+- Discovery Gaming Community (https://discoverygc.com/forums)
+-- Forum: Rules & Requests (https://discoverygc.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=6)
+--- Forum: Rules (https://discoverygc.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=25)
+--- Thread: A Rule Ammendment - a poll with a point :) (/showthread.php?tid=10174)
A Rule Ammendment - a poll with a point :) - Laowai - 07-08-2008
There was a recent sanction report where a Corsair player in a capital ship was sanctioned for pirating in a Cruiser. Of course, we all know that pirating someone in a Capital class ship other than a gunboat is completely against the rules, and if you do it, expect to get sanctioned.
But this particular sanction caught my eye for a few reasons. The sanction, by strict interpretation of the rules - and don't get me wrong, im not challenging the sanction here, Xoria was perfectly within his rights to do it - is warranted. However i believe the motivation for the deed needs to be examined further, and the rule behind this sanction similarly examined and i believe, amended to allow greater flexibility.
The player in question destroyed a vessel carrying passengers to planet Crete. Now, this is a Role play rule that was enacted by TBH ages ago and supported by all the Corsair houses and indies (the ones who know about it). The sanctioned player destroyed the ship - which by current rules is sanctionable - but did so in order to uphold a role play law in force in that sector - and not by strict definition, to pirate i.e to make financial gain.
Now, the issue here is not whether an unlawful can pirate in a capship - while i personally believe they should be able to (the issue of sportsmanship and fairness to traders in my opinion is moot, Bombers and gunships can drop a freighter with similar ease, with only marginally more chance in the fight than if it were a cruiser. While i appreciate the sentiment behind the "caps cant pirate" rule i believe in practicality it is irrelevant) but thats a side issue.
The issue here is allowing capital class - unlawful vessels to fire on traders that are in breach of their house factions cargo laws - traders carrying what unlawfuls, be they who they may - consider "contraband". Lawful capships are allowed to do this - unlawfuls are not - the argument that in one case the trader is seen as an aggressor if he is carrying contraband in a lawful house, whereas in an unlawful house he is not, thus justifying this obvious double standard is completely subjective and really unarguable. From a Corsair point of view for example, that trader carrying passengers in Crete is every bit as hostile to him as a smuggler full of Cardamine is in New York to lawfuls.
I believe that this law should be amended to allow for this scenario. It is no more difficult to police than any other Role play rule on the server. And in its current state, unlawful capships are essentially impotent against traders carrying RP declared contraband in their houses - in Role play situations, in unlawful home systems, unlawful capships should be free to fire upon traders in enforcement of recognized faction rules.
I would be interested in hearing arguments for and against this:
A Rule Ammendment - a poll with a point :) - majkp - 07-08-2008
I voted yes, because this is absolutely the same situation as if someone was smuggling contraband in Rheinland. Even police/military capital ships would enforce the local policies upon the trading/smuggling vessel.
A Rule Ammendment - a poll with a point :) - Thexare - 07-08-2008
I disagree with your belief that capital ships should be allowed to pirate (though I also think they should be improved some to make the restrictions in place seem logical), but I entirely agree with the point about the passengers to Crete.
Kinda makes you wonder why they'd pay to become Corsair Chow, but whatever, that's not relevant.
I agree that the Outcasts and Corsairs should have the power to demand specific types of cargo in at least their home systems - so an Outcast Destroyer could vaporize an Artifact smuggler in Omicron Alpha, and the situation that the Corsair got sanctioned for wouldn't be a bannable offense either so long as it was in Gamma.
This could be expanded a bit beyond their home systems, but that'd run the risk of making it harder to track, and without an ID update (which won't come 'til 4.85) we should probably go with the simplest solution.
edit: I started before majkp posted.
A Rule Ammendment - a poll with a point :) - jimmy Patterson - 07-08-2008
i agree now im a lwaful player(mostly i have two UOGs but there now semi lawful now) because as others said its the same as if an lsf shot to kill an artifact smuggler
A Rule Ammendment - a poll with a point :) - Srkad - 07-08-2008
' Wrote:I disagree with your belief that capital ships should be allowed to pirate
Uh well he never said to pirate...but yeah. i agree 100% with the change of this rule.
A Rule Ammendment - a poll with a point :) - Lucend - 07-08-2008
I voted "No."
As you've said, a bomber or gunboat can vaporize a transport with equal ease as, say, an Osiris. Personally, I think the rule should be changed to disallow gunboats. The purpose of the rule is to give the transport some chance at escape. Now that we're blurring the lines between gunboat/bomber/cruiser, it's becoming more and more ridiculous.
