21

And I would have to completely disagree. Example: lets make it present day. I’m in college working on my master’s, I play for around three hours a week, maybe more. I have placed around 40 plot, a road down the middle and four beacons on some land I want to later build on and don’t want to lose.
My mom get sick, she has fluid in her lungs and is in the hospital. In the three months she was there it was learned that he kidneys were failing, her cancer had returned and basically, she was dying. The four of us kids took shifts being with her, so taking college classes, working on my thesis, doing my 8 hour shift sitting with mom, which I did not in the least mind doing, spending four hours trying to take care of a father who was in stage 5 of Alzheimer’s gave me no time to think of a game, of plots, of being seen as a griefer because the city I had placed them close by had expanded and saw me as a threat.

No, it would be unfair and flat out mean to take my plots from me after a week, when we spent Three Months watching our mother die, then Three more months taking care of dad, getting him marked as incompetent, taking charge of the businesses he owned, paying the bills he had wracked up because he had no idea of what he was doing when he maxed three charge cards to 10k each, took a reverse mortgage on his home and then gave the money away, not realizing it had to be paid back.
My 4.0 GPA dropped to 3.7 because of all this and you want to add insult to injury because I haven’t responded to requests on my plots or the roads I built, or the beacons I have placed and are ignoring due to the family situation!
Absolutely Not ! We do not know why a player has not shown up, they could have been in a major accident and in ICU for three months, in a hospital room for another three months and family taking care of him or her while recovering, maybe a stroke, learning to walk, talk, take care of themselves.
There are too many reasons why a person may not have checked in when they have gleam club paid up for a year.

It could be griefing on their part Or, it could be they are dealing with personal grief due to family situations.

Adding, this really happened, but it was 11 years ago, not right now

5 Likes
22

I totally disagree with the idea of taking plots from a player because someone has decided they are in their way or because they want them. I Initially started building a base on Finata quite a way away from Ultima hub when it was very first set up, probably at least 75 plots, but then I found a spot on another planet that I preferred so dismantled what I had started and un-plotted most of the area except for a 3x3 area as I figured it would be useful to warp to if needed. About 6-8 weeks more or less had passed and I returned to the plots to retrieve some items I’d left there only to find that it was now completely surrounded by Ultima hub city which had expanded so much while I was away from the site. I didn’t complain about my plots now being surrounded so I can’t expand as I left the area unattended so it was my fault for leaving it. I have every intention of keeping the plots as eventually I would like to build something on the site even though it is now extremely restricted. I now have gleam club too so if my plots are an inconvenience to anyone then they should of plotted the area before I did. The beacon and plotting system is there for a purpose and if someone has paid real money to buy the game and then pay more money on top for gleam club then unless they are specifically grieffing, which is not always easy to prove, then they have every right to plot that area just as anyone else would have if they had got in there first.

8 Likes
23

I wouldn’t try to expand the policy to include casual requests for another person’s plots. I seriously didn’t even realize that someone would feel that way. I guess it just goes to remind we’re all here with different thoughts on our minds.

It’s not about the criteria at all. Some players are just griefers, purely mean and even i have to admit that sometimes intervention will be required. The current policy is minimal intervention as far as I can tell and I wouldn’t advocate to change that.

There isn’t a prestige threshold or a block count or an ‘activity meter’ that’s going to resolve these artistic disputes over themed cities, or arguments over the utility of inner city plots.

This thread is in suggestions to suggest a process for handling the uncomfortable bits AFTER the devs have agreed that intervention is necessary.

I don’t want to make up grandiose scenarios here. I want to know how long i can be out of touch before someone may just delete my beacons.

It wouldn’t hurt to have a process for releasing the plots. In every case, the only reason there’s actually an issue is that someone is hungry for the plots.

So is it better to let a hundred griefers have fun than to take an innocent man’s plots? How long do you give a 2+ year gleam club member to respond to a new issue before you take their plots?

I think there should be a process in place. The rest of it is already horribly messy and to be honest I don’t think gleam club is different from someone who acquires some extended fuel and took a break.

That’s the suggestion here that they control the fallout of an awful problem.

