OK, so here is the current zoning law as it relates to towns being placed near each other:
We have a lot of inactive applicant owners of towns, and it's tying up a lot of potential real estate. Further, we have a lot of players who "own" towns for inactive players, and who are the real owner, but not the "official" one. Why does this matter? Well, it came to my attention again recently when I found open space near Rising spawn and my spawntown of Zenith. I could fit in a new town up against one of @Nicit6's, right near Zenith, and ... whoops, Nicit's not the "applicant owner," so I have to wait for a player who is banned to approve the placement of my new town. This is of significance because it's near spawn, and every block counts, and because it's silly.
- When placing a town, you must be at least 15 blocks away from any other town on all sides of your town
- The exception to this is if you receive a neighbouring town owner’s permission by means of them posting in your application thread, in which case you may place your towns within 15 blocks of their town. You must receive permission from every town owner that you are within 15 blocks of.
- The town owner giving permission must be the applicant owner of the town.
We could make one of two amendments to this rule without violating the spirit of the rule. I propose that the server adopt one of the following:
A. That any owner of a neighboring town can approve the placement of a neighboring town if the "official" owner has been inactive for a certain length of time, like 30 days.
B. That the zoning law be changed from an "opt-in" to an "opt-out." In other words, once a player proposes to place a neighboring town within 15 blocks, the official owner of the first town has a period of time to raise an objection -- again, say 30 days. If the official owner raises an objection, no new town there. If they do not raise one, then the town can be placed. Making the waiting period long protects the rights of the first owner, but also doesn't hold valuable real estate hostage to inactive players.
Either of these proposals would balance protecting the rights of inactive owners with the present interest of the server in having active players found new towns, better than the current law does. The current law is too tilted toward the inactive player.
- Thread Status:
- Not open for further replies.
Thread Tools
Thread Tools
Page 1 of 3
-
jmichael214 Back Again, ApparentlyECC Sponsor President ⛰️⛰️ Ex-EcoLegend ⚜️⚜️⚜️⚜️ Prestige ⭐ II ⭐ Premium Upgrade
- Joined:
- Aug 31, 2014
- Messages:
- 2,155
- Trophy Points:
- 51,710
- Gender:
- Male
- EcoDollars:
- $0
- Ratings:
- +1,837
-
RyanBlocks2 EcoLeaderEcoLeader ⛰️⛰️⛰️ Ex-Tycoon ⚜️⚜️⚜️ Premium Upgrade
-
Hackney_Builder BuilderBuilder ⛰️ Ex-President ⚒️⚒️
+100000, as there is an old inactive farm near Jarton, fantasticos and I want to place my town there.
-
Potato x 1 - List
-
-
UnitedStates2 BuilderBuilder ⛰️ Ex-President ⚒️⚒️ Gameplay Architect Premium Upgrade
I'm not in favor of further complicating the zoning system by adding a bunch of "ifs" to it. Just simplify things and completely scrap the zoning system; It literally serves no purpose and all it does it makes users who want to expand their towns angry.
-
Agree x 2 - List
-
-
Babylonian_ BuilderBuilder ⛰️ Ex-President ⚒️⚒️
+1
really smart -
eh +1/-1 If your computer breaks then someone can troll you buy putting their town next to yours
-
Agree x 1 -
Potato x 1 - List
-
-
love this idea. I can't place my president town or even apply since a mayor in my nation is deployed and staff doesn't make any exceptions.
-
rockboy2000 MayorMayor ⛰️⛰️ Ex-Tycoon ⚜️⚜️⚜️ Premium Upgrade
- Joined:
- Oct 19, 2012
- Messages:
- 1,344
- Trophy Points:
- 50,410
- Gender:
- Male
- EcoDollars:
- $0
- Ratings:
- +310
The only issue with B is the 30 day wait, do you really want to have to wait 30 days for your president/mayor/town application to be accepted?
I do prefer A, perhaps we can make it a little like our town claim rule. If the town has no active owners (e.g. permanently banned or offline/inactive for a period of months) then no permission is required to build next to it?
-
UnitedStates2 BuilderBuilder ⛰️ Ex-President ⚒️⚒️ Gameplay Architect Premium Upgrade
-
Agree x 3 - List
-
-
SuburbSomeone Shrubby TycoonBuilder ⛰️ Ex-Tycoon ⚜️⚜️⚜️ Premium Upgrade
- Joined:
- Apr 9, 2013
- Messages:
- 3,337
- Trophy Points:
- 74,090
- Gender:
- Male
- EcoDollars:
- $0
- Ratings:
- +6,479
I would like to see Option A if it is changed to all current ingame and legal owners not including the original applicant, and the timeframe would be the month in which you specified.
-
Agree x 1 - List
-
I hereby co-sponsor this proposed amendment, signed this 28th day of March in the year of two thousand and sixteen at precisely twenty hours and fifty nine minutes past midnight. -
+1 This is a fantastic suggestion that needs to be implemented in order to cope with the growing amount of towns in both our worlds. Should not be such a pain to place a town without the permission of an inactive user.
-
Agree x 1 - List
-
-
But I do agree with the suggestion, in certain circumstances it's best if the town is just placed. Those circumstances are when the mayor just simply isn't there to give a reply.-
Agree x 1 -
Winner x 1 - List
-
Page 1 of 3
- Thread Status:
- Not open for further replies.