Poll

PARLIAMENT VOTE #21: Adopt The Regulations on Industrial Farms Shown Below?

Yes - Adopt the New Regulations on Farms
17 (56.7%)
No - Do not Implement Further Regulations on Farms
11 (36.7%)
Abstain
2 (6.7%)

Total Members Voted: 28

Voting closed: 1 May 2020, 11:43:45 PM

Author Topic: PARLIAMENT VOTE #21 - Regulation of Industrial Farms | EXPIRED - not in force  (Read 11376 times)

Offline Naomi

  • Staff Member | Forum Mod
  • Cheese
  • *****
  • Posts: 388
  • Llamas: 28
  • Lighthouse Obsessed
    • View profile
Re: PARLIAMENT VOTE #21 - Regulation of Industrial Farms
« Reply #31 on: 27 April 2020, 11:29:27 AM »
How so Octo? you can still come on and farm. I'm just trying to see how your gameplay is ruined, seeing as the server usually has less then 10 people on. When there is more then 10 you could explore other aspects of minecraft like building and exploring the map.
There are a lot of attitudes going on around here, Don't let me get one.

reasons to vote naomi: second sexiest person on the ballot, slight southern drawl, has won woman of the year every year since 1899 (the mainstream media doesn't want you to know)

vote for naomi idiots

like if you need to me to write out a fully fledged post to persuade you i will, but i just prefer we avoid all that effort and you vote for naomi

Naomi is hot. Hot cm is nice. 8) 8)

Offline OctoGamer

  • Staff Member | Forum Mod
  • Cheese
  • *****
  • Posts: 1286
  • Llamas: 22
  • #vc4lyfe
    • View profile
Re: PARLIAMENT VOTE #21 - Regulation of Industrial Farms
« Reply #32 on: 27 April 2020, 11:44:43 AM »
How so Octo? you can still come on and farm. I'm just trying to see how your gameplay is ruined, seeing as the server usually has less then 10 people on. When there is more then 10 you could explore other aspects of minecraft like building and exploring the map.
Because this is a huge option of the game for me. and 10 is what the servers low is usually around the times that I would typically play. and i'm not gonna waste my time working on my homes  if this is going to be implemented.
« Last Edit: 27 April 2020, 11:49:23 AM by OctoGamer »

Offline Naomi

  • Staff Member | Forum Mod
  • Cheese
  • *****
  • Posts: 388
  • Llamas: 28
  • Lighthouse Obsessed
    • View profile
Re: PARLIAMENT VOTE #21 - Regulation of Industrial Farms
« Reply #33 on: 27 April 2020, 12:00:55 PM »
But this is also only until 1.16, so working on your homes for a little bit would be something to do. I understand you don't like this rule, but I know I wouldn't throw away 7 years over a rule that is only for a little bit  :-\
There are a lot of attitudes going on around here, Don't let me get one.

reasons to vote naomi: second sexiest person on the ballot, slight southern drawl, has won woman of the year every year since 1899 (the mainstream media doesn't want you to know)

vote for naomi idiots

like if you need to me to write out a fully fledged post to persuade you i will, but i just prefer we avoid all that effort and you vote for naomi

Naomi is hot. Hot cm is nice. 8) 8)

Offline Saxturian

  • Cheese
  • *****
  • Posts: 703
  • Llamas: 0
  • This post is most likely useless.
    • View profile
Re: PARLIAMENT VOTE #21 - Regulation of Industrial Farms
« Reply #34 on: 27 April 2020, 12:01:38 PM »
I just wanted to hop on to point out a couple of things. First of all, while protoape was using some big brain energy using Luis' data, it's technically invalid since the entire basis of normalcdf is reliant on it being a normal curve, meaning that the data would have to look something like this:
Now, given Luis' σ's, the data would not look like this, as one standard deviation from the mean would have a value of either around 13-15 and 23-25, which I personally have never seen the tps hit. Another standard deviation would then be 8-10 and 28-30. By the time we reach the second σ, this should encompass approximately 95.4% of our data. To get the rest we have to do yet another deviation.
tl;dr the curve isn't normal so calculations for a normal curve can't be done.

