I, Scrios III, would like to propose the first legislation since the "dark ages" that would allow for the use of a mob-proof plugin that could be adopted in areas that meet specific criteria.

What I request from the Kings and Dukes is a formal vote on the use of the plugin found in: http://hermertia.com/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=71. The use of this plugin would be reliant on meeting certain criteria for an area which, in my opinion, would limit its use anyways. The proposed conditions that have been mentioned in the post referenced above are:
- Proof that your area would be safe from monsters (i.e. via walls etc.)
- Proof that the area contains aesthetic qualities that are being effected by the endless need of torches.
- That the area is at least a county or above.
- Be prepared to show around a King in order to prove these points and claim your protected zone.

As stated in the post listed above I would be formally vote yes for the use of this plugin. I for one am far away being able to use this plugin as I do not have walls and such built around the area. I will need to continue to torch and survive basically until the area is complete so the survival aspect of the game, in my opinion, is far from lost.

NOTE: Please keep this page as an area to vote and offer reasons why. We have already debated in the thread listed above so if the debate needs to continue please do so there.

_________________
Scrios V
King of Perth, Brother of Valyria

After reading all of the points people have brought up I'd like to vote yes to getting the plugin. After all, if we keep a strict hold on it there should be no reason as to why this would be a problem.

_________________
Duchess Celestine of Reinen
-Marshall of the Scrubby Scrubby task force.


"Music in the soul can be heard by the universe" ~Lao Tzu

I submit a vote of no for the adoption of this plugin. These are my reasons as to why.

Since Hermertia began 5 years ago, we have remained unique among severs in several aspects. The reason we continue to remain so is our unique premise: namely, that we create lore and an rpg world on a vanilla survival server. Everything we do, we do through Minecraft's survival gameplay. Our lore comes from, and is constrained by, our actions in Minecraft's survival gameplay. We make use of exactly two non-survival features which take absolutely nothing away from any element of the survival experience: a jail plugin which allows us to put criminals in jail, and /give to simulate population. That's it, and that model has proven amazingly successful over 5 years in allowing us to create a world that both closely approximates a medieval style and environment and stays intrinsically linked to Minecraft's vanilla survival gameplay.

Much has been made of the fact that we may be "overthinking" the implementation of a simple, bare-bones plugin that would allow builds to look slightly more realistic without torches everywhere. But I disagree with this evaluation, because of the simple fact that this plugin would be the first time we have ever modified the base survival aspect of Hermertia. As minor as some may see it, it is significant departure from the model that we have followed up until now, and in my opinion it is not the correct direction to take. Allow me to share my views as to why.

Having existed for 5 years, Hermertia has always grown and changed as the base game has been developed. When horses were added, we incorporated that aspect of the base game and added it into our lore. When water temples and guardians were added, we incorporated that aspect of the base game and added it into our lore. We have always modified our lore to fit, and worked inside the constraints of, the base vanilla game. It has never been the other way around: we have never modified the game to more closely tie into our lore or our opinions of what our world should look like. And now, members of the community would like to change that in order to have our builds more closely resemble those in a real medieval setting. While that's certainly a valid opinion, I disagree with it because we have never before felt the need to compensate for the failings of the base game in not allowing us to create a fully realistic medieval setting.

Because, at the core, Hermertia has never attempted to create a facsimile of a real medieval world. That we come pretty darn close is a testament to the commitment of our community, but at the core we are a server that creates a medieval world inside the constraints of a base minecraft that includes elements that can never be fully compatible with a realistic medieval world. Be it enchanting, beacons, or monsters, we have always contended with those aspects of the survival gameplay that don't always lend themselves to building a perfectly realistic medieval world. Why have we done this? Because building a world while dealing with every single aspect of survival gameplay, both convenient and inconvenient, is what has given us our identity as Hermertia. To change that, to eliminate only one element of the survival gameplay - one that is not only the most inconvenience for building purposes, but is also the most integral to survival gameplay - is to cherry-pick the elements of survival gameplay we want to use. Suddenly, it becomes something less that survival. Suddenly, we lose something that has been a cornerstone of Hermertia since it began. It may be subtle, it may seem inconsequential, but it's a fundamental shift and it's one I would be sad to see occur.

