A request: Expand the highway section of the rules

[drvst 50]

 

Disclaimer: Any perceived similarity to past or present administrative action or in game event is strictly coincidental. This post is not in reply to one,  or any incidents, but a response to general confusion pertaining the topic contained herein. If you have any misgivings  about the subject at hand  for whatever reason, please leave now. In addition, this is not the place for discussing/challenging any specific GM rulings ongoing or otherwise, of any kind.

 

Quote

Highways
Highway is defined as a paved terrain connecting two or more waystones together via catseyes.

 

Highway Rules:
A ) You may not intentionally disable an active highway connection by removing the catseyes without rerouting or replacing them promptly .

This is insufficient.

 

 Please find my list below. If there are any responses to these questions already, please do share them, but it would be nice if they could be all together here in one spot. Player opinions are welcome, especially links to similar discussions, but I'd mainly appreciate any insight by staff members. Please do not get off topic. Thorough moderation here would be great if possible. No personal attacks against anyone please.

 

Questions:

 

An active highway can be a stretch of road that goes between two waystones and connects nothing. Or... is that true? Is that an active highway? Can an active highway merely be some bricks on the ground with green lights and waystones over a few tiles? Is "green light" the same as "active"?

 

What if the highway is a needless circuit, or a redundant route?

 

Does it have to be actively used (traveled upon) to be an "active" highway? Does that matter at all? (If it must be actively used, how can you prove that it isn't being used?)

 

In short: Which green lights are protected and which are not? (It's possible that they could all be).

 

Looking at it from another perspective: Is there such a thing as an unacceptable highway, even if it is technically "valid"? What are some examples of unacceptable highways if they do exist?

 

Was the intent of the catseye system to embolden players to make their own changes on the transportation system?

 

Using overly-inclusive terms, is it ever possible for this system to become a "hide behind the ambiguity of the system" method of low-intensity harassment?

 

How do you prevent highways from becoming a form of pseudo-ownership by highway builders?  They are even marked by the builder, and the builder gets to decide where they go with no requirement to speak to anyone who lives nearby (no matter how far the builder came to build it.)

 

Do they exist to preserve access to certain areas, even if there are no deeds on the highway there? What if access isn't lost when the catseyes are gone?

 

If something is to be preserved at all costs, why allow removal at all? Why put such power in the hands of the players if it is so important?

 

 

 

 

That's it for now. Like I said, please do add to or provide links. Player opinions matter, but what the staff actually wants is the most important...  That way everyone can change their surroundings as they see fit without fear. No rush, and no quick answers expected. Whatever you guys want to share will be most appreciated.

 

Thank you very much for your time,

 

Drvst

 

 

Edited May 16, 2019 by drvst

[Enki 6,940]

That's actually a pretty healthy list to consider.  Much of it pretty simple to answer, but I am out of time right now.  I will see about expanding your knowledge on this tomorrow.

[Odynn 2,248]

I'd like to ask a question of my own, what happen(ed) to the old highways that were never turned into the new ones due to deeds over them and the inaction of the owners. Are those infrastructures considered to be lost and removable by anyone or their old status is still enforced?

[Eobersig 1,004]

3 hours ago, Odynn said:

I'd like to ask a question of my own, what happen(ed) to the old highways that were never turned into the new ones due to deeds over them and the inaction of the owners. Are those infrastructures considered to be lost and removable by anyone or their old status is still enforced?

 

The old highway rule does no longer exist. In short: if it has no active catseyes it is not a highway, it's just a road.

As with all roads it's good policy to talk to people in the region before removing them, the roads may still be in use by travellers.

[Ayes 3,715]

The questions you posed about highways under the new catseye system are quite expansive and lengthy as they now have crossed (invaded?) all servers leading on each in many directions of routes, alternates, dead ends into deeds (so to speak) and beyond with their blue lighted potential. As the green lighted ones represent a complete route that must link deeds at each end or circuit there can be no invalid highways or those green lights would be the other color perhaps not so glowing and noticeable to some.

 

As I see it, or sometimes don't, this system was setup mainly to reduce GM intervention with highway disputes and set a standard whereby highways would be relegated as the same status. Also there is the additional inconvenience of removing these catseyes which reduces the casual destruction of highways by those so inclined to do so for whatever reasonings pass as their thought processes. A sort of two birds with one stone ricochet effect in which one reinforces the other without constant GM oversight to overlook the out of sight long distances covered that should not be uncovered.