Also, there has been less discussion on this thread and more just outright aggression. We are all adults here.

People upset if this vote passes: I personally haven't seen 10+ people on often, and there's plenty to do other than use a farm. If your gameplay was just consisting of sitting at your farm and talking to people, they just go somewhere else and talk to people, or build a smaller farm and operate that when 10+ people are on. While this isn't ideal I can tell, it is what it is.

People who are voting yes on this vote: It should be understood that while you may think this is just people overreacting, some people enjoy getting on and afking at farms and chatting people up while they do it, or some people use them to fund certain projects they want, etc. and you should be considerate and understanding that some people are going to be upset - they're losing an aspect of villagecraft that they enjoy if 10 people get online. It is frustrating both ways.

We all know how to treat other's opinions with respect, and we all know how to treat others with respect. Think before you post. Have empathy for those affected by this. Be understanding of people affected by lag which may or may not be caused by farms. This isn't permanent and there's no need to be rude and dismissive to everyone, and that goes on both sides.

another tl;dr we need more love and respect up in this bitch :-*
Quote
If you smoke my stash I will cut your dick off and feed it to my hounds so they get a good taste for your flesh. I will then set you free in the forest and give you a one day head start so my hounds get nice and hungry, then I will unleash them and they will hunt you and devour your flesh. hoe
-Airbongus

Quote
I don't see why a little porn is dark but ok.

Quote
Also, if you do choose to hack VC in whatever method, I can get your IPs from the server log, and with more coding knowledge than most people here, I could easily and more importantly legally hack you back. And if you hack VC, I'll be cross. Don't try it.

That is all
Luis, in all his badassery

I love the yearly reminders that Jan has much bigger balls than I do.

Offline TheLegend12369

  • Member of Parliament
  • Cheese
  • *
  • Posts: 305
  • Llamas: 7
  • I'm not very creative, it is what it is.
    • View profile
Re: PARLIAMENT VOTE #21 - Regulation of Industrial Farms
« Reply #35 on: 27 April 2020, 12:09:06 PM »
I have seen tps hit 23, not 30 though

Offline gerrit70

  • Member of Parliament
  • Cheese
  • *
  • Posts: 482
  • Llamas: 9
  • U all succ
    • View profile
Re: PARLIAMENT VOTE #21 - Regulation of Industrial Farms
« Reply #36 on: 27 April 2020, 02:08:17 PM »
...

Luis's test is not a live under-load VC test, so can't be used as a control, but it is an interesting reference evidence. It needs to be considered against anecdotal evidence on the live server in my opinion.

This is indeed not the ultimate solution to the problem, which is why it is written to be a temporary measure. If passed, it will serve as a test to see if it does indeed help make a noticeable dent.

I would agree with this if there was any way to actually use live VC as a test, but that would be incredibly difficult. I'll list the problems I see with using the actual server for data collection.

1. Player amounts go up and down, as well as the amount of strain they're putting on the server.
2. If farms are indeed a cause of the lag, then there could be multiple players on with farms or no players on with farms, skewing the data.
3. How would we even compare the two data sets before and after rule? You cant take a random sample and you cant take and average to compare because of the issues above.

I'm definitely not a stats genius so if those can be solved thats good. In addition the problem with relying on anecdotal evidence is exactly that, its anecdotal. I think placebo would be a very big issue if we're relying on player reports. Survey is also the weakest method of data collection, and thats if its formalized, which it hasn't been.

 I think it would be fantastic if we could use live VC to collect data if we can find a way to mitigate the above problems.
Guh

I'm a huge faggot and I love sucking airs cock.

It is abysmal that any one person would take try to limit the happiness that Gerrit70 has brought to this dull place.

Free Gerrit70 from his chains!

holy fuck gerrit you're autistic.

