Login

Jansen · 01-09-2016, 06:38 PM,

Guess this needs further discussion, stay tuned for news to arrive soon™

sindroms · 01-09-2016, 06:41 PM,

As many as there needs to be so that the person know what is being asked of them. You seem to be fixated on something completely irrlevant to the situation at hand. Look at what is being said. Look at the whole encounter. Ask another admin for help if this is too complicated right now. Take a few days to analyse it, there is no rush. I do not mind that you remove my equipment because of some very petty report. It is your job.

But the only reason, literally only reason I am wasting your time right now is because I honestly think that you guys are doing something completely wrong right now. You guys stated that this is about unreasonable demands. There were no unreasonable demands. There was nothing being done that would result in the destruction of the ship if they complied. They were told that fact three times.

Now you are referring to the amount of demands. Alright, I will humor you. If you have a better suggestion on how to make this particular demand in one sentence and within the ingame text limit, please tell me now. One that will not leave players confused.

--------------
PSA: If you have been having stutter/FPS lag on Disco where it does not run as smoothly as other games, please look at the fix here: https://discoverygc.com/forums/showthrea...pid2306502
----------

sindroms · 01-09-2016, 08:54 PM,

(01-09-2016, 06:38 PM)Jansen Wrote: Guess this needs further discussion, stay tuned for news to arrive soon™

Thank you.
Needless to say, our whole group is currently a little bit confused as to the result of this interaction. Until we get a proper reply in green regarding these IRP demands, nobody is going to risk flying, since it is sort of relevant to the central mechanic of the group itself.

--------------
PSA: If you have been having stutter/FPS lag on Disco where it does not run as smoothly as other games, please look at the fix here: https://discoverygc.com/forums/showthrea...pid2306502
----------

Binski · 01-09-2016, 09:38 PM,

I filed it Sindroms. Personally I found the entire encounter extremely confusing. I also believe that demanding turrets in any way is simply not a fair demand based on how you have to go about it. Yeah the fact that it involves many demands seems to not help. it comes down to whether or not you think it should be allowed to demand someone expose themselves and have their turrets shot off. If not it's not a legit demand, and since followed up your demand to hold with 'dropping' my shield and give up my turrets the hard way, I don't see actions after that as legit. I do want the bottom line drawn on this one either way. Admins need to really reexamine if such rp demands are on the safer side to allow. Should it continue or not? I don't think so but the admins will decide.

If you throw down a demand for something like that don't be surprised if the encounter winds up as uncommon as the demand. Until last week I never made any demand for turrets, and I've pirated a lot of ships. Last week I tried your trick on a trader myself...despite your claims to no problems I ran into the very same confusion right off the bat. But I said until I see a ruling on that I just might roll the way you guys want to. If this stands I'll have no problem settling for cargo or credits. Simple, should rp demands to let yourself get shot to avoid getting shot fly? Barrel rolls don't involve exposing yourself or getting shot. If you want to waive your cargo/ credits right for that...fine. But I think that's what the Terrorist ID is for. Then, if you want to waive your right to kill the target to shoot off their turrets with their consent...well good luck trying. I don't see it as good to allow for a regular ID.

The Further Exploits of Captain Antares (August 2015) │ (alt) JonasHudson
*Argo | Special Operative ID (Approved Request)* | Argo Compilation Video
################ *Proposed OF Challenge System* ################
############### The Book of Piracy (Piracy Tutorial) ###############
############### Binski Alamo (Youtube Channel) ###############

The Savage · (This post was last modified: 01-09-2016, 09:57 PM by The Savage.)

To straighten things out, especially to this line:

(01-09-2016, 06:09 PM)sindroms Wrote: As such, I have a feeling that this sanction report was submitted out of spite AFTER the thread was locked due to oorp reasons.

Sanction was issued before said forum thread and I want to make it clear now. I had saw entire incident as a poor trolling attempt made by indie Rogues, that's why I treated is as such and filled a sanction after hand.

My only mistake was that I made a thread with simple question about piracy demands as I have pirate chars myself. But then, thread later turned into trial by forum - right at the moment when I got my answers, got things cleared out and I wanted thread closed.

