Starting with the Taurus sanction as I think it would be longer. There are a number of assumptions/presumptions at work here in the rules that would be better changed to remove ambiguity when the rules come under scrutiny.
For those not aware, the Taurus convoy was intercepted by an individual. CD were fired, RP was made and the individual ended up dead by a member of the convoy who did not type any text.
One of the first presumptions on the server is that those you meet in game are also roleplaying, even if they have not typed. Those who trade are roleplaying traders, those who are tagged as a pirate are pirates. You don't need to type text to understand the role they are playing. This is because their is a lot of visual communication being fed to people for them to understand the situation around them. In other words, roleplaying isn't only text. (Like roleplaying with your guns )
Even in the message you get when you go to Conn it specifically states the removal of the requirement of roleplaying only for that system.
Quote: Connecticut uses a custom set of rules to the rest of the server:
- Roleplay is not required in this system.
- Do not attack other players without prior agreement.
- Be polite and do not taunt or ridicule other players.
- Return a player's dropped loot if they ask you.
It stands to reason that then when you're flying around and not saying anything you are still in-fact roleplaying. When it comes to Rule 2.2 however, this notion is tossed aside in favour of text being the only viable way to roleplay. Based on the need for evidence and the admins being able to look at chat logs, you can understand why. However the rule none the less states roleplay, not text, is required first.
This then presents two problems. First being that you do not require engagement lines to attack someone, which could lead to further problems. Two, the Admins sanctioning people where they reasonably ought not too, because of an assumption not stated in the rules. And this has lead to the sanctioning of a member of a convoy which was intercepted and attacked because he essentially didn't type "Red on scanners, engag al gun".
As far as I can see, the way around this would be to require text roleplaying in the rule and acknowledge that the context of the situation maybe used to dismiss a sanction based on fairness & justice rather than letting the sanctions become a method for players to take punitive action against other players when they fail to be aware that convoys require multiple players present.
Due to a misunderstanding, this part is irrelevant. I'll put it into a spoiler in case anyone was interested in what was said.
As for the researcher ID attacking a dude to defend a planetform IFF. I'll do some highlighting.
2.8 - All IDs can:
Claim rewards for kills within their Zone of Influence on bounty boards.
Attack Nomads and Wild ID ships within their own Zone of Influence.
Attack Nomads and Wild ID ships to defend allied or neutral ships outside their own Zone of Influence.
Attack others to defend allied ships within their own Zone of Influence.
Attack others in self-defence. Defend ships of the same affiliation anywhere except in cruisers or above outside of ZOI.
2.9 - The following definitions apply to all IDs:
"Alien(s)" - AI, Nomad, Vagrant, or Wild ID ships.
"Allies" - Ships of the same non-Generic affiliation or ID; Ships defined as your ID's allies on the in-game faction rep sheet; Ships working under a valid escort contract; or Ships you are currently flying in group with.
Affiliation is not the same as your ID, this is established in rule 2.9.
So what is your affiliation? A quick google throws out this "An affiliation is an official connection to something". Well the best guess would be your IFF in this case.
Your IFF is your publicly stated affiliation with a faction in game. Something everyone can see and know about the ship without needing to scan it.
Furthermore, Planetform isn't a generic affiliation, so for the purposes of if the Researcher ID can engage someone to protect a Planetform ID character who has the same affiliation as themselves. Then, yes. They can as per the rules.
)![[+]](/forums/images/collapse_collapsed.png "[+]")
Spoiler