In recent weeks, it has come to my attention that there is a widespread belief among segments of the playerbase that the "staff team" - as an entity - is favouring one "side" of the server (that is to say, the "Alliance" or "Coalition") through their punishments. Which side is the subject of this alleged favour will depend on who you ask, as well as the mechanism through which this happens. The general claim, made with varying levels of nuance, is that we ban people who are "winning", then unban them when they are "losing", and sometimes it is added that we want a specific side to "win" and another to "lose".

There may be some grain of truth in this. People tend to make greater efforts in reporting their opponents when the perceived benefit from doing so is higher. That's an unfortunate but simple fact - and this benefit will be highest when their opponents are beating them. Some people also make a greater effort to appeal their bans when their friends need their help on the server, and this will typically be when those friends are losing.

Cumulatively, this can give the impression of the "staff" attempting to control the server political environment through rules enforcement. To be clear, I do not necessarily blame people for believing this - but insofar as this does *appear* to happen, it is an emergent effect of those two factors outlined above, not because of any intentionality on the staff side. 

The admin world is often seen as opaque and mysterious, but one thing I can assure you is that admins do not involve themselves in server politics and do not have a detailed picture of what happens on the server politically. This is not a bad thing and is to some degree intentional. Simply put, it is difficult to be biased if you do not know who you are being biased towards.

The upshot is that there is no "staff conspiracy" or a specific "admin conspiracy" to interfere with ingame politics. I understand why people may feel that one exists, but this belief is not something grounded in reality.

I'm conscious that the message so far may appear as "the staff team are angels and the playerbase are forcing us to do stuff". But I think there are things that we could do better.

We could relax or reduce the number of subjective rules that require staff arbitration, such as those relating to terraforming, claim disputes and claim blocking/empty claims. All issues relating to claims tend to be very acrimonious. They consume enormous amounts of admin time and in almost every case I suspect a player will walk away feeling that they have been personally targeted and punished. Unsurprisingly, they seem to be the main driver of "ban war" reports.

We could introduce mechanics to help us achieve the intended effects of these rules without keeping the rules themselves. For example, if vast tracts of land are being claimed and left empty, this is suggestive of said land being too easy to claim and upkeep. But as you saw with SOI, mechanics can have unintended effects. For example, raising upkeep for everyone will punish active players; introducing overclaim upkeep would punish occupied towns harshly, and linking upkeep to activity would have implications for siege towns. This hopefully gives you an idea of the issues at play here. This is not easy and there are often trade-offs with implementing one solution or another. In other words, we must be careful that the cure is not worse than the sickness.

Now, it has always been my belief that abandoning the bipolar/"two sides" nature of Nations would significantly increase the dynamism of the server, reduce toxicity and lead to more interesting politics and diplomacy. I also believe that much of the toxicity in the server, including some of what I have mentioned earlier, can be attributed to the "group-think" within these alliances and their laser focus on eliminating the enemy side. I recognise these alliances have persisted for so long because they offer a sense of belonging and security, but they have now degenerated to a state where they are stifling player enjoyment and breeding toxicity.

So I seriously believe that the leadership of these sides should consider dissolving them - perhaps with a bilateral agreement, and making judicious use of the truce mechanic to enforce it. Four years of the same war is enough. Even if you think such a move is ultimately pointless - and I fully sympathise with that view - do you not think it is time to try something new and have some fun in the process? Ultimately, this is your decision – but to slightly misquote JFK, "ask not only what the server can do for you -- ask what you can do for the server".

Regarding the part that's talking about reducing punishments i have suggested a following idea:

Instead of banning players for something that is breaking rules, but doing so really stupidly or not being a huge break of rules, players should be given a warning. For example - Fake4 got banned for placing sand in siege zone that later cannot be broken. And when player reaches 3 warnings(for example) it'll be automatic 30d ban. This will still punish players for breaking rules, but leave some room for people to not get banned right away for some small thing they did

As Donbass said above, I think 30 day bans / bans as a whole are handed out way to fast. Staff in my opinion should work more with warnings rather than 30 day bans. Most of the time these bans last the full 30 days even if they are false because of how busy staff is. Donbass gave a nice example of a ban that was given out way to fast and couldve been dealt with by a warning but another example would maybe be that when players try to join with freelook or any other mod that is not allowed they also get punished by a ban of 30 entire days. I know theres a 1x warning screen but most of the time you just try to rejoin immediately if you're not able to connect to a server. This could be easily fixed by instead letting the players join the server but not let them be able to join Nations or Towny.

