+- 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 :) - Grimly - 07-08-2008
I voted YES.
1. If lawfulls can use their cruisers against smugglers, its the same for traders carrying passagers to Crete.
2. If corsairs may not defend themselves (passagers eat all food in Crete, we don't have enough to live !) with their capship, so lawfulls may NOT too !
A Rule Ammendment - a poll with a point :) - MrCynical - 07-08-2008
This change would be far too easily to exploit - why exactly do you need a cruiser to stop a smuggler in a transport anyway? Personally I think nothing larger than a bomber should be allowed to pirate (I use a gunboat on one of my characters by the way, so I'm aware what they're capable of), whether you're in a pirate-aligned border world or not.
A Rule Ammendment - a poll with a point :) - Horon - 07-08-2008
I voted on the scenario. I believe that the rules should only be enforced either in the home system only, ie for the corsairs, O-Gamma, where ever the hell their guard system is at, and within range of any JH's to O-Gamma
' Wrote:This change would be far too easily to exploit - why exactly do you need a cruiser to stop a smuggler in a transport anyway? Personally I think nothing larger than a bomber should be allowed to pirate (I use a gunboat on one of my characters by the way, so I'm aware what they're capable of), whether you're in a pirate-aligned border world or not.
We are talking about enforcing faction space rules here, not pirating. I think Lo needs to rephrase his statement, or state what he was aiming at. <strike>Damn it I just smeared ketchup all over my face..</strike>
A Rule Ammendment - a poll with a point :) - Geisha_Maiko - 07-08-2008
I read the same thing in the players sactions.
I REALLY wanted to post my 2 cents....I am glad someone made this post.
Anyways, I voted Yes.
Same simple logic....IF RM and other Lawful house systems can use Cap. ships to threaten and kill traders , for 'Not following directives of the mility''.....then Unlawfuls should be able to do the same.
A Rule Ammendment - a poll with a point :) - Laowai - 07-08-2008
' Wrote:This change would be far too easily to exploit - why exactly do you need a cruiser to stop a smuggler in a transport anyway? Personally I think nothing larger than a bomber should be allowed to pirate (I use a gunboat on one of my characters by the way, so I'm aware what they're capable of), whether you're in a pirate-aligned border world or not.
There are many loopholes and exploitations on the server that an unscrupulous player can take advantage of - rules are constantly being argued about for that reason. This amendment would be simple, and if someone exloited it againts the rules they'd be sanctioned, simple as that.
I do think you missed the point a little - this amendment is NOT about allowing cap ships to "pirate" and i have to be clear on that, its about allowing unlawful cap ship players the same rights as lawful players when it comes to interception of what they - in RP - consider contraband. Why do you need a cruiser to stop a "smuggler"? - well, quite simply you dont, however, that situation may arise where said trader/smuggler is running a RP banned commodity and the only thing guarding the system IS a cruiser - this amendment would allow that cruiser to engage that trading vessel
A Rule Ammendment - a poll with a point :) - Jinx - 07-08-2008
if such a rule is made - a few things should be cleared up.
1.) clear definition of the space that it is allowed. - that means - a whole space-realm, a system, several systems or ... like zoners do ... "only" a certain space around a station / planet.
2.) a clear definition of what is to be considered harmful for a faction. - this should be purely based on RP arguments and not on a wish to limit profitable traderoutes. - furthermore, there should be room for roleplaying around it. - like i explained. when a transport approaches crete with a reasonable ( that means not like 5000 ) amount of passengers, and he explains at the very start that these are farm worker specialists to assist fertilizing the soil on crete - there d be NO reason at all for the corsairs to force such a trader to turn around.
it is up to the factions to make sure that their "guards" are aware of it and can take the responsibility to cope with such a situation, instead of sticking to the letter of a rule.
3.) approaching vessels are not to be fined ( pirates are not police ) nor destroyed when they comply and turn around. - it is the will of the defenders to keep harmful elements from docking and not to exercise targetting practice. - a tradeship that is destroyed by a warship even after agreeing to turn around and withdraw should be allowed to report the attacking player for a violation of the rule.
again, it is up to the defender to show the responsibility of a player that is not just after pvp.
4.) this should really only apply to houselike criminals - that means outcasts and corsairs only. - all the other minor pirates ( even hessians ) are not really up to have a homeguard fleet. furthermore, just cause it is made possible does not mean to install "forbidden goods". while it might make sense to ban tourists from crete, i am unsure what the outcasts might consider a harmful good. - maybe toxic waste?
A Rule Ammendment - a poll with a point :) - Kuraine - 07-08-2008
Quote:Corsair Guard ID
Pilot carrying this ID is a Corsair Guard.
