+1

 

+1

 

+1 simple enough

 

I agree.. but only if the original owner is either inactive for over a few weeks, or not listed as one of the current owners.

 

I agree with the first part however I think it should be up to the legal owner of the town, not the whole owners list.

 

If the original owner is in the list then he should have priority, 100% of the time. Because getting rid of all these little rules that give original owners their safety and their rights is not a good idea. In fact, if the original owner is active then he should always get priority. Because it's a trivial thing to kick off all the owners of a town list, getting something done without any of their consent and then putting them back later. Sure, people could be punished for it. But the action would've been completed, the damage would already be done. And the original owner would be screwed. Your suggestion isn't simple. It requires a lot of restrictions to make it work. And I doubt you'd like the restrictions.

 

+1

 

Your suggestion mentions nothing of contractually sold towns. If a contract says you own the town then you should obviously be able to have zoning law rights. Mention it in your suggestion.

 

The fact that Original Owners have such strong rights is one of the cornerstones of ECC and I personally believe that it is too well established to significantly change it now.

In terms of zoning permission, I have always liked to idea of a combination of inactivity and failure to respond to an application as circumventing the lack of permission as a compromise. The biggest issue that I used to face was people applying for towns with the Original Owner of a nearby town being inactive. I actually never saw an active player refusing to grant permission.

I think that there should be 3 criteria:

• The Original Owner should not be the Legal Owner.
• The Original Owner must be [3] months+ inactive [This is just a rough thought - basically just a period of inactivity]
• The Original Owner should be tagged in the application and has a period within which to object. (Perhaps 7 days?) If there is no response, then the town can be placed.

If the 3 of those are satisfied, then the town can be placed without zoning permission. This will get around the problem that I regularly saw where an Original Owner placed a town, sold it and went inactive. The new Legal Owner who then regularly want to rank up and place his new town next to his bought town, but couldn't get permission. Similarly, the same scenario but friends wanting to build a town next to the originally bought town.

I feel that the combination of the 3 elements above adequately protect the idea of strong Original Owner rights, whilst also being a practical solution to a very common issue.