+- Discovery Gaming Community (https://discoverygc.com/forums)
+-- Forum: Rules & Requests (https://discoverygc.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=6)
+--- Forum: Player Requests (https://discoverygc.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=244)
+---- Forum: Official Faction Requests (https://discoverygc.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=245)
+----- Forum: Official Faction Creation Requests (https://discoverygc.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=134)
+------ Forum: Approved Faction Creation Requests (https://discoverygc.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=136)
+------ Thread: Junker Marauders | JM|- (/showthread.php?tid=112716)
RE: Junker Marauders | JM|- - Xylo - 03-04-2014
The faction is well presented and the role play legit in my opinion, but I wouldn't want to see it as an official faction for this reason: They are indeed more like an unlawful pirate faction. Junkers are semi-lawful, and if this faction was given official status, the junkers would have big trouble keeping a semi-lawful character.
Question: I think its ok how you play now, as independent unofficial faction. Why do you want official status?
RE: Junker Marauders | JM|- - Junker Marauders - 03-04-2014
Great, looks like there's a lot of stuff for me to answer when I get back later today.
I will answer your questions later, in due time. Please rrefrain from using this thread as a QQ inbox.
And Tal, let this account handle the feedback, please.
RE: Junker Marauders | JM|- - Junker Marauders - 03-04-2014
Furthermore, I would like it if some people actually read the responses I have given, and our officialdom request itself. You will be surprised how easily you will find the answers to your questions.
To moderators/administrators: Could you put this post in between the OP and Lukes post please? I'm going to use this as a general Q and A post for commonly posted questions as people seem to be missing the answers.
RE: Junker Marauders | JM|- - Omi - 03-04-2014
(03-04-2014, 03:09 PM)Tyroflion Wrote: while Fran is only flaming I am the one who gets verbally attacked/told to chill out.
(03-04-2014, 01:05 PM)Tyroflion Wrote: Please go try to abuse and exploit a different ID. Thank you.
(03-04-2014, 02:45 PM)Tyroflion Wrote: My my, I see that even your knowledge of English language is improving. But broken syntax not-withstanding,
<something about pots and kettles>
(03-04-2014, 01:05 PM)Tyroflion Wrote: Also this whole thing is quite disrespectful towards Junker Congress. They spent a lot of time, effort and (virtual)money to make sure Junkers are viewed as quasi-lawful
Yes, that's why there are approximately ten billion known instances of the Congress smuggling and why LibGov/LN is (or was?) considering outlawing (or FR5ing?) them.
Yes, the Congress are much less openly unlawful than the Marauders, but both factions' playstyles are valid aspects of the Junker RP and ID. The fact that your personal opinion does not align with what JM|- do does not change this, and it certainly isn't a reason that they should be blocked from approaching officialdom.
I also have no idea why you think the actions of one player faction would affect a whole NPC faction to a huge degree, especially when the faction in question is one as variable as Junkers and not something as clear-cut as, for example, BAF. Just look at Zoners for plenty of examples of the diplomacies and friendliness of various official factions differing from each other and from the baseline NPC faction.
RE: Junker Marauders | JM|- - Junker Marauders - 03-04-2014
Ok! Answer time. First and foremost, I want to address a point which people seem to be blatantly ignoring. Perhaps if I make it in big colorful text people will see:
The Junker Marauders will only attack other Junkers under the circumstances of said Junker obstructing our primary goal: Profit by any means nessecary. This does not mean that we will go out of our way to hunt and pirate everything that has a Junker ID. We do not harm other Junkers on a whim, however we won't hesitate to if they get in our way.
Furthermore, I did ask this question on skype into a discussion where and admin was present. They told me that it is acceptable to retaliate towards other Junkers if they do something against us first.
(03-04-2014, 03:46 AM)Papa Oomaumau Wrote: But it begs the question - does not a 'friend of a Junker' cease being your 'target'?No, with our RP it does not. As I stated above, our goal is to profit by any means nessecary. If you do something in a way that would cause interferance with our goals, then you can't expect us to be friendly.