Points such as Scrios's, when he said that "I would still torch the area for the time being, for example, and then remove once it has been completed and approved to be a "safe zone" to bring back the qualities of the biome.", demonstrate to me the faulty premise that we are basing the adoption of this plugin on. That premise is that we can light up an area, build something, reason that 'it must be safe according to our lore', and cast a magic mob-proofing over the build or area to make it more realistic because, as Atryl says, "The areas that receive this treatment have already "survived" ". Because that's not how it should work; areas should not be magically immune to hostile mobs once they have 'proven' they should theoretically be safe from them.

And this to me is the fundamental error of implementing a plugin to render builds more realistic: we cannot hold our builds to a real world standard because we are not trying to create builds realistic to the real world. When we accept that our world is fundamentally different from a real medieval world, we must also accept that we have to contend with challenges and inconveniences that the real world does not. Yes, in the real world fields aren't full of torches that melt snow in circles around them. Well, the real world also isn't full of the monsters that necessitate those torches. We need to accept that our world is fundamentally different from the real one, and to do that means living with every aspect of our survival gameplay, both good and bad, at all times. If we are to modify a core aspect of our survival world in order to make it more closely resemble a realistic one, then we can't stop with the one thing that inconveniences us.

I strongly hope you will consider and reflect on my points.

_________________
Wysterian Labourer's Council
Currently Holding Stewardship of Wysteria
Minister for Applications and Settlement
Forums Administrator

Two points:
- the fact of putting a magic over the area with a plug-in is false. We have already covered that with the fact that defenses such as walls would be adopted and yes, that would stop those mobs from entering.
- survival is not all of our main game plays. To base your sole arguments off of that is false as well. I for one play for the creation of worlds and lore, not just to survive in the constraints of minecraft. So saying that it applies to all of us in the world is not a true argument.

That is all.

_________________
Scrios V
King of Perth, Brother of Valyria

I vote no for this plug-in.

If anyone is interested in my reasons, I would recommend reading my post here, as it outlines them well.

_________________
Ulrik Gunnarson
Duke of the Gathered Races of Hermertia Homeland (GRHH)
The Chairman of the GRHH Co.

I formally vote no as well. I think the criteria for a mob-proof area needs to be stricter before I give such a plug-in my approval. In my opinion, the plug-in should only be used in a location where torch spam (used to prevent mob spawns) directly and seriously impacts the aesthetic of the location. This would allow players to have aesthetically pleasing environments in snowy areas, which is not currently possible due to the necessity of torch spam. My issue, however, is with the use of the plug-in beyond that. Here are the two other applications of the plug-in that have been discussed, and why I have a problem with them:

1. Using the plug-in to prevent passive mob spawns in crop fields.
Under the current wording of the law, mob-free areas could be created in large fields of crops. Yes, mobs spawning in these fields and trampling crops can be annoying (I know firsthand from Northtown), but it is far from aesthetic-destroying. The number of crops that actually get destroyed by these mobs is minimal (the few plots that get trampled in Northtown are not noticeable unless you are looking for them). Also, there are ways to lay out a field that limit mob spawns, as I have done in Northtown. In this situation, a mob-free area is not necessary to preserve the aesthetic aspect of the build, and therefore should not be used.

2. Making the mountains of Concordia a mob-free area.
There has been some talk of creating a mob-free area in the mountains around Concordia, as mobs have a tendency to spawn in the mountains and drop down on the city below. In this case, torch spam does not impact the aesthetic of the area (beyond what one would expect). Therefore, torches should be used to create a mob-free area in this case.

