Talk:Terms of Service
If you have any questions about the Terms of Service, ask them here. --SorrowL 21:40, 1 May 2011 (CDT)
About the editing of builds
I found this under "recent changes" and this is very well done! I'm wondering if the part that states, "We are allowed to do anything to what you have started or are starting, including removing or moving, This includes but is not limited to player datafiles, inventories, build projects and policies you've agreed too." was going to be used more often. I also feel that there should be some kind of reasoning behind editing. In other words, if and admin should do something to someone else's build, they should give some reason. No reason at all seem a little, well, unreasonable. I will still continue to play on this amazing server, regardless. I just think those rules are a bit harsh. This is just my opinion.
I agree with Andy. An explanation would help. I don't think anyone will be happy with rules that have no back reasoning behind them, Just my opinion.--RidiculousCash 00:13, 26 June 2011 (CDT)
A perfectly valid reason would be "because I wanted to.". Rule 2, folks. --NeutronRocks 08:34, 26 June 2011 (CDT)
Good point. I do realize that, Neu, and I also realize that none of the admin would stand for a build of a member+ being destroyed, as I have seen a certain ELEVn remove a massive facility, only to be yelled at by ridge. As it turned out, he was simply moving it, anyways. But stories aside, I would have rather liked to see some reasoning behind the moving/destroying of builds in there. But I am a simple builder, and these are written by Sorrow, and agreed upon by the admins, so I can't really say much. I also can't force my ideas on anyone, regardless of rank.
---Andy 08:43, 26 June 2011 (CDT)
This is a blanket policy. There are no expected changes to how the staff interact with player structures: the changes to the wording of this policy change nothing about where, how and why a staff would alter or destroy a guest (or member)'s work. Staff are simply clarifying that we retain that right, as we always have. --Plusnine 15:51, 27 June 2011 (CDT)
