How about we change how owning land works?

[gavin1928374655]

So recently I had trouble with getting a chest moved from my village. The op/mod that helped me out were cool about it, but said they couldnt move the chest of a semi-active player because you cant own land. Now I think this rule is a bit "outdated" or even not thought out very well. Ill start of by giving what I have wrong with this:

Clearing Land: So say player A spends a week clearing a huge forest and then leveling the ground and torching it, do they own this land? According to server rules...no. If player A decides to be gone for a week (vacation, school, work you name it) is their land safe? (Assuming its not protected by pstones). According to server rules it is not grief to build on cleared/torched out land. Now this doesnt make a lot of sense to me, I can understand the rule so that people can't just torch out the entire map or fence off a huge area. But clearing a semi large forest (which is not the easiest of tasks) and then having an active build in it seems like it would be owned by the builder. If one was to fence off a huge chunk of land and then proceeds to leave it untouched, uncleared and untorched that isnt their land. But taking the time to work on it and clear it (clearly marking the boundaries) seems like it should be personally owned and not allowed to be built on.

Protecting Land: Now if player A clears a chunk of land and has part of a build going on it should they have to pay out the ass for a crazy amount of protection stones? Simply put...no. To get to the point of being able to get project protection takes a long time,  in that time period is any clear area in the land up for grabs? According to the current rules, yes. Any person can apparently walk into a cleared area and start their house. Also someone who places a chest in that area has to be inactive to get it moved, even if they are being stubborn about moving it.

Chests/locked items: So say player B goes into Player A's land and places a chest in the way of a building. Mods/Ops can not move that chest with the current rules. Unless the player is inactive for several weeks then the player B has to move the chest off of player a's cleared land. As of now this is not considered grief, which it pretty clearly seems to be.

To sum up, i think this rule is not like an algorithm which every case can fit into, but that owning of land should be based on a personal scale. What i mean by this is; someone who takes 5 mins to border a forest in cobble doesnt own that land. But someone who has an active build on the land should have the right to say they own it, an that building on it is counted as grief. This is just my "2 cents" on the land thing. Comment below what you hate/love about the idea

[Nick3306]

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.

[gavin1928374655]

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.

This I'll agree with you with, but if nothing else, the way chests are handled should be changed imo. If a player is active and refuses to move their chest off your property then, atm, it will stay there forever. From what I've gleaned from my experiences with this, is that chests can only be moved by the owners, so long as they are active. This makes sense to me but yet it also seems like it still is kinda like grief. Placing a random chest in a build and then refusing to remove it (being an ubreakable block)is border-line "super" grief. Anyone now could be a dick and go place a chest in my cleared land. I wouldnt be able to do a thing about it with the current ruling on this. I think at the bare minimum mods and ops should be able to remove chests from an area and place them at the owners /home.

[cattfish0612]

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

[gavin1928374655]

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

Evenif people are warned of the land being owned and built on, people can still choose to place a chest or something in it. No matter what, the base of this argument is that people can place chests in land and have it not moved. Maybe if people knew the land was being built on they wouldnt build/chest it, but there is always one ass who will. And that person still will not have the chest moved.

[cattfish0612]

Ok sorry i misunderstood the problem. An another problem could be when the chest is destroyed (moved in this case) how would you move it cause once a mod or op place it it becomes private and if you remove the lock their stuff can be stolen.

[TarynMai]

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.

[gavin1928374655]

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.

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.

[2468avc]

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.

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.

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?

[TarynMai]

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.

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.

It was two blocks you couldn't touch. I think you'd live.

[Nick3306]

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.

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.

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?

Then we would basically have a race to claim all the land on the server.

Seriously guys, the current system was well thought out and we had our reasons for choosing it. We didn't take decisions like this lightly.

[DJAlphaWolf]

The only reason people complain about this is because they either lack the ability to communicate with people  so they go cry to mods to deal with it or they're just impatient as hell.

If the person you're trying to communicate to refuses to talk to you on the matter, wait patiently for a mod to deal with it. Inactive players, we can remove stuff. If they are still active, expect us to attempt to COMMUNICATE with the players first. And that could take some time.

Find something else to do in the meantime. I'm sure there are thousands of other things that you could possibly work on.

Just my personal opinion...

[DeeKay]

Inactive 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.

[gavin1928374655]

Inactive 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.

Which seems like a pretty clear issue

[andersad]

        Thats a very debateable topic, boh sides have a good arguement to them. Lets start with the current rules. I know that these may seem unfair to you, as they also do to me, but as you said, people could easily take advantage of this if we changed it and people waould be just clearing tons of land. On the other hand, people could invade on your hard work. As for your suggestion, I know you are sort of implying that we should get free protection for our land, But that's not how it works. To me you implied that in the sentence:" Now if player A clears a chunk of land and has part of a build going on it should they have to pay out the ass for a crazy amount of protection stones? Simply put...no." It would be unfair to hard workers that have already stopped whining about this and just bought their own protection stones just because other people were too lazy to work hard to get money to buy them. Lets say you get what you want: No more protection stones, just auto protect. Can you iagine how much our economy would fall? I'd have to say that protection stones are proably our (almost) most bought item in the market. If people suddenly got free protection pople would own mass amounts of land, yet have nothing to do with it. And also, lets say i'm a new player, just looking for a spot to make a house. But everywhere's taken, I become confused and angry and quit the server. See my point? I propose we make do with what we already have and make the best of it.