A moral dilemma - was I right or wrong

[moff3tt]

Rule #1: The server owner defines what is against the rules as they wish.
Rule #2: Don't disobey the owner of the server.
Rule #3: Be excellent to each other and you will not incur the wrath of the dictatorship that is the owner.

Add those rules and anything you say they're in trouble for doing they're automatically in trouble for doing.

Assuming they're Americans. Remind them that just because they live in America "land of the free" doesn't mean the server is run the same way.

 

[Quesenek]

I would say its bordering on griefing. But to be honest if the quarry owner is logged out not watching what goes on with his quarry then its his fault.

 

[moff3tt]

I would say its bordering on griefing. But to be honest if the quarry owner is logged out not watching what goes on with his quarry then its his fault.

So if my base is griefed then I guess it is my fault for logging out and not watching what happens to my base then too.

 

[Blackmoore]

The rules:

No griefing, no stealing

The situation:

Two players had made there homes in someone elses quarry, digging up the ores as the quarry removed the stone.

The deposition:

Although the ore does not belong to the quarry owner as it's in the world, with no claim as such does this class as stealing or not. If the 2 players were not there, then that ore would belong to the quarry owner, unless someone else took it. Is it stealing, is this as close to borderline griefing/stealing as you can get?

Just to clear something up we are NOT talking about ores which lay in the sides of the quarry, we're talking about taking the ore which the quarry would have mined on the next pass over.

Ores which lay in caverns do not belong to anyone simply because there's no intent on anyone taking it. Since a quarry is working on said boundaries there is intent to take the ore, therefore to me it is stealing.


Agree/Disagree/Thoughts?

I'd be interested to know what everyone would do as a server owner in this case and how you would feel if you was the quarry owner.

This is a form of griefing. it is EXACTLY the same as having players rob from a chest, or disassembling a player's structure for their own use.

These two players are violating the other's quarry. If they were there first the quarry has to be moved. if they moved in after; the quarry should be filled with TNT, and set off.

the original player should go find a new location.

 

[SonOfABirch]

That's stealing. Tell the griefers not to do that again and if they do, ban them.

 

[DoctorOr]

Does building sub-optimally justify that behavior?

Two wrongs, etc. But making yourself a target doesn't mean building poorly should be rewarded either. Definitely since the shared resources of the server itself are being used far more by that poorly built quarry, running slow, and loading more chunks.

As a tangent, I do think that easy things should have negatives, and quarries are very easy.

 

[SpitefulFox]

Two wrongs, etc. But making yourself a target doesn't mean building poorly should be rewarded either. Definitely since the shared resources of the server itself are being used far more by that poorly built quarry, running slow, and loading more chunks.

As a tangent, I do think that easy things should have negatives, and quarries are very easy.

So, basically, you just don't like quarries and people who use them should be punished for playing in a way that you don't like.

 

[DoctorOr]

So, basically, you just don't like quarries and people who use them should be punished for playing in a way that you don't like.

I don't believe this situation is punishment. I just don't recognize a claim of ownership, particularly as you've stated such ownership starts at "putting down the landmarks"

I can make 1000 landmarks right quick....

But yes, people running 16 chunk quarries should be punished. I can't even imagine how that can be viewed as anything but abusive to the server itself.

 

[Blackmoore]

I don't believe this situation is punishment. I just don't recognize a claim of ownership, particularly as you've stated such ownership starts at "putting down the landmarks"

I can make 1000 landmarks right quick....

But yes, people running 16 chunk quarries should be punished. I can't even imagine how that can be viewed as anything but abusive to the server itself.

a 16 chunk quarry IS abusive to the server, but for cripes sake you are working on an infinite landspace. the invading players may have the same opinion, (the quarry is abusing the game by not mining with a pick) but this is FTB. Quarries are part of the basic build; unless banned by the admin. So too bad so sad - move your self to another set of chunks not inside of the quarry.

 

[KirinDave]

I don't believe this situation is punishment. I just don't recognize a claim of ownership, particularly as you've stated such ownership starts at "putting down the landmarks"

I can make 1000 landmarks right quick....

But yes, people running 16 chunk quarries should be punished. I can't even imagine how that can be viewed as anything but abusive to the server itself.

It never, ever, ever showed up on our tick profiles on our server, you know? If it's slow, I sure don't see it.

You know what frequently ended up with individual blocks taking 2 full ms per tick? Alvearies.

 

[DoctorOr]

It never, ever, ever showed up on our tick profiles on our server, you know? If it's slow, I sure don't see it.

The machine isn't slow, the chunks loaded are. All those blocks ticking show up as those individual blocks, not as whatever is keeping it force loaded.

You know what frequently ended up with individual blocks taking 2 full ms per tick? Alvearies.

