Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'Permissions'.



More search options

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


Forums

  • Official Buildings
    • GM Hall
    • City Hall
    • Game News
    • Public Test Board
  • Back Streets
    • Town Square
    • Community Assistance
    • Village Recruitment Center
    • Suggestions & Ideas
    • The Creative Commons
    • Wood Scraps
  • Northern Freedom Isles
    • Harmony
    • Melody
    • Cadence
    • Northern Freedom Isles Market
  • Southern Freedom Isles
    • Celebration
    • Deliverance
    • Exodus
    • Independence
    • Pristine
    • Release
    • Xanadu
    • Southern Freedom Isles Market
  • Maintenance Buildings
    • Technical Issues
    • Server Bugs
    • Client Bugs
    • Model and Sound Bugs
    • Other Bugs and Issues
    • Wurmpedia / Wiki Maintenance
  • Wurm Unlimited
    • Unlimited Discussion
    • Unlimited Modding
    • Server Listings & Advertisement
    • Technical Issues

Find results in...

Find results that contain...


Date Created

  • Start

    End


Last Updated

  • Start

    End


Filter by number of...

Joined

  • Start

    End


Group


Chaos


Independence


Deliverance


Exodus


Celebration


Xanadu


Release


Pristine


Epic


Cadence


Defiance


Harmony


Melody


Acc1


Acc2


Acc3

Found 89 results

  1. Kingdom is too huge on Freedom, and we can't have PMKs. Alliance does some of this, but would not want to do all of it. As for a PMK, one character would be the head of the group, with a purchasable estate form to found their Barony. Stand on the (main) character's deed with all other mayors (alt mayors or player mayors) present, minimum number possibly 2 other mayors. Found your barony. Only mayors of settlements on the same server count. Allows baron to see and add to upkeep of any barony-deed from any barony-deed token at the same time.Allows baron to manage permissions of all barony-deeds via the estate form.Allows baron to access and change writ permissions of all writs in the barony via the estate form, including destroy structure.Allows baron to manage vehicle settings of all vehicles owned by players citizen to the barony.Allows only the baron by default, to form alliances.Allows barony chat-tab, in addition to village and alliance chat-tabs.Allows citizens of a barony-settlement to be optionally upgraded to vassal of the barony (mayors are classed as vassals by default). Vassal permissions are barony-wide.Allows vassal role on writs and vehicles.Allows all vassals of the barony to see remaining upkeep of a barony deed at the deed token for that settlement.Allows all vassals of the barony to set the MOTD.Allows vassals to pick-up any planted item on barony lands including perimeter of barony-settlements.Allows perimeter of all barony-settlements to be protected from fence-building by non-citizens.Allows for barony livery; tabards, flags, banners, wagons (and ship sails when Kingdom sails are implimented). Pick an RGB value for your barony when founding. Option to add a superimposed symbol as for shopsigns would be nice. Barony livery would update so that wagons owned by players and barony-tabards worn by the player would show their current barony, and barony-flags and barony-banners would only show barony colours when planted on barony lands. Otherwise livery reflects Kingdom of crafter's origin.Spawn-towns would be automatic baronies, and take the title of Barony of <servername>. Therefore no fences or unremovable planted items in spawn-town perimeters. I'm aware some of this may sound overpowered to long-time players, but it is designed to make managing several deeds easier for one player, whilst not excluding the possibility of multiple player vassals, though you'd have to have a lot of faith in your baron's good intentions. I've listed as many things as I think might be relevent, as IF this was ever implemented it would not be exactly as described here anyway, and I want to illustrate the possible scope. Edit: Added topic tags
  2. So after talking with some of the other players here’s a suggestion to the permissions system Groups: Anyone can create personal groups. You will be able to add anyone of the same and enemy kingdom to the group. You will be able to give the group access to writs, boats, mine doors, etc. You will be able to type /managegroups which will bring up a window where he can see all the groups he own. If you click manage on a group you get a new window where you can change different settings and add new members: If wurm can handle the massive amount of data it would to pull, those two windows could easily go into one: Here you can just select the group you want to change and it will show up on the right. The usability of the interface would be much better, but it will require wurm to pull a lot more of data The whole point of this group system is so that you no longer need to add different people to your friends list to give them access to different things and you won’t need different alt’s to own your stuff to have different permission settings. In the way I see it this would enable you to make let’s say Group1(G1) with all your alts in it, add G1 to your writ and all your alts now have access, then you can make G2 with all your close friends who should also have access and add them. This would enable you too quickly and pain free add and remove multiple people from write, boats etc. If a writ or boat is given to a new person the writ/boat should be stripped of all players/groups and it’s up to the new owner to add people/groups. This suggestion will require some of the current permission system to change so it would not be a thing that’s doable right now but should be done with the much needed rewrite some of the other permissions systems like the writs.
