Ambiguity in Eviction Rules

[Algol]

On astrolabe the first sentence about settlement interactions is:

"If you are a settlement leader, you may evict, pariah, exile anyone for anything. This is within your power for your character to abuse."

Followed by this at 5th paragraph:
"Settlement leaders are not allowed to put down signs to reserve properties. The most they can do is put down a sign that states the new owner is obligated to present themselves to an authority figure to discuss the expectation of the property. If an arrangement can’t be worked out, the owner can then be evicted. However, a chance must be given first."

To me these statements seem contradictory and confusing. Are there limits to eviction reasons? What does giving a chance mean?

[DM Nixie]

The overarching principle behind the eviction rules is that the team wants quarter and shop ownership to be something newer characters and factions have a fair chance of achieving.

"Giving a chance" is best explained using an example: say a shop has gone up for bid in a high-traffic location in a settlement. The settlement owner, naturally, has a vested interest in that shop being run by a competent merchant who can keep goods flowing through that shop at a high rate for the tax revenue. The settlement leader cannot have a specific merchant or set of merchants in mind to own the shop and intend to evict anyone not on that predetermined list. The settlement leader can decide on rational requirements (a certain number volume of sales per month, sells a certain fraction of crafted goods, sponsors an event in the settlement at least once a year, etc.) which would be conveyed to whoever gets the shop. If the new owner does not meet the requirements, they can be evicted.

[Algol]

I think vested interest would be someone who bribes higher than the earnings from the potential tax increase.

Could we please have an update in the rules then please? It seems "arbitrary" evictions are not permitted.

[Shadowy Reality]

The settlement leader can make arbitrarily hard requirements to achieve the same as having a specific merchant in mind.

"You have to sell X worth of goods in a month"
"You have to donate X to the settlement"
"You have to donate Y to me (aka a bribe)"
"You must be of this race"
"You must be of this religion"
"You must be of this race, have that religion, your name needs to start with Kho and end with rin"

It is not trivial to draw a line, I guess it can always fall under common sense, or the 'be nice' rule to which 'giving a chance' has a very similar ring.

[silverpheonix]

On astrolabe the first sentence about settlement interactions is:

"If you are a settlement leader, you may evict, pariah, exile anyone for anything. This is within your power for your character to abuse."

Followed by this at 5th paragraph:
"Settlement leaders are not allowed to put down signs to reserve properties. The most they can do is put down a sign that states the new owner is obligated to present themselves to an authority figure to discuss the expectation of the property. If an arrangement can’t be worked out, the owner can then be evicted. However, a chance must be given first."

To me these statements seem contradictory and confusing. Are there limits to eviction reasons? What does giving a chance mean?

What this means is you cannot put a sign in front of a quarter that has gone up for bidding saying something to the effect of "this lease is saved for my friend, do not bid on it, so they can have it"

You can say "this property was used for X purpose (mage guild, gnome-derro romance RP) and the previous leaseholder kindly rolled without telling anyone. We want it to continue to be used for this purpose. Please make it available this way."

Merchant rules have nothing to do with this.

Essentially you aren't allowed to be in third grade, plopping your feet on the bus seat next to you, shouting "SAVED!"

[Dreams]

Seeing a bunch of this happening recently, should these instances be reported when signs are placed out the front of places warning that whoever buys it will be kicked out?

What is stopping a settlement leader from just kicking people out until the person they want in there gets it? This situation could very easily be contrived with many many different reasons IC that all sound reasonable to the observer when asked.

[silverpheonix]

Seeing a bunch of this happening recently, should these instances be reported when signs are placed out the front of places warning that whoever buys it will be kicked out?

Yes.

[Paint]

Signs like that always did rub me the wrong way. I guess I'll start reporting them.

[Spyre]

If the signs are being placed, do let us know in a report. We will address.