Potentially Restoring Illegally Griefed Bases

[KoriJenkins]

There's a lot of opinions on the exact details here, but it seems people are universally in favor of the general concept of base restoration, unless I missed somebody.

I personally don't care that much about the details, beyond some base guidelines I'll lay out, so I'd like to see if we can't move this forward without me. Unless ostrich or Strawman wants to lead this process, I'd suggest we come up with a way players can decide on this.

We could do something like this: 3 players who care about and have thought a lot about this issue form a committee, they have to iron out the details together, and when they unanimously approve an exact policy then that's what becomes the official policy, excepting an admin veto.

Now for the base guidelines:

Reverting would happen with logblock (or an equivalent plugin, if we switch to one as Skuller suggests.) It would not happen with worldedit.

Therefore players should not expect to get chests restored.

There's also a time limit of 90 days, as that's how long we currently store block logs.

I nominate myself to be on the committee.

I propose including illegal exploits under "illegal means of finding bases" as they're illegal for a reason.

[Burger]

I'd also like to join this committee if we're doing that

[KoriJenkins]

I'd also like to join this committee if we're doing that

I agree, you're on the committee now.

The main question is should we include illegal exploits (essentially anything that isn't chunk trails and turtles) at the likely cost of creating whining? Strawman seemed to believe that exploits should be included since, outside of outright hacking, it's the most likely way a base would be found.

[Burger]

The main question is should we include illegal exploits (essentially anything that isn't chunk trails and turtles) at the likely cost of creating whining? Strawman seemed to believe that exploits should be included since, outside of outright hacking, it's the most likely way a base would be found.

Yes, if the exploit was used after being made illegal. I don't think anyone would complain about illegal damage being fixed.

Ideally restoring bases would be extremely rare imo, only in 100% unambiguous cases. So hypothetically Three Words shouldn't be restored because the wolf exploit was kind of vaguely allowed at the time, but if it was used to grief a base now, the base should be restored because its definitely illegal now.

[KoriJenkins]

The main question is should we include illegal exploits (essentially anything that isn't chunk trails and turtles) at the likely cost of creating whining? Strawman seemed to believe that exploits should be included since, outside of outright hacking, it's the most likely way a base would be found.

Yes, if the exploit was used after being made illegal. I don't think anyone would complain about illegal damage being fixed.

Ideally restoring bases would be extremely rare imo, only in 100% unambiguous cases. So hypothetically Three Words shouldn't be restored because the wolf exploit was kind of vaguely allowed at the time, but if it was used to grief a base now, the base should be restored because its definitely illegal now.

Yeah those are my exact thoughts. Doesn't help either that Three Words and Wilburia (both found by means illegal today) were griefed by the builders.

With illegal exploits I think it's clear. The question is with hackers specifically is how much do we want to discriminate against them? What if they cheat, grief a base, then the cheating is discovered? Do they lose their rights to play the moment they do an illegal action? Should the cheating be required against the base in question?

I guarantee you if a base is griefed by someone who x-rayed diamonds before finding it, the builders are going to be asking for it to be reversed, and I find it hard to really disagree with the logic.

[Burger]

Yeah those are my exact thoughts. Doesn't help either that Three Words and Wilburia (both found by means illegal today) were griefed by the builders.

With illegal exploits I think it's clear. The question is with hackers specifically is how much do we want to discriminate against them? What if they cheat, grief a base, then the cheating is discovered? Do they lose their rights to play the moment they do an illegal action? Should the cheating be required against the base in question?

I guarantee you if a base is griefed by someone who x-rayed diamonds before finding it, the builders are going to be asking for it to be reversed, and I find it hard to really disagree with the logic.

No, only bases which were found and griefed illegally should be restored. It will likely be a rare occurrence. Really doesn't matter if the griefer used autototem or flyhacks or even x-ray in the past, as long as they found and griefed the base legitimately.

[KoriJenkins]

Yeah those are my exact thoughts. Doesn't help either that Three Words and Wilburia (both found by means illegal today) were griefed by the builders.

With illegal exploits I think it's clear. The question is with hackers specifically is how much do we want to discriminate against them? What if they cheat, grief a base, then the cheating is discovered? Do they lose their rights to play the moment they do an illegal action? Should the cheating be required against the base in question?

I guarantee you if a base is griefed by someone who x-rayed diamonds before finding it, the builders are going to be asking for it to be reversed, and I find it hard to really disagree with the logic.

No, only bases which were found and griefed illegally should be restored. It will likely be a rare occurrence. Really doesn't matter if the griefer used autototem or flyhacks or even x-ray in the past, as long as they found and griefed the base legitimately.

Yukar said something I largely agree with. Essentially having a very basic form of this policy and expanding its coverage as more incidents prove what changes are and aren't needed.

[Burger]

Yukar said something I largely agree with. Essentially having a very basic form of this policy and expanding its coverage as more incidents prove what changes are and aren't needed.

Yes, for now it should simply be that a griefed base is restored if:
- it was x-rayed
- it was found with an illegal exploit
- it was griefed with duped materials

Other caveats, like those to do with ban evasion, or restoring items too, can be added in future if it becomes necessary.

[TonTheKidRS]

Yukar said something I largely agree with. Essentially having a very basic form of this policy and expanding its coverage as more incidents prove what changes are and aren't needed.

Yes, for now it should simply be that a griefed base is restored if:
- it was x-rayed
- it was found with an illegal exploit
- it was griefed with duped materials

Other caveats, like those to do with ban evasion, or restoring items too, can be added in future if it becomes necessary.

I support this. This seems like a good way to start a new policy that could easily be added onto as time goes on and additions are deemed necessary.

[MutualistManiac]

Yukar said something I largely agree with. Essentially having a very basic form of this policy and expanding its coverage as more incidents prove what changes are and aren't needed.

Yes, for now it should simply be that a griefed base is restored if:
- it was x-rayed
- it was found with an illegal exploit
- it was griefed with duped materials

Other caveats, like those to do with ban evasion, or restoring items too, can be added in future if it becomes necessary.

I support this as well. In each case, one of these categories would need to be proven to have occurred in the grief for it to be eligible for reversal. For example, if we knew someone duped pickaxes it would not then follow that they used those pickaxes to grief a given base. That would be a separate claim requiring its own proof. The contentious part of this, however, is the reversal of bases griefed by duping as I think strawman does not support that. Most do support it though.