Freedom Code Of Conduct : Loophole

[Etherdrifter 2,518]

As far as I am aware theft is not supposed to be legal on Release.

However there is a loophole that are being exploited.

A lot of players keep animals off their deed to avoid disease build up, generally in their perimeter.  Surprisingly it is not against the freedom code of conduct for someone to demolish a pen that is not linked to a structure, even if it is in a perimeter and is well maintained.  This needs fixing as it is very unfair.  I do wish to say that I have not been a victim of this so far as I do not really keep animals, however my neighbours are plagued by it.

So to summarise, if animals/items are penned and the pen is well maintained?  Bashing it down to get the animals/penned items should be considered breaking the rules.

[Kalladin 1]

+1

[san_tropez 394]

What's stopping him from building like 4 extra fences and a 1x1 shack?

[AnarchistRise 320]

FCC are not game rules, want full control move to a PvP server. When someone steals, you steal it back.

[Protunia 735]

Have to remember the crowd on Release  Probably always going to have some issues like that.

 

Best to deed in most cases because some people cant seem to play nice ever.

[Mordraug 2,542]

Or building right outside a perimeter to block expansion.... 

 

Or chop down fences among deeds to steal oaks... 

 

Or go into a public mine's main tunnel (now closed off and to hell with passing newbies in need, lovely welcome to Wurm) and mining a small "lake" in there.... 

 

If anyone asks me, I think GM's on Release aren't interested at all in sorting those cases, not sure if out of laziness, helping buddies, OR quite simply griefers are owning Wurm and its staff by knowing exactly how far to bend the so-called rules. 

 

/support for a bug gets FAST replies (kudoes), while /support for theft and griefing has quite a way of being responded to when it's waaaaaaaaay past the time limit for tracks to be reliably found, just to add insult to injury.

 

 Either way, confidence in the CoC and its enforcement by game staff is hitting rock bottom.  Then again it's not my business, so not my call to decide if a small cluster of people are worth losing a bunch of paying customers over, eh?

 

+1  to better enclosure protection, SPECIALLY on perimeter, since i'd rather have no perimeter and deed over the whole thing but it ain't my choice.

[Seara 686]

If you want to pen animals off deed, you need a house inside to make it an enclosure.

 

This is not an arbitrary rule ... if there's a house, there's a writ owner, and so it's quite plain as to who the owner of the whole enclosure is.  If there's just a fence, there is no such indicator, and thus no way for GM's to know who the owner of the area, and thus the animals inside, is beyond any doubt.

[Pinky 35]

How about if the animals have been branded? Or cared for?  Or just being cared for in the sense of having food and the fences are kept in good repair?  Obviously there is no doubt as to who the owner is.

 

I believe this is not an outrageous request, and honestly, anything that can stop griefing should be embraced.

 

And the Code of Conduct, although not a set of rules but only a guideline, should have more of an effect if people deliberately break these guidelines.  It should not take a GM to give them a directive to follow the guidelines.  If they break the guidelines deliberately and with the intention to grief, a warning should be appropriate.

 

+1

Edited February 15, 2014 by Pinky

[san_tropez 394]

How about if the animals have been branded? Or cared for?  Or just being cared for in the sense of having food and the fences are kept in good repair?  Obviously there is no doubt as to who the owner it.

How about just putting up that shack? The enclosure rule, even though I disagree with it being used by established players, exists for a reason

Edited February 15, 2014 by san_tropez

[Etherdrifter 2,518]

Generally it is a case of "res ipsa loquitur" :-

Enclosure on perimeter, dates when the deed was expanded can be checked.  Ergo one can assert just how likely ownership is.

If the enclosure has a catapult parked outside and a hole in the fence then it is reasonable to assume that no animal owner is going to go to that kind of length to get their own critters out.

In the end the result is people are losing out as the rules stand.  I am not sure if it is the minority of the majority overall but speaking as someone who often hears of thefts that are not resolved?  GMs surely must have tools to allow identification of actions.

[san_tropez 394]

How hard can it possibly be to build a 1x1 shack?

[Mordraug 2,542]

How hard can it possibly be to build a 1x1 shack?

 

Much harder than it must be for a sysadmin to get a griefer's name and stop them instead of practically sponsoring them.

[Pashka 707]

As much as I hate hearing about someone losing animals or whatnot.  Generally it is because someone has not protected his belongings.  Whether it is changing a setting on a deed so a friend can get something and forgetting to change it back.  In this case someone that for some reason doesn't want to build a house.  It is never fun to be the person it happens to but generally there is a way to protect your belongings or if not protect them, make it so the GM's have a rule to stand behind and punish the offenders.