  3. So i was skimming around the forum and didnt really see this suggestion. I did see some sorta liek this but not exzactly. Here is my idea. I think we should get door management perms for house doors, very similiar to mine doors. I know of a few people who are working on specail projects like INNs and community town hallls. But cant really manage it as they would like. As it stands right now the only think people can do is be added to a Writ of a building. Which gives them access. My idea would be to make them not be able to enter cetin rooms of that building unless they have their name added to the door. Very similar to the mine door. This could help people make single writ buildings and still be able to assign players parts of that building. In fact take this as an example. My current deed has a town hall. In fron of my town hall there is a 2x3 area of nothing but arches. and inside those arches are fences. I use this area for community storage. The only roblem wit this is i have to add them access to my writ to use the items in the arch section of the building. Doing this allows them access to the inside of the house as well, (even if locked) and this i do not want. I could see giving access tio a door by using keys like a gate. But i feel that could get a tad annoying with people losing their keys. So id suggest using thee same System as the Mine door, where u can actually assign a name. Also perhaps adjust the current Writ system so insead of needing them on your friends list. You could just add their name to the writ, like the mine door. In conclusion I feel this would open so many more possibilities for players to customize their deeds more freely and create more creative builds. Maybe even possibilities for like Player owned Rooms of an INN, or whatever. I can see how making it so they control a room can be difficult to adjust. seeing as the writ gives currently access to whole house and not sub sections of it. But allowing door management liek mine doors, You could give as many people access to your writ as you want. BUt certin rooms still wont be able to enter because of the Door lock. I havent played on any PVP server to know how this would affect Lock picking and stuff. But im sure it could be adjusted to allow lock picking to bypass the doors or something. So what are your opinions on this? Give a +1 If you agree. Maybe Devs and GMs will read this and add it soon. Please keep this post flame free.
  4. Perhaps we can add generic permissions to any containers/doors inside the perimeter of a home. So that things like below can happen. Bedrooms for multiple residents in a home. Private chests within a home. Housing a noob who needs a friend to protect them. etc some modifications and ideas to go with this or replace this keys now behave as writs keys now behave as writs when the matching locks are inside a structure doors within homes now have permissions similar to writs containers now have permissions like boats/carts etc
  5. Members of alliance are unable to rotate Food and Bulk Storage Bins on an allied deed. They are able to push and pull them, and are able to turn other objects (forges, crates, beds, etc) without issue. Village members can turn BSBs and FSBs, it is only alliance members who cannot
  6. User cannot access forum page (says permission denied). That is even accessing web page as a guest viewer. He's created two characters, both which were playable for a short time after creation, then the game-start loading screen (with the tower) stalls on "Connecting". When wrong password is used, it does connect enough to say it's the wrong user/pwd. It seems to me he's being blocked on the Wurm side. Is there an adaptive security thing that's blocking play? He's connecting through a VPN, is that part of the issue? I'm using the same OS as he is, I can access game fine. (Had some graphical issues on my end at first but now it's fine)
  7. I'd like to put down an idea that came to my mind while thinking on the Enclosure Rule and possible alternatives. My personal view on reading the discussion thread about the topic and seeing what was happening in Wurm was that: Major Con: More land is currently occupied by established players using the Enclosure Rule to grab real estate without paying for it compared to actual newbies who establish a small homestead, preventing any other player from entering and thus creating huge no-go zones. Major Pro: Something like Enclosures are needed for players to take an active interest in the world around their deeds, to shape parts of the lands around them, to have areas of interest that promote travel and interaction as well as access to off-deed resources. The following idea is something that kept creeping up on me, and I want to put it out here for discussion as well as to see if it could be balanced well enough to address most concerns. Claims and their Permissions: The core idea is to remove protected fences as the main mechanic, and to instead allow players to create areas (working title: "claims") where they can apply a subset of permissions just like they can do on deeds, while not actually giving them full ownership and allowing for more player-to-player interaction on this land. This would remove the need to close off entire areas to other players, while giving 100% protection in certain