Admin Note: Faction right #5

[n00bl3t]

I agree. Maybe you guys could provide us with some kind of explanation?

Edit: Shoot. I just noticed that there were two sentences, the second one consisting of a link. Maybe you guys could compress it into one sentence next time? My attention span aint what it used to be.

Follow the link and read what it says. The action would have to originate from an official faction, and there would have to be appropriate role play documented in game (pictures) and probably some in forum notice as well.

Obviously some people with short attention spans never made it to the second sentence, to read Dieter's edited post. (I'd say that last comment of mine was made with sarcasm and tongue in cheek, but (effectively) Dusty already beat me to it.)

Shoot. An explanation of how this rule made it into the game without a discussion on the subject beforehand would be appropriate. It would be nice too. Like cheese. A clarification in Dieter's post saying that there would have to be appropriate role-play in-game and on the forums would also be nice. Like cheese again. Oh well, must be too busy working on your sarcasm.

Anyway, that was not given. As for "without reason" it referred to the practical application of the rule. An independent player who role-plays as being outside the faction's chain of command could be set to hostile. Goodness knows with the recent "role-play" around here, that would be fun.

All up, the rule was obviously thought about at length, and as such it gives such detailed phrases as "some sort of role-play". I am glad that it did not take a moderator's response to a question to clarify the specifics and the rule was made so well.

---

Anything I say is not intended as offensive, and to try and deliberately misinterpret it as such would be an attempt at trolling via misrepresentation.

It's not a conspiracy, it's localised bias. They're not intelligent enough to form a conspiracy.