What's your Minecraft Username?: MinisterFudge
What's the title of your suggestion?: Clarifying Rule 3.7b and Streamlining the Property Disownment Process
What's your suggestion?:
BACKGROUND
Rule 3.7b states that...
Administrators may disown a property if the owner has been inactive for 30 days.
In practice, however, only senior administrators (of which there are only a few) can do this, and this distinction is not clearly stated anywhere in the rules or guidance.
It is also unclear what's so terrible with regular administrators that they can't be trusted to do this themselves, but can be trusted to ban players permanently.
This creates a confusing and inefficient process for players. Currently, a player must:
Curiously, when such tickets on the forums get escalated to senior administrators, a message appears:
Requests by the reporting player to:
Such requests, from my experience, are often not addressed before the ticket is closed as “resolved”.
Additionally, restricting disowning to senior administrators only does not appear to have a clear rationale. Regular administrators already hold significant powers (including bans), so it is unclear why disowning a property, a quick, reversible, and well-logged action, requires escalation, delays, and complete loss of coordination with the reporting player.
The issue is not the length of the wait itself, but the lack of transparency, notice, and coordination, which all make the entire process of even reporting a property with an inactive owner feel utterly asinine and pointless.
As it stands, the system unintentionally creates outcomes that appear unfair and is structurally vulnerable to abuse, even if no abuse is occurring. Not all properties are equal in desirability, and without safeguards, it is easy for property disowns to look like insider knowledge or preferential timing.
The bulk of the suggestion
1. Permit administrators to disown properties like senior administrators can to prevent unnecessary escalations to an already rather bureaucratic system. This would reduce unnecessary escalation delays by delegating or streamlining this authority
If only senior administrators shall ever be trusted with such permissions:
2. Introduce advance notice or scheduling
- When a property is confirmed inactive and ready to be disowned:
At the very least, if administrators with the requisite permissions are available and can answer in-game tickets (once a forum ticket is made), they should just do it. Telling players to simply 'please wait' is not really... acceptable if the player is online and ready to receive assistance. SURE, I get that senior administrators are few in number and can be busy... but, resolving these sorts of tickets while a player is online really isn't exactly a time-consuming affair. This simply isn't good enough when this system is so poorly designed, and other staff who could help (i.e., administrators lacking seniority) are, as far as I can tell, simply not trusted!
Once a forum ticket is made and evidence supplied (evidence the admin can usually just obtain with /seen anyway), it can feel lowkey malicious to not do so, and instead disown the apartment randomly when the reporting player may not be online. Which leads me to my third suggestion:
3.
Impose an actual duty on senior administrators (or administrators, if they are ever trusted with these permissions) to respond to in-game tickets if a player has already gone to the trouble of making a forums ticket, and they are perfectly capable of processing the ticket in-game while the reporting player is online. In other words, if the staff member is answering tickets, make it an actual live responsibility, so they are not allowed to simply say, in effect: 'No, you can wait irrespective of how easy it would be to assist, I have other tickets to tend to.'
Again, TIME is not the issue here. Players making these tickets do not care if they have to wait. They want the matter dealt with so THEY (or someone they know online) can obtain the apartment. It's the entire reason people make these tickets in the first place.
How will this benefit the server and community?:
- Reduces the possibility of undetectable abuse
The current system concentrates timing control entirely with a small number of senior administrators and provides no advance notice, scheduling, or audit-friendly safeguards. While there is no claim that abuse is occurring, the system makes preferential timing or private “tips” effectively impossible to detect. Introducing transparent procedures (such as scheduling or reporter priority) removes this risk entirely.
- Restores meaning to the reporting process
At present, reporting an inactive property offers virtually no practical benefit to the reporting player! In fact, it may actively disadvantage them by putting them through this reporting rigmarole with nothing to show for it. This discourages players from reporting at all, making the system reliant on staff discovery or chance. A fairer process incentivises reporting and keeps the property system healthy.
- Improves trust in staff decisions
When outcomes depend on silent, discretionary timing, even legitimate actions can appear unfair. Clear rules, notice, and coordination ensure that property transitions are visibly fair, reducing speculation, frustration, and community distrust.
- Aligns incentives with good behaviour
Players who follow the rules, gather evidence, and submit proper tickets should not be penalised for doing so. Safeguards ensure that diligence and rule compliance are rewarded rather than punished.
- Prevents metagaming and off-platform coordination
A transparent process removes incentives to camp properties, relies on social proximity to others who could potentially 'nab the property for you', or coordinates off-platform in anticipation of disowns. This keeps property acquisition in-character and rule-bound. Property disowns should not be this 'rare event' that the reporting player needs to 'catch' at the right time, or hope they happen to be conscious to actually benefit from, and not render the entire process of reporting the inactive owner pointless
- Creates a system that is fair by design, not by assumption
A well-designed system does not depend on constant good faith; it structurally prevents unfair outcomes. These changes would ensure that even in worst-case scenarios, abuse is not possible and fairness is preserved.
