You're stuff's been what? They can't do that!

I posted this at the bottom of the poll about landowners deleted tenant objects, but I wanted to start a thread and get it pointed out.

The idea is that it is sometimes less than desirable for a property owner to delete a tenants objects when return could be used instead. There's a moral debate and all that. I'd just like to point out that if we had some form of government and enforceable contracts, there could be an agreement about this sort of thing beforehand. And then people wouldn't have this problem.

Or we can leave it the way it is, and just complain about it.

At Cape Destiny, We have a "terms of Tenancy" agreement (all tenants & their roomies are responsible for reading & once they rent a place, it's assumed they have read to & agree to the terms) if they're rent goes unpaid or whatever our policy is to always RETURN their items. Now you may think..well ok that's good , you return not delete, but the fact is we have encountered bugs (& we do state this in the agreement) when the items being returned do NOT make it back to their owners.

While I feel in most cases it's best to RETURN items. I do think in some cases, like if someone leaves some of their objects on your property (for example as a form of griefing) then I do not see anything wrong with deleting their objects. If the object meant that much to them they wouldn't have left it where they had no right to.

If it's a situation where it's say a mall, or apartment & the items are group set to match the group set (or owned) land on that particular parcel then perhaps it wouldn't be a bad idea to have a "return only" option on those particular items. As people generally PAY to rent those spaces.

I do not see a reason anyone needs a goverment for this.