[Rule Clarification] Clause V

Discussion in 'Help & Support / Errors & Bugs' started by welikeike22, Nov 20, 2012.

  1. welikeike22

    welikeike22 Dean Martin
    Builder ⛰️ Ex-EcoLeader ⚜️⚜️⚜️ Gameplay Architect Premium Upgrade

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2011
    Messages:
    2,050
    Trophy Points:
    66,660
    Gender:
    Male
    Ratings:
    +987
    Rule in question:

    Clause V: Sale and Transfer of Towns
    The server does not support the official transfer of towns from one user to another. Though the means are provided for users to do so, the original owner of a town has the right to request that ownership of the town be re-transferred to him or her, however, a legitimate reason is required for this. Failure to provide a legitimate reason may result in serious repercussions.

    **********************
    Part of this rule remains very nebulous to me. My question is, What is a "Legitimate reason" for the user to request the town to be returned to their possession? I would imagine that the deal on the side of the buyer not being held up would result in the town being returned, but what other reasons could result in this?

    Since a real system for town transfers doesn't exist(And, might i add, we need one), I feel that this rule needs to be fleshed out in full to protect both sides from claiming ignorance.
     
  2. Skylexia

    Skylexia Redstone God
    Game Admin EcoLegend ⛰️⛰️⛰️⛰️ Ex-EcoLeader ⚜️⚜️⚜️ Prestige ⭐ VIII ⭐ Gameplay Architect Premium Upgrade

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2012
    Messages:
    2,500
    Trophy Points:
    73,660
    Gender:
    Female
    EcoDollars:
    $0
    Ratings:
    +776
    Andrew has said that there will not be any town transfer procedures anytime in the forseeable future, this is a discussion we have often and he's stood firm on it.

    As for the "legitimate reason" part, I will see if I can get some clarification at all. It is at the discretion of WeWin and Andrew, whether or not a given reason is legitimate, regardless of whether we get any clarification or not. Every case is unique when it comes to this stuff, and that's why the rule is fairly ambiguous.