Can we add this to the definition of Grief?

[Weazol]

This is derpy. I do not understand why people do this. Yes I live in a desert, no you should not destroy it.

Players would get upset if I came in their forest and destroyed all the trees without replanting, or if I went next to their city and removed all the grass and dirt. Why is this allowed?

It is not that hard to put in a cobble layer and place sand to make the desert look normal.

 

 

More Images.

[CROCKODUCK]

I think this would apply to harvesting natural resources. You wouldn't make harvesting glowstone in the nether considered griefing cause it is lowering the natural beauty would you? Although I see your point of replacing with cobble and another sand level, it shouldn't apply to a natural resource.

[Sapphric]

I shudder to think of what will happen when we get mesa biomes.

[Darkelmo]

The problem is that minecraft is about enjoying the natural landscape and then humanly destroying it for resources. Such is the circle of life. I'm assuming your issue is that they are eating away at the biome you are situated at? slowly decreasing it's size in a very mechanical fashion. I'll admit, it looks pretty ugly, but it aint yours mate, you don't have a wall to protect it so like the colonial Americans did to the natives, they gonna get the gold, cut the trees and in your case, straighten the sand. Ain't nothing you can do unless you create a form of treaty on these forums, forbidding the colonial minecrafters from further tainting your proud pixelated land.  

 

Of course this may be upheld if it is the good nature of the politicians  nerd.nu staff to protect this great land that you have rightfully claimed beforehand, not in structure or containment, not by large walls or warfare, but by the spirit of the sioux  weazol people. Too long have you excercised the futility of peaceful understanding, you must make way to the crushing power of industrial factories furnaces and powerful muskets diamond armor. You may have to migrate to other deserts. Which will be untouched for now, but soon the map will become more bare, you'll have less land to call home. Fewer desert biomes to inhabbit. Soon you will have lost your land, you'll see it in a form where it reveals only what structural obssesions lie behind it, in a transparent form almost to suggest that the sand now as glass serves to reveal the beauty of buildings, unaware of it's own personal beauty within nature. I see your struggle. What madness of those players to suggest greif is 'progress', Are you not an individual cuboid avatar like them? You are not a mere squid villager like they think of you. You have a unique skin, you can enchant items just like them. You share the same server do you not? What claim have they to the land you have inhabbited for nearly a rev! They would destroy it in a matter of 4 in game days. It means nothing to them. Don't listen to them weazol! The moderators only wish to calm you with their lies before they stab you in the back with a new rev. You may protest! did you not give yourself to the grand CTF event that determined the future of nerd.nu funding? They used you to secure their future in the name of freedom avo-free minecrafting!

 

'They made us many promises, more than I can remember. But they kept but one--They promised to take our land ban the drama llamas that stood up for the nerd.nu common player...and they took it banned them'

 

- hot pink evaporated clusters of moisture in the sky, weazol clan leader

 

My point after posting this master piece:

 

It's a game lol, Shit happens to nice looking things.

[unce]

This is derpy. I do not understand why people do this. Yes I live in a desert, no you should not destroy it.

Players would get upset if I came in their forest and destroyed all the trees without replanting, or if I went next to their city and removed all the grass and dirt. Why is this allowed?

It is not that hard to put in a cobble layer and place sand to make the desert look normal.

 

 

In your original post you stated that both the forest and city were claimed by a player. Breaking trees on someones plot, and editing the landscape of a city can both be considered grief.

Building in a desert does not mean that you own the entire desert. Your plot is defined by what you have protected or marked out. If a player came and removed all the sand in your marked claim it would be considered grief, just like if I built on a mountain and a player removed the mountain from under my house. If you want to keep it, include it in your claim, if not it should be considered a public resource. 

[Weazol]

In your original post you stated that both the forest and city were claimed by a player. Breaking trees on someones plot, and editing the landscape of a city can both be considered grief.

Building in a desert does not mean that you own the entire desert. Your plot is defined by what you have protected or marked out. If a player came and removed all the sand in your marked claim it would be considered grief, just like if I built on a mountain and a player removed the mountain from under my house. If you want to keep it, include it in your claim, if not it should be considered a public resource. 

 

Ok you are taking it to literal, but I know you're doing it on purpose... I don't mean "their" as an ownership. I mean "their" as in they are the major occupying city of that biome.

 

I do consider it a public resource. But I also consider it to be grief to not cover up a area that you just destroyed. I dont care if you take all the sand in the entire desert, or all the mossy/cracked stonebrick in the stronghold. Go back and clean up your mess. When I emptied out one of the strong holds I placed stone brick down so players could still smoothly navigate around.

