A command like /backup that any op can use, have the command duplicate the server_level.dat (which i currently do in my own server) so that if grievers do destroy peoples stuff, there is a recent backup. this may seem pointless but having op's that aren't hosting the server able to backup every once in a while will keep the server from being destroyed.
Also, commands like /teleport need to be shortened.
the ability of teleporting a player to you could also come in handy (not just for grievers)
Don't argue what's right and what's not. Let server owner SELECT the solution! Most of them you said here are not hard to implement.
That's my little idea, similiar to tier system: every joined user comes to group "visitors", so they can walk where they want, but can build or destroy blocks only in limited terrain size. If he builds something good here, he can be switched to "members" group.
What's better here than in other ideas: this is easy to implement - this doesn't involve block membership, only thing needed is a semi-transparent border - area of building. It's also easy to find a good area - smallest amount of user-made blocks and good ratio of air and blocks. Everything can dedetermined by server creator.
An idea I had while some douchbag was destroying my castle was to allow groups to be formed, and have only them be able to destroy each others blocks, so until the last one logs out their stuff is safe. To combat griefers building prisons around people a limited phasing ability could be added.
I spent two days working on a great project in minecraft, then griefers came in and screwed it beyond recognition.
It just... infuriated me. I found myself questioning the good of humanity over something this small. So, regardless of the means, I cannot stress enough how much I want griefers gone.
It can't be deleting accounts, they'll just make more.
It cant be reasoning... duh.
Traps don't seem efficient enough.
IP bans work, but there are SO MANY griefers, and there isn't always an admin on.
My suggestion something of a friends system:
-If you build a block, only you, or anyone in the server you allow, can mess with it. That includes deleting, it, building on it, w/e.
-If it turns out your "friend" is a griefer, you can remove them from the list of people you've allowed to mess w/ your stuff.
-Anyone can manipulate starting tiles of a map.
Just had an amazing Idea! why doesn't minecraft just inform you when some one is deleting your stuff. You can then talk the the person and if his just doing it for the fun of it, for kick 'em or vote ban. Oh and I'm new, hewoz
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, an opinion cant be awful. Its an opinion. Its your opinion that his opinion is awful." -NoBanForFantoz
In sandbox, the best way I can think of to defend from griefers is giving admins better surveillance powers like noclip, spectate, and wallhacks (see people and their names through walls)
This is one of the best suggestions in this thread yet.
P.S.: Instead of using /teleport you can now use /tp
It would be nice that instead of having to type in the entire name you should be able to type in a specific part of the name and it would work too (if there's nobody with the same part in his name on the server) This would work like: /tp Snow
If someone joins with a name like .._1l.i___.16l it takes some time to write out the name and if you miss one letter he remains on server so if you could add something where you type "/ban ." and a list of users with . as there 1st letter of there name appears then click on it and it pastes the name like so "/ban .._1l.i___.16l"
It would help ban people with long names oh and that name is griefer as well caught him on my server
You could have asigned areas for each user, only allowing other users to build with clearance from the person in charge of that area, and disallowing people who aren't that person from making any sort of modifications inside that area.
I have an idea that might fix this problem for SMP: Player Marker Stones.
I think what would be most useful are some "player marker stones" that mark off a 3d "chunk" of the map as belonging to a given player. This would be stored as metadata that the engine would simply bounds-check to allow/disallow certain activities. Area marked off by a player in this way would be set as build/destroy only for that player - kind of like a discrete Adventure - Mode zone. You just put down a stone, and everything within a certain radius of that stone is a "zone" that belongs to you.
There are several reasons why I think this would be a good idea:
* World data would be many times larger in memory if we had user ids/permissions on every block. This avoids that by creating bounding cubes that are sparsely associated with world data. While this is more work for the game engine, I think it would cause minimal load and would be well worth the benefit.
* Admins can easily impose limits on the bounding volume based on data like hours logged in, player rank etc. Moderators could also easily revoke protected areas by reducing the allowed radius for a player's zone.
* Does not have to be limited to one such marker per player, and said markers could be craftable. At the same time, the number of stones could be limited by moderation and server-side metrics as in the previous point.
* Requires minimal player interaction for maximum effect. It would be tedious to go and tag a zillion blocks as belonging to you. Instead you plonk down a stone in the middle of your keep, and if the radius is large enough, the whole thing is now your impregnable fortress.
* Does not have to be limited to build/create. Could also govern interaction with objects like chests, furances, doors, buttons, carts, etc.
* Overlapping player zones can be created by putting markers near one another. Since players can't mine each other's markers, it would require 'trade' to accomplish which is a trusted activity: Player A drops his marker block and drops it for player B to place inside B's already established zone.
* Encourages teamwork for new players, by having them band together to control a sufficiently usable space early on in the game.
The only gotcha here is that players would have to be disallowed the ability to place such markers in a way that would cause their radiuses to overlap. But I think that's merely a build-time concern.