' Wrote:No offense to anyone, but those who enjoy the rules as is, are PVP whores.;)

The rules as is work against RP, and strengthen PVP.

Simple solution? remove batts and bots. Problem solved, people can't retreat to rearm, and if they come back fully healed, you know they docked and repaired.

' Wrote:Yeah, a lot of stuff does seem... weird. I personally am for the idea of certain rules (especially retreat, death, not so much) being 'breakable' if RP'd properly. Basically, if situation demands, people can do what they think should work, and as long as no one directly involved (indie caps getting hosed does NOT mean involved in this context, btw...) is really upset about it its fine. If they are, admins (before sanctioning) ask other side for story, and if it seems reasonable, they either A) let them off the hook, or B) lighten the sanction (like %credits as opposed to full credits, weapons, ban). If not, warn them about their interpretation, and apply normal sanction. Might be a little more work, but not too much if sanctions went like this;

1) Player A does something questionable in regards to Player B (like hit and run type thing).
2) Player B files sanction report.
3) Player A receives a notice in hold about possible sanction, and a thread appears in sanctions for them to defend themselves. They have a set time limit (say, 3 days) to post there.
4) If Player A does not respond, sanction goes into place. If they do, thread works sort of like an open-ended appeal discussion, with normal witnesses, filer, and sanctionee trying to come to an agreement.
5) If report is withdrawn or Player A appears to have acted justly (in-RP), then no sanction is applied. Otherwise, Player A is sanctioned as normal after set time period from his/her first response.
6) If Player A receives sanction, discussion may continue as per current appeal process.

Anyone see anything wrong with this?