Oldtown: Feedback and Suggestions

Iwan

Lean forward and grab!
Admin
This thread is for feedback on the project in general or any aspects of it. If you have anything to share with us, please let us know here.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Thamus_Knoward
This is not exactly feedback but rather an open question/ criticism to whom it may concern:

Why was the beautiful, finished and post-approved Blackcrown and all of it's lands wiped entirely?

If it was because of the sprawl:
OT Sprawl could just have been made a bit thinner there with a more fluent transition into the rolling fields and farmland that once had been.

If it was because of the style:
Three Towers is just as far from OT itself and has the same style as Blackcrown did.

If it was because of the terraforming:
The lands of Threetowers are not half as developed as those of Blackcrown have been, but it also takes up the same area in equal vicinity of OT. For some reason however it got to stay.

I am looking forward to an explanation.
 
Last edited:

Ben

I also thought this was inappropriate and unnecessary to do. When I was building Holyhall, a similar incident took place where the entire town would have had to have been wiped, which eventually was, and a lot of the coast of my lands changed just because it didn't suit the builders of Highgarden.

I was informed by a few moderators that the Holyhall situation was not handled how it should have been handled and the dilemma should not have been handled the way it was and future situations would be handled differently.

Apparently, issues are still handled the same way as an entire finished project was deleted just because it didn't 'fit' with the plans of the Oldtown project. This is ridiculous and extremely immature. For an entire build that was APPROVED by moderators and completed over a period of months to be completely cleared in totally uncalled for. Oldtown is a major project on our server and if Blackcrown would have been in the way of Oldtown plans, it should have been addressed BEFORE Blackcrown was approved and BEFORE it was completed!

To think that some builders and moderators on our server believe it is okay to destroy other people's hard work like this really disturbs me. If Blackcrown was in the way of Oldtown plans, tough shit. Edit your plans and change them to accomodate to Blackcrown which was approved and completed before Oldtown even started. No other project leaders can say, "I don't like that this other person's project is here, I wanted to put something here, I'm going to delete their entire project.". The project lead deals with it and works to the best of their ability to build off of what the neighboring project builder had done. They don't go around destroying it.

It is quite clear that nothing has changed in the way projects are handled since the situation at Holyhall and I suggest this is resolved and Laor's work at Blackcrown can be rightfully returned as it was wrongfully deleted.
 
Last edited:
This is not exactly feedback but rather an open question/ criticism to whom it may concern:

Why was the beautiful, finished and post-approved Blackcrown and all of it's lands wiped entirely?

If it was because of the sprawl:
OT Sprawl could just have been made a bit thinner there with a more fluent transition into the rolling fields and farmland that once had been.

If it was because of the style:
Three Towers is just as far from OT itself and has the same style as Blackcrown did.

If it was because of the terraforming:
The lands of Threetowers are not half as developed as those of Blackcrown have been, but it also takes up the same area in equal vicinity of OT. For some reason however it got to stay.

I am looking forward to an explanation.

Hey Tham. So, to answer your question overall, its simply because we didn't get to removing Three Towers yet. Blackcrown was wiped yesterday - probably would be good to give it some time for Three Towers to be deleted too haha.

Both are being removed to oldbuilds and wiped from the actual world (as is procedure) due to their old style which unfortunately has not aged well, to the point where a palette update would not be truly tenable. For those of you calling for them to be kept, the precedent for removing them can be found as recently as KL - where we deleted nearby castles and lands so as to maintain consistent ones around a major city (KL in that instance, OT in this instance). Both castles and lands will be removed as was done with Rosby, etc near KL. The castles will, as mentioned above, be saved ofc to oldbuilds as has been done with countless removed builds as well.

The feedback regarding approaching removal differently has been taken on board by the modteam and actions are being taken to correct where we've gone wrong. However, the castles will remain removed from Westeros proper and may be open at a later date for application (the specifics of which will be figured out closer to when we get there).
 