Not that you just fill out a webform and gank someone’s plots in 7 days.

2 Likes
24

If you are arguing for a policy/process description for when and how admins remove plots, that already exists it is the ToS of the game and the CoC of the game and then use the report function.

If you argue anything on top of that or for a new reason to be able to remove plots, that is a hard no.

5 Likes
25

I expressed my concerns about some of these potential issues when gleam club was first proposed/announced regarding undeveloped plots being put down and then either left indefinitely for possible future intentions or simply forgotten about and how this could affect other players as areas developed but at the time I was just more or less told to be quiet because it hadn’t happened yet and to stop making noise about something that might never be a problem. …my mother in law has a saying “those that can’t hear will feel” …it looks like some people are starting to feel it now … I just make sure I have enough plots available to cover the footprint of the area I want to use including any buffer area around the build so that if someone does plot next to me it won’t be a problem…plus not to leave any individual unclaimed plots in amongst the area you want.

26

the fact you have 40 plots would, under my idea, exclude you from having them targeted from other players requesting them.
My idea is simply so cities don’t have to deal with all those people who place a few plots down than leave forever.

If you’ve claimed a substantial amount of land than that’s fair, but having a few plots “just because” needs to be delt with without having to wait months for them to expire.

27

Most of you are being overly dramatic and missing the point of gaining clarity on this issue. The point is not so devs can roam around and remove plots that seem inactive, nor is it to bring into question plots that were “there first” (which I assume can be logged and tracked) and other people grew into them. It is quite simply solely for exceptional situations.

Take into account some facts about the player whose plots are in question in the Ultima example (I’m a solo player on Storis II, not part of Ultima in any way):

  1. The player has been logging in.

  2. The player has surrounded smaller beacons in the city.

  3. The player has not surrounded the entire city, but also continues to expand every chance he/she gets.

This is not a player who cannot be contacted. In fact, I think they were contacted once. What is wrong with a TOS that outlines communication for exceptional circumstances where you weren’t the first one there, continue to log in, are expanding yourself (surrounding other beacons)?

I truly think the freaking out happening here is bizarre and unwarranted. If you’re worried what a policy like this would look like, then voice your opinions of what should be included. Don’t just throw the whole thing out and say it can’t be done because you’re afraid.

2 Likes
28

Just to continue to be clear on this it is not my idea to remove plots.

Plots are already being removed. Apparently whether you get a week or three months is case by case.

“My idea” is that they define and normalize this, as I find the way it’s happening right now, based on only casual comments from devs and players, a little unsettling.

I have already hit a couple of hundred dollars into this game and I shudder to think that someone and a brigade of their friends may convince a dev to unplot my beacons while I take a two week vacation because they just started and I’m blocking their desire to, ah, “Develop those plots” right away.

There’s no way that should be happening and then the devs really just come and unbeacon the plots for them to directly claim no less? No I don’t think that’s ‘fair’. I’m not even scrolling back to look at who said they should be able to request a plot unbeaconed if it’s not developed to their satisfaction within a week.

In my opinion it needs to be clear from the beginning that this isn’t how it’s going to happen. I suggest a clear arbitration process that you agree to with the TOS.

In some games you have to click through every time you boot. in boundless you can purchase long periods of protection. TBH the only time frame that I personally think is ‘fair’ for requiring contact is ‘before the beacon can be refueled’.

NEVER before a minimum of an attempted contact by the game hosts/publishers/devs to their real world contact information. If this situation is honestly worthy of real world intervention, and you’re going to take something that somebody may or may not have paid real money for, you need to make a real attempt to contact them.

4 Likes
29

There is already a policy regarding this issue. Changing that policy is outside of the scope of this thread.

30

The current policy does not allow you to remove beacons unless they completely surround you or attempt to grief - having a single beacon doesn’t necessarily break these policies but can still create issues, which i’m suggesting gets fixed.

Also, my comment is relating to a process behind which we might remove beaconed plots, which is entirely within the scope of this thread.

31

Right, ignoring the details of any current or past case, this is my point.

I was wholly against the notion that plots would be removed until a company rep came and said plots had been/would be removed. I listened to some of what’s being said about current cases and people’s experiences in the past and I have to admit that sometimes a beacon will need to be removed.