Offline Shensley

  • Staff Member | Forum Mod
  • Cheese
  • *****
  • Posts: 366
  • Llamas: 2
  • U Can't Touch This
    • View profile
Re: PARLIAMENT VOTE #21 - Regulation of Industrial Farms
« Reply #37 on: 27 April 2020, 02:12:14 PM »
Its pretty clear the the vote will most likely pass unless something drastic happens or theirs a group of people who have yet to vote. This thread is just turning into a pissing match at this point from my view. I suggest we lock it and let the rest vote on whats already been said.

Quote from: PengBunny
link=topic=212.msg32741#msg32741 date=1421280717
they dont let fags become admin

Offline Akomine

  • Staff Member | Administrator
  • Cheese
  • *****
  • Posts: 3039
  • Llamas: 666
  • Meep Meep
    • View profile
Re: PARLIAMENT VOTE #21 - Regulation of Industrial Farms
« Reply #38 on: 27 April 2020, 03:45:36 PM »
...

Luis's test is not a live under-load VC test, so can't be used as a control, but it is an interesting reference evidence. It needs to be considered against anecdotal evidence on the live server in my opinion.

This is indeed not the ultimate solution to the problem, which is why it is written to be a temporary measure. If passed, it will serve as a test to see if it does indeed help make a noticeable dent.

I would agree with this if there was any way to actually use live VC as a test, but that would be incredibly difficult. I'll list the problems I see with using the actual server for data collection.

1. Player amounts go up and down, as well as the amount of strain they're putting on the server.
2. If farms are indeed a cause of the lag, then there could be multiple players on with farms or no players on with farms, skewing the data.
3. How would we even compare the two data sets before and after rule? You cant take a random sample and you cant take and average to compare because of the issues above.

I'm definitely not a stats genius so if those can be solved thats good. In addition the problem with relying on anecdotal evidence is exactly that, its anecdotal. I think placebo would be a very big issue if we're relying on player reports. Survey is also the weakest method of data collection, and thats if its formalized, which it hasn't been.

 I think it would be fantastic if we could use live VC to collect data if we can find a way to mitigate the above problems.

Well, I mean, what better way to test this temporary restriction than to actually have it in effect on the live server? In this case, anecdote is helpful, but I do indeed understand the placebo problem in this case.

My vote is currently an abstain, but I'm leaning towards a yes because I'd like to see if this does get positive results for players. If it doesn't, it's temporary so whatever.

To someone like Octo saying this ruins his gameplay and he doesn't want to "waste his time building a house" or whatever, this is just weird to me. You do you, but how is sitting at a farm fun? I don't get it. And if your farm is harming others' gameplay, do you respect that? Can you try this temporary rule out without quitting altogether?

Ako is gay and has superaids - Air

Offline PengBunny

  • Member of Parliament
  • Cheese
  • *
  • Posts: 522
  • Llamas: 11
    • View profile
Re: PARLIAMENT VOTE #21 - Regulation of Industrial Farms
« Reply #39 on: 27 April 2020, 03:50:13 PM »
This is probably one of the funniest threads with the amount of petty ass drama over a small restriction on large automated farms to see whether they reduce lag or not.

Come on now, guys.  :-*
You know a thread is really bad when PengBunny posts on it.


My daddy is Air

air when the fuck did you do this ^^^

Offline Akomine

  • Staff Member | Administrator
  • Cheese
  • *****
  • Posts: 3039
  • Llamas: 666
  • Meep Meep
    • View profile
Re: PARLIAMENT VOTE #21 - Regulation of Industrial Farms
« Reply #40 on: 27 April 2020, 04:08:00 PM »
Good Morning everyone!

I would like to take a moment to remind everyone this is a restriction, not a ban. You still get to use your farms if this is passed, it is only closing farm use when the server is at higher capacity, which is where we see the most lag visually. I know this is a touchy subject but this rule is not to ruin anyone's gameplay. It is an attempt to help players in times we see the most lag.
well, it's already ruined my gameplay, which is why I'm not playing as of right now.

How can something that isn't even in effect ruin your game play? This makes no sense.

And even if it does come into effect, you can still do your thing if under 10 ppl are on. And it's only until the next update.

