Rule Discussion "Grief Bait"

[Natdog]

Please consider the following situation.

Player 1 is harvesting Player 2s farm. Before Player 1 can replant, Player 3 kills Player 1. Player 1 then returns to the farm, Player 3 has not replanted the crops nor has he returned the crops to Player 1 in order for him to replant. In order for Player 1 to replant Player 2s crops he will need to go to Player 4s farm, harvest/replant there and then return to Player 2s farm to replant the crop grief.

Currently there's no rule saying Player 3 can't do this, the situation above is edging on this rule:

No "grief-baiting". This means that players cannot try to get other players in trouble by tricking/forcing them to destroying structures in an attempt to get the player warned or banned. This will fall under our umbrella "Don't be a dick." rule and will (if abused enough) result in a ban.

 

I believe the rule description needs to be reworded to - This means that players cannot try to get other players in trouble by tricking/forcing them to destroying any item placed by a player in an attempt to get the player warned or banned.

Please Discuss.

[GetaFever]

I completely agree with this.

 

It really sucks if you're harvesting a large farm and get killed. 

 

A new rule for this needs to be defined. We currently have a similar one for "breaking-and-entering" to gain access for exploration or PvP. Basically whoever ends up with the griefed blocks is responsible for fixing the PvP edit. I definitely think the same should responsibility should be applied to crops.

 

+1

[EeHee2000]

It depends, from what I've seen. Usually, the player that's killed the other player whom was trying to replant will replant for them, which is good. It's a massive dick move to camp a farm and generally hold another player responsible for something that they have caused, on purpose. I guess it's grief on the killing player's behalf in my eyes. Even though Player 1 broke the block/s, Player 1 was also killed by Player 2 who now has the block/s in their inventory. I guess it's the sort of thing in which players need to use some common sense and help out, despite PvP differences. I guess whoever has the items in their inventory is then responsible for it and should be required to replace it. That's because it can get very tricky with named blocks, enchanted items in Item Frames, Anvils with a certain amount of uses, etc. 

Edited January 8, 2014 by EeHee2000

[TornadoHorse]

I'm not keen on this rule being added.

• It protects players too much

I think it makes things a bit too easy as you'd be unnecessarily taking away the element of risk. It's not difficult to look around when you're harvesting a farm, making sure that you're not in danger.

• Adding a rule to prevent a thing that rarely happens

This sort of thing doesn't happen often. For a small thing like this that might happen once to you during a map, I think adding/editing a rule to prevent it is a bit pointless. It's not the end of the world if you die whilst harvesting, it's just a slight inconvenience. 

• It's not difficult to replace it yourself

If you die with the seeds, go and get more seeds - it's not like they're hard to find. It might take you a couple of minutes extra but that's the risk with being unprotected.

• There are ways this rule could be abused

 

I believe the rule description needs to be reworded to - This means that players cannot try to get other players in trouble by tricking/forcing them to destroying any item placed by a player in an attempt to get the player warned or banned.

 

You could say that for both the killer and harvester. Say you're running about and someone is going to kill you. You quickly go and smash as many carrots and potatoes as you can before they kill you. Is it then the killer's responsibility to replace? Aren't you sort of baiting them to grief (or forcing them to replace the grief)?

• You can't moderate this

How do you plan on doing this? There wouldn't be sufficient logs and you can't just rely on a player's word because there will be accusations flying about all over the place. This would have to be watched by a moderator. As a) we have a shortage of staff b) there are more important things to be doing c) this situation isn't a big deal, I don't see why there'd be any point in adding this rule. Unless you're taking screenshots whilst you're doing it, and if you're doing that then you're probably planning on trying to get Player 3 caught.

[BCB228]

This is a terrible idea. it only discourages PvP. For example: If someone is getting chased they can just run into a farm and start breaking some carrots for and they couldn't get killed because they were farming and haven't replanted yet. Im sure it wouldn't always happen but people would still do it because they can "find cracks in the rules" to benefit themselves.

[kitcatbar]

The killed player could always just make a modreq saying "Hey, sorry, but I was killed before I could replant this farm." People have done it in the past, and it's usually handled with a "Fixed, thanks for telling us." If it becomes a problem with people modreqing because they can't be bothered to replant, we can just check the logs to check their story. I don't really see that happening, but if it did it wouldn't be too difficult to sort out.

[Natdog]

• Adding a rule to prevent a thing that rarely happens

This sort of thing doesn't happen often. For a small thing like this that might happen once to you during a map, I think adding/editing a rule to prevent it is a bit pointless. It's not the end of the world if you die whilst harvesting, it's just a slight inconvenience. 

• It's not difficult to replace it yourself

If you die with the seeds, go and get more seeds - it's not like they're hard to find. It might take you a couple of minutes extra but that's the risk with being unprotected.

