Mods and Admins: You're working too hard.

[johnny2k]

 

 

With respect, I feel that allowing all to place running water and lava on the surface, is a good idea. This would decrease our moderation requirements significantly. However, on the other hand it would increase the number of time consuming grief reports that we handle. Rolling back damage from liquids can be, at times a task in itself and having people able to flood their friend's redstone build time and time again (for example), would add to the burnout that you're trying to help us address with your feedback.

If I'm not a member of a protected region can I place water? It makes sense to be able to place flowing water in areas you belong to and any non-protected regions. The only damage that can be done then is by accident. For many of us who have been playing together for many years I can't imagine having an issue with people using water maliciously. The wrath they would face from the rest of the town would be incredible. A lot of us know where to find each other in real life so it's not impossible for us to enforce our rules using swift, deliberate kicks to the nutsack/uterus.

A good compromise for flowing water could be that mods aren't expected to fix damage done by water.

[Vykoden]

I have made clear, very rational arguments for my position. The Nerd admins who have responded have not responded clearly or rationally but have used what is called "circular reasoning" in support of their positions; e.g. "It's this way, because it is."

 

There is no reasoning with someone who uses that type of flawed logic. Aside from a brief exchange with a staff member, who was apparently a troll, which, apparently, is acceptable to you, I have been respectful, polite, rational and well-detailed with good supporting examples, questions and suggestions for the future. 

Yet, you, the admins, continue to argue with me; just as I have also predicted in previous posts.  
 

More than anything, I feel sorry for you, because you are controlling a public multiplayer server with your egos; not with your minds.

Your egos are what stands between Nerd's current state and where it wants to be. Don't worry. You're not alone. Most small business owners are guilty of exactly the same methodology. Of course, most small businesses fail, but to you, that will be beside the point, because your ego makes you believe you're doing everything right.

Have fun with my modreqs,
-Vyko 

[jllmprrt]

Wow, what a buttery post.

I feel for you man, I had the same problem with removing a house a few revs ago. It literally had nothing in it, made entirely out of (heh) birch logs, and the reason I couldn't have it removed was because "it had two floors and was mostly complete" this was indecember 2013. Enter February 2014 and nothing has changed, player hasn't returned. I make another modreq and again am denied. It has been over three months now, since the build was "finished" in November 2013 but apparently not having a player on for all that time warrants a quality birch mansion staying right in the middle of my planned digging area. The player in question was going to help me one night, and said "I'll be back soon" and I had hoped he wouldn't leave forever. Long story short, that happened. I really think the build removal process on this server is assinine and stupid, and Silversunset01 states "what kind of build should we be removing?" How about this

If the build serves no purpose to anyone other than its initial creator, (the end farm that Silversunset01 mentions is a horrible example, this rev it was built by Trooprm32 who is on regularly) gets in the way of other people's builds, and at least a month has passed since the player has been online, why shouldn't it be removed? It only inconveniences the player who is trying to make use of the wasted land.

take this with a grain of salt, if you will.

Edited August 11, 2015 by jllmprrt

[kittypuppet]

>pretty much the definition of derp

>in order to reduce drama, the admins have decided to prevent the removal of the derpy structure in order to protect the holy sanctity of structures and the rule of laws on a server which averages this many players

 

Hah - that's funny, because on C if there's a derp build, it'll most likely get removed or at least moved somewhere else.

Didn't know this wasn't a thing on the more populated server. You'd think they would but I guess not.

Edited August 11, 2015 by kittypuppet

[Vykoden]

Thanks for your comments jllm and kitty. Hopefully one of the admins sees why this policy is so ridiculous and in what way they're creating so much more work for themselves.

 

If land protections were allowed:
 

1. No one would ask for as many child regions.
2. No one would need to ask for removal of abandoned buildings.
3. No one would need to worry about griefing.
4. No modreqs would be done to report and roll back griefing.
5. Flowing water placement by property owners would be allowed, because flowing water cannot grief a protected property, because it cannot be placed in a protected region.
6. Mods wouldn't need to place flowing water.
7. Cities could govern themselves and remove structures as needed.
8. (and more)

By not allowing undeveloped land protections, you, the admins and mods, are making more work for yourselves. Why you would want that to continue makes no sense.

Edited August 11, 2015 by Vykoden

[Vykoden]

Just a quick note to sum up.

"You" say the rules are in place to protect players and reduce workload. However, part of protecting the players is to give them an enjoyable experience.

