Is that legal?

[Kharon]

you didn't catch my point, i was talking about general mining places, is obvious that in case of the DAumann O7-11 is clearly a problem, he said that miners are unprotected, and no one does nothing to change that when in truth, he can do that, hire mercenaries...

No, its a general problem because it is not clarified!

When does an only verbal piracyattempt already count as "successful pvp-engagement" equal to dropping a shield over 50%, nomatter he had no chance touching me?
From 15k away? From 4? From2?

Why isnt that clearly decribed in rules?

Can a Pirate just jump into Omega7 from Omega11 and demand from anyone in "range" to either stop and await his mercy or run/dock and be countet out 4h?

Can a House Force act alike with Pirates the other way around so it counts as pvp-death? And if not why only with Miners?

Does a Hegemon count as pure Transport again as soon as he is out of a miningfield/area/sector? (Cause it is then used purely as Transport realy, not?)

Does a Transport in general count as "mining" aka pvp-dead on an only verbal piracyattempt he escapes, when he is in a miningfield used as cargo for snubminers?

Can i "suddenly" "flee successful" again when a/my Guard challenges the Pirate that did an "successful" only verbal piracyattempt on me, or do i have to await who wins? Oh and if i can "suddenly magicaly" flee again, nomatter i could in real also befor that easily, doesnt this dogmatics just look oddly like one Mountain of BS?

This IMHO "absurd rule layout" will only complicates everything while it was pretty clear and easy with the simple 50% shield drain.

---

[Ayatolah]

mmmm interesting point, i'll give a thought, anyway, i'm a pirate and i never take cout of a flee for verbalpiracy.... i don't know... tes, a bit absurd

---

[Vladimir]

The system here is not precedental. Actually, sanctioning for running from "battle" with battle "starting" the moment demand was made is against the rules. Well, i guess either rules are wrong and say something admins don't exactly do, or admins are people too and can make mistake. My point is, we need clear answers from admins on all cases like that, following by editing the rules if answers go the way rules don't work right now. And stop saying "common sense". Rules are here for a reason.

And most of all, we need a clear definition of engagement. The system in which only veteran players reading 234342343 sanctions in their life have an idea how it ACTUALLY works is bad system.

---

[Kharon]

IMHO this "demand" does count as much in pvp as when i verbaly i blow you a kiss.

Question: Can someone solve/clear up the impression of Paradox in:

#1 (SR 5.2) All attacks must be the result* of some form of role play.
#2 (SR ?.?) An communicated Pirate demand counts as successful attack (equal 50% shields drawn).

?...

Next question: Are pirate demands without proper "RP-forplay**" a violation of 5.2 then?

(*A result is the final consequence of (**a sequence of actions or events) expressed qualitatively or quantitatively.)

---

[Knjaz]

1.4 Administrators have a right (in addition to stated in 1.2):

- To close server for maintainance with or without prior warning;
- To interfere in server events and wars in cases of server rules violations;
- To approve or disapprove system claims of factions;
- To make final decisions about terms of wars (taking into account opinions of all sides of conflict);
- To give out certain administrator privileges to other people.

--There's nothing about administrators being able to think up and add new rules, or change current rules "on the fly".

5.2 All attacks must be the result of some form of role play. "Engaging" is not sufficient. An attack is any hostile action that drains shields to less than 50%. Being hit with a CD is not considered an attack. If a player is attacked he has a right to defend himself regardless of who is attacking.

There's the only definition of what an attack is, and also what is required before the attack.

5.6 Fleeing from combat and then docking at a station or planet while you are in range of the ship you were fighting counts as PVP death.
6.6 Aggressors are not allowed to destroy a trade vessel prior to issuing a demand and allowing sufficient time to respond. Demands may be cargo, credits or an RP demand, such as leaving the system. "Halt" is not a demand.

I couldn't find any other points, in the rules, that would affect the situation described.
Once again, there's nothing said about any form of communication putting you into combat. The communication is a prerequisite to open fire, nothing else. Pirate demand, as a separate form of communication, is a prerequisite to destroy a trader vessel. And there's nothing about someone having the right to change what is written there "on the fly".
Stating that pirate is initiating combat just by issuing his demand contradicts the 5.2, has no connections to 6.6, and is not supported by any other rule. Therefore, it's invalid.

[dodike]

The system here is not precedental. Actually, sanctioning for running from "battle" with battle "starting" the moment demand was made is against the rules. Well, i guess either rules are wrong and say something admins don't exactly do, or admins are people too and can make mistake. My point is, we need clear answers from admins on all cases like that, following by editing the rules if answers go the way rules don't work right now. And stop saying "common sense". Rules are here for a reason.

And most of all, we need a clear definition of engagement. The system in which only veteran players reading 234342343 sanctions in their life have an idea how it ACTUALLY works is bad system.

Only "admins sense" apply and even that one can vary from admin to admin hence they are people too.

I would like to point to the Reavers case that shows that not even admins really understand the rules.

[Kharon]

5.6 ".[...]Fleeing from combat and then docking.[...]"

(combat (French for fight))

SR 5.2 ".[...]An attack is any hostile action that drains shields to less than 50%.[...]."

I was just pointing out that the definition of "communicating a demand" as "established attack/fight" is an contradiction because its then two things in one..the actual attack and the demanded RP befor.

If that would be right "5.2 All attacks must be the result of some form of role play" can not fit because you cannot make one single act out of two when this one act then becomes its own cause and its own consequence, as demanded in 5.2, same time.

Else Pirates can declare me pvp-dead from somewhere between 2-15k away*.
(* Thats infact realy what some Pirate Players belive they can, without being even only in range to scratch my shield 1% not to speak of actualy draining any % at all...)

---