Inactive Region Destruction Critique

TheDeester

Purist Playthrough
Evil
Retired Staff
The responsibility of the staff team is to maintain a player-friendly environment. The behavior and logic conveyed by Jazzper on the forums betrays this as of late, and I will be demonstrating the lapses in his logic as the team has attempted to defend the “Inactive Region Destruction” policy. I have little to no faith this will save my own region, as staff is adamant on their policy; although this circumstance is bound to happen again to another player. I am making this thread in hopes that the staff team’s bureaucracy does not further hurt players in the community.


I must first inquire about the inactive region policy itself. It came from a period of the server on an older map. A smaller map. At this time, region space was getting cramped and there were players requesting to build in areas that had fallen to disuse. That is not a problem on this current map. There is little to no demand for new regions in occupied space. Since then as well, the inactive region policy has fallen to the wayside with the logic regarding region destruction. Initially it was elementals doing so in a period where they were antagonistic forces on the server. That quo briefly returned in the Starfall event chain, however region destruction has not fallen back under that logic and has been occurring for years in between. As of right now, a region that is home to a character or actively visited by them can be returned to in random ruins on a date with no justification as to why or how. That is what will be happening to my character.


The ways to override this according to staff are to hold events and build projects in the area. Not only can these regions be finished and not in need of additional projects, but this logic contradicts statements made by Jazzper:

Transferring Ownership, or only refunding the region (without touching any buildings), without the Owner using the command to do so OR sending us the form/explicit desire to have someone made full-on Owner is not something we do. We have this policy in place to ensure that there are no problems regarding a specific building being left behind, or an Owner returning to find their region in someone else's hands.

Deester,


As stated earlier, it is only Owners who need only be active to keep their regions off the list. For Co-Owners, there needs to be activity through roleplaying or maintenance/finishing of the region. Arduin does not have Roleplay, nor has it been built on for several years.

We follow the same Region Destruction policy we have been for the last two years or so, and this is the system that works best. No distraught owners unaware of the co-owner's requests, and no builders that see their buildings used without permission.
One of the arbitrary parameters for region ‘activity’ (which only applies to regions that have an inactive owner) is that the build be further constructed on--this can lead to old buildings being warped or changed, and seems to even be encouraged despite being the logic as to why it must happen.


The argument in moderation head @Jazzper’s statements is that owners would be distressed returning to their regions being kept from destruction because said regions would be changed and buildings would be used/misused in the eyes of the builders. However, region destruction innately requires alteration to said builds and or use of them via roleplay in order to prevent. Destroying these builds devalues the work of the builder, but also changes them to be far worse than any alterations made by a co-owner. Bear in mind that a co-owner has been trusted by the owner with region permissions, and any players involved in the project will be losing their homes and work entirely to destruction before it can be claimed and changed hands with not the co-owner, but any player on the server fast enough to get there after the region is destroyed.


This coupled with the fact that co-owners are not notified of queued destruction until the region is beyond saving means the turnabout on it is completely brought out of the blue and co-owners are expected to follow policy to maintain the region that is not actively conveyed to them. The “no backing out now” state of mind is especially questionable coming from staff as region destruction is something they must go out of their way to do.


In that same vein of logic, catering to players that have decided to leave the server while punishing the players that remain does not increase retention--it stifles it. If the intent is to appease leaving players, destroying history and areas left behind does no good either. It actively looks worse on the map as well, conveying an unfinished image.

The presentation this staff policy gives does not help new players or old players, and belittles returning players while making the map look worse. I believe the practice should change. Any questions or comments below are appreciated.
 

Electric

Lord of Altera
Legend
I’m tired but I tried to read through what you wrote. Are you saying inactive regions shouldn’t be destroyed?
 

TheDeester

Purist Playthrough
Evil
Retired Staff
I’m still awaiting a response from the staff team, which is especially painful as the current system operates on a real time clock. Moderation Head Jazzper should be expected to address the issues here and clarify the dissonance in his addressing of the issue.
 

