+- Discovery Gaming Community (https://discoverygc.com/forums)
+-- Forum: Role-Playing (https://discoverygc.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=9)
+--- Forum: Official Player Factions (https://discoverygc.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=60)
+---- Forum: Liberty (https://discoverygc.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=71)
+----- Forum: [LN] (https://discoverygc.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=715)
+----- Thread: Liberty Navy [LN] Feedback Thread (/showthread.php?tid=11128)
Pages:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
Liberty Navy [LN] - DarthBindo - 04-17-2012
' Wrote:This is dependant on context, Mr Pirate Transport.I fail to see how one's ID affects the context.
Were you sporting a pirate ID (factional or otherwise)?
After all, No ID's have the "-allowed to trade" line on them anymore, since every ID is allowed to trade.
By your logic, the Freelancer or LN or RM or LSF Id's are all equally exempt from this rule, since obviously none of them could ever be trading. :crazy:
I'll have to remember that the next time i come across an empty LN id'ed or LPI transport.
Piracy for cash and then I get to blow him up anyways, since clearly he's not a trade vessel.
Fun.
Bonus points: i was flying across the Liberty System, neither sitting on a lane nor engaged in active piracy.
And McNeo, the LN ID specifically states the proper context for dealing with unlawful/ illegal traders as the equivalent of lawful piracy, I.e demanding contraband and levying fines. (piracy here as the rule equilivalent of demanding something from a transport and having the right to destroy it if it doesn't comply, that is, the specific tool for complying with 6.6)
Quote:1. Can demand contraband, levy fines, and destroy ships if they refuse to comply with contraband demands, refuse to cooperate or are affiliated with a house at war with Liberty.
Liberty Navy [LN] - Jihadjoe - 04-17-2012
Two very seperate things were said. You have combined them into one thing. This is interesting.
1. It all depends on context.
2. Were you sporting a pirate ID?
They were not intended to be read as one. The second was asked by way of curiosity, more than anything else.
As for the issue of you getting blown up in your transport after apparently complying with the demand given to you in game. Perhaps you could argue that despite that you were still very much in breach of liberty law considering you were, regardless of complying with the demand, still flying an outlawed vessel.
So, two seperate issues:
1. You had contraband.
This was dealt with by Polstari.
2. You were in breach of another of Liberty's laws. The one regarding your choice of ship.
This was dealt with by [LN]-LNS-Harris, admittedly in a rather harsh manner.
Liberty Navy [LN] - DarthBindo - 04-17-2012
' Wrote:Two very seperate things were said. You have combined them into one thing. This is interesting.I assumed of course that the context you were inferring was possession of a pirate ID. Otherwise, the assumed context would be simply being an empty transport, and that would, I think, pose an interesting and very dangerous precedent.
1. It all depends on context.
2. Were you sporting a pirate ID?
They were not intended to be read as one. The second was asked by way of curiosity, more than anything else.
As for the issue of you getting blown up in your transport after apparently complying with the demand given to you in game. Perhaps you could argue that despite that you were still very much in breach of liberty law considering you were, regardless of complying with the demand, still flying an outlawed vessel.
So, two seperate issues:
1. You had contraband.
This was dealt with by Polstari.
2. You were in breach of another of Liberty's laws. The one regarding your choice of ship.
This was dealt with by [LN]-LNS-Harris, admittedly in a rather harsh manner.
As for the two issues being seperate, that's not quite the case, as Polstari adderessed all three of the laws I was currently in violation of in his multi-part demand (which, I might add, was an impossible demand (that I obtain a different ship at Fort Bush), but that's more out of oversight than malice and was in the process of being rectified by Polstari when Harris commanded my destruction.
But all that is besides the heart of the matter, which, I believe, boils down to this:
Does 6.6 apply to an empty transport that could (emphasis on could) be engaged in activities other than trading?
In my personal opinion, yes, it does, as if we look at any other situation along similiar lines, A Lane hacker cannot come in alongside Newark and blow up a Interspace transport, empty or not, that is simply sitting there; A BAF ship destroying an empty gallic ship sitting somewhere or in transit; so on and so forth.
