(09-19-2013, 06:49 AM)McNeo Wrote: It seems you have been given the correct answer, yet because it is not what you wanted to hear, you cling on to the hope that you will be proven correct. It's common to see, I do it too with certain things.
I've been given every possible answer here, many of them contradictory.
I'm trying to find the answer that everyone can agree on.
(09-19-2013, 06:49 AM)McNeo Wrote: Who am I? I'm the guy who wrote most of those laws.
The technicality of whether you're a reserve or not is inconsequential. InRP, [LN] personnel hold ranking authority over independent players. Why is this? Because the [LN] are recognised as the representatives of the Liberty Navy NPC faction, and their players have subjected themselves to many restrictions that the faction places, most notably the restriction of capital ships, other rank restrictions and the required adherence to a much stricter chain of command than you. Nowhere is this written, but you will find that the [LN] roleplays that. You don't have to like it, you don't even have to play along. You can just let the [LN] play in their own little world if you like.
You say that no where it is written, but that you RP it systematically.
I think there is a very good reason why you didnt write it down. Because you cant write something down there that conflicts with server rules. Correct?
(09-17-2013, 11:12 PM)JohnRambo Wrote: ...
1. Does everyone in the primary fleet have authority over indy LN according to server rules
2. Does everyone in the primary fleet have authority over indy LN in role play
3. Does the official [LN] leadership have the right to set indy LN peoples rep to red with navy on the grounds that they refused to stand down against canon RP enemies of the navy when order to do so by (a) first or second in command of [LN] (b) other members of [LN]
4. Does the fact that [LN] people claim that all of them have the authority of command over indies RP consitute an abuse of faction power. Cause there's at least 3 of them who did that right here.
1) No - only the 1iC and 2iC have authority through server rules.
2) Yes, with sufficient roleplay.
3) Note that the ability to enact authority over players of the same npc faction is actually separate to the ability to request an adjusted hostile rep.
Server Rules Wrote:4.7 Official player factions have authority over players of the same NPC affiliation, as long as RP justification is provided. This authority applies in forums and in-game, and applies to player faction diplomacy, and strategic and tactical direction. However, exercise of that authority, on the forums and in game, is restricted to official faction members with the rank of the official faction leader and one rank below him/her. The authority may be exercised through the use of in-game in-RP orders, which, if not obeyed, can result in in-game in-RP consequences (arrest, court martial, and even "lethal" force in extreme circumstances). Official player factions cannot, under any cicrumstances, require another player to follow non-canon RP if that player doesn't want to.
Server Rules Wrote:4.10 Official player factions may request that the reputation of a player's ship be changed to hostile with respect to their NPC faction.
Since rule 4.7 dictates that the exercise of in-RP authority may only ever have in-RP consequences, then that implies that use of rule 4.10 is a permissible option, but only in extreme circumstances. In most circumstances, 4.10 is reserved for use against characters from a different NPC faction.
Neither of these rules can be invoked against a character following canonical roleplay. Therefore, the [LN] HC cannot have you repped hostile for following anti-canon orders, regardless of who issued the order originally.
4) No, it's not an abuse of faction power, and they're quite entitled to their perspectives, provided they are not in breach of the server rules.
(09-18-2013, 06:52 AM)JohnRambo Wrote:
(09-18-2013, 05:55 AM)Echo 7-7 Wrote:
(09-18-2013, 04:36 AM)JohnRambo Wrote: ...
(09-18-2013, 04:04 AM)Durandal Wrote: 4: No. Claiming roleplay authority over somebody does not constitute an abuse of power. It would be an abuse of power if an official faction member claimed he could have you sanctioned for not following orders.
If you say that you are someone's superior in the military and that you give them an order, it is implicit that they will suffer consequences if they dont obey. Even if they wont really suffer consequences, it's still and attempt of intimidation which is in my eyes similar to someone telling them they would get sanctioned. Because if the official faction is against you and has the power to set you red, that IS a sanction.
...
No it's not. Having your reputation adjusted to be hostile with a certain faction is not a sanction. Reputation adjustment requests are only processed by the Administration team in order to arbitrate over those requests, and prevent the use of that right to be used as a tool in oorp conflicts, as opposed to being a roleplay consequence as they are intended.