Solus

:eyes:
Staff member
Server Owner
I’m still awaiting a response from the staff team, which is especially painful as the current system operates on a real time clock. Moderation Head Jazzper should be expected to address the issues here and clarify the dissonance in his addressing of the issue.
It's been 2 days. This has been seen. It will be responded to in time.
 

TheDeester

Purist Playthrough
Evil
Retired Staff
It's been 2 days. This has been seen. It will be responded to in time.
If you’ve seen it then it’s better to post that it is in discussion. No one feels heard when staff does not respond in any capacity.
 

Jak

Magus of Nothing
I would like to add to this - Hawklight are in a similar position, wherein the region of eot (Kavdu) is currently on the destruction list as it is owned by Michcat. We're still around as a house, and despite active co-owners (in fact, this region was founded as a Hawklight tower, and only later given to Michcat) it's now being destroyed, without the option of a refund instead.

This rings really strongly with your statement:

This coupled with the fact that co-owners are not notified of queued destruction until the region is beyond saving means the turnabout on it is completely brought out of the blue and co-owners are expected to follow policy to maintain the region that is not actively conveyed to them. The “no backing out now” state of mind is especially questionable coming from staff as region destruction is something they must go out of their way to do.
It would be nice if there was some reflection on when a region is actually destroyed. Obviously Deester is still invested in the region and wants it to remain. If there isn't this sort of response with regards to the region in question, it would make sense that it would be destroyed.
 

Jazzper

Bring back angry react
Staff member
We can see and understand your frustration with the current system. It is, however, in place for a reason. We have had several cases where Owners or builders returned from their absence to find their regions in the hands of someone else. The Owners of these regions put their time, materials and radiants into these regions, and to give them to people they made the conscious decision to not make Owner would be a disservice to them. Instead of making someone a co-owners, the transfer command could be used.
Most regions I know of have several owners, either to help keep the region active and let new people in, or so that they can buy plots on their own.
Being a co-owner does not guarantee the Owner wants that individual to take all of it up in their stead, nor should it, as they would have transferred ownership by letting Staff know/filling out the form on the Region Destruction thread. Especially if there are several active co-owners.

As for the second quote you provided, I will provide the required context.
Yes, regions should be roleplayed in or maintained. And yes, there are regions like monuments and houses that attract less multi-people roleplay due to their nature.
We are aware of that, and take that into account. However, we also take into account whether the region is/looks unfinished, how often it is visited/altered and therefore whether a single plot would suffice. In the case of Arduin, there is a massive underground area that is completely empty, unsupported and has not been touched since the map transfer. There are chests within, that have not been touched since the map transfer. As far as I can tell, the last alteration to the region was the addition of the tent, 2 1/3 years ago.

You state that the tent and ruins within the region will be turned into ruins, yet this is not true.
We explicitly stated the following:
As co-owners, you have the right to appeal to have part of the region's buildings remain untouched (save for chests or valuables like diamonds).
As you were made aware, the policy allows Co-Owners to indicate a section of the region to keep as-is. You could just use it for the one section you do need, and then claim it for yourself afterwards.
Twice, we have offered to leave the desired sections (tent and ruins) untouched. The tent and ruins will not be ruined.

I will further elaborate on why this region is bound to be destroyed, by stating that there have been discussions about them.
In August 2018, the region Owner made it known they would like to keep the region active. This both shows that the co-owner was infact made aware long before, and that the region has laid unaltered even after it was discussed. The Owner was offered to either transfer Ownership to an active player, or to add co-owners and either build/RP in the region or have them do so. They chose to make several people co-owner, and have it be active through further construction (as the region has been unfinished since it was transferred) and RP initiatives. Finally, the region Owner then inquired about when it would be safe to put the region back under their name alone.
This in itself communicated a desire to keep the regions close to the chest, while the lack of region modification/activity go against what was agreed with the Owner.

