What's wrong with people?

[Fetdaniel]

Agree on many things up here, it needs to be adressed.

one other thing i dont get is the crime system. In real life you dont get punished for defending your own land. This thing "murder is murder" well not quite!
You will never get convicted to murder if you kill someone wile defending your own property but most of all defending yourself. if someone attacks you first
on your own property and you kill him in the process of defending yourself you will tops get man slaughter but most probably you will get out free of any charge
since it was in selfdefense. Hence no murder scents should be left from yourself on your own claim if the perpetrator attacks first. think it should be adressed.

Why not also have the right to sort of "attack/convict" (not kill, unless he attacks) someone that is vandalizing or stealing stuff from your property if you stumble upon them,
maby introduce a way to "quell the theaves" using their theft or vandalizing scents, rendering the perpetrator unable to attack and pull him out of your residence with a rope or
something without leaving any scents of your own since that would not be a crime in itself, you would have the right to convict unwanted guests from your property.

Well... or any other ideas are wellcome this just poped up in my head not thaught it thru at all.

ha ha maby quell the theaves could also be used to pull someone out of their property aswell if you had a crime scent backing it up so you are able to punish him outside or something.
Ahh well dont know about that tho just thaught it sounded funny, could see people catch people with ropes in my head he he like the old western. roll them in oil and feathers.

I can admit to not reading you whole post, but this is quite relevant anyway.
What makes RIGHT and WRONG and any judicial system is in fact the state. Haven and hearth is anarchic or playerdriven, not with some kind of abstract game mechanic in itself, only the ability to track. Which I like, i don't like being babysitted by some factors we take for granted in our society, trust is an illusion. But i think we need guard dogs, thats my kind of justice Or.. guard bears!

[Fetdaniel]

Not really. If I were to design a EULA for anything, I would obviously be very clear about what what the service was intended to provide. The central paragraph that I'd be looking at is probably KKL §16 ("Konsumentköpslagen", Law on consumer purchases), though I haven't really looked into it more than that. It's hard to argue that the game doesn't work as intended, because intended behavior is, obviously, more or less whatever we want it to be, at least we can make a pretty good case that most behaviors are intended. It's also hard to argue that anyone could be caused harm (in the legal-technical sense of the word) by a policy like ours. Also, an EULA like that would obviously make it abundantly clear that no one except us owns variable game data. Pacta sunt servanda, and all that.

EDIT: Though I won't deny that consumer purchase laws tend to admit the strangest benefits and privileges to "consumers" in civil cases. For a discussion on why the distinction between "consumers" and "producers" is arbitrary nonsense, I can only refer you to von Mises excellent critique of it. Loftar has the page numbers you'll want to take a look at.

Actually, I think too that the distinction between consumers and producers are not "natural" and more of a created justification of the power differences between organisations and individuals. As in power of time and resources to operate in court. The effect of the laws how ever, makes people feel more safe when consuming, thus helping the economy. Just like how bank accounts can be protected by government insurance if the bank goes "bank"rupt. =) But many rules in a civil society helps the individuals to feel more safe and as a consequence trust the institutions that too some extent many "producers" have become. These rights are not free, the consumer rights in sweden is something we collectively pay, but a broken down individual is probably more costly for society then some general expense.

Now im going to read von mises critique..