3
A server run by the players? Please critique my idea.
Hi, I have this server idea that I'd like you to give your opinions on. Here are the details:
It would be (semi) vanilla server. There would be no spawn or plugins (except anti-cheat) and the goal of this server is to get players to work together to build the server. They would build a spawn however they like and play the game in any way they like. There aren't any rules or objectives to this server as it's solely based on community and social interactions. I've realized that a lot of servers give the player goals and activities to complete, but what if the players decided on all that? It would be a server where instead of the players adapting to the server's rules and gameplay, the server adapts to the players. Here are some ideas on how I plan to implement this. And please note I have been developing Bukkit/Spigot plugins for years, so I can implement every feature I describe here.
This idea of mine is more of a test to see how exactly this goes, and if the players actually enjoy something like this. After one month of hosting this, I will either decide to abandon it or continue it. This is not to say that I wouldn't have the budget in the future, because I am willing to drop a maximum of $50/month on this just to see how it goes, and for the first month it wouldn't even take that much money. So rest assured, if this catches on, I have no intention of abandoning it.
It would be (semi) vanilla server. There would be no spawn or plugins (except anti-cheat) and the goal of this server is to get players to work together to build the server. They would build a spawn however they like and play the game in any way they like. There aren't any rules or objectives to this server as it's solely based on community and social interactions. I've realized that a lot of servers give the player goals and activities to complete, but what if the players decided on all that? It would be a server where instead of the players adapting to the server's rules and gameplay, the server adapts to the players. Here are some ideas on how I plan to implement this. And please note I have been developing Bukkit/Spigot plugins for years, so I can implement every feature I describe here.
- Whitelist with 20-30 max players.
- Every player can use the whitelist command.
- A player can be banned if 70% of the server votes yes.
- The max slot of the server can increment if the majority of the server votes yes (to get one new player.)
- There will be no donations or any way to monetize this server.
- There will be no ranks to distinguish players; this includes mods/admins. I wouldn't even have an owner tag, so no one quite knows who is in charge, because no one really is in charge with this idea.
- Plugins and features (I will code them) will be added if the majority of the server agrees on it. I will add it anonymously.
- There is no anti-grief, but with the way I envision it, there would be no grief even if it was to be encouraged.
This idea of mine is more of a test to see how exactly this goes, and if the players actually enjoy something like this. After one month of hosting this, I will either decide to abandon it or continue it. This is not to say that I wouldn't have the budget in the future, because I am willing to drop a maximum of $50/month on this just to see how it goes, and for the first month it wouldn't even take that much money. So rest assured, if this catches on, I have no intention of abandoning it.
Create an account or sign in to comment.
11
A Democratic server!? Why haven't I thought of this? Count me the heck on board!
You know, I would love to join it for the social aspect, because I've been looking for the perfect one for centuries, but none have really taken off because stupid griefers and such. I tried making one myself, but the server host's queue-ing annoyed the crap out of me, thus halting it's progress and then eventually I just decided to quit. If you were to PM the IP to me, I would definitely join (unless it's 1.11+) in a millisecond. I can't wait to see where it ends up! :D
By the way, what version shall it be? I'm curious to find out so that I can join it. :P
You know, I would love to join it for the social aspect, because I've been looking for the perfect one for centuries, but none have really taken off because stupid griefers and such. I tried making one myself, but the server host's queue-ing annoyed the crap out of me, thus halting it's progress and then eventually I just decided to quit. If you were to PM the IP to me, I would definitely join (unless it's 1.11+) in a millisecond. I can't wait to see where it ends up! :D
By the way, what version shall it be? I'm curious to find out so that I can join it. :P
I'm sorry, but this is not going to work. Since any player can add anyone, a single bad player joining the server can invite a bunch of his equally bad buddies and basically take over the server.
What MIGHT work is if you can gain the rank of something like "trusted" if 60%+ of the community vote yes. That way, the existing community retains control over what powers new players get.
The main problem with that is practical duration. On a creative server I was on a while ago, you could get a "trusted" rank if you got 10 votes of approval from others that already had that rank. This was often quite difficult because not enough people were on.
