Accused Username: @dragonminer Complaint: I @HERCULES0070, @Atzall, @dragonminer49er, and @bdog756 made an agreement that we were going to buy our towns together and give ownership to each other so we all own each other's property. we all just received a 3-day eviction notice of dragonminer49er's property "freedom" even tho we have an agreement and have had no communication to us of the situation.Evidence: Additional Information: There are three witnesses and I have live-streamed all of the conversations
@HERCULES0070 Can you pinpoint me an exact time in the video where the understanding described above is reached?
Day 52 part two 2:15:00 dragonminer: "Hey Herc, you wanna start a town together in north?" bdog756: "Let's all three of us attach them together. Let's make this a mega-town." Day 52 part two 2:16:44 dragonminer: "No but seriously, you guys wanna do a mega-town?" Herc: "I'm not against it, but we need to figure something out." ~some talk later around 2:16:58~ dragonminer: "We'll make Herc the overlord, we'll be the minors." *dragonminer, Herc, and bdog756 make the agreement here Day 53 4:48 Atzall: "dragonminer, did you tell him we already have areas?" ~some talk later around 5:09~ dragonminer: "we're making the megacity" Hercules can be seen writing his president application at 3:17:28. Day 54 2:55:39 Hercules0070: "Who owns Freedom?" bdog756: "dragon does" Day 54 2:59:32 Atzall: "...my border's marked." dragonminer: "Wait why are you doing a border if we're doing a giant town."
I'm only posting in this complaint, though it doesn't pertain to me specifically. I was in the voice calls throughout those streams and vaguely recall the agreement so I did some investigating. Also I too received the eviction notice for the town "freedom" as I was added as an owner among the group.
I've seen the part in question before replying to the complaint, but, not only does it occur in voice chat where formal agreements are unenforceable by default, but the understanding that @HERCULES0070 discussed above where by implication, @dragonminer49er has agreed not to remove either of them as members hasn't happened near the timeframe, nor is there any agreement that promotes HERC to legal owner. It's additionally worth noting that as official owner, @dragonminer49er has the right to remove anyone from this town for whatever reason, granted they be properly issued an eviction notice - Even if an agreement says they can't (remember, player contracts cannot trump the server rules). The only reason this complaint is even still up is because Revan evicted and Revan isn't the official owner. But she has a formal agreement with @dragonminer49er empowering her to remove anyone and giving her full control of the town, making her the legal owner. So I'm wondering if he reached a similar agreement with @HERCULES0070 making him a legal owner and not just a co-owner. If so, HERC will have to be added back and it will be only @dragonminer49er's call as official owner over whether or not to keep him when/if he returns from ECC. If not, it'll be Revan's call and the complaint will be dismissed, because, as the rules state, it is up to the legal owner to determine what to do with a town's co-mayors. So what I want is a formal agreement, in-game or on the forums, that outlines a promise to make you a legal owner and/or an owner who can't be removed by others @HERCULES0070 - Do you have this? Thanks a lot for putting in the work here, but, like as said above, none of this actually constitutes a formal agreement that gives HERC any more rights than a regular co-mayor would have/makes him a legal owner and most of this takes place over voice chat as well, which cannot be enforced.
knowing of this relation this seem utterly ridicules. These people set out the day north released on a "group" project as we can all (at least the sensible and common sensed people here) see. claiming that there wasnt an understanding between them, or that this wasnt stated clearly in the "evidence" presented not only seems childish! but alarmingly weak. To make an agreement with 3 other people on a project is a large undertaking and an investment of time and effort to most people, possibly even emotionally for some of us as we care about our builds/projects. I know i am. To lose heart, interest or have a falling out of with the group under its completion is fair thing and it can happen to everyone. But in that case it would be the common sense thing to at least reach out the the group to take over the project if they still felt like finishing it. And in the case they then werent interested, would have to seek other means to possibly get a return on money locked in the project (towns, tools, materials) I know that the rules on the server were all made from the mantra of "apply common sense" and that is not what this ruling reflects at all imo again i am only posting this reply as i have spent alot of time along the parties involved.
We won't ever seize actively-managed towns from the official and legal owner of a town based on totally arbitrary administrative discretion. We are 100% committed to protecting the property rights of owners. If an owner wishes to empower a friend to take over management of a town, it's absolutely in their right. Nobody wants to devote their time and effort to a town that's theirs, just so someone else can come in and claim that "I did work on it too, so the town is rightfully mine" if they happen to go not even 3 days inactive. It doesn't work like that. Town ownership rules aside anyhow, I don't think it needs to be explained how evidence over voice chat in discord is very unreliable and won't ever be accepted. The issues should be obvious. People who want agreements to be enforced should make them in-game, or better yet, use our contracts system on the forums. I'd be happy to explain the rationale of my decision and the relevant rules backing it up some more, but the complaints system isn't the correct place. You're free to file a suggestion if you seek to change the rules. But as for right now in this thread, I'm interested in the facts and evidence. So I'd like all replies from here on to focus on that, please.
Hello, I just want to explain my side and @dragonminer49er's side. Dragon has decided to take a break from ECC/quit for the moment. I am not in any way trying to cause grief, however, out of respect for Dragon, I want to ensure the town is protected and remains the same as it is until his return. I have no intention of changing the town or doing anything with his town. I just want to protect the town and his items until his hopeful return per Dragon's request to me. If anyone would like to further discuss this, I am willing to have a conversation about it on Discord or in game. Thank you for your time and I apologize for the confusion. Revanrose6
im sorry for the blunt reaction. this information would have been great with the initial evictions as they honestly blindsided a few ppl.
Closing this up due to a lack of admissible evidence provided of any sort of agreement. @HERCULES0070 - If you come across evidence of such an agreement ingame or on the forums, feel free to refile this. Until then, the evictions stand and may proceed as normal.
