Discovery Gaming Community

(05-17-2014, 05:26 AM)Echo 7-7 Wrote: [ -> ]

(04-13-2014, 11:51 PM)Mr. Altejago Wrote: [ -> ]This is blatant abuse of miner ID.

http://discoverygc.com/forums/showthread.php?tid=1746

Attempting to circumvent 1 ID per faction rule is like multiboxing.

USI is a shipping company, that is all. You're nothing more, nothing less.

If USI starts mining, what is the point in DSE/IMG/Junkers?

Loneshark came to me saying Echo 7-7 gave them express permissions to do this:

Quote:why can we mine ?
well we are strongly linked to XA/xenos
who arew what ?
ex miners etc
we have established rp to rehabilitate ex xeno offenders
ie we employ them on release from Huntsville, Sugarland
so we have usurped their mining skills from that

3M originaly Morgan Mining and Manufacturing was bought up by USI to exploit these talents. becoming Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing

we talked it over with Max first

Max is a nobody, he cannot give you express permissions to bend rules to your advantage, considering he undermined what was said to loneshark here.

So as this is a complete and utter disregard on the ID rule, I'll be looking a lot deeper into this.

My spider senses were tingling... I knew someone, somewhere was grossly misinterpreting a discussion I had with them some months ago!

Perhaps a little detail that has been conveniently overlooked was that, if I recall accurately, I quit the skype chat into which I had been invited by the USI directors of the time, due to certain people there not making any sense at all and completely ignoring certain aspects of the feedback I had offered concerning USI's 3M concept.

I would care to note that at the time of the discussion, I don't think the Faction Creation Rules had been updated, and thus the possibility for Official Factions to use a secondary ID (it had to be generic) was still there. I did not at any stage "give express permission" or similar indications of approval; I might have said something along the lines of "do what you want" because I had neither the inclination nor the authority to stop them from their own faction business and was swiftly becoming frustrated with a certain stubborn attitude being displayed.

However, given the Faction Creation Rules being updated, the whole concept is rendered moot since secondary IDs no longer exist (as well as the potential for confusing loopholes).

As for "being a nobody" - well, I'm sure that comment was just made in the heat of the moment. I appreciate that players might like to consult with me / get my opinion on lore-related matters, and it was in this capacity that the USI directors contacted me at the time. Amusingly enough, on occasion a few players have erroneously assumed that I was an Admin, but I'm sure the USI directors were under no such illusion.

Thank you for making those clarifications Max
'I have had 2 pc failures since and can't reference those chats, though i do recall them.
Yes i was very stubborn on my idea of storing ships at Lagrangian points. Sorry it annoyed you so. That's life the issues are moot now.
You are correct that the secondary ID changed after that point. That is what i think created this situation in the first place.
Also you are correct that nobody at USI concidered you to be an admin, we thought it more sensible to talk to a Dev, even if we didn't follow their advice.

My own opinion is that being befor the secondary ID change took place that [*USI*3M] should be allowed to continue to exist, though it should be limited to its orginal rp (ie not beyond Liberty).

From powergaming as LSF to suicide trading as USI. From HUZZAH on USI ships to same HUZZAH on Liberty Navy ships.

Gentlemen and ladies, please shape up. Officials factions should always strive for higher quality standards but in recent times I found your faction repulsing.

While I agree that these events were rather concerning and damaging, I must add that I have seen change in their attitude and relations - in a good way. I've also heard about restructuring. While I do hope certain members involved have been booted out of the decision making, I sincerely doubt it. I hope USI takes this little event as a lesson and doesn't let these certain members damage their reputation any further.

A Small Comment,
Some of your security members have not been giving proper Roleplay before shooting at my Pirate Characters example of this only saying Engaging then firing (Directly Violating 3.1)

Quote:"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. If a player is attacked he has the right to defend himself regardless of who is attacking. Trading nanobots, shieldbatteries or other ammo and equipment during a fight is also considered taking an active role in the engagement."

Thanks,
Freeroamer

Freeromer,

Thanks for your information. Please provide any kind of proof for your words! I will handle it ASAP.

Martin Pawlak, CLO

Thanks for the Quick response,
At best I can provide Chat logs

~Freeroamer

Here is what I could find:

Quote:[28.05.2014 17:30:43] [*USI*]Iveco[T]: Alfredo: Go home Rogue
[28.05.2014 17:30:47] Shields.Activated: Lets dance...
[28.05.2014 17:30:51] [*USI*]P.Corte[SO]: leave now rogue
[28.05.2014 17:30:54] Shields.Activated: Nope/
[28.05.2014 17:31:30] [*USI*]Iveco[T]: Alfredo: This Rogue its a idiot
[28.05.2014 17:31:45] Shields.Activated: Another one?
[28.05.2014 17:31:49] Shields.Activated: Novas away!
[28.05.2014 17:32:39] [*USI*]A,Raybern[PL]: Engaging
[28.05.2014 17:32:55] [*USI*]W.Rainer[CSO]: YOU WILL DIE YOU FILTHY ROGUE!
[28.05.2014 17:33:21] Traffic control alert: [*USI*]Iveco[T] has requested to dock
[28.05.2014 17:33:40] Traffic control alert: [*USI*]Uhuru[CLO] has requested to dock
[28.05.2014 17:33:50] Death: Shturmovik was put out of action by Klon (Gun).
[28.05.2014 17:35:27] Death: Shields.Activated was put out of action by a hostile vessel.

I felt like I had to ask, but whats with USI lately?

First attacking people like the Navy would and acting like the LPI
Holding contraband on their PoB's and clearly trying to powergame their way out of it
Or even the fact 2 USI primaries apparently assaulted a GMG ship working for the united hope foundation?

As I've seen it, they've been on a loosing streak all this month and last month as well and I would like to know what is going on

(06-03-2014, 01:28 AM)Shizune Wrote: [ -> ]I felt like I had to ask, but whats with USI lately?

First attacking people like the Navy would and acting like the LPI
Holding contraband on their PoB's and clearly trying to powergame their way out of it
Or even the fact 2 USI primaries apparently assaulted a GMG ship working for the united hope foundation?

As I've seen it, they've been on a loosing streak all this month and last month as well and I would like to know what is going on

I to would like to know, USI was always my favorite of the Lib Corps, the underdog beneath the Giants of Ageira and DSE and the Far-flung IC, USI was always the down to earth one. Seems USI has his the teen years. Testing the waters seeing how far they can push their limits, I just hope USI doesn't do something they cannot undo.