Abuse of Power Complaint to Admins Via Bretonian War Cabinet/BAF

[Redon]

Bretonia became the enemy the moment they wanted to remove the base. I'm not saying -don't- eliminate the base, if it's a threat to national security, by all means, try and kill it as you're supposed to, with a fleet.

The game-mechanics differ greatly from how this whole situation would play out in the roleplay universe. For exactly this reason I object to all comparisons with factories, other real-life examples, or player ships. A player transport is extremely easy to destroy. A playerbase is not.
Try to look at this story free from the mechanics of the game. Imagine how the situation would play out, were it written in a sci-fi book.

Do you think a single isolated station would have the resources to withstand the force of the entire BAF?
What happened to Bonn?
Do you think the Bounty Hunters Guild would let a base owner run wild in Manchester, who jeopardizes their entire business within Bretonia, or even help him defend it?
If he claims not to be affiliated with the BHG, do you think the 'independent business-man' Luke Walker would have the resources to block the entire Manchester system?
Had the station really been administered by a single man with a priavte army and the ambitions to let things turn out this way, do you think the Bretonian government would not have seen this coming, considered the situation as a possible outcome and taken appropriate measures, such as ways to take out the installation from within?
Do you think they would allow a station with the potential to shut down the entire trade traffic between Bretonia and Liberty to be constructed, even fortified with such firepower, without placing informants, agents, or any of their own forces on the inside?

This is a huge contrast to the reality that the gameplay mechanics of the server do not allow a properly maintained core 4 base to be destroyed by any means available to players once its owner decides to go on collision course. Even the whole Bretonian playerbase would not be able to take it out. Eventually, the admins would have to intervene, and remove it. Perhaps they wouldn't.

And then I hear the complaints, suggesting that the way things happened instead was stupid, illogical, and ooRP. Complaints suggesting that the BPA quickly demolishing the base from within after it was declared a threat to the security and flow of trade was more of an implausible outcome than letting the gameplay mechanics of PoBs take their course, claiming that letting the BAF player base try their luck against a core 4 base sounds reasonable. That's ridiculous.

That players lost their work invested in the base is regrettable, I can imagine it is annoying, but it seems it was explained earlier in this thread that this didn't come out of nowhere. I think that if you place a base with countless platforms on the biggest trade route of a house, then start to haggle over tolling passage and simultaneously shoot down lawful ships, you had it coming. I prefer this outcome over the alternative.

And no, a core 4 base is not indestructible, and if bretonia lacks the manpower to destroy it, that's their problem, that doesn't give them the right to use the guy's password in that way.

Yes, a core 4 base is absolutely impossible to destroy by force. If you come up with a way to destroy an actively maintained core 4 base, you're dreaming. The server does not withstand 40-50 battleships participating on a siege. The only core 4 bases that are destroyed are those neglected by their owners, running out of supplies or fuel.

---

I'm not sure I can follow the accusations blaming Summer for 'abuse of power'. You can tell from his posts that he's not entirely comfortable with the way this was handled. Claims stating he does not care about other players' enjoyment and just wants things to go his way sound very far-fetched to me, and only serve to provoke each side a little more.

I see the decision made by the Bret war cabinet as a choice between the lesser of two evils. You may complain about lacking RP in their solution, and they may just be aware of that, but you should not forget that would they warn you first, they don't know how you react. If they tell you: "Hey, if you don't stop stepping out of line and ignoring our agreement, we'll blow it up" - there's a very real chance they would simply have their rights for the base and power to destroy it revoked by you the next day, and instead face an indestructible, hostile core 4 base that ruins trade runs for many along an important route. This has all happened to a lesser extent before, it's nothing new, and i think it would be naive to give you the benefit of the doubt.

It's the same reason they do not and should not give unregistered bases deadlines anymore. They might do that if they still had the power they need destroy it as the BAF should have to in roleplay, but deadlines often end up being (ab)used by base owners as preparation time to gear up against the inevitable siege - and at that point, the base will already be far too strong for them to destroy it. The sooner you get rid of it, the better. The game-mechanics work in favor of the base owner, the lawfuls can only adapt.

The same applies to your case. They can't comfortably roleplay the angry government giving out warnings if they know they won't retain the powers they should reasonably have, in roleplay. It only takes a line in the chat from your side and they're powerless. Perhaps you'll still play nice, or perhaps you'll decide to shut them out, and abuse the position of your base to block or tax the route for everyone. You know, but how should they? It's better to be safe.

---

In the end, it will be up to the admins how to deal with this situation. Usually, they do not seem to intervene at all in playerbase-related conflicts, unless bugs or hacks come into play. This was not the case here. Personally, I would only support you getting your base back if you're willing to play along within reasonable boundaries, and guarantee things like I described above will not happen.

If your reaction instead limits to demands that the admins should restore your base and sanction those who decided to destroy it, you show what one could see as precisely the behavior they were afraid of, and the will to use rules and game mechanics to your benefit. In that case I think we are better off with your base staying the way it is - gone.

Lastly, as a little additional input - I find it strange that the players who want their base restored here are complaining about lack of roleplay from the BPA/BAF side, but at the same time I hear no mention of the potential roleplay this allows for on the side of the base owners. Your base was not erased by an admin. It was destroyed by the Bretonian government. If your character feels like their rights were violated, why not protest? I hear no Mollys asking admins to sanction the Bretonian government for taking their gold.