Wasn't Rosby a few years old at that point? Blackcrown and Three Towers are so new... People aren't going to build anything if the wipe-and-redos are getting so close together, that will bring us back to the idea of people being forced to build a whole region of the map at a time in fear of when their neighbours go in.

At the very least shouldn't we have a system whereby if a build on the new map, from any section more recent than South part 1 especially, is going to be removed and put up for redo--for either aesthetic or placement reasons--a thread is made to give opportunity for someone to offer to update it instead?

This is especially important since the usual way that things get redone is someone applies to redo it, giving the original lead a chance to argue for an update instead or apply with a counter-proposal. Though you guys are pointing to where things have been wiped before, this action of wiping a build without warning or chance given to the lead while they are still active is without precedent. I really think it is less about someone deciding for them whether updates are reasonable or not and more about making people feel like they have some say in the future of work they have put in, even if it often was just wiped in the end.
 
Three Towers is three years old and Blackcrown is verging on it. They are by no means 'new' (though they may be respective to the time some builders have spent here). Three year gaps are not close together by any means, and in this case were it not for Oldtown the builds would have remained untouched most likely. Fear of neighboring builds should not be an issue, as Oldtown is the last major city to be built and one of the last remaining server builds. The modteam will be more wary in future approving applications so close to server builds which look like they may be redone or 'started'.
Unfortunately something the WC community is realising and needs to realise is that our early planning (Im talking <2015) wasn't great. We have improved over the years with our style, yes, but the most ntoicable change has been how we approach server builds and solo projects more generally. The consequence of this poor early planning is that some builds are removed. However the community, and more specifically the modteam, is learning and has learned from these errors. Anyone currently building a project or applying/thinking of applying for one shouldn't need to concern themselves as this is an issue central to much older builds.

I can't say where the server will be three years from now. The modteam then could be entirely made up of builders who have not even logged into the server yet, let alone applied to be builders. The server is dynamic and unfortunately we have to adapt. As mentioned above it wasn't approached well and feedback has been taken into consideration.

Regarding wiping builds "without warning or chance" given to leads "still active", I assume you aren't refering to the issue at hand which is Blackcrown and Three Towers? Laor hasn't been seen for 122 days (just over 4 months) and for ItsPabs /seen does not even work he hasn't been on since the server updated (which is sometime after 122 days at least). Neither of them are active by any means.
 
Hi Mars et al.,

I understand your concerns. Removing the builds with so little notice to the community in advance was both inappropriate, as well as rude and disrespectful to the builders who are so invested in our completion and have every right to know about decisions such as this one. We have discussed the issue of communication at length as a result of this, and in the future will endeavor to make our actions transparent and foster community discussion about special cases such as this one.

I do just want to expand on a couple points though:

1) We did actually attempt to contact Laor, the lead of Blackcrown, both through in-game message and through the forums a number of times prior to this. We had floated the idea of redoing the two castles immediately around OT due to the new style (in the same fashion we did with KL) nearly half a year ago, and we did reach out to Laor about his opinions on the matter. While he's still registered as a builder, he unfortunately has not been active lately (has not been in-game in over 3 months) and didn't reply to any of the messages we sent him.

2) The two cases which have happened recently with the builds directly bordering Highgarden and Oldtown are very particular circumstances, and despite the poor communication in both of these, I can guarantee that there is no risk of ordinary builds being removed. The reason the recent builds were removed is largely due to surrounding area planning, rather than simple aesthetic concerns, and thus the "redo rule" still applies for ordinary builds. That is, we still don't allow redoing arbitrary builds simply because they're out-of-date, and so you do not need to worry about your project getting removed down the line just because it looks a certain way.

This should hopefully help dispel the concerns people may have as to how many other projects risk being wiped. In addition, we have frequent backups of the map at all times, including an older version saved on the Test server which we can use to restore Blackcrown if necessary. However, I think this requires more debate (debate which would have happened if we made a thread in advance anyways) as trying to work around the existing Blackcrown in some way puts a bind on the planning of Oldtown sprawl and surrounding areas. Regardless of updating Blackcrown with the new palette or new techniques, there's still a jarring element to entering lands done in a very different style, and this is virtually impossible to fix through an update. One of the wonderful things we were able to achieve with KL sprawl/surrounding areas is consistency, and I would only hope that we can get an even better result from Oldtown.