I agree with everything said here, mostly about that we have enough of the eternal 2 side war, I would like to be at war againts a neighbor nation without involving 50 other nations and also about getting warned first before being perma banned, I like how these matters have been pointed out so we can now work on them.

First of all, I want to thank you for addressing such issues and directly speaking about it to the player base

I agree that subjective rules such as terraforming, claims etc.. are one of the main causes of admin stress and mostly the affected player will say that rules were inconsistently enforced even if clear subjective facts existed, I believe we should introduce systems to the server that players can actually adapt to it, the SoI system was a great idea but... it was introduced after tens of forts were built and adapting was unrealistic that why it was rejected by the player base

regarding the suggestion to dissolve Mega Alliances(MAs), I believe MAs is a double edged sword, yes it gave structure, purpose and allies but over time it became like a little box more than a battlefield, still, dissolving MAs isn't easy, it is years of legacy, friendships, loyalty, identity, allies and foes that cannot be simply given away..

if such move were to happen it wont last for long because whenever somone is losing they will always search for help then their enemy lose and when someone is losing.. you get the idea, it is a cycle that happens until there is no more allies left to get and congratulations u accenditly created an MA again

if MAs where actually to dissolve and server go on full chaos mode will that be fun ?

F***ing yea,

will that ever happen? probably not, mainly because we are afraid that the other side won't do the same and suddenly we are a bunch of scattered nations against an MA, they will keep existing even when they make the server boring because we all afraid to drop the shield first,

I know you wont like this but..

the only real solution I can think of is a server reset,

N3

I know ineusia said it isnt coming but it will come someday because the server will reach a halt and dies out, most geopolitical servers reset after the 3-4 year mark because any longer than that and the players will start leaving this where the gap between veterans and newcomers become unbearable and where internal history and diplomatic relations become more of a wall that stops new things from appearing, this is where the world become less of a a place to shape but a place to survive

we are already seeing it

veterans are leaving...

new players arrive, stay a while, then vanish

We, as town mayors and nations leaders, do everything we can.. welcome messages, gear, guidance, salaries, jo*s and stories but it isnt enough. the numbers, and more importantly the weight, of players leaving is greater than those coming in <\3

So the real question becomes:

How long can we keep this going, even now that the owner himself has asked us to change?

sincerely,

-someone who has seen this before.

o_v_0:

First of all, I want to thank you for addressing such issues and directly speaking about it to the player base

I agree that subjective rules such as terraforming, claims etc.. are one of the main causes of admin stress and mostly the affected player will say that rules were inconsistently enforced even if clear subjective facts existed, I believe we should introduce systems to the server that players can actually adapt to it, the SoI system was a great idea but... it was introduced after tens of forts were built and adapting was unrealistic that why it was rejected by the player base

regarding the suggestion to dissolve Mega Alliances(MAs), I believe MAs is a double edged sword, yes it gave structure, purpose and allies but over time it became like a little box more than a battlefield, still, dissolving MAs isn't easy, it is years of legacy, friendships, loyalty, identity, allies and foes that cannot be simply given away..

if such move were to happen it wont last for long because whenever somone is losing they will always search for help then their enemy lose and when someone is losing.. you get the idea, it is a cycle that happens until there is no more allies left to get and congratulations u accenditly created an MA again

if MAs where actually to dissolve and server go on full chaos mode will that be fun ?

F***ing yea,

will that ever happen? probably not, mainly because we are afraid that the other side won't do the same and suddenly we are a bunch of scattered nations against an MA, they will keep existing even when they make the server boring because we all afraid to drop the shield first,

I know you wont like this but..

the only real solution I can think of is a server reset,

N3

I know ineusia said it isnt coming but it will come someday because the server will reach a halt and dies out, most geopolitical servers reset after the 3-4 year mark because any longer than that and the players will start leaving this where the gap between veterans and newcomers become unbearable and where internal history and diplomatic relations become more of a wall that stops new things from appearing, this is where the world become less of a a place to shape but a place to survive

we are already seeing it

veterans are leaving...

new players arrive, stay a while, then vanish

We, as town mayors and nations leaders, do everything we can.. welcome messages, gear, guidance, salaries, jo*s and stories but it isnt enough. the numbers, and more importantly the weight, of players leaving is greater than those coming in <\3

So the real question becomes:

How long can we keep this going, even now that the owner himself has asked us to change?

sincerely,

-someone who has seen this before.