 

 

I think this happens more than you know. "It's not the end of the world if you die whilst harvesting, it's just a slight inconvenience."  No one is saying that it is the end of the world, If you break piston coal ore doors I could just call that a slight inconvenience. You could easily go get the materials and replace it just takes some time, and discourages general game play.

 

• There are ways this rule could be abused

You could say that for both the killer and harvester. Say you're running about and someone is going to kill you. You quickly go and smash as many carrots and potatoes as you can before they kill you. Is it then the killer's responsibility to replace? Aren't you sort of baiting them to grief (or forcing them to replace the grief)? 

 

 

 

There are rules currently that can and are abused, running threw a field and randomly smashing crops looks a bit different than harvesting crops normally. 

 

 

it only discourages PvP. For example: If someone is getting chased they can just run into a farm and start breaking some carrots for and they couldn't get killed because they were farming and haven't replanted yet.

 

 

Nothing is stopping you from killing the player. If there trying to avoid combat by destroying crops, then they are griefing and abusing the rules. Make a modreq.

 

• You can't moderate this

How do you plan on doing this? There wouldn't be sufficient logs and you can't just rely on a player's word because there will be accusations flying about all over the place. This would have to be watched by a moderator. As a) we have a shortage of staff b) there are more important things to be doing c) this situation isn't a big deal, I don't see why there'd be any point in adding this rule. Unless you're taking screenshots whilst you're doing it, and if you're doing that then you're probably planning on trying to get Player 3 caught.

\/

The killed player could always just make a modreq saying "Hey, sorry, but I was killed before I could replant this farm." People have done it in the past, and it's usually handled with a "Fixed, thanks for telling us."

 

 

Modreq yourself saying you were killed before you could replant, If the player who took the crops is involved in this type of behavior regularly  a warning could be issued. Any one caught abusing the rule will be warned/banned.

Edited January 27, 2014 by Natdog

[unce]

Eh, I don't really see a point in adding a rule for this. It doesn't happen very often, and when it does the person killed usually only has a few crops to replant. If a player takes the risk to clear out an entire farm at once, they have the responsibility to replace it if they get killed. The best way to avoid this is to only farm a few crops at a time.

 

 

 

A new rule for this needs to be defined. We currently have a similar one for "breaking-and-entering" to gain access for exploration or PvP. Basically whoever ends up with the griefed blocks is responsible for fixing the PvP edit. I definitely think the same should responsibility should be applied to crops.

 

The current rule doesn't say that.

 

Players are allowed to make a small number of temporary edits for the purpose of gaining access to other players’ bases, such as for PvP or exploration. However, all such edits must be fixed immediately;

Edited January 9, 2014 by unce

[GetaFever]

Eh, I don't really see a point in adding a rule for this. It doesn't happen very often, and when it does the person killed usually only has a few crops to replant. If a player takes the risk to clear out an entire farm at once, they have the responsibility to replace it if they get killed. The best way to avoid this is to only farm a few crops at a time.

 

 

The current rule doesn't say that.

 

Players are allowed to make a small number of temporary edits for the purpose of gaining access to other players’ bases, such as for PvP or exploration. However, all such edits must be fixed immediately;

 

Yeah it doesn't explicitly say that, but everyone on S knows that whoever ends up with the griefed items is responsible for replacing them.

[TornadoHorse]

Yeah it doesn't explicitly say that, but everyone on S knows that whoever ends up with the griefed items is responsible for replacing them.

 

No they don't. Whoever broke the block has to replace it. It can be replaced by the player who got the griefed item, but they by no means have to.

[Synergetrick]

No they don't. Whoever broke the block has to replace it. It can be replaced by the player who got the griefed item, but they by no means have to.

 

This is then exploitable by the select unsavoury few who could camp that area or the player and kill them repeatedly while they attempt to replace, causing it to never be replaced (or take long enough that it's deemed voluntary grief).

 

I prefer the unwritten rule, honestly.

[Malvagio87]

This could be solved by players not having to replant crops making players who make GIANT FARMS responsible for maintaining them if they want to.  

 

I wish i wouldve saw this thread before i made mine.

[Four_Down]

This could be solved by players not having to replant crops making players who make GIANT FARMS responsible for maintaining them if they want to.  

 

I wish i wouldve saw this thread before i made mine.

I think the grief bait rule right now mainly revolves around ore doors and things like that rather than farms. I've never found big farms to be much of a problem in regards to grief bait.

Edited January 16, 2014 by Four_Down

[djt832]

This is then exploitable by the select unsavoury few who could camp that area or the player and kill them repeatedly while they attempt to replace, causing it to never be replaced (or take long enough that it's deemed voluntary grief).

 

I prefer the unwritten rule, honestly.

In my experiences on S, if this situation happnes, the player trying to replace (Player A) can just place a modreq stating they are trying to replace but Player B is not letting them. This usually gets sorted out even quicker if there is a mod online Player A can contact. By taking these avenues, the exploitability of the rule is nulified.