https://forum.openredstone.org/ Wed, 27 May 2026 20:01:33 +0000 MyBB https://forum.openredstone.org/thread-15850.html Thu, 18 Jun 2020 14:48:39 +0000 LAM678]]> https://forum.openredstone.org/thread-15850.html Type: General
Change Petitioned For: Add WorldEdit to /Play for Builders
Reasons for change:
1. WorldEdit is a very powerful tool. Even with just //copy, //save, //load, //replace, and //paste, WorldEdit makes building way, way faster.
2. /Play might actually get some love. It's great for testing out TNT farms but building is block by block so nobody really uses /Play all that much.
3. /Play could eventually be like a mechanical engineering counterpart to /School's computer engineering.
Reasons for no change:
1. LAG. /Play is already a bit laggy, but with WorldEdit it may get worse. (My counter-counterpoint: We can force //fast and we can enforce lag machines like on /School)
2. Who cares about /Play? (Me and a couple of students)

In conclusion, I feel like this could totally be implemented if /Play was policed like /School (People reporting lag machines to mods, etc)]]> Type: General
Change Petitioned For: Add WorldEdit to /Play for Builders
Reasons for change:
1. WorldEdit is a very powerful tool. Even with just //copy, //save, //load, //replace, and //paste, WorldEdit makes building way, way faster.
2. /Play might actually get some love. It's great for testing out TNT farms but building is block by block so nobody really uses /Play all that much.
3. /Play could eventually be like a mechanical engineering counterpart to /School's computer engineering.
Reasons for no change:
1. LAG. /Play is already a bit laggy, but with WorldEdit it may get worse. (My counter-counterpoint: We can force //fast and we can enforce lag machines like on /School)
2. Who cares about /Play? (Me and a couple of students)

In conclusion, I feel like this could totally be implemented if /Play was policed like /School (People reporting lag machines to mods, etc)]]> https://forum.openredstone.org/thread-15827.html Sat, 06 Jun 2020 05:40:24 +0000 jxu]]> https://forum.openredstone.org/thread-15827.html Type: General


Change Petitioned For: (Re)organize PoL to be easier to search and navigate and reconsider what we put in it

Reasons for change: 
PoL started off as a compact plot with the community's basic logic gate and larger component (adder, ALU, etc) designs. 
Over time PoL has grown to encompass more and more builds. While the overall quality of builds has remained high, nowadays PoL somewhat acts like a community showcase for large builds.

My proposed changes:
1. Reorganize PoL using warps to different sections. There are currently 8 main areas which kinda look the same when flying around. Currently doing /warp pol takes you underneath the blue cube and you need to fly around to figure out what you are looking for. What is most useful for people is small gate designs which are reached using /warp pol2. There is also /warp pol-alu which is only searchable by flying around and reading small signs. For example if I want to look for diagonal CCA where do I fly to? A lot of diagonal stuff kinda looks like it. There is so much good stuff in PoL but it needs to be organized. I propose having warps for each section such as /warp pol-gates, /warp pol-cca, /warp pol-vert-ram, etc.

2. Refocus what we have in PoL. We need to decide if we want PoL to be a showcase for big builds or not. People can reasonably use small logic gates or adders in their builds but when getting to large things like CPUs and graphics stuff then they are more there for showcase then for others to use. The reasoning is that if I copy someone's entire CPU or line drawer then what is the originality of my build? ALUs are kinda in between where if you use someone else's ALU then your build still is lacking somewhat in originality. I am in favor of keeping PoL for smaller builds and not having a dedicated showcase area. Most large builds are showcased on their owner's plot and custom warps make it easy to navigate to. But if there is a showcase area then it should be separate from the area where people would reasonably copy designs from.


Reasons for no change (optional but recommended):
1. People may be used to the current warps and organization if they visit a lot. (off topic: I also think the grassy theme with vines and stone bridges design is very ugly. The trees and water are distracting and just look out of place)
2. People may disagree with me on the purpose of PoL. They may say it's ok to have it be a showcase area. I ask who decides what is showcase worthy? Is it Data? He hasn't been on in a month ingame and idk what his forum account is. There are some entire CPUs and giant builds I don't think anyone even looks at.]]> Type: General


Change Petitioned For: (Re)organize PoL to be easier to search and navigate and reconsider what we put in it

Reasons for change: 
PoL started off as a compact plot with the community's basic logic gate and larger component (adder, ALU, etc) designs. 
Over time PoL has grown to encompass more and more builds. While the overall quality of builds has remained high, nowadays PoL somewhat acts like a community showcase for large builds.