Shouldn't it?
Say there's a girl you like, you start chatting her up and get really friendly with her. She's just about to give you her number but then suddenly your friend comes along and forcefully takes her away. He then tells you that she was actually his sister, so he's deliberately going to keep her away from you. See my point?
(03-04-2014, 03:46 AM)Papa Oomaumau Wrote: Also, I do have screens of your pilot(s) demanding 25m from an indie Junker.Yes, I know about this too. A JM was peacefully pirating on his own, he saw a trader and went to pirate him. The indie Junker then came along and told the entirety of the system that the JM was pirating. You can't expect that we'd let this roll over us no problem, considering our RP.
There's no excuse for this that will fly - just be on notice that people are watching.
(03-04-2014, 03:46 AM)Papa Oomaumau Wrote: Again - I don't think that there is anything wrong with this behavior - I mean unless it becomes a sanction report, in which case it kind of is - but more importantly, I would suggest that rather than explaining yourselves, that a strict directive to follow more closely the Junker lore that 'Junkers take care of their own' be more tied into your command structure, if you really want to become official.As I said above, I asked admins and this kind of stuff is acceptable. We would like to go for our own ID though, so that we could avoid getting suspicious eyes on us all the time though.
(03-04-2014, 03:46 AM)Papa Oomaumau Wrote: Official factions have great responsibility charged to them, this is to pay for great benefits.I don't see how us dealing with traitors would show that we're irresponsible.
That responsibility is to be the very best example of your faction, despite what might seem like a great excuse, and in fact in the face of such, in order to hold yourselves in the high regard that an 'official representative' faction needs to.
(03-04-2014, 03:46 AM)Papa Oomaumau Wrote: So thanks for the straight answer - but I might suggest a behavioral modification is in order as well - perhaps in the form of strict rules against turning against your own factional players.As I have said, we only turn on other Junkers if they turn on us first. Thank you for submitting your feedback.
(03-04-2014, 03:49 AM)NOVA-5 Wrote: Yet you'll go around and disrupt other Junker operations for the sake of yourselves, this miner you talk of was working for Junkers, he docked on a Junker liner, doesn't that tell you he was working for that Junker, the miner was under the protection of that Junker and had every right to seek refuge from their master.Sure, you the miner was working for Junkers and docked on a Junker liner. But the Junker who commanded the liner had every right to deny that miner docking privileges, in order to satisfy the interests of us. Or rather, are you yourself implying that the Junker liners interests come before the Marauders?
(03-04-2014, 02:32 AM)Junker Marauders Wrote: It basically works on the basis that if a Junker does something that will impact the Marauders operations, the Marauders will deal with that Junker as required.This statement above here^^ doesn't that go for all Junkers then, or just the JM? it seems a bit selfish doesn't it,
one law you yet another law for them?
In conclusion you're stating you don't stand for other Junkers and their interests.
(03-04-2014, 03:49 AM)NOVA-5 Wrote: I'd support you lads all the way, i love what you's do but everywhere i look, it seems you've passively got it in for other Junkers/Congress included & that's the only thing that keeps your clan from perfection.Lets not pull that card in here. We are not out to oust indie Junkers from the faction we share with them, we're also not trying to pull a CL/101st and debunk the Congress either. We try to keep good relations with the Congress, both inRP and ooRP.
Ease off & stop having digs to up yourself, you'll get there without any discontent.
(03-04-2014, 05:30 AM)AceofSpades Wrote: are ships flying the JM flag (/is the Marauder faction as a whole) comfortable with being openly engaged (with RP of course) by Junker ID'ed ships?Yes. Those who act against us have their inRP consequences, and we have our own inRP consequences for dealing with the aforementioned.
