(01-14-2016, 12:54 AM)FluffReborn Wrote: This whole thread became as confusing as the incident, because roleplay demands haven't been taken away.
I came to conclusion, again, had the offenders inform that roleplay demand is valiable - we wouldn't be here, blaming each other. Mistakes were present on both sides and things were explained.
This is the most sensible post in this thread.
IMO - The demand in the thread in question essentially boils down to "Lower your shields and allow us to shoot off your turrets". Much grief could have potentially been avoided if the demand had been stated as simply as this.
(01-14-2016, 12:54 AM)FluffReborn Wrote: This whole thread became as confusing as the incident, because roleplay demands haven't been taken away.
I came to conclusion, again, had the offenders inform that roleplay demand is valiable - we wouldn't be here, blaming each other. Mistakes were present on both sides and things were explained.
This is the most sensible post in this thread.
Yeah. And all this, because one side did not reply to PMs questioning their demand, making the other side believe they have encountered trolls and filling reports right after the encounter - that's the whole story.
(01-14-2016, 12:32 AM)Jack_Henderson Wrote: Have you even realized that the Admins edited their statement and pretty much all discussion in here is... kind of moot by now?
As far as I can tell the sanction still stands and we have an official statement from an admin that a pirate damaging a ship as part of a demand is not allowed. I'm not okay with that, so I don't think this discussion is moot.
Tunicle Wrote:Basically inRP demands are fine but demands that inRP would likely destroy the ship are not. Shooting bits off are utilising the game mechanic, shoot something off in space and you are realistically going to kill the pilot.
Shooting off equipment does not kill or harm the pilot. Pilots get shot at and survive much worse all the time. This is also ignoring the fact that shooting off equipment can be a harmless gameplay device to RP dismounting and stealing it.
(01-14-2016, 01:02 AM)Redon Wrote: This is also ignoring the fact that shooting off equipment can be a harmless gameplay device to RP dismounting and stealing it.
This I agree, after all the explanation given in other thread in which I asked about roleplay demands. But, I must repeat again - if only PMs showing concern about demand were replied, we wouldn't be here. Lack of knowledge and communication are main reasons behind whole incident and sanctions.
Sure, things got edited, so let's continue with discussing the "new broken rules". Right now I've found the following in the sanction first post:
Quote:1.2 Trolling or harassing other members of the community
1.7 Metagaming* and/or powergaming** to gain a roleplay benefit for factions, groups or individuals
3.1 An attack is any hostile action that drains shields to less than 50%. Saying "Engaging" is not sufficient and aggressors are not allowed to destroy a ship before allowing sufficient time to respond.
1.2 is as vague as possible, can be pulled on anything following a not necessarily objective judgement, nothing special here.
When did 1.7 appear and what part of the encounter is it related to? It's not really clear to me what in that piracy is considered metagaming or powergaming.
This part of 3.1 does not seem to be broken during the encounter, plenty of roleplay happened during the piracy, both ways according to the footage presented by Spazzy, so apparently sufficient time were allowed for response and shields weren't drained, they were dropped by the victim himself.
Stuff below "Consequences" did not change, doesn't seem to be related to the freshly quoted rules anymore, so what now?
Also, for the sake of it, I rewatched Spazzy's vid and I still don't know what's hard to understand in "Yes, I want his guns. | So I am going to take them off his ship. | If he holds still, I might not even damage his hull."
Quote:*EDIT: wording around damage changed to join up the posts and make the implicit logic obvious by extending the sentence.
Basically inRP demands are fine but demands that inRP would likely destroy the ship are not. Shooting bits off are utilising the game mechanic, shoot something off in space and you are realistically going to kill the pilot.
@Tunicle , I honestly sat for a few minutes trying to explain just how stupid that sounded, but here is a picture instead.
Are you really going to try to apply a rule regarding physical ingame interaction to an IRP situation?
I really doubt that the appendix to the last post in that thread was made by the administrator team rather than an individual, because if someone had proposed that they would be shot down for how stupid it sounds.
In a game where IRP, every ship is equipped with an escape pod. Where trying to RP a character's death is in by itself against the server rules due to the line about powergaming. If your current ruleset forbids players to actually kill characters IRP, you are NOT going to use that excuse to sanction me.
You know what else does not kill a pilot? A nukemine to the face. If that is the case, I really doubt that shooting off an external component of a ship will cause the person inside to decide to implode. Especially when we seem to be quite fine flying in a ship which would fall apart if you looked at it funny.
It looks like the community thinks you are being in the wrong here.
--------------
PSA: If you have been having stutter/FPS lag on Disco where it does not run as smoothly as other games, please look at the fix here: https://discoverygc.com/forums/showthrea...pid2306502
----------
Let's say the team allowed this. How long before people start demanding say a Cloak Disruptor be shot off their ship? Do you think it would be fair to lose a multimillion piece of equipment like that? Because it is this ruling that would be the premise for something like that.
If the team were to allow what you are trying to do it opens the door to further things based on the premise of the actions of your group and that is not a slope you want to drag everyone down. Well maybe it is but it's not happening.
Any chance the @admins could make the rules on pirate demands a bit more detailed, since apparently they are not clear enough and it is unlikely that every single player that plays a pirate will read this thread.
Signatures may not be bigger than 700x250, 1MB. ~Skorak
(01-14-2016, 08:13 AM)|nfrared Wrote: Let's say the team allowed this. How long before people start demanding say a Cloak Disruptor be shot off their ship? Do you think it would be fair to lose a multimillion piece of equipment like that?
Nobody suggested such a thing. A cloak disruptor is worth over a hundred million credits, some transport turrets are not. Demanding to shoot one off would not happen or be tolerated for the same reason that it's not ok to demand 100 million credits from a passing trader.