Although the map is large, we currently have 138 regions. At the end of the last map, 107 regions had been refunded or transferred.
Currently, there are still those who try to start a new region, but cannot find a good spot due to one-plot regions or projects that have been left behind for a long period of time.
Region destruction was put in place to make sure projects are active. Turning the regions into ruins provides far more roleplay than simply making them vanish, as they can (and have been) discovered and can be salvaged or rebuilt to form a new region on top of it. But not every region is made into ruins. We haven't had a problem withhow we ruin regions for the last 2 years, as we try to make sure it looks tasteful, or the builds are cleared up.

We are currently discussing ways to make the system of co-ownership more robust by adding chosen heirs for region Owners to designate moving forward. Our system had, however, always had this function in the way of using the Ownership transfer form in the Region Destruction thread. But, as it has rarely been used, we will look into improving it.
 

TheDeester

Purist Playthrough
Evil
Retired Staff
What is the current lore behind the region destruction system?
Indeed. What am I to say has been done to my character and others like him? Everything just fell apart one day? Conveniently the same time as all the other structures? While I pick apart every individual problem with moderation head @Jazzper’s response, an explanation would be appreciated.
 

Raal

Media Gal
Retired Staff
Twice, we have offered to leave the desired sections (tent and ruins) untouched. The tent and ruins will not be ruined.
Alright, if you're going to make Deester look ungrateful here, let's take a look at some actual facts. This was not the full agreement. You offered to leave desired sections untouched, though they must be entirely repurchased by Deester who is co-owner of the region. 50k for one plot plus however more depending on he wants to reclaim the full region he was associated too. As Alduin is a 19 plot region, the total price of reclaiming the region as is is 95k radiants. You offered to keep sections of Alduin and return them to TheDeester for 50k-95k. So there's that first of all.

Currently, there are still those who try to start a new region, but cannot find a good spot due to one-plot regions or projects that have been left behind for a long period of time.
I have heard this argument several times but I have never once been given an example of a demand for space for a region. Even then, there is plenty of open space. If you claim there is demand for a space, then have the individuals talk about it. Inactive Region Destruction could be implemented in the case of a particular region being put in demand by a new player. It would save you a lot of time Jazzper , since a complaint of your seemed to be that you did not have enough time to take care of all the Co-Owner's opinions.

As someone that watched for player retention and how it often dwindled, my personal recommendation would be for you all to focus on the players that still choose to RP on your server.

Although the map is large, we currently have 138 regions. At the end of the last map, 107 regions had been refunded or transferred.
That's a big number. Cool. Upon further investigation and asking around, I found out that these regions are not generating an excess of lag. People are not looking at these regions and thinking "Wow, these are unfinished and take up space" because they have fast travel to take them to the regions that matter. There is no technical reason necessarily that causes this number of regions to be a problem.

I could provide additional facts, but I will respect the discretion and privacy I was asked to further maintain. I believe the continuation of this process was a mistake and was the primary reason I chose to step down from working in Staff. The way this situation has been treated is an insult to the playerbase.
 

TheDeester

Purist Playthrough
Evil
Retired Staff
We can see and understand your frustration with the current system. It is, however, in place for a reason. We have had several cases where Owners or builders returned from their absence to find their regions in the hands of someone else. The Owners of these regions put their time, materials and radiants into these regions, and to give them to people they made the conscious decision to not make Owner would be a disservice to them. Instead of making someone a co-owners, the transfer command could be used.
Most regions I know of have several owners, either to help keep the region active and let new people in, or so that they can buy plots on their own.
Being a co-owner does not guarantee the Owner wants that individual to take all of it up in their stead, nor should it, as they would have transferred ownership by letting Staff know/filling out the form on the Region Destruction thread. Especially if there are several active co-owners.
Starting here, the specific pretence seems to be there was no way to detect if Michcat wanted the regions transferred to respective players, which, funny enough, is the crux of the conversation this discussion came from.
Skyreach: I have plans to keep building the thing by the Skyreach as a base for the Hydra Accord and whoever I can pawn that organization off on. Probably Niah; depending where Veijashil goes. That is a huge and egregious assumption on my part.