(03-04-2014, 05:30 AM)AceofSpades Wrote: I ask this because as a result of the JM's policies regarding targeting independent Junkers, there will be Junkers who move from self-defence or avoidance to the active engagement of Marauder vessels. Furthermore because of the nature of the "discretionary targeting" against a large group that bases itself in anonymity, it is likely that some of the Junkers that engage Marauders might not be easily recognized or even previous targets.I've addressed this above.
(03-04-2014, 05:30 AM)AceofSpades Wrote: Simply put, if there is to be large-scale in-fighting by ships carrying the same ID, my concerns lie with being absolutely certain that both parties can actively attack one another.. and not have one group attacking another within their RP lore while independents restrained by the ID cannot retaliate with aggressive action. Everyone hates to see the realization of enjoyable RP include sanction notifications, so we're eager to clear up the ID-related questions.Yet again, as I have said above I want to avoid a 'Junker civil war'. That would be a bit silly. But we will deal with those who cross us, it's how the Marauders think.
Thank ya for your feedback
(03-04-2014, 01:05 PM)Tyroflion Wrote: Well, I have a completely different question. One that I consider more important. What the hell is stopping House Police&Military from outlawing you, putting you on their never-ending list of pirates and just arresting you on sight? Since basically everything you do is pirate lawful and semi-lawful traders...The LN example doesn't happen. As Ryummel pointed out, we fly in the 'wild-west' of Sirius. We go to places where there are little law enforcement, so we can operate effectively without risking our reputation. Gallia and Kusari hate us already anyway.
I can even imagine how it would go.
LN: Junker Congress, this is Liberty Navy. We wanted to ask you... What the hell? Why are you pirating our traders? We can't even enjoy our coffee without hearing cries of a trader who was pirated by a Junker.
JC: Oh those JM guys are not one of us. Lookie lookie, they even pirated one of our ships.
LN: *shakes head in disbelief*
JC: *weeps silently*
(Same with KNF etc. just replace coffey with tea)
(03-04-2014, 01:05 PM)Tyroflion Wrote: Seriously. My impression is that this is just another pirate faction that is trying to hide behind Junker's ID to escape lawful prosecution, because "You can't arrest me, I'm a Junker I did nothing wrong! Oh look there a helpless trader! Pew! Pew!"It's hardly abuse. We're keeping exactly within line of our RP and ID. We don't just do piracy, we do scrap mining and smuggling too. Furthermore, we actually work things out with other prominent factions in the areas we operate in so that we do not cause upset; see: GMG.
Please go try to abuse and exploit a different ID. Thank you.
As Ryummel said again, we can just get an FR5. We don't try and preserve our neutrality as desperately as we can, we're not afraid to shake things up. But yet again, the law enforcement is sparse where we operate. I'd also like to point out how our first stint with IMG is a perfect example of how we didn't get away with pirating on their soil.
(03-04-2014, 01:05 PM)Tyroflion Wrote: And let's look at one more thing. Junkers are not the only quasi-lawful faction around. Now what do you think would happen if Hogosha started pirating everyone and everything around, including Kusari companies and then expected the Navy to ignore them when they fly by?But they don't. At least, not a lot. But that's their problem. The Junkers aren't directly aligned with a single house. Or at least, the Marauders aren't.
Be my guest to make a faction that does so though, it would be wonderful to see JM having some prominent Hogosha rivals/competition.
(03-04-2014, 01:05 PM)Tyroflion Wrote: EDIT: And just to emphasize what I am talking about, the next time I see a JM tagged ship as a member of law-enforcing faction I will arrest on the charges of piracyBe my guest to try. If it's KNF or GRN we won't mind though. We're not popular in both their ZoIs.
(03-04-2014, 01:05 PM)Tyroflion Wrote: And keep in locked up while I search the records (//do forumlancing to find out if anyone was pirated by this JM) How is this different from the way you would treat a criminal? Your info-post says it is, but I don't see how...Anyone? Are you implying you would meta-game us in order to desperately find whatever information you could find to discredit us?
