New proposed Rules Committee

  • Minecraft Middle Earth is a Minecraft community that recreates the world described by JRR Tolkien and his writings. Everyone can participate in organized events in which we collaborate to create major landmarks, terrain, caves, castles, towns, farms and more.

    To get started, visit The New Player Guide
~The MCME Rules Committee~


Why have a Rules Committee?

Our Rules and ToS have been in place since the times of whitelist/age limits, with some minor changes since then, and could better reflect our server today. Also over the years it has regularly occurred that people were upset at a ban or other disciplinary actions taken by enforcers. Sometimes the reason for their anger is a disagreement between the way the enforcement team interprets the rules and ToS and the way others in the community do. When this happens there are discussion about whether the enforcers are too strict, or whether the rule that was broken should even exist in the first place.
We feel a way to alleviate these disagreements is through the introduction of a rules committee...

What is the Rules Committee?

The Rules Committee will be a body of representatives, one of each rank with the exceptions of Oathbreaker and Adventurer. This group of people will convene when they feel it is necessary to talk about the ToS, the rules and the enforcement of these rules. The committee will draft suggestions that will then be passed on to the enforcers and admins who will change the rules and ToS accordingly, or send the proposal back to the committee with feedback as to why it is unreasonable/impossible (clashes with other rules, impossible to enforce etc.).

Who will be on the Rules Committee?

As stated above, we need one person from (almost) every rank, so if you're not an Oathbreaker or Adventurer it could be you! We are looking for people who are not afraid to speak their mind, or disagree with our admins and enforcer team. That said we would like people that are also able to concede a point after debate and come to a mutual conclusion. If you are not picked it's not because we don't like you, it might just be we like you too much. We don't want to create a group of friends that will simply go along with enforcers. Finally I'll be at the meetings as well as an impartial moderator, presenting the topics and making sure people stay on point. I will also be communicating between members outside of meetings and setting up meetings when members request.

If you feel you would make a good member, let us know you are interested by replying to this thread, or sending a PM to me, @MaDIIReD .

Let us know your:

Name: ingame name
Rank: ingame rank
Motivation: why do you want to be on this committee.

Current members:

Valar: @q220 or @Credoo (TBD)
Enforcer: @Smaug_Niphredil
Designer: TBD
Foreman: TBD
Guide: TBD
Artist: TBD
Commoner: TBD
 

Comments

HeartseekerDK

Builds Diagonally
Dec 4, 2014
60
127
12
25
North Carolina, Uninted Sates of America
#2
In all seriousness, I suppose this is the best outcome in an already bloated system. The hope was that you'd already have promoted those with the objective oversight, those who actually are good at interpretation and deciding fairness of rules, to the rank of enforcer. Considering 80% of this server is backbone and support roles and not building roles. One would think the rules would be well understood and not at all complicated. Glad there's going to be a system of accountability that wasn't there before now. I redacted most of my sarcasm and memes after being suggested to do so by Merlin. But let's be clear. This is an advisory panel of players. Their opinions can be ignored. Oh sure, it adds yet another layer of self importance to the chosen players and you hope they can be trusted to make a difference. But an advisory board is just that. If a rule needs an advisory board and 8 amendments to make it justifiable then perhaps its an unnecessary rule. Or the enforcers acting on it need to have common sense on when to apply it. And not another layer of red tape and bureaucracy. Which is a nice buzz word considering bureaucracy is something that has been debated recently.
 
