Realms of Candarion

    • Register
    • Login
    • Search
    • Categories
    • Unread
    • Recent
    • Users
    • Charter
    • Wiki
    • Date Calculator
    • Map

    Build or Building

    Legal Discussions
    5
    6
    118
    Loading More Posts
    • Oldest to Newest
    • Newest to Oldest
    • Most Votes
    Reply
    • Reply as topic
    Log in to reply
    This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
    • Iokastos
      Iokastos Viscount last edited by

      So the charter is a bit confusing due to its use of the word "building" in place of what should be "build." The specific example brought up in discussions was that in the requirements for an RTH it states buildings. The reason why this could become an issue is that cranes and statues aren't necessarily buildings but are most certainly builds. This makes little sense to keep as buildings, as a crane obviously contributes to a port, as do statues and other such builds though to a lesser extent. So I propose we amend the charter to say "builds" instead of "buildings." The reason this is an issue is that some people will go by the building definition in interpreting the charter and thus prevent a place from gaining an RTH.

      1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
      • Alric
        Alric Count last edited by

        For ftp hubs... those buildings are there to represent a populace that does enough trading to make a consistent trade route. Since people can't live in a statue or crane, it should not be counted.

        builds like cranes are nice and add a lot to the overall aesthetic of the port, but the law was specifically worded to mean buildings with interiors where people are living or working.

        The RTH was already a lowered requirement compared to what was on aldemeria and what is our international version. I see no reason to keep lowering the requirements. It should stay a reward for when a settlement reaches a certain number of buildings.

        ? 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 2
        • ?
          A Former User @Alric last edited by

          @Alric I'm indifferent to the topic, though that is 100% the way I saw it. Agreed

          1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
          • Iokastos
            Iokastos Viscount last edited by Iokastos

            The issue that arises then is that we then have to reconsider rank advancements, as they are based on the term "buildings" as well, and we have counted things as builds for rank advancement before. I see no reason for builds to count towards rank and not towards an RTH. Not only that, but a ship isn't a building either. Should I not count a ship in my port towards my RTH because it doesn't demonstrate people working or living?

            1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
            • Tsal
              Tsal Baron last edited by

              I think we just amended the charter to change instances of build to building- is this not true?
              If so, I'd say this issue is settled- you need an amount of builds- builds are a very general word and we prefer to keep things that way until given a reason otherwise.

              1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 1
              • ThunderPony
                ThunderPony Prince last edited by

                I think builds is the better way to do this. I think if we look at an application and it seems well below the expectations then we would raise or voice. Or the MoI would.

                1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                • First post
                  Last post

                3
                Online

                301
                Users

                1.5k
                Topics

                6.7k
                Posts