Denied [Archive Server Suggestion] The ability to transfer ownership on arv

In Game Name:

Jdawger​

What part of EcoCityCraft is this suggestion for:

Archive Server​

Short title for your suggestion:

The ability to transfer ownership on arv​

What are you suggesting:

Having the ability to pay 150k to do an official ownership transfer on archived world towns​

Why is this a good addition for EcoCityCraft?:

First off, apologies if this is already a thing. I remember we couldn't do this in the past (and I am not president yet to confirm).

But anyway, this is a good addition strictly for Archive World Edit applications. According to the Wiki, in order to do an Archive World Edit App, you must be the official owner of BOTH the town the original build is in as well as the town the build is being transferred to. AFAIK, we can only do Town Transfers for current main world towns (as it has been in the past). Because of this, even if you get permission from someone to do an Archive World Edit App from their town to your town, you cannot do it because there is currently no way to transfer official ownership to yourself.

By adding the option on Town Transfers to transfer an archived town to yourself, it gives more flexibility and possibilities on the application, and just overall makes more sense IMO with this process.​

Other information:

Should state here too that the application of the archived town's creation needs to be added as well if this becomes a thing.​

Plugin or custom addition:

Town Transfers & World Edit​

One suggestion per form:

I Understand.​

 

The point of this suggestion is some people ran towns that were officially owned by other people (or had them under another's name who doesn't play anymore) who cannot transfer it over to the new server.

To use a real example, my friend @Iamjustapony is the official owner of at least three towns in my project, but doesn't really play minecraft anymore. I cannot transfer those towns unless he actually does the applying himself and has the town in his name (which again, he doesn't play minecraft anymore and most likely wont be able to log in X amount of times to get towns).

It's not just "keep archive archive" or "you are applying for your own towns only" when you co-owned a large build with multiple towns and now your partner(s) don't play anymore, so you are screwed out of transferring.

 

So I get your logic, so it's not going over my head, but at the same time, the rule (as you stated) is after 7 days, the official owner can reclaim the town back. The rule was put into place so players don't remove official owners from the listed owners without officially transferring. The example I gave kept the town owner for a different reason. The original owner is still a listed owner of said town(s), along with myself and one other as all three of us were working on the project. We weren't going to reclaim the towns from each other if we didn't transfer (nor could we legally since the original owner of each town was still a listed owner).

Also, I don't know why this suggestion is so bad either. Yes, archive needs to stay archive, but at the same time, it's not like someone is straight up taking someone's town (like a town claim). The official owner is still the one who needs to approve a contract for town transferring. If we want to keep archive archive, then we can just make the town transfer just for the world edit application and not add them to the archive world if that is too much of an issue.

I will state again that town transfers weren't really enforced for the 2018-2020 main server either. The purpose of it was if you don't officially transfer the town to yourself, you run the risk of the original original owner messaging GA+ after 7 days to legally transfer it back to the applicant. It was not something that was auto-enforced by staff. It was there to safeguard the person who was losing the town and to raise the price of towns so people aren't getting another town for like 100k. Hell, contracts never needed a clause for town transferring. I had some that were accepted that didn't need it; you did need a clause stating the contract is proof for a town transfer if you were going to transfer it, but it was not required for any town purchase given I had like three that were accepted without it.

TL;DR of that paragraph is town transfers were not considered mandatory, just they had to be done in order to fully ensure the town won't be taken back legally by the applicant

 

I'm not disagreeing with what you said at all, but for a clarification of the differences of transferring a town for WE and the person coming back to transfer it themselves is as follows:

If they come back to transfer themselves, then the absolute minimum they need to do is:

1. Come back onto the server itself
2. Obtain payment
3. Go onto the forums and apply for a town
4. Go back onto the forums again and apply for either a town transfer or WE application

Whereas if they were able to transfer an archive town

1. Accept a town transfer contract
2. That's it

And with anybody having the ability to log into the forums anywhere (even on phone), the later option gives flexibility and allows the inactive person to just log into the forums.

But like I said, I see your point

I agree with this statement despite the suggestion. My original suggestion is to allow contracts of an original town owner on archive can allow the other user to do a WE app on their town, but that would've had more complications than what I suggested.

I mean, that wiki statement was created with the first archive world in mind before WE apps were even a thought. The original archive was supposed to be a museum of sorts, but the WE apps, archive is more than a museum now.

And unless I am mistaken, the purpose of WE apps were a way to continue projects from an unforeseen reset (especially since we all thought we weren't going to reset ever again, or at least for many, many years). I understand the formalities and restrictions, but at the same time, isn't the point to promote the builds?



But regardless, even I have my doubts from this suggestion. It's tough to have a solution for something like this. Even though this isn't necessary a problem for me (I just used myself as an example), I can see it being a problem for someone in the future.