Last edited:

yourie98

Builds Diagonally
Mar 8, 2014
67
90
12
19
#4
In all seriousness, I suppose this is the best outcome in an already bloated system. The hope was that you'd already have promoted those with the objective oversight, those who actually are good at interpretation and deciding fairness of rules, to the rank of enforcer. Considering 80% of this server is backbone and support roles and not building roles. One would think the rules would be well understood and not at all complicated. Glad there's going to be a system of accountability that wasn't there before now. I redacted most of my sarcasm and memes after being suggested to do so by Merlin. But let's be clear. This is an advisory panel of players. Their opinions can be ignored. Oh sure, it adds yet another layer of self importance to the chosen players and you hope they can be trusted to make a difference. But an advisory board is just that. If a rule needs an advisory board and 8 amendments to make it justifiable then perhaps its an unnecessary rule. Or the enforcers acting on it need to have common sense on when to apply it. And not another layer of red tape and bureaucracy. Which is a nice buzz word considering bureaucracy is something that has been debated recently.
I dont think its as much about whether rules are necessary or not, but more about situations where there are disagreements about the ways to interpret the rules and its limits. In these situations common sense would come into play. But I think Common sense may not be as common for everyone, and people often disagree about whether a joke (for example) has gone too far or not. That's where a committee could look as objectively as possible to these situations, I guess
 

yourie98

Builds Diagonally
Mar 8, 2014
67
90
12
19
#5
I dont think its as much about whether rules are necessary or not, but more about situations where there are disagreements about the ways to interpret the rules and its limits. In these situations common sense would come into play. But I think Common sense may not be as common for everyone, and people often disagree about whether a joke (for example) has gone too far or not. That's where a committee could look as objectively as possible to these situations, I guess
So an enforcer should always be objectively when enforcing rules like you said ofcourse, but when situations get personal between an enforcer and someone breaking the rules it can be difficult
 

yourie98

Builds Diagonally
Mar 8, 2014
67
90
12
19
#6
So an enforcer should always be objectively when enforcing rules like you said ofcourse, but when situations get personal between an enforcer and someone breaking the rules it can be difficult
Okay now that I think of it, in these situations other enforcers could just step in... You may have a point Heartseeker.
Lol sorry for the spam everyone
 

Eaglz24

Hardcore MCME-er
Dec 24, 2014
285
612
32
#8
The fact that you need to make an extra role/rank/position for something so unnecessary and pointless is why everyone makes memes about this server at this point. It's gotten to the point where you're better off renaming the server to 'Minecraft Politics and Administration' or something, because as of recent times (earlier too, but to a far lesser extent) the entire point of the community is to rank up; that's literally all it is, a competition to see who can gain the most ranks and climb the ladder of power and authority over others the highest. How many ranks do you need to administer and efficiently run a Minecraft server that consists of <25 active members? I know you guys have an anal prolapse every time the evil Ardacraft server gets mentioned, but I fail to see a reasonable argument as to why you need so many administration positions, ranks that ultimately all get mixed up between themselves, fancy colors and symbols to show how cool you are to your fellow builders. Ardacraft literally has one building rank that can be reached, and objectively is a more efficiently run server with just as many active builders if not more.

I'm sorry but you guys are just deluding yourselves and ultimately only care about ranking up via social authority. It's a Minecraft server that is recreating a personalized rendition of ME, not the US political system. You do not need a separate branch of ranks to make suggestions on what rules you should add or change once every few months, if even.
or send the proposal back to the committee with feedback as to why it is unreasonable/impossible
There is your answer for anyone who genuinely wants to join the council in an effort to change the rules. Nothing significant will be changed, it's not a democracy all of the sudden where you have equally-worth votes, they're enforcers and will ultimately act in their best interests and what they think will work the best. Not you.

Sorry if I hurt your feelings, but the rank stuff is really getting out of hand now. I appreciate any counter-opinions anyone here may have, and look forward to hearing a response to justify these crazy decisions.

-Your favorite bird
 

mapthor

Hardcore MCME-er
Media Team
Guide
Feb 21, 2017
293
669
17
America
Languages
English
#9
To put this into perspective, if the “council” get a rank for this, we will have 11 ranks. I assume they will have 1 or 2 text channels so that would put the total number discord text channels to around 75 (I don’t know the exact number but it’s around that)

Everything Eaglz said is completely true and this entire thing is stupid. It’s like the assistant rank, just another thing to show off. This is a Minecraft build server, not a political Minecraft build server.