Ako is gay and has superaids - Air

Offline Akomine

  • Staff Member | Administrator
  • Cheese
  • *****
  • Posts: 3039
  • Llamas: 666
  • Meep Meep
    • View profile
Re: PARLIAMENT VOTE #21 - Regulation of Industrial Farms
« Reply #41 on: 27 April 2020, 04:11:31 PM »
I took it down because I want Octo to stop. I genuinely don't know what was wrong with my calculations. I don't know what people are misconstruing, it's just elementary statistics. If anyone else brings my personal intelligence or relationship into this I'd like to ask you to, with all due respect, get a fucking life for once. Some of you have been so rude and aggressive. I don't even want to be here anymore. I'm sorry everyone. I shouldn't be here and I never should have

You are perfectly free to post calculations and ideas and have your own opinions. You do deserve to be here, you can and should still play here, and you are more than welcome here. Please don't get downtrodden by disagreeing, and perhaps aggressive disagreeing, replies to your posts. Regardless of those replies, you are 100% welcome to keep playing and posting your ideas. You won't ever be silenced.

Ako is gay and has superaids - Air

Offline PengBunny

  • Member of Parliament
  • Cheese
  • *
  • Posts: 522
  • Llamas: 11
    • View profile
Re: PARLIAMENT VOTE #21 - Regulation of Industrial Farms
« Reply #42 on: 27 April 2020, 04:14:17 PM »
Good Morning everyone!

I would like to take a moment to remind everyone this is a restriction, not a ban. You still get to use your farms if this is passed, it is only closing farm use when the server is at higher capacity, which is where we see the most lag visually. I know this is a touchy subject but this rule is not to ruin anyone's gameplay. It is an attempt to help players in times we see the most lag.
well, it's already ruined my gameplay, which is why I'm not playing as of right now.

How can something that isn't even in effect ruin your game play? This makes no sense.

And even if it does come into effect, you can still do your thing if under 10 ppl are on. And it's only until the next update.

Another thing to add is that you clearly don't care about if other people's gameplay is ruined or not Octo, which is the whole point of this regulation -- a means to cut down lag for other players on the server. But for some reason you repeatedly tell players that your gameplay is already ruined by a regulation that hasn't even passed yet, that will rarely be in effect ALL WHILE expecting players to care about your experience when you don't give a fuck about theirs. Backwards as fuck man.
You know a thread is really bad when PengBunny posts on it.


My daddy is Air

air when the fuck did you do this ^^^

Offline gerrit70

  • Member of Parliament
  • Cheese
  • *
  • Posts: 482
  • Llamas: 9
  • U all succ
    • View profile
Re: PARLIAMENT VOTE #21 - Regulation of Industrial Farms
« Reply #43 on: 27 April 2020, 04:37:43 PM »
...

Luis's test is not a live under-load VC test, so can't be used as a control, but it is an interesting reference evidence. It needs to be considered against anecdotal evidence on the live server in my opinion.

This is indeed not the ultimate solution to the problem, which is why it is written to be a temporary measure. If passed, it will serve as a test to see if it does indeed help make a noticeable dent.

I would agree with this if there was any way to actually use live VC as a test, but that would be incredibly difficult. I'll list the problems I see with using the actual server for data collection.

1. Player amounts go up and down, as well as the amount of strain they're putting on the server.
2. If farms are indeed a cause of the lag, then there could be multiple players on with farms or no players on with farms, skewing the data.
3. How would we even compare the two data sets before and after rule? You cant take a random sample and you cant take and average to compare because of the issues above.

I'm definitely not a stats genius so if those can be solved thats good. In addition the problem with relying on anecdotal evidence is exactly that, its anecdotal. I think placebo would be a very big issue if we're relying on player reports. Survey is also the weakest method of data collection, and thats if its formalized, which it hasn't been.

 I think it would be fantastic if we could use live VC to collect data if we can find a way to mitigate the above problems.

Well, I mean, what better way to test this temporary restriction than to actually have it in effect on the live server? In this case, anecdote is helpful, but I do indeed understand the placebo problem in this case.