Once again, saction was filled right after the encounter. Once again, I repeat, it was filled only because I found it a trolling attempt made by lolwhut indie players, nothing else. I had no prior knowledge that these players were not indies.

sindroms · 01-09-2016, 10:02 PM,

(01-09-2016, 09:38 PM)TheUnforgiven Wrote: I filed it Sindroms. Personally I found the entire encounter extremely confusing. I also believe that demanding turrets in any way is simply not a fair demand based on how you have to go about it. Yeah the fact that it involves many demands seems to not help. it comes down to whether or not you think it should be allowed to demand someone expose themselves and have their turrets shot off. If not it's not a legit demand, and since followed up your demand to hold with 'dropping' my shield and give up my turrets the hard way, I don't see actions after that as legit. I do want the bottom line drawn on this one either way. Admins need to really reexamine if such rp demands are on the safer side to allow. Should it continue or not? I don't think so but the admins will decide.

If you throw down a demand for something like that don't be surprised if the encounter winds up as uncommon as the demand. Until last week I never made any demand for turrets, and I've pirated a lot of ships. Last week I tried your trick on a trader myself...despite your claims to no problems I ran into the very same confusion right off the bat. But I said until I see a ruling on that I just might roll the way you guys want to. If this stands I'll have no problem settling for cargo or credits. Simple, should rp demands to let yourself get shot to avoid getting shot fly? Barrel rolls don't involve exposing yourself or getting shot. If you want to waive your cargo/ credits right for that...fine. But I think that's what the Terrorist ID is for. Then, if you want to waive your right to kill the target to shoot off their turrets with their consent...well good luck trying. I don't see it as good to allow for a regular ID.

I am currently too intoxicated to reply to this statement in full, but I would like to know was the encounter so bad that immediately afterwards you, without contacting us or trying to resolve the issue if there was one, decided to go report us to the admin team instead?

--------------
PSA: If you have been having stutter/FPS lag on Disco where it does not run as smoothly as other games, please look at the fix here: https://discoverygc.com/forums/showthrea...pid2306502
----------

The Savage · (This post was last modified: 01-09-2016, 10:25 PM by The Savage.)

(01-09-2016, 10:02 PM)sindroms Wrote: the encounter so bad that immediately afterwards you, without contacting us or trying to resolve the issue

If memory serves me right, I pointed out my doubt three times during the encounter, one by accident in local chat. I had no reply (as seen in logs I gave to admins) and I was shot down some time after. From out point of view, you were two trolls and we found no use for further reasoning in-game. Had you replied my PM with explanation such demand is legit, whole thing would be more clear and we would not be here.

**Tunicle** · 01-09-2016, 10:26 PM,

(01-09-2016, 06:38 PM)Jansen Wrote: Guess this needs further discussion, stay tuned for news to arrive soon™

OK lets have this applying until we unlock it.

**Tunicle** · 01-10-2016, 01:40 PM,

Apologies for the time but with a team approach we needed to give all admins the time to view and discuss the situation.

The team have again discussed the violation reports leading up to this, have read the chat logs and all the material on the forum.

There is still a feeling that this is problematic behaviour and also no doubt that just using a trolling rulebreak for this would just invoke further outbursts and bullying attempts on the forum.

You have also made it plainly clear that you want to stick to the wording of the rules and because you did not drop the shield or destroy the ship then no actual attack has occurred as defined by the rule wording. Again rather than argue the interpretation you wish to put on wording against what may be a more sensible interpretation of what an attack is we will just stick to in-game/on forum wording.

So this leads us to, your ID
- Can demand cargo and credits from any ship within their Zone of Influence

Your demands are neither so break the rule linked to ID.

However you will likely claim that this ignoring of rule wording is ok because it was an inRP demand. Normally inRP demands do not lead to ship damage, what you are doing here does, so is not reasonable. Even if it was considered a genuine demand it would still not comply with the ID wording. Remembering you have argued that the wording is inviolate (attacking/destroy) we only feel it fair to apply that logic to the other wordings.

Arguing that you want guns and would just shoot off the turrets is also not inRP as it is impossible to destroy turrets on a spaceship without harming the integrity of the ship, that is why they are not demountable in space. Being able to do this is purely a function of game mechanics and it is unrealistic to use that as justification. Even then it is inRP damaging the life supporting integrity of the ship so not a viable RP demand.

This brings us to the actual chat logs

Spoiler

As you know 3.3 is designed to stop multiple demands and we have a screenshot of the ship unharmed with no shield, so your first demand was complied with.

Thus the sanction stands.

This does of course open up another set of potential loopholes, so again rules will have to be reworded to avoid people trying to play the rules rather than the game.

