An Appeal Against Pseudo-claims

Written by  Wanderer_06 on March 21st, 2026

Complications presented by the 100 blocks rule are not a new thing, but my newfound dedication to the Road and Horse Network (RHN) is, so I am therefore presented with enough motivation to (respectfully) challenge a longstanding tradition.

The 100 Blocks Rule, a.k.a. "the Pseudo-claim"

Well-educated Dogcraft players are aware of the rules regarding player build claims. We've used the golden shovel and golden hoe to make claims, the stick that turns blocks into ghost gold and glowstone to identify claims, and are all too familiar with the command, "/sl autolock" (and forgetting to turn it on or off). What continues to allude logic to some players however, is the ever-nebulous "100 blocks rule" as stated in the following two parts under the "Dogcraft.net Minecraft Server-specific Rules" (#11) on the rules wiki page (https://dogcraft.net/wiki/Rules):

• Do not build within 100 blocks of any other builds or claims without the owner’s explicit permission. It’s advised to take even more distance, to also offer room for expansion for yourself and others.
• Do not mine resources within 100 blocks of any other builds or claims.

No Dogcraft player (including me!) is arguing with the earlier Rule #7: "Respect all other players." Therefore, all of the following arguments are made with it in mind. We want to maintain respect, but perhaps the 100 blocks rule as it stands is not the best way about it. I have no intention to rudely or angrily demand change, but rather every intention to inspire the change via polite conversation and thoughtful reasoning. I have played on Dogcraft for over 5 years. I love this server, and any suggestion I make is with its best in mind.

The 100 blocks rule creates what I'm choosing to call a "pseudo-claim" because, as Argument #4, "The Claims Plugin" will elaborate on, we do have an integrated system for building claims and item protection, but the 100 blocks rule is not built in. When a player chooses to click twice with a golden shovel, or purchase more claim blocks to expand their borders, they are choosing to directly limit who has access to that space. The 100 blocks rule, however, is not communicated to players every time they try to mine a block or open a chest within the 100 block-wide perimeter surrounding a claimed space. This makes it tricky for players to follow (especially those attempting to contribute to the RHN as I am). The pseudo-claim is "nebulous" (defn. unclear, vague, or ill-defined) despite its numerical value, due to the difficulty in measuring 100 blocks around every potential claim. I, for one, dread the times for which my F3 debug screen is necessary. Mojang added debug screen customizability in Snapshot 25w31a (July 29, 2025: https://minecraft.wiki/w/Java_Edition_25w31a), but even hotkeying the overlay and counting that way can be a hassle, however minor. Measuring precise 100 block distances from any nearby claims, particularly when planning a road for the RHN, almost calls for garish dotted-carpet perimeters to be defined, which would almost certainly be the eyesore the 100 blocks rule is attempting to prevent.

A pseudo-claim is both scary and upsetting. No established Dogcraft player wishes to lose access to their beloved server, but if they were to accidentally break a claims rule, that access may be at risk. That's a scary possibility. To compensate, players often build extra, extra far away from others, using teleportation commands more and public transportation less, and ultimately engaging less in neighborhood-inspired activities, due to a lack of neighbors. The pseudo-claim is therefore upsetting, because if a player wants to collaborate more with the lovely Dogcraft community, they must jump through a number of increasingly smaller rings to, say, form a successful city or find a particular base group. Not everyone is blessed with the social prowess or organizational skills necessary to plan and execute a multiplayer collaboration. This feeling of stuck-ness is upsetting. However, if the queasy stomach or visceral rage evolves into action, a fear may follow, as one wrong move could rip away the very thing a player is trying to engage with: the Dogcraft community.

I am ultimately inviting a change regarding "pseudo-claims" because of a current lack of player-friendliness, but that's just one of the arguments.

Potential Arguments

Some arguments made against the pseudo-claim are as follows:

1. Inactivity

First and foremost is the case against inactivity. A recent example of this is the planning phase of a new RHN branch from spawn, which passes no fewer than 10 player-built structures on its way to the TerraTree (a mega, multi-colored tree constructed by BaranWulf), located at the coordinates (1200, -1750). Within 2000 blocks of spawn, a destination-specific path should absolutely be permitted, even encouraged, and has the unique ability to highlight community builds along the way. However, due to its proximity to spawn and the age of Sur6, 4 of the 10 builders are out of contact. Meaning, even with diligently-obtained red-name moderator assistance, there is a near-zero percent chance of receiving "explicit permission" from the inactive players.

