WyndySascha

Hey, I only hallucinated George Clooney one time.

Pls. The Original. The LEGEND.

(This is so much more fun than the work I'm supposed to be doing right now).

Oh I bloody knew it. And here's me sketching out a stoopid redstone timekeeper for portal-lighting times. D:

Pacman is from space. And my space junk really is only going to get weirder from here.

Thanks silver! Couple of things: We already know about the chest regions, we currently use that feature. Is it right to consider adding them to the town as purely a mayor's decision in this case? As I say, if I don't then they'll lose access to the build (although, seeing as how we're hoping for it to be gone, I suppose it's not relevant in the long-term). I'll submit a modreq that the build be moved/removed. Thanks Again, ~Sasch

tl;dr pre-region, within land claim and reserved plot build raised several questions Hello Everyone, Something's cropped up in Ambrosia that overlaps several policies; I didn't just want to make a modreq until I'd gotten some opinions or rulings. --- We currently don't have our region established - it's on my to-do list for the next few days, so we could have some builds in place first. Ambrosia did its big start-of-rev land claim, all properly marked up with fences and signs. There were also a small number of plot reservations within that claim - one was reserved right next to the portal and was/is destined to be the primary surface entrance to a huge cave system that's being substantially remodelled into 'Underbrosia'. That plot reservation was (after a bit of accidental building-on) cordoned-off with two-high fences and signed - it would be pretty difficult to mistake its 'reserved' state. On Saturday just gone (5 Sept), a user built on this reserved plot - specifically, built a perfect replica of a naturally-generated village's blacksmith's house. They broke down a hole in the plot fence to allow access. I'm afraid I wasn't on to see what happened, and no-one else in Ambrosia seems to know any more than I do. This user isn't an 'Ambrosian regular'. I was hoping to have this build removed. I /mail'd the user; they replied asking to join Ambrosia; I said Sure, but they'd have to remove the build first. I've had no reply to this. The build is still there; the user hasn't logged-on since Saturday. --- If I have the 'ambrosia' region created, it will have to encompass this build (it's right in the centre of town). I will either: have to add the user as a region member (or leave him added, if he's added by default at region creation) - I'm not keen to have the user as a region member leave the user un-added (or remove him, if he's added by default at region creation) - this would, as I understand it, effectively alienate him from his build ... I don't feel either's a particarly good choice, and I'm not confident the build will be removed before I want to create the region. --- Is the plot reservation enforcable by staff action? Does this build come under the new guidelines for P land claims, seeing as it is within Ambrosia's claim? This may be theoretical, but I think it's relevant here: if (if, this is conjecture) the user came through the Ambrosia portal within the land claim - so, without crossing the claim border and without seeing any signs - can the requirement to respect land claims be said to exist? They might not have the forewarning that's in the spirit of the land claim policy. Have I met the standard for 'fair warning' of the user if the build can be removed? Can one consider a reproduction of a natural blacksmith's house to be a 'substantial build', or is it more akin to a cobble box? --- As always, looking for the solution that causes least aggro, is most in keeping with rules and policies, and isn't unnecessarily punitive. Thanks in advance, ~Sasch

I too am on a boat.

This looks like so much fun! :D Can I snag space debris please? Most of my builds are rubbish, might as well put that to good use XD

I'd like to help, pls to add me to whitelist? :D

Sisko, pls

This seems a little odd to me. I'm sure there's an historical reason why it's the case, but why are individual protections allowed within group protections? I'm a proud Ambrosian - The Town With Not Even The Remotest Semblence Of A Plan - but the idea does jar a bit. Don't people talk to mayors and whatnot so they can contribute to a project they like the sound of? I've spoken in favour of clearer, mayor- and group-led expectations setting in the dim and distant past (here and here). I don't really want to rake over old ground but I think the general point stands: if groups have an ethos, expressed as working together using permissions and stuff; if someone actively consents to adhere to clearly set-out guidelines; then those guidelines should guide the basis on which permissions are applied and builds are edited without builder consent. Other than that, I think Zomise's idea on land claims seem quite sensible: most land problems resolve themselves anyway; where there's difficulty or dispute, one side or the other has to be favoured; and there's plenty of map for everyone, and smaller builds will have an easier time relocating than larger ones. If we go with this, we can figure-out the kinks as we go along. :p