Suggestion [Rule Change] Greifing

[Danda]

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.

No you couldn't because the rules specifically state that you are not allowed to build within 100 blocks of a township. You are not a town thus this rule does not apply to this situation.

 

[Diffuse]

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

I create a massive pile of shit and place a not even that amazing thing at the top of it and say its not shit. Not on topic though and not illegal so whatever.

As for griefing rules I think they should be a little more clearly defined. Saying no creating structures around an existing one needs a bit more defining imo along with some other things.

 

[Keache]

No you couldn't because the rules specifically state that you are not allowed to build within 100 blocks of a township. You are not a town thus this rule does not apply to this situation.

Aye, my example was really extreme, but doesn't that extend in some way to personal structures as well? Furthermore do we really need to buy a township and all that jazz just for simple rule coverage?

 

[Blackpatch]

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

I was joking.
I have been to the top of Paragon, BeastRaccoon gave me a guided tour. It was very nice.

 

[Angyles]

Aye, my example was really extreme, but doesn't that extend in some way to personal structures as well?

No the rules specifically state towns, not "Towns, personal regions, other unregioned structures".

Should it be changed? Perhaps, but at this time the rules state towns only.

 

[Danda]

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.

There is more than one way to pillar. What is stopping you from removing the pillar as you're building it?
Yes it's more time consuming but you're far less likely to get in trouble for it after. There is a reasonable time limit that I go by on this sort of thing.

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.

I have never been to a petition where the pillars are not several hours old which should be plenty of time to have come and remove them. This is the risk of pillaring, you are griefing by placing the pillar and if you are unable to remove the pillar before you leave then the fault is yours. I had been on this server for almost 2 years before I got admin, I have never gotten into trouble for pillaring raiding or anything because I put a little thought into every action I take and what possible repercussions my actions will bring.

As for griefing rules I think they should be a little more clearly defined. Saying no creating structures around an existing one needs a bit more defining imo along with some other things.

I agree this rule does need clarifying better which is part of the reason I'm trying to ask individuals what their opinions are on what it should be. Now the way that I see this rule is you're not allowed to attach blocks onto another players structure without permission otherwise if you make this any further than that every shop around the edge of spawn can be classed as griefing which is ridiculous in my opinion because it then allows for monopolies to the first merchant who builds there.

 

[Keache]

I have never been to a petition where the pillars are not several hours old which should be plenty of time to have come and remove them. This is the risk of pillaring, you are griefing by placing the pillar and if you are unable to remove the pillar before you leave then the fault is yours..

Does that mean that if you are unable to fix your grief because the people who you had griefed/pillared are preventing you from doing so still make you liable for punishment?

 

[Barnubus]

Does that mean that if you are unable to fix your grief because the people who you had griefed/pillared are preventing you from doing so still make you liable for punishment?

No. If you make an effort to remove the pillar and they prevent you from doing such, they are now responsible for it. You might want to take screenshots of them refusing to let you take it down, if no staff is observing.

 

[Keache]

No the rules specifically state towns, not "Towns, personal regions, other unregioned structures".

Should it be changed? Perhaps, but at this time the rules state towns only.

Perhaps we can change it so it defines what "Around" a structure is, because at the moment it's up in the air and could mean anything or nothing.

In regards to the original set of rules Von posted in the OP

 

[Angyles]

Perhaps we can change it so it defines what "Around" a structure is, because at the moment it's up in the air and could mean anything or nothing.

That is what I have been trying to get since the first page. Only Victim and Pampita have responded.

How can we go to Kainzo and say "Hey, maybe we should make this a bit specific on what "In or Around" means, but we have no idea what it should be."

 

[Rumblestikk]

I tried to read past the first page and failed.

Vongard, you have been around longer then me, and I didn't even know what griefing WAS when I joined Herocraft. I didn't know what griefing was until I became a proctor.

You cannot build within 100 blocks of a township, something that according to Danda is what you did which is why you got the warning. Honestly if anything you should be THANKFUL she didn't just BAN you.

As for your bridge thing, I don't see how that qualifies as griefing. He didn't break anything you placed and he didn't attach it to your building, along with the fact that your residence is not a township.

I mean honestly, if you don't like the ruling on this you can always opt to take the ban instead of the warning.

To Angy - I think a reasonable area around a building would be 15 to 20 blocks away. Its reasonable for buildings that are not townships and scales well when compared to the Township block radius.

 

[Alator]

I agree with this needing to be looked at. So, as I always say, debate the topic, not the players.

This is the topic:

I propose the following changes.

- Greifing be defined as breaking or building structures in an attempt to cause other players grief.