Best,
Emote
 
Last edited:
Both are being removed to oldbuilds and wiped from the actual world (as is procedure) due to their old style which unfortunately has not aged well, to the point where a palette update would not be truly tenable.

A) If it's a routine 'procedure' please point me to the notes/news/guideline section about that.
B) I'd like to learn exactly when and how it is decided that a certain operation is not 'tenable'. Emote is quite right in that there should've been a discussion about that, to explore broad possibilities of saving the build and thus respecting the man-hours that were invested. For example, I've spent countless hours of counselling and QC on Blackcrown and would've happily adapted it in place of Laor and I am sure the new-found "foster team" could've been called to action too.

Regardless of updating Blackcrown with the new palette or new techniques, there's still a jarring element to entering lands done in a very different style, and this is virtually impossible to fix through an update.
I hope you realise that this is a faulty argument as the issue of consistency will arise again precisely at the borders of the newly created OT style bubble. Moreover, at KL sprawl it is apparently sufficient to raise some low foothills to mask the transition, so why was it not possible here to for example cut a gorge into the terrain forcing players to go a longer way around?
8c9d825773.png


Unfortunately something the WC community is realising and needs to realise is that our early planning (Im talking <2015) wasn't great
When I made my first OT plans (2013), I had a main access road leaving the city in a north-north-west direction, effectively sparing BC.
If the planning is so much better now than before, why wasn't it for example possible to incorporate the Blackcrown infrastructure (fields and roads) into OT sprawl plans. The fact that it's an old build means that you've had a long time to acknowledge its existence and make plans accordingly. Furthermore, I strongly disagree that BC had put a binder on OT sprawl plans: There is a vast expanse of empty land north of OT. That should have been more than enough space to live out all the flashy, new sprawl plans that didn't fit directly west of OT due to the rapid transition into BC lands. Having one road run north towards the coast (and to a satellite settlement at the mouth of the Mander) while another prominent road would run north-east highgarden, would have made sense from an economic standpoint too.

I share the concerns voiced by Ben and Mars and really do hope that these are two isolated incidents which just happened to happen randomly in quick succession and not a routine 'practise' now, otherwise this is precisely how you'd sow distrust and create uncertainty in your userbase.

With the frequent backups that Emote mentioned, you guys seem to have the power to 'go back in time' and fix this rash decision by restoring BC and allowing us to have a discussion about it.
 
Last edited:
I think I'm partly to blame here, since I suggested a redo of the Blackcrown lands in the planning of Oldtown.

I did this because I noticed a clear difference between the fields, in both plotting and style, present at Blackcrown and the prospect I had for the surrounding lands of Oldtown. Additionally, I noticed that the space between the walls of Oldtown and the fields of Blackcrown might have been too cramped, and although Tham made a wonderful illustration in which he managed to jam in some fields between the direct border of the city and Blackcrown, I wanted to keep some space open for additional defences, light sprawl along the roads and fields without high hedges so you can actually see the city when approaching it.

I strongly disagree with Thamus' suggestion to put most of the sprawl north, since I'd like the area around Oldtown, especially as close to the city as the Blackcrown lands were, to be coherent in all directions.

As for the castle and town, I wouldn't have been bothered by them staying around. However, as far as I understand it, it was nuked to reterraform the Whispering Sound. The castle and the town are both saved at /warp oldbuilds, and I think few people would mind if it was placed back after the terraform is finished, be it as an updated version using the new palette assigned to the region.
 
I strongly disagree with Thamus' suggestion to put most of the sprawl north, since I'd like the area around Oldtown, especially as close to the city as the Blackcrown lands were, to be coherent in all directions.

Opposing EStoop's subjective preference here, I've provided an economic and infrastructural reasoning for the main OT sprawl to extend north to the mouth of the Mander or north-east towards Highgarden.

