia is soon to be deleted for this reason. This world was never administrated, and everyone was allowed to build as they pleased. I can't imagine you not agreeing with how bad Ceardia looks.

The life length of maps is directly tied to structures placed on it. By cleaning the map from structures we are actually increasing the longevity of your own faction's structures which were not deemed ugly. If a world reaches a certain unbearable uglyness, it is deleted regardless of wether there is 10 pretty factions left in it. We have a standard of world quality that stands central to the identity of MassiveCraft. You have a personal interest in maintaining your own work on the server, which is why I personally feel you shouldn't be as opposed to our methods.

I should also point out a number of variables which attributed to the fast deletion of this bridge.
  • Claimed faction land never gets instantly deleted unless it defies gravity and has been defying gravity for a lengthy amount of time (ergo about a week) This was not faction land and it was never going to be, it was explicitly mentioned.
  • The case would not have been brought to my attention if Dworvin did not cause such a giant drama fest on the thread. I was alerted of the situation after Artilles locked the thread on his own behalf, I undid his action, looked at what was going on and made a decision after which I myself locked it to conclude it.
  • Don't assume I did not Discipline Artilles for his behavior.
  • Dworvin did not receive any punishment for being flammatory against a community staff member (Note artilles is not part of the server staff, he is a community staff member, those are two different things) and trying to tarnish his reputation with rubber-banded self imposed morals on the server, and also attacking my ethics as an admin. Artilles had every roleplay and non roleplay reason to deny the construction of said bridge. Perhaps he is a brigand and he likes it that people have to swim or boat across so he can toll them. Perhaps he has a fishing house nearby and grew angry at the prospect of his view ruined by a giant bridge built with little imagination. The list goes on and on.
  • Another consideration made in this case, is that roads are often the #1 victim of grief attacks on the server. I would know, as me and Igel_son have spent many weeks trying to keep the Magenta road clean of grief, and eventually gave up because it was an undone task. Even if the bridge by some miracle could have been made pretty with cobblestone, the amount of grief and lack of maintenance would have resulted in it's eventual deletion or decay and a substantial amount of time more lost then it has been now.
All in all, this situation and structure as a whole had too many negative connections going on to continue the way it did. You will find it is very rare, in fact I don't think such a swift decision has ever been made on a structure, so I hope there is some comfort in the fact that this was quite an extraordinary exception to the general process.
 
MonMarty said:
-Snip-
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Very good defense of reasons. I withdraw most of my statements, though I do feel that deletion of anothers work (even if it's ugly/non-rp) goes against the no griefing and player equality rights (insofar as they exist) but I find no fault with your reasoning other then that.[DOUBLEPOST=1366981080,1366981051][/DOUBLEPOST]
gridiron1024 said:
I meant in rp, not ugly, my bad.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

It's a cobblestone rectangle with a wall around it and some farms. I am waiting for the RP.
 
It's a fair opinion to have, one which I share, but I did come to the conclusion a while ago that the minority sometimes have to suffer so the majority can have a good time. It's not an entirely aimworthy principle, or an idealistic one, but it is a realistic one given the situation we are in with regards to split-off communities, competition etc.
 
I like the idea of a 5 day 'build period' where an object cannot be destroyed regardless of appearance. That way people have a chance to show that the end product will be more attractive then the current entity.
 
I like that bridge, Dworvin. I see no reason to delete it at this time. But then, I do not dislike cobble, and I'm assuming that there will be large supports to hold the bridge up.

EDIT: Woot, I'm not the only one who keeps their render distance as 'tiny' :P
 
I really don't care about what you do with the top but for the love of god, give it pillars. Pillars contribute 80% of the realism and look to a bridge.
 
LOL I like where this is going.
Actualy I am not at the part where I build the columns yet but It will be a mix of cobble with stone brick to reinforce it.
you will just have to wait and see how that will go.
Though the bridge will allow some RP for the canopy will be accessible as well by towers ever 20 fence posts.
The doors on the roof are for sunlight and for predators to drop down from them onto the caravans.
 
Why don't you do like some collapsed cobble pillars (cracked) (mossy). With the occasional still standing pillar. (Btw arround the broken pillars break the ice. So it's like the pillars smashed it as it fell)
 

Similar threads

twinCatalysts
(almost) All The Lore Drinks Pre-reset.
Replies
2
Views
651
General
SorryNari
SorryNari
Astraaeus
A Dream That Almost Died
Replies
0
Views
446
General
Astraaeus
Astraaeus
Stellarrix
Combat Guild The Tempest Keep
Replies
0
Views
167
Guilds and Organizations
Stellarrix
Stellarrix
H
Work in Progress Bimowen, the Great Warrior Equal to the Heavens
Replies
0
Views
152
Character Sheets
HoLee_Of_Ducks
H
Sorc3r3ss
Played Character Astri LĆøvenskiold |The Noble Astrologists
Replies
0
Views
144
Character Sheets
Sorc3r3ss
Sorc3r3ss
Top Bottom