Hi, Everyone,
It has recently come to my attention that a policy which we many years ago put in place and have been practicing for years, has not been formally spelled out on our forums. So let’s remedy that.
As most of you already know, when a guild privatizes a village, any villagers who were already living there, and are not part of the guild, have every right to remain in the newly converted private village. We will not remove those players from the village, nor do we tolerate others harassing or pressuring those non-guild residents to move out.
However, there are often times when guilds with private villages choose to remove players from their guilds, or players choose to leave the guilds of their own accord. Either way, such individuals tend to voluntarily move out of the private guild village since they are no longer part of the guild. But not always, and there are occasions when Dev intervention is required, particularly when issues of harassment or on-going dissension are prevalent.
Our official policy regarding this issue is: Players who are no longer members of a guild which owns a village, have lost their claim to remain living in that private guild village.
If such players refuse to leave the private village when requested to do so by the mayor or guild leader, then we will intervene and remove those players from the village. As always, we prefer this to be a last resort, and encourage all players to amicably communicate with each other first, and make every effort to peacefully resolve their village disputes on their own, but we will indeed intervene and remove such players as needed.
And if players were living in the village before it became privatized, but then chose to join the guild which owns the village, then this rule applies to those players as well, should they then leave the guild.
Thank you, Everyone, for adhering to and understanding our policy about this, and hopefully this post will eliminate any further confusion as to where we stand on this issue.
It has recently come to my attention that a policy which we many years ago put in place and have been practicing for years, has not been formally spelled out on our forums. So let’s remedy that.
As most of you already know, when a guild privatizes a village, any villagers who were already living there, and are not part of the guild, have every right to remain in the newly converted private village. We will not remove those players from the village, nor do we tolerate others harassing or pressuring those non-guild residents to move out.
However, there are often times when guilds with private villages choose to remove players from their guilds, or players choose to leave the guilds of their own accord. Either way, such individuals tend to voluntarily move out of the private guild village since they are no longer part of the guild. But not always, and there are occasions when Dev intervention is required, particularly when issues of harassment or on-going dissension are prevalent.
Our official policy regarding this issue is: Players who are no longer members of a guild which owns a village, have lost their claim to remain living in that private guild village.
If such players refuse to leave the private village when requested to do so by the mayor or guild leader, then we will intervene and remove those players from the village. As always, we prefer this to be a last resort, and encourage all players to amicably communicate with each other first, and make every effort to peacefully resolve their village disputes on their own, but we will indeed intervene and remove such players as needed.
And if players were living in the village before it became privatized, but then chose to join the guild which owns the village, then this rule applies to those players as well, should they then leave the guild.
Thank you, Everyone, for adhering to and understanding our policy about this, and hopefully this post will eliminate any further confusion as to where we stand on this issue.
Priest Daimheach
Brindle
Platform
PC
Would "harassing the non guild member who was in the village prior to it becoming private" include denying them the access they had to the village vaults Prior to when it became private?
Antavious
Warrior
Characters
Antavious, suoivatna
Platform
iOS
I was harassed to leave my first public village, mostly over a misunderstanding. I was given access to the lower part of the vault and I took what was usefull to me not much a scattered selection of low lvl matts in rag tag numbers to help me develop up the geology lab (one of a handful of projects not finished).
well the mayor wasn’t a great English speaker and I must have unknow to me broke a rule or some thing got an imitate demotion and lost vault access he then started communicating with me exclusively with negative emotes like kick and one time kept interfering with my gathering kicking me off nodes every time I went to use one.
Well I managed to upgrade the project anyway almost completely on my own and once I joined a guild i left and never looked back I didn’t leave sooner only because i couldn’t fine an open village with all its crafting stations upgraded.
well the mayor wasn’t a great English speaker and I must have unknow to me broke a rule or some thing got an imitate demotion and lost vault access he then started communicating with me exclusively with negative emotes like kick and one time kept interfering with my gathering kicking me off nodes every time I went to use one.
Well I managed to upgrade the project anyway almost completely on my own and once I joined a guild i left and never looked back I didn’t leave sooner only because i couldn’t fine an open village with all its crafting stations upgraded.
Math Fish
Squirrel
Royal Guardian
Characters
Math Fish (Marksman), Shama Fisha (Water), Accursed Angelfish (Shadow), Logical Loach (Fire)
Platform
PC, Steam
Disclaimer: This is NOT an official statement, but rather the opinion of a community member. Please defer to a member of the Mad Otter team for the final say on this matter.
I'm not an Otter, but my guess is that, on its own, this would not constitute harassment. On its own, it is just the mayor (forget if the officers, w/e they are called, can do this as well) exercising the rights he/she has. Dick move - depends on the situation. But its not harassment. However, if it is part of a series of actions like what @Antavious describes below (important parts highlighted), then I'd say it is ABSOLUTELY harassment. The denying of vault access would still not be considered harassment, but in context ... we all know it was, you know what I mean?
Again, the context is essential. I know one person who communicates with me using a lot of kicks, but that is done in jest. And the interfering with the node gathering (if it was a one time thing) would not, on its own, show harassment. It could have been a mistake or lack of observational skill or just the guy being a dick ... regardless, it was a one time event and by definition could not be harassment (as that requires repeated action after being asked not to). Depending on how much of a stickler you are for the rule as stated, even this may not be enough as none of the actions fall under the explicitly stated rule for harassment. But I personally feel like Sarah would deem Antavious' case here to be harassment. A minor case, perhaps, but still harassment.
Antavious
Warrior
Characters
Antavious, suoivatna
Platform
iOS
I accept my part of the whole affair, just because you have vault access doesn’t mean you should use anything without asking, it’s just not worth falling out with people over. Still I wish I could have had a conversation with that mayor and sorted it out instead.
Oh well all in the past now I’m in a great guild I specifically picked because I liked the leader and wanted to support her all I could
. took me a wile before I was comfortable enough to use the vault though.
Oh well all in the past now I’m in a great guild I specifically picked because I liked the leader and wanted to support her all I could
. took me a wile before I was comfortable enough to use the vault though.No - any more than using the Mayor privilege to limit any vault access does.
Edit to add - though like Math Fish above, I would stress I am not an Otter and this is not an official statement.
I just wanted to post to say I am not an Otter.