I did this because I noticed a clear difference between the fields, in both plotting and style, present at Blackcrown and the prospect I had for the surrounding lands of Oldtown

Above I suggested means of separation and transition, which are already commonly exercised on the server, to save the work of countless individuals. I am sad to hear that seemingly due to a lack of foresight and flexibility in making plans upon given constraints, the time spent by some players here is invalidated to benefit the personal interest of others.

In solo projects, for a single person to really instigate their personal vision, a project is subject to certain constraints: public defence of plans, approval of mods and admin, boundaries of the allotted land. Why should that be different when it comes to server projects? Shouldn't this change of plans have been subject to approval and discussion? If it had been subject to discussion, and it was still ruled to remove BC, is the average opinion of the server really this neglecting/ disregarding of other people's time and effort?

When I was a mod, this is the last OT sprawl plan that I saw and approved of:
92326c1890.png


Yeh. Blackcrown is perfectly intact here, and a space of ~150 blocks separates it from the walls of OT. I think that should have been sufficient space to add "additional defences, light sprawl along the roads and fields without high hedges so you can actually see the city when approaching it." And even if this wasn't enough space, in response to that quote in particular, there are more prominent roads to enter OT, where this effect can be pulled of easily without harming existing builds i.e the north, north-east and south.

I have not seen an official update the to map that has been put through quality control (or at all really). Nor have I seen any proposals with regards to plans "to reterraform the Whispering Sound". In fact, the original application does not outline specific actions that necessitate the removal of Blackcrown or Three Towers..
 
Last edited:
I feel the need to point out that, as far as I know, most people in this thread agree that the removal of Blackcrown has been handled poorly. There is no need to keep pointing that out. All I gave here is some insight into the planning of the city and what might have triggered the decision to completely remove Blackcrown.

I must admit though, while fully knowing this is not an argument against your outrage, that I am a bit surprised about this reaction, given that the Oldtown document has mentioned a possible redo of (part) of the Blackcrown lands since the moment it has been published (page 21). I am aware that there is a difference between completely erasing a project and redoing parts of it, but none of the people in this thread has pointed out their concerns during the time it has been public.
 
"There is no need to keep pointing that out."
Since you said you disagreed with them you seem to have at least acknowledged that I've actually provided suggestions to this conundrum, instead of retreading old ground.

"All I gave here is some insight into the planning of the city and what might have triggered the decision to completely remove Blackcrown." It read to me like you were trying to justify this with your opinion. I apologise if that is not what you were trying to do.

"I am aware that there is a difference between completely erasing a project and redoing parts of it, but none of the people in this thread has pointed out their concerns during the time it has been public." I am glad you understand that difference, then Imam sure you'll see that what you wrote is in fact also very different to how you quote yourself above: "Some of the lands of Blackcrown might have to be redone [..]". I'm still totally cool with that disclaimer. Redoing some fields to make a neat transition is something I can get behind.

So, could we restore the Blackcrown lands from the test server, 'turn back time' and have this discussion like everyone seems to agree we should have?
 
I liked BC's lands, even as dated they looked. However, the castle was just monstrously over sized, overly detailed and under detailed. I feel that some parties are taking this too personally, letting emotions control responses. I don't think anyone batted an eye when waz nuked eyes key to make room for sweet willowand lolliston. Few knew it was a place. Or when I obliterated Bandallon and it's weird mountain, not to mention a small isolated riverlands hamlet nuked upon sight. And LHT and Greyshield, they were orphaned yes, but the hours put into them are now gone. Does that argument still work for them? I agree a discussion is to be had, but in my opinion, Blackcrown should stay gone. Now, who wants to do some tests for Oldtown? I think Stoop's efforts towards it are being shown as insignificant to a lot of us by the lack of tests by people other than fin and a few others?
 