aspects - for a cost and under some restrictions. These "claims" (to give this idea a working title) would always be limited to certain aspects of gameplay, limiting the types of permissions the player can impose: 1. woodcutting (and planting sprouts, enchanting trees) OR 2. mining (and strongwalling) OR 3. farming (and enchanting grass) OR 4. taming and leading animals (and enchanting grass) (not sure the last one is needed due to the negative consequences of off-deed breeding) Claims would always protect against terraforming, building or bashing by other players, whereas the claimholder could do so. Anybody can forage and botanize, which will help newbie survival. There would be no permissions setting to prevent item pick-up. A claim would have no effect on decay. Claim Overlap and Competition: Because claims are not the same as land ownership, different types of claims are allowed to overlap (but not by more than one third - or two fifths? - the claim size in one dimension). This means: one player can claim woodcutting rights, while another can claim farming rights overlapping up to half of the first person's claim. Immediately upon placing the second claim both players would be prevented from further building on the overlapping area (unless they got along and gave each other permission). Both the farmer and the woodcutter could now utilize the overlapping area, and as long as they replant after harvesting, the tiles on their claim could not be interfered with by the other player. Both players would be allowed to bash in the overlapping area. A claimholder would have an area in the center that is guaranteed to be free from this kind of overlap competition (and this is where they should build if they intend to do so, unless they're certain to have no claim encroaching on one of the sides). Similarly, deeds cannot be placed or extended over claims, but their perimeters may extend over them (and would need to be able to do so in order that claims cannot block deed extension indefinitely). Claim Placement: A player would purchase an item (perhaps a sign?) from a trader for the type and size of claim (perhaps three general sizes?). A player would need to be a villager of an existing deed in order to place a claim. This is necessary to associate a claim to a deed to prevent anonymous claims placed simply to block other players. (A new player would have to be taken in to and thereby vouched for by the existing community). There would be a limit to the number of claims that can be placed by the members of one deed. The placement of the claim would only be possible if at least half of the claim's area did not overlap with existing claims and deed perimeters (and none of it may overlap with existing claims of the same type). This means that if a deed extends its perimeter over a claim, the claim could not be placed in the same spot again. On placement, a claim would always last three (four?) months. During those three months, the claimholder may place another claim of the same type to replace the current claim. This would ensure that claims cannot be used to just reserve land for extended periods of time as is possible with deeds. A claim would be visible on examining the claims tiles. Claim Limitations: I already mentioned the limit on claims associated to one deed and that they always last a fixed period of time, during which they can be extended. There would also be a per-character limit of the number of claims that they are on the permissions list of (that includes being the claimholder of course). This ensures that multiple alts and deeds cannot be used to extend your claim permissions beyond what is alloted to one account. Balancing and Discussion: Does this idea limit the current use of Enclosures, or does it provide a more simple and immediate means to grab land? This would depend on the balancing (cost and limitations per deed and character) of the implementation. I think if it was balanced right it could establish player's rights to privileged use of land outside of the deed mechanic limit this use of land in an effective way, thus not giving those with the skills and resources to do so the means to claim practically unlimited amounts of land ensure that there's a small cost and activity requirement involved provide a strong permissions-based mechanic for protection as well as interference by other players Could it be used to grief deeds and player interests? Pretty much in the same way current Enclosures can, with some important differences: placement of claims are subject to limitations, unlike putting up 1x1 shacks claims are not anonymous, they are linked to existing villages and accounts Does it help new players enough? Probably not, due to the limitations of claims per deed. A new player would have to strike up quite a good relationship with the existing community in order to be trusted with a part of their claim allowance. Then again, deeds not wishing to establish claims might very well use the mechanic to get a new villager to set up somewhere before deeding up. Since I don't believe that the Enclosure Rule primarily helps new players I don't think this is much of a problem. New players will always have to get along with their neighbours or be faced with someone who is more established to use existing game mechanics against them. Won't claims lead to more land shortage and less places to deed? Unless they are limited reasonably, quite so. The time period a claim lasts would need to be balanced against how long a shack lasts on perimeter, in order to prevent claims from