Sign in to follow this  
Etherdrifter

Freedom Code Of Conduct : Loophole

Recommended Posts

-1 from me, such a bad suggestion.

 

Either make your enclosure legal as so many others do and thus you are protected by the rules, or deed it so you don't have to worry about it.

Two very simple choices - but complaining about a rule that doesn't fit to how you want it to work, isn't going to get it changed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

 

Reality: If someone steals from you, you flatten him and loot everything he owns :D   Thieves have short lives here   ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  View hidden Post
Posted · Hidden by Shrimpiie, February 15, 2014 - Removed - Response to now hidden post
Hidden by Shrimpiie, February 15, 2014 - Removed - Response to now hidden post

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.

I don't think any rules will be foul-prove to trespassing and grieving on a sandbox game. The part where it is stated that GMs judge by intentions is the only secure rule of this. 1x1 shacks to block deed expansion for example, the intention could be just grudge, or fighting on who should get that part of land.

 

Oak stealing.. It is as same as horses, put them inside deed. My deed currently have upkeep of 3s-ish and it can hold like 100 animals. I don't need to build enclosures for my animals, I just release or kill the extras.

 

Public mine.. they added a new feature: support beams for floor. So yay for the devs.

 

I have once unfortunately being involved on a case of grieving that affects more than five villages with their villagers and different opinions of how to deal with it. It is not simply who is the evil... all parties involved have theirs own plan of the land and theirs feeling of how far theirs right is and how much they think of their neighbors. All parties are being jerks to each others on certain point. Glad it is over, but now to think of it I might put so much headache to the gm involved. This is example why it is not that easy :/ ...

Share this post


Link to post

No doubt in the coming months my point will be illustrated again and again.  The "learning" curve the elite speak of and the notion of a "legal enclosure" are not generally something one expects on a PvE server, I can see some of the reasoning behind it but I have seen the ineffectiveness of it far more clearly.  One rather sees it as "you are only protected by the law if you are standing on one leg while playing the dutch national anthem left handed on a harmonica to a strange and unusual tempo that must be dead right".  A notion that fails to generate much confidence and has led to player attrition in the past and will continue to do so into the foreseeable future.

Still, I know when to back down on a point.  As of this point I shall direct new players to this thread so they can understand how to protect their property, I am certain they will find it very illustrative.

Edited by Etherdrifter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

-1, if you want your things locked up buy a deed. Want more animal ratio expand your deed. This game is a money sink, don't like it I believe you can play Farmville for free. 


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

-1

The rule is to have a house for a reason. If you want more land pay for it. The animal ratio for as bad a change as it was should apply for everyone. In this case deed it or loose is the way to go.

There's just too many people with tiny deeds fencing twice the area of their deeds, that sh*t has to go.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No doubt in the coming months my point will be illustrated again and again.  The "learning" curve the elite speak of and the notion of a "legal enclosure" are not generally something one expects on a PvE server, I can see some of the reasoning behind it but I have seen the ineffectiveness of it far more clearly.  One rather sees it as "you are only protected by the law if you are standing on one leg while playing the dutch national anthem left handed on a harmonica to a strange and unusual tempo that must be dead right".  A notion that fails to generate much confidence and has led to player attrition in the past and will continue to do so into the foreseeable future.

Still, I know when to back down on a point.  As of this point I shall direct new players to this thread so they can understand how to protect their property, I am certain they will find it very illustrative.

if u want new players to know how to protect their stuff its better to direct them to this topic.

http://forum.wurmonline.com/index.php?/topic/7-game-rules

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone can build a fence in a perimeter though ... it's public land (for the most part)


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a couple of opinions here.

Firstly, as a regular player on the Release server, I find the suggestion that this has occurred just because it's the Release server to be preposterous. The Release server does not have a collection of players who behave better or worse than the population of any server. Also, GMs do not take preference on which type of support case to handle, or which server to respond to. The support system handles many cases across all servers, and cases are handled as fast as humanly possible.