Wazgamer

Lord Paramount of The Riverlands
To be fair I made a show of nuking Eysley. It was in the way of my plans, that intended to complete the region to a good quality and also didn’t set the evolving Riverlands style set by Stoop, SMP, and myself. So yah know <3
 
Previously rebuilds were a thing that happened because a build only existed on the old map and needed building on the new, or it was abandoned or existed prior to the region style guides. Recently this is no longer the case and we are redoing purely based on age or emerging style or effects from adjacent builds; since this is new it has little precedent or written protocol and arguments like this occur.

SO it seems a lot of this back-and-forth is coming from confusion of discrete topics that may be deserving of their own threads:

1) the convention by which a decision is made to erase a build and possible justifications for doing so: e.g. if an application was approved, a build completed, and then the style changes can we waste the work of dozens or are we then bound to uphold our applications and find workarounds until enough time has passed that it would qualify for rebuild by time/age alone?

This could lead to either people taking better care to plan adjacent builds around the same time and work more closely with their respective neighbour leads, or disclaimed that let people know they may have their work erased due to server evolutions.

Or we may leave it to time and, say, mark each completed build in the spreadsheet with a month and year and if a certain amount of time has passed it is open to redoing regardless--in the meantime just treat each build as a separate entity and if they all stand the test of time then deal with the transitions between them last (else when one gets redone the transition area will need redoing anyway).

2) the convention by which the community is notified of a proposed project removal or redo, so that people may offer alternative perspectives or volunteer to address concerns in other ways, or even just feel like they were kept in the loop. Keeping in mind that just because a project leader is gone does not mean you aren't nuking something that people still around put much time and effort into as builders or editors.

3) the specific topic of what is/was right to do regarding Blackcrown, a matter which is probably not going to be resolved until we discuss the above.

People need to know what to expect. People who have been here a long time seem shocked by the disregard of people's effort but people who have not been may only have the (quite unique) events at KL to base their entire knowledge of server convention on, it is no wonder we are butting heads.
 

Iwan

Lean forward and grab!
Admin
As lead of the Oldtown preparation efforts I take full responsibility for the removal of BlackCrown and ThreeTowers. I made the final call on the removal of the former and I stand by this decision as well as the decision to removing ThreeTowers in the near future.

First, I want to address the reproach that we‘d disregard other people‘s work, which, frankly, I find to be a little bit hypocritical and unfair.
I have been around this server for a very long time – longer than most. I have seen tremendous amounts of my work – and thus my time – fall into the void, so I can relate to anyone upset about the removal of their work now. I would however not consider any of the many hours I’ve spent on those builds vain, because I enjoyed working on them when I did. I can look back at any of my old creations and think of them as stepstones on the path that lead me to where I am now – that is, hopefully, a better builder, an able terraformer, and a structured project manager.
This community has a huge influx of people. Many people disappear eventually. Few come back after prolonged absences, most ride off into the sunset never to be seen or heard of again. Do we have the obligation to keep each and everyone's creations around forever? What about the people that put so much work into so many other builds than the ones on the current map, that are now gone forever? What about the previous renditions of King's Landing, Lannisport, The Wall, Winterfell? What about Duskendale or Darry, The Eyrie, the approximate 5 versions of Castle Black, or Barrowton, or the countless other builds that people have spent hours over hours on and that were eventually redone, and for good reasons, without anyone batting an eye? Sure, some live on on the old map, but so do many of those builds we removed now.
The argument that anyone would disregard other people’s creations is faulty if it’s pulled out when it seems opportune, but not seen as an issue in countless other occurrences. We have not done anything now, with neither Blackcrown, ThreeTowers, HolyHall, Smithyton or any other projects that were changed or removed that we hadn’t been doing at least since we moved from the old terrain to the new one. The map has always been evolving, old scales were shed and replaced by new ones.
Personally, I find it rather particular to be confronted with such reproaches coming from people who themselves spearheaded or were involved in recreations of various old builds in the past.


Blackcrown was treated the way we proceed with many – but certainly not all – projects that are deemed to be removed from the map: a reasonably sized chunk of it was placed in /warp oldbuilds for anyone to visit, or for it to be reused. This has been done with many other projects before and I don't see why it should be an issue now.