Average, all, or single? Cuz I've never seen the average that high or anywhere near it for anything. I don't think I've seen an Average above 1ms. The "All" though is 1.8 for entity.passivePig, so I'm not sure 2.0 would be that damning.

 

[KirinDave]

Average, all, or single? Cuz I've never seen the average that high or anywhere near it for anything.

Single. If you didn't see it, you weren't looking. It was like that for weeks before our last map reset. And across all we had major expenses for steel tank blocks, too. Fun stuff.

 

[Siro]

The machine isn't slow, the chunks loaded are. All those blocks ticking show up as those individual blocks, not as whatever is keeping it force loaded.

That's true of anything chunkloaded anywhere, by any chunkloading block or player. It is something to consider when planning server specs versus intended number of players and there are a variety of configuration options one may employ to balance chunk loading to server performance. It takes more than six max size quarries to equal the same load as a player doing nothing at all. So if a server operator has chunk loading quarries enabled, max size quarries are either not a problem at all or it just isn't a good server operator.

 

[SpitefulFox]

I don't believe this situation is punishment. I just don't recognize a claim of ownership, particularly as you've stated such ownership starts at "putting down the landmarks"

I can make 1000 landmarks right quick....

But yes, people running 16 chunk quarries should be punished. I can't even imagine how that can be viewed as anything but abusive to the server itself.

Once again, "I don't like Quarries. Therefore, I don't recognize sabotaging them as griefing." If you don't like them, play on a server where they're disabled. Disabling them is fairly common practice.

 

[SonOfABirch]

I think this might be the first time I've seen DoctorOr on the losing side of an argument.

 

[DoctorOr]

Once again, "I don't like Quarries. Therefore, I don't recognize sabotaging them as griefing." If you don't like them, play on a server where they're disabled. Disabling them is fairly common practice.

You're wrong. I have nothing against quarries, and sabotaging would be griefing. It's just not sabotage to mine in the locale of a quarry. The quarry continues to operate, and whatever slow speed somebody has decided to power it at - since a reasonable speed and none of this would have came up.

 

[Sertas]

I'd take the players aside and explain to then why their actions are off. If they protest or give me a version of the following, "Well technically...etc." I'd issue a ban. As Kirin stated people who start talking technicalities, in respect to rules in games, are toxic.

It's clear a person sets a quarry with the intention of gaining the ores within the quarry boundaries. No one creates a quarry to get that sweet sweet dirt. Someone intentionally going into that area and taking the ores before the quarry can is wrong. I completely agree with Enigmius1 and his assessment.

 

[SpitefulFox]

You're wrong. I have nothing against quarries, and sabotaging would be griefing. It's just not sabotage to mine in the locale of a quarry. The quarry continues to operate, and whatever slow speed somebody has decided to power it at - since a reasonable speed and none of this would have came up.

Ran a max size quarry off of an HV-to-MJ power bridge. Even at high speeds, there's plenty of time to nab things before the quarry can. Mining in the direct path of a quarry IS sabotage. The whole point of setting one up is to automatically mine the ores in a designated area. When you nab ores before the quarry can, YOU ARE STOPPING IT FROM DOING ITS JOB.

How would you feel if you were on a server where the rules stated

"Ore doubling is way too easy to do. You are allowed to build Pulverizers/Macerators/Smelteries, but you have no ownership over what comes out of them. People are free to take whatever comes out of your machines. It's not sabotage because the machine can function just fine. Don't get mad just because people decide to build tesseracts within the vicinity of your pipeline."

Is that the kind of environment you would want to play in? Because that's one server I'd skip in a heartbeat.

 

[egor66]

This is some what of a silly topic its clearly wrong to move in on some one, if the 2 players are there first then the quarry owner is at fault, if quarry planted first then the two guys are at fault, no word for word rule is needed for this its common sense, & some ppl are arguing just for the sake of arguing on this topic, any server admin would solve this dispute in seconds, in most cases its best to remove one party or the other so make sure no follow up events accrue.

I just dont see why this even needs to be hashed out, if I seen some guys pick mining ores from some one quarry floor I would go ask them at the very least to stop & pm the admin of server, if ppl think this type of thing is okay then really not the type of ppl to play along side, if admin did nothing I would leave.

PS most servers use a mining age, its not clear in the OP if its OW but I took it as being.

Edit: PPs dont forget if you play on a server your honor bound to respect your fellow players, thats a gimme.

 

[SpitefulFox]

Also:

You're wrong. I have nothing against quarries

Is that so?

Quarries are cheap as hell to be granting this sort of formal "ownership"

As a tangent, I do think that easy things should have negatives, and quarries are very easy.

But yes, people running 16 chunk quarries should be punished. I can't even imagine how that can be viewed as anything but abusive to the server itself.

Because everything you say seems to drip with "I don't approve of this playstyle, so I'm going to punish it with passive-aggressive vigilantism instead of just outright banning it on my server."