Q&A
I have anticipated below some concerns people may have with the suggestions, and so I've attempted to cover expected resistance to the suggestion below.
What's the title of your suggestion?: Clarifying Rule 3.7b and Streamlining the Property Disownment Process
What's your suggestion?:
BACKGROUND
Rule 3.7b states that...
Administrators may disown a property if the owner has been inactive for 30 days.
In practice, however, only senior administrators (of which there are only a few) can do this, and this distinction is not clearly stated anywhere in the rules or guidance.
It is also unclear what's so terrible with regular administrators that they can't be trusted to do this themselves, but can be trusted to ban players permanently.
This creates a confusing and inefficient process for players. Currently, a player must:
- Notice an inactive property with /seen
- Gather evidence (screenshot)
- Submit a forum ticket
- Potentially have to wait for the ticket to be escalated
- Essentially/Potentially, be told to wait, even when relevant staff are available, with the property disowning process being simple, taking up less than a minute. Though, as you will see if you keep reading, the waiting isn't really the issue.
Curiously, when such tickets on the forums get escalated to senior administrators, a message appears:
This message may as well not exist. Speaking from experience ...
Requests by the reporting player to:
- Disown the property while the reporting player is online
- Organise a mutually convenient time for the property to be disowned while the reporting player is online
- Provide a rough timestamp or short heads-up via Discord DMs
- Or, if rules/commands allow, transfer ownership directly while reporting player is offline and not owning any property, thus remaining faithful to rule 3.7d.
Such requests, from my experience, are often not addressed before the ticket is closed as “resolved”.
Additionally, restricting disowning to senior administrators only does not appear to have a clear rationale. Regular administrators already hold significant powers (including bans), so it is unclear why disowning a property, a quick, reversible, and well-logged action, requires escalation, delays, and complete loss of coordination with the reporting player.
The issue is not the length of the wait itself, but the lack of transparency, notice, and coordination, which all make the entire process of even reporting a property with an inactive owner feel utterly asinine and pointless.
As it stands, the system unintentionally creates outcomes that appear unfair and is structurally vulnerable to abuse, even if no abuse is occurring. Not all properties are equal in desirability, and without safeguards, it is easy for property disowns to look like insider knowledge or preferential timing.
The bulk of the suggestion
1. Permit administrators to disown properties like senior administrators can to prevent unnecessary escalations to an already rather bureaucratic system. This would reduce unnecessary escalation delays by delegating or streamlining this authority
If only senior administrators shall ever be trusted with such permissions:
- Provide a clear rationale for why this is so.
- Update rule 3.7b to clearly reflect this.
2. Introduce advance notice or scheduling
- When a property is confirmed inactive and ready to be disowned:
- The administrator should either:
- Share a rough timestamp with the reporting player, or
- Coordinate a time with the reporting player in DMs if requested, or
- Provide a short heads-up before the disown occurs if the reporting player is online, or
- Transfer ownership directly if rules permit, and this is even technically possible with commands (if it can be, make it so), or
At the very least, if administrators with the requisite permissions are available and can answer in-game tickets (once a forum ticket is made), they should just do it. Telling players to simply 'please wait' is not really... acceptable if the player is online and ready to receive assistance. SURE, I get that senior administrators are few in number and can be busy... but, resolving these sorts of tickets while a player is online really isn't exactly a time-consuming affair. This simply isn't good enough when this system is so poorly designed, and other staff who could help (i.e., administrators lacking seniority) are, as far as I can tell, simply not trusted!
Once a forum ticket is made and evidence supplied (evidence the admin can usually just obtain with /seen anyway), it can feel lowkey malicious to not do so, and instead disown the apartment randomly when the reporting player may not be online. Which leads me to my third suggestion:
3.
Impose an actual duty on senior administrators (or administrators, if they are ever trusted with these permissions) to respond to in-game tickets if a player has already gone to the trouble of making a forums ticket, and they are perfectly capable of processing the ticket in-game while the reporting player is online. In other words, if the staff member is answering tickets, make it an actual live responsibility, so they are not allowed to simply say, in effect: 'No, you can wait irrespective of how easy it would be to assist, I have other tickets to tend to.'
How will this benefit the server and community?:
- Reduces the possibility of undetectable abuse
The current system concentrates timing control entirely with a small number of senior administrators and provides no advance notice, scheduling, or audit-friendly safeguards. While there is no claim that abuse is occurring, the system makes preferential timing or private “tips” effectively impossible to detect. Introducing transparent procedures (such as scheduling or reporter priority) removes this risk entirely.
