+- 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: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.
Samy - You have my sympathies in a way mate. However, I started this thread to address this issue in the wider community, see if there was a consensus, and perhaps in getting that appeal to Igiss et al to have this provision allowed.
I have to say though, if you did attack a trader in your capship, you did break the rules as they are written now and were punished for it fairly, with little rule based grounds for appeal to get your money etc back. Yes, the rules now are a double standard, and there is wide community support it seems for the actions you took, however, the rules now are black and white - you cannot engage a trade ship while in an unlawful capship, you did, hence you broke the rules.
You might just have to take this one - and hope that at least after a while, some good might come of it, the community might allow more flexibility in the rules, and we might see a rule change allowing this situation in the future to be avoided.
A Rule Ammendment - a poll with a point :) - Muleo - 07-08-2008
Yes, Corsairs, any faction really, should be able to police their own system.
However, the sanction regarding Darksamy, he was lying, there were no passengers involved, and I can send screens to whoever requests them.
' Wrote:The player in question destroyed a vessel carrying passengers to planet Crete. Now, this is a Role play rule that was enacted by TBH ages ago and supported by all the Corsair houses and indies (the ones who know about it). The sanctioned player destroyed the ship - which by current rules is sanctionable - but did so in order to uphold a role play law in force in that sector - and not by strict definition, to pirate i.e to make financial gain.
A Rule Ammendment - a poll with a point :) - Cosmos - 07-08-2008
hey who said they're pirating? when there demanding the cargo from a trader? cus if that always pirating ill make a lib BS and whore any police / navy / indy that goes and tries 2 make smugglers drop their cargo.
also yes they should be allowed to enforce their LAWS upon contrabanded items in the factions space.
A Rule Ammendment - a poll with a point :) - Laowai - 07-08-2008
' Wrote:Yes, Corsairs, any faction really, should be able to police their own system.
However, the sanction regarding Darksamy, he was lying, there were no passengers involved, and I can send screens to whoever requests them.
Actually whether or not he was lying doesn't change the core issue behind why i believe this rule should be amended. I cited that sanction in my original post yes i didnt want this thread to be about that one particular sanction and didnt name names - I think have to be clear about that, this thread is not to exonerate players who have up until this point been - in adherence to the rules - punished for attacking traders in a cap ship.
This is about the wider issue as a whole - i dont want to see the thread hijacked as i was hoping to see real and constructive dialogue on this, and use the poll function to actually gauge player opinion about the issue. If we want his rule amended then the discussion on this issue needs to be thought out and not leveled at individual players.
A Rule Ammendment - a poll with a point :) - monsterlancer - 07-08-2008
I voted "Yes"
Reason: I believe the Rule (or law) does not take into account that a Corsair Capital Ship in its home system (say Gamma or for the Outcasts, Omicron Alpha) would be considered the "Law" and those that wish to break the law in thier systems would be considered "Unlawful". They would be in the same position as the LPI,LSF and Liberty Navy, BAF, BPA, KNF, RH navy and police, in protecting their home systems from what is considered contraban or things detrimental to the way of life in the system. Even a trader or smuggler must respect a system's laws or suffer the fate that awaits us all.
As it reads now, the rule places the Corsairs and Outcasts in an unfair situation, as far as enforcing the Laws within their own houses.
A Rule Ammendment - a poll with a point :) - Cosmos - 07-08-2008
corsairs hate tourists.
outcasts hate MOX<-- apparently...
A Rule Ammendment - a poll with a point :) - ryoken - 07-08-2008
I voted NO. Reason being, i do not think even a lawfull cruiser/BC/BS should fire on trader's. It is power gaming IMO. Everyone has said a fighter/bomber can take out a transport. Why then is this even being voted on. It will just promote more PvP whore's.
IE i entered NY just last night in my trader, who is a smuggler, and had contraband. A navy cap show's up, and without warning just opened fire on me. After i excaped(yes i am that dam good: ) ) i asked why i was fired on without a word, and i quote."i do not give warning's" Now their is enough trigger happy player's out there now. If you allow more reason's for cap's to shoot trader's(lawful/unlawful) you will soon have nothing but cap's everywhere. People will start trading/smuggling in cap's, as they know faction's will make a large list of thing's they can kill you for carrying.
My 2 cred's worth.
A Rule Ammendment - a poll with a point :) - Stucuk - 07-08-2008
In my oppinion eather unlawfuls should be able to stop traders like lawfuls or lawfuls should have the same restrictions as pirates.
A Rule Ammendment - a poll with a point :) - Varyag - 07-08-2008
I completely agree. There is no reason a lib bc can kill a trader for smuggleing contraband and a corsair or outcast cannot. Now, look at Lib navy imposeing a fine or be destroyed for that cargo. A corsair cruiser would be sanctioned instantly for this as pirating. This seems like quite a double standard.
The passenger ban had been in effect on crete for as long as I can remember. They should be able to enforce it like everyone else.
I do, however, completely agree with the cap restriction on pirating.
A Rule Ammendment - a poll with a point :) - Jinx - 07-09-2008
well - its much about dimensions here. - the police ( in its very original state ) deals with freighters. - the dromedary as the fastest of the freighters and the most efficient one - aswell as the rheinland freighter ( forgot the name ) which is the toughest.
thats the smugglers ships that the police has to deal with. - but that was vanilla 1.0
now we have transports, ships that were exclusive to the NPCs - and we do have warships that were exclusive for npc use, too. - the common police is not equipped nor appropriate to deal with one of those flying fortresses. - full wings of policecrafts ( like 4 ships ) are no match for even a dromedary with a lvl6 30k shield.
i think that is reason enough for the military to step in. - its the same difference like catching a smuggler in a car at the mexican border, who tries to smuggle heroin into the USA - or intercepting a heavily armed submarine in open waters filled to the rim with drugs. - the police is not equipped to take on the later one. - maybe the coast guards are ... but really, it is reason enough to call in the guys that are better equipped than the common police.
so - again ( like to many times ) smuggling and preventing smuggling is a responsibility that lays on both sides. - while i think that a battleship will not chase a smuggler - it will most certainly FIRE at a smuggler when he is stupid enough to fly into weaponrange.
a transport like a container transport or a liner is a formidable foe for a gunboat even - compared to a gunboat, utterly undergunned, but still able to take it down. - a liner can even withstand a single bomber, cause a liner isn t exactly easy to hit when its flying straight while firing its weapons ( provided its a good gunner ) - as a matter of fact... harder to take down than some huge battleships, cause on those, its harder NOT to hit them than to hit them.
so - i believe that a cruiser or a battleship can go after the big transports. - the question is ... why are those HUGE transports smuggling anyway. - from the point of view of the lawfuls, i d find it much more plausible when .... contraband ( the original, not the one made up by the factions ) was only allowed to be hauled in freighters, but the profit would be adjusted so that up to 499 cargo wielded as much profit as a big transport. - then a freighter would be a smugglers vessel and the police could take it ... without military support.
for example - make the profit span like 60.000 credits - but set the purchase value to 300.000 or so. [ so, purchase 300k, selling 360k ] - why so high? - the profit is supposed to be high, but also loosing the cargo should be a pain. ( that gets rid of those "kill me then" guys )
but as long as we allow those 220.000 armoured ( possibly Cap armoured ) transports with 100.000 shields and up to 12 guns carrying ships with up to 5000 cargohold to haul the same things - we ll NEED capships to counter them.
anyway.. i think the situation was mostly about "what a capship does when he faces a smuggler and there is simply no small ship around to stop it" rather than "if its allowed at all"