Consistency among staff?

[Brictoria]

I've just logged in to find a "warning" from a Rustez staff member about a build I have spent many hours planning and working on over the weekend.

 

The problem with this is that the warning comes hours after I had been given the "all clear" on the build by a Rustez staff member who had inspected it and confirmed there was no issue with it. Following this approval, I subsequently spent hours harvesting resources to "tidy it up" (upgrading from the initial twig form), removing superflous parts that had been used to ensure stability but were no longer required, planning how to "decorate" it, and had planned to spend time today in harvesting materials to complete the upgrade of materials used.

 

Is there any internal communication between staff members to ensure consistency, or can approval from one member of staff be overridden on a whim by another, making a previously approved build that people may have invested a large amount of time on suddenly require demolition and so wasting the time and effort of the player(s) involved? This isn't the first time I have done a build which was approved by one staff member and another has come along and decided they would issue a "warning" about either, and it certainly takes away from the motiviation to play on (or direct others toward) the server...

[LemonButter]

Hello Brictoria, 

Thank you for your considered response to our recent communication.

I am aware that an admin came, at your request, to review the bridge that covered the mouth of the river. They were not aware, and  wasn't expecting, your plan to build the additional section out into the ocean. 

The admin that sent a "warning" was only asking for you to reduce your build and offering options of transport to get to your base out on the sand bar. Reducing your build is still an option for you however, keep in mind that building multiple grid long builds starts to take away land/water options for others to build on, so maybe some consideration next month to downsize. I know this is something you have mentioned and considered in the past.  

As for the consistency of staff, there's always internal communication however it's not always 100% perfect. That being said, I will have a discussion with my team and bring it up at the monthly meeting.

RustEZ strive to make the wipe as exciting and pleasant for every player. We understand there are multiple play styles including builders, monument runners and other options. We do however, need to consider some guidelines in play and this contradicts the "No building around monuments, or large areas of unused land." .

 

[Brictoria]

Thank you for your responce.

 

When I asked for the review, the bridge was "completed" in twig (pillars and 1 lane of "roadway" with the second (required in part for structural stability) having small gaps between pillars where a 1x1 wasn't required for the stability of the completed roadway portion), with the only "extension" needed being the ramp at the end to allow access to it by a horse\car (which was its intended purpose) - There was no "plan" to buiild an "additional section out into the ocean" as that structure was already in place at that time I sought approval. I initiated the bridge in the ocean at the foundation for what was intended to be my main base, and worked back to the mainland from there, to ensure that it was connected to that structure and at an appropriate height\alignment, rather than having to risk dealing with uncrossable gaps\height differences\"floor offsets" there and as well as that the supporting pillars were spaced as far apart as possible while ensuring structural stability.

 

When I sought and was given approval, I was also informed that the portion over the water, where I started from, had already been checked earlier in the day while being constructed and was OK (unknown to me while I was putting the twig in place, there had been concern from someone regarding the clearnce for RHIB's and this had been checked at that time) but I had designed it to be high enough (The roadway was placed between 1.5 and 2 full walls above the water surface, which required planning\testing to ensure there was stability for the roadway even over the deepest portion of water it crossed) to permit RHIB's through the water beneath it where the supports were not required, and for cars/horses/players on foot in the small area where it was on land. I had also designed it to be as compact as possible within the confines of the stability system, keeping it's "land" usage as low as possible (From memory, there's around 5 "2x2" foundations, and the decorative 1x2 with 3 triangles on the sides where the ramp joins the upper level, with the rest being a number of evenly spaced 2x2 pillars across the sea which isn't commonly used as a building area.

 

And so, we return to the issue that I was initially posting about - I had built a structure for a specific purpose, used the minimum amount of "land" possible, made it as unobstructive to others as possible, sought (and was given) approval for it at a stage where the minimum amount of time and effort had been sunk for planning and resource gathering. Then, having received approval and spent considerable time farming resources and planning how to "decorate" it (make the final form as aestetically pleasing as possible within the confines of the game limitations), applying upgrades, and removing superflous portions the approval was revoked by another staff member and a "warning" given.

 

Lacking consistency such as happened here takes away any incentive\motivation to try and build structures that look pleasant (in layout\design as well as in material\texture) to others or encourages them to see what is possible to be done using the limited building components the game provides, and instead tends to encourage huge "boxes", multi-TC "PVP" bases\compounds copied directly from youtube videos or structures left in twig for the entire wipe, so that should it suddenly be deemed to require a warning by a different staff member, it will have wasted as little investment of time\effort by the player(s) involved as possible. It also has the potential to drive people (and their recomendations to others) away from the servers if they cannot rely on\trust that what one staff member tells them will be respected\upheld by other staff members.

[Brictoria]

Well, this has certainly been my worst wipe on these servers...

 

Despite having been given approval by an admin for a build at a point where it was still in twig (where a minimum amount of time and effort would be wasted by taking it down), and then putting considerable time into harvesting materials, upgrading the build, and remoning extraneous parts, I'm still faced with a message on signing in to the server that implies I had no right to build what I had built, that I need to tear it down, and provides no indication that the person who is forcing the message on me had made any effort to communicate with other admins (or if they had, to explain why permisssion had been revoked and appologise for that, rather than accuse me of having done something wrong as the message does).

 

What makes this worse is that almost 3 weeks ago an admin posted here with the partial information they had and have since ignored the reply I posted to them that same day...