You fail to understand the principle of natural land acquisition. For land to be acquired there must be available land, that is as good, for others. One could not claim the only well in an entire desert for himself and allow others to die due to his proprietary claim. Therefore, one could not claim land in the mining world because to do so would violate this principle. I'm not that good at explaining things, so I will quote Locke:

Nor was this appropriation of any parcel of land, by improving it, any prejudice to any other man, since there was still enough and as good left, and more than the yet unprovided could use. So that, in effect, there was never the less left for others because of his enclosure for himself. For he that leaves as much as another can make use of does as good as take nothing at all. Nobody could think himself injured by the drinking of another man, though he took a good draught, who had a whole river of the same water left him to quench his thirst. And the case of land and water, where there is enough of both, is perfectly the same.
—Second Treatise of Government, Chapter V, paragraph 33

Locke is basically saying, in ECC terms, that land cannot be naturally claimed in the mining world, because to do so would reduce the amount of resources available to other people. However, because the mining world's resources are available to all people, people may claim land in other worlds due to the fact that the mining world will always provide resources that are as good. The mere existence of the mining world justifies natural land acquisition in other worlds.

Sharpi3loko

 

I think you are referring to John Locke.

Looks like you must be an expert.

 

#Lost
Oh, and to sum the entire suggestion into one self explanatory word that is the final outcome of this:
No.

 

And it would appear you're on team NO now...

 

Ya its called the wild for a reason. Its supposed to be difficult to live in. Plus i agree with uh i think kuke said it, do you not care about all the people that get all their stuff reset every month? Seriously all they have to do is vote, and a generous mayor will give them a small plot. Problem solved.

 

My opinion on this is that its stupid and should be locked with in 10-20 clicks you cwn have 6-7 nstsrs from voting so 2k a plot jormally is 1k or 3k depending on size so buy a pl0t and build our server dont screw up the ecenemy by punishing everyone who (like revean said) picks up that wallet on the bench

Sent from my ADR6300 using Tapatalk 2

 

Hello Morgan Freeman. :D

 

Sup ;)

 

I don't feel like they need to take action about grief in wild. That is a given. There is a real point I would like to hit here though. A lot of times I see mods online that are not moderating or just in general I don't agree with how moderation is done. Spare the rod spoil the child. Far too frequently I see someone accidently talk in auction and two to three mods warn him. I mean if they had said more than one message in auction sure warn them... but one wrong message and you better watch out... They'll have your ear.
Now here is where I get burned. Not long after that someone was false bidding in auctions and showing clear disregard for the auction system, actually started bidding and won. Then after winning started trying to haggle the user for more items and lower the price...
I witnessed this and grabbed screenshots.

Spoiler

 

MaT5892 The staff team are not perfect and sometimes we miss things. That being said, you should file a complaint against the person for that type of thing. There will always be things that slip through the cracks, but if players are able to catch the proof, it can still be caught and handled.

 

revanrose6 It's not my issue, it's not my problem. I just think that people should stand up for themselves more, and mods are supposed to be there for that kind of thing.

I'm frequently not in auc, g, tr, and sometimes not even in d. I've been a mod before on high pop servers. Perhaps, this message isn't even directed at you, but simply the powers that be. I mean even if angelicwitch did go and submit a complaint I imagine the worst that will happen is she'll have to spend time explaining over her story just so someone else can get "properly" warned by a mod that likely will not be recorded.

I've been on a server where when you were logged in, the community was under your charge. You could use kicks as warnings and leverage where needed and mutes/jail was quite common.

I have also been on the other side of the coin as well. I was once told to imagine I was in a zombie survival scenario. The members were helpless survivors and I had a gun. Now if I were to kick someone, that would be seen as raising my gun to them, and threatening that if they didn't stop I would shoot. Of course a ban meaning that I would be shooting them.

I wasn't even sure this would attract a response, smiled a bit when it did. It was more of a rant about how tight moderation is here than anything else.

 

You should buy a plot. ;)

 

All the negative posts? It's not that we "hate" you, (although pity parties like this only provoke people, y'know), it's just that we would not like to see this here. This is such a trivial amount of criticism; it shouldn't hurt you nearly this much.