Arduin: Arduin has always sort of been a 'placeholder temple' to meet the requirements for the Arduin house. I'll probably try and give that (the house and the region) to TheDeester who's allegedly active, as well, if it gets taken off the DOOM list. He's expressed lots of Arduin related interest in the past.

Birds: Daiyamatuus and Veinatuus are up in the air. Depends on what the Makani are doing nowadays (I'm... out of touch). I wouldn't mind keeping it as a makani-returning ground or giving them to Warwolf (who should be a co-owner?) if Warwolf is still around...
I have been contacted by Makani players who still are around but play other characters about doing bird things so thats promising. Should be someone else leading it though.

EOT: This is/was the Kavdu region up in the Hawklight area that I was planning a snowy Nakam-village for (ha). Dunno how many Nakam are hanging about, and I'd like to get an idea of that first. I don't think I have enough time to devote to this project, but I do have 100's of radiants to pay someone to build there if the idea of a fishing-village hub sounds good for the server. The idea of getting it built and passing it off to someone more active but just as build-lazy as me also sounds nice.

Let me know how any of that sounds to you. Thanks a bunch.
Keep in mind that re-claiming these regions also means their builds will still be changing hands, especially if they're part of the maintained request. So either way, your solution is nonsense. You may as well wipe the builds off the map entirely if that is actually your mindset, but it isn't. The desire seems to instead be that all the effected players (original owners, co-owners, residents, previous tenants, etc.) must suffer a monetary deduction in order to regain property taken away by staff--otherwise any player can gain it.
 

TheDeester

Purist Playthrough
Evil
Retired Staff
As for the second quote you provided, I will provide the required context.
Yes, regions should be roleplayed in or maintained. And yes, there are regions like monuments and houses that attract less multi-people roleplay due to their nature.
We are aware of that, and take that into account. However, we also take into account whether the region is/looks unfinished, how often it is visited/altered and therefore whether a single plot would suffice. In the case of Arduin, there is a massive underground area that is completely empty, unsupported and has not been touched since the map transfer. There are chests within, that have not been touched since the map transfer. As far as I can tell, the last alteration to the region was the addition of the tent, 2 1/3 years ago.

You state that the tent and ruins within the region will be turned into ruins, yet this is not true.
We explicitly stated the following:
Jazzper said:
As co-owners, you have the right to appeal to have part of the region's buildings remain untouched (save for chests or valuables like diamonds).
Jazzper said:
As you were made aware, the policy allows Co-Owners to indicate a section of the region to keep as-is. You could just use it for the one section you do need, and then claim it for yourself afterwards.
Twice, we have offered to leave the desired sections (tent and ruins) untouched. The tent and ruins will not be ruined.
I should clarify that you picked for me what areas would be kept as well, if we're giving context. :) It would be favourable to your case if you provided proper context if you insist on giving the whole of it. The region is untouched because it was given to me finished, and the request that additions be made would besmirch the region itself--the build you seem keen on "protecting".
 

Solus

:eyes:
Staff member
Server Owner
As the one who asked Jazzper to pick up Region Deconstructions after months of lagging behind, and as the one who made these policy's in the first place for 3 years on, why am I not being aggressively tagged? TheDeester

What is the current lore behind the region destruction system?
Indeed. What am I to say has been done to my character and others like him? Everything just fell apart one day? Conveniently the same time as all the other structures? While I pick apart every individual problem with moderation head @Jazzper’s response, an explanation would be appreciated.
This is Lore's purview and one it seems I did not post to region destruction before I passed on the job. I had this part pasted on the thread below, but it was never made public. People would have slowly aimed to figure out that Elementals are involved in the destruction of buildings to reclaim their land. I will have Lore promptly add it to the official Elemental thread.