A reset is not realistic. There are several reasons for this, but in short my time is severely limited and I do not have a clear vision of what an "N3" would look like. I would personally not be comfortable with wiping the N2 map but keeping the same or slightly altered mechanics.

I feel the need to type this message because i like this server and its the server i have played the most on spended countless amount of hours and effort but recieved a extreme amount of fun too. As a part of the leadership of the Coalition side for those 2 last years even considered as The Leader of all of it i dont believe that the 2 Mega Alliances have killed the server as much as the ban waring did i have been here for 4 years now i have seen countless players being banned and the real problem has been around us for a couple months

Running it back 2 years ago it was the same thing it was still Coalition vs Alliance but we were not doing reportings every day of the week {there were hard punishments obviously but those were used only for duping and such not for everything} we were fighting and both sides had a talk on what ever was to be balanced in the server not like now for example movecraft server coalition side has noone there to represent it and help with balancing.

Nowdays as zaify said it too everyone believes that staff is siding on one of the sides i believed it too at some point when i came back off my 4 month ban for such a light reason i just keep seeing everyone disband or leave its because nowdays wars are trying to be won by just mass ticketing and banning people if there would be a way to not fully stop im not saying to stop reporting ilegal stuff but not for a sand placed to make 10 tickets and get banned for 30 days.

I dont personaly think that stoping the 2 sided war is possible NOW i dont want any of the staff team or zaify to think that im saying this becasue i hate the server or that i dont like how yall work on it no i have played for so long and this is the only server i have enjoyed playing every day of the week literaly and i know staffs work isnt easy and that they are busy with stuff in real life too and everything going on in the same time can sometimes be stressful but im just pointing out the real problems that we are facing right now and i want all of us to solve them because i know for a fact noone wants just to quit away because everyone has their story to tell in ccnet how they had fun but why tell it when we can continue it togeather! 

Yeah im happy to see this bc really there are a lot of rules with relatively harsh punishments that I fear of breaking and this has made me feel pretty insecure insofar as participating with some aspects of the game. I know the chat reminds us ignorance isn't an excuse but there's a lot of rules to remember. I feel like staff should reach out to players regarding these things instead of summary justice.

DonbassBaka:

Regarding the part that's talking about reducing punishments i have suggested a following idea:

Instead of banning players for something that is breaking rules, but doing so really stupidly or not being a huge break of rules, players should be given a warning. For example - Fake4 got banned for placing sand in siege zone that later cannot be broken. And when player reaches 3 warnings(for example) it'll be automatic 30d ban. This will still punish players for breaking rules, but leave some room for people to not get banned right away for some small thing they did

Despite me being the one banned, I cannot see a possibility where a simple warning couldn't be as effective to prevent the rulebreaking as a 30 day ban, the only diference here is me not being able to play for a mistake I didn't know was illegal, and that I stopped doing the moment I got informed, this not only goes for me, but for multiple different cases, specially taking into account the rulebreaking ussually not that hard to fix, like in my case, not that many sand blocks, where a single world edit command would fix everything in less than 10-30 seconds.

Por fin se dieron cuenta que la guerra no es justa
i ever thought that in sieges the winning side has higher % of being banned cause the losing side gets angry and open every possible ticket
thats one of my reasons to not participate in sieges if you go you might be banned lol
never will exist a fair siege maybe 10 people can win to 15 people cause usage of different stuff but that doesnt mean that they should be banned cause its unfair that never make sense for me. 
that was my vision i never thought staff was favouring a side 
From my perspective as someone who doesn’t play sieges because of this belief, I think a possible solution would be to reduce the acceptance of siege-related tickets, or to analyze what’s happening in the siege more deeply, instead of just reviewing each ticket individually. PD: understand the Or as inclusive
for something exist the rule 4.2 and that rule isnt just blackmail for someone asking (Witch-hunting or banwarring is also strictly banned. You may not: )

• Go out of your way to "gather evidence" on a player you personally dislike.
  
  
• Follow, bait, or harass players/staff to try and catch them breaking rules due to your own actions.
  
  
• Set people up just to get them banned/ragebait players until they crack.

a wise man said: "You either stop playing like a hero, or you play long enough to get banned."