bhg core feedback (just kidding this is the old core| feedback lol!)

[Major_Mayhem]

I changed a number and adjusted a few small words.

My point exactly. You show lazyness and force us to approve of it. The proper and respectful way to go about it, has been explained in detail already. Outlaw and I have to completely rewrite our answers, as a onetime of 30mils is significantly different from a monthly 50mils. In OSI-terms 30mils one time is peanuts, we would not even throw a fit about that. Maybe a small one. Maybe.

50 mils per month is worth putting up a lot of resistance, that's 600mils per year, so 20times of that "one time payment" you offered. Per year. I've been CEO for nearly 2 years now so it's completely justified to think of monthly payments in that term.

And I said very clearly that you can retconn the Comm, however, only if Outlaw and I agree to it, which is the proper form: To get agreement of all involved parties:

[00:58:55] nitroxo: If you substantially edit the initial com, I'll have you 1.7d, Retconning only with mine and Outlaws agreement

I frankly find your attacks on my proficiency in English starting to get ridiculous as you don't appear to properly understand a simple sentence as above.

[Lythrilux]

I changed a number and adjusted a few small words.

My point exactly. You show lazyness and force us to approve of it. The proper and respectful way to go about it, has been explained in detail already. Outlaw and I have to completely rewrite our answers, as a onetime of 30mils is significantly different from a monthly 50mils. In OSI-terms 30mils one time is peanuts, we would not even throw a fit about that. Maybe a small one. Maybe.

50 mils per month is worth putting up a lot of resistance, that's 600mils per year, so 20times of that "one time payment" you offered. Per year. I've been CEO for nearly 2 years now so it's completely justified to think of monthly payments in that term.

Where on earth are you getting 50 million from? The current starting payments were 15 million.

And I said very clearly that you can retconn the Comm, however, only if Outlaw and I agree to it, which is the proper form: To get agreement of all involved parties:

[00:58:55] nitroxo: If you substantially edit the initial com, I'll have you 1.7d, Retconning only with mine and Outlaws agreement

I frankly find your attacks on my proficiency in English starting to get ridiculous as you don't appear to properly understand a simple sentence as above.

I'm not even going to bother commenting on the ridiculousness of this.

---

[Major_Mayhem]

Where on earth are you getting 50 million from? The current starting payments were 15 million.

Indeed, as I quoted:

however, between, during or after your edit in the discussed thread you significantly edited a post linked in that thread namely your Laws of the Core Thread

Changes are visible here. Clearly stating a tax of 50mils per month for a core5 base. I see, that you don't recall that particular change of your rules, and you conveniently forgot to make Star and OSI aware of those changes, despite the huge change they caused to your initial com. As I've said the difference between a one time 30mils and 600mils per year.

[Lythrilux]

Where on earth are you getting 50 million from? The current starting payments were 15 million.

Indeed, as I quoted:

however, between, during or after your edit in the discussed thread you significantly edited a post linked in that thread namely your Laws of the Core Thread

Changes are visible here. Clearly stating a tax of 50mils per month for a core5 base. I see, that you don't recall that particular change of your rules, and you conveniently forgot to make Star and OSI aware of those changes, despite the huge change they caused to your initial com. As I've said the difference between a one time 30mils and 600mils per year.

But I did make you aware of these changes. I told you over skype that I was making changes, and that you shouldn't jump to conclusions over what is set in stone yet. Outlaw is actually completely fine with these changes and complies with the RP - he said he doesn't even need the post to be edited since it still works with the RP. As I have said, I feel like you are seriously overreacting and being extremely salty.

My patience with you is also starting to wear thin. I've given you a suggestion that is a solution, I suggest you go do it.

---

[Major_Mayhem]

My patience with you is also starting to wear thin.

So is mine. So is mine.
Case and point:

It is not okay, to significantly edit a Comm, to which people have answered, without prior consent of all involved parties

If you don't get that, there's no way you can be a valued RP-partner. I told you how you should go about it. And what you've done is breaking one of the most sacred unwritten rules of RP. Thing that have been answered to, are actually set in stone (safe for ironing out orthography or grammar), or subject to complete retconning, with prior consent of all involved parties

[Hadley]

Saying that you only claim loads of systems IRP but people shouldnt worry about it because you dont have the IRP or OORP means to actually control them (intentionally) misses the point.
The problem with it is that in this game, you dont need IRP strength to totally abuse your self-given ID permissions. You can wreak havoc with a single ship, or with 2 or 3 ships, if you only target the most vulnerable and never fight those that can defend themselves.
It doesn't matter that you can't enforce your laws in all systems at all times. What it looks like is that you never intended to enforce any laws anyway, but that they are just an excuse to give yourself a can-do-all terrorist ID in a huge amount of systems.