As it looks currently, the Community is against this. If this goes through, this means that the admins who thought this was a good idea don’t listen to what the Community says, which tells me that they don’t really care what we have to say and will just do anything
 

RubenPieterMark

Hardcore MCME-er
Media Team
Mar 12, 2016
706
899
41
15
The glorious Kingdom of the Netherlands
Languages
Dutch, English, French, German
#10
To put this into perspective, if the “council” get a rank for this, we will have 11 ranks. I assume they will have 1 or 2 text channels so that would put the total number discord text channels to around 75 (I don’t know the exact number but it’s around that)

Everything Eaglz said is completely true and this entire thing is stupid. It’s like the assistant rank, just another thing to show off. This is a Minecraft build server, not a political Minecraft build server.

As it looks currently, the Community is against this. If this goes through, this means that the admins who thought this was a good idea don’t listen to what the Community says, which tells me that they don’t really care what we have to say and will just do anything
Regarding the assistant and lead builder ranks, I agree completely with what's been said above. The idea of the rules committee however, is give more power to the already existing ranks. You say that the admins who thought this was a good idea don't listen to what the community says, but the idea of this committee is to change that - to let the normal ranks have more input in decisions. Possibly the newly founded committee could even decide to break off the committee, if that's what the rank they're representing wants.
I'm pretty sure that the representatives of each ranks don't get another rank. That would make them no longer representatives of the rank. I think the only difference would be that they have to attend a meeting once in a while, it can't be more than that. So on this new rank committee, I'm not with the opposition, but I think it might do something good.
-Your favorite bird
Beg to differ
 

Beathaven

Hardcore MCME-er
Mar 3, 2014
207
434
30
22
The Netherlands
#11
Regarding the assistant and lead builder ranks, I agree completely with what's been said above.
It’s nice to have some, very rare, common ground.

The idea of the rules committee however, is give more power to the already existing ranks.
This is not true. The Comittee will not have more power, simply because of the fact that there are already two members who represent and act on these very rules, namely Valar and Enforcer. The other members will not give honest feedback because they are thinking about themselves. Would a Guide with Enforcer aspirations really go against the very people judging his application? Do not bite that hand that feeds you...

You say that the admins who thought this was a good idea don't listen to what the community says, but the idea of this committee is to change that - to let the normal ranks have more input in decisions.
The admins have never listened to the community, as evidenced by The Great Exodus.
The “normal” ranks should not need more input in rules, if the rules and judgements are fair.

Possibly the newly founded committee could even decide to break off the committee, if that's what the rank they're representing wants.
You are suggesting players will voluntarily lay down their new, flashy & cool, position in the community?

I'm pretty sure that the representatives of each ranks don't get another rank. That would make them no longer representatives of the rank.
It’s not just about the rank. It’s about new posts and tasks being created to feed the self-important rank shilling.

I think the only difference would be that they have to attend a meeting once in a while, it can't be more than that.
If this really is the only difference, why even bother?

Lastly, if the Admins implement this system even with the huge backlash, like the new ranks, why not post a locked thread?
 

RubenPieterMark

Hardcore MCME-er
Media Team
Mar 12, 2016
706
899
41
15
The glorious Kingdom of the Netherlands
Languages
Dutch, English, French, German
#12
You are suggesting players will voluntarily lay down their new, flashy & cool, position in the community?
No obviously not, it's an exaggerated example of the power that the common ranks will have. I don't think the majority of the people are against the committee though.

If this really is the only difference, why even bother?
..Because those meetings would be a short time when the representatives can (briefly) voice their concerns. It doesn't have to be a huge thing. Based on your posts in the other threads it seems like you too are against another big 'political' addition, but if it's only a small addition it would not be worth it?

