Family Bills, Laws, and Proposals

[Defiant_Blob]

I will be keeping a public record of laws agreed upon by the representatives of each family, along with bills waiting to be passed and bills not passed.

Spoiler: Bills and Laws

Any councilman/councilwoman may propose a bill to the voted upon by the members of C.O.P.S. , and the bill may be approved 5 members vote upon it.

Every family must have at least 2 Representatives for voting on C.O.P.S. bills and resolutions as decided upon by the head of a family. Note that all families must have an equal # of Representatives, and the representatives do not necessarily have to be family leaders.

Every C.O.P.S bill/resolution has exactly 1 week to be voted upon before expiring.

Any C.O.P.S. representative may lose their status if there is reasonable cause to believe that the member is inactive and/or for general misconduct.
5 amount of members must agree to the decision beforehand.

Members of any family will not slaughter, pillage, or raid farms, be they animal or plant, that do not belong to them.

Members of any family will not abuse railways, subways, and other minecart transportation by stealing the minecarts purposefully.

Agreed upon by the representatives of the families of Primordia, all raids must have a minimum of 3 members and be approved by the government of which the raid belongs. All who raid without authorization and not meeting requirements will be treated as criminals and are the responsibility of the appropriate family. These rules do not apply to settlements in the freezone which do not contain people who belong to a family.

While raiding, players are by no means to take stuff and dump it out of chests just for the sake of clearing out the chests. When raiding, a player is stealing items that they need, not destroying the chests of the others.

Spoiler: Dictionary

A single user in a clan that either steals and/or kills members of another clan without government approval.

An organized attempt by users in a clan to either steal and/or kill members of another clan in a major settlement/city. Note that raids must consist of a minimum of 3 players and must be government approved.

A village has a name given by the family government, and is recognized as such.

A single user in a clan that either steals and/or kills members of another clan without government approval.

A member in a family that insults, trolls, or intends to start a verbal/physical conflict with another user in another family. Family leaders are to note that Instigators are to be treated as Criminals and are the responsibility of said family.

Spoiler: Bills and Proposals Awaiting Voting

All bills are subject to change

 

[lolpierandom]

This thread should be moved into "The Families", since these are global family votes.

 

[Defiant_Blob]

This thread should be moved into "The Families", since these are global family votes.

Home​

Forums>​

Primordia>​

The Families​

 

[lolpierandom]

It was in the Aeres forum before.

Bro, whyuhax?

 

[lolpierandom]

@Defiant_Blob - requesting an update.

You need to include B.1 and B.2, and your E.?(I believe it's the first class E bill).

Also include the classification index(lettering)

 

[Friendy]

Would be nice to be able to Harm users with Traps - But not kill.

 

[lolpierandom]

Would be nice to be able to Harm users with Traps - But not kill.

These are rules proposed and approved by 2 representitives from each family- while some of us are staff, none of these rules apply to non-family members unless specified otherwise.

In other words: THESE RULES ARE USER-GENERATED, NOT "OFFICIAL" AS IN BANNABLE*, BUT YOU WILL GET SLAPPED IN THE FACE AND/OR BEATEN TO DEATH IN GAME BY YOUR LEADER IF YOU BREAK THEM

*Disclaimer: Some of these rules might actually be server-wide and/or common sense and may actually get you banned

 

[Friendy]

These are rules proposed and approved by 2 representitives from each family- while some of us are staff, none of these rules apply to non-family members unless specified otherwise.

In other words: THESE RULES ARE USER-GENERATED, NOT "OFFICIAL" AS IN BANNABLE*, BUT YOU WILL GET SLAPPED IN THE FACE AND/OR BEATEN TO DEATH IN GAME BY YOUR LEADER IF YOU BREAK THEM

*Disclaimer: Some of these rules might actually be server-wide and/or common sense and may actually get you banned

But what I said is a server-side rule.

 

[lolpierandom]

But what I said is a server-side rule.

Which means we can't change anything about it.

Which means it has nothing to do with this thread.

Which means that it means NOTHING in this thread.