My vote is currently an abstain, but I'm leaning towards a yes because I'd like to see if this does get positive results for players. If it doesn't, it's temporary so whatever.


Yeah thats fair, I just dont want for us to rely too much on shaky evidence.
Guh

I'm a huge faggot and I love sucking airs cock.

It is abysmal that any one person would take try to limit the happiness that Gerrit70 has brought to this dull place.

Free Gerrit70 from his chains!

holy fuck gerrit you're autistic.

Offline CyphurTheFox

  • Member of Parliament
  • Villager
  • *
  • Posts: 67
  • Llamas: 2
    • View profile
Re: PARLIAMENT VOTE #21 - Regulation of Industrial Farms
« Reply #44 on: 28 April 2020, 02:01:27 AM »
So I did some data gathering on another type of farm: large pumpkin farms. With the large amount of redstone being activated, the immense numbers of pistons to be processed, and the item entities from the pumpkins, these can have the potential to cause lag if one is not careful.


The farm I selected to be tested is the Mountain Dwelling pumpkin farm. In order to measure the impact of a farm without having Large amounts of terrain/10+ players to simulate activity, I selected a different metric for my tests: MSPT.

MSPT, or Milliseconds Per Tick, is a measure of how long the server took to process a given tick. if it exceeds 50 mspt, the server will miss the time window for the tick to execute, and the tps will decrease.

In order to accurately measure the farm without spending large amounts of time testing, I elected to install a toolkit known as the carpet mod. This mod adds numerous functionality specialized toward in-depth farm development, one of which is the "tick warp" function. The Tick warp removes the 20 tick maximum restriction and permits the game to run as fast as possible to simulate much more gameplay with significantly less time.

To Isolate specifically the farm, The farm was WE'd into a void world, meaning that there was quite literally nothing else around the farm to incur mspt penalties. Everything not pertaining to the farm itself was also removed, and items collected were directed into lava. As such, this test does not measure the following: The impact of hoppers from the item storage, The impact of surrounding terrain, the impact of the other farms near mountain dwelling. The test focused on the largest farm in the complex.

The Tests were performed using my i5-8400 CPU, with 4 GB of allocated RAM. GPU does not affect internal server performance.

The Tests, and results, are as follows:

Test 0: Void
For this test, I moved to a location without the farm, with quite literally nothing for at least 1k blocks in any direction. This test establishes a baseline mspt for the void world.

Test Duration: Simulated 72000 ticks (1hr)
Results: Server ran with average mspt of .2, speeding through the test at a blazing fast 5122 tps.


Test 1: Farm on rapid clock speed
For this test, I configured the farm with an Ethonian Hopper clock, with a period of 51.15 seconds (1 stack of items). I did run this and subsequent tests for a lesser amount of time such that I was not waiting for the data all day.

Clock: Ethonian Hopper Clock (Period = 51.15 seconds)
Test Duration: Simulated 12000 ticks (20 mins)

Result: Server ran with average mspt of 12.01, considering baseline mspt, we can deduce that the farm on a high clock speed "costs" approximately 12.01 mspt on average.

Test 2: Farm on slower clock speed
For this test, I configured the clock to run with a period of 4min16s, the max an ethonian hopper clock can run for.
Clock: Ethonian Hopper Clock (Period = 256seconds (4m16s))
Test Duration: Simulated 12000 ticks (20 mins)

Result: Server ran with average mspt of 6.22, with baseline mspt, we can deduce that the farm on a high clockspeed "costs" approximately 6.02 mspt on average.

Test 4: Farm off
For this test I disconnected the clock completely and investigated how the server handled the farm on idle
Clock: None
Test Duration: Simulated 12000 ticks (20 mins)

Result: Server ran with average mspt of 2.44 mspt "cost": 2.24 mspt


From these results, it is evident that the clock frequency has a large effect on the mspt "cost" of the farm, incurring heavy penalties over when the farm simply idles, and heavier when the clock cycles more frequently. This is indicative of the fact that the largest mspt cost occur when the farm actually fires. Hence, I performed Test 4.