And yet again as Ryummel said we don't do things in house space where law enforcement would get annoyed with us. We're guests, we respect our hosts.
(03-04-2014, 01:05 PM)Tyroflion Wrote: EDIT2: Also I have a question, if you can be a Junker, pirate everyone and then be neutral with law-enforcement unless they catch you in the act, then what is the reason for the existence of Pirate ID? Why would anyone ever want to be a pirate when you can be a Junker and do it for free with no fear of authorities?Uh, we can't pirate in house space, the pirate ID can. Secondly, I have stated that our agendas differ from the Congress. We don't pick enemies that would largely ruin the Congress's reputation with anyone. Though, the Congress has gotten themselves in quite a pickle with Liberty and DHC, whereas we have been helping both Liberty in the fuel embargo and assisting DHC in catching people mining in their fields.
Also this whole thing is quite disrespectful towards Junker Congress. They spent a lot of time, effort and (virtual)money to make sure Junkers are viewed as quasi-lawful but mostly okay group in Sirius. And now just come and say: "Tee hee, forget neutrality. Pirate ship Ahoooy!"
I don't see why we can't change things up with the Junker roleplay. It's on our ID that we can pirate.
(03-04-2014, 02:45 PM)Tyroflion Wrote:I have stated why already. He gave safe haven to one of our targets, he can expect that we're not going to be happy with him for doing that.(03-04-2014, 02:31 PM)Ryummel Wrote: Spoke the one pretending to post 'feedback' in actual form of QQ.
Leave these guys play the role they want, in no way they're molesting the Congress nor exploting an ID. We House Military/Police issuing FR5 requests to problematic groups to them RPwise for a reason, genius.
My my, I see that even your knowledge of English language is improving. But broken syntax not-withstanding, from what I understand they actually are (or will be) "molesting" the Congress if it allows them to get cheap bucks from their cargo. My question remains.
How is this a Junker behavior? Why is the ship pirating that :j: trader carrying Junker ID and not a Pirate ID?
(03-04-2014, 02:45 PM)Tyroflion Wrote: And why should an indie member of law-enforcement see them as Junkers (e.g. neutral party) when all they have of their supposed allegiance is the ID? Why shouldn't other indiee pirates throw away their ID and become pirating Junkers?I've already addressed this.
If this was a group of ex-Junkers who now live as pirates I would be totally fine with it. But they aren't.
(03-04-2014, 03:09 PM)Tyroflion Wrote:Yet again, I've addressed this...(03-04-2014, 02:53 PM)Bloodl1ke Wrote: Their pirating as per ID allows only in independent systems, not part of any of the houses. Thus that means in the wild west they indeed are pirates, but while in house space they do follow the rules, to some extent.
I could agree that pirating people with your own ID would be bad, but saying they should be pirate ID just because they mostly pirate is a bit meh. It's like saying "We don't want you to use that clause in the ID that allows you to do this, because we think you should do it with that other ID that's not ours". And like Fran pointed out - if somebody bothers to tape the piracy act I'm sure any of the house governments would be happy to FR5 them.
[color=#DAA520]Now that is an actual argument that one can work with. And I can see how this could work. But it still feels weird, especially because not everyone reads Forums and it could greatly damage the reputation of Junkers in general among the indiee players to the point where they would be attacking indie and Congress Junkers for the actions committed by JM.
(03-04-2014, 03:35 PM)Xylo Wrote: The faction is well presented and the role play legit in my opinion, but I wouldn't want to see it as an official faction for this reason: They are indeed more like an unlawful pirate faction. Junkers are semi-lawful, and if this faction was given official status, the junkers would have big trouble keeping a semi-lawful character.We've kept our reputation intact this far. And a good example why we wouldn't impact the NPC faction with our own reputation is 101sts relations with LR-. 101st have shot up Rogues, and still do. This doesn't mean Outcasts are banned from Rogue bases though.