I hope this has helped clarify my position on the current wording of the bill. In it's current state, I think the potential application of the plug-in would be too broad. Stricter criteria is needed. I think the following criteria should be added:

1. The aesthetic quality of the area is seriously (i.e. unworkably) impacted by torch spam, such as in snowy biomes.

2. There is no alternative method in vanilla Minecraft to preserve the aesthetic quality of the area.

Under the above criteria, Dunn would be able to have a mob-free area to allow for snow to be part of it's aesthetic. Creating mob-free areas in fields, however, would not be allowed, as it violates both conditions.

I would also like to propose an alternative approval method than just having one king give the area thumbs-up. I think that any creation of a mob-free area should be put up for a vote like any other bill (e.g. if Scrios wanted a mob-free area in Dunn, he could propose a bill allowing for the use of the plug-in in that area). I think that system will further prevent overuse of the plug-in.

_________________
Guardian of Casadia
Master of the Slayers Guild
Minister of Hermertian History

When I compared the use of this plugin to magic, I used magic as a way to describe the effect of implementing something that makes changes which are not the result of something we have physically done but are the result of a plugin, which is not a part of our lore. To say that mobs are prevented from entering a town due to physical defenses is compatible with our lore to be sure, but it is not compatible with the premise that our lore should come from our in-game actions. My point here Sir is that while I understand perfectly your and others' reasoning for how the use of this plugin is lore-compatible, I disagree with it because you are proposing making changes to the game that are not warranted: if physical defenses are in place that "would" stop mobs from entering, why is there still a need to ensure that with the use of a plugin? Obviously, because there is still the risk that mobs could enter, but this is an aspect of the survival gameplay that, in my firm opinion, we must contend with.

I too play for the creation of a world and its lore, and I imagine most if not all of us feel the same way; I don't see how my words could indicate that I don't. I made a point of pointing out that I value our lore so highly because it is a product of our survival experiences, and that is what I feel we would lose with this plugin.

_________________
Wysterian Labourer's Council
Currently Holding Stewardship of Wysteria
Minister for Applications and Settlement
Forums Administrator

I'll write out a longer response in a bit, as in just getting home from work, but I have to raise a question that I'd like an opinion from everyone on. Basically, as we have it, villagers (our population) has a slim to no chance of continued survival. A big part of our server's history has been the incorporation of NPC's as citizens in our built towns. Unfortunately, they are a rather stupid lot and don't know how to stay inside and avoid zombies. Would we rather have a hard time keeping our towns populated, or use a plug in that provides a workaround at the expense of no longer being 100% vanilla (along with our essentials plug-in which provides commands not found in vanilla such as /give and /jail)? Just something to think about.

_________________
Joren

of River's End

I hear a lot of people talk about how hard it is to keep villagers alive, but I have never had that problem. On our current difficulty, zombies do not break down wooden doors, so sufficient access to villager-recognizable housing resolves that problem. Northtown's population of villagers has seen no significant decrease since its inception. I did build a few golems to keep the zombies at bay, so maybe that helped. But still I think Northtown is evidence that villagers can be kept alive without creating mob-free areas.

_________________
Guardian of Casadia
Master of the Slayers Guild
Minister of Hermertian History

In my opinion, we continue with the vanilla. Because it is eminently possible to create towns and cities that are fully lit and safe without being ugly. Big cities in the old world did it; streetlights can provide lots of light and look good. In regards to smaller villages, some are undeniably less protected and more at risk. But this does make some sense; it seems reasonable to me for smaller villages to have less security than bigger towns. To me, it's the noble lord's responsibility to ensure that the population centers under their authority are safe. It's certainly within reach to do so in ways that aren't flagrantly ugly.

Yes, even with all this, villagers of our world may have less of a chance of surviving than villagers of a more realistic world. But then, they live in a more dangerous world too.

_________________
Wysterian Labourer's Council
Currently Holding Stewardship of Wysteria
Minister for Applications and Settlement
Forums Administrator