NOTICE: Bounty Hunting Line Update

[Seapanda]

All ID's that contained the default bounty hunters line have been updated with clarified wording. Please note that this is only a cosmetic change and will not affect the functionality of the line or the ID's in any way.


Old: Can attack any ship in pursuit of a contract.

New: Can attack any ship that is the target of a contract.


New lines have been applied to the Aegis Initiative, the Bounty Hunters Guild, Unione Corse and Freelancers

For Aegis, BHG & Corse
Can attack other bounty hunting organisations outside of house space targeting the same bounty.

For Freelancers
Can attack all other bounty hunters targeting the same bounty




Apologies for not notifying OF's of this change before it went out. I was saving my work over night and the daily server restart pushed them to live before I had a chance to let OF's know of this.

[LuckyOne]

In spite of you saying it's only a cosmetic change, it donesn't seem that way.

Let's imagine, arguably a bit contrived, situation where a bounty hunter could attack a transport that is not a target of a contract to force for example, a cloaked target to fight him.

I belive the old wording allowed this situation (subject to interpretation, of course) while the new one clearly forbids it.

[Seapanda]

The old wording was not subject to interpretation. It was always meant as "you are allowed to attack a ship for which you were contracted to hunt".

The new wording is meant to remove the said interpretations without affecting how the line was meant to be used.

[Nika]

It seems to me that the new wording is bound to cause confusion, as ot reads like bounty hunters can't, well, hunt factions listed on bounty board but rather need a strictly specific list of targets they can engage. If it changes little to nothing – was it necessary at all and what so significant have occured that prompted the change?

Hunters already primarily fought other combat ships and chanses situation LuckyOne have described will occur are nearly zero. Sounds like waste of space change to me.

P.S. Congratulations on your Green, Panda.

[R.P.Curator]

The old wording could be used to hire bounty hunters as an escort or delivery - since contracts would not specify "hunting".
i.e.: Old: Can attack any ship in pursuit of a contract. >> I hire Bessie Bishop to protect me or deliver RP item to base.

New: Can attack any ship that is the target of a contract. > This one is not subject to interpretation, you can put only a chase contract (follow / spy / monitor/ etc.) or attack if necessary.
You lose escort and courier contracts for BH with the new wording.

[Big Bison Bessie]

Though in seriousness, I am curious as to what may have led to this change. Was there a situation where the ID line was abused or twisted somehow, or a danger of it discovered? Or just future proofing things? It does seemingly create an odd gray area for escort contracts for FL IDs, since the ID has the line

- Can attack any ship to protect Police, Military, or Corporate ships.

but the new change may exclude protection of quasi-lawful ships entirely rule wise, though I guess the 'can attack unlawful combat ships' may cover it. Unless I am hired by a quasi-lawful ID to protect him from FL ID'd attack ships? Though that is a very niche case, and may count them as targets... sorry I am just trying to figure out if there is a loophole this somehow opens up. I hope there isn't one, because I'd hate to get my hands tied by even more red tape. I suppose part of this also places more of an onus on the contract provider, they could offer broad categorization for the contract's targets rather than specific individuals. IE, a courier contract that stipulates that anyone trying to intercept you may be destroyed to protect the cargo, rendering anything crossing your path a potential target as per ID engagement lines.

---

☆The Ballad of Bessie Bishop☆ | ☆Elizabeth Bishop LPI Records☆ | ☆Feedback☆

[EisenSeele]

You can hire an escort to attack any ship that attacks you, which is the whole point of an escort contract

---

FEEDBACK

[R.P.Curator]

I am sure that this is the result of a debate and discussion. Please share some snippets as to the logic behind it, cause for me it seems convoluted and would result in more work for the admins.
Either my logic is flawed, usually is, but now I am curious as to how.
English is not my first language:
- Can attack any ship that is the target of a contract
So, in order for them to attack any ship or a ship that is neutral or friendly with them *Rep sheet, as according to rules 2.3, 2.4*, they need a contract that makes that ship a target. Is my logic flawed?
BH takes an escort contract from E: The Contract is " escort and defend until I reach destination".
Case 1: The "Target" of the contract is E, that hired BH, because the contract stipulates "Escort and Defend E"; therefore BH can attack E - Reverse Uno time!
Case 2: If C, which is neutral Rep with BH but hostile to E, attacks E - according to the new ID & server rules, BH cannot engage C unless E draws up another contract on the spot making C the target of the contract. As per the contract BH can fight C to defend its escort BUT C is not the target of the initial contract. Therefore problem in ID lines vs Server rules 2.3, 2.4.
Previous ID lines were broad and open to interpretation "Can attack any ship in pursuit of a contract." - Escort Contract > Attack any ships that are engaging me - regardless of Rep sheet stance (neutral or friendly).
Contract - Bounty Board, Escort, Delivery, etc. BH had impunity to attack any ship - even lawful ones - if they interfered with the "Contract" - I hire BH to deliver Xeno Relics to Bretonia and CDI stops them for obvious reasons. They have the choice to fulfill contract and fight the lawful ship or abandon contract and cargo.
Please share the discussion behind this change, because there was a vote and a discussion behind this, but the wording or my own logic is/are beating me savagely at this moment.

[Seapanda]

So the reason for this change is pretty innocent in my opinion. A whole lot of misunderstanding of the line.

We've received a player request for an additional line to be added to the bounty hunters (which passed) and is being added to all bounty hunting guilds and organisations. However, while we were discussing how to properly word it so it makes sense and isn't confusing or overengineered, we bumped all over the existing line "in pursuit of a contract".