In the context of this game and server, sanctions are punishments imposed by Administrators for players breaking server rules. Reputation adjustments are consequences of roleplaying, not a result of breaking server rules.
They're listed in the sanction notices subforum.
Call it what you want, making someone believe that there will be consequences like being set red to navy because you're not following their non-canon RP orders is very much an abuse of power. When you dont even have that auhtority via server rules, even more so.
...
They're listed in the sanction notices because they are too few to warrant their own subforum, and because they are also processed and applied by the Admins, after reviewing a player request (which must come from the faction's 1iC or 2iC). They are there for Admin convenience, nothing more.
Making a threat (or an order) is completely legitimate roleplay. Acting on that threat (or order) is an entirely different matter, with limitations in place through server rules.
(09-19-2013, 07:14 AM)JohnRambo Wrote: ...
You say that no where it is written, but that you RP it systematically.
I think there is a very good reason why you didnt write it down. Because you cant write something down there that conflicts with server rules. Correct?
It doesn't conflict with server rules. If it did, the practice would not have been allowed to continue.
Quote:4.7 Official player factions have authority over players of the same NPC affiliation, as long as RP justification is provided. This authority applies in forums and in-game, and applies to player faction diplomacy, and strategic and tactical direction. However, exercise of that authority, on the forums and in game, is restricted to official faction members with the rank of the official faction leader and one rank below him/her. The authority may be exercised through the use of in-game in-RP orders, which, if not obeyed, can result in in-game in-RP consequences (arrest, court martial, and even "lethal" force in extreme circumstances). Official player factions cannot, under any cicrumstances, require another player to follow non-canon RP if that player doesn't want to.
I see you have read the first sentence, as well as the first half of the second sentence, in the bolded part. Unfortunately you have either failed to read or failed to understand the last bit, which is the key.
This means that anyone in [LN] can give you orders, but only the Leader and their SiC can actually enforce those orders. He isn't in violation of the rules for giving you an order. However, he would be if he then shot you for not obeying it.
It wasn't that long ago that the leader of the [LN] was an admin. I'm quite sure that the rest of the admin team would have stopped this practice if they deemed it to be against the rules. However, I'm quite sure I've demonstrated that it is not.
(09-19-2013, 07:24 AM)JohnRambo Wrote: Hi Echo. You are McNeo, the writer of liberty laws, and also and admin?
McNeo is a different person to me, despite the fact that our interpretations of the situation are remarkably similar. I helped him write the Liberty Laws, though you should note I did not invoke them as part of any of my arguments. If either of us were Admins, our names would be in green. The two ex-Admin leaders of the [LN] are JihadJ0e and Sarawr.
I assume now that you have run out of material in an attempt to twist server rules to make you look like the victim, you may be resorting to ad-hominem criticisms, rather than responding to the content of our posts.
(09-19-2013, 07:23 AM)McNeo Wrote: It doesn't conflict with server rules. If it did, the practice would not have been allowed to continue.
Quote:4.7 Official player factions have authority over players of the same NPC affiliation, as long as RP justification is provided. This authority applies in forums and in-game, and applies to player faction diplomacy, and strategic and tactical direction. However, exercise of that authority, on the forums and in game, is restricted to official faction members with the rank of the official faction leader and one rank below him/her. The authority may be exercised through the use of in-game in-RP orders, which, if not obeyed, can result in in-game in-RP consequences (arrest, court martial, and even "lethal" force in extreme circumstances). Official player factions cannot, under any cicrumstances, require another player to follow non-canon RP if that player doesn't want to.
I see you have read the first sentence, as well as the first half of the second sentence, in the bolded part. Unfortunately you have either failed to read or failed to understand the last bit, which is the key.
This means that anyone in [LN] can give you orders, but only the Leader and their SiC can actually enforce those orders. He isn't in violation of the rules for giving you an order. However, he would be if he then shot you for not obeying it.
It wasn't that long ago that the leader of the [LN] was an admin. I'm quite sure that the rest of the admin team would have stopped this practice if they deemed it to be against the rules. However, I'm quite sure I've demonstrated that it is not.
