A few changes to a highway around G10

[Emoo 4,357]

22 minutes ago, Ostentatio said:

"Modify pavement type" does not mean "remove pavement". Lawn is not pavement. If they let him do it that one time, it would set a precedent of people deeding over highways, removing the pavement, and getting away with it because "hey, I totally marked off the grass following the path the highway used to take!"

 

Okay so even in this case you don't consider the lawn with curbs lining it as a legitimate form of roadway. (Lets take into consideration the fact that trees cannot grow on lawns.)

 

Please explain to me where the problem lays in setting a precedent that players can make a completely functional roadway out of whatever tile type they like on their own deed. Aslong as it does not change fundamental route of access to the connecting part of the highway and is clearly marked I simply cannot see how it possibly matters to anyone. 

 

If you can explain to me where my logic is flawed  in this situation I'll happily eat humble pie but otherwise I can't see why this would be a required precedent for game moderation. 

Edited August 19, 2016 by Emoo

[Retrograde 12,013]

What you're discussing there is a modification to the current highway rules, which is absolutely fine, and certainly has already been raised as a result of this.
However, during the middle of a case such as this is not the time.

[Battlepaw 585]

8 hours ago, TradingAlt said:

so you banned em, for something you as a GM could have fixed in 5 minutes of time? OK

Yea, was thinking the same thing. I understand GMs need to enforce the rules, but at the same time this whole issue is beyond petty and stupid.  I've known brandon for a long time and after reading this it reminded me why I left last year, many devoted players just have better options then waste their time.  I left after a series of utterly ridiculous pvp bans on chaos, and l was just done with all the drama, and was having more fun on ark.  I love wurm, but this kinda thing thing just makes me so frustrated.

[Ostentatio 1,971]

2 hours ago, Emoo said:

 

Okay so even in this case you don't consider the lawn with curbs lining it as a legitimate form of roadway. (Lets take into consideration the fact that trees cannot grow on lawns.)

 

Please explain to me where the problem lays in setting a precedent that players can make a completely functional roadway out of whatever tile type they like on their own deed. Aslong as it does not change fundamental route of access to the connecting part of the highway and is clearly marked I simply cannot see how it possibly matters to anyone. 

 

If you can explain to me where my logic is flawed  in this situation I'll happily eat humble pie but otherwise I can't see why this would be a required precedent for game moderation. 

 

What Retrograde said. The rules don't currently allow for that. If someone thinks the rule should be changed, fine, but the appropriate way to go about this is not "repeatedly ignore GMs trying to enforce the rules that already exist".

 

3 minutes ago, Battlepaw said:

Yea, was thinking the same thing. I understand GMs need to enforce the rules, but at the same time this whole issue is beyond petty and stupid.  I've known brandon for a long time and after reading this it reminded me why I left last year, many devoted players just have better options then waste their time.  I left after a series of utterly ridiculous pvp bans on chaos, and l was just done with all the drama, and was having more fun on ark.  I love wurm, but this kinda thing thing just makes me so frustrated.

 

He wasn't banned for doing it. He was banned for repeatedly ignoring GM requests.

 

A guy broke the rules, the GMs were lenient with him, made repeated requests that he revert the changes he made, tried to be accommodating, and the player continued to refuse those demands. This is very squarely his own fault.

[Battlepaw 585]

I know it's his fault, and he knew what would happen, fairs fair... really, that is obvious. Its permaban, after years of devoted play over a  road.  What cracks me up is, yea this crap is just buissness as usual in wurm. That is what I mean by frustration.

[Ostentatio 1,971]

2 minutes ago, Battlepaw said:

I know it's his fault, and he knew what would happen, fairs fair... really, that is obvious. Its permaban, after years of devoted play over a  road.  What cracks me up is, yea this crap is just buissness as usual in wurm. That is what I mean by frustration.

 

It was never a permanent ban. Please read the staff posts in this thread.

[Battlepaw 585]

I really don't care. It was a damm road. Perma ban or not brandon quit.  It was obviously the only way to handle a frustrated player out in the middle of nowhere over a road that doesn't even matter, on a deed not blocking access.  I really don't even care if you think each road violation is the same regardless of location. Yea brandon knew that, and just gave up and quit.  I read and was reminded why I don't bother anymore either.

Edited August 19, 2016 by Battlepaw

[Emoo 4,357]

1 hour ago, Ostentatio said:

 

What Retrograde said. The rules don't currently allow for that. If someone thinks the rule should be changed, fine, but the appropriate way to go about this is not "repeatedly ignore GMs trying to enforce the rules that already exist".

 

 

He wasn't banned for doing it. He was banned for repeatedly ignoring GM requests.

 

A guy broke the rules, the GMs were lenient with him, made repeated requests that he revert the changes he made, tried to be accommodating, and the player continued to refuse those demands. This is very squarely his own fault.

