(LVS) 1/7/2017 Council Meeting Market Topic Aftermath

[ABParadigm]

As we discussed in the July 1st council meeting, we decided to post a topic here on the forums discussing the specifics of some rules regarding the market that were amended in said meeting, and to continue the topic at hand as to not drag the meeting out another hour.

Where we left off, we were discussing the possibility of buyouts and shop-employees taking the reigns if one of the original plot owners were to go inactive, crossing into their standard THREE MONTHS of inactivity, and into the predesignated removal period. It was also suggested that during the TWO WEEKS of warning time, one of the employees may be able to halt the removal, and take the shop as their personal plot.

Following these ideas and topics at hand, most people were concerned with the possibility of shop "mutinies" or being able to overthrow the original plot owner, and seeking a ridiculous amount of profit by buying out the store.

This topic was further conflicted by the concept of dual-partner shops. In a more specific example, the possibility of One227 or EmpressBethany's inactivity, and the possibility of ABParadigm taking over if it was required to save half of the shop.

Discussion on these matters included the ideas of personal consent by BOTH plot owners of the pre-existing shop, letting the inactivity period and removal take place in order to re-build the shop, and allow an auction period to occur allowing the fair play of all players.

Of course, this was complicated further by other miscellaneous problems that were brought into the light.

I turn this topic over to you; what should we do about inactive shops concerning double-plot stores, and what could clarify and fix the problems?

[Forseth]

Inactive players and their plots is an easy task. The Zriends or Guardians can remove the build and all the items, and put them into storage, until the player returns.

As for co-owned shops. If one of the shop owners is inactive on the server, I see a few different possibilities.
Naturally the ambition is to turn the shop from a co-owned shop to a regular shop if possible.

First, one idea is for the second owner to take over the shop completely, taking ownership of it and all its item. This might seem unfair as the other items belong to the other player, but its a easy way out and creates less work. Should the inactive player return, well then the other owner just needs to return the items (and profit).

Another idea is to separate the shop items, removing all the items belonging to the inactive player and putting them into storage, like the zriends would do with a single owned shop. Now the problem with this is that it might not be easy to tell what item belongs to who, and the remaining owner might not be entirely honest in the matter.

To be honest, I feel like this is something that should have been decided when the shop owners started the shop. And if they didn't, well then it falls under the rules of the market and server. Inactive players items get stored and removed.

[Zedwick]

For co-owned shops, it might be an idea to strongly suggest each chest within the shop has a player's name on it. Then those names can be used for fairly dividing up the items if a shop needs to be split for any reason. If there are no names, then players accept that all items are in a sense shop-owned and will be left to the remaining active player(s) for that shop.

[ABParadigm]

I agree with Zedwick; having each chest individually named would also help clarify whose property the items are. I also see issues with the "one-owner takes both" scenario you suggested Forseth, because it would indeed give other players an unfair advantage. The task to then change a double-plot shop into a single-plot shop would indeed work as I see it.

Players restocking the shop that are not plot owners, however, should have some sort of "special shop powers" IMO.

I think if and when a shop owner goes inactive, that there be a way for the "employee" to suspend the removal for a short period of time, or take the plot over entirely until the player goes inactive. I also believe that the previous removal-suspension or taking-over not be permanent; I believe the ORIGINAL plot owner be granted some special sort of privelage, such as being able to reclaim their shop.

I should also mention the prior scenario should ONLY apply to viable employees, one issue I had not considered when bringing this up in the meeting. Allowing someone to take over a shop that is in no way related to the plot owner may complicate far more. I think that the shop's employees should ALSO be kept in some sort of manifest, as to say they are "unofficial owners," or some sort of unofficial shop title such as that. I should also mention that this should NOT be kept permanent, and could be easily combated with another waiting period, such as two-months.

To clarify, I believe that shop EMPLOYEES marked as legitimate employees by BOTH plot owners should be able to save a shop (in this case one half of the shop) from deletion, and that the employee MUST be marked SOMEWHERE within the shop with a SIGN; and that the saving of the plot be TIMED, and NOT permanent, as another additional waiting period (two-months is suggested).

[EmpressBethany]

Oh, man, what is this...I go offline for several days and someone cooks up a hostile takeover of the shop. This is war, AB! War!!!

In all seriousness, though, it looks like it is important for the EB1 trio to draft a partnership agreement and maybe "file" it on the forum so everyone is comfortable.

Hugs (even though I was stabbed in the back during my brief absence),
EB

[ABParadigm]

LOL EB, it was a matter stemming from my desire to create a small food shop that I mentioned in my first few days playing on the server. It originally was "Can I make one, considering I did not create the plot myself?" then slowly turned into more extreme and confusing topics (inactivty rule was amended, then discussion of shop "saving" from inactivity landed us here), eventually making it here to the forums as the topics it kept creating were too complex to answer in one meeting. No worries it isn't a mutiny.

[Forseth]

Easy is best. Names on signs or maybe dividing the shop in parts might make it easier for Zriends and Guardians to clear up any problems.

[ABParadigm]

I agree Forseth, but for the matter of combined shops, both plots should be laid out of whose is whose, so that the removal process is not complicated by removing the incorrect side of the shop.

[Aravero]

Thank you AB, for posting this topic to the forum.

I will take this opportunity to express a thought that I had had during the meeting, but that was simply lost or misunderstood in the flow of the chat.

1. Each plot has a designated owner.

2. When a designated owner becomes an inactive player, as determined by their "lastseen" exceeding three months, then that plot gets the two week warning.

3. IF and ONLY IF there is a partnership between two adjacent plots, then during the two week warning period the active player-owner AND an active player-employee can petition the council's approval for transition of ownership of the "cold plot"(for lack of a better word) to the active player-employee. Said petition must be posted in the pre-meeting agenda for the relevant council meeting in order to be considered a valid petition and to allow for discussion of the transfer of ownership in the forums. The council can decide on a case by case basis if there is anything shady about the transitions and also decide the disposition of any goods remaining in the "cold plot".

4. I also stated it might be appropriate to standardize a warning period to "match" up conveniently with scheduled council meetings.

In writing this I can see many possible what-ifs and if-thens but my only purpose here is to state what I felt was unheard or misunderstood in the meeting. I was not proposing an auction of a plot with all it's contents to the highest bidder, which seems to be what was understood.

[ABParadigm]

Ah, I see what you mean, Ara. This idea has a great manner of substance; it is far better to run it by a number of players instead of standardizing a rule as it will allow multiple judges on one matter.

As I see it this actually deletes a LOT of "what if's," as folks who are active on the server and that know others may tend to better show what their true motives are far prior to this. Therefore, it is less likely to miss something ethically challenging and detrimental to the market than if a standardized practice was amended, simply by knowing your fellow player.

I'm all for this idea, a case by case basis for a matter this sensitive and confusing with multiple cause and effects at play is better handled within the council when the matter arises.