All in all this is a case of works on paper, will fail miserably in practice.
What MIGHT work is if you can gain the rank of something like "trusted" if 60%+ of the community vote yes. That way, the existing community retains control over what powers new players get.
The main problem with that is practical duration. On a creative server I was on a while ago, you could get a "trusted" rank if you got 10 votes of approval from others that already had that rank. This was often quite difficult because not enough people were on.
All in all this is a case of works on paper, will fail miserably in practice.
Below pretty much summarized my concerns. Anarchy is most likely to arise without a degree of structure and control. Popular vote based decisions can be divisive, polarizing, and simply irrational, depending on who you end up with. Voting for a ban, can bring into the decision people who:
> don't have any idea what's going on
> easily misguided people, who may be swayed by a group of 3 backers to a hacker or rulebreaker, securing a tiny minority
> people who are so incompetent at moderation that their inputs are literally harmful
> people who mean well, yet don't understand the scenario
Simply put, I don't believe the minecraft community is mature enough to pull it off. To make an extreme example, it's somewhat like communism. Total equality means well, yet there is likely to be a niche that forms that effectively acts as "if you don't do what we say we'll get rid of you", or the server falls to anarchy at some point along the way.
It takes a type of community to pull this off, and I don't think you will find it on PMC. Like a Free OP server, it's all well and good for everyone to be special and to not have a leader, yet without structure, I don't see this working without quite a bit of luck.
> don't have any idea what's going on
> easily misguided people, who may be swayed by a group of 3 backers to a hacker or rulebreaker, securing a tiny minority
> people who are so incompetent at moderation that their inputs are literally harmful
> people who mean well, yet don't understand the scenario
Simply put, I don't believe the minecraft community is mature enough to pull it off. To make an extreme example, it's somewhat like communism. Total equality means well, yet there is likely to be a niche that forms that effectively acts as "if you don't do what we say we'll get rid of you", or the server falls to anarchy at some point along the way.
It takes a type of community to pull this off, and I don't think you will find it on PMC. Like a Free OP server, it's all well and good for everyone to be special and to not have a leader, yet without structure, I don't see this working without quite a bit of luck.
I understand that the direction of the server is supposed to be malleable, but the degree to which is unclear. If it is a survival server with no imposed goals beside the ones decided by the players, is that not just a survival server?
Perhaps you intend to hear what the community would like the goal to be and then have infrastructure to support it, though if the goal is to remain, the server may as well be advertised accordingly. The best ways to play minecraft have likely already been found, meaning the server will have joined an existing genre. The only interesting paths this server can then take are to invent a new genre or join an underrepresented one.
Or perhaps you mean to constantly switch the direction of the server following popular demand. In this scenario, I would not go near the server. I can spend my time working towards a goal only for it to loose all meaning when people get bored and want something new.
The server seems to rely heavily on trust yet you not only oppose the idea of reports, you will not even allow players to identify individuals with power such as the owner or the non-existent moderators in order to deal with a situation. Having 70% of the player-base vote for a ban would be a slow process, and that's assuming that players will even participate. Having individuals that likely did not witness a scenario cast judgement will hardly lead to justice.
The entry and banishment conditions to this server lead me to believe that the community will discard players that have a negative attitude. While this will generally protect users from unpleasant interactions, players will be forced to adopt an overly positive attitude in fear of being discarded. I'm sure it would only take one well regarded community member to speak ill of someone (justified or otherwise) for the whole server to adopt the opinion.
Is player skill truly important? I see it as a key point in defining the server. 'You have to be good enough to join us, if you can't make good redstone circuits etc, you aren't worthy of our company' - is the tone it sets in my ears. I could understand if there were a direct relation between the skill and the server. For example, if the goal of the server is: 'Lets build an amazing world', it would make sense to only allow good builders. I understand that this wasn't your idea and you didn't agree to it, I still feel the need to object to it.
I don't want to sound hostile toward the idea, but most of its fundamentals appear have a flaw to me.
Perhaps you intend to hear what the community would like the goal to be and then have infrastructure to support it, though if the goal is to remain, the server may as well be advertised accordingly. The best ways to play minecraft have likely already been found, meaning the server will have joined an existing genre. The only interesting paths this server can then take are to invent a new genre or join an underrepresented one.