My proposed changes:
1. Reorganize PoL using warps to different sections. There are currently 8 main areas which kinda look the same when flying around. Currently doing /warp pol takes you underneath the blue cube and you need to fly around to figure out what you are looking for. What is most useful for people is small gate designs which are reached using /warp pol2. There is also /warp pol-alu which is only searchable by flying around and reading small signs. For example if I want to look for diagonal CCA where do I fly to? A lot of diagonal stuff kinda looks like it. There is so much good stuff in PoL but it needs to be organized. I propose having warps for each section such as /warp pol-gates, /warp pol-cca, /warp pol-vert-ram, etc.

2. Refocus what we have in PoL. We need to decide if we want PoL to be a showcase for big builds or not. People can reasonably use small logic gates or adders in their builds but when getting to large things like CPUs and graphics stuff then they are more there for showcase then for others to use. The reasoning is that if I copy someone's entire CPU or line drawer then what is the originality of my build? ALUs are kinda in between where if you use someone else's ALU then your build still is lacking somewhat in originality. I am in favor of keeping PoL for smaller builds and not having a dedicated showcase area. Most large builds are showcased on their owner's plot and custom warps make it easy to navigate to. But if there is a showcase area then it should be separate from the area where people would reasonably copy designs from.


Reasons for no change (optional but recommended):
1. People may be used to the current warps and organization if they visit a lot. (off topic: I also think the grassy theme with vines and stone bridges design is very ugly. The trees and water are distracting and just look out of place)
2. People may disagree with me on the purpose of PoL. They may say it's ok to have it be a showcase area. I ask who decides what is showcase worthy? Is it Data? He hasn't been on in a month ingame and idk what his forum account is. There are some entire CPUs and giant builds I don't think anyone even looks at.]]> https://forum.openredstone.org/thread-15785.html Tue, 12 May 2020 03:06:58 +0000 IAmLesbian]]> https://forum.openredstone.org/thread-15785.html Type: General


Change Petitioned For:
A new rank for ORE members
I propose a new rank is added following Builder.  This new rank will be called Engineer, fitting well with the server’s name: Open Redstone Engineers.  The rank is meant to serve not only as a label for those of higher computational redstone skill but also to serve as a “trusted” rank within the ORE community.


Engineer applications would be broken up into 2 parts: member approval and application approval.  First is the member approval, a vote is created for the applicant in question.  Staff members are able, but not required, to vote on whether they feel the applicant is trustworthy or not.  The vote stays up till at least a minimum number of votes is hit.  If the approval percentage is high enough, the application continues.  Following that, the application approval is what happens with normal Builder applications, a staff member reviews the application to ensure sufficient knowledge (of CPUs or something equivalent in complexity) is demonstrated.


Following an approved application, the member would undergo a trial.  Engineer trials would consist of a pre-built CPU (or equivalent) and a staff member to review.  A successful trial means the member is now an Engineer.


Engineer could serve as another rank with permission to run Builder trials.  This means Builder applicants will have more people they can ask to trial them, meaning less waiting.  While the members are trusted, I still do feel it’s important to have the results of the trials reviewed by ORE staff members to ensure their validity.


Additionally, the Engineer rank gives many Builders a much needed goal to fuel their motivation.  A requirement of CPU-level understanding would mean more people building CPUs and similarly complex redstone.


Reasons for Change:

• Break up the high range of skills of the current Builder rank into 2 groups
  
• Help those learning higher level redstone get an idea of who is likely able to assist them
  
• Give Builder applicants a larger number of people to ask in order to complete their trial
  
• Motivate Builders to learn beyond ALUs
  

Reasons for No Change (optional but recommended):

• Some members might assume non-Engineers are unqualified to teach CPU-level redstone
  • This is brought up sometimes when the old Teacher rank is talked about.  This seems more a fundamental issue of ranks on ORE rather than an issue specific to 1 rank in particular.  This issue also exists with Builder, some feel that Students are unqualified to teach even though they might possess the understanding needed for a given topic.
    