Every single non-admin and non-moderator, who has commented on my original issue (not the troll banter) has spoken out in support of my original post (8 players). 

No non-admins or non-mods have argued against the content in my original post. 

If that means nothing to you, the admins, then I guess there's nothing more to discuss. 

I will never say "I told you so," because I already have. The fact that a max of 20 players are on P at any given time, when the pop cap is 200+ should be a strong indicator of our level of dissatisfaction.

Want more players? Change. It's that simple.

Thank you for your consideration.
-V

[darth]

Sapphric, did you at any time, donate to nerd? It's obviously not a question i really need an answer to, but  I ask because doing that and being in the position you're in now would certainly be some of the ingredients that would create situation that breeds entitlement. As in, "I've spent my time and my money on this and have assumed a leadership role, so it's going to be ran based around my ideals" (read: "one man's derp house is another man's palace"). Here's the issue with that: You don't have any entitlement to rule. you aren't the iron-fisted ruler of the PVE server. You were chosen, not hired.\ This is a community and you acting like you ARE the iron-fisted ruler of the PVE server is - plainly and simply - toxic. In Fact, ANY leader of a COMMUNITY (this isn't a COMPANY) acting in a stubborn and/or unresponsive manner is toxic. Toxic - in this case- to the direction some leaders are trying to steer Nerd. This community is going to die. It's been dying since John Adams had her unofficial "Head admins and friends" group and ran everyone off the road and locked everything down and bans were made on personal grounds (IE: really really dumb reasons because someone spoke badly of her or something along those lines if I remember correctly). You were either in with the program, or treated like garbage should you try to speak up. I'm really getting that vibe again here. maybe because A LOT of you were in power then. 

 

I've been the one to start these conversations twice with other "Gaming communities": once back in 2008, and once a couple years ago with the Junction reboot. I was laughed at, torn down, lied to, ridiculed - similar to the way some of the leadership in this community would seem to be handling this thread. Both communities died less than a year later Partly due to leadership doing nothing but sitting on their thrones while their metaphorical kingdoms and castles burned to the ground and the inhabitants of both left with no actual effort to bring more in. In this case, it's leadership metaphorically locking down a half-burnt, partially abandoned tract of land, making it unappealing to long-timers such as ourselves.

The issue of the derp house of Mr. Stone was perpetuated as long as it was because it was also meant to shine light on a very important thing: the issues with Nerd leadership. you all threw a fit over an 81 block, over three month old, abandoned building. could we of not built in the area? yes, we never even actually intended to - we just kinda started doing so. Could you just of moved the build? YES, and you DIDN'T because you were trying to make a point. "THIS is how it is. TOO BAD." what? really? Okay, yeah, acting like that is certainly conducive to the community.

I love this community as a whole, but frankly some of you make me almost physically ill. I know some of you are in work leadership roles IRL too, and the fact people who act like this are actually in charge of others and money is heavily involved makes me sick. this kind of leadership in a donation-driven community is not professionalism - it's powerlust.

Edited August 11, 2015 by darth

[Guest]

^

 

so lets get this straight: if the totalitarian/iron fist way of running the servers supports your beliefs you're fine with it, but if it doesn't you come onto the forums and create huge walls of text about it?

Edited August 11, 2015 by AvadaKedavra

[Vykoden]

Guessing by the fact you didn't fact check the insult you tried to make, why should the rest of your post be considered reasonable or even worth reading?

Avada: People make mistakes. But, the fact that people make mistakes SHOULD NEVER make us feel like their entire position is wrong. 

Example: In spite of his indiscretions in the Oral Office, Bill Clinton has been revered as one of the greatest presidents in the history of the U.S. 

If you're one to allow one mistake to prevent you from taking anything anyone says seriously, you're doomed to a very lonely life. Get off your high horse and look at the meaning behind the money.

Involvement is an investment, and Darth has been involved far longer than most who have participated in this post. That, alone, gives him the authority to which we all should listen. 

[darth]

^

 

so lets get this straight: if the totalitarian/iron fist way of running the servers supports your beliefs you're fine with it, but if it doesn't you come onto the forums and create huge walls of text about it?

So you had to go out of your way to be objective? After the first thing you wrote was ripped apart by the post below it, you went out of your way to edit it and find something else to get on me about. Re-read the post I made. You obviously did not read it through the first time.

