Sign in to follow this  
Etherdrifter

Freedom Code Of Conduct : Loophole

Recommended Posts

I have to add my -1 to this.  Perimeters are no different than wild tiles, except they can't be deeded.  You shouldn't expect that anything kept off-deed is safe, and assuming anything done to something that is off-deed was griefing is just plain wrong.  "A griefer is a player in a multiplayer video game who deliberately irritates and harasses other players within the game, using aspects of the game in unintended ways."  It has been stated several times that if you aren't following enclosure rules, then no rule has been broken.  A player who does what you claim is being done, could have any number of non-griefing reasons for doing so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure how the quote you chose makes my statement incorrect, the selected quote says the same thing, no house, no enclosure.  The OP/alliance, refuses to build at least a 1x1 house and my statement wasn't an accusation (a direct charge of behavior), simply an observation (and assumption, hence the wording "...leads me to believe...") based on:


  • OP and alliance have clearly stated they understood the Code of Conduct (a document which states in bold letters a the top of the page it is not an enforceable rule set)
  • Have stated they understand but don't agree with the need for a minimum of a 1x1 house to be considered an enclosure
  • After a single incident, failed to ensure the fences were linked to a house so they were counted as an enclosure for GM protection
  • Ignoring and/or arguing/disagreeing with everyone opposing their opinion, no matter who that person is or information they provide
  • stating belief that the GMs/staff are picking sides against them, ignoring their complaints, or failing to stay neutral on the topic Struck based on potentially not originally stated by OP's alliance member
  • Calling for the banning/punishment of the players bashing the fences on a basis of harassment without offering proof it was the same player/player group bashing each time Struck based on associated comments not meant to imply seeking of punishment/originating from OP's alliance

The GM team has stated repeatedly, no house, no enclosure, no fault.  In your own quoted response, if there is no house, they will not interfere because there is no easy way to verify who is at fault and who "owns" the fences.


 


Again, these observations provide a view that either the person/alliance is:


  1. Simply trying to bypass the deed rules for perimeter control (i.e perim doesn't belong to anyone) and maintain control of non-enclosure structures as if on deeded tiles
  2. Can't be bothered to comply with enclosure requirements for some reason (i.e. too much work, don't have the resources, simply choosing not to, etc...)
  3. Are intentionally attempting to engineer a specific situation and outcome related to other players (specific players/groups or otherwise)

This does not mean that is the actual case in any means, simply how it appears to some of us outside the situation.


 


Once again, if you think you are being harassed in-game, file a /support call.  If you feel that the staff respondent is not providing good service or is in any way failing to stay neutral, email the GM team directly.  They'll review the claim very carefully, as they do not tolerate that type of behavior.


 


::Edit insert::


Bashing a fence and then building their own 1x1 would make it an enclosure and legally everything within would be theirs IF you did not already have a 1x1 there also.  It becomes a more simple ruling based on the age of the writ.


 


So once more, build a 1x1, make it an enclosure even if it is within your/your alliance perim.


Edited by Hussars
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Would you rather have a flawed enclosure rule or no rule to guard off-deed ownership at all? Perimeter ownership will not happen.

Edited by EliasTheCrimson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think I just lost my motivation to argue for a just cause.  Well done.

I'll part on the final note and leave this thread to rot :

Before you openly state that I am "stating belief that the GMs/staff are picking sides against [us]"  and "Calling for the banning/punishment of the players bashing the fences on a basis of harassment without offering proof it was the same player/player group bashing each time" I would actually give a quote of me doing so.  The words of others are not mine thank you.  Also if I were to state that (and this is in no way my opinion) "the way some people are arguing leads me to believe that they are only doing so because they are the main abusers of this loophole" I'd be bang out of order.  "Observations" can sound awfully like accusations if made in the wrong light.

The spirit this was suggested in was a simple one, to fix a rule I believe to be broken.  Why is it broken?  It facilitates theft.

No complexity or ulterior motives and I rather resent being painted so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well... since this IS the suggestion's forum... how about an option to pay an extra fee for perimeter to have deed rules apply to it minus the decay protection, and stuff can still spawn on it  :3


 


*edit: and minus templar coverage*


Edited by Mordraug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Then it would be called deed. 


 


Perimeter and what it is for has been discussed numerous times, I do not agree with it (other than allowing for passage between deeds) but it is what Rolf wants, or else it would have changed long ago.


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You may also want to separate my words from those of others.  As you are mixing quotes from various people and based on the first portion, seem to imply I was source of the latter as well.


 


I've not implied or stated anyone has exploited, harassed or griefed anyone.  I did say that based on the various posts (which may or may not have associated to/directly from your own alliance) presented a view from which 1 of 3 (or a combination thereof) most likely reasons were the source.  If I attributed those associated comments incorrectly, for that you have my apologies.  I have modified my previous post in light of this.


 


Beyond that, nevermind..


 


When terms like "Just Cause" get used.. conversation can no longer continue.


 


One of the things I think about when that term is used http://files.libertyfund.org/pll/quotes/288.html


Edited by Hussars

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.