• Potentially more work for ORE Staff
  • I can’t speak for how much work this would add, but I’m sure the ability of Engineers to run Builder trials would at least take some work away elsewhere.
    
• Acceptable Engineer trial builds are unclear
  • I agree, and it’s difficult to capture everything without a really long explanation.  This is why I feel it’s best to take this on a case-by-case basis rather than pretending we can well-define everything allowed.
    
• It’d be easier not to add a new rank
  • While not wrong, I feel that a similar line of logic could apply to most or all petitions.  The problem applying to all petitions means it’s not the best measure of a petition’s worth.  A better way to think about it is, “does the work pay off?”.
    

]]> Type: General


Change Petitioned For:
A new rank for ORE members
I propose a new rank is added following Builder.  This new rank will be called Engineer, fitting well with the server’s name: Open Redstone Engineers.  The rank is meant to serve not only as a label for those of higher computational redstone skill but also to serve as a “trusted” rank within the ORE community.


Engineer applications would be broken up into 2 parts: member approval and application approval.  First is the member approval, a vote is created for the applicant in question.  Staff members are able, but not required, to vote on whether they feel the applicant is trustworthy or not.  The vote stays up till at least a minimum number of votes is hit.  If the approval percentage is high enough, the application continues.  Following that, the application approval is what happens with normal Builder applications, a staff member reviews the application to ensure sufficient knowledge (of CPUs or something equivalent in complexity) is demonstrated.


Following an approved application, the member would undergo a trial.  Engineer trials would consist of a pre-built CPU (or equivalent) and a staff member to review.  A successful trial means the member is now an Engineer.


Engineer could serve as another rank with permission to run Builder trials.  This means Builder applicants will have more people they can ask to trial them, meaning less waiting.  While the members are trusted, I still do feel it’s important to have the results of the trials reviewed by ORE staff members to ensure their validity.


Additionally, the Engineer rank gives many Builders a much needed goal to fuel their motivation.  A requirement of CPU-level understanding would mean more people building CPUs and similarly complex redstone.


Reasons for Change:

• Break up the high range of skills of the current Builder rank into 2 groups
  
• Help those learning higher level redstone get an idea of who is likely able to assist them
  
• Give Builder applicants a larger number of people to ask in order to complete their trial
  
• Motivate Builders to learn beyond ALUs
  

Reasons for No Change (optional but recommended):

• Some members might assume non-Engineers are unqualified to teach CPU-level redstone
  • This is brought up sometimes when the old Teacher rank is talked about.  This seems more a fundamental issue of ranks on ORE rather than an issue specific to 1 rank in particular.  This issue also exists with Builder, some feel that Students are unqualified to teach even though they might possess the understanding needed for a given topic.
    
• Potentially more work for ORE Staff
  • I can’t speak for how much work this would add, but I’m sure the ability of Engineers to run Builder trials would at least take some work away elsewhere.
    
• Acceptable Engineer trial builds are unclear
  • I agree, and it’s difficult to capture everything without a really long explanation.  This is why I feel it’s best to take this on a case-by-case basis rather than pretending we can well-define everything allowed.
    
• It’d be easier not to add a new rank
  • While not wrong, I feel that a similar line of logic could apply to most or all petitions.  The problem applying to all petitions means it’s not the best measure of a petition’s worth.  A better way to think about it is, “does the work pay off?”.
    

]]> https://forum.openredstone.org/thread-15637.html Tue, 04 Feb 2020 20:14:50 +0000 Matthew]]> https://forum.openredstone.org/thread-15637.html Type: General


Change Petitioned For: Instead of staff deciding when an election should be held internally, then those elected individuals becoming staff forever until they "step down" i propose all staff's roles expire after 2 years then we have a biennial election and if they want to remain staff they must be re-elected. Staff could decide how many mod / admin positions will be available internally the same way they decide currently, then for the election have a public vote.

Reasons for change: 

• Current management is not representing the wants of the user base.
  