 

[Duffie]

@AngelWV

If it's a server-side rule, we have no power over it... Is what pie was trying to humbly say.

 

[Lee_scar]

I find comedy in lolpie believing that if all four families agree to a set of rules that those without families would not have to follow them, 'unless otherwise specified.'

Would be nice to have some freedom of conversation going on.

Back onto topic, bill a.1 would in a preverbal sense destroy the idea of raiding as well as would be the hardest to implement. Keeping a tight rein on people from 'raiding' or 'looting' would be very hard considering the constant inflow of new people. As well as this would completely contradict the idea of the server being hardcore, having to get 'approval' from a person on the other side of the world perhaps or from 'leaders' or 'superiors' that are hardly active. Although the issue of activity is apparent, though less with some than others.
Not to mention that the 3 user max on contraptions, with the third user being able to enter.

After all, if when one ONLY has 3 or more persons together to go about scavenging from others chests would that not defeat the idea that having a 3 max would deter the common looter? The idea of 3 max means an organized loot run, whereas a single person would come into the locks with the 3-person needed and then move on. Thus it's been setup where 3 is the max, assuming that three would be harder to muster. Making it the common ground would lessen the security and purpose of limiting the mechanism count.

As well it's nearly impossible to determine who owns what in free zones save for a sign and even then if that persons not online and I'm not a person who reads the wiki or anything I become a criminal?
So the idea is that I can build a lovely fortress outside a family’s boarder and make sure it has a lovely vault styled lock, to which I make sure my family is enemies with said family I built on the boarder of. That means they can't touch my fort without 'government' approval less they become criminals. Free zone should be 'free' in regards to any family laws. Family members should build there at their own discretion and risk.

Understandably the attempt to stop the constant looting of people whereas there are those going out by themselves and ravaging towns.
Although that is to the tune of 'hardcore', is it not the idea to live in fear every moment, but to be prepared.

 

[Friendy]

You can raid free zones without permission to raid, But the 'Free zones' are the zones that are not in Family areas.

 

[Lee_scar]

Angel the bill proposed would enstate that any settlement or structure that would be owned by a family member would be treated as though it were in the respective family zones. In short the double negative meaning that the rules apply for settlements that contain any family. Meaning the 3-person raid min as well as the 'permission from governing bodies' part.
Well that seems to be the emphasis from the wording 'These rules do not apply to settlements in the freezone which do not contain people who belong to a family.'
Which in case, there are perhaps little to no familyless people besides staff ranked and newcomers.

 

[lolpierandom]

The 3 person minimum is simple. We're tired of all this crap with random people deciding to go "ohey, let's go single handedly steal stuff from other towns, without permission from our leaders! it totally won't destroy another families' thoughts on us!"

It's aggravating to have to kill stragglers that decide to raid a town without permission- almost all heads find it annoying to govern the people that do so, as well.

As for the free-zones issue, it's simple enough.

Why the hell would you go and build outside of borders? So you can go LOLOLOL I GOT YOU IN TROUBLE FOR NO REASON LOLOL U GOT PWNED ZOMGWTFIOASDFHADSKLF

If you want to build outside of family borders, than go be my guest. Enjoy the benefits of being a family member, and having the basic bills agreed on by all families protecting you. But if ANYONE finds out you built it there just so you can get people to become criminals for the hell of it, then you will get yelled at by EVERYONE.

Honestly, this is just trying to discourage lone-raiding in general. If you aren't SURE that it's non-family, then don't touch it. Simple enough. Why should anyone raid by themselves? It's just causing aggravation for leaders.

 

[BrickWolf]

Angel the bill proposed would enstate that any settlement or structure that would be owned by a family member would be treated as though it were in the respective family zones.

Definition: Raid - By Brickwolf
An organized attempt by users in a clan to either steal and/or kill members of another clan in a major settlement/city. Note that raids must consist of a minimum of 3 players and must be government approved.

