+- Discovery Gaming Community (https://discoverygc.com/forums)
+-- Forum: Rules & Requests (https://discoverygc.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=6)
+--- Forum: Rules (https://discoverygc.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=25)
+--- Thread: A Rule Ammendment - a poll with a point :) (/showthread.php?tid=10174)
A Rule Ammendment - a poll with a point :) - Laowai - 07-08-2008
' Wrote:i d say - it depends on the situation. - when a trader is "attacking" the home system by bringing harmful goods - like passengers to crete - a defense is appropriate. - however, whats an attack and what not must be clarified.
comparing it directly to the lawfuls actions is incomplete. - lawfuls do not take up an offensive position towards traders. - they are defending their space against those that bring harmful goods - but do not threaten anyone else.
As is the Corsair who intercepts a trader carrying passengers - from a RP point of view. Unlawfuls do not have a blanket hostility to traders which is what you imply in your statement - quite the contrary, run food and humanitarian goods into Omicron Gamma and see this point starkly demonstrated - i am talking about what is considered contraband.
I have to disagree with saying this view is incomplete - this is entirely subjective. From the point of view of the person in danger of being intercepted, the "interceptor", whoever they are, is a potential threat. A person carrying Cardamine to New York knows the police will stop him, similarly, a trader carrying passengers to Crete, who knows the RP rules, or can be quite easily warned of them, knows that the local authorities, namely corsairs, will also try to stop them
allowing pirates to engage traders in warships can quickly lead to a broad interpretation about whats harmful and what not. - so goods must be defined clearly - and attacking traders bringing different goods than the ones defined should still be forbidden.
Yes, it should, again - im making a clear distinction between "pirating" and enforcing house rules. Blowing up a trader with your Cruiser who is carrying Gold to tripoli for example would still be forbidden and sanctionable.
since that would be taken into the official rules - and not be down in RP laws - the goods defined as harmful should have an official blessing. ( - so, things like declaring niobium contraband like in kusari should not be an official law, cause its not aimed at RP - but only to harm the so called "powertrading" ) - those goods should be only few.
OF course, every ban should be Role played... otherwise its metagaming and OORP in itself.
furthermore, the trading system must reflect whats harmful and what not. - the fact that crete pays a lot for passengers is not logical for example. - nither passengers, nor the citizens on crete pay much. - crete is not what you d call a place to spend your vacation at, nor is it a hospitable place anyway - so the pricing should reflect that.
since the price for passengers is high. - players "should" have spun their RP around it. instead players ignored that fact and stuck to the old habit of considering human "cargo" as harmful. - ( they could have RPed the passengers as workers, farmers instead - people that crete needs... but that opportunity is gone by now, cause players considered them as tourists )
Interesting point on the last part - ive not seen anyone actually try to be that creative while hauling them there- because all they are seeing really is the end profit and sale price - I have seen some spinning from corsairs though, particularly "Why would we let a freighter load of Brettonians, with whom we are at war, land on our planet?" - which was a nice take on it.
A Rule Ammendment - a poll with a point :) - Lucend - 07-08-2008
I see your point, Laowai. Which is why I want the guard ID changed to a kind of unlawful military which would enforce such laws. All this talk about unlawfuls obeying laws is starting to make my head hurt. The very idea that a pirate organization would make laws to protect it's weaker population is absurd.
Simply put, I think the rule is fine, but the IDs need changing. So if you wanted to patrol in Gamma for contraband you could, but can't pirate. Whereas if you pirate, you can't patrol. Lawful ... Unlawful. Strict divide. Perhaps we do need a grey area, but this way you know exactly what your role is.
On the other hand, changing the Outcast/Corsair IDs to allow such things would be another way of addressing the situation.
A Rule Ammendment - a poll with a point :) - El Nino - 07-08-2008
In a Faction owned system, rules should be set by the faction owning the system...
It would seem good policy to allow caps to even pirate traders who venture throu home systems. Such rights would only be given by the system owning factions.
Let's say for example, TBH writes up a Gamma Law, that any ship up to a Cruiser can pirate within Gamma all unwanted traders and all ships are allowed to Engage traders with passengers.
"4.3 Factions are free to restrict or not restrict access to their home systems and tax players who enter home system. Access to systems that surround home system must not be restricted unless there's a war with another faction."
This rule I reckon, gives factions the freedom to restrict access to their home system, with probably all force avaliable. Are they pirating? No, they are not, they are restricting access, so they can use all ships.
Perhaps just the interpretation of rules needs to be changed. Scream Contraband, and allow the trader to turn back or be destroyed... You're not demanding cargo, you're not asking for tax... You're restricting access.
A Rule Ammendment - a poll with a point :) - Laowai - 07-08-2008
' Wrote:I see your point, Laowai. Which is why I want the guard ID changed to a kind of unlawful military which would enforce such laws. All this talk about unlawfuls obeying laws is starting to make my head hurt. The very idea that a pirate organization would make laws to protect it's weaker population is absurd.
Simply put, I think the rule is fine, but the IDs need changing. So if you wanted to patrol in Gamma for contraband you could, but can't pirate. Whereas if you pirate, you can't patrol. Lawful ... Unlawful. Strict divide. Perhaps we do need a grey area, but this way you know exactly what your role is.