As a side note, there is every reason to suspect that the situation in question was dubious in it's legitimacy. I would suggest we keep this thread on topic about the rule and not the player or circumstance.
A Rule Ammendment - a poll with a point :) - Srkad - 07-08-2008
Uhh if freelancer was real life a capship cruiser would stop passangers from entering crete no matter what...
A Rule Ammendment - a poll with a point :) - Jinx - 07-08-2008
i d say - it depends on the situation. - when a trader is "attacking" the home system by bringing harmful goods - like passengers to crete - a defense is appropriate. - however, whats an attack and what not must be clarified.
comparing it directly to the lawfuls actions is incomplete. - lawfuls do not take up an offensive position towards traders. - they are defending their space against those that bring harmful goods - but do not threaten anyone else.
allowing pirates to engage traders in warships can quickly lead to a broad interpretation about whats harmful and what not. - so goods must be defined clearly - and attacking traders bringing different goods than the ones defined should still be forbidden.
since that would be taken into the official rules - and not be down in RP laws - the goods defined as harmful should have an official blessing. ( - so, things like declaring niobium contraband like in kusari should not be an official law, cause its not aimed at RP - but only to harm the so called "powertrading" ) - those goods should be only few.
furthermore, the trading system must reflect whats harmful and what not. - the fact that crete pays a lot for passengers is not logical for example. - nither passengers, nor the citizens on crete pay much. - crete is not what you d call a place to spend your vacation at, nor is it a hospitable place anyway - so the pricing should reflect that.
since the price for passengers is high. - players "should" have spun their RP around it. instead players ignored that fact and stuck to the old habit of considering human "cargo" as harmful. - ( they could have RPed the passengers as workers, farmers instead - people that crete needs... but that opportunity is gone by now, cause players considered them as tourists )
A Rule Ammendment - a poll with a point :) - Laowai - 07-08-2008
' Wrote:I voted "No."
As you've said, a bomber or gunboat can vaporize a transport with equal ease as, say, an Osiris. Personally, I think the rule should be changed to disallow gunboats. The purpose of the rule is to give the transport some chance at escape. Now that we're blurring the lines between gunboat/bomber/cruiser, it's becoming more and more ridiculous.
As a side note, there is every reason to suspect that the situation in question was dubious in it's legitimacy. I would suggest we keep this thread on topic about the rule and not the player or circumstance.
True - Hence why i didnt mention any players names, just the incident - but the important thing here is the motivation behind such incidents and the rules. If your suggestions of disallowing even gunboats the freedom to attack traders were implemented you would nerf half the unlawful fleets in sirius, particularly the corsairs own OPG - but remember i'm, not talking about "pirating" here, im talking about enforcing faction RP rules in the a capital vessel. In my opinion there has not been a convincing argument against allowing this, short of "its in the rules" which is hardly an argument.
A double standard clearly applies between what lawfuls and unlawfuls can do. That double standard, while possibly introduced with the best of intentions, unfairly restricts the Role Play of one class of player - it also creates the completely OORP situation of an unlawful ship being unable to enforce laws on a trader in their own house - whereas a lawful player can.... when in fact, if anyone was more likely to open fire on a ship carrying "contraband" (and remember that term is entirely relative) one could argue that it would be the "unlawful".
A Rule Ammendment - a poll with a point :) - Jinx - 07-08-2008
an addition to comparing lawfuls and criminals...
it is the polices job to stop smugglers. - now the police is usually using fighters, some bombers - and ... in very rare cases a gunboat. - the military as such is not really involved in stopping a trader. it is not their job, nor would they move a battleship to stop the smuggler - but if the smuggler comes into firing range, they might open fire. ( blame the smuggler for it )
military and warships going after smugglers is an oddity that is ... although allowed - not really very good RP in most cases.
but the roles of the lawfuls factions are different to the pirates roles. pirates mostly stayed true to their nature while lawful factions have claimed to have more "missions" than they are supposed to have. - what the unlawfuls are missing is a differentiation between military and police, too. - pirates take up all jobs/missions while lawfuls devided the whole into at least two sub-groups ( police / military )
so the lawfuls police part is allowed to stop and take a smuggler down, while the pirates, that take up military+police is not. - on the lawful side, the military should not be allowed either.
of course, there are cases - where RP asks for military support ( like 5000 cardamine units to manhatten - even the military would move then ) - but making such a rule too complicated leads to confusion and unwanted violations of the rules.