And Semi-lawful? I don't mean to be bias, but this is a perfect example of how the Junker RP is beginning to become one-sided due to there being a lack of flavor within the Junker RP. Junkers are Quasi-Lawful normally. We just opt to lean slightly towards more unlawful antics. And as Bloodl1ke said, we're naughty outside of house space but inside it we're nice guys. Really.
(03-04-2014, 03:35 PM)Xylo Wrote: Question: I think its ok how you play now, as independent unofficial faction. Why do you want official status?Reasons:
- Some of our diplomacy is different. It's hard to keep up with getting IMG hostile all the time, getting our own ID would make that simpler. The same applies to ALG, as we would like to be unfriendly with them (as they shoot JM in the Taus when they need to assist IMG.
- We also want our own ID so that we can not get angry people slamming us for shooting other Junkers, even though it is justified inRP.
- We also find it silly how we have to make a piracy demands to people like IMG snubcraft, people who we mainly have the intent of killing because we're both enemies. IMG doesn't have to make piracy demands against us when they want to kill us, so we want the same opportunity. Same applies for Kusari Naval Forces too and so forth. (Of course, transports would be an exception to this).
- We want to represent the more darker side of the Junker RP. The Congress represents a more semi-lawful side, so we want to fill the boots of the darker side of Junker roleplay.
RE: Junker Marauders | JM|- - Cælumaresh - 03-04-2014
I support this faction, great job guys. Keep it up!
RE: Junker Marauders | JM|- - NOVA-5 - 03-04-2014
(03-04-2014, 06:50 PM)Junker Marauders Wrote: No, with our RP it does not. As I stated above, our goal is to profit by any means nessecary. If you do something in a way that would cause interferance with our goals, then you can't expect us to be friendly.Then why do you interfere with Congress business & collaborate with others to cause problems for their goals? What the hell have Congress done to you?
(03-04-2014, 06:50 PM)Junker Marauders Wrote: Say there's a girl you like, you start chatting her up and get really friendly with her. She's just about to give you her number but then suddenly your friend comes along and forcefully takes her away. He then tells you that she was actually his sister, so he's deliberately going to keep her away from you. See my point?No, all I see is that when he's having it off with his sister, she's be thinking of me as I'm so good looking! See my point of looking at opinions?
(03-04-2014, 06:50 PM)Junker Marauders Wrote: As I said above, I asked admins and this kind of stuff is acceptable. We would like to go for our own ID though, so that we could avoid getting suspicious eyes on us all the time though.Like I said before, why do you interfere with Congress business & collaborate with others to cause problems for their goals? like that post the VR made to the Commonwealth, you grassed us up to them VR!
(03-04-2014, 06:50 PM)Junker Marauders Wrote: I don't see how us dealing with traitors would show that we're irresponsible.Again, see above!
(03-04-2014, 06:50 PM)Junker Marauders Wrote: As I have said, we only turn on other Junkers if they turn on us first. Thank you for submitting your feedback.Above again!
(03-04-2014, 02:32 AM)Junker Marauders Wrote: It basically works on the basis that if a Junker does something that will impact the Marauders operations, the Marauders will deal with that Junker as required.Sounding like a Parrot again.^^
(03-04-2014, 02:32 AM)Junker Marauders Wrote: Sure, you the miner was working for Junkers and docked on a Junker liner. But the Junker who commanded the liner had every right to deny that miner docking privileges, in order to satisfy the interests of us. Or rather, are you yourself implying that the Junker liners interests come before the Marauders?No, I wasn't the miner nor the Junker, nor do I know any one of those two & as for what I was implying...infact yes, that Junker does come before you Marauders & i'll see to it that the Junker gets his freedom to work as he pleases.
(03-04-2014, 02:32 AM)Junker Marauders Wrote: Lets not pull that card in here. We are not out to oust indie Junkers from the faction we share with them, we're also not trying to pull a CL/101st and debunk the Congress either. We try to keep good relations with the Congress, both inRP and ooRP.Then you should try a little bit harder for JUNKERS sake, that's all I was saying.
