Liberty Navy [LN] Feedback Thread

[DarthBindo]

Two very seperate things were said. You have combined them into one thing. This is interesting.

1. It all depends on context.

2. Were you sporting a pirate ID?

They were not intended to be read as one. The second was asked by way of curiosity, more than anything else.

As for the issue of you getting blown up in your transport after apparently complying with the demand given to you in game. Perhaps you could argue that despite that you were still very much in breach of liberty law considering you were, regardless of complying with the demand, still flying an outlawed vessel.

So, two seperate issues:

1. You had contraband.
This was dealt with by Polstari.

2. You were in breach of another of Liberty's laws. The one regarding your choice of ship.
This was dealt with by [LN]-LNS-Harris, admittedly in a rather harsh manner.

I assumed of course that the context you were inferring was possession of a pirate ID. Otherwise, the assumed context would be simply being an empty transport, and that would, I think, pose an interesting and very dangerous precedent.
As for the two issues being seperate, that's not quite the case, as Polstari adderessed all three of the laws I was currently in violation of in his multi-part demand (which, I might add, was an impossible demand (that I obtain a different ship at Fort Bush), but that's more out of oversight than malice and was in the process of being rectified by Polstari when Harris commanded my destruction.
But all that is besides the heart of the matter, which, I believe, boils down to this:
Does 6.6 apply to an empty transport that could (emphasis on could) be engaged in activities other than trading?
In my personal opinion, yes, it does, as if we look at any other situation along similiar lines, A Lane hacker cannot come in alongside Newark and blow up a Interspace transport, empty or not, that is simply sitting there; A BAF ship destroying an empty gallic ship sitting somewhere or in transit; so on and so forth.
And then of course we get into whether or not the act of simply moving a ship (since 6.6 is not clear about whether or not it applies to transports specifically, as McNeo quite kindly pointed out), irregardless of it's cargo, from point A to point B qualifies one as a trade vessel, in which case a fighter would also qualify for protection under this rule if it was transporting say nomad artefacts.
Seeing as we have now descended into the quite silly (a fighter qualifying as a trade vessel), my personal belief is that it applies to all transports not obviously engaged in other activites such as piracy.
Of course, you're personal opinion as an Admin hold more water, but it is a very interesting question.
P.S mining has been clearly defined again and again as not qualifying as transportation, and therefore mining cannot be done after being blown up in a system.
Since you claim that simply being a transport does not qualify one as protected under 6.6, oes this mean that miners are not protected by 6.6 as well?
P.S.S I hope you're not taking this maliciously, I'm simply quite interested in the exact specifics of how interactions like this work out, and am very interested in what a changed (at least changed from what I think of it as) interpretation of 6.6 would allow me to do, and of course in helping you ensure that a more maliciously minded individual who files sanctions could not do nasty things were you to continue in a flawed interpretretation of afore-mentioned rule.

---

gone four years, first day back: Zoners still getting shot in Theta :|