[panthers17nfl]

Updated May 18th:
---Added (7.5) Administrator Discretion

[Sharingan616]

Updated May 18th:
---Added (7.5) Administrator Discretion

Sick, yo.

[Slicmi]

In another example: A player is griefing spawn by removing torches. Another player is not doing anything but is following him and filming him performing the action. This can be considered Guilt By Assocation, as it is likely that the follower is recording the griefing for their own pleasure. However, do not let this discourage you from filming griefing as means of obtaining proof. If the video provides the proof, it will lead to the filmed player's ban.

I have a question about this. How could there be any proof at all (besides them admitting that they are recording a griefer, which makes the whole point of not telling anyone useless) that someone wouldn't do something to stop it, or that the player even is filming the griefer?

[dragoncrystal24]

Panthers, i noticed your post on the 'Kress91 Discussion' thread. You said that is someone builds in the wilderness and has a chest there, and someone else claims that land, there is nothing to be done about it, so long as the items in the chest are given back to the owner. I have some questions about this.

What if the player who 'stole' the plot takes all the items from the chest and puts it on the ground as blocks? Would it be classified as theirs? All of the building that the original owner did was originated from the chests. I think a lot of complaining would come from this. If a player had nothing except for lots of materials in a chest, then builds it all in a small amount of time, then someone 'steals' the plot, would they have to give the materials back? That would seem very unfair.

Anyway, could you clarify on that? It's a bit confusing.

[panthers17nfl]

Panthers, i noticed your post on the 'Kress91 Discussion' thread. You said that is someone builds in the wilderness and has a chest there, and someone else claims that land, there is nothing to be done about it, so long as the items in the chest are given back to the owner. I have some questions about this.

What if the player who 'stole' the plot takes all the items from the chest and puts it on the ground as blocks? Would it be classified as theirs? All of the building that the original owner did was originated from the chests. I think a lot of complaining would come from this. If a player had nothing except for lots of materials in a chest, then builds it all in a small amount of time, then someone 'steals' the plot, would they have to give the materials back? That would seem very unfair.

Anyway, could you clarify on that? It's a bit confusing.

It's a very sticky situation. The original owner has to have viable evidence that the items were his to begin with. The current state of the rules is that if a player takes over a realm where another player has property, he has to allow that player to dismantle his property himself and DO NOT touch anything until he has done so. If the player is gone for more than a week or so, than the other player has the green light to dismantle himself. But the items still need to be held on to for it the player returns.

[dragoncrystal24]

Okay, so he can take the property, just not the buildings, chests, or structures inside of it? Thanks.

One more thing. If the player has an underground house that he just dug out, what would be done about that?

EDIT: another question. Say player 1 griefs player 2's house. he gets banned. player 2 then says that it's ok, unban him. Will the crime be removed and player 1 unbanned? Or will they still be banned, no matter what player 2 thinks?

[savesthedazed]

Updated 3.1 to be consistent with existing rules.

[panthers17nfl]

Release Notes July 11th, 2011:
-Added: Realm Credits - Physical Item Trade (3.2)
-Added: Physical Item - Physical Item Trade (3.3)
-Added: Property Trading (3.4)
-Added: Player-Owned Business (3.5)
-Updated: Swearing & Inappropriateness (4.1)
-Updated: Harassment (8.1)

[cerevox]

Interesting set of new rules on business, although i suspect they are gonna be incredibly hard to enforce, if you can enforce them at all.

Also, iirc, the supreme court policy of "I will know it when i see it" is one of their most heavily criticized tests and is not commonly in use anymore on the grounds that its 100% subjective to the individual. You might know its something, but i might know its something totally different, and we might both be right, because that test is completely subjective. There is no way to actually proof or test it.

Also, 4.1 is going to get abused. Swearing lightly as in what? My definition of lightly and yours and everyone else's is sure to be different.

Honestly, this whole update couple be replaced by "Admins will ban you for being a bad person" and you would not gain or lose much.

[panthers17nfl]

The controversy regarding the Supreme Court phrase "I know it when I see it" is controversial in that it is meant to apply to an entire society, whereas we are a Minecraft server, and as is the reason for our appointment, staff members should be trustworthy enough to make that judgement call themselves.

And reread 4.1. I think it clarifies some of your questions.

Regarding the enforcement of (3.2)-(3.5), yes, it would be incredibly difficult to enforce. But should enough proof be gathered, and I mean a ton of it, then it is something we could enforce nonetheless.