Test 4: When Firing
For This test, I started the warp after pressing a button to fire the farm once. The duration was calibrated as best as I could to only include the segment of time in which the pistons were extending on the farm.

Clock: Manual Activation
Test Duration: 400 ticks (20 seconds)

Result: Server ran with an average of 24.84 mspt, indicating that the firing sequence of the farm costs 24.64 mspt, for its short duration.


between tests 3 and 4, I think its evident that while a pumpkin farm does not cause increases in mspt most of the time, while the farm fires there is a sharp, sustained, increase in mspt, which if the server mspt is already abnormally high, can cause great lag for players on server. If the server is already running borderline, at 50 mspt, an increase of 20mspt can already decrease tps below 15. this decreased tps would also increase the amount of time until the farm completes its firing cycle, as they are usually redstone activated, which is tied to the tps.


Error Sources: This data is not nearly of the same quality of the data provided by luis in former posts. I don't have the ability to easily pull instantaneous mspt data into a spreadsheet/graph. Furthermore, the server has differing hardware than I do, hence this data is not indicative of actual server impact.

Conclusion: As I have neither any way of simulating the actual VC server, both in back end, and specific hardware, the absolute numbers in this data should not be compared to the actual server. Instead, This data demonstrates the relative impact that a pumpkin farm like mountain dwelling can have on mspt. The relative differences between the mspt data demonstrates that farms like Mountain Dwelling have large impacts on server performance specifically when they are firing and harvesting the pumpkins, and significantly reduced impact when idle.


« Last Edit: 19 December 2020, 04:29:02 PM by CyphurTheFox »
Lol next time don't go places you shouldn't be.
BULLSHIEET, KEEP BEING ADVENTUROUS PAL. I COMMEND THIS MAN

Offline Shensley

  • Staff Member | Forum Mod
  • Cheese
  • *****
  • Posts: 366
  • Llamas: 2
  • U Can't Touch This
    • View profile
Re: PARLIAMENT VOTE #21 - Regulation of Industrial Farms
« Reply #45 on: 28 April 2020, 02:16:41 AM »
The amount of work and research going into this rule lol

Quote from: PengBunny
link=topic=212.msg32741#msg32741 date=1421280717
they dont let fags become admin

Offline papamoses

  • Member of Parliament
  • New Villager
  • *
  • Posts: 10
  • Llamas: 1
    • View profile
Re: PARLIAMENT VOTE #21 - Regulation of Industrial Farms
« Reply #46 on: 28 April 2020, 02:21:54 AM »
mmmmfarm bad hrrrggghhh

Offline TheLegend12369

  • Member of Parliament
  • Cheese
  • *
  • Posts: 305
  • Llamas: 7
  • I'm not very creative, it is what it is.
    • View profile
Re: PARLIAMENT VOTE #21 - Regulation of Industrial Farms
« Reply #47 on: 28 April 2020, 02:46:41 AM »
The amount of work and research going into this rule lol
I would prefer work and research to go into a rule like this, considering how much it could affect people's ability to farm. Everyone against the rule was complaining about not seeing data supporting the fact that farms can cause lag, so people collected data. I would consider this a good thing, it would be better than passing it with no tests.

Offline luisc99

  • Staff Member | Administrator
  • Cheese
  • *****
  • Posts: 1438
  • Llamas: 60
    • View profile
Re: PARLIAMENT VOTE #21 - Regulation of Industrial Farms
« Reply #48 on: 28 April 2020, 07:52:53 AM »
For what it's worth, in the past 7 days, there's been 714 minutes where 10 or more people have been online (7.7% - 1h42m per day avg). If you look at the past 28 days, that gives 2919 minutes (12.1% - 1h14m per day avg) of the time with 10 or more players online.

With regards to the portal-based farms, there's been 3049 minutes (32.9% - 7h16m per day avg) in the past 7 days with 6 or more people online. Similarly for the past 28 days that's 10,119 minutes (42.0% - 5h34m per day avg) with 6 or more.