Whether or not he put money into nerd wasn't the point - me asking if he did was to see if I could try and find where this sort of "overlord" mentality comes from. Read some of his posts from earlier in this thread. Essentially it's:  "This is how I like things, this won't ever change, oh well." We're losing active, caring members of this community. I didn't need to "Fact Check" that, because I've been watching it happen first hand for years.  Yes people get older and move on i understand that, but usually there's people to replace them in some capacity. Eventually we're just gonna be a stagnant husk of what we once were, and I -  and obviously at least a FEW others in this thread - don't want to see this happen.

I'll quote you here from an earlier post you made on this forum: "Get over yourself."

Edited August 11, 2015 by darth

[jllmprrt]

So you had to go out of your way to be objective? After the first thing you wrote was ripped apart by the post below it, you went out of your way to edit it and find something else to get on me about. Re-read the post I made. You obviously did not read it through the first time.

Whether or not he put money into nerd wasn't the point - me asking if he did was to see if I could try and find where this sort of "overlord" mentality comes from. Read some of his posts from earlier in this thread. Essentially it's: "This is how I like things, this won't ever change, oh well." We're losing active, caring members of this community. I didn't need to "Fact Check" that, because I've been watching it happen first hand for years. Yes people get older and move on i understand that, but usually there's people to replace them in some capacity. Eventually we're just gonna be a stagnant husk of what we once were, and I - and obviously at least a FEW others in this thread - don't want to see this happen.

I'll quote you here from an earlier post you made: "Get over yourself."

I wholeheartedly agree, but change is necessary. The fact that a whole shit fest occurred because of some stupid house the admins don't want to remove is ridiculous. We're not 5 anymore, and I'm almost positive Mr stone isn't coming back. I had been in (somewhat) frequent contact through mumble, and he just kinda disappeared one day.

Long story short, if we want to keep people here for longer, the dumb land policy is a good place to start. As previously mentioned, reasonably sized land claims should be allowed to be protected, and honestly the whole "protect builds not land" is stupid. I've seen some dumb shit get protected here and other much nicer things "didn't qualify as a build worthy of protection". Pre planned builds are awesome; who just builds shit on the fly without an estimate of how much land they need?

inb4 thread locked, too toxic, "admin discussion" needed, two months go by and nothing happens

[Guest Former Staff]

Any replies from here-on that lead the topic off discussion will be hidden - That goes for admins too.

 

Please return to the discussion that Vykoden created and share in that same spirit of being constructive.

[Vykoden]

Thanks, Barlimore. I'd like to encourage more admin participation in this thread. Only through that participation will Nerd once again be the community for which we all hope.

Clearly we have various players in agreement on my observations. Not all of us know each other or play together. 

 

Instead of admins insisting that their way is the right way, we need our admins to admit that their way might not be the best way, as indicated in this post. 

If you're an admin, and in IRL, you work in a customer-oriented field, think of it this way: You have a lot of unhappy customers voicing their opinions. What you do with those opinions will decide your future success and your customers' future enjoyment of your product ... and repeat business. 

These issues should be handled no differently. 

Edited August 11, 2015 by Vykoden

[Cyotie911]

   First, Hi Vykoden.  Been a while since I've chatted with you. (Sorry, Slightly off topic)

   I want you to know that I do feel for the things you are saying.  Having been around for as long as you and remembering how things used to be does come into play with how I feel about the current topic.  However, things do and have changed.   I feel that for the most part things around here have changed for the better but no one and nothing is perfect.  I am always in favor of change when I believe it is for the better and am willing to listen to anyone's opinions about any changes they would like to see.

   One change that has happened over the years is that, any change that will affect an entire community will need input from the majority of the community.  It isn't like the old days where someone could bring something they would like to see changed to a head admin and it would get changed.  Now staff discussions happen, community discussions happen, polls are made to get a feel for if the community "as a whole" wants the change.  I feel that, as admins, we don't rule "with an iron fist".  I can remember back when I was a CAdmin and wanted to have a revision reverted back to before their was a "creative mode" where there was no flying and no instabreak.  Where you had to work to create a build because back in the day you rarely saw a massive derp anything on creative because it just took to damn long to build.  However, Even though I was a CAdmin and I actually had all the CAdmins support,  It's not what the community wanted.  It never happened.

   Anyways,  again this is just my opinion/thoughts, but I do believe that a town (or anyone working on a big project) should be able to Modreq to have a unfinished/abandon build removed (and to my knowledge, this is the way it is supposed to be).  The question is "What is the amount of time that should go by prior to this happening."  I believe that these servers are supposed to cater to the "active" community.  That being said, "active" is what needs to be outlined.  My personal opinion is a month.

