Suggestion [Rule Change] Greifing

[Blackpatch]

I was under the impression that:
1. You cannot build ugly structure's (unless you're Paragon)
2. You cannot build structures without realistic supports
This bridge/mess breaks both of those rules.

 

[Vongard]

Ok I'll admit it I skim read your post and missed that.

If this is indeed a suggestion thread mind clarifying these things for me?

I can, i think these rules cant just be made up and may need to be changed over time but i would say that:

A road is of course utility but in this case its utility that i did not want, i never asked for a giant road 6 blocks in front of my house. I understand you are going to say that the people of that town never wanted a pvp hole but in my case it was a temporary structure that i planned to fix, this road was made to be permanent.

As for distance i think that you are missing the point.

If the new structure is made simply to bother another player than it should be removed. That is a simple rule that helps everyone is it not?

 

[Angyles]

I would say 5 blocks would be a reasonable size.

Honestly, if its a wall, random blocks within like 10 blocksish I'd say that's grief, but an obvious structure with ourpose within 5 blocks really should be something the two players work out.

This is what i was looking for.

It is an interesting discussion, and I am glad you two responded.

The issue is however, the shops along the spawn road, many are within a few blocks. Should it depend on what the "structure" is?

 

[Blackpatch]

Should it depend on what the "structure" is?

No.
It should depend on why the structure was built. From the looks of it this bridge was built to annoy or harrass someone else. Its purpose isn't for easy access and if it was he could have easily built it in another direction.

 

[Psychokhaos]

I was under the impression that:
1. You cannot build ugly structure's (unless you're Paragon)
2. You cannot build structures without realistic supports
This bridge/mess breaks both of those rules.

If this would be true, it would not permit griefing of the structure.

 

[Pampita]

This is what i was looking for.

It is an interesting discussion, and I am glad you two responded.

The issue is however, the shops along the spawn road, many are within a few blocks. Should it depend on what the "structure" is?

Yea, it should. It should also depend on if the new structure ¨¨Hurts¨¨ the old one (Ruins the view/Makes an ugly shadow on all the structure/Makes it look bad in any forms).
EDIT: The new structure should also have a point to be near the old one (Like shops to have more people to buy from them).

 

[BigguthDickuth]

Edit: Von's a towel.
Double Edit: Vongard gives this post his seal of approval.

 

[Angyles]

This was quite literally, 6 blocks out of our the ENTRANCE to our cave/home. If we had a town, would this still be considered "not griefing"?

I feel like since the CREATOR of this THREAD specifically asked two specific staff not to post on this thread, and knowing their past, specifically Vongard and Angyles, and by association Danda, that Danda and Angyles should simply stay away from this post. Whether you like it or not human nature will cause people to be biased, and refuse to admit they were wrong. So since the OP asked for you two not to post here I feel like you two should stay away.

If this was a town the road would be griefing, because it is too close as the rules state. The rules do not state how far something must be from a personal region or structure to be considered "In or around".

As for not posting, I will continue to post as I am curious on the community's opinion of how the rule should be changed. You are make this suggestion thread a personal issue which it is not, that is the ban appeal.

Vongard himself indicated to Victim

This is a suggestion about greifing rules, this post is not meant to be about my specific instance.

So again, stop trying to make this personal. I am all for changing the rules if they make sense, and that is what I am trying to figure out.

 

[Angyles]

EDIT: The new structure should also have a point to be near the old one (Like shops to have more people to buy from them).

Well here is another grey area, who gets to decide the point of it? I see a point to a road, so would you Pampita consider the road griefing or allow it?

We do not know the mindset of someone building the road, and I have a difficult time thinking a road being built is meant to harm someone, but granted that is my opinion.

 

[Pampita]

Well here is another grey area, who gets to decide the point of it? I see a point to a road, so would you Pampita consider the road griefing or allow it?

We do not know the mindset of someone building the road, and I have a difficult time thinking a road being built is meant to harm someone, but granted that is my opinion.

I think it should be allowed, it doesnt hurt anyone and it doesnt make Vongard structure look bad either.

 

[Falker57]

Wow that must be such a nuisance. That bridge is ugly and right next to your structure. I would be seriously pissed off haha. Were you went wrong was comparing it to your ban. I think that this bridge is close to a claimed structure and should honestly be removed. Just my 2 cents. Feel bad for ya Vongard

 

[Keache]

Grief:

I personally believe that what happened today was due to a misunderstanding. I believe that shops are different from houses.... they should have their own set of rules. But as far as that bridge,what happened there was that someone, namely fuze, was trying to do something he deemed helpful/generous to the people who he had unintentionally griefed. Since that property was ours, we said "That is unwanted and is obstructive/not helpful for us; we don't like it". Since our property was there (and claimed) first and the bridge is in extremely close proximity to our front door, I believe we should have the right to say "Can we please get this moved or destroyed?" It doesn't matter if it's a utility or not... I could make a bridge straight up into or over a town and, according to what went on here today, I would not get banned. That should NEVER HAPPEN.

