Discovery Gaming Community

A recent sanction reminded me of a topic I've wanted to speak on for some time.
As you're probably aware, most unlawful IDs have the line "cannot ally with lawfuls [occasional exceptions]" and most lawful IDs have "cannot ally with lawfuls [possible exceptions]". Now allying isn't clearly defined anywhere, but joining a group has been considered such on many occasions.

I've grouped up many times with unlawfuls as ALG, mostly Bundschuh, for various cyber reasons, and I really wonder what the purpose of this rule is.
Lawfuls already have the "Cannot participate in unlawful actions except as described above", which prohibits any sort of awkward lawful+unlawful piracy situation.

There are many cases in which lawful IDs have good relations with unlawfuls that aren't covered by a specific exception and vice versa. To me these ID lines seem like a completely unnecessary restriction that punish gameplay actions (grouping) based on a legitimate inrp reason for no apparent reason.

Why does this rule exist? Why should it?

Edit: An additional point, there used to be a line in the ID rules about how players must follow the diplomacy of their IDs. This was a good way of preventing stupid oorp alliances, and I don't know why it's gone.

The "Cannot ally with" lines do nothing except hinder roleplay and encourage players to find rule loopholes. In this particular case, the loophole is just to not group up with anything but your own ID. Then you're safe, and can still ally with literally everyone you want, except nobody will ever be able to sanction you.

How anyone can legitimately defend this particular line on any ID is beyond me.

I was told to stop being non-constructive so here I am.

I don't understand the whole deal with this line either, it does restrict a large amount of roleplay. It does, however, prevent absolutely non-logical allies such as RNS and LNS ships teaming up to fight Corsairs or something.

But no one will be foolish enough to do that. Here's hoping.

Those lines need to be refined/a universal exception for enemies to ally against a more hated enemy, such as Hellfire Legion and Liberty Navy fighting Gallic Royal Navy, or Exiles and KNF fighting Outcasts or something.

tl:dont understand Inferno:
revise the line to allow enemies to ally to fight more hated enemies, but then after that they can go shoot each other.

(06-12-2017, 02:27 PM)Inferno Wrote: [ -> ]I was told to stop being non-constructive so here I am.

I don't understand the whole deal with this line either, it does restrict a large amount of roleplay. It does, however, prevent absolutely non-logical allies such as RNS and LNS ships teaming up to fight Corsairs or something.

No it doesn't, those are both lawful IDs. There are countless examples of obviously oorp alliances that it doesn't prevent, just as many inrp alliances as it does.

I've never understood why grouping (theoretically an OORP action) was considered allying (an inRP action).

"Cannot ally with" line is fine as is. We know that becouse we only have sanctions like this once or twice a year (and that is when line on ID is not corect). Fix ID that need fixing and no more problems.
On other hand, we have incredible amount of 1.1, 1.2 and 3.1 sanctions, we need cure for that.

I once got warned in PM about this. Reason for it I was an OC ID cruiser that grouped with BAF players in Leeds. But some BAF player added a Crayterian snub to the group (which is not in any way contradicting BAF ID/Crayter ID rules) but at the same time made the group "incompatible" in terms of rules since Crayterians and Outcasts can't ally per ID. So I had to leave the group to not get sanctioned even though the group was 90% BAF and just a single Crayterian guy who someone decided to add.

On the other hand I've semi-allied by agreeing to shoot them last with Crayterians as OC simply by asking them if they agree to this in local chat before we engaged the overwhelming Gallic force. Of course we didn't have group chat advantage but it was still in essence us versus them. I personally don't see how the group thing contributes in any way as there is no rule dictating who you're supposed to shoot first and if one gets implemented I doubt it'll bring anything good to the roleplay environment.

^ when you are in group you cant shoot ones in group, when you agreed to shoot somone and not using group, you can back-stab them later.