House, Military, Police and Intelligence IDs

[Fluffyball]

(...)

If it was directed to me, indeed some words might be rather too hasty. Don't worry, you all need to keep up with all these players around and we are glad for that. You are, at least, way more efficient than Polish bureaucracy.

On the other hand, I thought about another idea regarding this problem (ninja'ed by someone above):

There are official factions. Why not give them more freedom than for indie players? Indies would surely roam inside house space, while official might have an exception or two, because they have their own ID after all.

---

User was banned for: http://discoverygc.com/forums/showthread.php?tid=138636
Time left: (Permanent)

[Laura C.]

Also, for inRP treaties, you are forgetting that RP<server rules. Such things like Rheinland-Kusari (Honshu-Stuttgart law enforcement), Tau Decree and Curacao Treaty are now void.

There are many treaties that surround the BAF allowing them to attack unwanted people in Omega 3 and Cortez. The RM and LN also have the same responsibilities

I do think some of those treaties should be updated due to changes with various factions, controlling stakes etc etc.

Wow. So from now on BAF cannot attack any ship in Omega 3 but Gallic? the hell? Pirates will rip down Omega 3. Atleast i'm patroling Omega 3 with zoner ship. And as far as i understand... Sinse Bretoninan ships cannot attack any ship in Omega 3 then there is no restrictions for other faction cap ships in that area?

And also. Even if Police and Military cannot attack anyone in Omega 3, Privateers can, BHG can, House organizations can.

God help us all Big Grin. Pirates will be all over Omega 3 now. And also Omega 7. + Omega 11 isn't house space. God, All Omegas will be taken down. Maybe admins should let BHG Core ships allow to enter Omegas now? I cannot protect everyone in Omega 3. Only near Freeport and Palmer, but nowere else. As i'm zoner, not some BHG or someone else.

~OFFICIAL FACTION PERKS~

Why should be factions forced to use (in fact waste) perks for something what they already had and was removed from them regardless of any their action? Going to extreme, you could declare "from now on, every faction gets only one system as ZOI. If you wanna have bigger space, use perks.

Also, if the Blodo proposal gets approved, I think this is void because IDs can stay just as they was and then majority of treaties are fine or will just need little tuning.

---

On a ragebreak. Or ragequit. Time will tell.

[Fluffyball]

Not to make mess in here, we could discuss something like this.

---

User was banned for: http://discoverygc.com/forums/showthread.php?tid=138636
Time left: (Permanent)

[Croft]

I'd personally love to see the Curacao treaty voided by these changes, placing Cortez back as an independent system without the big brother of Liberty and Bretonia may actually allow for some more fun variations for OSC|.

---

Jimmy The Rat | Croft's Feedback | The Rat Pack

[jammi]

Remember all the bases that we dropped to Core one in a recent sanction? Not one of them survived the day. Where was your love and respect for those player's RP then? Why should the Admins view your RP any differently?

Uh. The difference is the admins hit those bases for abusing an exploit.

Regardless, I understand where you come from. Thanks for being open with the player base when you don't have to. I'm glad the admins are (maybe) finding out that listening to one person whine doesn't mean it's the view of the entire community. I know a lot of people jumped for the neck when this change went up due to it's timing and how it seemed to be an impassible stone. Perhaps next time give a bit more background as to why changes are being made if you really care about not being accused of things. When this was posted, it was a "This is the changes that will be happening." I hate to suggest it, but perhaps more reasoning as to why the changes were put forward would help clear up a lot of the complaints.

Miaou, I think you just gave the nail a concussion. Breaking announcements up into three sections, "problem", "solution" and "implementation" would be fantastic. Problem being the issue that the announcement is trying to address, solution being the abstract about how the team is fixing the problem, and implementation being the nitty-gritty details (so the ID text in this case).

Using that format, even if people disagreed with the idea, they'd still be able to get a good idea for the intent of the action and the issues it attempted to address. Knowing what an action is trying to achieve is absolutely vital for keeping the peace between the team and the community, otherwise people will simply feel like they're being jerked around for no reason.

Here in this thread's OP, absolutely no explanation or context was provided as to the reasoning, and that blank space provided the fertile ground for stupid conspiracy theories to pop up. It took almost 20 pages of backlash and complaining before that explanation was forthcoming, by which point a fair amount of damage had already been done. Lessons for the future.

[zslayern]

~OFFICIAL FACTION PERKS~

Why should be factions forced to use (in fact waste) perks for something what they already had and was removed from them regardless of any their action? Going to extreme, you could declare "from now on, every faction gets only one system as ZOI. If you wanna have bigger space, use perks.

Also, if the Blodo proposal gets approved, I think this is void because IDs can stay just as they was and then majority of treaties are fine or will just need little tuning.

Why should factions be allowed to abuse what they already have and get away with it? They could do some good RP to redeem themselves.

Going to extreme, you could declare "from now on, every faction gets only one system as ZOI. If you wanna have bigger space, use perks.

I don't see any relevance at all for this extremity to happen.

[Thyrzul]

I feel sorry for you for the false accusations, Garrett, and while I dunno much about the PR stuff, I apologize for my part in the disconnect accusations. It really seemed to be your (Admin Team's) own idea, given the player who submitted the request left you behind to take all the blame. But there are still things that I'm baffled with.

The reason behind the changes was the fact that House Govt's have too strong an influence over quasi-lawful factions. Corporate piracy is essentially stopped in its tracks, because all a corporation has to do is report the offender to the House Government and the quasi lawful faction faces 500 million credit fines, demands for access to their POB's, and even in extreme cases, FR5's. The House Governments effectively stop quasi lawful factions from being quasi lawful. The faction is forced into lawfulness because they can't afford to get caught doing illegal activities. Inside house space, this might be reasonable. Strict enforcement of house laws outside house space is too much power for House military and police factions to wield. This is not balanced, and it has to stop. This was the reasoning behind the change, and although it would have proved effective, admittedly there are less extreme ways to go about it. We are voting on that now.

