Wrecking wrote:
This policy is applicable to the house owner only and not other people that choose to store their stores in someone else's building. And even then, let's say they do apply to other members, my point still stands because Blue wasn't actively using the building, and as you stated, was only playing on the server - which is two completely different things. The only scenario I wouldn't remove the doors is if I saw players inside the base actively using it. There were none, hence why Jack Bushross clearly did what he did.

To put things plainly, Jack is in no way necessitated to check for every person who stores passive entities in the building. Blue has all the power in the world to buy his own house to store his Shop instead of using someone else's building. I'm sorry but saying that someone can't have their doors removed on the basis that some other person has chosen to store their Shop entity inside it just isn't a strong enough argument.

Jack Bushross wouldn't have removed the doors had the base displayed any semblance of active usage, but clearly, there was none and as such it is completely valid to remove the doors. He did everything he was supposed to do; teleport to the doors' owner to see whether or not they're AFK - and/or have a valid purpose for the base. In this case, it was already established that the owner had been inactive for an extensive period of time so how can you disagree with the validity of his actions?

[quote="Wrecking" post=1136758][quote="Rick Johnson" post=1136757][quote="Wrecking" post=1136744][quote="jack bushrsos" post=1136741]The other person who was shop owner wasn't actively using the "base" [/quote] I mean, hes using it actively by having a shop in it? :? :? :?[/quote] That's passive usage. If someone owns a gunshop or something of that sort and go AFK for an extended amount of time I think it's fair to remove the ownership of the doors and move the shop outside of the house. Someone who is willing to use the base [i]actively[/i] through printing, nuking or something along those lines should be prioritized over an AFK person who just happened to have a Shop entity inside the base. If you need me to elaborate on the differences between passive and active usage of a base, feel free to contact me on Steam. Although, I think you should understand.[/quote] im still talking about blue, being active on the server and still getting kicked out of the base, im not talking about the base owner[/quote] This policy is applicable to the house owner only and not other people that choose to store their stores in someone else's building. And even then, let's say they do apply to other members, my point still stands because Blue wasn't actively using the building, and as you stated, was only playing on the server - which is two completely different things. The only scenario I wouldn't remove the doors is if I saw players inside the base actively using it. There were none, hence why Jack Bushross clearly did what he did. To put things plainly, Jack is in no way necessitated to check for every person who stores passive entities in the building. Blue has all the power in the world to buy his own house to store his Shop instead of using someone else's building. I'm sorry but saying that someone can't have their doors removed on the basis that some other person has chosen to store their Shop entity inside it just isn't a strong enough argument. Jack Bushross wouldn't have removed the doors had the base displayed any semblance of active usage, but clearly, there was none and as such it is completely valid to remove the doors. He did everything he was supposed to do; teleport to the doors' owner to see whether or not they're AFK - and/or have a valid purpose for the base. In this case, it was already established that the owner had been inactive for an extensive period of time so how can you disagree with the validity of his actions?