• Higher quality of life for users with proper representation.
  
• Removes inactive / non-representative staff lessening the deadlock preventing decisions on various items by staff.
  
• Creates incentive for those in power to not be inactive.
  

Reasons for no change: 

• The current size of the community is small, there may not be many individuals campaigning.
  
• Public could vote in a non serious individual who has "questionable" qualifications / motives.
  

]]> Type: General


Change Petitioned For: Instead of staff deciding when an election should be held internally, then those elected individuals becoming staff forever until they "step down" i propose all staff's roles expire after 2 years then we have a biennial election and if they want to remain staff they must be re-elected. Staff could decide how many mod / admin positions will be available internally the same way they decide currently, then for the election have a public vote.

Reasons for change: 

• Current management is not representing the wants of the user base.
  
• Higher quality of life for users with proper representation.
  
• Removes inactive / non-representative staff lessening the deadlock preventing decisions on various items by staff.
  
• Creates incentive for those in power to not be inactive.
  

Reasons for no change: 

• The current size of the community is small, there may not be many individuals campaigning.
  
• Public could vote in a non serious individual who has "questionable" qualifications / motives.
  

]]> https://forum.openredstone.org/thread-15533.html Sun, 08 Dec 2019 23:46:01 +0000 IAmLesbian]]> https://forum.openredstone.org/thread-15533.html Type: General


Change Petitioned For:
      A chat filter each player can turn on and off when they want. (You don't need to use the filter but the option is there for those who do want to)
      Each player would have the option to enable a chat filter where swear, slurs, and such are replaced with asterisks.
      This would only affect people who decided to have it on, and turning it back off would be as easy as just typing a simple command.
      Nothing is set in stone for the chat filter and I would love to hear suggestions for additions.
      The default would likely be off, though the players could be notified of the filter's existence upon joining.

Reasons for change:

1. Newer and younger players can be put off by the strong language used on the server.
   
2. Some people, myself included, don't want to see things like racial slurs and similar words.
   

Reasons for no change (optional but recommended):

1. A chat filter of any sort can be said to go against the idea of open speech on ORE.  (I understand that idea but I feel it's not as much revoking free speech as it is, allowing someone to avoid seeing something they don't want to see.)
   
2. IRC by it's nature doesn't have the option of a chat filter (at least as far as I understand it) which means the filter isn't universal.  (While not universal, lots of people who join the server never use IRC or even join the Discord server for ORE.)
   

]]> Type: General


Change Petitioned For:
      A chat filter each player can turn on and off when they want. (You don't need to use the filter but the option is there for those who do want to)
      Each player would have the option to enable a chat filter where swear, slurs, and such are replaced with asterisks.
      This would only affect people who decided to have it on, and turning it back off would be as easy as just typing a simple command.
      Nothing is set in stone for the chat filter and I would love to hear suggestions for additions.
      The default would likely be off, though the players could be notified of the filter's existence upon joining.

Reasons for change:

1. Newer and younger players can be put off by the strong language used on the server.
   
2. Some people, myself included, don't want to see things like racial slurs and similar words.
   

Reasons for no change (optional but recommended):

1. A chat filter of any sort can be said to go against the idea of open speech on ORE.  (I understand that idea but I feel it's not as much revoking free speech as it is, allowing someone to avoid seeing something they don't want to see.)
   
2. IRC by it's nature doesn't have the option of a chat filter (at least as far as I understand it) which means the filter isn't universal.  (While not universal, lots of people who join the server never use IRC or even join the Discord server for ORE.)
   

]]> https://forum.openredstone.org/thread-15154.html Fri, 24 May 2019 06:03:16 +0000 SpiritTree]]> https://forum.openredstone.org/thread-15154.html
Type: General

Change Petitioned For: I petition to add a #drawing / #OREArt channel under VARIOUS in the ORE Discord. The future channel will be referred to as "#drawing" for the remainder of this petition, but any name related may suffice.

