Potentially Restoring Illegally Griefed Bases

[Yukar9]

We wouldn't use backups, we'd use logblock to revert.

I'd still like people to think more about grey areas or edge cases.

What if somebody gets banned for x-ray but didn't cheat (or it can't be proven they cheated) to find that base?

What to do about items being duplicated from restoring the base? I don't think we can restore chests, which is probably good because it would be too easy to duplicate items. But there are still issues if people have built the base out of expensive materials.

What if the base was found legit but somebody used cheats to grief the base? What if it was griefed by a team but just one person on the team was cheating?

Those are just some basic scenarios off the top of my head. I'm sure people can come up with lots more.

It is a certainty that this policy will lead to people whining both about bases being restored and about bases not being restored. If the policy is sloppy the problem will just be 10 times worse.

[KoriJenkins]

We wouldn't use backups, we'd use logblock to revert.

I'd still like people to think more about grey areas or edge cases.

What if somebody gets banned for x-ray but didn't cheat (or it can't be proven they cheated) to find that base?

What to do about items being duplicated from restoring the base? I don't think we can restore chests, which is probably good because it would be too easy to duplicate items. But there are still issues if people have built the base out of expensive materials.

What if the base was found legit but somebody used cheats to grief the base? What if it was griefed by a team but just one person on the team was cheating?

Those are just some basic scenarios off the top of my head. I'm sure people can come up with lots more.

It is a certainty that this policy will lead to people whining both about bases being restored and about bases not being restored. If the policy is sloppy the problem will just be 10 times worse.

The simplest way to go about it would be having the base's destruction come as a result of direct illegal actions. That's the basic requirement for restoration to be considered. If x-ray wasn't used to find it, or if it wasn't destroyed with illegal materials or exploits of some kind, it doesn't get restored.

As far as valuable materials go, I don't think it's that big of an issue honestly. If the base was destroyed, the materials it was made of are probably gone anyway, either in the hands of the person who destroyed it (and is banned most likely) or destroyed themselves in the base's destruction.

If a base was found legitimately but cheats were used, it gets restored.

The grey area I can see coming up would be if someone was proven to have cheated in weeks or months before they griefed something with legal methods. But in that regard I would say the base would not be restored simply because the means of its destruction were not illegal.

Found illegally or griefed illegally should be the requirements. If one of those two are met, it gets restored. So if someone x-rays to find a base, but griefs it with legally obtained materials, that grief should be reverted. Or if someone finds a base naturally and griefs it with duped TNT from a dupe stash, it gets reverted.

[Yukar9]

What if somebody cheats to get gear, and then griefs the base legit other than having gotten gear illicitly? Like an old base which location is known by many people.

[KoriJenkins]

What if somebody cheats to get gear, and then griefs the base legit other than having gotten gear illicitly? Like an old base which location is known by many people.

I'd say in that case it probably wouldn't be reversed because they could've feasibly done it naked. Plus I think if you were to allow people to argue for their base to be restored off a reason like that, it would open the door for the endless complaining that you fear.

Enacting the policy in a way that punishes the most blatant examples, in this case x-rayers and dupers, wouldn't resolve every issue, but it would probably put a lot of people at ease knowing their bases would survive such an encounter.

Obviously someone could argue what if they duped materials to make a gunpowder farm? That could go on forever. Setting it in stone that if a base is "found through illegal methods or griefed with illegal materials" and only those two would allow the policy to exist without leaving it so vague as to leave room for people to whine for their base's sake.

I do think an argument could be made in the case of someone using illegal gear or cheating like the day before a major grief committed by them, but I think that would have to be a case by case decision. A 5-10 minute discussion or an admin vote perhaps, but it depends on the circumstances.

I don't think these occurrences are frequent enough that it would cause the admin team to be overworked though. Phrasings and possibly AndyAutism and his crew are the only griefers that acted illegally to do what they did to my knowledge.

[Yukar9]

To move this forward, what I'd like to see is a complete wiki page written for the policy.

Put {{Notice|This page is a proposal, the text on it does currently apply to the server.}}

at the top, then let people collaboratively figure the policy out. Then at some point we remove the notice.

[KoriJenkins]

Created an outline of a page at https://simplicitypvp.net/w/Base_Restoration_Policy

Will also post this in discord and in-game chat to get some activity.

[MutualistManiac]

In my opinion, this proposal seems to be in line with the general philosophy of simpvp overall. The server is supposed to be a sandbox with one significant caveat; no hacking, exploiting or cheating. Allowing bases to be griefed by hackers would be a betrayal to this attitude. However, Yukar does have reasons to hesitate upon implementing this as it would require a clear delineation to be made between griefs that are allowed and griefs that must be reverted.

I think that such a distinction can be easily made by delineating between necessary grief items, and subordinate grief items. A base would be eligible for reversal if it was griefed using "necessary grief items". These would primarily include access to the base (coords) and materials needed to complete the grief (items directly causing damage to the base). Both of these conditions would need to be proven to have been used in the accused manner upon the base requesting reversal for the eligibility to be sustained. However, either condition (coords or items) would suffice for reversal if proven.

This broad principle of "necessary grief items" would be able to include any item (or coordinate) which was obtained illegally or used in an illegal manner. In this way, it would be a superior standard for rule-keeping when compared to the alternative which would be logging every single specific item which would be seen as not being allowed. If one obtained, through some unknown (but illegal) means, a cheat pickaxe and used it to grief a base. They would not only be banned as a result of creating such items, but the grief would be seen as eligible for reversal. Likewise, the use of duped items would result in this outcome as well. Also, if a group used duped TNT on a base, but only one or two among them created the duped items, the base would, by this principle, still be eligible for reversal as the important aspect here are the "necessary grief items" which resulted in the grief.

We already recognize this for other offenses on the server. For example, a player is eligible to be banned if they use coords that were obtained illegally even if they themselves never hacked.

This concept of "necessary grief items" would be contrasted with "subordinate grief items". These would include illegal doings by a griefer which could not be proven to be used in the direct grief of the base. For example, if the griefer X-rayed for another base's coords (which did not have a /portal as that would make that hack become a "necessary grief item") or if they duped items that were not used in a particular griefing. The separation of these two distinct categories of illegal actions by players would reduce edge case problems as a clear distinction could always be made. For example, a player requesting reversal for a base that was griefed by a player wearing duped armor would not be valid as the duped armor was not a necessary item in the destruction of the base.

TLDR; dividing illegal actions into categories (necessary grief items/subordinate grief items) based on the effect they could be proven to have directly on a base requesting reversal would reduce or remove edge cases, and make the implementation of this policy easier.

[Lord1]

what would happen to 3 words? It was found and raided illegally but me and tenced griefed it ourselves. Would we get the countless artifacts we lost back? or the hundreds of dubs of items we lost?

[KoriJenkins]

what would happen to 3 words? It was found and raided illegally but me and tenced griefed it ourselves. Would we get the countless artifacts we lost back? or the hundreds of dubs of items we lost?

AFAIK it's physically impossible to restore storage from a raid.

But even so, Wilburia is in the same boat and we already ruled out including it. Nearly identical circumstances as well, found with an illegal exploit, raided, then griefed by the original owners. So 3 Words would probably just be left in its current state.

[MutualistManiac]

what would happen to 3 words? It was found and raided illegally but me and tenced griefed it ourselves. Would we get the countless artifacts we lost back? or the hundreds of dubs of items we lost?

yeah the line would have to be drawn somewhere, and the exploit, in this case, did not directly cause the grief.