the seed is public, you can make a private world, go into spectator, and do all this. This is just a convenience thing for the server version. IMO it just keeps people using the server version and bringing the community together.
I see no problem with it.

also, if i'm going to cheat to find diamonds, thats not how i'm gonna do it. I'm just gonna get an x-ray mod.
You can only see diamonds that are exposed either air or lava. thats a minority of the diamonds. I honestly think it would be easier to mine the diamonds the normal way, rather than find them in spectator, write the coordinates down, go to survival, dig to that spot, and get the diamonds...

So far the only positives I am hearing are FTPs and End Portal.
I don't know what I think about intrarealm FTPs due to the fact the Nether already shortens the ride and the point of roads is for people to use them.
In terms of special and unique items, I don't know. I don't see a problem with future vassals not getting benefits worked for by prior vassals and the lord. Might just be me.
I love the spawner idea. Just can't use it too much.

i think concrete is fine as it is tbh

I am curious to see the impact on performance, it is my only hang up with this as it could add some lag to the server.

I think that introduces a world of problems with different people interpreting sizes differently, as well as having to track all that for each person each time they rank up.
When we were coming up with the new system, I believe it was intended (in my mind at least) that a building is equal to one building. Some larger buildings will take more work true, but it's theoretically compensated by the fact that those are more rare compared to say hovels... which are super easy to make, and can be thrown up quite easily. It was expected that there would be a mix of large and small buildings however, and not just 25 hovels grouped together. That would be reflected in the rank application thread and was assumed the community wouldn't vote someone through with just a bunch of tiny buildings.

Also, I don't remember anything official on Aldemeria counting buildings as anything more than one building. This was different for vassals being promoted within their realm by a liege, and I even benefited from that a little with Anelthas Castle for my Count promotion.

I'm not against the idea, but there is a large issue with tracking building size on top of number of buildings, which will be challenging in the higher ranks, not to mention having to keep track of and exclude vassal builds that will be mixed in.
I'm open to ideas though.

@Kyrin Yeah most likely, I don't want to see a random ass end portal lobbed onto the ground of a realm.

In some ways, I do want to see people dedicate large structures around the portal. Like construct a statue that harbors it or something. Something that's similar to what we do with nether portals.

I disagree with this as it's only a minor annoyance and implementing a plugin or datapack would require more time to figure out then it's worth.

I like it! Sounds cool (I don't really remember this from the old server...)

@ThunderPony agreed

That'll be a no from me dog.

Given the way our ranking system is so heavily tied to your own contributions, rather than a physical location, I just don't see this working. It goes heavily against the way we have progression configured. You rank up based on stuff you, and only you have built and written, except where you haven't?

I wasn't, and still am not a fan of our ranking system, but we have it and I think opening this can of worms would require a complete overhaul of it from the ground up

I would be for this, as I have suffered from this same glitch with a legacy villager.

If i may add my humble opinion about this proposal:

I generally find it a good idea to limit those people who are noble but don't have the requirements a tad bit.
For one, it would perhaps give the nobles who do have their requirements fulfilled a bit more contentment, as they might see their achievement as a bit less useless, and second: The new members who do have to fulfill the full requirements might be a bit more content about it too, if they don't have people with higher ranks, but who didn't achieve as much as they have to do, to be promoted.

This is of course not meant as an attack or passive aggressive remark against anyone; If you have a complaint, please tell me.
Thanks for reading

I just want to point out, the whole barons not meeting requirements discussion that made everyone start thinking our whole system needs to be overhauled... that was brought up because I had heard concerns/complaints from others as well that barons werent meeting the requirements... I literally did what this whole position was supposed to do.

I'm not opposed to a 5th ministry in general, but this just seems like a feel good position without a meaningful job.

I think builds is the better way to do this. I think if we look at an application and it seems well below the expectations then we would raise or voice. Or the MoI would.

Im in favour of setting aside some time in advance. If theres any work to be done come December then it will atleast give us a head start

The way I always saw the discord rules was that it was supposed to be admin enforcement.

So with that in mind, admins should just delete posts of people breaking those rules, and to expand on that, I could see incremental (15 minutes-1day max) mutes being given out

With politics stuff being posted after the politics rule, none of us wanted to start deleting stuff, fearing it would fan the fire. But it was also a real dick move to just start ignoring rules when we're just trying to keep things civil without this becoming a full time job.

But at the end of the day, having a hearing that takes 2 weeks to set up and hours to plan... once a week.... is untenable. Hopefully the community will agree to some rules and trust us with enforcement of those rules.

It reminds me of Ioka. But it looks cool, so why not.

I'm so down, and like the recipe suggested.

The Don't be a dick rule is still a discord exclusive, and I would rather have explicit protection than an implicit one.