Rule 6.6 has now been changed in a subtle way.
From
Quote:6.6 Aggressors are not allowed to destroy a trade vessel prior to issuing a demand and allowing sufficient time to respond. Demands may be cargo, credits or an RP demand, such as leaving the system. "Halt" is not a demand.
to:
Quote:6.6 Aggressors are not allowed to destroy a trade vessel prior to issuing a demand, in system or local chat, and allowing sufficient time to respond. Demands may be cargo, credits or an RP demand, such as leaving the system. "Halt" is not a demand.
The net effect of this is that demands made in private chat now no longer count as a valid demand. All demands made of trade vessels must be in one shade of blue or another.
Sounds interesting...
So no private chat from pirate side...but this change has any effect on trader side? I mean, I've met with traders who talked to me in private chat when I wanted to rob them...
You heard about the suggested rule-change that pirate transports can be shot by caps if caught issuing a demand? That sounds a preemptive modification to me for implementing it.
At least I didn't ever -hear- about someone demanding in pm before. :$
Awww...no more long range piracy. ;(
This is bad- what If the pirate/one who make the demands is not in position to post it in local/system chat?
What if he does not want the others present should not know if one demands something?
Why the admin team constantly nerf Pirate RP and ship options- Ptransp, P train for smugglers, Pirate freighter as Molly/Rouge tech only? Why the pirates should have less rights then others? Why the pirate capitals wont be able to pirate?
Do the admin team really thinks that they could fix game mechanics with words in forum?
' Wrote:Why the change?
I guess because of the upcoming rule 6.7 change, that was proposed by Jax?
The ability to issue demands in PMs was one of the possible loopholes to overcome it.
Actually primarily to stop paperwork. It could be construed as destruction of a trader without a demand if seen by a third party, and in fact has been. Someone could get sanctioned very easily for having done nothing wrong. That loophole needs closing.
' Wrote:Actually primarily to stop paperwork. It could be construed as destruction of a trader without a demand if seen by a third party, and in fact has been. Someone could get sanctioned very easily for having done nothing wrong. That loophole needs closing.
I thought there was sort of a policy, that rule-violation reports that were issued by someone who was on the receiving end of rule-violation had the higher chance to result in something? uhm ,or was it about general participation in the encounter.
*shrugs*
Anyway, this change is well-timed due to ongoing discussion on 6.7, as well.
So your sayin its no longer allowed to sit in gamma and pirate traders in liberty.... This is the death of piracy as we know it.....