   Then you are going to have to decide what to exactly do with the structure.  Personally, I don't see what would be wrong with making a selection of the entire area, running a "Sum Blocks" command and then just creating and chesting all the blocks in the report and then getting rid of the structure.  Have the chest in an Admin only area and label it with the players name.  Then send the player a /mail stating that your unfinished/abandon structure has been removed and all materials are being held to be returned to you.

 

I do feel that a town's expansion shouldn't be hindered by "abandoned" builds, however, no one will ever be able to persuade me that a finished build or an unfinished build by an active player should ever be removed because a town wants to "take over an area".  An active player, regardless of their skill level, will always be welcome on our servers without the need or fear of being run off because they aren't the best builder.

 

Finally, I do see valid point in the opinions of both sides and I am glad that the community and staff have changed to be able to discuss these types of things (unlike in the days of old where threads would just get locked or deleted).  I hope that we can continue to discuss things and create positive changes for the community in the future.

[SpiderMan]

@Cyotie911

 

The derp structure in question. :D

 

mrstone has been offline for 3 months already.

 

Edited August 12, 2015 by gsand

[kittypuppet]

I do believe that a town (or anyone working on a big project) should be able to Modreq to have a unfinished/abandon build removed (and to my knowledge, this is the way it is supposed to be).  The question is "What is the amount of time that should go by prior to this happening."  I believe that these servers are supposed to cater to the "active" community.  That being said, "active" is what needs to be outlined.  My personal opinion is a month

 

I'd assume around the same time frame as C - 3 weeks to a month

Maybe have it so they move it, and if the person doesn't show for 2, 3 months, remove it entirely?

[Vykoden]

Hi Cyotie. I apologize for not remembering the last time we met. As you know, we've met so many over the years. If we haven't spent significant time playing together, my memory gets hazy. Please don't take that personally, because, if you didn't already know, I'm rather old when compared to many other players (LOL). 

First, thank you for your comprehensive response from the Head Admin community. What confuses me is the mixed opinions and policies among the staff. In your comment, you added "(and to my knowledge, this is the way it is supposed to be)". However, this is not the way it works, and your statement is in direct conflict with what is being done and said on the P server. I'm sure you can imagine everyone's confusion because of this. And, mrstone isn't an active player, according to the logs, as gsand mentioned in his reply.

But, the removal of temporary and unfinished structures is secondary to the reservation or protection of undeveloped land. If you know the communities I represent, then you know the level of builds we enjoy creating ... and the number of players old and new we attract to those builds and the server. While marking a plot off with signs, as previously suggested, might deter most players from building within our desired area, no one can guarantee that it will deter all. And, once another player does build within our preferred region, under the current policy, apparently, it won't be removed, because we "didn't place the blocks".

Our community (comprised of BACON, New Castle, Cobble and Bedrock residents), with such long-standing positive ties to Minecraft and Nerd shouldn't be forced to deal with these types of inconsistencies that only cause drama, and we shouldn't be required to plan our town without an explicit guarantee that our preferred region won't be infringed upon before we can develop it. Making region reservations and undeveloped land protections an option would relieve all of that stress, in admins, mods and players while decreasing drama and increasing user satisfaction. Keeping the current policies (or at least the current position on P policies) thus doesn't make sense, as doing so will only make more drama, require more modreqs, and make city builders, like us, more vigilant, which means less fun.

Why don't we just go to another server? Well, as you know, we've done that, and they were good times. But, only on Nerd did our communities expand and attract new players and new residents, and that's what we like. Because we're primarily a social group, we enjoy building cities that "wow" other players and make them want to be a part of our community. Although we have been successful in that venture on other servers, they were never as fun or as smooth as Nerd.

We understand this isn't a democracy. We respect the admins' power. None of this is intended as a personal attack on anyone. If we didn't like you, we wouldn't be here, and we wouldn't bother to participate in these forums.

However, we are hoping that your admin team doesn't just let these issues and this post drop by the wayside. In the past, that's what would have happened; when mods and admins don't participate in discussions like these, it's an intentional act meant to make the topic "die". We're hoping more of you (mods and admins) are objective and mature enough to engage in end-result-oriented discussion on these issues so that we all can better-enjoy our Nerd experience. 