Reasons for Change: A lot of people draw or would like to start drawing as a hobby. A drawing channel on the ORE Discord could provide an environment for sharing art of the ORE community, some of which might include neat logos and name designs. In addition, it could provide a place for people to show their calligraphy skills or share other aesthetic ventures. Furthermore, those who have more experience in the craft could help guide those more inexperienced - up to a certain point, of course; the #drawing channel should remain very far away from tutorial posting that one can just find on YouTube in two seconds (unless, of course, the tutorial creator is an ORE member / the content pertains to ORE-specific ideas.) I think sharing appropriate art that one finds interesting could suffice, as long as it doesn't consume the majority of the channel (for this to be instituted, the creator must be credited.) 

Any skill level of drawing should be accepted. People should not feel pressured to "be good" to post, nor should this channel make fun of a learner's ability. No one starts out good at drawing.

Consider how much mental visualization is a key component of redstone engineering. All good creations start with someone imagining something. Perhaps encouraging drawing in the ORE Community will strengthen the mental eyes of the community as a whole. 

When you see people practice something and begin to get better at it, you can often be pulled in and want to participate (I mean, look at redstone). Why shouldn't we encourage a skill that people can practice their whole lives? Many people on ORE are high schoolers or below who may have mentally cleaved art and science from one another, when they are not mutually exclusive. I won't, however, start preaching - I just think this channel may benefit the community as a whole.

Ultimately, a #drawing channel would further emphasize the idea of ORE as a community. Just like we have #cubing, #drawing would be a good expansion to the ORE Discord. I'm sure we have some very talented artists on here.

Reasons for no change (optional but recommended): The following are counterarguments with resolutions.

1) You may feel that a drawing channel is "too much" or an "overextension" of ORE's domain. 

I will agree that it is an extension, but I wouldn't call it an overextension. ORE is now a network and even has meta-Minecraft adventures such as boat racing.

2) You might not want to "cringe" from the bad art this community will inevitably produce at one point.

 If you feel this way, I beseech you to gather empathy. We are all human and just trying to make it through this life. If we can't be "bad" at something we can never be "good" at something.

3) You don't want this channel to turn into #music.

With heavier moderation, which I think this channel must entail, this shouldn't happen. No chains should happen here.

4) The channel will surely become inactive, there aren't enough people who want to draw on ORE!

Yes, this channel will probably move glacially slow, but I doubt it will go fully quiet. In addition, we already have this "problem" with a number of other channels. I don't see this as an issue.

Further Comments: If you have a better name for this channel, feel free to say it below. I want a name that includes pretty much all art related ventures, including drawing, curve stitching, painting, color-by-number, regular coloring, etc.  ]]>
Type: General

Change Petitioned For: I petition to add a #drawing / #OREArt channel under VARIOUS in the ORE Discord. The future channel will be referred to as "#drawing" for the remainder of this petition, but any name related may suffice.

Reasons for Change: A lot of people draw or would like to start drawing as a hobby. A drawing channel on the ORE Discord could provide an environment for sharing art of the ORE community, some of which might include neat logos and name designs. In addition, it could provide a place for people to show their calligraphy skills or share other aesthetic ventures. Furthermore, those who have more experience in the craft could help guide those more inexperienced - up to a certain point, of course; the #drawing channel should remain very far away from tutorial posting that one can just find on YouTube in two seconds (unless, of course, the tutorial creator is an ORE member / the content pertains to ORE-specific ideas.) I think sharing appropriate art that one finds interesting could suffice, as long as it doesn't consume the majority of the channel (for this to be instituted, the creator must be credited.) 

Any skill level of drawing should be accepted. People should not feel pressured to "be good" to post, nor should this channel make fun of a learner's ability. No one starts out good at drawing.

Consider how much mental visualization is a key component of redstone engineering. All good creations start with someone imagining something. Perhaps encouraging drawing in the ORE Community will strengthen the mental eyes of the community as a whole. 

When you see people practice something and begin to get better at it, you can often be pulled in and want to participate (I mean, look at redstone). Why shouldn't we encourage a skill that people can practice their whole lives? Many people on ORE are high schoolers or below who may have mentally cleaved art and science from one another, when they are not mutually exclusive. I won't, however, start preaching - I just think this channel may benefit the community as a whole.

Ultimately, a #drawing channel would further emphasize the idea of ORE as a community. Just like we have #cubing, #drawing would be a good expansion to the ORE Discord. I'm sure we have some very talented artists on here.

