+- 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: Server rule 3.3 modification/addition needed? (/showthread.php?tid=108913)
Server rule 3.3 modification/addition needed? - Ponge - 12-17-2013
Hello.
Current wording of the rule:
"3.3 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. "Halt" on its own is not a demand, however, a trade vessel can be destroyed if they refuse to stop after being asked to in the form of a proper demand."
I recently saw this message posted by Garrett_Jax in a sanction explanation:
"The miner dropped his ore as demanded and you killed him anyway. Sorry, it doesn't work like that. Once demand is met, you move on."
I really think this has to be added into the rule description, don't you think?
As this is not clearly written in the rule, people may get (unintentionally) sanctioned for it, because this part of the rule is not properly clarified.
Opinions?
RE: Server rule 3.3 modification/addition needed? - sindroms - 12-17-2013
I've done it a couple of times on my Xeno.
Someone tried to bribe me, I accepted it, then killed him for being a bribe-giving, squinty-eyed kusarian.
EDIT: I think the rule was never set into place in order to prevent the trader from mouthing off at the pirate, while feeling invulnerable as soon as they paid.
RE: Server rule 3.3 modification/addition needed? - Markus_Janus - 12-17-2013
Hmm while I can see sindrom's point I am not in favor for people being sanctioned for unwritten rules.
RE: Server rule 3.3 modification/addition needed? - Zen_Mechanics - 12-17-2013
I think were talking slightly on crossroads here, the rules are nothing less than guidelines, some of them explain to the fullest and some don't, its not hard to figure them out by yourself, though there are exceptions to this. Xeno's cannot demand cargo, but then again they can if you do not comply for a fee. ( again, if its justified ).
RE: Server rule 3.3 modification/addition needed? - sindroms - 12-17-2013
I think the problem here is that we do not know what happened. We do not have the full picture or the screens that admins do. Perhaps the pirate was a prat? Perhaps it was intentionally a pvp violation?
RE: Server rule 3.3 modification/addition needed? - Xelon - 12-17-2013
(12-17-2013, 08:45 AM)sindroms Wrote: EDIT: I think the rule was never set into place in order to prevent the trader from mouthing off at the pirate, while feeling invulnerable as soon as they paid.
I am very much in agreement here, if a Trader thinks one can walk over me after the payment has been sent will have a bad suprise.
RE: Server rule 3.3 modification/addition needed? - Ponge - 12-17-2013
(12-17-2013, 09:16 AM)Xelon Wrote:(12-17-2013, 08:45 AM)sindroms Wrote: EDIT: I think the rule was never set into place in order to prevent the trader from mouthing off at the pirate, while feeling invulnerable as soon as they paid.
I am very much in agreement here, if a Trader thinks one can walk over me after the payment has been sent will have a bad suprise.
I see this point too, but I think this can be formulated into the modification somehow, like "cannot kill the trader without a proper RP reason after the demand was met." So pirates can kill the trader who is badmouthing them or calling the cops on them, a Xeno can kill them for being foreigners/bribing/etc, but a regular pirate would not be able to go "Despite you met my demand, I'll kill you because I want you to be out for 2 hours/because I have stronger ship/just because."
And just like for the other rules, the offended trader can send in a sanction report, and Admins decide, in a very similar way as for "was the RP enough or not" question. It would be the very same, but in phase 2 (after-piracy roleplay).
RE: Server rule 3.3 modification/addition needed? - SnakThree - 12-17-2013
Few years ago, when Dublin was alive, I remember catching Hegemon in California and demanding cash to let him pass. Moment later he ratted me out to lawfuls in system chat. I demanded 2 millions more for such action. After a while he insulted me. I demanded 2 millions more.
Ach. Good times. Good times.
RE: Server rule 3.3 modification/addition needed? - Ponge - 12-17-2013
Yes, and in that case it would have been inRP justified even to kill him; one of the Admins or Mods wrote somewhere that after the trader paid, and the trader begins to insult the pirate or calls the cops, that counts as a new interaction, and an other demand can be made.
But when the trader fulfills the demand, the first encounter is concluded. When he is about to leave, and gets killed by the pirate, that is a new engagement, and can be sanction because lack of RP. This is quite logical, but some players might not think about it this way, and break the rules unintentionally. That's why I suggested the clarification for the rule.
RE: Server rule 3.3 modification/addition needed? - Jack_Henderson - 12-17-2013
You don't "unintentionally" kill a piracy victim after the demand is met. Those who do it violate the most basic rule of social interaction: "Don't be an ass!".
And I knew "Xenos!" would appear here. Of course Xenos do it because Xenos and some of their players are "special", but I bet they can be reported successfuly for a killing after a demand was met. There is no ID such as a "you can be an ass" ID.
Exception is that of course the pirate victim should not give the attacker a roleplay reason to have at him again. If I was pirated and then told the pirate something about his mother and a dog, he has a reason to get into another "interaction" with me. But that's something that is just stupid and can be easily avoided.
That point is likely why it is not in the rules.