Second, this is a classic example of the misunderstanding of the purpose of a perimeter. The ONLY purpose of a perimeter is to provide a buffer zone between deeds to ensure that the server does not become wall to wall deeds one tile away from each other. It is a no man's land, an area which cannot be claimed by anyone, but also DOES NOT belong to the deed owners. Paying for a larger perimeter is not paying for cheaper land tiles, it is paying for the right of future expansion.

Next, enclosure rules. The enclosure rules exist as a basic protection for people without the desire or means to purchase a deed. They have been carefully crafted to provide a balance which allows for players to feel secure from malicious activity, while still providing a reasonable means to allow for abandoned areas to be reclaimed. As has been previously mentioned, a house is an immediately identifiable way for any player or staff member to know if an undeeded area is in active use.

Lastly, the enclosure rules are clearly stated on the official game rules at http://forum.wurmonline.com/index.php?/topic/7-game-rules/. It is stated multiple times, "Note that a deed overrides the enclosure rule". As stated earlier, Perimeters do not belong to the deed. There is no reason that you should not be able to extend your deed, or move your fenced areas into the deed, if you really wish to protect your assets. Failure to read or understand the rules as written is not license to break these rules, nor assume that the rules do not apply in your specific situation.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So repeated harassment of a person or group of persons is OK as long as it's within those rules? 


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The original purpose of this thread and it's placement in the suggestion forum suggests it was meant to discuss a change to the enclosure rules, not discuss vague insinuations of harassment that may or may not be happening.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Was a genuine question, specifically regarding retaliation.  Basically, a loophole so well on topic m8.


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Was a genuine question, specifically regarding retaliation.  Basically, a loophole so well on topic m8.

You may chalk it up to harassment however it has been stated here as well as in other threads that the only way to protect said property is to deed it. Your second best option is to follow enclosure rules which is easy enough to do. Put a 1x1 somewhere along the fence and make sure it is visible.

 

No doubt in the coming months my point will be illustrated again and again.  The "learning" curve the elite speak of and the notion of a "legal enclosure" are not generally something one expects on a PvE server, I can see some of the reasoning behind it but I have seen the ineffectiveness of it far more clearly.  One rather sees it as "you are only protected by the law if you are standing on one leg while playing the dutch national anthem left handed on a harmonica to a strange and unusual tempo that must be dead right".  A notion that fails to generate much confidence and has led to player attrition in the past and will continue to do so into the foreseeable future.

Still, I know when to back down on a point.  As of this point I shall direct new players to this thread so they can understand how to protect their property, I am certain they will find it very illustrative.

Beg to differ. Build a 1x1 and your months of harrassment will come to an end. If throughout these months your village mates had contacted a GM they would have told you the exact same thing. It is your responsibility to ensure the protection of your own goods. It is not the job of anyone else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no loophole, and if your concern is regarding a specific act of harassment, the Suggestions forum is not the right place to discuss it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You may chalk it up to harassment however it has been stated here as well as in other threads that the only way to protect said property is to deed it. Your second best option is to follow enclosure rules which is easy enough to do. Put a 1x1 somewhere along the fence and make sure it is visible.

 

Beg to differ. Build a 1x1 and your months of harrassment will come to an end. If throughout these months your village mates had contacted a GM they would have told you the exact same thing. It is your responsibility to ensure the protection of your own goods. It is not the job of anyone else.

 

Yyyyyyyeh except by that logic we gotta fence off the entire alliance, doesn't particularly bother me, but it would cut off all traffic from Sloping Sands to the southwest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you don't have it all fenced off now, why would you have to?  All they are saying is put a freaking 1x1 shack in the fences that you do have.  It allows for easier access to said fences since you do not need to make key copies for everyone.  And it puts them into the enclosure rules.  This really isn't that difficult.  Stop trying to act like it is something that it isn't.


  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The enclosure rule will protect off-deed animal pens as long as you make a house somewhere along the pen fence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A lot of players keep animals off their deed to avoid disease build up, generally in their perimeter.

