Potentially Restoring Illegally Griefed Bases

[KoriJenkins]

This is in response to Yukarion's reply on clipchip's manifesto.

In 2019 I was exploring Spawn and came across one of the old Phrasings griefs, and seeing a 9 year old base that was destroyed with illegally obtained materials prompted me to ask Yukarion about whether or not restoring these bases to their original ungriefed state was ever something considered.

His response, probably not, I think raises a problem, that being letting the hackers win. One of the main attractions on Sim is the history of the server, but it's history that was largely made by legitimate, non-cheating players. Is it fair to say Phrasings griefs should be part of history?

The reason I bring this up is Yukarion seems more open to the idea now than he was previously.

I think clipchip raises a fair point about the time investment of players not appearing to mean very much. Hard work should be afforded a little more protection and the actual act of restoring a base, to my knowledge, would be fairly easy with litematica.

All an admin would essentially have to do is access one of the server's backups from before the grief, make a schematic of the base that was destroyed in its original state, and paste it back over the griefed one on Sim's actual map. A fairly easy process, easier than using world edit too because you can actually get the build itself positioned in the exact same spot it was before and Yukarion wouldn't be required to add schematic files to the server's world edit folder.

I'm of a mind that someone who hacks on this server with the intent of destroying things shouldn't be remembered as a part of server history. They didn't respect the rules, and aren't part of Sim's community. I'm also of a mind that if hackers, in this case BSB alts, learned that their efforts to grief bases illegally (ban evading to do it) were just being reverted, they would give up.

If AndyAutism and his ilk were actually ban evading to grief Estevez and Jez's base, restoring them would be not only the moral thing to do out of respect for the builders, but logical thing as well to deny cheaters.

Yes, this would set a precedent, but griefs committed by hackers aren't common enough for it to become overwhelming.

[Anthand]

I think this would theoretically be a great idea, as hackers and cheaters should not be able to leave permanent and illegal marks on the server. However, I think this would result in many non-illegal griefs being called illegal by the butthurt base members, which would obviously be a pain in the ass for any admin. There is also another problem: would 'grey area' bases be restored or left griefed? For instance would Wilburia be reverted to its original state because the reason behind the grief was xrayers, or would Wilburia remain griefed because it wasn't directly griefed by said xrayers? Anyways if this is done *sometimes* for very obvious illegal griefs, I think it would be fine. But if this became a rule, I feel as though it would cause far more strife in the long run.

[KoriJenkins]

I think this would theoretically be a great idea, as hackers and cheaters should not be able to leave permanent and illegal marks on the server. However, I think this would result in many non-illegal griefs being called illegal by the butthurt base members, which would obviously be a pain in the ass for any admin. There is also another problem: would 'grey area' bases be restored or left griefed? For instance would Wilburia be reverted to its original state because the reason behind the grief was xrayers, or would Wilburia remain griefed because it wasn't directly griefed by said xrayers? Anyways if this is done *sometimes* for very obvious illegal griefs, I think it would be fine. But if this became a rule, I feel as though it would cause far more strife in the long run.

I think the idea is that it would be done in the obvious cases. As far as non-illegal griefs go, to my knowledge the admins do often ask players how coordinates were obtained when a base is raided and destroyed anyway.

I don't think Wilburia would be restored because it wasn't directly griefed by the people who x-rayed to find it.

That could be the main selling point. The griefers of the base have to have been jailed for action to be considered.

And I'll go ahead and add that the base itself has to have been proven to have been destroyed by illegal means. If you suddenly decide to x-ray your way to Segoria tomorrow to blow it up and get banned, that shouldn't revert the grief of North Koria, which was done legally.

[TonTheKidRS]

I just want to bring up the semi-important point that pasting with litematica can cause a whole handful of funnies especially for larger builds and/or builds that contain water. I just wanted to bring this up because litematica might not be the best thing to use for this application. That being said, I don't have a good solution to offer in its place.

[KoriJenkins]

I just want to bring up the semi-important point that pasting with litematica can cause a whole handful of funnies especially for larger builds and/or builds that contain water. I just wanted to bring this up because litematica might not be the best thing to use for this application. That being said, I don't have a good solution to offer in its place.

Well obviously some level of testing would have to be implemented before going on with it.

Yeah, water being pasted into the world usually causes weird problems with it. As far as I know the worst case would be floating and/or broken water, but that shit's also incredibly common on Sim and is typically fixed by just updating the block.

[Yukar9]

What I foresee as the main problem with this is people complaining about the admins being unfair in restoring or not restoring a base. You need to figure out a way to make the policy as unambiguous as possible. Not just a concept of the rule, but the exact text if you had to put the policy on a wiki page.

[KoriJenkins]

What I foresee as the main problem with this is people complaining about the admins being unfair in restoring or not restoring a base. You need to figure out a way to make the policy as unambiguous as possible. Not just a concept of the rule, but the exact text if you had to put the policy on a wiki page.

How about something like "If any base is found and destroyed by players who used illegal means to do so, and a backup of the base exists, it can be restored if requested by the builder(s)."

I think in that context, we all know what "illegal means" amounts to; either being found with x-ray and/or destroyed with materials acquired illegally. I honestly think people are probably going to complain about admins being unfair in most cases.

I also think by making it "restored upon request" rather than just having the admins go base to base restoring illegal griefs, you eliminate any arguments of favoritism. The exception might be bases where none of the original builders play anymore, think really old Spawn builds.

I recognize in all likelihood these builds would be restored just to be mined by Azdin, but it's better for them to suffer destruction at the hands of an actual member of the community than some rando cheater.

[A. Pippenger]

Idea seems fair enough to me. Don't really care either way because I always played here knowing anything could be griefed at any time, but if a base was destroyed through 100% obviously illegal methods and the builder wants it back, I don't really see why not.

[Burger]

What I foresee as the main problem with this is people complaining about the admins being unfair in restoring or not restoring a base. You need to figure out a way to make the policy as unambiguous as possible. Not just a concept of the rule, but the exact text if you had to put the policy on a wiki page.

I don't think this will be much of an issue, provided you only restore bases which were 100% definitely found using hacks with no debate about it. Maybe also limit it to inactive or historic bases.

[KoriJenkins]

What I foresee as the main problem with this is people complaining about the admins being unfair in restoring or not restoring a base. You need to figure out a way to make the policy as unambiguous as possible. Not just a concept of the rule, but the exact text if you had to put the policy on a wiki page.

I don't think this will be much of an issue, provided you only restore bases which were 100% definitely found using hacks with no debate about it. Maybe also limit it to inactive or historic bases.

If it's limited to only inactive bases it sorta defeats the purpose of doing it at all. The point is saying "a player's time is more valuable than the enjoyment a cheater gets from erasing it."