I was recently banned (pending appeal) for taking from what appeared to be an abandoned build. I'm new-ish on this server still, and did not think I was out of bounds from the rulebook, because nothing I touched was claimed. I had always thought claimed=owned, not claimed=chancing it to strangers. This idea is supported by the warning that comes up when you build out of your claim, warning you that what you're doing is not protected. After reading other ban appeals, i can also see I'm certainly not the first person to have this apparent misconception.
The enforcer who banned me says that where I was was owned, despite not being claimed. If it is possible to own something without claiming it merely by being the first one to change blocks there, what stops me or anyone from placing a small shelter every 100 blocks across a swath of the map (per the existing rules) and thus rendering a huge area unbuildable for everyone because I "own" it (by the banners reasoning, anyway).
My point in this post is not to say that what I did was right or that nothing should have happened (well, maybe a little) but really to bring attention to this weak spot in the rules. There needs be a concise definition of what constitutes ownership on the server, and how that relates to a claim or not.
The enforcer who banned me says that where I was was owned, despite not being claimed. If it is possible to own something without claiming it merely by being the first one to change blocks there, what stops me or anyone from placing a small shelter every 100 blocks across a swath of the map (per the existing rules) and thus rendering a huge area unbuildable for everyone because I "own" it (by the banners reasoning, anyway).
My point in this post is not to say that what I did was right or that nothing should have happened (well, maybe a little) but really to bring attention to this weak spot in the rules. There needs be a concise definition of what constitutes ownership on the server, and how that relates to a claim or not.