 

You ask also why should players be able to remove these catseyes at all, to which I agree to a certain extent beyond these extensions. I had always stated that only the player who planted these catseyes be allowed to remove them and easily as well. Then if any other players wanted these catseyes removed they would have to contact the GMs to do so. Of course now the GMs must be involved again, to which I say they rightfully should be, but apparently this points to the thought again that this highway catseye system is intended to reduce their interventions as much as possible. Now this may be good or bad or work or not but in the end there will arise situations where the GMs must be involved and as with the removal of others catseyes I would say that they should be.

 

Is this catseye highway system a more symbolic decorative impediment designation that anything else then? Well they have added a few things in an attempt to make it more functional and perhaps more will be added to it in the future. Myself I find this catseye system not worth bothering with generally speaking and even if I did want to connect my deeds to it I would need to redesign the buildings which give everyone access to my deeds by either removing them completely or putting an open passageway through them, which would then allow all aggressive mobs to enter my deed as well. Since the old highway system provided access and passage to and through my deeds I am not about to alter them to accommodate what is already available just to have the *status* of a "highway" connected to them. Even if anyone would then tear up these two lane no longer highways to my deeds they are just cutting off their own feet by ruining their access to points further. Then when they have tired of their mischief I would just repair these no longer highways and players could happily be on to their parts unknown once again.

 

In the end I see some merit to this new catseye system but not enough to make changes to my deeds to accommodate them, which yeah I already said in other words. For those who are happy with it or enjoy what it provides, great too! Wurm life goes on for those who remain...

 

=Ayes=

[Angelklaine 4,266]

My opinion on the subject is to look back at the spirit of what used to be a highway before and what is a highway now, and then just use common sense. If the highway leads nowhere (say, a stretch of road that ends up in a loop to keep it connected to itself) and does not attach to anything, and you so happen to want to drop a deed there, I can't think of a reason why a GM would come over and zap you for deleting it. 

 

On the other hand, if you break a connection that will leave another player disconnected from the highway system and you dont reroute it properly as to not cause an inconvenience to them, you will get a visit from a dude with a cattle prod and it will not be pleasant.

 

I cant think of a reason why anyone would get you in trouble for removing a road that has no use. Removing redundant roads that DO have an use (for example a mountain bypass that is also connected to the highway through a more scenic route) are a bad thing and can be considered griefing of course, but in general using common sense can avoid trouble.

[Cecci 1,609]

I have at one occation broken a major highway to connect/plan two ramps from the shore to the bridges on my perimeter,

then I gave notices several times for about half an hour in Freedom chat and only broke the links for a few minutes.

Not all keep an eye on that tab, but I had nobody yell at me at the time.

There was absolutely no way I could have built a workaround at that spot on the bridge dirt pillar.

So, I broke the rule.

 

What concerns me most in simular occations is what happens with wagoners that are underways.

I was unable to plan the ramp unless I removed around 3 catseyes due to the protection.

 

Will you be mad at me now @Enki?

[Angelklaine 4,266]

3 hours ago, Cecci said:

I have at one occation broken a major highway to connect/plan two ramps from the shore to the bridges on my perimeter,

then I gave notices several times for about half an hour in Freedom chat and only broke the links for a few minutes.

Not all keep an eye on that tab, but I had nobody yell at me at the time.

There was absolutely no way I could have built a workaround at that spot on the bridge dirt pillar.

So, I broke the rule.

 

What concerns me most in simular occations is what happens with wagoners that are underways.

I was unable to plan the ramp unless I removed around 3 catseyes due to the protection.

 

Will you be mad at me now @Enki?

This is actually allowed, as long as you fix it/reroute it. I dont think anyone will hang you for that. 

[Muse 2,216]

"Promptly." A lot of the interpretation comes down to personal confidence.  Can I make the alteration, in an acceptable fashion, and get the cats eyes back in place before the road is needed?  Am I able to reassure fellow players of my ability to do these and will they have faith in my ability to complete the job before they need to use the highway again?

 

I think good communication is key.  Personally I would rather a highway is out of action for a few weeks if we all know in advance, and the work crew keeps us up-to-date on a dedicated community forum post and in Freedom chat, than for a single day if nobody is warned of the work.

