So to sum up the picture painted at the top of this thread, CEONSS seems to be facing a "big fault" where people "just stay sniping from rooftops" and "always spam Redeemers" that makes capturing a node "very hard [to] cope with" and results in the node and player getting their "head [blown] up every five minutes", vehicles getting monopolized or used to also "always spam" with, people getting chatkilled against the rules, "infuriating" campers "ruin[ing] your day", and it's all serving as "tons of examples of this lack of fair play" that necessitates forced registration to play in order to address this "failure" of the system. Not to debunk your personal ingame experiences or pretend like we haven't talked about most of the issues these accounts touch upon before, but, ummm, don't you think you're laying it on a bit too thick with that wording there, Degrek? In fact, this may be a good opportunity to take a brief step back from the sensationalist light that statements like "I don't want to leave [...], but..." and " This is my solution, people, take it or leave it" cast this convo in, go through each of these grievances and examine whether CEONSS' setup is capable of adequately dealing with 'em or not.
To start from one of the narrower problems identified as indicative of a generally unfair playstyle, redeemers are mentioned as a problem because people can "always spam" them and using one to take out a node and any nearby enemies is "very hard and frustrating". Tbh, I dunno what exactly is supposed to need fixing here. Just like any other stock superweapon in the game, redeemers are on a considerably long countdown timer (120secs for nukes) and all players are aware of that, meaning that choosing to hang around a deemer pickupbase for up to 2mins just to make sure one gets to grab it will invariably carry the serious cost of removing oneself from the action for that amount of time and leaving their team with one less active player, all for the
chance of using it against some enemy controlled location or equipment that can be reattained at
a much shorter timeframe. I mean, this might well be one of the few ONS subjects that ppl can easily reach unanimous consensus on: deemer balance is a solved issue. Even if a map offers a deemer near each team's core and some people always opt to waste time to get 'em first, I'd say that falls in the overall "consistent, selfish hoarding of team equipment" category of unsportsmanlike play, which will get covered further below.
Now deemer prevalence in certain maps could be a problem worth discussing, but such a concern is always on a per-map basis and, with sufficient content curation and roster oversight, this is entirely preventable. As far as CEONSS is concerned, I can't think of any hosted map where redeemers are so numerous as to be able to effectively hamper gameflow, even with the StarReach and GunShop versions we have offering 'em in the highest counts among all other entries (4 and 5 respectively). When you got 32 ppl playing and a maximum of 4-5, slowly moving, fat rockets available at any time, there's only so much those can do to set things back in any area for longer than, say, 10secs. Even going by the complaint's own wording, getting your noggin blown up "every 5 minutes" hardly qualifies as a tragedy in a game like UT, so it's best to avoid exaggerated portrayals where we can and look for actual problems instead.
Moving on to snipers positioning themselves on rooftops, umm, that's also kinda par for the course; they do kinda get a better vantage point from there, after all. Lots of maps incorporate sniper fights into their geometry designs, and MasterBath is indeed a good example of that. Still, just like persistent campers of any other creed, unless opting to stay at one place for too long in the hopes of getting some kinda edge out of it is part of some calculated strategy, they're liable to be wasting their own, and their team's, time, and that will only work against 'em. Going by personal experience, for most people, adopting the sniper role only comes into play when they're around locations that favour such a playstyle (i.e., too distant from an objective where it makes more sense to act as support for others than as a main attack force), and then only temporarily while they're moving from one important location to another. Still, even persistent/habitual snipers in maps like MB aren't a hard problem to solve, as every locker offers one kinda sniper rifle or another, so as long as they can see and take potshots at you, you should be able to do the same and return the favour. Rooftop snipers is not an innately unbalanced gameplay situation in need of fixing, is what I'm driving at, not unless the mapper's been neglectful and has only provided CSR/LG pickups near such locations, but that's also something we tend to screen for during content eval. Lastly, if someone is constantly and exclusively opting for the turret/sniper careerist path to the detriment of their team, that too may be part of the unsportsmanlike/problematic behaviour, so see below for more on that.
In terms of vehicle usage now, while it's true that some are built to deliver inordinate amounts of mayhem through increased damage, RoF, range or radius (ions, minos, hurricanes, PPCs, etc.), their role also tends to be taken into account when evaluating maps, so their presence in the end should be a bit of a hint as to their balanced state. The ion tank's role, presumably in MB, (there's no Ion in Tyrant, nor does it play a significant enough role in Omaha) may indeed be to cause as much visible spam and area coverage per shot as it can, but that doesn't mean that its inclusion in the map immediately indicates gameplay deterioration, to say nothing about unfair play. As it spawns at the top of the central node, one can easily tell that it's supposed to be the map's centerpiece and the substantial edge a team can count on, should they manage to get up and hold up that completely uncovered node for longer than it takes to do the teleporter run and while enemies can be expected to be trying to take it down, shooting from all directions high n' low; basically, it's a hard get with some serious payoff. Even so, as Karma already pointed out, there's still many ways and many tools one can utilize to take it down - which should become an immediate priority - and ones that the ion will have a hard time countering (say, by grabbing a U.dmg and training a rocket triplet on it, followed by a standard avril while in mid-air between central jumppads, by teleporting behind it via the enemy shower and whittling it down from there, through stealing the enemy nuke and lovingly guiding it on it, etc., etc.). Long story short, if the match has reached the point where ion spam has become the main concern, that might be a pretty good indication that it won't last much longer.
