Checking block edits

[Difficult1]

Recently i was on mumble talking with a few people and a few of us have had the same problem. Ever see a build that isnt protected and you want to know who made it? Well playing on P and C mainly I have asked myself this question many times. A system in which a player can check who placed a block would be one of the handy little things that solves an annoying problem. I dont really want to take time from a mods day just to figure out who made a build. Thinking about it has made me see that there is no difinitive reason for why this doesnt exist already. Just wanted to bring the topic up and see what other people in this community thinks about it.

[marting11]

That's an interesting idea.
Technically, it's only giving normal users access to the logblock stick tool.

For the moment, I can't think of any issue with that on C. I can't speak much for P and S.

[Trooprm32]

For the same reason why /lb me is disabled, I could see people using this as a potential griefing tool.

Asking us to check who owns something takes minimal effort and time.

 

For the moment, I can't think of any issue with that on C. I can't speak much for P and S.

 

As for S, we generally don't want people to find out who owns a base/secret base or structure, unless they post it, ect.

[marting11]

For the same reason why /lb me is disabled, I could see people using this as a potential griefing tool.

Do you have an example that applies to Creative?

[SpiderMan]

Do you have an example that applies to Creative?

 

I've seen creative servers that give players logblock access within THEIR plot.

It works great because it reduces moderation exponentially.

[Magnyus]

For the same reason /lb me is disabled, I could see people using this as a potential griefing tool.

 

As for S, we generally don't want people to find out who owns a base/secret base or structure, unless they post it, ect.

As far as I can tell /lb me has always been available on creative.

Don't really see why this would be a problem, you can say it can be a tool used for griefing, but that's a pretty weak argument, a griefer is going to grief regardless of who built it. I would rather annoy a mod about a griefer than annoy a mod about who built what and when.

Also, think what you may, mods are rarely around on C.

Agreed, such a tool wouldn't belong on S as it would take away from the experience and gameplay. (figuring out who built what on your own)

[ROCKONN]

Also, think what you may, mods are rarely around on C.

I dunno about that. I'm usually on all night, Taco's on a lot, bunch of others too. Always someone around, somewhere, to help. You just need to ask.

[CROCKODUCK]

One thing I could see being a problem is how many users have access to logblock and are using it. Logblock is a heavy running system of sending a code asking for block edits from the server to an SQL database then back to a server. It can potentially be very resource demanding for the server. Especially if multiple users (30-80 people) are using it at around the same time.

[WayneByNumbers]

As I recall, users on C did have access to the coal ore block up until sometime in rev 20.  When it was disabled, I remember asking about it (though I don't remember who), and hearing something about modreqs from players overdoing "detective work" becoming cumbersome.  Not sure if that was the only reason, it didn't seem great to me at the time.

 

The only issue I can think of with giving players back the LogBlock tool is that then nobody could place coal ore.  Oh, the horror.

[Difficult1]

/lb me being used to grief? i dont see how that would work. Sure it would be handy for P and C maybe not S due to people hiding builds/baces. Maybe it could be a bindable block so that people could still place coal blocks ect

[SpiderMan]

One thing I could see being a problem is how many users have access to logblock and are using it. Logblock is a heavy running system of sending a code asking for block edits from the server to an SQL database then back to a server. It can potentially be very resource demanding for the server. Especially if multiple users (30-80 people) are using it at around the same time.

 

It wouldnt be as much as most people think, the top creative mode server (800 players) gives everyone logblock rollback for their plot, and logblock wand everywhere else.

The resource impact is minimal and reduces moderation tickets exponentially.

[schererererer]

I don't see a problem with access to lb coal ore and stick; use of /lb tool can toggle tool activation. Running of /lb me, et al. typically are only problematic for large selections encompassing very active players. Limiting this to region owners would effectively prevent malicious use in order to strain the servers.

[Synergetrick]

I don't see a problem with access to lb coal ore and stick; use of /lb tool can toggle tool activation.

Once upon a time circa 2011 this was enabled on Creative. It caused everyone to start playing detective and take matters into their own hands, which actually resulted in more problems than it solved.

Edited October 2, 2013 by Synergetrick

[MasterCommaThe]

Once upon a time circa 2011 this was enabled on Creative. It caused everyone to start playing detective and take matters into their own hands, which actually resulted in more problems than it solved.

I wouldn't have expected that, but that does provide a good point in opposition to the feature.

[CROCKODUCK]

Nerd is limited in its SQL space, this I know. It would indefinitely create a delay between servers no matter how many players. Also the players turning into detectives problem is also true.

[schererererer]

I feel like this same argument could be applied to seeing who owns a region, who locked a chest, etc. Stopping it should be as simple as saying "don't play detective."

[zifnab06]

As a mayor of a fairly decent sized town last rev, having the ability to see who built something would have came in incredibly useful. I probably did more modreqs to see who owned something than I did for water flow/grief/etc.

 

For Rev12, I've already had to do two (for derp 'land claim' builds), then mailed the owners to see if we could expand over their build. In both cases, the owner of the build stated to remove it, as they had decided to build elsewhere. 

[MasterCommaThe]

If I understand correctly, the concern about SQL abuse is already settled by the fact that we allow the /region commands which could be exploited the same way. If this ever became a problem, couldn't WG be configured to limit specific tool usage?