Whether its against the rules would depend on when you choose to understand "player factions" as everyone in that faction or just their leaders.
If you choose to understand "player factions" as all the members the first time its mentioned, and then choose to understand "player factions" as only the leaders the other times its mentioned, then it woulndt be against the rules.
If you choose to understand it the same way where ever it's mentioned, it would.
Assuming your way of understanding the word differently thorughout the rule is correct, then you are saying that:
Any primary fleet member can fly around giving any orders they want, including orders to attack civilians, help pirates, let pirates pirate in peace... but it will only be a problem if they actually shoot or punish the indies for not obeying?
(09-19-2013, 07:31 AM)Echo 7-7 Wrote: I assume now that you have run out of material in an attempt to twist server rules to make you look like the victim, you may be resorting to ad-hominem criticisms, rather than responding to the content of our posts.
No I'm trying to not fall into the way that other guys are responding her, but I gotta admit that for Agmen it was pretty hard.
But I'm not going to answer to you because you answered to questions that were directed at other people, and I cant answer every time to every [LN] guy who repeats the same thing other people have already given their opinions on.
(09-19-2013, 07:31 AM)Echo 7-7 Wrote: I assume now that you have run out of material in an attempt to twist server rules to make you look like the victim, you may be resorting to ad-hominem criticisms, rather than responding to the content of our posts.
No I'm trying to not fall into the way that other guys are responding her, but I gotta admit that for Agmen it was pretty hard.
But I'm not going to answer to you because you answered to questions that were directed at other people, and I cant answer every time to every [LN] guy who repeats the same thing other people have already given their opinions on.
I wouldn't have bothered to reply if I knew McNeo was going to run in and steal my thunder, heh. I'm quite content to observe your discussion with him for the moment.
If my understanding of the rules were not correct, the [LN] would have been sanctioned long ago. But if you are convinced that they're breaking the rules, you don't need to discuss it with me. You can just file a report, and if the admins agree with your interpretation, the faction will receive a sanction or warning and the [LN] player involved may also receive a sanction.
And, practically speaking, your last part is correct. The issuing of those orders is not a problem - their enforcement is. If they are not enforced, because the person issuing them cannot enforce them by server rules, then the order itself is powerless.
Of course, any official faction can't stop you performing a canon role, such as killing pirates, but they can make your life more difficult if you try to do it. Then again...
Quote:Intent of Rule 4.7:
The intent of this right is to allow official faction leadership to also provide leadership, with discretion, to independent players, to improve server gameplay, fairplay, and roleplay.
This right is NOT intended to provide the official faction leadership the right to exercise power for its own sake.
An example of "good" exercise of these rights is to require an independent player to not utilize a heavy captial ship against a smaller lone fighter or bomber, or to not enter an existing fight where entering the fight would unbalance it greatly, or to require the independent player to take action or not take action in support of good RP. (ie, ordering the escort of a diplomat, or something equally creative)
An example of "bad" exercise of this right would be to require the player to patrol an empty system, for no particular reason. Requiring the independent to investigate a particular suspicious ship, though, would be legitimate.
An offical faction consistently abusing this right, could lose it at the Admins' discretion.
Notice that the example of a "good" exercise of the faction right to issue orders to indies is an example of the leader of the faction preventing the indie from doing what their ID allows them to do. Lets make an example that I dealt with many times in the past.
2 [LN] Guardians vs 2 Pirate Sabres
LN indie battleship comes along, wrote "hostiles on scanner, preparing weapons and engaging" and starts shooting.
At this point, according to the wording of 4.7, he's absolutely doing what he should be doing. He's a Navy guy, Pirates are enemies, he should kill the pirate.
But, in this example - and it's only an example because the exertion of this right is discretionary as well as Cannon stating that his is an example only - the official faction is allowed, even encouraged, to enforce fairness using 4.7 over the canon of that faction.
Confusing, don't you think? That this rule has quite the contradiction means that the lines of what is acceptable and what isn't are blurred. This gives admins the leeway required to sanction actions that they believe to be abusive while allowing those they deem to be acceptable. The other consequence of leaving the lines blurred is that people don't know how far they can push the rules before they get sanctioned, which is very handy for sanctioning certain individuals who like to push boundaries.