As explorers map the nooks and valleys of this new world, they notice something strange. A few things tend to be… subtly different concerning settlements. What once was a town they visited and traveled to, would soon come to ruin a few months later on return. They cannot pin down if it was the sacking of armies, bandits.. Or something else entirely. All they know is that winds tend to whisper and scatter on their arrival to investigate..
Alright, if you're going to make Deester look ungrateful here, let's take a look at some actual facts. This was not the full agreement. You offered to leave desired sections untouched, though they must be entirely repurchased by Deester who is co-owner of the region. 50k for one plot plus however more depending on he wants to reclaim the full region he was associated too. As Alduin is a 19 plot region, the total price of reclaiming the region as is is 95k radiants. You offered to keep sections of Alduin and return them to TheDeester for 50k-95k. So there's that first of all.
What Jazzper posted was what he said to Deester. What you're posting is not what Dee was told and that just muddles this even further. The core problem you guys are having is the loss of someone else's server money involved if you're pointing this out, because this is their work and something we were trying not to single out on this public thread.

I should clarify that you picked for me what areas would be kept as well, if we're giving context. :) It would be favourable to your case if you provided proper context if you insist on giving the whole of it. The region is untouched because it was given to me finished, and the request that additions be made would besmirch the region itself--the build you seem keen on "protecting".
What other areas are there? You are sitting on a monument ruin with a tent. You could have asked us to keep the monument and ruin with a tent. I don't get the rest of your argument because it's coated in aggression. I'll ask you to cut the crap on this odd rhetoric of placating smiling words behind your aggressive thread targeted on Jazzper. I will call you out on this as it has dissolved from trying to promote a new policy to being directed to Jazzper in several tags because he was doing his volunteer job that I asked him to do. If this wasn't your intention, then I'll apologize, but this is how it publicly looks to me and this is not what I want to promote. Especially as you admit to picking apart his words just to find a fault.

Your problem is towards the policy we uphold and wanting to appeal to change it, not towards Jazzper. Try not to derail that and make it personal, more than it already has been.

Edit: Omitted some things to stay relevant because I should not make mistakes in words here either.
 
Last edited:

TheDeester

Purist Playthrough
Evil
Retired Staff
As the one who asked Jazzper to pick up Region Deconstructions after months of lagging behind, and as the one who made these policy's in the first place for 3 years on, why am I not being aggressively tagged? TheDeester
Starting here, he is being tagged because it’s his job. This isn’t personal, and if he or you are taking it personally that reflects poorly on you, not me. This is about policy. This is about staff being in divide with the playerbase that rules are supposed to protect.

The other area is the secret catacombs that moderation head Jazzper blatantly revealed. If Jazzper feels targeted by a thread calling out his handling of a policy (in which he uses conflicting defences in retort, open to scrutiny), then I am sorry I hurt his feelings saying that something he is in charge of needs a fix.

This is Lore's purview and one it seems I did not post to region destruction before I passed on the job. I had this part pasted on the thread below, but it was never made public. People would have slowly aimed to figure out that Elementals are involved in the destruction of buildings to reclaim their land. I will have Lore promptly add it to the official Elemental thread.

It’s a bit late to use that as justification after the elemental campaign has concluded, but it’s at least an explanation. They just happened to strike all 3-4 places in immediate succession. Funny thing about that tying into a campaign is that assumes players aren’t going to be at the builds to see them post-destruction. Since the regions are inactive. It would loan better narratively if that was also announced to the server.

It would also be better if region co-owners were tagged when change was feasible. That point remains unaddressed. Is it because the position was unmanned for 3 months, because in that case I’m going to call your team on it as the reason I assumed things were fine. I received no notification until the new claimant to the position showed up and said it was too late. A grace period should be there. It’s too late for me, but with player retention at a low, it’s bound to happen to other region owners.
 