Second, I want to address the tone of this discussion, which, in parts, seems patronizing, and aggressive.
I understand that some may have emotional ties to the projects in question or projects that had befallen a similar fate, and I understand that right now you probably feel betrayed of the many hours you have put into these projects. I understand that others may feel unfairly challenged by accusations and now feel the need to defend themselves. Let's please stay civil to and understanding of one another.

Third, on communication. I admit, I could have made an announcement on the removal of Blackcrown previous to its removal. I have not actively chosen not to, it never crossed my mind that this might be of such importance to some. For this, I apologize. I have however not, as some make it look, forgotten about the leaders of Blackcrown or Three Towers. I could simply not get a hold of them.
I have sent Laor an ingame message a number of days previous to taking action. He has not been online in almost half a year however and I doubt he'll be anytime soon. ItsPabs has not yet logged in on the server since the update. Neither have created a forum account on the new website and it's very unlikely that they'd end up logging into the old website, given the fact that the link to those changed. Neither have ever logged into our Discord either, at least not under usernames known to me. This is about as much effort I'm willing to put into tracking down former builders that may have lost interest entirely.
 

Iwan

Lean forward and grab!
Admin
[continued]
Fourth, my reasoning for removing Blackcrown and ThreeTowers.
We are done with King's Landing, and White Harbour is nearing a state of completion where it won't offer many house plots. Years ago, staff has decided that it would be crucial to always have a town or city build open at all times. The most preparation work thus far had gone into Oldtown, our last remaining city build, and the plans are in a state of completion that allows us to start preparing the area, while such efforts may kindle more interest in style testing among builders. It was such the obvious choice to start preparation work on Oldtown as soon as possible.
Last week, on November 16th I offered to take charge of Oldtown preparation and explained my plans and workflow to my fellow mods. Among those plans I listed the deletion of both Blackcrown and ThreeTowers. I realize that I should have made my workflow transparent to the entire community, the decision to remove both projects would however have not been affected.

I wish to delete the two projects in immediate vicinity to Oldtown because I am convinced that if we did not do so now, we would wish to do it in the future. Only that then we would have let these two projects influence Oldtown (and not only its sprawl, but the actual city), a build of immensly higher priority. I do not wish to compromise one of our most prestiguous projects by having to work around two builds that will inevitably be redone in the future. If you don't believe me, look back at King's Landing and its sprawl, and what fell victim (Rosby, Edgerton, Byrch, Brindlewood and Briarwhite and various other places) to our demand of producing a coherent landscape around the city – against which, by the way, no one made nearly as passionate a case as about this; it was apparently not disputed back then, neither among builders nor mods. Look at Winterfell and its coherent surrounding area. Look at our increased efforts to create seamless, coherent and realistic landscapes in the Vale, in the Crown- and Stormlands and pretty much everywhere else. We would not be happy with those two projects so close to the city with the richest history of the continent once we are done with it. And we would inevitably not be happy looking back at having had to compromise our plans for the sake of keeping projects that are in parts outdated already.
Ask yourself: Do you really see the community keeping the two projects when we're done with Oldtown? I don’t. My experience of more than 5 years of moderating this community makes me confident to promise you that we would absolutely, certainly, 100% remove both projects in the future.
In my eyes, it was only consequent to sacrifice both projects now for Oldtown and its terrain and stylistic consistency.
Of course the region will eventually border already completed lands. Bandallon in the north is in creation, Honeyholt upriver and Yelshire and Uplands to the east are completed. There's little enough space to expand already, and transitioning into these areas won't be easy either. There is however two significant differences between Blackcrown and ThreeTowers on the one, and Yelshire, Uplands, Honeyholt and Bandallon on the other side: Distance and masking.
All 4 builds are significantly further away from Oldtown than Blackcrown and ThreeTowers, which both lay within render distance of crucial parts of the Oldtown city area (so, not the edges of its sprawl but the actual city.)
This allows for a much more effective transitional masking. Between Oldtown and Honeyholt, Uplands and Yelshire lays enough space to mask any stylistic transitions with natural boundaries, which in large parts is already implemented. Between Oldtown and Bandallon lays Graves, a build that has been ruled to serve as a buffer or transition build and was consequently stopped in very early stages, as soon as we realized the significance of the problem. Blackcrown and ThreeTowers should likewise have never been allowed to be built for the exact same reason Graves was halted. Alas, we did not have this foresight in 2014/15, when both projects were started. This was a mistake, and I apologize for this. But projects like Oldtown, King’s Landing, Winterfell, The Eyrie and the likes will always be treated favourably over other projects.

