+- Discovery Gaming Community (https://discoverygc.com/forums)
+-- Forum: Role-Playing (https://discoverygc.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=9)
+--- Forum: Unofficial Factions and Groups (https://discoverygc.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=67)
+--- Thread: Privateer ID (/showthread.php?tid=5789)
Privateer ID - Slavik - 01-27-2008
Well you are privateers so I would say mercenaries simply because You are freelancing ships military ships working for the queen in times of war.
Mercenaries can pirate as long as they are Hired to do so(in this case by the queen).
Good luck with this guys!
Privateer ID - Juan_Arquero - 01-28-2008
Obviously, this thread needs input from a Grammar Nazi!:P
Quote:Mercenary ID : Pilot carrying this ID is a mercenary who works for him/herself, unwilling to join the Bounty Hunters Guild or any other faction. Mercenary ID grants its owner right to fulfil lawful and unlawful bounty contracts, escort traders and smugglers, hunt pirates and terrorists, participate in military operations on lawful or unlawful side. Mercenary ID owner is not allowed to pirate or trade on regular basis.
' Wrote:If "on a regular basis" only applied to trading, then there should be a comma immediately behind the word pirate. As it is written, "on a regular basis" modifies both "pirate" and "trade".Xoria: Adding a comma wouldn't reduce the confusion. You are right that as written, "on a regular basis" modifies both "pirate" and "trade." (Note where I placed the period.) However, I strongly believe that is NOT the intent of Igiss, as I've seen mercenaries get sanctioned for piracy because they helped defend pirates from traders. I've seen Hoodlum clearly state in sanction threads that mercenaries are NOT allowed to pirate.
Quote:Thus, mercenaries can pirate and trade, but may not do either regularly. The real issue is, what exactly constitutes regularly? For QCP's purposes, I doubt it would be a problem.Wrong! "Mercenary ID owner is not allowed to pirate or trade on regular basis." should be reworded as follows: "Mercenary ID owner is not allowed to pirate at all or trade on regular basis."
EDIT: I haven't voted as all four choices violate server rules. Junkers ID and Pirate ID both prohibit allying with lawful forces (BAF/QCO/SF). Mercenary ID and BAF ID both prohibit piracy.
Privateer ID - bluntpencil2001 - 01-28-2008
Well, so far it seems that the community favours the BAF ID, and certainly favours the use of the IDs which disallow piracy (Merc and BAF).
This goes along the lines that I like, personally, but I shall leave it a bit longer and wait for more opinions before making a final decision. Admin input would be great if possible.
EDIT: Oh, and Juan Arquero was right... it appears that I'm using an idea that's a bit too difficult to roleplay within the rules as they stand. Rock and a hard place indeed.
Privateer ID - Othman - 01-28-2008
People should attend to forums. Thats all. If you mob the shipments aiding the war efforts of Kusari in the name of RP then that should not be counted as pirating in my opinion. Why does every single faction have a different name and policy anyway?
Privateer ID - pchwang - 01-28-2008
Quote:People should attend to forums. Thats all.
YES!
I say you keep the BAF ID. The QCP has the BPA's support on this one.
1) It makes sense. When you became privateers, you agreed to fight for Bretonia and take any action to defend your nation. Drake and Raleigh pretty much did the same, only become privateers to serve queen and nation.
2) People really should read the forums. In fact, by doing this, the QCP is actually stimulating people to come to the forums, so that they can voice their "grievances." Job well done, blunt and QCP!
3) The other ID's do not fit at all. Personally, I do not even know why you included the Junker ID. You demand credits, not junk. Until there is something called the Bretonian Privateer ID or a general privateer ID, there is no real substitute.
Privateer ID - Qunitinius~Verginix - 01-28-2008
I voted pirate because you can keep a Brentonian Tag, which shows your Brentonian, but the BAF ID doesn;t give you the rights to pirate. THe Pirate ID does.
It fits the best. My ruling on this goes as follows: The ID shows what you do, The Tag shows your nationality/true affiliation.
Verg
Privateer ID - aster - 01-28-2008
Another newbie post, apologies in advance for naivety.
IDs are great, but they are restrictive and therefore limiting to RP. They say who are the good guys and who are the bad. When the RP gets more mature, good and bad are harder to define so the IDs stop being useful and start being an impedement to RP.
They are there to stop RP excesses however as it stands the proposed RP (although in character, logical and interesting) is against server rules.
Something must give, either the RP must change or the rules must be broken. How can admin slap our newbie wrists for going against the card and then allow a whole faction to go against some of the basic premises of the IDs being suggested.
Personally I think the RP should take precedence over the rules but it sure leads to some big questions for people to argue about.
Privateer ID - bluntpencil2001 - 01-28-2008
' Wrote:Another newbie post, apologies in advance for naivety.
IDs are great, but they are restrictive and therefore limiting to RP. They say who are the good guys and who are the bad. When the RP gets more mature, good and bad are harder to define so the IDs stop being useful and start being an impedement to RP.
They are there to stop RP excesses however as it stands the proposed RP (although in character, logical and interesting) is against server rules.
Something must give, either the RP must change or the rules must be broken. How can admin slap our newbie wrists for going against the card and then allow a whole faction to go against some of the basic premises of the IDs being suggested.
Personally I think the RP should take precedence over the rules but it sure leads to some big questions for people to argue about.
Best newbie post ever.
You're right. It's a lose/lose right now for us. Hopefully we think of something.
Privateer ID - Panzer - 01-28-2008
Voted BA®F:P
For practical reasons-that way regardless who's online, (QCO/QCP), they can do the same missions, shoot the same NPCs and help eachother out with getting the tags.
Privateer ID - chopper - 01-28-2008
' Wrote:Another newbie post, apologies in advance for naivety.
IDs are great, but they are restrictive and therefore limiting to RP. They say who are the good guys and who are the bad. When the RP gets more mature, good and bad are harder to define so the IDs stop being useful and start being an impedement to RP.
They are there to stop RP excesses however as it stands the proposed RP (although in character, logical and interesting) is against server rules.
Something must give, either the RP must change or the rules must be broken. How can admin slap our newbie wrists for going against the card and then allow a whole faction to go against some of the basic premises of the IDs being suggested.
Personally I think the RP should take precedence over the rules but it sure leads to some big questions for people to argue about.
Exactly what i was trying to achieve, but people just keep telling me "ID doesn't allow it!".
It's silly.
There is no way that ID's can support all the RP of all the people who can think of something new.
It will always be a "rule-breaking", but only because there is no ID that fits.
Not because they are buttheads who like to break rules.