Guilds > The Podium > Petitions > General Permissions Law

General Permissions Law

Feel free to add your thoughts/suggestions after the "Current Proposed Text" section. Please don't change the semantic content of the "Current Proposed Text" section without first discussing with other people.

Goal

Write a single law which after passing will prevent the need for repeated ballot items along the lines of "Allow owners to set permissions on building 'X' to control who can do action 'A'" for all new values of 'X' and 'A'.

Current Proposed Text

It is legal for an owner of a building to arbitrarily limit which players can use particular aspects of said building. However given that it is technically infeasible to implement this it will not be implemented. Instead any petition which requests bringing the implementation closer to this ideal will be treated as feature requests, unless the petition makes additional requests which would otherwise be classified as a Law.

Definitions:
For the purposes of this law these words will have the following definitions.
Building - any object in game which has an "Ownership" menu.
Owner - A player who is either the owner of the building or is an elder, patriarch, or fellow in the guild which owns the build, with permission to use the building.

Notes:
Any petition which falls under this law would be subject to all the constraints and possible vetoes of feature requests and like other feature requests would be implemented or not based on the ammount of work involved, Teppy's judgement and number of signatures.
If part of this law is vetoed please veto the entire law.

Possible Problems

• Definition for building is possibly too limited
  • Possibly remove and assume everyone agrees with Teppy on what a building is.
• Definition for Owner is cumbersome
  • Possibly solved by changing definition to "owner or able to transfer ownership to themselves"
• Are there certain "aspects of buildings" which are currently always open to the public which we don't want to cover with this law (example filling jugs in Aqueduct Towers)
  • Possibly solved by making the law apply only to "aspects" which an owner can already deny some players access to (either individually or by denying access to a larger set of aspects)
• Too wordy?
• Aspects of a building undefined

Proposed Rewordings/Rewritings

What does this law mean?
This law will make it so that petitions like "Melted Glass Preservation", "Hookah Act" are feature requests instead of laws. Voting for this law will have the same effect as voting for "public buildings protections act revised" and at the same time pass all laws like it in the future.


Actual Law:

---

For any functionality of a building it is legal for the owner(s) to arbitrarily control how each player may interact with said functionality.

Given that this is impossible to code, legal will be taken to mean that any petition which requests bringing the implementation closer to this ideal will be treated as a feature request, unless the petition makes additional requests which would otherwise be classified as a law.

Definitions:
For the purposes of this law these words will have the following definitions.
Building - any object in game which has an "Ownership" menu.
Owner (of a building) - A player who is either the owner of the building or is an elder, patriarch, or fellow in the guild which owns the build, with permission to use the building.
Functionality (of a building) - Any interaction with the building which an owner already has any control over what players may use it. For example this does NOT include "lowering walls" on a CP since the owner has no control over who may do this, but it does include taking glassware out of a chem lab since if the owner sets this to private other players can't remove the glassware.

Notes:
All petitions which are currently in circulation should be reclassified at Teppy's convenience.
Any petition which falls under this law would be subject to all the constraints and possible vetoes of feature requests and like other feature requests would be implemented or not based on the amount of work involved, Teppy's judgment and number of signatures.
If part of this law is vetoed please veto the entire law.
Arbitrary control includes limits like "may only use a % of what is created", etc.