Quote:All attacks must be the result of some form of justifiable roleplay.
3.1 An attack is any hostile action that drains shields to less than 50%. Saying "Engaging" is not sufficient and aggressors are not allowed to destroy a ship before allowing sufficient time to respond. If a player is attacked he has the right to defend himself regardless of who is attacking. Trading nanobots, shieldbatteries or other ammo and equipment during a fight is also considered taking an active role in the engagement.
3.3 Aggressors are not allowed to issue further demands during the same encounter after the trade vessel has complied, or destroy a trade vessel prior to issuing a demand, in system or local chat. "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.
Consequences:
This is a warning because rules 3.3 and 3.1 are guilty here. Both you and the reporter had valid viewpoints. As Pavel said this is Schroedinger's Sanction.
The administration would however appreciate if you could drop a notice before you open fire on the vessel with the intent of destroying it. Even a simple "engaging" would be sufficent in a 3.3 situation.
If you post in this sanction and are not directly involved or a leader of the accused person's faction be advised that you are consenting to be subjected to the reprisal of my choice which may involve in game repercussions up to a ban.
Blaming members of your immediate family, neighbours, friends, pets, and assorted Orcs, Trolls and any other legendary creatures may result in the use of Admin Right #CTE 750AE