Posts like yours, Cyotie, give us hope. However, posts that merely recite the rules or argue with us or invalidate us makes us fear that Nerd Adminship hasn't changed. 

We are not arguing or attacking your team. We are requesting and suggesting a change in policy that we feel will better everyone's Nerd Minecraft experience, and those suggestions come from our experience both past and present. In my opinion, it would be foolish for admins and mods not to follow this discussion, productively participate and be open to learning from it. 

As always, thank you for your consideration. I look forward to continued discussion and even the possibility of amicable change.
-Vyko

[Difficult1]

So i think for town land claims maybe instead of claiming massive areas of land, the towns could just have the power to claim a predetermined area of unused land, say 100x100 for starters. That way you can claim a decent area, keep anyone nearby at a good distance, but not claim stupid amounts of land.

 

For inactive builds however... I would say remove the builds if they have been there for 2 or more months but only if they are small and unfinnished. Lets say its a large build (that isn't in the way of anyone) and is it its on place, don't remove that unless it has been say 4-5 months. Sometimes we get bored mid project. It happens. Some people like to Finnish later. But for tiny shit shacks and particularly ugly eyesores that haven't been finished they should probably be removed after a certain timeframe.

 

also reading to earlier posts: entire post derailed because of who did what and who when where why argument. typical nerd.nu fashion. Stop bickering and get with the program.

Edited August 13, 2015 by Difficult1

[Difficult1]

Why don't we just go to another server? Well, as you know, we've done that, and they were good times. But, only on Nerd did our communities expand and attract new players and new residents, and that's what we like. Because we're primarily a social group, we enjoy building cities that "wow" other players and make them want to be a part of our community. Although we have been successful in that venture on other servers, they were never as fun or as smooth as Nerd.

We understand this isn't a democracy. We respect the admins' power. None of this is intended as a personal attack on anyone. If we didn't like you, we wouldn't be here, and we wouldn't bother to participate in these forums.

However, we are hoping that your admin team doesn't just let these issues and this post drop by the wayside. In the past, that's what would have happened; when mods and admins don't participate in discussions like these, it's an intentional act meant to make the topic "die". We're hoping more of you (mods and admins) are objective and mature enough to engage in end-result-oriented discussion on these issues so that we all can better-enjoy our Nerd experience. 

We are not arguing or attacking your team. We are requesting and suggesting a change in policy that we feel will better everyone's Nerd Minecraft experience, and those suggestions come from our experience both past and present. In my opinion, it would be foolish for admins and mods not to follow this discussion, productively participate and be open to learning from it. 

 

Who is we? To clarify.

[Vykoden]

Who is we? To clarify.

 

The answer to your question is found in the same post, one paragraph up from where you started quoting. 

 

Our community (comprised of BACON, New Castle, Cobble and Bedrock residents)

Currently, we are a community of 20 active players. In past Nerd maps, we have attracted up to 120 residents to our towns on Nerd PvE. Our typical starting area is 200x200 and easily grows to 500x500 within two months.

Edited August 13, 2015 by Vykoden

[robr]

vykoden has some valid points about protections and destiny w/in said borders - a lot of this would be aleviated if protections for obvious towns (based on people building, 5 or more people or whatever) were handled in a proper rectangular manner from the beginning instead of piecemeal protections and/or expansions entirely dependent on which mod does the protecting - we had numerous instance where random shit would pop up over solace this rev in areas that we assumed were already protected based on the expansions we had done, but because of how additional cubes were added on instead of just expanding the main region.. 

 

mayors should have absolute say on any structure w/in their borders as well, irregardless of block placement origin - once you agree to join a city and build within its borders, if you violate said rules to the point where you get kicked out/etc then the people who remain shouldn't be punished by having an untouchable structure w/in their borders.. the same logic certainly never applies the other way, i.e if someone gets banned for xray, and they happened to be a major infrastructure contributor to a town or something, all of their edits are rolled back completely without regard to any effects it has on an established town.

[Vykoden]

Hi rob.

I was wondering if Solace ran into similar issues. That place must have been a nightmare to protect. 

We currently have one resident, who started building a "tree house" two months ago. He started it by placing 30-or-so dark oak logs on a large piece of unprotected land. After one month, although he was in Minecraft and Mumble often, he made no progress. So, we removed him from all protections and permissions, and I took his unfinished project down .... and he reported me for griefing ... IN MY OWN TOWN.