[san_tropez 394]

Much harder than it must be for a sysadmin to get a griefer's name and stop them instead of practically sponsoring them.

80 planks and 4 nails. You coulda put up a shack in the time it took you to write out a response. Enclosures are the exception to the rule of anything off deed being considered as wilderness. If you cannot be arsed to put up a sodding shack, you are either new and just learned an important lesson, or you never cared about whether your oaks, farms, horses or whatever is to disappear over night

 

It's a tool, but like any other tool you need to use it for it to function

Edited February 15, 2014 by san_tropez

[Etherdrifter 2,518]

Well I am not sure if "they" have learned an important lesson but I most certainly have. 

I'll leave this up here to run its course.  I will remark that it is not an attack on GMs as they are very hard working people, but it is a suggestion as to an alteration to the rules in cases where it is clear "theft" has occurred (otherwise why would the /support function be THERE to report it (see the nice green text)).

I'm not talking about some enclosure in the middle of nowhere where ownership is uncertain, only those in deed perimeters where the burden of proof should lie with the 2nd party and not the deed owner.

[Mordraug 2,542]

I'm not talking about some enclosure in the middle of nowhere where ownership is uncertain, only those in deed perimeters where the burden of proof should lie with the 2nd party and not the deed owner.

 

^

[Pinky 35]

I am unsure why a shack inside a fenced in area off deed with animals well cared for, is needed.  If it is obvious that the animals are being taken care of, it is obvious others should respect that.  The shack will decay faster as it is in perim if the deed owner does not have the writ, wheras fences will not (fences same rate as non perim if I recall correctly.)  If this has been reported to GM as someone taking your animals or even bashing fences and killing them for no reason, I am sure it is not unreasonable to ask something be done.  You play the game in Freedom, and you are active enough to see the break in the fence and report it.

 

Incidentally, I also have an issue with people making "legal enclosures" and then leaving the animals to starve.  As the game's code of conduct states we should not bash these, the animals have to starve in front of our eyes when the owner obviously stopped playing.

 

I stay with my original +1

[san_tropez 394]

The legal enclosure rule is pretty damn bulletproof. What you want instead is just leaving about a million holes open. It's as simple as locking your door

Edited February 15, 2014 by san_tropez

[Arronicus 635]

Much harder than it must be for a sysadmin to get a griefer's name and stop them instead of practically sponsoring them.

Why would the sysadmin get the players name, if the rule hasn't been broken?

Considering how easy it is to simply build a 1x1 house, instead of trying to have the rule changed to accomodate laziness, this request seems ridiculous to me.

-1

[Pollo 146]

If you do not protect something according to the rules (legal enclosure), then you have no protection.

 

Does not matter where an enclosure is at, middle of no where or right up against a deed within the perimeter, a simple shack is required to be "legal" and thus involve GMs.  There is no loophole here, take this as a lesson learned and play within the already set game rules.

 

Of course, better yet, put the animals on your deed, figure out some other way to protect them from disease and this would not be an issue.

[Mordraug 2,542]

Why would the sysadmin get the players name, if the rule hasn't been broken?

Considering how easy it is to simply build a 1x1 house, instead of trying to have the rule changed to accomodate laziness, this request seems ridiculous to me.

-1

 

All my enclosures are gatehoused, so cut the pro-griefing "laziness" card.  Hope to hear from you the day you woke up low on caffeine, skip a beat, and have your stuff griefed.

[Hussars 511]

All my enclosures are gatehoused, so cut the pro-griefing "laziness" card. Hope to hear from you the day you woke up low on caffeine, skip a beat, and have your stuff griefed.

so if you're the victim in question, and your enclosure was breached, email the gms.

 

::edit to correct spelling, originally posted from my phone lol::

Edited February 15, 2014 by Hussars

[Klaa 4,872]

Just chalk it up to a learning experience.

[Mordraug 2,542]

It's a weekly thing around my alliance's turf (not the leader, as in alliance i'm in).

 

Always "within legal limits", so repeated but gray line... where does it become harassment?

[Kediec 280]

It isn't the GM's fault if players are trying to bypass mechanics of animal ratio and disease by maintaining non "legal" enclosures off deed then having animals stolen.

 

Build a house attached to the enclosures and then the GM's will do something if someone breaks in to steal the animals. Or even better keep your animals on deed and within the ratios (virtually no disease then).

 

The enclosure rule is quite simple and is there to protect off deed stuff so make use of it. The CoC is just a guideline for players and has no real enforcement areas within it.

As already said, if a "legal" enclosure (as defined in the game rules) is breached , then report it as that will have action taken on it.

 

What your asking for here is more protection from laziness because people don't want to add a 1x1 house to a fenced area.

 

 

-1 from me.