So as it stands now, inactivity is causing lots of zoning issues. For example, Player A has a town and lets Player B place a town next to them. Player B goes inactive. Now Player A can no longer expand their town in the direction-ish of Player B...unless they leave a 15 block gap between their towns. To solve this, I have come up with two solutions. 1) allow current owners (note: not mayor, but owner) to decide zoning issues. As the original owner has given away or sold the town, they shouldn't be able to decide zoning...that just doesn't make sense. -Caveat: ownership should be proven either by contract or screenshots. 2) make all other situations not covered by the above into an "opt-out" system. In other words, before town placement is approved, the original owner of a town (and all current owners as well) is sent a Forum PM (and thus an email), and has 2 weeks to respond in the negative. Otherwise, the town placement is approved.
I see the intention of option number 2. but doesnt that also make the town approval delayed by 2 weeks? 2 weeks is far too long, maybe 24 hours. everyone is given 24 hours to contest a complaint/ban so why would something less severe get 2 weeks? most people build walls around their town anyways. so there wouldnt be issues unless they put water/lava at the edge. and that would be feature greifing anyway. i dont see issues with towns close in the first place. I voted 1&2 for solution.
Well guys, thanks to those rather few people who voted. I would really love to see the opportunity for these laws to change @Nicit6, @andrewkm (tagged you guys cuz u seems to be going through the section and going over stuff. This is a good, possible change to review)
-1. Not enough numbers to accurately measure public opinion. And no real reason to change. I would hate to change these laws, not allowing current inactive but players to return be unaware.
Could someone explain to me why our zoning laws are limited to original owner? Keep in mind the following: 1) it is currently possible to claim the town of someone who is six months inactive but it is impossible to place a new town within 15 blocks of theirs. Do we consider it more vital to preserve the 15 blocks around a town than the town itself? 2) A person can sell their town and still maintain control of its neighbors. I don't see why this right is given to people who give up their town.