I'll admit, my own interpretation of this line was completely wrong. I saw that line and I thought to myself "So this means Bounty Hunters can attack any ship that is doing a contract". @EisenSeele thought that it meant "Can attack any ship that is contracted". We were both wrong. The feedback we got on that from several people was that the last time ID's were reworked, this line was just really badly worded, and nobody has really bothered fixing it all this time. So while we were working on the new bounty hunter line, I figured, let's update this one's wording so it's clear as to what it's supposed to be. From this thread's replies I can see that we weren't the only ones misunderstanding what the line actually allowed. Granted, to be fully transparent, since I joined staff I have not seen any reports against bounty hunting players, but this could also be attributed to the other side also not understanding the line clearly and what it doesn't allow.


Now to address the above points (If I miss any, please let me know).

• Bounty Hunting contracts, to me at least, mean you hire Chad to go kill Johnny. Chad can go and hunt down Johnny to the edge of Sirius and beyond if he wants to. This line would allow him to do so (so would the old one, but you get my point).
  
• Escort contracts, again to me, mean that you hire Chad to protect your fragile, Kitkat shaped Camara. The "escort" part of the contract implies already, and allows, the bounty hunter to engage any and every ship that is attacking you.
  

Case 2: If C, which is neutral Rep with BH but hostile to E, attacks E - according to the new ID & server rules, BH cannot engage C unless E draws up another contract on the spot making C the target of the contract.

• Now this I like. This is a really good case, so let's see if any admin is gonna contradict me here . So for this case, theoretically, yes Chad would not be required to help you fight off a target that attacks you and is not the target of the contract. It would be down to his own discretion if he wants to protect his employer or keep it strictly to the contract itself. The employer (let's call him Kai) can absolutely, in his fully panicked state with flames coming out of his cockpit issue out a new contract to Chad even as simple as "If you kill this guy I will pay you double". As far as I am concerned, this would be fully acceptable as a contract,
  

Though in seriousness, I am curious as to what may have led to this change. Was there a situation where the ID line was abused or twisted somehow, or a danger of it discovered? Or just future proofing things? It does seemingly create an odd gray area for escort contracts for FL IDs, since the ID has the line

- Can attack any ship to protect Police, Military, or Corporate ships.

• Like I said earlier, I do believe the change to be pretty innocent, but also futureproof to allow us to do more interesting things with bounty hunters. As for the Freelancer ID line, they are more free to do questionable things, purely because guilds such as Aegis and BHG are by their very definition lawful. It would look a bit strange for a BHG to be hired by an Outcast to terrorise 46th| snubs, but that I'd need to check if it would break the ID rules or not.
  

Unless I am hired by a quasi-lawful ID to protect him from FL ID'd attack ships? Though that is a very niche case, and may count them as targets

• So for this I would say the same thing as to Curator, an Escort contract (I assume the protection you talk about is in this case of an escort) would absolutely allow you to attack anyone that tries to attack/pirate the Kitkat escort from Kai that you are protecting.
  

sorry I am just trying to figure out if there is a loophole this somehow opens up. I hope there isn't one, because I'd hate to get my hands tied by even more red tape.

• There's absolutely no need to apologise for asking questions. If there are any loopholes because of this that we haven't thought of, I'd like to count on you to flag them to us (you can even just DM me somewhere) and we will take this back to the drawing board and figure out how to fix it asap.
  

I suppose part of this also places more of an onus on the contract provider, they could offer broad categorization for the contract's targets rather than specific individuals. IE, a courier contract that stipulates that anyone trying to intercept you may be destroyed to protect the cargo, rendering anything crossing your path a potential target as per ID engagement lines.

• As this would fall under an escort contract, technically yes, you're absolutely right. Anyone that crosses the escort's path could be a potential thread if the engage your escort.
  

I hope this helped explain things a bit better from our perspective and I didn't just confuse people even more.

[R.P.Curator]

Contract - Agreement between "Employer" and "Contractor" for the "Contractor" to perform services in exchange for payment from the "Employer"
Services: Escort, Elimination, Delivery or any combination of these
Target is the entity that is to be:
- Escorted (including but not exclusive to "Employer")
- Delivered (including but not exclusive to "Employer")
- Eliminated (including but not exclusive to "Employer")
Purpose of the contract is:
- Escort
- Delivery
- Elimination
Target is not to be confused with Purpose.

Old: Can attack any ship in pursuit of a contract.
- ID Lines would over write Server Rules 2.3, 2.4 while the BH Player was "in pursuit of a contract."
It is interpretable if you overthink it. Really.
Case:
BH1 - Are you Pursuing a Contract?
BH2 / Freelancer: Yes.
BH1: I can attack you! /1/2/3
"Insert meme here"
OR
BH1: I am pursuing a contract and you are interfering. /1/2/3
This would let the BH get in fights with anyone. Anyone.
IMO: Old was better, with more room to maneuver and create organic encounters with backstab possibilities.

New: Can attack any ship that is the target of a contract.
If I hire BH1 to deliver item X to station Z, the target of the contract is?
The purpose is the delivery.
The target is the item? If so, any ship attacking the BH would not be a target of the contract, instead the BH would have to attack only in self defense (allied or neutral) or against enemy ships.
Or
I hire BH1 to Escort ship X to Station Z.
Target of the Contract is Ship X.
Purpose is escort to station Z.
BH1 can attack the ship its paid to defend, without any interference from anyone else.

You tell me which is more complex.