+- Discovery Gaming Community (https://discoverygc.com/forums)
+-- Forum: Discovery General (https://discoverygc.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=3)
+--- Forum: Discovery RP 24/7 General Discussions (https://discoverygc.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=23)
+--- Thread: Rules Conflict (/showthread.php?tid=22688)
Pages:
1
2
Rules Conflict - teephoto - 07-02-2009
I have read rule
6.19 Pirates have a right to deal as much damage as they see fit before or after demanding money from a trader ship, gut killing trader ship before demanding money or cargo is not allowed.
Now next rule:
Engagement
6.21 Attacking without an engagement notice is not alled. ALL ATTACKS, I REPEAT, ALL ATTACKS MUT BE PRECEDED WITH SOME FORM OF RP, REGARDLESS OF NPC FACTION DIPLOMACY.
Pirates violate rule 6.21 every time they fire one shot without announing an engagement, this is an attack! Here's the kicker, when I mention rules to Rogues or pirates they all say they don't have to follow rules, any rules. So, far everyone of them has said they are not afraid of the Admin or of sanctions! This is the attitude they get from rule 6.19
Rules Conflict - johnpeter - 07-02-2009
Pirates have an exception to that....
Rules Conflict - Drake - 07-02-2009
' Wrote:Pirates have an exception to that....Where is this written? The rules are not mutually exclusive, so you have to follow them both... A pirate must make an engagement notice before engaging a trader, but he can then deal as much damage as he likes (short of blowing the trader up) before asking for loot or a tax. Nothing states (or even implies) that pirates are exempt from the standard engagement rules.
Rules Conflict - blubba - 07-02-2009
A CD and a demand to halt, shortly followed by a request for some form of re-numeration is normally enough, I think to justify those requirements.
If the recipetant is loathe to halt, let alone respond to a cash call, then the pirate is probably justified in dishing out a little plasma.
Just my opinion but as a trader, thats normally how it goes in my experience.
Rules Conflict - Drake - 07-02-2009
' Wrote:A CD and a demand to halt, shortly followed by a request for some form of re-numeration is normally enough, I think to justify those requirements.That's something, at least. I'm just saying that a pirate isn't allow to start shooting up a trader wordlessly.
If the recipetant is loathe to halt, let alone respond to a cash call, then the pirate is probably justified in dishing out a little plasma.
Just my opinion but as a trader, thats normally how it goes in my experience.
Rules Conflict - Guest - 07-02-2009
And what about all those effing traders who open fire without a word every time you knock them out the lane and begin to type out your life story?
Rules Conflict - Chico - 07-02-2009
Isn't retaliation covered as 'self-defence'?
They did fire first afterall....
Rules Conflict - Guest - 07-02-2009
Then what, disabling the lane counts as engagement? Meaning I need to now warn them before I take out the lane?
Do not make the rules more complicated then they are allready.
Rules Conflict - JakeSG - 07-02-2009
http://discoverygc.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=41386
Hmmm... It seems the exact same thing was posted there... It also seems you were the creator as well. Please don't double-up on topics, it's annoying.
Rules Conflict - Elsdragon - 07-02-2009
DL? Lock PlZ?