Denied [Suggestion] Rule Contradiction

Discussion in 'Suggestions' started by Zecrux, May 15, 2016.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Zecrux

    Zecrux Builder
    Builder ⛰️ Ex-President ⚒️⚒️

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2013
    Messages:
    451
    Trophy Points:
    27,190
    Gender:
    Male
    Ratings:
    +74
    5.3 Rule Contradiction

    IGN:

    Zecrux

    Suggestion:
    Fix Clause 5.3, 5.1, and 2.4

    Reason:

    Section 5, clause 3 of the rules section states:
    • By owning the town, a town Mayor has the right to remove you from the town at any time, for any reason, so long as the Mayor gives the user a 3 day eviction notice.
    However, it is contradicted by Section 2 Clause 4:
    Clause 4 - Common Sense and Bending the Rules
    • While this is a gaming environment, EcoCityCraft is also a very large community. As such, we expect that all players use their common sense. Be a good sport and a friendly community member.
    • Common sense extends to not bending the rules. Bending the rules constitutes as very severe trolling, and is not tolerated in any form.
    • Encouraging others to break the rules is not using your common sense.
    • Interrupting or stealing items from server events is not using your common sense.
    • Finding ways around the rules is punishable at administration’s discretion, from warnings all the way up to bans. Please see EcoCityCraft's General Disclaimer for more information.
    • If you feel like a rule has a loophole or a way that it could be used to be trolly, we encourage use of our suggestions forum or contacting the administration directly in order to take a look at the rules that may need to be changed.

    It is also contradicted by Section 5 Clause 1:
    • Town owners are expected to have respect towards their town’s residents.
    • Scamming and taking advantage of your town’s residents is strictly prohibited.



    5.3 states that a town owner can remove a user from a town at any time for any reason, as long as a 3 day eviction notice is given. So technically a town owner could remove a user for "my potatoes are being endangered by your presence".

    2.3 and 5.1 Contradict 5.3 by saying that it is "taking advantage of your town's residents" and could be considered a loophole.



    I would just like this clarified because theoretically, a town owner could evict a user at any time just to resell the house, and then repeat this infinitely.
     
    • Like Like x 2
    • Potato Potato x 2
    • Winner Winner x 1
    • List
  2. BaccaAMP

    BaccaAMP Bacca Mafia
    EcoMaster ⛰️⛰️⛰️⛰️ Ex-Tycoon ⚜️⚜️⚜️ Prestige ⭐ II ⭐ Premium Upgrade

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2014
    Messages:
    592
    Trophy Points:
    64,410
    Gender:
    Male
    Ratings:
    +750
    He is 100% right. Ive thought about people doing that before.
     
  3. Harryhaz1

    Harryhaz1 RIP Lava sponge.
    Builder ⛰️ Ex-EcoLeader ⚜️⚜️⚜️ Premium Upgrade

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    2,901
    Trophy Points:
    73,660
    Gender:
    Male
    Ratings:
    +1,111
    I think you'd be hard pressed to call this a loophole or a contradiction. Furthermore, it'd be voided with the very "common sense" rule you quoted
     
  4. Zecrux

    Zecrux Builder
    Builder ⛰️ Ex-President ⚒️⚒️

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2013
    Messages:
    451
    Trophy Points:
    27,190
    Gender:
    Male
    Ratings:
    +74
    Exactly. It's voided by the common sense rule which means they contradict each other. What's the point of 5.3 being in the rules if common sense makes it useless.
     
  5. DexNumber637

    DexNumber637 Builder
    Builder ⛰️ Ex-Mayor ⚒️⚒️

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2014
    Messages:
    283
    Trophy Points:
    15,590
    Ratings:
    +111
    +1

    I look over these rules everytime I question something (particularly Mayor's rights) and didn't notice this.
    Nice find.
     
  6. Harryhaz1

    Harryhaz1 RIP Lava sponge.
    Builder ⛰️ Ex-EcoLeader ⚜️⚜️⚜️ Premium Upgrade

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    2,901
    Trophy Points:
    73,660
    Gender:
    Male
    Ratings:
    +1,111
    no no no. 'Common sense' doesn't nullify mayors having the ability to evict users.


    Mayors have the ability to evict users with three days notice.

    Evicting a user is not instantly 'taking advantage' of, or scamming a resident. and are not in void of any of the rules you have mentioned.

    If, like you suggest, a mayor is adding residents with the intent to evict users and take their items, then they are in void of 5.1.

    There isn't a contradiction - That being said, perhaps clarifying the rules so that this is clearer would be nice.
     
  7. Zecrux

    Zecrux Builder
    Builder ⛰️ Ex-President ⚒️⚒️

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2013
    Messages:
    451
    Trophy Points:
    27,190
    Gender:
    Male
    Ratings:
    +74
    I somewhat disagree and think there is a slight contradiction.
     