I have seen tps hit 23, not 30 though
In the past 28 days, TPS has been >= 23 only 2.3% (597 minutes) of the time, and >= 30 for 0.3% (65 minutes) of the time. They're instantaneous TPS values taken one minute apart though, so take it with caution.

Offline Akomine

  • Staff Member | Administrator
  • Cheese
  • *****
  • Posts: 3039
  • Llamas: 666
  • Meep Meep
    • View profile
Re: PARLIAMENT VOTE #21 - Regulation of Industrial Farms
« Reply #49 on: 28 April 2020, 02:52:49 PM »
For what it's worth, in the past 7 days, there's been 714 minutes where 10 or more people have been online (7.7% - 1h42m per day avg). If you look at the past 28 days, that gives 2919 minutes (12.1% - 1h14m per day avg) of the time with 10 or more players online.

With regards to the portal-based farms, there's been 3049 minutes (32.9% - 7h16m per day avg) in the past 7 days with 6 or more people online. Similarly for the past 28 days that's 10,119 minutes (42.0% - 5h34m per day avg) with 6 or more.



I have seen tps hit 23, not 30 though
In the past 28 days, TPS has been >= 23 only 2.3% (597 minutes) of the time, and >= 30 for 0.3% (65 minutes) of the time. They're instantaneous TPS values taken one minute apart though, so take it with caution.

Now THIS is a good few statistics, thanks so much luis. Anyone who thinks this ruins their gameplay should consider this.

Ako is gay and has superaids - Air

Offline luisc99

  • Staff Member | Administrator
  • Cheese
  • *****
  • Posts: 1438
  • Llamas: 60
    • View profile
Re: PARLIAMENT VOTE #21 - Regulation of Industrial Farms
« Reply #50 on: 2 May 2020, 09:14:03 AM »
This vote has passed.

Considering a start time wasn't defined in the vote, and to give everyone time to get sorted for it, I propose this rule will come into effect at 00:01 EST on Monday (2020-05-04), or in other words, the start of next week. This can be changed if anyone objects
« Last Edit: 2 May 2020, 03:20:54 PM by luisc99 »

Offline TheLegend12369

  • Member of Parliament
  • Cheese
  • *
  • Posts: 305
  • Llamas: 7
  • I'm not very creative, it is what it is.
    • View profile
Re: PARLIAMENT VOTE #21 - Regulation of Industrial Farms
« Reply #51 on: 2 May 2020, 11:17:50 AM »
Sounds good to me!

Offline Naomi

  • Staff Member | Forum Mod
  • Cheese
  • *****
  • Posts: 388
  • Llamas: 28
  • Lighthouse Obsessed
    • View profile
Re: PARLIAMENT VOTE #21 - Regulation of Industrial Farms
« Reply #52 on: 19 October 2020, 03:23:35 PM »
I decided to check and see when this would end on the server now that we have moved into 1.16. If I counted correctly then after Friday, October 23, 2020. This Parliament vote will be VOID.

Personally I haven't had any major lag issues since 1.16 (when I have it's been completely on my internet side)
so I hope this means we won't have to worry about reestablishing something similar to this rule in effect
There are a lot of attitudes going on around here, Don't let me get one.

reasons to vote naomi: second sexiest person on the ballot, slight southern drawl, has won woman of the year every year since 1899 (the mainstream media doesn't want you to know)

vote for naomi idiots

like if you need to me to write out a fully fledged post to persuade you i will, but i just prefer we avoid all that effort and you vote for naomi

Naomi is hot. Hot cm is nice. 8) 8)

Offline luisc99

  • Staff Member | Administrator
  • Cheese
  • *****
  • Posts: 1438
  • Llamas: 60
    • View profile
Re: PARLIAMENT VOTE #21 - Regulation of Industrial Farms
« Reply #53 on: 24 October 2020, 12:14:51 PM »
15 days have passed since VillageCraft updated to the next major version of Minecraft, so in accordance with this vote, this rule has now expired and limits on farms will no longer be enforced