With regard to Tanks-A-Lot now, corridor spam of all kinds, artillery included, is pretty much the main course on its menu, but while spammy maps with little redeeming value don't tend to last long on CEONSS, as you might've noticed, Tanks provides enough alternative paths one can take around said spam (again, Karma offered some apt examples), as well as enough spaces where non-vehicular/spammy [counter-]playstyles can be viable and impactful on matches' outcomes that it makes the cut. Moreover, each team's ion becomes a focal point of tactics, meaning unless the team coordinates properly, keeps it healed and well-informed, it'll likely die to a rear ambush by the proximal primary or while attempting to cross the lower central intersection by tanks hiding in the shadows. Hell, I've also seen knowledgeable Aegis heroes managing to "tame" enemy ions all by themselves, just by virtue of proper timing and a good grasp of anti-ion movement tactics. My point is, while Tanks' gameplay does include corridor spam - and it's a quality I've frequently bemoaned as a player myself when I'll be in the mood for something else - there's enough variety and room for strategic gameplay in there to make it worth having. For my money, examining unsportsmanlike behaviour with vehicles in this map more often revolves around Aegis players spawnkilling the enemy ion nodes than anything else, and when that pattern proves consistent and beyond the pale of any tactical interpretation, that too can be considered problematic behaviour, which will be summed up below.
The last specific example of unfair play mentioned up top involves killing people while they're typing a text message. Right off the bat, lemme just point out that, contrary to what's alleged there, we do not have a set rule specifically against chatkilling, and the reason for that is pretty simple: depending on where a player decides to stand around and start typing, it may be very hard for them to not be killed by accident, just by idling in the middle of the battlefield. As a rule of thumb, the most sensible choice is to type after you get fragged, or at least seek some kinda shelter away from all the action when you gotta respond to something, but when that doesn't happen, to demand any (or all) chatkilling be treated as a sportsmanship offense would only force the ingame admins to enter into balancing between players' intentions against sensibility of the victim's chatting location and even the probability of that becoming a hotspot; needless to say this can become a mess, especially between people already bearing a grudge against one another and seeking to get their rival into trouble. And just in case anyone was interpreting the existence of the chat bubble's function as being a clear n' fair warning against shooting that person, the counter-argument I could easily see being made would be that it's there to inform teammates that an idle player isn't experiencing connection problems or decided to go AFK at the expense of the other players. Put short, while not shooting a non-speccing chatter can be considered a sportsmanlike courtesy (and would be recommended if possible), drawing any definitive conclusions as to a chatkiller's intentions in the contrary scenario isn't as clear cut a matter. Compared to the rest of the ways a player can more distinctly behave immorally, then, chatkilling might at best be included in that profile when examining their behaviour more thoroughly after a report against 'em gets submitted. Aside from that though, I'd be hard-pressed to consider this a telling indicator of any supposed CEONSS moral decline.
With all the nits picked, lemme now move on to the final, main point at the core of this issue, and it's something that many of you will likely have heard me say before. Investing in a server, whether that be emotionally, time-wise, resource-wise, or even financially, isn't placing your trust or directing your efforts towards getting the best hardware, finding the best host, putting together the best possible roster, or even having better stats in numbers than neighbouring "competitors" so much as it is about investing in other people. I know from personal experience how hard that is to do, especially over a faceless medium like the internet, but in the end, the net that holds everything else together and makes it worth a damn really is the people that you do manage to form a worthwhile connection with, working together, playing together, having fun together or through any other way. If people who enter the server aren't readily inspired to give the best of themselves because they simply don't want to be dicks to people they know, play daily with and care not to be a dick to, that's probably a server that either does not have a community or whose community is well past the tipping point and on its way to unraveling.