And then of course we get into whether or not the act of simply moving a ship (since 6.6 is not clear about whether or not it applies to transports specifically, as McNeo quite kindly pointed out), irregardless of it's cargo, from point A to point B qualifies one as a trade vessel, in which case a fighter would also qualify for protection under this rule if it was transporting say nomad artefacts.
Seeing as we have now descended into the quite silly (a fighter qualifying as a trade vessel), my personal belief is that it applies to all transports not obviously engaged in other activites such as piracy.
Of course, you're personal opinion as an Admin hold more water, but it is a very interesting question.
P.S mining has been clearly defined again and again as not qualifying as transportation, and therefore mining cannot be done after being blown up in a system.
Since you claim that simply being a transport does not qualify one as protected under 6.6, oes this mean that miners are not protected by 6.6 as well?
P.S.S I hope you're not taking this maliciously, I'm simply quite interested in the exact specifics of how interactions like this work out, and am very interested in what a changed (at least changed from what I think of it as) interpretation of 6.6 would allow me to do, and of course in helping you ensure that a more maliciously minded individual who files sanctions could not do nasty things were you to continue in a flawed interpretretation of afore-mentioned rule.
Liberty Navy [LN] - Switchback - 04-27-2012
So a random Gold wing ship engages without the slightest amount of RP?
Seeing how no LN gold member ever gets sanctioned, I think I will just post here.
Edit: If anyone wants to see pictures of it, PM me.
Liberty Navy [LN] - Charos - 04-27-2012
I'd like to see those pictures. On second thought I don't, that person entered a fight that was LNS vs [HF] and you decided to fly above me and minespam = Engagement notice vs LN and HF.
~One of those that was in that fight.
Liberty Navy [LN] - your-remorse - 04-27-2012
I would like a picture as well...
But not of the fight, if you know what I mean? ;)
Liberty Navy [LN] - Switchback - 04-27-2012
' Wrote:I'd like to see those pictures. On second thought I don't, that person entered a fight that was LNS vs [HF] and you decided to fly above me and minespam = Engagement notice vs LN and HF.
~One of those that was in that fight.
Yea, Ofc the LN would obviously decide to just start shooting without even saying a simple "Now kill the Raider".
Seems pretty legit. Especially when the HF gunboat was not even DEAD when he engaged me with no "hey im shooting you now" at all.
Liberty Navy [LN] - Gold Wing - 04-27-2012
We in gold wing are amused by your accusations of rule breaches. Highly amused infact. A hostile ship flying into an already ongoing combat situation in new york, involving multiple outcast caps, HF, yourself, Lane Hackers and criminals of all shapes and colors has the audacity to expect not to get shot.
We really are amused. We are also highly amused by the following.
![[Image: 28929058.png]](http://img109.imageshack.us/img109/7232/28929058.png)
We in gold wing believe that those in glass houses should not throw stones. We also believe that your irrational hatred of the man generally known as Fran, may have impaired your judgement on this issue, and may well be a large factor in your current rage filled state.
We in gold wing wish you a pleasent evening. Goodnight.
We really are amused. We are also highly amused by the following.
We in gold wing believe that those in glass houses should not throw stones. We also believe that your irrational hatred of the man generally known as Fran, may have impaired your judgement on this issue, and may well be a large factor in your current rage filled state.
We in gold wing wish you a pleasent evening. Goodnight.
Liberty Navy [LN] - Switchback - 04-27-2012
I don't give a flying frack about the bluemsg. Ok, so I died.
What I find really stupid and overly irrational Joe is that I get nada in the form of "ok, lets shoot the raider" or anything. Not a peep.
Liberty Navy [LN] - Jihadjoe - 04-27-2012
And none of that changes the fact that you have literally nothing to complain about, considering you flew into a fight as an unlawful, in which several lawfuls were already dealing with a whole host of unlawfuls.
Regardless of whether you're upset by the issue, it doesn't change the fact that the actions of the gold wing pilot were within the rules (the fight had been ongoing for some time, and there is no requirement to individually address each combatant as they enter the fight).
Furthermore, it does not change the fact you repeatedly and deliberately went out of roleplay in order to complain at people. First Fran (seemingly mixing RP with your OORP dislike of him), and then to complain about something which was not required.
I would also ask why you felt the need to join an Outcast cap raid on manhattan with your VR, something which is not widely regarded as stellar roleplay, however I dont believe this thread is the place for it.