How I see it, quasi-lawfulness means an extended array of opportunities of which you cannot exploit fully at a given time. You can swing from one side to the other, or keep sticking to the bordering line between the two, but for example, you cannot act unlawfully in front of lawfuls... without consequences. If a faction intends to keep its legal status, then tit needs to keep their public image clean, they need to put effort to it and not just expect it to exist by default (like Zoner neutrality, earn it, not expect/demand). If you want to look/smell clean then you either don't get dirty, or if you do, you make sure nobody notices that until you clean yourself, but getting mad because you are called dirty right after you jumped into the mud is just silly. That responsibility is the cost of all the rewards coming with quasi-lawfulness, but it seems not everybody wants to accept the responsibilities, only the rewards.

Zed summed it up quite well, but also went further than that and proposed inRP solutions on what can quasi-lawful factions do to keep their legal image and still being able to conduct less lawful shenanigans, expanding on one of his points I thought out two specific reasons on either why it would be bad to report rival to government or how can the reported come out of the situation better:

The problem with people avoiding this coveted "corporate piracy" is that they want it both ways - harassing, robbing, and shooting their competitors without the possible RP consequence of that corporation's house wanting to protect their interests, just flying past that same faction's bases in their house space as if nothing happened.

If you're deathly afraid you'll maybe get a little red stain on your crisp green repsheet from shooting someone with connections, perhaps it's more a matter of hardening up and facing potential in-game consequences than seeking admin intervention to implement a broad restriction on RP distress calls and a response by law enforcement when that makes perfect sense as well. Not all house law enforcement chooses to pursue it, which is nice and can make for some underhanded fun when all parties consent, but when they don't consent, what were you expecting from robbing and killing people? It's a diplomatic risk that you've got to account for as a smart corporation with an image to maintain and relationships to foster in your cost-benefit analysis. Players criticize factions that are friendly/neutral to a majority of Sirius all the time despite their actions, so why are they trying to get the same treatment?

Pretty much what I've been trying to suggest, but of course there will always be stubborn elements in this community.

Get creative if it's too much for your delicate repsheet to handle: attack them by proxies and stir up more factions' activity, make keeping their mouth shut part of the demand, give kickbacks to corrupt cops, make your services to that house more vital than their own corps' in some way. There are countless possibilities. Also, if people were friendlier with each other OORP, they could come to better general agreements to piracy (without being too pitched and artificial) without anyone crying, but there are far too many egos invested in pixels.

Actually one of these got me some ideas. There can be a lot of reasons thought of quite easily why would an FR5 be detrimental for either the house or the corporations.

In the case of corporations rivaling from the same house, by constantly destroying eachother's assets, they are both harming house economy, thus both would have to face the same negative consequences should their rivalry become revealed. -> No reports at all.

In the case of corporations rivaling from different houses, appeals could be made towards the sanctioning house, because if you harm their economy, but pay them back part of it, it's somewhat of a compensation. Arbitrary hypothetical scenario: IMG keeps dominating Kruger over a field but sells 1/3 of that ore to Rheinland for discount price, or for cheaper than Kruger would, that could be a reason for Rheinland to ignore Kruger's qq. -> No FR5s in the end.

Bamm, you don't have to fear from FR5s, because somebody else thought it out for you how to avoid them, and now everybody's happy... except those who suffer from these ID changes now because some others couldn't think for themselves before...

These are thoughts not incorporating the ID change, but trying to solve the issue without hurting roleplay... actually encouraging it for some other parties. I've yet to see responses trying to counter these arguements, and can't think of anything possible, maybe except that having to put some effort into keeping up their legal image might easily be less convenient for quasi-lawful factions and corporations than ID changes like this one.

But thinking a bit further, corporate rivalry, even if done outside of the jurisdiction of house laws, results in damage of corporate property, which directly/indirectly damages the economy of the respective house. What would be the reason for a house not to take punitive measures on the offending corporation, or rather, a corporation which directly/indirectly damaged the house's economy? That it happened outside of jurisdiction of house laws? But wait, the action has it's effects, no matter where it happened, why should consequences be affected by the location then? What would forbid house authorities to decide and ban a foreign corporation from house space as a punitive measure in such cases? Divine intervention?

I'm not entirely convinced that ID changes solve the above issue, but I'm more sure about that if corporations try to stay a bit more diplomatic, and make appeals towards the government for compensation of loss, they can minimize the effects of scenarios such as the above.

And most importantly, if factions cannot maintain their quasi-lawful status, or just don't give a damn about trying to, they shouldn't be quasi-lawful: stay completely clean not to get slapped and be lawful, or feel free to do your dirty fetish as an unlawful and get ready to be slapped by lawfuls, or at least them trying to. As far as I know Admins/Devs take player driven lore development into account now.

---

[Snoozzzer]

I'd personally love to see the Curacao treaty voided by these changes, placing Cortez back as an independent system without the big brother of Liberty and Bretonia may actually allow for some more fun variations for OSC|.

My hacker would pay quite handsomely for docking rights should you not have to be accountable to the houses. I mean, it is a planet of beaches, booze and loose men and women, right?

---

[Black Jack]

I like to see that independent space (border systems) are really independent now.

[Swifty]

I like to see that independent space (border systems) are really independent now.

Doesn't mean you are safe though.

---