It is a far worse alternative to keep your animals offdeed than on the deed. On the deed you have a ratio where 15 tiles per animal (or more) is a good figure and the animals are unlikely to have miscarriages etc. Offdeed there is no ratio, there is a static figure and the animals always run a risk of having miscarriages and dying.

If you have to pack your animals tight enough on the deed to actually risk disease then okay, I can see why you choose it. Otherwise no. See here: http://www.wurmpedia.com/index.php/Animal_husbandry

Edited by Aeris
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yyyyyyyeh except by that logic we gotta fence off the entire alliance, doesn't particularly bother me, but it would cut off all traffic from Sloping Sands to the southwest.

 

 

The enclosure rule will protect off-deed animal pens as long as you make a house somewhere along the pen fence.

 

 

 

 

From the content of this alliance's posts, it leads me to believe it is because they want to control/treat the perimeter tiles like deeded tiles without paying for the tiles to be deeded, they can't be bothered to build a 1x1 and complete the 4 walls for some reason, or were hoping to get someone specific (or in general) in trouble for "griefing" them and "stealing" their horses/cattle.

 

Which makes me wonder if the perim they are building on is actually their alliance's, since if it is, there should be no worry about building or maintaining the building in the perim.  Hell, the deed owner/a citizen with build rights could build the 1x1 on deed with the fence leading off into perim so there is no maintenance except on the fences in perim, but again, either a lack of willingness to actually do what they need to, or they are actually building on someone else perim.

 

To the OP and their alliance, again, if you think you're being griefed, or you have a legal enclosure being breached, email the GMs or use /support in-game.  If you have already filed a /support call but have an issue with the moderation of the problem, again, email the GMs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"The enclosure rule will protect off-deed animal pens as long as you make a house somewhere along the pen fence."


 


This ruleis a joke anyway , it doesn't work half the time in practice. I've had people break into mines on several occations, once they even mined out a gold vein in a fenced in mine with a gatehouse and mine door. GMs couldn't do anything about it. "It could have been a troll bashing the fence" etc. etc. Their tools for finding out what really happend seems very bad, might just as well remove the rule completly nad go with just the one rule, deed it or loose it. 


 


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

From the content of this alliance's posts, it leads me to believe it is because they want to control/treat the perimeter tiles like deeded tiles without paying for the tiles to be deeded, they can't be bothered to build a 1x1 and complete the 4 walls for some reason, or were hoping to get someone specific (or in general) in trouble for "griefing" them and "stealing" their horses/cattle.

Quite incorrect, a GM clearly stated :

 

 

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.

However this is by no means certain as someone could bash a fence and put their own hut up, throwing doubt onto the situation.  In this case I suspect the GMs would either say they cannot help (in which case the enclosure rule is flawed and should be removed as Torgrim indicates, his "troll bash" case could be considered for ANY wall breach) or they would look at dates, or use some other method to verify ownership (in which case they could easily do the same for perimeter).  The core argument is simply to assume that if it is in a perimeter and is not in a "legal enclosure" it belongs to the deed holder, ergo the burden of proof falls to the 2nd party.

I would ask you not to throw accusations around by only stating assumptions.  It's very rude and uncalled for.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is always a bad idea to leave anything that is valued inside of enclosures, either on deed perimeters or off on free land. The enclosures that are considered legal ones will still not prevent those determined to take something that they see inside of them from doing so. Horses seem to be one of the particularly attractive objects for others to put some additional effort into breaking down walls to then take for their own. No change to the FCOC rules will prevent this, only diminish the effect; therefore, I see that approach as being a waste of time and effort involved.


 


Trying to work around deed mechanics to hoard an excessive amount of animals is not something I have much sympathy for anyway and in the instance described the wise decision to make perimeter gatehouses was not even followed. As pointed out this shows either ignorance of the FCOC enclosure rule application or not bothering to make the effort to apply those standards by creating gatehouses at proper intervals. No real "Loophole" involved in this that I can see.


 


=Ayes=


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this