On the other hand, changing the Outcast/Corsair IDs to allow such things would be another way of addressing the situation.
The Guard ID could work - but i think if you started differentiating between who could pirate as opposed to who could patrol it would start to get a little too complex. Simply stating that "if you are carrying cargo X in Omicron Gamma, all vessels regardless of class can engage you" is far easier, black and white and easier to sanction if its abused.
Unlawful laws does sound like a bit of a contradiction - but its not that strange, its common for criminals to "protect their own" - if you look at the passenger issue, which im sure you know more about the enaction of being in TBH, you would see a demonstration of pirate law - Law is in place to protect food supplies and or security on Crete, by enforcing it, pirate in whatever ship destroys a freighter and kills anywhere between 2-3 thousand passengers in the process - now there's pirate law for you.
But, pirates do have laws, whether to protect the weak as you say, and perhaps they are there for that purpose - a pirate might not care for someone elses family, but its not inconcievable that he might care for his own - or the laws are there for military, strategic or intelligence reasons - either way, im arguing that in their systems, all pirate vessels should be free to enforce those "laws".
A Rule Ammendment - a poll with a point :) - Jinx - 07-08-2008
i agree there - the rule should not aim at taxing or destruction of the trader. - but it should always only be the option to turn around and withdraw WITH the goods.
it should not be a reason to ask for cash - nor should it be a token to shoot the ship down. - btw. same should apply to the lawfuls..... .
A Rule Ammendment - a poll with a point :) - Teknikal - 07-08-2008
Haven't voted but I think the original example is promising It's nice to see the actual rules taking priority over faction RP rules it's a good thing not that I have anything against TBH I just see tons of factions doing completely oorp things and getting away with it when they shouldn't.
Personally I don't see why a gunboat or lower couldn't have intercepted the trader in question although I feel exactly the same way about lawfuls in cruisers as well and if they can get away with it so should pirates. In my opinion no cruisers or higher should be doing it.
A Rule Ammendment - a poll with a point :) - Laowai - 07-08-2008
' Wrote:Haven't voted but I think the original example is promising It's nice to see the actual rules taking priority over faction RP rules it's a good thing not that I have anything against TBH I just see tons of factions doing completely oorp things and getting away with it when they shouldn't.
Personally I don't see why a gunboat or lower couldn't have intercepted the trader in question although I feel exactly the same way about lawfuls in cruisers as well and if they can get away with it so should pirates. In my opinion no cruisers or higher should be doing it.
Herein lies the problem - lawfuls can do it, unlawfuls can't. A gunboat or smaller could have intercepted the offending trader, however situations do arise where there are no vessels of that class on standby - and you have a completely unbelievable situation where the unlawful in the cap ship cannot do anything about it.
I'm also in favour of server rules taking a lead in most situations by the way - but recent events, such as the whole capital ship registration shennanigans (yes i call shennanigans;)) has shown is that server rules can, and do at times take a backseat to RP ones - when it suits.
This is i believe a server rule that should be amended for RP situations - its a double standard as it is, and hampers legitimate Role Play.
A Rule Ammendment - a poll with a point :) - Zavier - 07-08-2008
Well, Laowai, for one, you got the inital rule wrong--
TBH didn't make that no passengers on crete rule---BENITEZ DID!:lol:
Anyway, yes, I agree. If lawfuls can destroy transports that haul contraband, why the hell can't unlawfuls?!
A Rule Ammendment - a poll with a point :) - Laowai - 07-08-2008
' Wrote:Well, Laowai, for one, you got the inital rule wrong--
TBH didn't make that no passengers on crete rule---BENITEZ DID!:lol:
My bad - however this particular rule, regardless of who initiated it;)- has been pretty much accepted as making perfect sense by Corsair players, and enforced. But this rule change has broader applications for ALL unlawful factions who want to use their cap ships in enforcing embargoes in their home systems - I'll see how this thread continues into the GMT difference later tonight when more people come on, but at 75% in favour and with 3 on "depends" it seems that amending this rule has fairly widespread community support and it might be worthwhile as this progresses to make a formal proposal to Igiss for 4.85.
A Rule Ammendment - a poll with a point :) - Carlos_Benitez - 07-08-2008
I suggested this rule in Gamma be put in place for very good RP reasons.
Crete has a relatively small polulation in comparitive terms. With no arable land the Cretian people who are not space pilots (i'm talking Cretians, not the Corsair organisation) are constantly battling against starvation.
Regularly, these traders come and offload as many as four thousand passengers into our spacedock, which immediately (to cut a long RP chain short) eat all the food. Our children go hungry.
I think it's perfectly justified that we should stop these traders at all cost. Unfortunately, the time between them getting in scanner range, and speed-docking is not enough to shoot them down with fighters, bombers or gunboats.
These traders hardly ever stop, and rarely have any RP knowledge, but if we're going to RP this properly, we'd have to take enough trips to and from Freeport-9 as to get 4000 tonnes of food back to Crete to prevent starvation due to these traders' actions.
Crete is not a holiday destination, and I have no idea why it was made such in the last mod. Another solution is to remove the profitability of this trade.