 

I have heard mods in mumble telling players they need to replant for any tree they take down. So if a player is in a unprotected jungle can he take down all jungle trees and just leave? Or does he have to replant? This is the same thing. 

Edited November 13, 2013 by Weazol

[schererererer]

I have heard mods in mumble telling players they need to replant for any tree they take down.

 

This really only applies to tree farms - trees in the wild, even jungle trees, generally don't need to be replanted (Though trees that are obviously landscaping shouldn't be cut down).

 

The closest thing in the rules that might apply to this is the clause about spamming blocks (or block destructions in this case). Although with sand mining there is a purpose to the action, the end result is still a very unaesthetic and often annoying to traverse area. We have two conflicting ideals here: the right to gather natural materials without excessive restriction, and the right to not have your builds surrounded by blockspam. Huge amounts of sand or grass replacement shouldn't be a prerequisite to gathering sand, but neither should we have to suffer chaotic marring of the terrain, especially with builds that harmonize with the landscape.

 

It's actually tradition to cover over excavated desert with grass - can't find the thread, but we've had this debate before and this was the community solution a long-living problem. Maintaining a desert is a bit trickier.

 

The issue of preservation of natural beauty in general is pretty well respected by most players

 

Your plot is defined by what you have protected or marked out. If a player came and removed all the sand in your marked claim...

 

A bit of clarification here - on PvE, worldguard protections (or things that merit wg protections) are the standard for defining ownership, and are restricted to builds (and forms of directed, constructive terraforming). Fencing off an area, especially a large one, does not guarantee or indicate ownership. Under the rules as they stand, there is no proper way to protect undeveloped land from harvesting.

[Darkelmo]

Perhaps I should discuss my opinion how I originally intended to.

 

If you see my above comment, it was written in that nature due to the fact that I was caught writting a response during my history class and my teacher spotted my comment. In an attempt to feign relevance that this forum had to the topic at hand, I moddled my response off the historical events revolving around Red Cloud, a native american.

 

But to give my honest opinion, what is it that you find discomforting? The look of the desert border being unnatural? If you don't own it, you shouldn't have exclusive say in how that collection of land mass should look like. If you want it all to be pretty again, you should place the blocks to do so. You can't force others to build stuff for you because you don't like the look of what is in it's place. Greifing is about the removal of blocks from a structure another player has made or the deliberate change to the structure. Whether it is wholey the players making or whether it incorperates the natural landscape and blocks you have placed (Such as an underground house, walls may be natural but you still own the shape of the structured space). In this case, you are up in arms because people are taking blocks away from the biome you live in (these blocks being irrelevant to your own creations) You didn't place the sand there and you didn't place anything adjacent to it. If somewhere in the juggle I live in, there is a spot where someone flattened the side of a cliff, I'm not going to make them fix it up. I don't want the blocks and I'm not using the blocks for anything, there is no reason for them to build something (When i say build i mean place blocks deliberatey) because I happen to live in the same biome as the not so cliff-like cliff. And if it is causing me horrible stress, I can stop playing, get over it or fix the problem I have with it myself. If the majority of people want it to look nice, I'm sure 'they' would have done so instead of leaving it the way it is. Also, trees are useful to replant, placing cobble and grass isn't really that productive to the circle of life. And due to the scale to which they are removing sand, they would have to keep an equal amount of the resources to fix it with, plus that would take them a lot of time, which I am sure is the annoyance that would stop you from doing it yourself.

 

I don't mean to be cruel, but this isn't 'greifing'. Those who wish to preserve the natural beauty of the landscape can take it upon themselves to fix it up. I could complain and say that others tunneling into my own mines surrounds me with block spam and intterupts my mining. But it's all just stone and ore. If I wish to have it organized so I can navigate my mines, I'll find a spot where I won't be disturbed by perpendicular tunnels.

 

Sorry about my response and it most certainly isn't the response you want to hear. It's a perspective though...

Edited November 14, 2013 by Darkelmo

[buzzie71]

This was discussed in the Mumble meeting, but I will post what we (the Padmins) have stated here:

 

Taking sand from unbuilt desert is resource collection, and as such we will not require players to do any terraforming to make the harvested area look aesthetically pleasing (eg. leaving one layer of sand, or filling in the collected area with dirt), though players are free to do such fixing on their own.  At the same time, if there is plenty of area to harvest sand from, please do not go right up against a town or a build to harvest sand at their fringes (this is equivalent to, say, building a dirt structure up against someone's build - you must leave a respectful distance).

 

Link to notes