 

Which leads me exactly back to the point I made the first time round. There is no legitimate reason why the precedent can't be set that roadways can be whatever material the deed owner desires aslong as it does not impede access or mislead travelers on the route of the highway. I do not question a ban for ignoring a GM given direction - that to me is completely justified. However my question is as to why the GMs felt it necessary to give the direction in the first place. Considering that the deed owner had a justified reason for choosing his method of road surface and that it had community support. It is yet to be explained to me as to why it is necessary for GM intervention to be involved on a relatively small segment of highway on a deed is made of lawn.

 

Edited August 19, 2016 by Emoo

[Ostentatio 1,971]

41 minutes ago, Emoo said:

 

Which leads me exactly back to the point I made the first time round. There is no legitimate reason why the precedent can't be set that roadways can be whatever material the deed owner desires aslong as it does not impede access or mislead travelers on the route of the highway. I do not question a ban for ignoring a GM given direction - that to me is completely justified. However my question is as to why the GMs felt it necessary to give the direction in the first place. Considering that the deed owner had a justified reason for choosing his method of road surface and that it had community support. It is yet to be explained to me as to why it is necessary for GM intervention to be involved on a relatively small segment of highway on a deed is made of lawn.

 

 

I refer back to what staff said above: The middle of a decision is not the time to be making ad-hoc changes to the game rules.

 

The appropriate thing to do would be to enforce the rules as they are, the player reverting the highway, and then have a discussion about the rules afterward. The GMs were even a bit lax with him due to the situation.

Edited August 19, 2016 by Ostentatio

[BrandonSF 250]

It isn't a permanent ban, btw and like I said, I get why the ban happened

 

I think it's dumb curbed lawns shouldn't be considered a road. It looks very much like a road, connects to two-lane bridges and all, and looks nicer I think. 

 

I'm not changing it though, so the ban is. I accept and move on.

[Emoo 4,357]

8 hours ago, Ostentatio said:

 

I refer back to what staff said above: The middle of a decision is not the time to be making ad-hoc changes to the game rules.

 

The appropriate thing to do would be to enforce the rules as they are, the player reverting the highway, and then have a discussion about the rules afterward. The GMs were even a bit lax with him due to the situation.

 

Having been a GM myself in the past I can tell you that this isn't how the team functions nor how any sandbox GM team can function. Given the vastly flexible and constantly changing nature of Wurm's sandbox mechanics no solid set of rules can be applied equally to every situation. There will always be situations where unforeseen problems arise that were never even considered when writing the rules. As such the Wurm GM team often at times needs to make judgment calls (which are often group input decisions) this happens all the time and is the reason that some tickets can remain open for weeks if not months as deliberation is required as to how or if the rules should be enforced or even require input from other people in the games staff (eg. devs), 

 

This is exactly what happened in this case, the GMs went away and discussed between themselves whether they should enforce the exact wording of the rules in this case. Which brings us back to the same question again, why did the GMs agree that this rule needed to be enforced in this scenario where there was clearly no ill intention to the community, the roadway was open and clearly marked and the owner had a well expressed idea for his deed? I still cannot see any legitimate reason why unless the GMs themselves (as has been the case in the past sometimes) do not understand the game mechanics themselves that apply to roadways to begin with. 

 

 

[Retrograde 12,013]

The current highway rules do not consider lawn pavement, nor do they take into account curbs, which leads to by the current rules, no highway.

 

Now adjustment of the rules to include curbing, and perhaps lawn as pavement (given that it disappears when off deed, meaning as soon as this deed fell there would be no lawn.) Is a separate manner. and one we are happy to discuss from here on, but again, this is not the time to discuss how rules are enforced. I still fail to see any suggestion board thread over allowing modifications to the highway rules.

 

The rules for highways tend to be very clear, and for the sake of ease are carried to the letter. this enables the GM team to operate in a clear and consistent manner, and remain fair for all players.

 

This ban in this case is not a squabble over road type, but repeatedly refusing to work with the GM team despite given adequate time, and assurances that he would.

[Ayes 3,715]

On ‎8‎/‎16‎/‎2016 at 11:05 AM, Elizarya said:

Sadly these gates are also locked as often as they are unlocked, still leaving the area frequently impassable.

 

There is a setting on gates that allows everyone to pass them when locked. With this set everyone can always pass them even when locked. Contact the deed owner somehow and ask them to set them this way. If they don't then you will know it is intentional that they want to keep others out regardless of how it might block their passage though that area.

 

=Ayes=

[Ayes 3,715]

Yep, lawn is not a type of pavement nor is it listed as one to be used for highway classification. Lawns slow movement speed on foot as well, which is how I always travel around my local area and into Green Dog if not hauling items on a cart. No doubt others do the same thing as running around without armor (or cloth armor) is much faster than riding most horses. Hopefully lawns will never be allowed to be classified for highway recognition. Also, off deed lawns will gradually revert back to grass.

 

To change any existing highway you also need GM permission. I got them called on me once when I only added some diagonal pieces to the edges of a highway without even changing anything about the existing jagged tiles. So I questioned why I had to remove them but since I was told I still had to remove them I did. No further problems for me. Could have been the same in this situation as well.