Or perhaps you mean to constantly switch the direction of the server following popular demand. In this scenario, I would not go near the server. I can spend my time working towards a goal only for it to loose all meaning when people get bored and want something new.
The server seems to rely heavily on trust yet you not only oppose the idea of reports, you will not even allow players to identify individuals with power such as the owner or the non-existent moderators in order to deal with a situation. Having 70% of the player-base vote for a ban would be a slow process, and that's assuming that players will even participate. Having individuals that likely did not witness a scenario cast judgement will hardly lead to justice.
The entry and banishment conditions to this server lead me to believe that the community will discard players that have a negative attitude. While this will generally protect users from unpleasant interactions, players will be forced to adopt an overly positive attitude in fear of being discarded. I'm sure it would only take one well regarded community member to speak ill of someone (justified or otherwise) for the whole server to adopt the opinion.
Is player skill truly important? I see it as a key point in defining the server. 'You have to be good enough to join us, if you can't make good redstone circuits etc, you aren't worthy of our company' - is the tone it sets in my ears. I could understand if there were a direct relation between the skill and the server. For example, if the goal of the server is: 'Lets build an amazing world', it would make sense to only allow good builders. I understand that this wasn't your idea and you didn't agree to it, I still feel the need to object to it.
I don't want to sound hostile toward the idea, but most of its fundamentals appear have a flaw to me.
Amazing idea, but I have some improvements that in my opinion will make the server perform better and have a better community;
Idea #1: Report:
I think it should be ran by the community, but there should be an option to report a player for griefing (and then the owner looks after it and if it turnes out to be true, the player gets a warning first time, but banned after that.
Idea #2: Player Choosing:
The community makes up every server, and defines it, which makes choosing the players a very important task. In my opinion, every player that would like to be accepted onto the server must be a skilled minecraft player in redstone, building, farms, etc.
The application form in my opinion should be built along these lines:
First name:
Minecraft name:
Discord:
How good are you with building? [1-10]
How good are you with redstone? [1-10]
Can you work in a team?
When did you start playing minecraft?
what makes you more suitable than other players?
P.S
Sorry if that looked like I was telling you how to manage your server, I was just trying to give you some tips that in the long run could make your experience a bit better :)
Idea #1: Report:
I think it should be ran by the community, but there should be an option to report a player for griefing (and then the owner looks after it and if it turnes out to be true, the player gets a warning first time, but banned after that.
Idea #2: Player Choosing:
The community makes up every server, and defines it, which makes choosing the players a very important task. In my opinion, every player that would like to be accepted onto the server must be a skilled minecraft player in redstone, building, farms, etc.
The application form in my opinion should be built along these lines:
First name:
Minecraft name:
Discord:
How good are you with building? [1-10]
How good are you with redstone? [1-10]
Can you work in a team?
When did you start playing minecraft?
what makes you more suitable than other players?
P.S
Sorry if that looked like I was telling you how to manage your server, I was just trying to give you some tips that in the long run could make your experience a bit better :)
Not at all, I very much appreciate your reply! I'm not too sure how I feel about your report idea, but I'll definitely revise the way the community gets rid of bad players. I do agree with your 2nd point that I should have skilled Minecraft players on the server, but I'd like the players to be able to collectively choose who they want instead of me.
Thank you again for your reply. It's giving me a lot of things to think about!
Thank you again for your reply. It's giving me a lot of things to think about!
Happy to help! I'd really appreciate it if you'd notify me when the server application starts, I'd be happy to apply :)
How would the server stay up with no donations? If one player pays for the hosting then technically it's not ran by the players but the person paying for it.
I don't mind paying for it out of my pocket, and what I meant by that is that no one is in charge. Of course, I'll have access to the server, but I won't be running it in any way.
It sounds like a cool idea but there are always trolls out there who will ruin the fun for the other players.
Yeah, that's why the first 20-30 players will be chosen very carefully, and every player after that can be banned by the community. And maybe that'll just add to the experience, who knows?