Corsair Guards can:
* Attack at will within their Zone of Influence any:
o Bretonia Mining and Manufacturing
o Ships carrying Cardamine, VIPs, Passengers or allied pilots
* Engage bounty hunters, mercenaries, freelancers and lawfuls
* Participate in military operations on unlawful side
* Scan for contraband and demand cargo
Corsair Guards cannot:
* Ally with lawful forces except:
o Cryer Pharmaceuticals
o in joint operations against Nomad, Wild and Keeper ID
* Trade
* Fulfil bounty contracts
* Escort traders or smugglers
Allowed ships: Fighters, Freighters, Gunboats, Cruisers (limited), Battleships (limited)
Carrying unmounted IDs in your ship, as well as not equipping an ID, is a serious crime.
My proposed Guard ID. Although it still says Cruisers and Battleships are (limited), and that means you cannot pirate in them. However, you can attack and destroy vessels carrying the cargo listed in the ID (which may be updated or revised, depending on whether some new commodities are approved).
Check out the link on my signature if you want to review any of the other IDs. I really could do with more feedback on them from people before I submit the proposal to Igiss etc.
A Rule Ammendment - a poll with a point :) - darksamy - 07-08-2008
Yes, and because of REAL ROLE PLAYING, I GOT BANNED FOR 7 DAYS, AND ALL MY GUNS AND MY CREDITS TOKEN FROM ME!!!
That will LEARN me to role play, and to prevent before I shoot, because if I killed him like the pig he is, no one will take a screeni, and no one will proof it!
THANKS to you, who voted Yes...
If the admins accept the vote, I ask them to give me my credits and my guns back, and remove the ban please, thanks.
A Rule Ammendment - a poll with a point :) - chovynz - 07-08-2008
You are appealing in retrospect.
Your 7 days will be up far before this rule change gets implemented.
Suck it up, stop complaining about it, use your 5 days left constructively,
And we will see you back in space in no time.
Good luck.
A Rule Ammendment - a poll with a point :) - Laowai - 07-08-2008
' Wrote:if such a rule is made - a few things should be cleared up.
1.) clear definition of the space that it is allowed. - that means - a whole space-realm, a system, several systems or ... like zoners do ... "only" a certain space around a station / planet.
Of course - This would have to be laid out in clear, publicly announced Role Play.
2.) a clear definition of what is to be considered harmful for a faction. - this should be purely based on RP arguments and not on a wish to limit profitable traderoutes. - furthermore, there should be room for roleplaying around it. - like i explained. when a transport approaches crete with a reasonable ( that means not like 5000 ) amount of passengers, and he explains at the very start that these are farm worker specialists to assist fertilizing the soil on crete - there d be NO reason at all for the corsairs to force such a trader to turn around.
it is up to the factions to make sure that their "guards" are aware of it and can take the responsibility to cope with such a situation, instead of sticking to the letter of a rule.
Anything that was named "contraband" as far as i can see it would have to be named and backed up fy faction RP. There is room for Rp'ing around any situation - if the rule was ammended, it would allow a player in a capship to engage the trader, it does'nt necessarily follow that they will then destroy that trader. Just as lawfuls don't. You have to be careful though with having things like "farm workers" coming to Crete,... all it would take is one Elder in orbit to say "No we didnt authorise that" and its all over.. best to have a blanket RP ban and the individual enforcing player can make the call at the time.
3.) approaching vessels are not to be fined ( pirates are not police ) nor destroyed when they comply and turn around. - it is the will of the defenders to keep harmful elements from docking and not to exercise targetting practice. - a tradeship that is destroyed by a warship even after agreeing to turn around and withdraw should be allowed to report the attacking player for a violation of the rule.
again, it is up to the defender to show the responsibility of a player that is not just after pvp.
Of course it is, that being said, the trade ship has committed the wrong by going there in the first place with contraband - destroying the tradship after he has left would however be pretty unsportsmanlike.... This would be easy enough to enforce though by simply saying that the capship must demand the trader leave and cannot engage if the trader complies. The XA have a "cargo first" policy with traders, and Lawfuls also usually apply this and a fine. (Fine's should not be applicable for unlawfuls though, however, i could see enterprising individuals offering "bribes",.
4.) this should really only apply to house like criminals - that means outcasts and corsairs only. - all the other minor pirates ( even hessians ) are not really up to have a homeguard fleet. furthermore, just cause it is made possible does not mean to install "forbidden goods". while it might make sense to ban tourists from crete, i am unsure what the outcasts might consider a harmful good. - maybe toxic waste?
Well - that would be up to the outcasts,and they would have to back it up with RP. However amending this rule would allow them the ability to enforce these declarations much more strictly. It would be possible to restrict this too the larger Unlawful factions - if the restrictions were part of an ID, which i believe Kuraine has suggested. However that could become complex, having it broadly applicable and being based off recognised official faction decrees (thats official disco approved factions) would keep it relatively simple.