Abandoned player builds can become extremely inconvenient when attempting to construct public infrastructure in later parts of a sur, especially when builds are within a thousand blocks of spawn. Not even the oceans are safe. As ambitious groups like the Survival Rail Network (SRN) have expanded across oceans, there are even claim complications regarding somewhat-nearby ocean monuments with a couple dirt blocks on top of them.

The rebuttal for inactivity is merely the chance of return. The possibility of a player returning (even two years later, as would be the case in the first example) to see their plans ruined by what they think is an unsightly communal path is dreadful. That rebuttal is enough to sustain the rule.

2. Multiplayer

Another case to be made regards the optional decision each Dogcraft member makes to play on a multiplayer server. If a player wanted their builds to be completely isolated and have unrestricted options for expansion, they should play on a singleplayer world. However, each Dogcraft player chooses to spend their time on a server with other players. They choose to occupy a server with rules such as #13, #14, and #16 that limit their gameplay, size-capping iron farms and banning raid farms. They therefore ought to accept the possibility of other players building nearby. I, for one, would be thrilled if anybody built near my base (if I had one in Sur6, that is, which I don't due to the infamous age-restriction amendment of 2024 (Rule #5)), as long as I could contact them and we could collaborate on a way to transition our areas or artfully define boundaries. I am consistently jealous of HermitCraft members, especially in the current season, as they blend their bases together to form a gorgeous, seamless landscape. That is what I wish I could get on a creative, HermitCraft Member's public server.

The rebuttal for this can be as simple as capitalism, to as complex as the infinite variety of Minecraft playstyles. Perhaps players simply want a place to buy some of the more difficult-to-obtain items, but they want to build completely in isolation without risk of encroachment. That rebuttal is enough to sustain the rule.

3. Limited Time, Limited Space

It is unrealistic for a player to expand infinitely within the roughly 2-year window each sur has historically occupied. Frankly, I think the more limited the space provided, the more thoughtful the builds. That is not an insinuation requesting a cramped world border, it is a recognition of limits. Many Dogcraft players suffer from burnout because despite being casual (as opposed to professional) Minecraft players, we love to envision extraordinary builds, games, and events, nearly breaking ourselves to complete them. It would be healthier if we could place more realistic limits on our ambition, and perhaps working closer together would do that. We could focus less on endless expansion, and more about making builds their prettiest for the sake of our neighbors and the server as a whole.

The rebuttal to a reduced world border is simple: Heart of the Seas. The rebuttal to the sur time limit is the (now legacy) Cyberdog Nation Server emote "+1 Week". The rebuttal to building closer together is Leon and every other expansive city. If they picked an area, knowing they would spread out, and someone started building a different city nearby?--unacceptable. How would we manage if bases couldn't endlessly expand? Apologies, that was vicious sarcasm that ought to be reserved for close-friend banter or past-the-point-of-return spousal conflicts. The desire for expansion cushion is understandable, and the cases that the pseudo-claim prevents are worth preventing. I suppose I'm just viewing it from a lens of naive optimism, rather than Murphy's Law pessimism. I say, "what great collaborations could arise! like RHN foot paths being able to spotlight lesser-known bases and starter areas," while pseudo-claim supporters understandably say, "what horrible conflicts could arise! like someone building too close to a player that already set their heart to westward expansion." It's hard to argue that optimism is inherently superior to pessimism. There are books about it, but they often can be traced to politics, which is censored for Dogcraft per Rule #1. Those rebuttals are enough to sustain the rule.

A Tangent Praising Dogcraft Transportation

As the 2022 Transport Triathlon winner, and the operator of Sur5's Dogcraft Pet Store (DCPS, which used the networks extensively to transport mobs), I think I have the right to say I'm a HUGE fan of the public transportation we have on Dogcraft. I'd go as far as to say I'd take Dogcraft's Nether Transport Network (NTN) over Hermitcraft's any day. They may make it fancy, but we make it BIG. But more importantly, the NTN is the reason I can call many players my friends. I never would have become connected with  AwesomeTom21 if not for an NTN dig session at which I pitched a Tom's Tatties x Rome sponsorship/partnership. Sure, the NTN (and Rome's Colosseum) has led to the majority of my player deaths, but it and the SRN line openings have led to the majority of my server enjoyment. Sure, minigames are fun too (shoutout Canine Kingdom!) but those can have winners and losers. With collaborative projects like nether tunnels and rail lines, every contributor is a winner, and we all get to enjoy the product of our labors together.

