Potjeh wrote:What can guy one currently do about such a situation?
He can kill guy two, but his claim will still be there.
Whatever he does, he'll never get his settlement back.
This is why I think that any claim destruction system is a horrible idea, unless it's tied to (in)activity of the claim holder.
I am trying to find any sensible way to connect the concluding sentence to any of the sentences that come before it. It is something I'm finding impossible.
It's like someone just talked about the properties of water and concluded that it's inherently toxic to humans.
Was this like a sarcasm thing? I'm genuinely confused.