New rule idea aka. "Silent Trader's Kiss"

[Wraga]

After this thread, something came into my mind.

A new rule.

Something like this:

X.X Defenders are not allowed to show impracticable behaviour during the encounter after the aggressor has made a demand. Indicate some kind of communication in system or local chat is a must.

Discuss and vote because I'm still loving make polls.

Thanks

---

[Jonas Valent]

Define " impracticable behaviour"

[Slappy]

Define " impracticable behaviour"

That is why the rule fails.

[Technogeist]

Yeah that is super vague to the point where I have no idea what you mean.

[Laura C.]

If admins really want to punish silent traders, and especially "lol, I no pay u pierat, kill me, I don´t care" traders, they already have rule which they can use:

2. Discovery Freelancer 24/7 RP is a roleplaying server. Roleplaying is required while playing here.

And your definition is too vague anyway. So pirate stops trader with "Stop your engines!" and trader responds just "no" and try thrust away despite nearest bay is far away. Is it "impracticable behaviour"? Or the player simply decided to RP stubborn captain who never pays taxes and always try to make run for the base, shooting pirate? Who can judge if it´s right or wrong?

---

On a ragebreak. Or ragequit. Time will tell.

[Ursus]

Does that include running to your hidden base and putting all of your allies in danager?

---

Discovery 24/7 Negotiating Tactics:

[Luke.]

At least when they're saying "no", they're actually responding.

But yeah, far too vague. Rules are rules because they have a definition. By implementing that, you're just creating abusable grey areas.

---

[STILENS]

At least when they're saying "no", they're actually responding.

But yeah, far too vague. Rules are rules because they have a definition. By implementing that, you're just creating abusable grey areas.

[Laura C.]

At least when they're saying "no", they're actually responding.

But yeah, far too vague. Rules are rules because they have a definition. By implementing that, you're just creating abusable grey areas.

Jesus is not here on forums long enough, his opinion is not valid
(sorry, could not resist )

---

On a ragebreak. Or ragequit. Time will tell.

[Reid]

Ignoring people not considered RP: Confirmed

---