That's one of the main reasons why CEONSS has always chosen to regard UT as more of a sport and itself like a neighborhood field where the same people can meet and play day in and day out than just a game where aliasing players can log in, aim to pad their scores n' stats as much as possible each time and be on to the next fun activity without a second thought as soon as that's over. It's also why we bank on sportsmanship as a way to foster an atmosphere of genial camaraderie n' cooperation, even beyond the game's confines and subject matter, and why members from the community itself accepted to volunteer their free time and act as the ingame admins so as exactly to preserve that mentality and ensure that later newcomers will be able to enjoy ONS the same way that inspired them to get involved with the community in the first place. I'd say that for most people who've been through this place that arrangement has worked, and continues to work, just fine. Others sometimes saw to put their own enjoyment, even at the expense of others', above all else, and it's with such people in mind that we've had to lay some ground rules for behaviour and accepted, sportsmanlike play from the outset, and proceed to enforce 'em as consistently and transparently as we can. Some of those troublemakers reformed themselves, others left on their own accord, others still were eventually forced to leave - and don't think that was ever
not the case. Over time more people got added to the enforcement team that once consisted solely of Heinz, and as the rules and methods have also evolved accordingly, we're at a point where most of the playable hours of the day people can find an IA whenever they're trying to deal with a disruptive player and turn to them for assistance. Even when that's not the case, however, we continuously aim to impress upon players that, after attempting to resolve a dispute
respectfully, if an IA is not around, they can always collect any evidence of an offender's infringing behaviour they can and submit it here for examination, validation and any necessary, subsequent administrative action. This has happened many times before to the point of Rules and Anti-Cheat Enforcement becoming a routine, with its own acronym (RACE

) and its own user group, jurisdiction and subforum. In fact,
most of the transgressions and offenses described here already have their equivalent stipulation added to the rules long ago, as well as a number of examples of people who've had IA/admin action taken against 'em.
My point here is, while keeping things civil and upstanding will remain primarily a conscious choice of the players themselves - just like with the issue of team balancing - what I can absolutely assure you of is that CEONSS is NOT unprepared, NOT oblivious of such concerns and definitely NOT unfortified. There's no doubt that problems of this sort will keep popping up from time to time because that's a direct consequence of people exercising their free will, but the extent and frequency of such incidents will be dependent mostly on the community being able to self-police and self-correct through mentality and conviction long before the IAs even need to train their eye on a troublemaker; I'm very confident of that statement because I think I already got a pretty good sense of the kinda people that play here and how mature and kind they can be

. For some - maybe Degrek too - both these methods might not be fast enough or effective enough, and I have no problem respecting that. Not everyone's (dis)order sensibilities or perception are calibrated to the same frequency, and what might be perceived as a slight hiccup to some people, someone else might consider a crisis in progress with the same amount of evidence. Still, no matter how your tolerances are calibrated, what I'd say remains common for all is the conscious choice of what you do when you conclude there's a problem. Some people quickly choose to see and proclaim a troubled server a failed experiment, one they should abandon. Me, I can't help point out that projects like CEONSS can only ever give back in aggregate to the community what each player individually puts in first themselves; when there's a problem, by anyone's own accounting of its scale, what I feel should be the moral measure of the responding action is being able to honestly say that they're giving up on the server
after it first gave up on them. If they indeed tried to right the demonstrated wrongs, repeatedly, and nothing became of it, I'd definitely acknowledge they were right to go. That's why, regardless of whether one talks about leaving early or late or simply just sits around in (constant) protest, I'd still hold the mirror up to them and ask 'em to take a good look of what, and how much, they did to help on their own before opting for their current action. Being comfortable with what they see in it, IMO, will be a telling reflection of anyone's true principles in such situations.
I know I can't prevent Degrek, or anybody else, from considering the instances of unfair play they come across as a justified reason for lambasting the server or even considering leaving, but what I
can do, and will continue to be doing, is try my best to keep CEONSS a friendly, dedicated and mature place for anyone looking to have some ONS ggs on in every way I can, and I know the same to be true for a lot of other people here, both on the staff team as well as regulars.
PS: Gating the server behind a mandatory registration & participation scheme would not only bloat the msg. board, but it'd also be self-defeating because this is a little known corner of an old n' dwindling game that nobody would care to go through hoops before being let in to and allowed to try for themselves. More importantly, however, given the path that most contributors here took before ending up offering their services to the community in all the helpful ways they chose to, it'd be empirically downright absurd. CEONSS has willingly and consciously always maintained an "open arms" policy to everyone who'd care to enjoy ONS, and maybe want to reach even further than that after awhile and give back in any manner they can. The "sports field" is open to people of all skillsets, aspirations and motivations, and those who after awhile care to look further into things can walk the short path to here, look around, see exactly how
and why we do things the way we do, and decide if they want to get invested in that. That is how people set themselves apart as individual members and, in time, even become parts of the staff team itself; meritocratically, organically, and of their own accord. This is the most sensible way to run things and that's why most servers have stuck by it. Trading expansion potential for a presumptive uptick in accountability is
not good math.