' Wrote:I might be reading this wrong, but how s it any different to... an indy LN Cap not being able to shoot smugglers?
In the same token, if the [LN] ever lost Official Status, they wouldn't be able to either?
Because the letter and spirit of the rules both say nothing really wrong happened here. Unless they weren't role playing for whatever reason...
They are restricted to the same rules as the Junker ID according to the AI ID's description (which sucks). OR they are allowed to do it because that's what they were approved to do when they got their AI IDs, which were never taken away.
It's a lot different, the cap rule is a fair play rule not an Rp rule, never has been an RP rule. This is not about fiarplay, it's about a complicated ID rule, and it's possible violation.
Saint Del is considered a holy healer of diseases of children, but also as a protector of cattle.
Wait what? When the sanction was being processed, did it go something like this?
Admin 1: He broke a rule, lets finish the sanction report.
Admin 2: Yeah but, the A.I. ID has issues, maybe we should just let him off with a warning, and we didn't tell the Harvesters that this rule applied to them now.
Admin 1: Yeah true, but he broke a rule (that he was allowed to break in the past, but all of a sudden he can't now.) Sanction!
Admin 2: Dude, you are so right, finish processing the Sanction Report dude!
I have to say that I strongly dissagree with this sanction, if the rule no longer applied to the Harvesters, then you should have just posted a warning. Although, I think that rule should still apply, that's not the point I'm trying to get across.
EDIT: This is in no way directed as an insult towards the admin team, just a simplified dramatization of the discussion that may have taken place.
' Wrote:So are people suggesting that what is written in the IDs should be ignored?
A group had an approved method of conduct.
A group then became official.
A group then lost their official status.
A group was then sanctioned for performing this same approved method of conduct.
There was not an explicit "oh hey guys check it" moment informing them that they would no longer be allowed to carry on.
This was their long established, signature, method of gameplay.
When they were kicked to the curb we encouraged them to get back on their feet to regain that status.
It was never stated "oh yeah and you no longer rate to act as you did yesterday". Ever.
This chain of events is no bueno. It's been months since they lost their slot. Folk have a right to be warned that what they've taken for granted no longer applies.
' Wrote:So are people suggesting that what is written in the IDs should be ignored?
No it shouldn't. Though that is exactly what the current admin team did? Want me to spell it out for you like others have? Sorry Cannon, I am not trying to blast you, but you guys did frack up on this one.
AI ID for your viewing pleasure:
Quote:Artificial Intelligence ID
Vessels carrying this ID are controlled by an artificial intelligence. If the vessel possesses a Tag/IFF, the AI is operating under the same permissions and restrictions as the ID associated with that Tag/IFF. Guard ID permissions require a Guard Tag/IFF. If the AI belongs to an official faction, its permissions and restrictions are those of the official faction instead of the following.
If the vessel does not have a Tag/IFF and does not belong to an official faction, it is a rogue artificial intelligence which:
Can be attacked by anyone within server roleplay and PvP guidelines,
Can demand cargo only according to its written and Admin approved storyline,
Cannot demand credits from anyone,
Can only attack other vessels in self-defense or during piracy,
Cannot land on any House, corporation, or BHG bases,
Cannot ally with any House, corporation, or BHG vessels,
Cannot fulfill bounty contracts.
An AI ID with a Tag/IFF is allowed ships according to the ID associated with its Tag/IFF. An AI without a Tag/IFF is only allowed to use ships listed in its approved application.
Carrying unmounted IDs in your ship, trading IDs, as well as not equipping an ID, is a serious crime. Deviation from these guidelines may result in loss of AI ID privileges. Only given with permission from Admins.
I put on line in bold. I will however copy and quote it below.
Quote:If the vessel possesses a Tag/IFF, the AI is operating under the same permissions and restrictions as the ID associated with that Tag/IFF.
The person sanctioned claims to have a Junker IFF. Meaning per the AI ID, he follows the permissions and restrictions of this ID:
Quote:Pilot carrying this ID is a Junker, who :
Can trade and escort smugglers Can demand credits or cargo from traders and unallied smugglers or factions
Can fulfill bounty contracts opened by Junkers,
Can attack pirates and terrorists in self-defense, to protect another trader, to assist lawful forces or in defence of corporate bases. May also actively hunt Pirate, Xeno, Farmers Alliance or Hogosha ID players.
Cannot participate in unlawful actions against all corporations inside of house space.
Cannot land on any bases belonging to Kusari factions except for Golden Chrysanthemum and Blood Dragon bases
Cannot use any transport with more than 4,300 cargo
The Junker ID does not make you immune to piracy, pirates may choose at their discretion whether to exempt you from being pirated.
Carrying unmounted IDs in your ship, as well as not equipping an ID, is a serious crime.
Again, I put one line in bold, I will again copy and quote it below.
Quote:Can demand credits or cargo from traders and unallied smugglers or factions
So. His AI ID says that if he runs a IFF he follows the associated IFF's ID permissions/restrictions. He has a Junker IFF, logically then he follows the Junker ID's permission/restrictions. As you can see, the Junker ID allows him to pirate.
Unless he did so in House space, why is the admin team ignoring this fact?