being an advantageous tactic. Over time, claims cannot prevent a deed from extending. On the other hand, the limit on claims could be as low as 2 per deed and character (meaning no more than two claims associated to one deed, and two claim permissions per character). What are the advantages of this idea again? This idea would be enforced by game mechanics similar to those for deeds (and not require totally unique game mechanics). Protecting land using these rules would allow players to open up their claimed areas to visitors and the public. Fencing-in would be optional (for aesthetic or paranoia-based purposes) and not entirely protected from interference. It would allow for different kinds of usage scenarios ranging from private housing and resource access to public facilities and heritage sites. Land-grab under these rules would be limited and subject to some cost (much lower than deeds though). It would not include the concept of land ownership.
  8. I had started this a while ago, power surge killed my post, so no i'm taking up the ddos time to make this again. I guess we can agree that many of the village settings and such are kinda broken, or simply dumb (sorry but its true). The idea behind this thread is to make a comprehensive suggestion about changes to the overall village permissions and roles so we can have a bit better control on what happens inside our deeds. I'd like you guys to help out and don't just post -1, if you disagree with a point or all the points, do explain why (and "i want to grief people" isn't a good point). When you post try to be clear, like discuss stuff addressing each point, and separate suggestions and additions to counter arguments for changes already added. Read other people's posts please, i'll try to add suggestions (and if a mod chips in would be great) as soon as at least 3-5 other users agree to them (users with less than 50 posts will be excluded, i mean alt posts aren't welcome). Some of these also come from other player's suggestions, i'll post a link if i can find them: Taming and picking items Problem: So this is probably the dumbest thing someone ever thought up in wurm. I'm sorry devs, but there's really no way to put it. Why in god's green earth would you associate allowing people to tame a animal within our deed with picking stuff from the ground? And why did it have to be made a GLOBAL setting. To allow a ally to tame you have to allow EVERYONE to tame, and at the same time allow EVERYONE to pickup stuff from the ground on your deed. Suggestion: Separate those two settings for starters, then add them as a role permission, instead of a global thing. This will address several problems at once. First you'll fix the nonsense that is that setting. Second you'll allow people to give tame and pickup permissions either globally (by ticking non-citizens), locally or even select which level of citizenship (if they have many) is allowed to do so. Third you add the choice for people to disallow allies to pickup stuff on their deeds. Not the first time i've seen someone complain, or KOS a ally because a new player "stole" stuff from a allied deed. Set Roles by player name Problem: Sometimes you want a guy to do something in your deed (be it hired help, or whatever), but he already has a village. So what can you do? You either allow everyone in that village to do that task, or allow everyone to do that ask. Both potentially allowing people you don't know, or don't want, to do stuff on your deed. Suggestion: Keep the system as is, but change the village field to village or player (if there's a problem with unique entries, maybe add a toggle button between player and village). The pretty much the same, if the game encounters the name, it creates the role for that specific person. Filter Village Roles Problem: When you add a village to your deed's permissions as a role. You essentially add EVERYONE in that village to do those settings. But sometimes villages have new players on probation that they don't know yet which have reduced permissions, and yet those players will have all those permissions in your deed even if they can't do them on theirs. Its complicated, so here's an example: Player1 of DeedA is longtime friends with Player2 and Player3 of DeedB, so he has open permissions for them to cut wood, farm, dig and mine on his deed, because he knows them, and that they respect his things. Now Player2 wants to do a big terraform project, so he recruits Noob1 to his deed so he can help out with that. But since he doesn't know Noob1 and doesn't want Noob1 to ruin his oak grove, or any of the other stuff he only gives Noob1 permission to Dig in his deed, and nothing else. Noob 1 frustrated he can't get wood from DeedB keeps trying till he gets to DeedA, and basically is able to clearcut the place "cause he wantes some skillz". Not a pretty scenario, right? Suggestion: Do a check on player's permissions on their deeds before allowing on other deeds. If DeedA allows DeedB to cut trees, ok, but if Noob1 can't cut trees on DeedB, then he can't cut trees on DeedA either. Gate Management Problem: Since trolls and such were allowed to enter locked gates, the way gate management works has been left kind of obsolete. The way it apparently worked was if you "opened" them 24h on gate permissions, even if you had them locked they would count as unlocked for all intents and purposes. Which sucks. In my case i had a portion of my deed enclosed in tall stone, with gates open 24h so that players passing by would have a safe place to rest. Also, my mailbox, and water