Reasons for no change (optional but recommended): The following are counterarguments with resolutions.

1) You may feel that a drawing channel is "too much" or an "overextension" of ORE's domain. 

I will agree that it is an extension, but I wouldn't call it an overextension. ORE is now a network and even has meta-Minecraft adventures such as boat racing.

2) You might not want to "cringe" from the bad art this community will inevitably produce at one point.

 If you feel this way, I beseech you to gather empathy. We are all human and just trying to make it through this life. If we can't be "bad" at something we can never be "good" at something.

3) You don't want this channel to turn into #music.

With heavier moderation, which I think this channel must entail, this shouldn't happen. No chains should happen here.

4) The channel will surely become inactive, there aren't enough people who want to draw on ORE!

Yes, this channel will probably move glacially slow, but I doubt it will go fully quiet. In addition, we already have this "problem" with a number of other channels. I don't see this as an issue.

Further Comments: If you have a better name for this channel, feel free to say it below. I want a name that includes pretty much all art related ventures, including drawing, curve stitching, painting, color-by-number, regular coloring, etc.  ]]> https://forum.openredstone.org/thread-14926.html Fri, 18 Jan 2019 18:32:10 +0000 nielsapie]]> https://forum.openredstone.org/thread-14926.html i have the insta account made already: https://www.instagram.com/open_redstone_engineers/?hl=nl 
and i hope this idea will be aprisiated and i love to help the server whit this.
there is a thing if this idea will be voted up i still want accses on the account  and if u guys want to post a thing we will need to discuss about it.
we wil not follow our own account the acount that i followd now is the most followed insta acounts so we will get followers the other players in the server dont get the login info
we will not change the login information and this is my idea to make the server more international.

whit friendly greets niels nuyen.]]> i have the insta account made already: https://www.instagram.com/open_redstone_engineers/?hl=nl 
and i hope this idea will be aprisiated and i love to help the server whit this.
there is a thing if this idea will be voted up i still want accses on the account  and if u guys want to post a thing we will need to discuss about it.
we wil not follow our own account the acount that i followd now is the most followed insta acounts so we will get followers the other players in the server dont get the login info
we will not change the login information and this is my idea to make the server more international.

whit friendly greets niels nuyen.]]> https://forum.openredstone.org/thread-14878.html Thu, 03 Jan 2019 23:36:35 +0000 ICA_Demonic]]> https://forum.openredstone.org/thread-14878.html General
A new area for Trails to take place
Reasons for change: let's face it, trails attract lots of people, and at heart is a community thing seeing as everyone has done it. Seeing all the cluttered builds just left everywhere and placed wherever isn't really the most appealing thing to be around when either attempting a trail or observing. I have made a very aesthetic but practical space for trials to take place, including a boat race ring and a wall for everyone who passes a trial to put their head, so they can see how they are apart of an ever-expanding community.


Head over to build server and do "/warp stadium" to see this practical area 

Or check out the attached screenshot 

  2019-01-03_23.32.04.png (Size: 739.6 KB / Downloads: 58) ]]> General
A new area for Trails to take place
Reasons for change: let's face it, trails attract lots of people, and at heart is a community thing seeing as everyone has done it. Seeing all the cluttered builds just left everywhere and placed wherever isn't really the most appealing thing to be around when either attempting a trail or observing. I have made a very aesthetic but practical space for trials to take place, including a boat race ring and a wall for everyone who passes a trial to put their head, so they can see how they are apart of an ever-expanding community.


Head over to build server and do "/warp stadium" to see this practical area 

Or check out the attached screenshot 

  2019-01-03_23.32.04.png (Size: 739.6 KB / Downloads: 58) ]]> https://forum.openredstone.org/thread-14876.html Thu, 03 Jan 2019 18:31:30 +0000 konsumlamm]]> https://forum.openredstone.org/thread-14876.html Reasons for change: it's cool
Reasons for no change (optional but recommended): admins are lazy]]> Reasons for change: it's cool
Reasons for no change (optional but recommended): admins are lazy]]> https://forum.openredstone.org/thread-14712.html Mon, 29 Oct 2018 13:47:02 +0000 Koyarno]]> https://forum.openredstone.org/thread-14712.html Change Petitioned For: adding survival again for 1.13.2
Reasons for change: long time without survival, so need something to take of the mind u know.

some notes:
- "we" would like to have people close to spawn. I think we managed griefing to a good minimum last time that, going far away from spawn should not be necessary because of that. Having a limited world size is bad for getting good resources from more interesting biomes. And if some people do build far outward, i'll happily make a nether hub.

