0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.
You are missing one really important part of your argument. If a players clears a forest and has an active build on it, how are players supposed to know that someone else cleared out the land? Especially if the land is big enough, there would be no way to know. Our current rules were made because we feel it is the best and easiest way to do land. If you didnt build the blocks, you dont own them. Simple as that. The only conflicting cases being having a protection stone or project protection. We don't want our server to turn into a free for all on who can claim the most land. If you dont have enough money to protect a huge project you are starting, dont start that project.
gavin an other idea is use the command that allows you to see who owns and send them a msg on the forms or in the game saying here is a warning like dont place there or did you have permision to place that in the land or just a sign that tells them to not be dick and place crap there? just a suggestion -catt
I told you that if he didnt remove it the next time he came on then I would. I said it would never be removed only if you kept acting immature.
You are missing one really important part of your argument. If a players clears a forest and has an active build on it, how are players supposed to know that someone else cleared out the land? Especially if the land is big enough, there would be no way to know. Our current rules were made because we feel it is the best and easiest way to do land.
Quote from: awesomealicia on April 20, 2013, 01:56:47 amI told you that if he didnt remove it the next time he came on then I would. I said it would never be removed only if you kept acting immature. Thats not what you said. You were saying that I didnt own the land and that he had a right to place the chest there. Sure in this situation it would be removed but the rules still say nothing about placing chests in cleared land. Anyone is still allowed to place a chest like that. Also the two week long waiting period for the chest to be moved if he was inactive is still quite the hinderance to any builds I would have planned.
I definitely agree with gavin. I'm building a large Roman city and temple and I've cleared out a swamp biome, a jungle biome, and part of a desert biome. I really wish that this land was safer than it is, especially because of some glitch where you can glitch out of the little spawn area I made at my /home.Quote from: Nick3306 on April 20, 2013, 01:07:03 amYou are missing one really important part of your argument. If a players clears a forest and has an active build on it, how are players supposed to know that someone else cleared out the land? Especially if the land is big enough, there would be no way to know. Our current rules were made because we feel it is the best and easiest way to do land. Well, maybe there should be a rule that if there are visible signs in the area claiming the land, and it looks leveled and cleared, then building there is grief?
Inactive players, we can remove stuff.
Quote from: DJAlphaWolf on April 20, 2013, 05:16:21 pmInactive players, we can remove stuff.I disagree here. Everyone has their own view on what 'inactive' is. Plus, the owner of something could have sold the house before becoming 'inactive'. Or better yet, they could be co-owning the house with another player.It's too risky to be removing anything, no matter how long someone has been offline for.