About the self-important rank shilling thing, maybe it would be an idea to make the chats of the committee visible for every commoner+, but only let the representatives be able to post any messages? (@MaDIIReD ?) This would make the whole thing more transparent and eliminate the shilling issue.
Anyway enough opinions from me. The more comments to this thread, the more political it will get.
 

Eaglz24

Hardcore MCME-er
Dec 24, 2014
285
612
32
#13
Just want to add to what Beat has said in response to Rubens post
but the idea of this committee is to change that - to let the normal ranks have more input in decisions
I really don't understand this reasoning, in what world does adding another role to one person of each rank constitute as giving the "normal ranks more input". If anything all this does is give literally one person of the said-rank the privilege of giving feedback, implying that the one person represents the collective-opinion of the entire workforce of the rank? That does not give the 'normal ranks' more input, it gives one of them more 'input', which among other things:
A. You are presupposing that the representative of the rank is: (to name a few)
  • Unbiased/acts impartially in what he believes and personally thinks is best
  • Seeks to accurately represent the *many opinions of his fellow rank-men
  • Is able to formulate a multitude of (most likely) differing opinions into a concise and accurate proposition
B. Assumption that they will all formulate their opinions in an orderly fashion, without the possibility of drama kicking up among themselves. They're not staff, they aren't expected to act in a peaceful and dignified manner, being impartial and without impulse.

C.You are either:
  • Giving one of them the authority to formulate their opinion/proposition, in which case you're not representing anyone but a select privileged few
  • Giving all of them the possibility to voice their opinion, which will lead to section A.
So tell me, what is the real reason why you're adding these extra positions/rank/whatever you want to call them? If you give all the 'normal rank' members the possibility to represent themselves to further propose THEIR opinion to the Rule Committee member, so he can then propose HIS unassumingly collectivized opinion to the entire committee, to then be fully discussed once more before it's eventually down the line decided by the Enforcers/Valar. Do you not see the amazing irony in all of this? You are essentially conflating another entirely new system of bureaucracy among the already established bureaucratic system. You are needlessly mixing in A.1 A.2 A.3 A.4 A.5, to get from A to B

Instead of making this preposterous complication for the sake of self-aggrandizement and self-importance, instead of, oh I don't know, just letting the people individually confront what rules they have issue with, or creating public discussion in which everyone can contribute without another facet of secrecy under the guise of a systematically administered 'process'

And this is only one complication of many, you are out of your mind dude.
 
Last edited:

ryttyr

Hardcore MCME-er
Commoner
Apr 22, 2014
754
1,088
28
22
Stockholm, Sweden
Languages
English and Swedish
#14
Just want to add to what Beat has said in response to Rubens post

I really don't understand this reasoning, in what world does adding another role to one person of each rank constitute as giving the "normal ranks more input". If anything all this does is give literally one person of the said-rank the privilege of giving feedback, implying that the one person represents the collective-opinion of the entire workforce of the rank? That does not give the 'normal ranks' more input, it gives one of them more 'input', which among other things:
A. You are presupposing that the representative of the rank is: (to name a few)
  • Unbiased/acts impartially in what he believes and personally thinks is best
  • Seeks to accurately represent the *many opinions of his fellow rank-men
  • Is able to formulate a multitude of (most likely) differing opinions into a concise and accurate proposition
B. Assumption that they will all formulate their opinions in an orderly fashion, without the possibility of drama kicking up among themselves. They're not staff, they aren't expected to act in a peaceful and dignified manner, being impartial and without impulse.