 

The last thing Players have on a PvP server is "Control". "Steal(ing) it back" isn't control, it's mutually assured irritation. 

 

...@OP's suggestion... I see no loop hole myself. I see Players trying to use perimeter tiles for something other than what CodeClub AB says they are to be used for: a buffer zone. Even though Players pay for more than the minimum 5 tiles their intended use is simple as a buffer between deeds so deed boundries aren't next to each other (as I understand it)/

 

If you value your horses and livestock, then keep them ON DEED, not the perimeter.... *OR* use the rules for "Legal enclosures", build the four 1 tile "guardshacks" and the connecting fences and then at least you could tell a GM the stinkin' thieves smashed your legal enclosure. That will get more results (I assume and think) then asking Rolf to change the rules.

 

Several of us over the years have attempted MANY TIMES to get the perimeter rules "upgraded" so we deed owners could get more use and value out of the perimeter tiles of our deeds, and every time our suggestions and requests got shot down. Would be nice if Rolf approved your suggestion in some fashion, but I have no faith anymore that will happen.

 

neither -1 or +1, just use the existing rules as they are and you will have enough protections.

Edited by Kyrmius
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We've been told we can't cut down trees in one perimeter and stopped from building a road in another by more than one GM in each case. Also we found we were not allowed to KOS someone who's mine dipped into our perimeter a few tiles. So the perimeter does have some protection, whether it's in the rules or not.

Unless it's changed again in the last few months they were given a little more leeway on taking action based on the intent of the people involved even if the actions weren't technically against the rules.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What hasn't been explainrd in this situation is, the allince in question isn't one single village or deed. It's a coop of about 20 deeds all in close proximity. Deeding the entire area would be impractical at best if not impossible. there is a lot of perimiter and small areas of undeeded land between these deeds but we maintain it all as if it were our own. We do our very best to take care of the land and keep it as nice as possible. Newcomers are always welcomed. We hand out food, cotton and healing covers to any who need them. Since it's on a primary route south from SS there are many travelers who come through going south. We do our very best to offer them a safe haven while they are there.


 The incident in the OP isn't isolated. For example, we at one time had a public mine next to a guard tower for any and all to take advantage of. It's closed off now thanks to whoever dug the floor down to swimming depth and made it unpassable by cart. Forest areas have been clear cut, moats have been dug, there's been more theft than I can list here.


 It's not all been due to a lack of not trying to protect ourselves. It's due to the wrong people taking advantage of our kind ways. Those ways are rapidly coming to an end. More walls are being built and roads are being diverted. It's sad that it's coming to that end but it has to be done I guess.


 I don't understand the opposition to letting players have more tools to determine who has done these things. Not one time has a gm offered any recourse except to say that we have the tools to fix it so carry on.


  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

there is a lot of perimiter and small areas of undeeded land between these deeds but we maintain it all as if it were our own.

Unfortunately the game does not support this. As nice as it may be, we cannot let every group of deed owners claim the land between them and hope against hope that neighbors will be treated fairly. We need to have people pay for every owned tile or there won't be any tiles left to own. We can't have alliances claiming their surroundings as their own micro-nations.

Fencing off large sections of land is one solution; a solution that decay and rules can hopefully discourage.

Edited by EliasTheCrimson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We've been told we can't cut down trees in one perimeter and stopped from building a road in another by more than one GM in each case. Also we found we were not allowed to KOS someone who's mine dipped into our perimeter a few tiles. So the perimeter does have some protection, whether it's in the rules or not.

Unless it's changed again in the last few months they were given a little more leeway on taking action based on the intent of the people involved even if the actions weren't technically against the rules.

 

And I have been told by GMs on more than one occasion that I could not stop others from cutting trees in my perimeter nor could I stop a certain Roadbuilder from building a road through my perimeter (whom will remain nameless). I was told by those same GMs that the perimeter tiles of my deed did not afford me any rights to how the land was used by others other than others could not place a deed on them, they belonged to the server for the purposes of a buffer between my deed and others. My comments about no protections for perimeter is based upon what GMs themselves have told me about what rights a deed owner has (or has not) over perimeter tiles. My circumstances happened over a year ago, but as far as I am aware there has been no changes to the perimeter tiles "rights" as far as the deed owner was concerned.

 

Consider yourself fortunate you contacted a GM that gave you more consideration than they had to. I wish all deed owners were that fortunate.

Edited by Kyrmius
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is not opposition for what you are asking for.  We have discussed and argued over this and similar issues dealing with "Legal Enclosures" and Perimeters numerous times.  What we are saying is that these are the rules, for better or worse (generally worse, but we have some protections), the rules are not likely to change any time soon.


 


Legal Enclosures give you some protection, but is not foolproof, in the end Deed it or Lose it trumps enclosures and offers much better protections.


 


We do not own perimeters, although there are some protections from other people building in our perimeters.  However, most activities other than building are allowed.  I am not certain why a GM may have told someone earlier that they could not build a road or cut trees down in a perimeter, generally these are allowed.


 


Theft is not theft, if actions were not taken to prevent items from being picked up then generally it is not enforcable as theft.  This even includes on deed, if deed permissions were changed to allow something to occur and not changed back afterward, then something comes up missing, nothing is likely to be done about it.