(03-04-2014, 02:32 AM)Junker Marauders Wrote: Yet again, as I have said above I want to avoid a 'Junker civil war'. That would be a bit silly. But we will deal with those who cross us, it's how the Marauders think.Think about what you just said there, I've repeated myself a few times now, think long & hard capt.
All this talk's made me hungry, I'm off for a sandwich...
"Ahh, no bread, it'll have to be Sausage & Beans in a cup!"
RE: Junker Marauders | JM|- - Junker Marauders - 03-04-2014
(03-04-2014, 08:15 PM)NOVA-5 Wrote: [Feedback]
Summarizing that all up; as I said before, we stick to the original Junker goal religiously. If a Congressman gives safe haven to one of our enemies/targets, he's not exactly going to be on our friends list.
RE: Junker Marauders | JM|- - SnakThree - 03-04-2014
All interactions I had with Marauders were superb. Met your kind on my independent pirate, Hacker as well as my Synth|Banana. Top notch quality.
RE: Junker Marauders | JM|- - AceofSpades - 03-04-2014
Ah quite the conversation piling up, so ill keep it simple with two questions and zero flames
Junker Marauders Wrote:
As I said above, I asked admins and this kind of stuff is acceptable. We would like to go for our own ID though, so that we could avoid getting suspicious eyes on us all the time though.
Like I said before, why do you interfere with Congress business & collaborate with others to cause problems for their goals? like that post the VR made to the Commonwealth, you grassed us up to them VR!
I do agree that a separate ID would be quite fitting for the Marauders, as your activity seems to create a grey area between other Junkers--specifically Congress. Regardless of whether JM RP is good or bad, effectively practiced or not, its been quite clear that Marauder activity has had negative consequences for JC, due to both direct and indirect action.
Specifically, as the only non-JM Junker present for the "Commonwealth" episode; where the presence of both VR and JM ships forced a Congressman to dock, which then followed with aggressive questioning the remaining Zoner captain, it is quite clear that -at least some- Marauder Pilots (and the VR ally who made the following post) already consider their diplomacy with Congressmen to be as was said earlier "us dealing with traitors".
Question 1: Currently your diplomatic standing with Junkers as a whole, including Congress, is listed as "friendly", but perhaps this should be more accurately revisited if these are the intentions of (at least some) Marauder Pilots?
(Today 12:50 PM)Junker Marauders Wrote:
As I have said, we only turn on other Junkers if they turn on us first. Thank you for submitting your feedback.
(Today 12:50 PM)Junker Marauders Wrote:
I don't see how us dealing with traitors would show that we're irresponsible.
Again, see above!
I will note here that the specific incident being addressed, the twenty-five million credit demand made upon the Junker trader, was completely acceptable within RP. Of course if a trader cries out in system, you would punish him.
--However--
This Junker clearly only would have shouted out in system after being stopped for an initial demand, otherwise he would have no qualm with a fellow Junker. Therefore, the Marauder must have stopped the Junker trader and made a demand before any "snitching" or other anti-Marauder activity occurred
--meaning that Junkers are indeed being treated as any other target would be, and not sought out only for "specific indiscretions".
Question 2: Does the Marauder RP allow their Pilots to consider an anonymous (no prior RP history) Junker ID'ed trader/smuggler in the same way they would treat an anonymous, neutral (Freelancer or such) ID'ed trader/smuggler?
-If yes, then i think its only fair to be clear that Junker trader/smugglers are not exempt from random piracy by a JM and that we should treat Marauders as at least a possible pirate/hostile, regardless of whether we have any previous RP with one.
-If no, then this was an isolated singular episode that violated the canon JM RP, and should be recognized as such. (Specifically, the Junker Bull_Island should no longer be targeted/bountied/harassed by JM Pilots)
Lastly, Kudos. it's good to see that an (arguably quick) push for your own ID and Official Status is being cooperated by a strong forum presence and very involved feedback effort