I'm not trying to say Fuze should be punished; I believe this was a misunderstanding. We should have simply asked him to move it or remove it, because again the intent was not to grief, even though it can be considered griefing. My point is that griefing should apply in the sense that if you put something/edit blocks within a certain perimeter of where I have built my base (that has been claimed, regioned etc.) and I don't want it there, I should be able to PE it and have things resolved. Simple as that.

In the end, I believe that grief should be acted upon only if the person who has been grief puts in a complaint or has been blatantly offended.

 

[Blackpatch]

If this would be true, it would not permit griefing of the structure.

If this was true the structure itself could be defined as against rules and thus removed.

 

[Psychokhaos]

If this was true the structure itself could be defined as against rules and thus removed.

Actually, it would be PE'd and the builder of said structure would be informed so that they could fix it. Another player should have taken no action in such circumstances.

 

[Keache]

The funny thing is that according to the rules, all of the North Road buildings and shops are in violation. I cannot say what the correct response to that would be, but I do know that it is all TECHNICALLY breaking the rules. Yet everyone has built around/near each other without causing any greivances, which begs the question; should we allow for people to define their own regions? For example, the current residence plugin requires money to use and regions areas. How about you add in another option that lets it set "unregioned" regions for free, provided it is within a set limit (50-100 blocks as the current rule states) and adheres to normal claiming regulations. What this does is clearly define where the perimiter of the structure is so that people are aware that they're editing blocks at their own peril, whilst avoiding confusion should they decide to grief anyway. I think this would be the perfect solution, if it can be implemented

 

[Barnubus]

The exact same issue happened to me earlier in this map.

On the East Road, leaving spawn (365, 15), I built a well terraformed hill and spent a ton of time making it look realistic, instead of having my shop built, floating in the air with crappy support. Then I put my shop on top of the hill and it looked great.
Then, in an attempt to get their shop closer to spawn then mine, someone built on the edge of my hill(340, 0), some crappy ugly box shop with stonebrick and netherbrick. Another shop appeared on my hill, a potion shop. Then, someone put a single chest shop right on the hill's grass RIGHT in front of my shop(367, 0).

Both were decided to be legal. The reason, even though the hill was player-made, was that "maybe they thought it was real, it looks good so it's understandable." (Not exact word for word, but yeah).
So, I felt like I was being punished for spending time designing it all, making it look realistic, then just had someone build right on top of it. I probably wont be spending much effort to create a good looking shop again, when people can build in front of it, or against it.

But, when the staff decided it was legal, I dropped it and let it go.
Now I know. Simple as that.

Though, I agree, things player made should be given leway to structures built near by, including terraformed land. 5 blocks at least.

 

[leftovers5]

I think it is obvious that the bridge is intended to be a troll on you guys, but I don't see anything wrong with it considering it is a personal region and not a town.

 

[leftovers5]

1. You cannot build ugly structure's (unless you're Paragon)

You clearly have not been to the top of Paragon. Eldrylars northeaster345

 

[northeaster345]

You clearly have not been to the top of Paragon. Eldrylars northeaster345

Actually even the base looks pretty damn cool now, though the top is where the magic happens

 

[I_Love_Miners]

griefing rules are weird. at a swamp near umbra, tc built a 'taco stand' that was not only ugly as shit, but racially offensive since it was meant to degrade our mayor lumont who happens to be of mexican heritage. We were initially told that we arent allowed to 'claim a biome' even though at this particular swamp we had built several cabins and buildings and the building of a taco stand in between all these buildings was an obvious attempt to cause our town grief. We were lucky enough to have a particular admin agree with our side of the story and tear it down, but we did receive contrary messages from other admins and were worried that this structure would have to stay up unless we wanted to get banned for griefing.

also, the rule about pillars is either unclear, or players are unclear on it, because I'm so sick of building a pillar to enter a town, or to gain access to a player, and have them threaten me with a PE the entire time while im doing it. Then when I attempt to remove said pillar, I am repeatedly attacked by the player threatening me with a PE. Players should be given a time frame in which they can go back to a pillar and take it down before it can be pe'd. The same thing goes for what vongard did. if he built a hole to kill a player, tried to fix the hole but kept dying in the process, he can hardly be accused of griefing since he had intended to fix the hole but could not do so without getting attacked.