 


These are the rules that we all play within, the are not perfect or even close, but they are what we have.


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What hasn't been explainrd in this situation is, the allince in question isn't one single village or deed. It's a coop of about 20 deeds all in close proximity. Deeding the entire area would be impractical at best if not impossible. there is a lot of perimiter and small areas of undeeded land between these deeds but we maintain it all as if it were our own. We do our very best to take care of the land and keep it as nice as possible. Newcomers are always welcomed. We hand out food, cotton and healing covers to any who need them. Since it's on a primary route south from SS there are many travelers who come through going south. We do our very best to offer them a safe haven while they are there.

 The incident in the OP isn't isolated. For example, we at one time had a public mine next to a guard tower for any and all to take advantage of. It's closed off now thanks to whoever dug the floor down to swimming depth and made it unpassable by cart. Forest areas have been clear cut, moats have been dug, there's been more theft than I can list here.

 It's not all been due to a lack of not trying to protect ourselves. It's due to the wrong people taking advantage of our kind ways. Those ways are rapidly coming to an end. More walls are being built and roads are being diverted. It's sad that it's coming to that end but it has to be done I guess.

 I don't understand the opposition to letting players have more tools to determine who has done these things. Not one time has a gm offered any recourse except to say that we have the tools to fix it so carry on.

It sucks that it happens, don't get me wrong.  I'm not unsympathetic to the problem, I've been on the receiving end of the same behavior.  However since I don't think anyone has mentioned it yet, there is a skill that can help a lot:  Tracking (wiki linked).  There are limits to what it can do and it's annoying to level the same as prospecting is, but works wonders in identifying those who have been near your property in the last 8 hours or so and might help in your case.

 

A quick quote: "Radius you can track does not increase with skill, just number of sightings, timer, and age of tracks you can see"

 

As a nice side bonus, it is a good way to increase Mind Logic for some folks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is not opposition for what you are asking for.  We have discussed and argued over this and similar issues dealing with "Legal Enclosures" and Perimeters numerous times.  What we are saying is that these are the rules, for better or worse (generally worse, but we have some protections), the rules are not likely to change any time soon.

 I understnd this very well, thank you. I agree that rehashing this isn't going to get any rules changed. I'd just as well see a tool in place to allow players to police their own when gms cant.

 As it stands, tracking is not the answer.

Tracking shows who, or what, has traversed a tile or near it within the past 3 Wurm days. (9hours)

If that worked as stated then it would do the job, but it's easily fooled even at high levels. Perhaps if tracking was overhauled it would be the tool myself and others are looking for.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It can be fooled, yes, but if the person doing the bash and run isn't intentionally trying to grief (or doesn't know how to fool it) it will help.  Nothing short of pulling the server logs will be 100% (and even that might not be), but what does it hurt to try if it is such an ongoing issue?


Edited by Hussars

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

-1

the fact things could be stolen drives my love of the game. Had my cart stolen "leroy" has been etched. can't dispute that but carp happens. now you know, if you see animals in a random pen off deed, they might be yours. it's in bad taste but it's the bitter taste of wurm that makes it so good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

At the very least, this ^

 

If you truely care about your animals/land, deed it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

-1 if someone wants to waste hours on end bashing down a high ql fence to get a horse they must really really really need the thing.


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So if i go to the area of some alliance I dislike, and start tearing up random 1-tile wide roads, digging holes in the path so carts can't path... it's legal, but when does it become "griefing" considering my intent is solely messing with them?


 


They got the tools to fix it, wasn't on deed although smack in the middle of their deed cluster.. maybe i can build some walls between their deeds to quadruple their travel time until they smash them... hmm... 


 


You REALLY want the server retaliating back and forth that way?  Then we will NEED flying mounts to travel in anything resembling a straight line.


  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The tools that alliance has to fix the problem is to make the roads legal highways.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The tools that alliance has to fix the problem is to make the roads legal highways.

 

Or seal off the area, sounds easier than modifying roads that have been there for several months, many before people deeded over it, gatehouse all the walls to make them "legal" enclosures, and too bad for everyone's whose trip suddenly has 30 minutes added just by going around eh?

 

Oh well, should at least boost the prices of ships.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The difference being, enclosure rules and highways rules are not Code of Conduct.


 


In your previous examples of griefing an area, speaking in ideals, if someone complains, and there is proof of who did it, the person would be warned for the infraction.  If the same person (alt or friend/ally) returned/recommitted the acts of "destruction", it would likely be deemed griefing at that point.


 


A logical progression.


 


There are 2 basic things that a player can do to secure their area by the rules:


 


1. Deed it


2. Enclosure it


 


Since the base issue occurred in the perimeter of a deed, using tracking or trying to "catch"/id the person doing it, gives a way to provide warning in some manner.


 


This game has always relied on players trying to sort issues out first before requiring a GM/Staff to resolve issues for them.  There are tools in place which further support this belief, and while a lack of willingness to use those tools is fine, don't be surprised when everyone else looks at the situation and wonders why you didn't.


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