Solus

:eyes:
Staff member
Server Owner
Starting here, he is being tagged because it’s his job. This isn’t personal, and if he or you are taking it personally that reflects poorly on you, not me. This is about policy. This is about staff being in divide with the playerbase that rules are supposed to protect.

The other area is the secret catacombs that moderation head @Jazzper blatantly revealed. If Jazzper feels targeted by a thread calling out his handling of a policy (in which he uses conflicting defences in retort, open to scrutiny), then I am sorry I hurt his feelings saying that something he is in charge of needs a fix.
There was no claim of feelings being hurt. I am pointing out that you are being aggressive in your posts by repeatedly tagging someone more than once in the same post and that dilutes your point of view by it being targeted publicly.
Edit: If you wanted to keep what was beneath the ruins as catacombs, you could have said so. You were only given options from what we knew of the place.

It’s a bit late to use that as justification after the elemental campaign has concluded, but it’s at least an explanation. They just happened to strike all 3-4 places in immediate succession. Funny thing about that tying into a campaign is that assumes players aren’t going to be at the builds to see them post-destruction. Since the regions are inactive. It would loan better narratively if that was also announced to the server.
The Lore on Elementals eating regions and reverting them to ruins or plains is not linked to a campaign. I had this written up on March 2017 and it's just not publicly written out 'Elementals do this' that I will remedy.

It would also be better if region co-owners were tagged when change was feasible. That point remains unaddressed. Is it because the position was unmanned for 3 months, because in that case I’m going to call your team on it as the reason I assumed things were fine. I received no notification until the new claimant to the position showed up and said it was too late. A grace period should be there. It’s too late for me, but with player retention at a low, it’s bound to happen to other region owners.
We are currently discussing ways to make the system of co-ownership more robust by adding chosen heirs for region Owners to designate moving forward. Our system had, however, always had this function in the way of using the Ownership transfer form in the Region Destruction thread. But, as it has rarely been used, we will look into improving it.
It was addressed in a blanketed way. It can be addressed again in more detail when there's something more concrete.
 
Last edited:

TheDeester

Purist Playthrough
Evil
Retired Staff
There was no claim of feelings being hurt. I am pointing out that you are being aggressive in your posts by repeatedly tagging someone more than once in the same post and that dilutes your point of view by it being targeted publicly.
It is his role and responsibility as the one enacting the policy. Moderation head Jazzper was to whom the request of change is addressed, and I still expect responses from him if this is his role.

It was addressed in a blanketed way. It can be addressed again in more detail when there's something more concrete.
But you’ll follow through with the old policy while admitting it to be contradictory and unfair? Or will you be freezing the incentive until a satisfactory replacement is reached.
 

Solus

:eyes:
Staff member
Server Owner
It is his role and responsibility as the one enacting the policy. Moderation head @Jazzper was to whom the request of change is addressed, and I still expect responses from him if this is his role.
But you’ll follow through with the old policy while admitting it to be contradictory and unfair? Or will you be freezing the incentive until a satisfactory replacement is reached.
I've involved myself because of some leak, Lore's involvement and because of your rhetoric here. If this thread remains to be about the Policy of Region Dsstructions, then you will have an answer in time.
 
Last edited:

TheDeester

Purist Playthrough
Evil
Retired Staff
I've involved myself because of a Retired Staff Member claiming a leak, Lore's involvement and because of your rhetoric here. If this thread remains to be about the Policy of Region Dsstructions, then you will have an answer in time.
Will that time be accounted when I request my region to be undestroyed due to your knee-jerk policy enforcement and lack of warning?

And what leak are you even talking about?
 

Solus

:eyes:
Staff member
Server Owner
Will that time be accounted when I request my region to be undestroyed due to your knee-jerk policy enforcement and lack of warning?

And what leak are you even talking about?
I'll ask you to patiently wait for an official response. Region destructions were put on hold, especially the region you co-own, because of this to sort it out.
 
Top