 

A lot also depends on how often the highway is in use.  A prompt alteration in rural highway terms, might not be considered swift enough on a major artery route.  A major link road or tunnel needs a dedicated project co-ordinator, someone who can keep everyone informed of progress, but a quiet hardly used back-road can probably be altered with the agreement of the locals.

 

When putting in a new highway or widening an existing road ready for cats eyes, I believe it is proper to consult anyone affected locally, so that they may have input and voice any concerns, and be sure to inform other server users in Freedom chat when the work is taking place, so that they do not attempt to travel the incomplete road.

 

As far as the intention of removing a highway permanently, in my opinion, this is clearly something which should be communicated within the server community section of the forums, and also mentioned in Freedom chat.  The advice of GM's should be sought, at least so that they are kept informed. If the road is insignificant a simple "go ahead" will probably suffice. I think reasonably that a server wide message should still go out in Freedom chat while the work is being done.

 

 

Edited May 17, 2019 by Muse

[drvst 50]

Thanks everyone for your input thus far. Some great stuff here. I don't think it really matters what I think about your ideas and observations, but it is nice to see I'm not the only one who thinks about such matters.

 

I almost always love what Keenan posts. He's rational, fair, and has good judgement. It seems like the following quote of his pertinent to the this question:

 

"Using overly-inclusive terms, is it ever possible for this system to become a "hide behind the ambiguity of the system" method of low-intensity harassment?"

 

Keenan Wrote:

Quote

While I have access to see the GM inner-workings, I can't speak on this situation specifically. What I can say is that every time an issue like this comes up, it's quite rough for the team. On one hand, GMs are highly aware of the "sandbox" mentality of Wurm, and on the other there's the need to ensure everyone has a fair chance at having fun here. We can see this same gray area in real life with the idea of "the right to offend". On one hand, this usually encompasses the freedom of speech, and on the other it encompasses someone's right to live in peace.

 

Wurm is a weird microcosmsm of real life. It often takes a lot of "real life" time to accomplish things and there's often real feelings involved in every aspect of this game. You put so much of yourself into it that an attack on any aspect of what you've done feels like an attack on your person at times. Some might say "it's just a game", but that's a matter of perspective.

 

I'm not entirely sure what we could do to shrink this rule and make it more narrow. There's a history of people who read the rules and find loopholes to abuse. Not to make a joke of this, but I know a few "Wurmian Lawyers" out there. They make work out of interpreting the letter of the rules here and even sometimes dictate their interpretations back at the team.

 

Perhaps we need to be more transparent when this rule is invoked? If so, in what way? What information can be provided? Is it important to protect the offender as well as the victim, particularly in situations where both parties were injured but one crossed a line? I've seen a fair share of issues where miscommunication gave way to verbal attacks and slights, which gave way to rebuttals and retribution, resulting in grief and a mess for the team to sort out. I'm sure we'll want to protect both parties in this case, as both could be normally good people - just heated over something silly. It's also cases like this where I've seen the "Play Nice" rule used, usually against both parties. Whether punishments are handed out or not, the point is made.

 

TL;DR: I think this rule stands to make the point I just mentioned. It's more of a deterrent than something I see the GMs use frequently. If you know that "not playing nice" may spark the ire of the GM team, you'll be less likely to take a dispute to that next and unfortunate step. When it is used, it's used sparingly and with much thought and debate, careful to keep the spirit of a sandbox game and the player base in mind. Just because the game mechanics allow you to do something doesn't mean it's "playing nicely" to do so.

 

Responding to: "There's a history of people who read the rules and find loopholes to abuse. Not to make a joke of this, but I know a few "Wurmian Lawyers" out there. They make work out of interpreting the letter of the rules here and even sometimes dictate their interpretations back at the team."

 

Isn't this precisely why the staff should sit down and define the rules more clearly? Removing as much ambiguity as possible will stop this from happening. Even GM's can't always agree on what the rules mean. When this happens, I can't see anything good coming out of it.

 

Thanks again and keep it rolling.

 

Edited May 17, 2019 by drvst

[Angelklaine 4,266]

I dont think the rules were made to prohibit something per se, but to prevent griefing or careless community damage. If I made a deed and place it on a highway, then because I am lazy I break the highway and put a house there but dont reroute it, this rule gives GMs a means to come over and spank me.

 

Rational, fair, temporary disruptions should never be an issue.