Banning/Permissions Control List for Owners/Co-Owners

Thanks for posting this. Did you find it online? Or in-game? I'm curious to scan through it again. Cause you know, reading legal docs is the most fun I've had in a long time.

 

Here ya go Tarsin: https://www.portalarium.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=115&Itemid=498

 

Anyway sorry to lawyer you with the TOS. I truly hope there will be a solution to satisfy everyone. POTs and lots are pretty pricy, it would suck to get grief only to not be able to deal with it. Especially when it's potentially over a thousand dollar purchase.

 

Oh I still got some fight in me, though its kind of like shooting pool with a rope!

 

Sorry for the snark. I must keep my spirits up somehow. I really was just trying to point out that all software development is bound by these type of disclaimers, and it is so universal, it should be automatically acknowledged by anyone that uses another person's software.

 

No problem, and I see your point. I guess I could never see anyone trying to take virtual goods out of a game haha. My whole point was it was a paid for item. it does bring me to the point of how some one can resale this, at least in the terms of the TOS.

 

That just covers them in the event that they don't want to support sales from player to player. They can make exceptions to it on a case by case basis, like trading entire PoTs or pledges, but a lawyer will use it as a defense in the event Portalarium is sued for losses stemming from an unauthorized trade between players.

 

Also, since Portalarium is not managing the payment exchange between the players outside the game, they are simply offering the property transfer as a free service.

 

Good point

 

Thinking loosely here.

We know ban is out. So no need to tread that path.

But how about a non-PvP town banish?
You get banished for, let's say one week. Once banished you cannot be banished again from the same town until expired.
A town cannot banish more avatars than they have NPC buildings. Banishment have a cost in gold.
At the moment of banishment you get thrown to the overland map.
You are allowed to enter again, but if you do you get a warning pop up that you are banished from said town, enter at own risk, if you enter anyway you are flagged PvP and guards/defenses will trigger on your presence like a criminal.

This will still let the PvP be consensual, would be something with RP, won't be free, can temporarily help an event, but isn't permanent or anything like that. It will also create some ex foment for trolls getting banished from X towns or laying plans on how to circumvent by scape goating.

Only reason why I thought non-PvP are all the exploits from removing a person from the scene in PvP.

 

But, back to the original point, until we get official word that changes the last info given by Starr, we are just spinning our tires. I'm sure he's seen the behemoth this thread became. Not much more to do other than wait, I guess.

 

There is another thread about the creative use of instancing for managing events. I like that one much better as it could be available to everyone in the game and could work anywhere in the game.

 

We do not know for a fact that banning is out, that was current thinking Spoon, just to let you know. It is possible for them to change their mind. Just like they might change their mind on letting mobs and fishing be in PoT's. Everything is still on the table.

 

While I hear what you are saying I don't think that is the case. Everything is not on the table.
When it comes to fishing of hunting in POTs I'd say that it probably will be in after some discussions.
When it comes to MOBs in POTs then they were never even considered as table material.
When it comes to POT bans, the dev team discussed it with dev+ got a lot of exploit feedback, considered it and did an informed decision not to include it in the packade. So far as long as there is no clear cut demand from POT owners, but rather that most are reluctant or hesitant, then there is no reason for them to go back on that. Instead they might consider some other solutions for PoTs to handle griefers, like the instance kick suggestion, which works really well with their model.

So in some cases, yes its still up for debate, in other cases, yes you can win the lottery but the probability for that to happen...

 

So can you tell me how you know for sure? Are you a dev? I looked for the dev+ conversation you are refering too and I do not see it, if you could provide a link that would be great. In the video it states that he had a conversation with some dev+ people and it was changed because of that. the key words are it was changed, which implies there can be change. That was 7-8 months ago and there are more concerns and more conversation on this and more PoT owners in Joining this conversation. I as a Dev+ player town owner was never involved in this conversation and would like to be involved in a conversation about it again. It needs to be re addressed. Please link any relative info on the subject so I can review it. I have already seen the video and I know that the DNLB statement applies to the hangouts because everything is subject to change, as said by Starr Long himself.

 

Earlier in the thread I made a comment about how Player towns can basically be looked at the same way as player housing. The layout of a town can indeed be looked at as a schematic of a floor plan for a building. The lots = rooms. The roads = hallways. I look at it like this and its how I can see how permissions can be used for player towns as in player housing. So a direct comparison would be the same as renting a lot out to renting a room out. Same principles involved. Same virtual ownership implied. The pic on the left is a floor plan for a building, the pic on the right is a layout of a player town.

 

I'm sorry but I see no further gain from continuing this line of thinking.

I will now back away...slowly...as not to anger the peasant...too much.

Look over there:

*runs away*

 

I love that clip, and thank you for not wanting to anger me. Unlike others I do not try to report funny stuff like that. Now I am sorry if you think I am upset Spoon, I am not. I am a firm believer in debate, and I encourage it. You are a very eloquent speaker and I do like most of your postings because generally they are helpful to the whole community. I will concede the argument when I know for sure about what will be and not be, and as always, I try to hold my own until the argument is over and decided. I meant no disrespect sir. I really would like to see that thread with the discussion in dev+. I did read 86 pages of a megapost the other day, and found a couple people talking about it but that is all I could find. I would like to see the argument in order to know what exploits they were talking about. I understand that there would be some exploits if it was a pvp town and how that could work. I do not understand however the exploits in a pve town. That is the reason why I need to see the discussion and if there has been new arguments for this topic then it should be revisited. So again, I was not trying to sound angry, I just want facts. Thanks

 

Incorrect , they said "we originally had the system for restricting access in place much like housing but later removed it due to a request from the dev+ group". since then there has been like 60 more towns sold and there is 60 more opinions to consider. It WAS there from the start and was always intended to be there.