4.2 Demands should be reasonable and only one monetary or cargo demand can be issued during each piracy interaction. Telling the Trader to halt/stop is not a demand, however, if the Trader chooses to ignore the request, then they can be shot down without the need for any further demands. Upon compliance with the demand, the demanding party must not interfere any further during the same interaction, unless provoked.
If one can shoot the ship down for not obeying a halt command anyway, it makes little sense to first declare it to not be a valid demand.
It can already be issued with another demand afterward, because it's not a monetary or cargo demand.
If someone just tells the ship to stand still for a long time without other demands, it is an easily recognizable unreasonable demand.
So fwhy is it necessary to put the underlined part in the rule?
Yes, and even though its now more openly worded, pretty sure it was always so that anyone who bids another ship to stop can destroy said ship without any further demand, or perhaps without even having a reason to engage in the first place. Even Freelancers can bounty hunt for people or cargos, and can order ships halt, and technically shoot down any ship that runs regardless of whether they have right to demand cargo or engage at all.
I think it's not be considered a "demand" to give a halt order, in the same way a demand for cargo, or credits is, so you arent technically forced to give double demands by ordering a halt, then ordering cargo or credits. Traders could claim they fulfilled the one demand available to the pirate by just stopping.
Its true though it could be abused a bit as anyone who can bounty hunt at all with a CD can order ships to halt and shoot them down if they run without ever getting to deal with a bounty or piracy demand. Maybe it should also state that you must your ID must allow you to engage in the first place to give a halt order, but its probably not a big deal, they can resort precedent by sanction if people started abusing it.
(01-27-2020, 12:20 AM)Binski Wrote: Yes, and even though its now more openly worded, pretty sure it was always so that anyone who bids another ship to stop can destroy said ship without any further demand, or perhaps without even having a reason to engage in the first place. Even Freelancers can bounty hunt for people or cargos, and can order ships halt, and technically shoot down any ship that runs regardless of whether they have right to demand cargo or engage at all.
It's been handled like that ever since the line "Shouting "Halt!" is not sufficient" was removed. Or am I mistaken?
Quote:I think it's not be considered a "demand" to give a halt order, in the same way a demand for cargo, or credits is, so you arent technically forced to give double demands by ordering a halt, then ordering cargo or credits. Traders could claim they fulfilled the one demand available to the pirate by just stopping.
But asking someone to stop IS a demand, and the rule says that only cargo or monetary demands may be issued only once, not other demands.
If the last sentence in the rule really has made traders say "you cant shoot me or demand more things after I halted", it's shorter to change it to:
4.2 Demands should be reasonable and only one monetary or cargo demand can be issued during each piracy interaction. Upon compliance with other demands than "stop", the demanding party must not interfere any further during the same interaction, unless provoked.
Maybe Saronsen can use his big brain to tell the people who thought it was fine the way it was why it isn't.
Best would of course be if it was explained in the announcement.
The problem is that the rule doesn't match with any ID with regard to transports. All IDs require a money or cargo demand before attacking but the rule allows attacking prior to the issuance of any demand by saying "stop" isn't a demand. It's inconsistent. Either the Rule needs to match the IDs or the IDs need to match the rule.
From the Molly ID:
- Can attack any ships within their Zone of Influence, except transports
- Can demand cargo and credits from any ship within their Zone of Influence, and attack them if they do not comply
- Can attack BMM ships anywhere
From Outcast ID:
- Can attack any ships within their Zone of Influence, except transports
- Can demand cargo and credits from any ship within their Zone of Influence, and attack them if they do not comply
- Can treat ships carrying Artifacts or Stabiline as combat targets
Yeah, there seems to be more than that one problem with IDs, such as ID lines not only contradicting rules, but also contradicting each other, unless the first line says "except transports under conditions other than below". The assumption of someone reading an ID would be that all lines apply all the time, not that they invalidate each other (especially when its not stated that they do).
If you took them literally as they are written (they apply unless exceptions are explicitly mentioned as exceptions) you could pirate a fellow outcast for cardamine, but not touch a transport carrying artifacts through Omicron Alpha, because the "except transports" line doesn't say there are exceptions to it or that other lines over ride it.
In anticipation of big brain replies to this, yeah I know what it's meant to say, but it doesn't really say what it's meant to say.
Maybe a better way of dealing with this would be to have an ID line like "Can engage in piracy/policing of factions ABC and/or commodities XYZ", and have the rules say how piracy/policing is supposed to work.
Anyway this thread is about the rule, I really don't wanna touch the mess that is IDs atm.
![[Image: KhTQy6x.gif]](https://i.imgur.com/KhTQy6x.gif)
![[Image: G38aJ6J.jpg]](https://i.imgur.com/G38aJ6J.jpg)