 

[Lee_scar]

With the red highlighted text up for freedom of interpretation, what would consist of major? After all there are small one person villages in places that one would not be able to have a general idea the population without investigating. Population signs?
Also what would consist as part of a major city, since there are many underground structures and tunnels ways away from within said villages that could be misconstued as stand alone.
Not to meantion that this in thought would discourage any kind of storage within a city since there would be only large parties coming and knocking at the door. Thus forcing large storage areas out and up for grabs for the single raiders again.
Building outside of a familes border can be a tactical point to be owned, not only does it give the rivaled family a easy vantage point to the other family it also can act as a waypoint.

 

[BrickWolf]

With the red highlighted text up for freedom of interpretation, what would consist of major?

If the village has a name given by the family government, and is recognized as such, it's a major settlement.

Also what would consist as part of a major city, since there are many underground structures and tunnels ways away from within said villages that could be misconstued as stand alone.

Not clear on what you're saying there.

Not to meantion that this in thought would discourage any kind of storage within a city since there would be only large parties coming and knocking at the door.

You have the option to protect your chests. You have the ability to make brain-puzzling locks. You can even fight. In my experience with raids, protection is fairly high.

Building outside of a familes border can be a tactical point to be owned, not only does it give the rivaled family a easy vantage point to the other family it also can act as a waypoint.

If it's outside the border, it's up for grabs. You want to build a house near your enemies? Be my guest, but don't ask for help if you get mugged. Houses/settlements outside borders will not receive government protection, as far as I know.

 

[Lee_scar]

The definition you gave for major city should be put into the dictionary.


The second part referring to what constitutes as part of a settlement, after all there could be this long winding and annoying path some 100-300 spaces away from said settlement underground which 'belongs' to the settlement.

Such as a chest vault with a mine cart path leading to the village or capital with a small building for topside access.

In short a village can argue that its part of it, despite being so far away from its borders and thus making it fall under raiding rules. Rather what 'belongs' and is part of a village would only be pertaining to what’s in its borders?

Apologies for all the back and forth on this, I'm very peculiar about laws and wanting to make sure they are iron clad and known. As I'm writing up a law list and subsections to laws that become clear and apparent.

 

[lolpierandom]

One can not claim that they're part of a official city if they're not approved as part of the official city...

That's like saying since I'm only x blocks away from port bastia, I'm is part of port bastia....

We've agreed on the major cities part, and that's what we decided to roll with. @Defiant_Blob needs to update this.

 

[Friendy]

Why is everyone having a 'Debate' about this? Should it not be simple? This isn't a democracy you know.

 

[BrickWolf]

...C.O.P.S and these laws... are based off a represenative democracy.

 

[Lee_scar]

Laws are never simple, they always have subtext and subsections and appends.
Back onto discussion, lets talk about mazes and locks.
I've yet to see a maze, but could they debatingly fall under rule 9?
As well as the type of locks, sure we have button push and lever activate amonst many others.
Though lets bring to the front burner if there should be any limits on these. Since I can build a 4 button lock with upwards of 64 pin combination, likewise for a 64 lever contraption.
Should these have limitations in regards to server rule 9.
Considering that 'just because I can' should not be 'that's what I will do.'
Rather is this not the place to discuss new bills and current meanings of things?

 

[BrickWolf]

This isn't the best place to discuss bills and laws.

If you have a law proposal, tell your family represenative.

 

[lolpierandom]

Laws are never simple, they always have subtext and subsections and appends.
Back onto discussion, lets talk about mazes and locks.
I've yet to see a maze, but could they debatingly fall under rule 9?
As well as the type of locks, sure we have button push and lever activate amonst many others.
Though lets bring to the front burner if there should be any limits on these. Since I can build a 4 button lock with upwards of 64 pin combination, likewise for a 64 lever contraption.
Should these have limitations in regards to server rule 9.
Considering that 'just because I can' should not be 'that's what I will do.'
Rather is this not the place to discuss new bills and current meanings of things?

"Let's discuss mazes, which are totally off topic and TOTALLY not related to this thread at all"

 

[Friendy]

"Let's discuss mazes, which are totally off topic and TOTALLY not related to this thread at all"

He was asking a question, What you said is not related to this topic.