While I sure wish there were even more Transport Network events (hence my push for an RHN Events Coordinator in my recent RHN Sur7 Revival Initiative), the ones I've attended have been the highlights of my Minecraft experience. Riding a pig into minecart after minecart at line openings (and burying a couple) has been more memorable than any singleplayer experience I've tried to have. Dogcraft thrives because it has something like Dogcraft Transportation Networks (the NTN, SRN, CSC, and RHN) to connect it both socially and literally. No other (public) server can compete with our level of organizational nerdiness, and I'm all here for it. And to think, the networks aren't even staff-operated! we get incredible staff-operated DCT events for Valentines, Easter, Halloween, Christmas, New Years, and more, on top! Dogcraft is truly a lucky community, and I couldn't be happier that I stumbled in after a random South African's stream.

4. The Claims Plugin

Dogcraft utilizes a plugin called "GriefPrevention". On its Spigot page, it claims to help you "Stop responding to grief and prevent it instead. Grief Prevention will solve your grief problems without a roster of trained administrators, without 10 different anti-grief plugins, and without disabling any standard game features. Because Grief Prevention teaches players for you, you won't have to publish a training manual or tutorial for players, or add explanatory signs to your world." And it works like a charm! In Sur5 I claimed all of Rome, so I'm quite familiar with the golden shovel, golden hoe, and stick tools and autolock command. I think it's fantastic that we can buy more claim blocks using DCD earned through time dedication to the server. I think grief prevention is a fantastic thing. No, really, I think it's an incredible tool. My argument regarding it has nothing to do with the claims plugin itself. It instead has everything to do with the fact that it's so good. Why don't we just rely on it to manage claims? Why introduce a pseudo-claim on top of it?

The rebuttal for this is an answer to that question. Eyesores and inconsideration are relative, even when defined borders are not. One player may think their dirt castle is beautiful, while the person with the claim it was built too close to, wishes TNT duping and griefing were allowed on Dogcraft. By adding a rule like the pseudo-claim that "[advises] to take even more distance, to also offer room for expansion for yourself and others," Dogcraft staff have a blanket rule preventing inconsiderate builds per their judgements, not the dirt castle builder's. The rebuttal is enough to sustain the rule.

Potential Solutions

1. Start Out With More Claim Blocks

I'll shoot it down before you can: this is a horrible idea. Give a new player 10,000 claim blocks and chaos will ensue. The logic would be to account for the hypothetical 100x100 blocks that the pseudo-claim claims surrounding any day-one dirt hovel. Then, if they wanted the area untouched, they could make sure it was untouchable by any other players by officially claiming it. Other players could build up to it (while still maintaining the blanket Rule #7 and not building purposeful eyesores) without worrying about a ghost perimeter.

This potential solution results in more initial claim blocks, and the removal of the 100 blocks rule.

The rebuttal is trolls logging on once and claiming annoying chunks of the world that go unused indefinitely.

2. Add a Time Limit

To return to the same starter base after two years of absence seems a bit extreme (to me, even a single year feels like a lifetime, but such is youth). Therefore a limit on the time the space is reserved makes sense. Move it, you lose it. We already have that precedent in rented mall plots, why not for land? Especially builds that go unclaimed, like many a dirt hovel.

This potential solution results in an amendment to the 100 blocks rule, giving it a countdown timer. I would suggest one year as the time, but perhaps even 6 months would be in order.

The rebuttal is the same as it was to the initial inactivity argument. The player could log on–not that they will, but they could–and that is a valid reason.

3. Update the Claims Plugin to Highlight the 100 Blocks Rule

I think the addition of a new feature would be a fabulous solution to my primary argument: player unfriendliness. Again, as someone particularly invested in the Dogcraft Transport networks, and an advocate for neighbors, I would benefit from anything that makes it easier to follow the pseudo-claim, if it is to remain (which, it was put in place for a good reason, so I'm sure it is just as likely to stay in place for that reason). Opening up my debug screen and counting is not without hassle, especially when planning twisty-turny RHN paths. However, if a plugin were to highlight the boundary for me, I would be able to follow the rules with ease. Here are a couple suggestions for implementation:

The Stick

We already get the notification "No one has claimed this block" if a block is unclaimed and you right click it with a stick, but that block could just as easily be directly next to one that is, in fact, claimed. Perhaps updating the notification to say "There is a claim X blocks away" up to 150 blocks (not only 100, as that would make finding the border a similar level of trickiness) and then keeping the "No one…" notification beyond that, would allow easier measurement of nearby claims. It would also account for claims below the surface, which a Transport Network contributor may have no way of otherwise seeing/anticipating.

Block Breaking/Placing

When in a claim we do not have perms for, we can attempt to break or place blocks, but instead make no impact and receive the notification "You cannot do that in X's claim". Perhaps if we were to break or place blocks within the 100 blocks pseudo-claim perimeter, we could do it, it would just give us the notification "There is a claim X blocks away" of course, not giving us the notification if we have perms for the claim in mention. Or, it could also prevent impact on the second part of the 100 block rule which states "Do not mine resources within 100 blocks…" and is currently difficult to moderate.

This potential solution updates an existing, highly customizable (according to its Spigot page) plugin to be more user-friendly for identifying, and consequently following, the 100 blocks (pseudo-claims) rule, neither removing nor amending the rule itself.

The rebuttal would be that we do not own the plugin, and can therefore not update it to meet our needs. That would be valid if both: the owner is not able to be contacted and a case-specific update/feature added/customized, and nobody in the Dogcraft community could do it themselves. I doubt both of these, and would be more than willing to straight-up learn how to code if nobody else will.

In Sum,

I must repeat, this is not an ill-intentioned demand. I have been playing on the Dogcraft server for over 5 years now (yeah Tom, it's been that long… wow), and I want it to be around for at least 5 more. But not just around–I want it thriving. I have been adequately warned about the animosity between some staff and the Dogcraft Transport Networks, but the warning was more disappointing than paralyzing. I love Dogcraft! and that doesn't come with ifs ands or buts for me. There is nobody in the Dogcraft community I have beef with (maybe "beet"... but not beef), including staff members. I appreciate the role moderators play in maintaining and protecting our community, and understand that their decisions also have the players' best in mind.

I am certainly not above the law. The Transport Networks are not above the law. Journalism is not above the law. This appeal was written with utmost respect to the law (#7!) and I hope it is read with the same respect in mind. If you believe I'm wrong on any points, I'd love to hear your feedback! If you'd like to angrily shout, I'd love for you to find a pillow! I took a walk and cooled down before writing a single word of this appeal, and perhaps you should too if, despite the pillow, your neighbors–that you have in real life, but not Dogcraft (see: above)–can hear your muffled screams. I wish to prevent agony, not create it.

I hope you have enjoyed this compilation of reasoning.

Sincerely,

Wanderer_06

P.S. Irrelevant Specification Requests

When closely observing the rules page (once again) while researching for this appeal, there were a few unrelated rules I noticed that may benefit from some clarification.

#4 Pt.3

• Advertising shops/sales of services on the server in public chat is not allowed. If you are looking to buy from a shop/service, you may ask about it in chat. If asked about a product/shop in game, you may respond to the question.

There is a simple marketing loophole involving two players that goes something like this:

Player 1 (hypothetically  kfr4014*): "Does anybody sell X?"

Player 2 (hypothetically  jmsvvr): "Yeah, Y21 does!"

 kfr4014 again: "Wow, thanks jmsvvr, Y21 seems to sell everything!"

 jmsvvr again: "You know it! We try to stay on top of it!"

*Professional acting not included.

Perhaps a clarification stating something along the lines of "Shop/Event Partners may not ask their partner in chat with the intent of marketing" to close the loophole? Or just leave it open. It's comedic at times (@sham).

#13, Pt.1

• Item duplication is not allowed.

"Item" can be associated with things like string and rails far easier than it can be associated with a "Block" of TNT. It would help if a parenthetical were added clarifying: (this includes TNT duping), as I know it can be a hot-button topic.

These, unlike my appeal for slight alteration, or at least revisitation of, Rule #11, are simply clarifications that may be beneficial to newer players. They do not alter the rules at all.