  8. Harryhaz1

    Harryhaz1 RIP Lava sponge.
    Builder ⛰️ Ex-EcoLeader ⚜️⚜️⚜️ Premium Upgrade

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    2,901
    Trophy Points:
    73,660
    Gender:
    Male
    Ratings:
    +1,111
    wherein? :)
     
  9. Nicit6

    Nicit6 N6
    Mayor ⛰️⛰️ Ex-EcoLegend ⚜️⚜️⚜️⚜️ Prestige ⭐ II ⭐ Gameplay Architect Premium Upgrade

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2013
    Messages:
    9,914
    Trophy Points:
    102,160
    Ratings:
    +8,058
    What issues has this caused?
    What issues can it?
     
  10. Zecrux

    Zecrux Builder
    Builder ⛰️ Ex-President ⚒️⚒️

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2013
    Messages:
    451
    Trophy Points:
    27,190
    Gender:
    Male
    Ratings:
    +74
    It caused an issue with me. When I tried to evict a user from my town for the purpose of giving the house the user lived in, to my friend, a mod intervened and wouldn't let it happened as it fell under 2.4.

    5.3 Specifically states that a mayor can evict anyone, at anytime, for any reason, as long as they provide the evictee with a valid eviction warning. I was unable to evict the user from my town. That was a big issue for me because I thought 5.3 gave me the right to evict that user.

    5.3 could also make it possible for town owners to sell all the homes in their town, and then evict everyone. A week or two later once everyone has forgotten about the town eviction, they could just resell all the homes and repeat the process.
     
  11. oootopia

    oootopia Utopian
    Builder ⛰️ Ex-Tycoon ⚜️⚜️⚜️ Premium Upgrade

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2015
    Messages:
    1,302
    Trophy Points:
    43,590
    Ratings:
    +4,954
    It all falls easily under they common sense rule. Give three day notices. Don't serially evict builders every three days that would be far more trouble than it's worth anyhow, what for all dem sweet starter kit leftovers? No one is gonna do that.
     
  12. Zecrux

    Zecrux Builder
    Builder ⛰️ Ex-President ⚒️⚒️

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2013
    Messages:
    451
    Trophy Points:
    27,190
    Gender:
    Male
    Ratings:
    +74
    It's not about evicting builders - it's more about evicting people from expensive homes, just to resell the homes.

    My point is, that if it falls under the common sense rule, what's the point of even having 5.3
     
    #12 Zecrux, May 19, 2016
    Last edited: May 19, 2016
  13. oootopia

    oootopia Utopian
    Builder ⛰️ Ex-Tycoon ⚜️⚜️⚜️ Premium Upgrade

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2015
    Messages:
    1,302
    Trophy Points:
    43,590
    Ratings:
    +4,954
    But I mean is this happening? I am pretty sure if you give the person adequate time to gather their items you can evict them and give the home to your friend. You simply need 72 hours notice and if you don't want them taking everything in the plot, you need some kind of proof it was sold as a prebuilt and they're not allowed to rip it down.

    I don't think this thing is a thing that is happening on any kind of scale that needs to be addressed, I've never heard of people serially evicting people from luxury homes. If this is a problem with you personally trying to evict someone from your town, you just have to do the proper procedure.
     
  14. Zecrux

    Zecrux Builder
    Builder ⛰️ Ex-President ⚒️⚒️

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2013
    Messages:
    451
    Trophy Points:
    27,190
    Gender:
    Male
    Ratings:
    +74
    Better safe than sorry. Don't know why people are against suggestions that just slightly adjust rules to add extra precautions.
     
  15. Harryhaz1

    Harryhaz1 RIP Lava sponge.
    Builder ⛰️ Ex-EcoLeader ⚜️⚜️⚜️ Premium Upgrade

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    2,901
    Trophy Points:
    73,660
    Gender:
    Male
    Ratings:
    +1,111
    As mentioned in the chat spam rules suggestoon. The more 'strict' and defined the rules are the easier it is to exploit via loophole or interpretation. I believe this is better handled as a case by case situation

    *edit* : added a word
     
    #15 Harryhaz1, May 19, 2016
    Last edited: May 19, 2016
  16. Nicit6

    Nicit6 N6
    Mayor ⛰️⛰️ Ex-EcoLegend ⚜️⚜️⚜️⚜️ Prestige ⭐ II ⭐ Gameplay Architect Premium Upgrade

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2013
    Messages:
    9,914
    Trophy Points:
    102,160
    Ratings:
    +8,058
    That's how we end up with unnecessarily lengthy easily exploitable rules, when we add things for every "what if this".

    The rules have been like this for quite some time and it has simply never been an issue.

    Suggestion denied.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.