C.You are either:
  • Giving one of them the authority to formulate their opinion/proposition, in which case you're not representing anyone but a select privileged few
  • Giving all of them the possibility to voice their opinion, which will lead to section A.
So tell me, what is the real reason why you're adding these extra positions/rank/whatever you want to call them? If you give all the 'normal rank' members the possibility to represent themselves to further propose THEIR opinion to the Rule Committee member, so he can then propose HIS unassumingly collectivized opinion to the entire committee, to then be fully discussed once more before it's eventually down the line decided by the Enforcers/Valar. Do you not see the amazing irony in all of this? You are essentially conflating another entirely new system of bureaucracy among the already established bureaucratic system. You are needlessly mixing in A.1 A.2 A.3 A.4 A.5, to get from A to B

Instead of making this preposterous complication for the sake of self-aggrandizement and self-importance, instead of, oh I don't know, just letting the people individually confront what rules they have issue with, or creating public discussion in which everyone can contribute without another facet of secrecy under the guise of a systematically administered 'process'

And this is only one complication of many, you are out of your mind dude.
I must say that I agree with you Eaglez, in a sense at least.

Whilst I disagree with your degaratory wording and your conclusion of this new system being ironic and downright stupid I do agree that I don't think it solves the problem it's supposed to fix, instead just adding another layer to the whole ordeal. And now that might work if the people of the committee was like what you describe in section A I'm fearing that whoever will be choosen may not posess all of those necessary traits (the reason I myself did not apply as I felt that I wouldn't be able to properly fulfil all of those needed traits). And whilst I'm not against more transparency and giving more influence over how the server is run to it's average members I do fear that this particular attempt at fixing that will turn out like you describe in your first example in section C.

(Also, as a side note I'd like to add that I totally disagree with you on section B as it is not just staff members who are expected to act maturely, sensibly and dignified on the server. All members of the server commoner+ are expected to show some degree of maturity and it is not like as long as yer not staff you can act however you want as your statement seem to indicate.)
 

MaDIIReD

Enforcer
Staff member
Enforcer
Mar 1, 2014
627
1,409
53
24
Languages
Dutch, English
#15
There will not be an ingame rank for this.

There will not be a discord rank for this.

There might be a discord channel for easier communication.

You're getting very worked up about a scenario that you've conjured up your self.

Ofcourse nobody is perfect and expecting a single person from a rank to accurately represent that entire rank is stupid. We don't expect perfect representatives, but in the end if we're thinking of changing a rule we can much better align it with our communities wants with the input from this committee than without.

Now that I've returned from holiday we'll be looking at the people who would like to give their input and assemble this committee of people who will not have ranks, nor will be better than others, and who really only will tell us our new rule idea sucks and how it could be better, thank you.

Lastly I would just like to say it's funny how invested the people claiming the server to be so terrible and memeable are in it's operating.
 

Arkengard

Head Guide
Staff member
Head Guide
Mar 8, 2014
114
280
18
19
#17
Has anyone perhaps taken a second to evaluate the true goal of MCME rather than the projected goal? I appreciate the concerns of those viewers from outside our active community, but perhaps you lot have a deluded interpretation of something you don't quite understand. MCME has always been about community more than anything. It's why people leave when the community changes and why most people stay on Minecraft after all these years. Certainly why I'm still on this game. Building Middle-Earth is the platform for which our community is based, but ultimately, we could be building the Star Wars Galaxy and I'd be content.

This idea has my support for it helps the community give their input and yes, it makes certain community members feel more important. It is a pure idea with very good intentions and the only harm that can come of it is we gain a better interpretation of the rules... And if that harms you then you don't even belong on MCME.
Thanks for coming to my TED talk
 
Last edited:

NicTheFifth

Foreman
Donor
Foreman
Jan 10, 2015
219
109
20
18
#18
I have one very important question, why create a new 'rank/system' when people already can voice their opinions on the forums, or in the, albeit irregular, public meetings? I get it that people want to see the system improve, but adding more bureaucracy does not further the goal, usually the simpler it is the better, that is one of the reasons why governments are annoying to work with, since they have too much bureaucracy, which only accommodates the lazy people that do not wish things to change.

So in short, this added bureaucracy is detrimental in my eyes, as long as people can comment during public meetings or on the forums.