 

Sometimes you can get by with making highway changes in less populated areas if no one objects and reports you but the same rules apply even though they are craftily avoided. Stubbornness is not a good trait to cultivate in these instances where those in authority have power over you. You will only end up with a sore head and a bloody stone wall in front of you.

 

=Ayes=

[rixk 830]

Come on.. pavement has one trait, it doesn't lower your walking speed, that is why they are meant as main characteristic of a highway. Highway is/and has never been about looks, it always has been about functionality, allow quick/unobstructed travel from point A to point B. Lawn, no matter how you look at it, is not suitable for a highway, period. First, it disappears quickly after deed disbands(means someone has to start maintaining the highways), second it lowers walking speed, maybe not much.. but where is the line? Lawn is ok, but then why not tar, sand, or even lava.. it will be a mess.

[LorraineJ 1,099]

I think banning ALL of the characters on an account for modifying a highway on one's own deed is a bit much. At least when compared with other highway modifications I've known of that resulted in no ban whatsoever. I'll show a pic of one example for those who never saw it:

 

 

That pink area is a 3-lane highway that had been in existence for ages. It is NOT on the deed of the person who dug it up - he dug it up to grief me because it's on the way from one of my deeds to another. This was done during a time when everyone was told by GMs to behave because the ongoing griefing was being investigated. This person deforested the area, cut down the oaks lining both sides of the road, dug giant pits next to the highway, and then just proceeded to take the entire road out and dig a pit in it. He was told to stop, and then he filled the highway back in, but there was no ban on any character, despite being told beforehand to stop the griefing. Comparing this behavior of ripping up a used highway that is not on one's own deed to someone just trying to make a beautiful deed in the middle of nowhere, somehow I don't see that it's cool to not give any corrective punishment to the one person, and then go and ban ALL of the characters of a person paying money for the squares they altered.

 

In another spot on Deli, there is a major highway that goes directly south of our spawn point Green Dog. Someone dropped a deed on this highway and proceeded do dig it up. I asked the GMs to ask him to leave the highway intact, and they looked at the area and decided that the major artery was not indeed a highway because one of the squares along the road had a tree in it, so the highway proceeded with one tile on one side of the tree and one tile on the other side of the tree. I never saw any rules about a highway having a decoration in the middle which caused the road to spread to three tiles instead of two meant it was no longer a highway, but it is a-ok to rip up this major road right near the spawn point of little Deli, versus a deed in the middle of nowhere on the giant .0001-person-per-square Xanadu. I just don't see how it's fair to ban ALL characters for this, and let other real bothers result in no action whatsoever.

 

Edited August 20, 2016 by LorraineJ

[Sunstrike 15]

Refusing to follow GM directives, openly stating he had no intention of following them.

 

30 day ban for wasting GM time seems fair

[LorraineJ 1,099]

19 minutes ago, Sunstrike said:

Refusing to follow GM directives, openly stating he had no intention of following them.

 

30 day ban for wasting GM time seems fair

 

It's his own deed, it's not in a high traffic area. When NO ban is given to people ripping up highways to grief on roads they don't own AFTER being warned to stop griefing, 30 days on more than one character seems excessive to me. One week on one character, I wouldn't have posted.

[Sunstrike 15]

1 minute ago, LorraineJ said:

 

It's his own deed, it's not in a high traffic area. When NO ban is given to people ripping up highways to grief on roads they don't own AFTER being warned to stop griefing, 30 days on more than one character seems excessive to me. One week on one character, I wouldn't have posted.

deeding over a highway and then ripping it up does not excuse you.

 

Griefing is different, and probably had other things going on.

 

this is a player agreeing to work with the GM's, then publicly saying he wasnt.

 

at what point do they put their foot down, or can i deed any highway and destroy it because its now my deed?

[LorraineJ 1,099]

11 minutes ago, Sunstrike said:

2 minutes ago, Sunstrike said:

deeding over a highway and then ripping it up does not excuse you.

 

I must have not made my post clear. When the person dug up the highway and began to make even the dirt squares impassable, it was not his deed.

 

 

3 minutes ago, Sunstrike said:

Griefing is different, and probably had other things going on.

 

Sure, there was:

 

 

 

What I'm objecting to is the difference in GM actions. No ban for ripping up and digging down a pit into a highway you don't own WHILE you are on notice to stop griefing, versus making an obvious, pretty, passable grass highway on your own deed resulting in a 30-day ban of ALL your characters is not equitable. One week ban on the one character who had the deed, I would have just read on disgusted but used to it.

 

 

[Shrimpiie 3,665]

This thread has already received multiple posts from the GM Team stating why actions were taken the way they were, and the thread has gone on much further than it should have in the first place as challenging the actions of moderators is to be done to their superior only.

 

If anyone has issue with how/why actions were taken by the team in this case, they will PM the Head Game Master, Enki.