source are within those walls. Since the change happened i had to remove the 24 open thing so that i wouldn't get unwanted trolls bashing my priests while he was near the altar. And i'm sure i'm not the only one that changed this. Also there's the overall issue of how gates work. The gate management page basically either opens it for everyone or not, and the pass fences setting that either allows people to pass all your locked gates or not. We should be allowed to have more control over those things without having to resort to roundabout measures like building gatehouses. Solution: Well i can think of a few: - Remove the gate permission page from the writ and have each gate manageable individually (more or less like mine doors) when on deed. But instead of adding names you could have a check box like the house guest list that would show all roles on the deed so you could check which have access. This would be ideal IMO. - Keep the gate permission page, but modify it so that you can have more control. Add a new role option for "access selected gates" and then on the gates management page add a "select gate" check box. -Keep the gate permissions exactly as it is, but if it has a lock, then aggressive creatures will treat it as locked. Less desirable IMO. Add Lock Permission Got this idea from http://forum.wurmonline.com/index.php?/topic/91622-locking-items-restricted-to-writ-guest-only/ Problem: At the moment anyone that can walk into your deed can lock stuff that belongs to you. And on freedom you can't pick them. Solution: Either disallow it entirely on deed, add a role option on deed to allow locking of containers, or only disallow it inside houses, but allow it for guests. Wild Growth Problem: Having a Fo priest that doesn't belong to your deed cast Wild Growth on trees or Hedges within your deed keeps giving a error message, and apparently failing (although i read someone saying it would work after several attempts). Solution: Allow Wild growth in general, or link wild growth to forestry permissions on deed. So if you give permissions to do forestry to someone they can also cast wild growth. Expanded Branding: I've had these ideas throughout a few threads about several distinct issues, but i'll cover them here. So branding was a awesome addition to village settings, but imo it can be taken further on, here's some suggestions: Naming animals: Either add a equipable item (nametag or something) that when reamed and equiped on an animal (head or torso) will add a title to that animal. Title should be visible when examining offspring for breeding purposes (knowing who are the parents of a certain calf for example so you don't cross breed). Or add a option to name un-named animals (not horses) when branding. Pop up window with input box saying "You have branded venerable fat cow to your deed, do you wish to name it?". The name would be added as a title-like thing (So in this case Venerable fat cow [bessie]) and would show on examine of their offspring. Simmilar Suggestion Here. Allow villagers of the brand-deed to equip and unequip animals without having to tame and re-tame. Brand is already a testament of ownership. And taming is possible for non-deed members. Disallow non-brand deeds to equip and unequip animals (or maybe add a role option). Make branded agressive animals neutral to deed owners and allies (in and out of their village), as well as guards (unless at war or kos, or maybe a added checkbox on deed settings for guards not to attack branded animals). This would make templars more useful for breeders (although probably branded offspring would need to be auto-branded) of agressive animals as well as allow better use of hellhorses on PvP (including for hots). That's about it as far as i can remember, please comment and leave more suggestions.
  9. I seem to have no permission to remove logs from my wagon on another persons deed. The only option i get is to steal and since i am on freedom it will not allow me.
  10. I'm sure this idea has been suggested many times; a more detailed alliance permission system would really enhance the capability of an alliance leader for altering permissions within an alliance in respect to deed/mine door/writ entry, as well as other things. Having a role system (similar to deed role system) would make it a lot easier to manage permissions/restrictions for various mine doors, writs, deeds, etc. At the moment, there are really just options between village, friends, and alliance, but for large alliances with multiple levels of trust, it becomes annoying to have to put in tons of people's names for "trusted" areas manually instead of simply having a mechanic where you could set a number of people (or deeds) as specific roles so as to differentiate without much difficulty.
  11. Equipping tower guards with weapons can help them a lot, but it can be troublesome to locate each tower guard as they run around the area of the tower. My proposition is the guard tower should be considered a container which you can open and stockpile weapons inside. Tower guards that spawn will automatically equip whatever is available in the stockpile. This will make it much easier to make sure your tower guards are armed at all times. The guard tower's inventory can be managed by its creator, who may set permissions similar to a cart or a boat governing who is allowed to access the container. (Everyone, Friends, Village, Kindom, etc.) +1 If you support this idea, constructive comments and suggestions are welcome!
