Rule question for Hawk

[Ursus]

Some clarification for people posting

1) ID is rules. ID does not prohibit it.

2) It has happened before. Typical response is for the target to strip the attacker's hunting privileges in their house space.

3) BHG| clan has a policy against it because they want to get paid by all of the houses.

---

Discovery 24/7 Negotiating Tactics:

[Agmen of Eladesor]

Some clarification for people posting

1) ID is rules. ID does not prohibit it.

2) It has happened before. Typical response is for the target to strip the attacker's hunting privileges in their house space.

3) BHG| clan has a policy against it because they want to get paid by all of the houses.

Pretty much what Ursus said, is why I'm asking, considering how the comment was phrased by Hawk.

There has been official role-play notice made (by me as faction leader) that we of the BHG chose NOT to get involved in house wars, and our members (which means indies) need to follow that. Going after Gallia is perfectly acceptable to us. So I just want clarification that Hawk meant his wording because it's our policy, or (and this is because it was part of a sanction notice) if that's the way they're interpreting the rules now.

See the difference there? I know as part of the sanction that rule 6.9 was applied, I just want to make sure that I'm reading this correctly is all.

---

Oh god... The end of days... Agmen agreed with me.

[Hawk]

I just saw this actually. I'm discussing it with Cannon now and we'll look at this.

---

[Agmen of Eladesor]

I just saw this actually. I'm discussing it with Cannon now and we'll look at this.

Thank you for your reply. I saw your notice in the actual sanction report and will consider my question as answered appropriately.

For those who can't figure my wording out, that means that it's not against the rules for the BHG to shoot a lawful if there is another lawfully placed bounty out there. (AKA if Liberty put out a bounty on Rheinland, similar to the old bounty Bretonia used to have on Kusari shipping) It IS against the RP of the Guild (which means indies as well, since I made a formal notice about this) to do so. Note that Gallic entities are exempt from this RP - so if someone (like the Bretonian government) places a lawful bounty upon a Gallic entity (governmental or corporate) - we'll take it.

---

Oh god... The end of days... Agmen agreed with me.

[Pancakes]

Some clarification for people posting

1) ID is rules. ID does not prohibit it.

2) It has happened before. Typical response is for the target to strip the attacker's hunting privileges in their house space.

3) BHG| clan has a policy against it because they want to get paid by all of the houses.

Pretty much what Ursus said, is why I'm asking, considering how the comment was phrased by Hawk.

There has been official role-play notice made (by me as faction leader) that we of the BHG chose NOT to get involved in house wars, and our members (which means indies) need to follow that. Going after Gallia is perfectly acceptable to us. So I just want clarification that Hawk meant his wording because it's our policy, or (and this is because it was part of a sanction notice) if that's the way they're interpreting the rules now.

See the difference there? I know as part of the sanction that rule 6.9 was applied, I just want to make sure that I'm reading this correctly is all.

I think that the BHG| could enforce 4.7 in a case of BHG indies shooting house lawfuls since it's well against BHG RP to be doing that. BHG is a guild with hierarchy and they managed to get so widely spread and big due to the fact they work with all lawfuls against unlawfuls only. No one would let some merc company that might switch side any day to build station and be highly active within their border, if anyone wish to play the semi-lawful mercenary he's welcome to go ahead and pick the freelancer ID.

---

BLOOD FOR THE BLOOD GOD