No one should ever have to ask why player A got a month to respond and player B had their plots removed within a week. Just as one example of drama, relative conditions, and social engineering that can be addressed by a clear process for handling the situation.

I’m having a huge laugh right now because you telling me what I meant to discuss may be off topic, but it sure is relevant.

32

I never said that, you’re the one saying that what i’m discussing is off topic, when it clearly isn’t

33

There’s this bogeyman idea going around here that the devs will be seeking out plots to unbeacon left and right. The spirit of the current policy should remain: devs are passive unless clear griefing or a break of ToS or CoC has been made. It is my opinion that case-by-case should include contacting individuals involved, and looking at all data, including who plotted there first and if player in question is still active. Clarity on what happens if removal is necessary is a good thing for everyone.

EDIT: 99% of cases might not be resolved at all, in which case the devs do nothing. Again, passive, same as now. The difference is there is no question what the heck happened when a griefer does lose plots, as is the case now.

34

It is off topic, because this thread isn’t about how to remove plots. Nor should it be, IMO. It’s about what kind of step should be taken by devs in order to mediate extraordinary conflict of plots, how to resolve it, and how to be clear and fair in the ToS about it.

2 Likes
35

I have a couple of beacons underground which I use as mining bases. Why should I have to waste 10 plots or make them > 10k prestige, just to solve your non existent problem?

6 Likes
36

Removing plots is one such step that could be taken to remove a conflict of plots. Regardless of if you agree or disagree with my idea, its still well on topic as a suggestion.

Because it is quite a prevalent problem when managing cities or other areas - if your playing regularly than spending 5s to press “no” should someone request an ownership shouldn’t be an issue regardless.

37

Again, you’re talking about how to remove plots. We’re talking about transparency in the fairness of the ToS. Two completely different topics.

EDIT: There is no formula that would be fair for removing plots. It should always be a case-by-case situation, which is why communication is so important. That includes communication between individuals involved, as well as communication to the larger community so that people do not feel like the devs are handing down punishment whenever they feel like it.

1 Like
38

Let us agree to disagree - in any case, i do agree that more transparency is always a good thing, and do fully support that too.

1 Like
39

Isn’t this clear, transparent and fair?

1 Like
40

River Town needs Help! Support

Assuming that you had copied in the relevant terms of service, and not a link to a player call for forum drama - this is a clear statement of policy.

What steps are taken to determine “intent”?

What steps are taken to encourage or enforce player resolution if both parties appear to be acting in good faith?

Who gets possession of the unbeaconed plots? Another random who happens to be online when the dev makes it by to unbeacon? The neighbors? The person who filed the complaint?

The policy on even having a dev address this is clear. The thread you link also includes james responding to some “hypothetical” scenarios. And it seems that the current process is 100% case-by-case and may be as simple as any normal human’s reaction to a well crafted complaint.

Beaconing a plot “just because” is a perfectly acceptable game mechanic, and as you point out the policy on this matter is clear. I’ve made efforts to discourage that discussion here.

As regards transparency, no there is not currently any transparency regarding response, timelines, or enforcement on these issues. The information is, by definition, not public and I wouldn’t ask them to release the data of how they have handled previous case by case complaints.

I do feel that there should be some baseline expectations. Acknowledging that contact was attempted according to established timelines is different from revealing the content of those communications.

30 day inactivity requirements are normal, but boundless literally sells the right to bypass that.

As to the third point, It seems you’re asking whether or not deleting the plots is fair, and that’s a topic for the thread you copied that text from.

The process used to determine intent and/or remove the players plots isn’t mentioned in that text and I’m not currently sure whether it has been/will be fair in any given case. it would be something that I would consider none of my business, but I’m literally paying to participate so yeah - I have concerns regarding player-initiated disputes being arbitrated in a clear process.

I’m not concerned with devs going on a witch hunt either, tbh. If the impression I’m getting from people here is correct, the devs probably deal with so many people trying to get other people’s plots they don’t have time to go looking for random stuff to delete.

A clear process protects the enforcers, too.