Fifth, on precedence.
There is indeed plenty of precedence for the removal of projects for the sake of a more important build. As mentioned above, King’s Landing sprawl caused the removal of a much larger number of completed, post-approved, perfectly fine projects. These projects fell victim to the community’s desire to create a seamless, coherent landscape within direct vicinity of the largest and most important city on the server. Digging back into our decision process back then did not reveal any challenge of or dispute over this procedure.
There’s also plenty of precedence for the removal of abandoned projects. It has always been policy to allow people to either pick up an abandoned project and continue it, or to reapply with their own idea. In the latter case, which I guess is the more common one, previous works are removed as needed. We have done this countless times.
There is precedence for the removal of small projects in favour of others, too. Other projects are removed and redone when new canon comes up (or was missed during application) or when other circumstances change. When a significant part of the continent in the immediate proximity of a project is updated or improved and a project can not be implemented in the new plans, it is removed. This was the case with Smithyton, as well as it was the case with the Shield Islands or various smaller builds in the Vale. No one has yet complained about this practice, even though it’s been going on for quite some time now.


I can relate to your points, I too have emotional ties to certain contributions of mine to this server. They’re not always regarded the way I wish they were. Sometimes they’re removed out of carelessness, sometimes to make way for an improvement. It hurts, I understand that. I also understand however that nothing ever built on here is going to last. The server constantly sheds its scales, it renews its appearance. I’ve seen so many people come and go over the years, and I have seen their contributions fade. Of course there’s sentimental value in many builds and places. I like to explore old places I’ve spent time on, too. However, I don’t want that sentimentality holds back the community’s potential to create something better. There are pragmatic reasons to keep us from too much fluctuation: the desire to completion, for one. I don’t believe sentimentality is a valid reason, though. And I believe the majority of the community sees it in a similar fashion.

Sixth, where do we go from here?
We are not going to rewind time and put Blackcrown back onto the map. We will continue with the removing of ThreeTowers in the very near future. Both projects will have large parts saved in /warp oldbuilds. When the time comes and the terrain is done, the city well underway and sprawl work commences, they may be picked up, updated and put back into place. Till then, they'll remain removed from the map.

There’s a lot of valid points raised, too. As a moderator, I’m always aiming to strike a compromise between what I’ll call pragmatic conservatism, that is the hinderance of too much fluctuation that I mentioned above for pragmatic reasons, and the community’s ever present desire to further itself and create new and better things. It’s not always easy to strike this compromise, but I’m open to debate on how to verbalize it in a way that allows everyone a larger degree of reliability on one another. It's certainly worth talking about, though I don't think this is the appropriate thread.

With this, I'll end this post. If there are things still unclear, do not hesitate to bring them up.
 
To clarify: I did not mean to imply that simply the removal of projects meant a disregard for people's works; instead that removing people's works for a new reason* without public notice makes it feel like disregard. This probably comes from the fact that the project has always placed so much emphasis in its procedures on public notification and opportunity for discussion.

Honestly I am, and I'm sure others are, here to get clarification on the precedents we are setting for the overall community and project management, so we know what to expect in the future, not necessarily to object to the removal of these particular builds. I'm sorry to Iwan and others if I voiced it in a way that seemed like reproach for or aggression towards the individuals, I assure you this is not the case.

*still, all the examples from above were either abandoned or pre-styleguide, and I believe a distinction must be drawn between projects removed because someone has offered to/is about to redo versus removal in favour of nothing/in anticipation of it needing a redo sometime in the future.