- I still feel that the first time i joined survival that because of the long duration, i had the time to make a better base. Sure there were inactive times in survival, but that did not stop some from making new bases. We went for automatic storage, a crazy garden, and almost enough redstone to build a cpu in survival. But because of the short duration (< 1 to 1,5 months) of the past times we had survival it feels to me people want to just rush it and don't play to minecraft's strengths. (I am probs very active but i build very slowly and big in scale :p)

- I do not think that amplified was as successful as everyone hoped it would be. Besides that, maybe it is a good idea to have smaller biomes?

I still want to first look how much interest there is. So vote and tell what you would want for a good season this time.]]> Change Petitioned For: adding survival again for 1.13.2
Reasons for change: long time without survival, so need something to take of the mind u know.

some notes:
- "we" would like to have people close to spawn. I think we managed griefing to a good minimum last time that, going far away from spawn should not be necessary because of that. Having a limited world size is bad for getting good resources from more interesting biomes. And if some people do build far outward, i'll happily make a nether hub.

- I still feel that the first time i joined survival that because of the long duration, i had the time to make a better base. Sure there were inactive times in survival, but that did not stop some from making new bases. We went for automatic storage, a crazy garden, and almost enough redstone to build a cpu in survival. But because of the short duration (< 1 to 1,5 months) of the past times we had survival it feels to me people want to just rush it and don't play to minecraft's strengths. (I am probs very active but i build very slowly and big in scale :p)

- I do not think that amplified was as successful as everyone hoped it would be. Besides that, maybe it is a good idea to have smaller biomes?

I still want to first look how much interest there is. So vote and tell what you would want for a good season this time.]]> https://forum.openredstone.org/thread-14591.html Fri, 14 Sep 2018 12:09:46 +0000 RedCMD]]> https://forum.openredstone.org/thread-14591.html Type: Expedited
Change Petitioned For: Adding Theo's redstone fix to the server
Reasons for change: Redstone is super laggy and random. Theo's redstone fix will decrease block updates from 10,000's to 100's. Also it removes a lot of the randomness of redstone. Lag can be decreased on avg of 6x times less laggy, then all the way to 40x times less laggy.
Reasons for no change: Needs a lot of work, but reward is better (Nick Im talking to you ) 
links:
https://www.reddit.com/r/Mojira/comments/7gdiun/fix_posted_for_mc11193_redstone_nondeterminism/
https://bugs.mojang.com/browse/MC-81098
https://bugs.mojang.com/browse/MC-11193
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/hk586vbdb9pl18o/AADNLMisAzIL2yzHQclObpCua?dl=0]]> Type: Expedited
Change Petitioned For: Adding Theo's redstone fix to the server
Reasons for change: Redstone is super laggy and random. Theo's redstone fix will decrease block updates from 10,000's to 100's. Also it removes a lot of the randomness of redstone. Lag can be decreased on avg of 6x times less laggy, then all the way to 40x times less laggy.
Reasons for no change: Needs a lot of work, but reward is better (Nick Im talking to you ) 
links:
https://www.reddit.com/r/Mojira/comments/7gdiun/fix_posted_for_mc11193_redstone_nondeterminism/
https://bugs.mojang.com/browse/MC-81098
https://bugs.mojang.com/browse/MC-11193
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/hk586vbdb9pl18o/AADNLMisAzIL2yzHQclObpCua?dl=0]]> https://forum.openredstone.org/thread-14589.html Fri, 14 Sep 2018 11:57:13 +0000 RedCMD]]> https://forum.openredstone.org/thread-14589.html Quote: No ticking furnaces!
Type: Expedited
Change Petitioned For: Removing furnaces from the list of ticking tile entities
Reasons for change: Ticking furnaces create a lot of server lag and removing the "ticking" attribute will decrease server lag by a lot
Reasons for no change (optional but recommended): It needs someone to dig into the code which requires something that nick doesn't like. (work)]]> Quote: No ticking furnaces!
Type: Expedited
Change Petitioned For: Removing furnaces from the list of ticking tile entities
Reasons for change: Ticking furnaces create a lot of server lag and removing the "ticking" attribute will decrease server lag by a lot
Reasons for no change (optional but recommended): It needs someone to dig into the code which requires something that nick doesn't like. (work)]]> https://forum.openredstone.org/thread-14588.html Thu, 13 Sep 2018 23:23:21 +0000 Alex_you]]> https://forum.openredstone.org/thread-14588.html
SECOND SUGGESTION: I would like ORE to add a plugin that somehow allows us (the players) to have more Signal Strengh to play with thus allowing more freedom in build and innovation. Im sure that most of you realized that the majority of minecraft cpu's are 8 bits and i believe its because people are limited by the signal strengh not reaching far enough... 15 signal strengh allows us to build most of the 8 bit contraptions right on the edge ... if we somehow had more signal strengh to play with (31 for exemple) we would be able to see 16 bits cpu's, and if we went up to 61 we would have 32 bits cpus and etc... Having more signal strengh would also allow us to make contraptions faster and has many other benifits... THE ONLY downside of adding more signal strengh would be lag but that could be solved if we combined this suggestion with my first one (panda mod).