  12. Rather than resurrect an old thread from several years ago, I feel that this one has enough merits for a fresh airing. One of those difficult things on Chaos is to manage permissions on each individual mine door, building, boat or anything else that Rolf adds. Some things can be done remotely, some have to be done locally. Especially with mine doors where unless you keep an exhaustive list of locations and the current settings then changing them all when someone needs adding or removing is prohibitive. Even then its painful to go round and visit them all when something changes. Personally I'd like to spend my time playing the game rather than have to focus on access management. The idea of this is similar to firewalls, a simple rule set is attached to whatever needs it and someone who attempts access is tested against the rule. At the first match the action of the matching rule is taken. If there is no rule match then access is denied. For a town writ there would be one list per role specifying who is in the role. The dialogue to manage a rule list needs the following - add a new rule (prepends or appends) - delete a rule - move a rule up or down within the list - test a target against the rule list (response is allow, deny or manage) The format of the rules is simple action target where action can be deny, allow or manage (manage implies allow) and target is of the format player_name@location (not dissimilar to email addy) - if player_name is blank then it means any player - if location is blank then it means any location - players names are a single word which is nicely convenient but locations can be multi-word so everything after the @ is considered location, spaces included - The object owner is a hidden rule which always prepends the list manage player_name@kingdom The kingdom part of the target is fixed as the kingdom the owner was in when they created the object. This means that if they change kingdom they can no longer manage the entity. For boats which are a personal item the prepends rule would be. manage player_name@ I do envisage a few special keywords such as base kingdoms if appropriate, for example on Chaos to exclude all new freedom players from accessing a building you could do deny @FREEDOM That is all the definitions. The other thing to consider is sequence, it is important and some examples are in order. 1. a mine door owned by JK in a war situation deny @MRdeny @HOTSallow @JKthis will explicitly block any MR or HotS player from using but allow any JK player but it could just as easily be written as allow @JKas the fall through action is always deny. 2. as (1) but this time a suspected alt belonging to another kingdom called imnotaspyreally is blocked too allow @JKdeny imnotaspyreally@now this would fail because the allow rule is hit first and it should be deny imnotaspyreally@allow @JKwhich will now block the offending individual. Note that when specifying individuals you only normally need to do player_name@ as names are unique. Also when changing rules always use the test feature. 3. The Hells Kitchen town has made a cave in which are three utmost veins and they want to keep for themselves, but also keep out three noobs in case they unwittingly mine the veins at low skill. deny noob1@deny noob2@deny noob3@allow @hells kitchen 4. MR are at war with a dummy MR town griefersville but they have a spy in there called lolwutme and want him to have access to a gatehouse allow lolwutme@deny @griefersvilleallow @MR5. A player account transporter is used at war deeds and often changes towns for a number of reasons (including right now access issues). We want to allow him into a gatehouse while he is a member of one of two towns, but not at a third. allow transporter@town1allow transporter@town2allow @wardeed6. I've created a mine door in a war situation and want to allow Nadroj and Horton to help manage it manage nadroj@manage horton@allow @MRSummary The use of lists can reduce the management effort on a LOT of writs while mine doors and boats will automatically compensate for player moves between towns and kingdoms. The lists will generally be a lot shorter than than the current tick lists, in fact in a worst case scenario it would only be the same length as the current lists are. They should also be of arbitrary length to avoid the mine door issue we currently have. In terms of converting any existing permissions, any invidual one would become allow player_name@ which could then be pruned down. Where there is a "all in my village" as with boats that would become @my_village. To cope with the optoin of allow friends this would insert the appropriate of name@ into the permissions but it would have to be handled manually there after. If its only friends you are allowing you could easily empty and reinsert that particular permissions list. Comments?
  13. These days a few people on Celebration had an unpleasant surprise: they were dragging a large cart across a distance, passing through other deeds on their way. At some point, the player who was dragging the cart stopped dragging, on a deed. And he could not drag it anymore. Even though he had 'dropped' it there. They were not the owners of the cart, but had friend permissions, to drag it and use it, from the owner. This behavior is inconsistent: you can drag a small cart, on a deed, let it there, then drag it again, out from it. If you drop an item on a deed, you can take it back. You happened to be on a deed with the item, you can take your item back. But not for large carts owned by your friend, even though you have all permissions to use it, drag it, steer it, whichever.