Problem: Current zoning laws require original owner of town to approve placing a town near another. Notice: the approval of the current owner is NOT EVEN required. Hey y'all...I've been thinking...and I realized that we have a law that makes no sense. Why is it that original owners have to approve the placement of one town next to another? That actually gives zoning permission to people who are unaffected by the change O.O This is absolutely and completely ridiculous! Like...it just makes no sense...in fact it allows for a lot of malicious or simply nonsensical actions by original owners who have sold off a town! So my proposal: Allow current owners (as evidenced by contract) of a town to approve placing a town next to the town they own. Mayorship does not imply town current "ownership." Notice: This does not solve the problem of users who never go on. See my other suggestions. But I think this change is a very simple one that just makes sense!
I agree.. but only if the original owner is either inactive for over a few weeks, or not listed as one of the current owners.
If he is one of the current owners then he obviously would have to approve it as well. I'd go ahead and say that all current owners must approve any zoning decisions barring inactivity problems.
I agree with the first part however I think it should be up to the legal owner of the town, not the whole owners list.
If the original owner is in the list then he should have priority, 100% of the time. Because getting rid of all these little rules that give original owners their safety and their rights is not a good idea. In fact, if the original owner is active then he should always get priority. Because it's a trivial thing to kick off all the owners of a town list, getting something done without any of their consent and then putting them back later. Sure, people could be punished for it. But the action would've been completed, the damage would already be done. And the original owner would be screwed. Your suggestion isn't simple. It requires a lot of restrictions to make it work. And I doubt you'd like the restrictions.
But by selling the property, unless explicitly stating otherwise in the contract @kukelekuuk00 , shouldn't you foregoing the rights to choose whether someone builds near it? Doesn't that simply make sense? Otherwise it's not sold, its simply rented out to someone else indefinitely... I agree on this though: 1) if the original owner is online and active and no chain of selling threads can prove your exclusive current ownership of the town, then original owner should get a say. 2) Barring proof of exclusive current ownership, original owner inactivity should likewise allow you zoning rights.
Your suggestion mentions nothing of contractually sold towns. If a contract says you own the town then you should obviously be able to have zoning law rights. Mention it in your suggestion.
So yeah, I still think buying a town (original owner no longer on owners list by agreement) should give you zoning rights...otherwise this is ridiculous...
The fact that Original Owners have such strong rights is one of the cornerstones of ECC and I personally believe that it is too well established to significantly change it now. In terms of zoning permission, I have always liked to idea of a combination of inactivity and failure to respond to an application as circumventing the lack of permission as a compromise. The biggest issue that I used to face was people applying for towns with the Original Owner of a nearby town being inactive. I actually never saw an active player refusing to grant permission. I think that there should be 3 criteria: The Original Owner should not be the Legal Owner. The Original Owner must be [3] months+ inactive [This is just a rough thought - basically just a period of inactivity] The Original Owner should be tagged in the application and has a period within which to object. (Perhaps 7 days?) If there is no response, then the town can be placed. If the 3 of those are satisfied, then the town can be placed without zoning permission. This will get around the problem that I regularly saw where an Original Owner placed a town, sold it and went inactive. The new Legal Owner who then regularly want to rank up and place his new town next to his bought town, but couldn't get permission. Similarly, the same scenario but friends wanting to build a town next to the originally bought town. I feel that the combination of the 3 elements above adequately protect the idea of strong Original Owner rights, whilst also being a practical solution to a very common issue.