- If a player makes an active effort to clean his/her grief and can prove it then they can no longer be held accountable.

Thank you for your time, please post your opinions below.

I remember the issue with Barnubus' shop coming up, as well as others. It's hard to determine what is griefing and what isn't when it comes to proximity.

Let's try to have a directed discussion about this:

• Should players be able to claim land around a building, or just the building. If so, how can a radius be determined (is there a difference between a 5x5 shack and an 80x80 castle?)
• Should buildings used as shops have separate rules?
• Should pillaring raiders be required to remove their pillar underneath them, or should a set time limit in which they can come back and remove it be established?

 

[Xargun]

I agree with this needing to be looked at. So, as I always say, debate the topic, not the players.

This is the topic:

I remember the issue with Barnubus' shop coming up, as well as others. It's hard to determine what is griefing and what isn't when it comes to proximity.

Let's try to have a directed discussion about this:

• Should players be able to claim land around a building, or just the building. If so, how can a radius be determined (is there a difference between a 5x5 shack and an 80x80 castle?)
• Should buildings used as shops have separate rules?
• Should pillaring raiders be required to remove their pillar underneath them, or should a set time limit in which they can come back and remove it be established?

I'll throw my 2 cents in here as I have a nice sized castle in the wilderness and I have been griefed several times.

1. I think if you build and claim (by posting signs) on a building / structure you should be granted the space around it as well - say 5-10 blocks where people cannot build permenant structures. The distance above / below a house should be greater than the distance to either side - no one wants a road going over their house (or under it).

2. Shops should have different rules - I don't have any chest shops so I won't debate on this other then they are shops not houses

3. Yes - of course they should be required to remove their pillars. But they should be given a time frame to do so. If they raid your house and you are not there then they can easily remove before they leave, but if you are fighting them then they really have no chance to remove them. I would say a couple hours is resonable from the time they place it.

 

[I_Love_Miners]

There is more than one way to pillar. What is stopping you from removing the pillar as you're building it?
Yes it's more time consuming but you're far less likely to get in trouble for it after. There is a reasonable time limit that I go by on this sort of thing.


I have never been to a petition where the pillars are not several hours old which should be plenty of time to have come and remove them. This is the risk of pillaring, you are griefing by placing the pillar and if you are unable to remove the pillar before you leave then the fault is yours. I had been on this server for almost 2 years before I got admin, I have never gotten into trouble for pillaring raiding or anything because I put a little thought into every action I take and what possible repercussions my actions will bring.

I agree this rule does need clarifying better which is part of the reason I'm trying to ask individuals what their opinions are on what it should be. Now the way that I see this rule is you're not allowed to attach blocks onto another players structure without permission otherwise if you make this any further than that every shop around the edge of spawn can be classed as griefing which is ridiculous in my opinion because it then allows for monopolies to the first merchant who builds there.

players have been pe'ing or threatening pe mid raid lately. its annoying. people on this server are so pe happy just because theyre bad at pvp and want to see people get banned even if they have little case to, and are only wasting the time of the admins.

as much as id love to remove pillars as im building it, this is not conducive to a successful raid

 

[EvilThor]

I would say using common sense should be enough,
anyone can determin themselves if their structure/path/statue or whatever is making something else ugly or making someone angry.

Of course should there be a difference between a huge castle and a little box.
What about at least 25 blocks underneath a building and not above.
Maybe 25% of the size of the building away from it (if you understand what I mean).

 

[MajorasMask]

Let's try to have a directed discussion about this:

• Should players be able to claim land around a building, or just the building. If so, how can a radius be determined (is there a difference between a 5x5 shack and an 80x80 castle?)
• Should buildings used as shops have separate rules?
• Should pillaring raiders be required to remove their pillar underneath them, or should a set time limit in which they can come back and remove it be established?

For each point i'll reply:

1. If you want to claim an area of land around your structure, then use signs. This is how it has always been done, and I feel that people have just simply forgot this. Automatically giving people 5-or-so blocks (of claimed land) outside of their structure (in a similar way as to how towns get 100 blocks, automatically, outside of their regions) is not a suitable option. It'll get tricky for people to determine what land is actually theirs, especially if people build structures which don't have a clear end/edge. Such as this village:

Where does the ''structure'' end? Is it 5 blocks away from the buildings, or the roads? What about the trees? They are planted there for a reason, and i'm sure the builder would want them kept there, and also, how many trees does he want untouched? In this example, it would be much better to place signs around an area to show that it is yours. This would give people more than enough room to protect what they want.