If we added both of those suggestions, i believe that it would spark a lot of new motivations to build on ore to EVERYONE. Mojang ain't going to do shit to improve redstone or even less ... make a redstone update. THIS is why we must take action our self or we will always be limited by our current restrictions which is starting to lead to a dead end.]]>
SECOND SUGGESTION: I would like ORE to add a plugin that somehow allows us (the players) to have more Signal Strengh to play with thus allowing more freedom in build and innovation. Im sure that most of you realized that the majority of minecraft cpu's are 8 bits and i believe its because people are limited by the signal strengh not reaching far enough... 15 signal strengh allows us to build most of the 8 bit contraptions right on the edge ... if we somehow had more signal strengh to play with (31 for exemple) we would be able to see 16 bits cpu's, and if we went up to 61 we would have 32 bits cpus and etc... Having more signal strengh would also allow us to make contraptions faster and has many other benifits... THE ONLY downside of adding more signal strengh would be lag but that could be solved if we combined this suggestion with my first one (panda mod).

If we added both of those suggestions, i believe that it would spark a lot of new motivations to build on ore to EVERYONE. Mojang ain't going to do shit to improve redstone or even less ... make a redstone update. THIS is why we must take action our self or we will always be limited by our current restrictions which is starting to lead to a dead end.]]> https://forum.openredstone.org/thread-14585.html Thu, 13 Sep 2018 22:18:40 +0000 Sadie_dog]]> https://forum.openredstone.org/thread-14585.html Type: Idk (and capo never answered)
Change Petitioned For: Sadie_dog's rank to be shifted to HopeWarrior
Reasons for change: HopeWarrior was my alt, and is now my main, and I no longer have access to Sadie_dog (very complicated)
Reasons for no change (optional but recommended): Lack of faith in me as a builder (i would totally understand...)]]> Type: Idk (and capo never answered)
Change Petitioned For: Sadie_dog's rank to be shifted to HopeWarrior
Reasons for change: HopeWarrior was my alt, and is now my main, and I no longer have access to Sadie_dog (very complicated)
Reasons for no change (optional but recommended): Lack of faith in me as a builder (i would totally understand...)]]> https://forum.openredstone.org/thread-14584.html Thu, 13 Sep 2018 22:11:14 +0000 LordDecapo]]> https://forum.openredstone.org/thread-14584.html Type: Expedited
Change Petitioned For: Nickster258 to change his mojang IGN to Shitster69
Reasons for change: I mean come-on... he is a shitster.
Reasons for no change (optional but recommended): Absolutely none]]> Type: Expedited
Change Petitioned For: Nickster258 to change his mojang IGN to Shitster69
Reasons for change: I mean come-on... he is a shitster.
Reasons for no change (optional but recommended): Absolutely none]]>