Attn: /u/deadpoetic31 /u/gryph667
C1. From the claimant's own words, the plots in question were in a claimable state. As the Claimant and the Respondent are members of two separate and distinct towns, combined with the known and accepted program logic that a plot cannot be claimed unless it is A: For Sale by a recognized authority, or B: Wilderness, the Claimant's assertion that the blocks in question were in fact available to be claimed, rendering the referenced passage logically false. R1. The chunks were unclaimed just a few minutes ago and we were all present, the ship hadn't changed position, the name of it havant changed I was still the owner. Was it claimed? No, but does that mean I lose ownership of my own creation? I would think not. The plot may have been in a claimable state like a lost wallet on the floor of a bar but does that mean you steal the wallet even if you know there is a good chance it belongs to the person sitting right next to it, especially without asking? No. I could have changed my mind about burning the boat, it had barely been set ablaze in a single part which wasn't claimed yet. Which I did! The ship was sold a few hours ago to /u/thechattyshow . We are not programs, we are born with logic which must be used.
C2. Based on the Respondent's assertion that there is no theft or deprivation of another players items, there is only the claiming of openly available chunks, the Respondent asserts that this is precisely the behaviour to be expected. R2. There was theft and there was depravation! Theft of something I had paid for to be built, I and others had put time into. There were also personal belongings on the boat that may or may not have wanted to retrieve before setting it ablaze. In addition as mentioned in R1 the boat has been sold though after the claiming of the boat occurred.
C3. Re-referencing passage (1), the Claimant states in his own petition that it was the Claimant's intention to be shut of the blocks, by setting them on fire, rather than retrieveing them. With the Respondent's actions, the Claimant is no longer responsible for the blocks, and the question of punishment is at least moot, if not potentially completely inappropriate. R3. I still possess ownership of the blocks, there fate is mine to decide, if I wish to burn them, to destroy them or to give them away why is it your business to interfere?
C4. In his petition, the Claimant admits to willfully attempting to commit the crime of Arson in the Wilderness of the World, potentially endangering both the surrounding areas and other players' property, including that of the Respondant. Respondant seeks Damages of 5 times the value of the saved materials, to account for both the blocks and the time required to have replaced them, should that have been the will of the Population, of which responsibility for the Wilderness equally resides. R4. Is it a crime to burn one's house as long as nothing but the house is hurt? No. The boat is in the ocean, fire couldn't have spread of it except from the pier which was destroyed by a controlled fire. In addition the surroundings of the boat do not represent anything that may help the fire spread and therefore destroy wilderness, no trees, and barely any grass. The closest owned property were more than 150 blocks away! This claim is obviously just a distraction from the main issue and I therefore file I motion to dismiss your honour, /u/deadpoetic31.
CC. /u/Ghostise