(Giving towns 100 blocks is fine because towns have a clear ''egde'', marked by the end of their region).

With regards to Vongards regioned home, he should have done the same thing. If he didn't want the land, outside of his house, built on, then he should have placed some signs claiming the area. OR, he should have developed his land in a way which clearly shows it is occupied.

2. The same goes for shops. If you don't want the land, outside your shop, built on, then make that clear. Place signs around the shop to show it is yours. Airbus did this with his shop in Zeal (although he had to go to further extremes because noobs just didn't understand).

3. Those who pillar should be required to break the pillar which they used. Either destroy it as you climb up, or use sand and remove it later. Raiders should be given a couple of hours to fix the mess. Around 2-3 hours.

 

[Dsawemd]

I think an important direction for this rule change would be that Residences receive a 10-15 block courtesy area.

This area would require common sense and good communication between the region owner and anyone who wanted to build something near their residence. If the residence owner discovers something he doesn't like within the 10-15 block area, he can /pe it, find out who built it, and compromise with them. It would be illegal to use this information to harass a player on chat, even if the original build was undesired the parties have to listen to each other and work together. It would not be illegal to build within that 10-15 block area, but it would be strongly advised to check with the residence owner.

The reasons for this are: Residences deserve privacy and the ability to make their own lawns/surroundings, without resorting to fencing in their land. However, Residences that are placed in high volume areas NEED to properly mark the borders of their non-regioned land, or else they cannot reasonably expect another player to not move in next door.

TL: DR - Residences get a 10-15 block range in which the owner can /pe any structures and has the right to learn who built them, so that they can reason/compromise with the player.

 

[Danda]

-snip-

This is the best idea I've seen thus far in the thread in my opinion. Also just to be pedantic what's stopping you from leaving a sign next to the structure within the 10-15 block radius to get in contact with the owner?

 

[MajorasMask]

-snip-

While it may seem great to get people to reason with eachother, to come up with a compromise, how often would this actually happen? What if:

Player A: It has to be removed. No other way. I've made plans.
Player B: It has to stay. No other way. I've made plans.

What do you do then? If it is not illegal to build in the 10-15 block area, and the two players fail to come to a solution, then we're back where we started.

 

[Dsawemd]

This is the best idea I've seen thus far in the thread in my opinion. Also just to be pedantic what's stopping you from leaving a sign next to the structure within the 10-15 block radius to get in contact with the owner?

The key change would be that an owner has the Right to know, and does not rely on the "lawn intruder" to choose to get in contact. In the current state, someone could build a grief-safe (or relatively grief safe: owner would talk to staff to be sure they could remove it) 5 block high wall around a residence out of bookshelves and never tell them who it was. Lol.

While it may seem great to get people to reason with eachother, to come up with a compromise, how often would this actually happen? What if:

Player A: It has to be removed. No other way. I've made plans.
Player B: It has to stay. No other way. I've made plans.

What do you do then? If it is not illegal to build in the 10-15 block area, and the two players fail to come to a solution, then we're back where we started.

good point let's flesh it out.

What would be legal after a failure to compromise:
-If the Owner wants a basic structure (not a house/shop, but a bridge, path, signpost, tree, etc.) REMOVED, they can remove it after failing to reach a compromise.
-If Player B (neighbor) is PLACING a Residence, shop, or house (house here defined as the place the player lives, possibly by where they set their recall when not using it for other purposes) then they are allowed to place it after failing to reach a compromise.
-All final terraforming/landscape in the case of no man-made structures within the 10-15 proposed rule change would fall to the Owner, with normal rules such as "you must place signs on aesthetic trees you don't want cut down" still applying.

So: If an Owner fails to convince Player B to stop making a house or shop directly next to their residence, then the fallback option after failure to compromise is Pvp.
If Player B fails to convince an Owner that their non-house/shop structure is not creating the desired effect, then the fallback option is they work on their own area and leave the Owner to his/hers.

The key distinction for final legality (after failure to compromise) is in the definition of a house/shop. A house/shop is a building that would see traffic from the builder (Player B) and/or others, it is neither an empty shell of a shop, nor is it a storage shed for LWC's with a bed in it.

Players should be able to live in high traffic areas together without getting banned for rage disobeying staff as they smash unwanted aesthetic features. I really think that people will prefer this chance for a peer edited courtesy border before resorting to staff decisions in legality.

TLR - Within the proposed 10-15 residence courtesy border after failure to compromise: Owner can delete aesthetic, non-house/shop structures. Player B (neighbor) can place their shop/house (defined as a building that they or others will use as a primary location for in-game interaction).