The Padmin in charge asked that I message him and otherwise attempt to communicate with him. I did this but to no avail. Excuses, excuses, excuses ... and promises. "I'll finish in the next few days." "I'll finish it this weekend." "I can't do it now, but I will soon."

 

The Padmin said they would try to talk to the player about his build, but we haven't been informed of the results of any conversations. Meanwhile, he continues to be in Mumble and Minecraft every day and makes no progress on his build.

 

Several days ago, I did a modreq asking if we could finally remove the structure due to inactivity and false promises. Per the Padmin's suggestion, I asked that the modreq "be elevated" to an admin, and I've not heard anything since.

 

His "structure" was such an eyesore for the rest of the community that we built a wall around it. In response, he posted signs on the wall, laughing at us .... IN OUR OWN TOWN.

 

The debate about this former resident's clump of logs has gone on for two months. I don't understand how this can be seen as efficient or effective.

 

Our point is simple: If cities had "destiny protections", as rob_r said in his post, this would never have been an issue, mods and admins wouldn't be required to spend time on it, and townspeople would be able to enjoy the game more. However, because we have no control over what is done with the land around our protected buildings, and because we can't destroy blocks that "we" didn't place, staff has to work harder .... until they choose to ignore us and the problem, which is equally frustrating. 

 

So, I have a few questions. In the future, we will be building lots of structures very quickly to avoid this issue. Under the current policy, we will need to make numerous modreqs for protections every day; to protect absolutely everything we build, including temporary structures... 

1. Will the mods and admins treat us like any other player and do the modreqs,
2. or are we now villainized because of this thread?
3. How long should we allow a modreq to go undone before we elevate it to an admin?
4. How long should we allow an elevated modreq to go unattended before we contact a head admin? 

-V



 

Edited August 14, 2015 by Vykoden

[Guest Former Staff]

So, I have a few questions. In the future, we will be building lots of structures very quickly to avoid this issue. Under the current policy, we will need to make numerous modreqs for protections every day; to protect absolutely everything we build, including temporary structures... 

1. Will the mods and admins treat us like any other player and do the modreqs,
2. or are we now villainized because of this thread?
3. How long should we allow a modreq to go undone before we elevate it to an admin?
4. How long should we allow an elevated modreq to go unattended before we contact a head admin? 

 

Hello again Vykoden, I wanted to step in here for your questions.

1. We aim to treat everyone with the same level of respect in regards to completing modreqs. Whether that user is brand new to the community, a long-standing member or just finished an extended ban.
2. (as above)
3. Usually modreqs are elevated to admins when a moderator recognises it is not something that they are expected to handle (for example, land disputes and harassment reports).
4. While an elevated modreq may not appear to be moving along - I see the P admins tending to elevated modreqs, though if a request is expected to take a lengthy amount of time we need to make sure that is communicated (a P admin might be able to provide more insight to how this has been done so far with requests elevated to them in general). In regards to your question though, I would recommend contacting a head admin if ever you feel you are not being treated as fairly as others, that is when I'd like to step in.

Edit:

 

Several days ago, I did a modreq asking if we could finally remove the structure due to inactivity and false promises. Per the Padmin's suggestion, I asked that the modreq "be elevated" to an admin, and I've not heard anything since.

 

...

 

The debate about this former resident's clump of logs has gone on for two months. I don't understand how this can be seen as efficient or effective.

 

If possible, can we steer clear of active modreqs. I agree that having a debate ongoing for two months isn't efficient or effective, however the P admins have only had this modreq open, since it's creation for under three days. My recommendation in future would be to open a modreq sooner should communication breakdown between other people or groups.

[Silversunset01]

When build removals concern an active player we like to try to make contact first before just tearing it down. As I believe we have discussed, under the current ruleset any modification to a players build without their consent constitutes grief. We have been in discussions over policy changes, however until those changes have been implemented the current rules stand as written. 

 

The rules are not written just because admins like to be bossy. They are done with the intent of making as little work as possible for those enforcing them. Repeated disregard for them is what makes more work for staff, not the rules themselves. If you have suggestions for rule changes, you're more than welcome to make a post about them in a constructive manner and we're more than happy to review them. This thread obviously shows there are some revisions to be made, however we can't just make them because a small group of people demand them. We as padmins have to make sure that all of the questions are asked and answered to keep the experience fair for everyone, not just those who are the most vocal.

[unce]

I don't see why claiming and protecting large land plots is a problem. It's not like pve is going to run out of space to build on.