---

User was banned for: Karlotta alt
Time left: (Permanent)

[Lythrilux]

Case and point:

It is not okay, to significantly edit a Comm, to which people have answered, without prior consent of all involved parties

If you don't get that, there's no way you can be a valued RP-partner. I told you how you should go about it. And what you've done is breaking one of the most sacred unwritten rules of RP. Thing that have been answered to, are actually set in stone (safe for ironing out orthography or grammar), or subject to complete retconning, with prior consent of all involved parties

I told you that I was going to delete it. You said you'd get upset. I told you I was going to edit it slightly. I made a small edit and you've come in here throwing a tantrum and acting all upset whereas Outlaw is pretty chill about it.

In fact, would you like a form to rate your roleplay experience? I'm worried that you might be so over-flustered about this that I might need to gauge your state.
Yeah, that signifies my patience being gone I'd say.

---

[Lythrilux]

Saying that you only claim loads of systems IRP but people shouldnt worry about it because you dont have the IRP or OORP means to actually control them (intentionally) misses the point.
The problem with it is that in this game, you dont need IRP strength to totally abuse your self-given ID permissions. You can wreak havoc with a single ship, or with 2 or 3 ships, if you only target the most vulnerable and never fight those that can defend themselves.

With that argument, you could criticize the existence of all house laws. That's such a overly-specific and extreme nitpick. Heck, even all ID lines and that "they can be abused so they should not be allowed". Of course, I won't say that 'abuse' isn't possible, however player etiquette is what gets in the way of that.
What you describe is called PvP anyway. It's a feature of the mod.

It doesn't matter that you can't enforce your laws in all systems at all times. What it looks like is that you never intended to enforce any laws anyway, but that they are just an excuse to give yourself a can-do-all terrorist ID in a huge amount of systems.

My points from above still tie into this. It's not really a terrorist ID, Core just already has a lot of enemies and doesn't often make friends. Zoners aren't really considered much except customers or people having something that may be of use. You also don't seem to understand my intentions at all. Why would I be interested in turning an area of sirius that is already heavily exclusively on pews, into even more of a pew fest? The aim of this change is to encourage more dynamic RP into both regions. Ignoring the people pointlessly QQing and looking at things purely from an ooRP viewpoint, I'm actually already getting some good responses from various people and factions. Some cool plans are already underway.

---

[Knight Industries]

So you guys can put in Knight feedback thread about an OORP Forum Thread Core had no clue about. Let's take a little discussion about this.

You have just offered Kruger

3 x AP-18100 "Manta" APM Very Heavy Fighter
3 x AP-12400 "Moray" APM Bomber
2 x AP-200039 "Bottlenose" APM Gunship
2 x AP-385000 "Orca" APM Gunboat


This for price: 33,003,165 credits


Now Knight Industries ordered and asked for less and was charger Triple nearlly Quadriple that price.

You wanted 140 million from us and then put it too 100 million. Kruger are a TRADE FACTION for startes Knight are not.

I think you need to put your hate some where else and not inrp there Core. Good job in killing the server.

But Knight do not need APM Ships we have our contract and we have a different Label.

Just thought id put this out there for the people wanting APM Ships

This is the link for the Kruger and Core ship purchase
http://discoverygc.com/forums/showthread...pid1640056

This is the Knight Industries one
http://discoverygc.com/forums/showthread.php?tid=125879


Put your thoughts and feedback where it should be about these OP and greedy pilots.

[Lythrilux]

I told you guys that I could discuss it with you and go lower. You told me that you didn't want to talk to me anymore, so you went off and did it with a group that doesn't actually have access to the ships.
Kruger on the other hand, I talked with GG over skype and we looked at trying to make the best possible deal.

So next time, I suggest keeping on the line for longer rather than cutting off early before any deal is finalized. I'm also sorry for listening to your feedback earlier.

---