- Restores meaning to the reporting process
At present, reporting an inactive property offers virtually no practical benefit to the reporting player! In fact, it may actively disadvantage them by putting them through this reporting rigmarole with nothing to show for it. This discourages players from reporting at all, making the system reliant on staff discovery or chance. A fairer process incentivises reporting and keeps the property system healthy.
- Improves trust in staff decisions
When outcomes depend on silent, discretionary timing, even legitimate actions can appear unfair. Clear rules, notice, and coordination ensure that property transitions are visibly fair, reducing speculation, frustration, and community distrust.
- Aligns incentives with good behaviour
Players who follow the rules, gather evidence, and submit proper tickets should not be penalised for doing so. Safeguards ensure that diligence and rule compliance are rewarded rather than punished.
- Prevents metagaming and off-platform coordination
A transparent process removes incentives to camp properties, relies on social proximity to others who could potentially 'nab the property for you', or coordinates off-platform in anticipation of disowns. This keeps property acquisition in-character and rule-bound. Property disowns should not be this 'rare event' that the reporting player needs to 'catch' at the right time, or hope they happen to be conscious to actually benefit from, and not render the entire process of reporting the inactive owner pointless
- Creates a system that is fair by design, not by assumption
A well-designed system does not depend on constant good faith; it structurally prevents unfair outcomes. These changes would ensure that even in worst-case scenarios, abuse is not possible and fairness is preserved.
Q&A
I have anticipated below some concerns people may have with the suggestions, and so I've attempted to cover expected resistance to the suggestion below.
“Senior admins are too busy to coordinate disowns with players.”
“Too busy” explains the delay, nothing else. It does not justify denying notice, introducing unnecessary requests to 'wait' for the ticket to be handled on the forums rather than assisting the reporting player making an in-game ticket when senior admins are online, nor does it explain resistance to scheduling/accommodating reasonable requests canvassed above which would actually help the reporting player.
“This ensures everyone has a fair chance to get the property...
Disowning properties silently is fairest, because it allows anyone who happens to be there to grab it. Public notice of any kind would just cause crowding at desirable properties.”
This is about incentives, not exclusivity.
The goal is not simply to try and guarantee ownership, but to ensure that:
- Coordination is not extra work; it replaces wasted work.
Writing “please wait”, escalating tickets, and closing threads takes more time than:- Teleporting
- Running a command
- Sending a one-line DM (“I will disown this apartment at [DISCORD TIMESTAMP HERE], if you're online, you will be contacted and asked if you wish to be made the new owner of the property you reported specifically so it could be disowned)
- Disowning is already being done.
The question isn’t whether senior admins have time. They clearly do, because the action happens anyway. The only difference is whether it happens silently or transparently. - Busyness does not justify opacity.
If senior admins are too busy to coordinate, that is an argument for:- Delegating the power downward, or
- Adjusting the process
Not for maintaining a discretionary, virtually notice-free system.
“Too busy” explains the delay, nothing else. It does not justify denying notice, introducing unnecessary requests to 'wait' for the ticket to be handled on the forums rather than assisting the reporting player making an in-game ticket when senior admins are online, nor does it explain resistance to scheduling/accommodating reasonable requests canvassed above which would actually help the reporting player.
“This ensures everyone has a fair chance to get the property...
Disowning properties silently is fairest, because it allows anyone who happens to be there to grab it. Public notice of any kind would just cause crowding at desirable properties.”
- This suggestion is not asking for public notice.
The request is not to broadcast disowns server-wide or create property rushes. It is to provide reasonable accommodation to the reporting player, who initiated the process in the first place. - “Anyone can grab it” is not the same as fairness.
In practice, “anyone who happens to be there” means:- Whoever is online at the exact moment
- Whoever is awake at the hours of senior administrators
- Whoever is already camping/socially aware of the forums ticket
- That is randomness, not equity, and it systematically disadvantages the reporter.
- Reporter accommodation does not create crowds.
Giving the reporting player:- A short priority window
- First refusal
- Or a scheduled time
- does not attract other players, because it is not public information. It prevents crowding rather than causing it.
- Without reporter protection, reporting is irrational.
If reporting:- Takes effort
- Gives no advantage
- And may cause the reporter to lose the property
This is about incentives, not exclusivity.
The goal is not simply to try and guarantee ownership, but to ensure that:
- Reporting is not pointless
- Good-faith players are not penalised
- Outcomes do not hinge on invisible timing decisions
- A short, reasonable accommodation achieves this without granting permanent or unfair advantages
Last edited:
