Yeah, its an improvement.would be better?

I didn't look too closely at it but its basically unnecessary. Also note that since you're implicitly checking the return values of the functions against the value True, you could also check the opposite with False. Like:Or can I use isPlotNotOwned anyway or will it not work?
Code:
if isPlotOwner(tCoords, 1) == False:
Code:
if [COLOR="DimGray"]( isPlotOwner(tCoords, 1) == True )[/COLOR]:
Code:
boolean expression
andTrue == True
If the first outcome is true, then the whole expression equates to the value True. So in English it would be "if True is True, then its True". Pretty redundant, not? This is why you can get away with just this if statement:True == False
Code:
if isPlotOwner(tCoords, 1):
Code:
if True:
Code:
if False:
Code:
if not isPlotOwner(tCoords, 1):

It seems about right, but most of the time you wind up with exceptions anyway. So I guess there is only one way to make sure... (Syntax errors are easy enough to catch if you're using IDLE - just go Run -> Check Module in the menu bar. So there is basically no good excuse to wind up with syntax errors in-game.)will this code work?