To avoid any feeling of interpretive bias and avoid writing a new sanction consider the OP to now read

Quote:1.3 Every player must have one ID equipped on their ship. Player should follow the restrictions and allowances listed in their ID and their roleplay and conduct must match the actions of their characters. In cases where these restrictions and allowances conflict with the server rules, the ID overrides the rules.

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.

Edit = text coloured

sindroms · 01-13-2016, 05:02 PM,

I appreciate that you guys have taken your time to go over this sanction again after we provided more evidence on behalf of the encounter and how it went down. But no, you are wrong.

And yes, I know what you might think. "Who cares if you think it is wrong, the green has the final say." But if you are reading this, community member, then a sanction like this now opens a flood gate of traders reporting pirates for any sort of deviation from the standard cargo-or-cash demands you will get from them in the future. Traders will now call your demands of them turning around and leaving the system during a blockade false and ''unreasonable'', they will call your demands to tell them a joke or sing them a song ''unreasonable''. For too long people have complained that pirates lack in roleplay and imagination and all they can do is either ask for your money or your cargo. Do you really think this is going to help?

I will give the benefit of the doubt that perhaps the community has changed even though the rules have not regarding these interactions. That perhaps two years ago when these exact demands were done by a indie Junker group of technology thieves that we had a different sort of mentality back then. But in the end, no matter how ridgid the rules are, it is the admin team that decides whether or not to apply them to a given dispute. We have had plenty of sanctions in the past, where the exact statement of the rules were disregarded due to the nature of the encounter. If you are sanctioning me because of multiple demands, then you should already know that the subsequent demands were made in order to give context as to what is happening to the person at hand. The rule regarding multiple demands exists only to discourage people from doing things that would lead to the death of a trader - a.i. demanding cargo, then demanding money if they complied just to make them decline it. In our case it was used to prevent that from happening.

I did everything I could to make these demands as clear as they can to someone who speaks English. I will repeat myself, I refuse to believe that if I had non-english russian players easily understand what the demand meant, that Toris and Unforgiven at any point did not know what is being asked from them. The demand was given as simply as possible at first and when Toris decided to oorp in local about it being impossible, we then stated it again in more detail as to what is being asked and even then stated that the person would not be harmed if they complied. I still wholeheartedly believe that they CHOSE not to understand and misinterpreted the demand on purpose to use it as a reason for the sanction report.

Toris, if you have proven yourself to be an overly sensitive member of the community time and time again, having left multiple times and have done things to make people laugh at the mention of your name, it is YOU to blame that you now have to detach yourself from every single ingame encounter to wonder if the people in front of you are trolling you or if they know who you are. Your first reaction to our demands was to scream about us pirating you - a junker. I hardly believe the sanction and this is not connected. It is just that when RP diplomacy failed, you saw the chance to do so and deliberately misinterpreted the demands for them to work in your favor rules-wise. @TheUnforgiven You were present during the whole interaction we had with Toris. Even if there is a chance that Toris was so outraged about having his Junker pirated, I do not beleive for a moment that you - as a bystander and not being involved in the piracy at first, could not see what is being asked from the victim. Even when it was your turn, the way we formulated our demand to you was specifically done in a way for you to understand that getting killed would not be the result of it. You completely ignored the demand to lower your shield or even to stop your ship. You IGNORED what was being asked of you, but chose to reply that ''I can't, so I won't.'' as if we were still talking about guns. We were very patient with Toris. When he moved while we were removing his guns, instead of blasting him, we even told him again to hold still, that nobody was killing him. He chose the result of this encounter, just the same as you did.

@Admins

You mentioned sanctionS. If I can ask, were they submitted after the thread Toris posted about unreasonable demands? If so, his thread did just as what I expected it to do - give people an excuse to report non standard piracy requests.

I am not arguing about this sanction because I have nothing else better to do or that I lost guns. I know what happens to people who do not agree to their sanctions. I know. But I am not going to accept your sanction. Not out of spite, but out of the belief that it is you who are wrong this time. The feedback I had both on TS and Skype from people from my ''clique'' and not, only reinforces this.

No.
I am not going to stop making these demands.

I will continue this roleplay type and I refuse to be set back because of some guy who was butthurt that his junker was pirated. This is a kind of piracy roleplay that - in the end, has the same consequences as any other piracy encounter. Either you obey the pirate and lose monetary value of around 2mil credits due to the guns you need to rebuy, or you get killed for disobeying the pirate.

So I suppose that is that. If the staff has had any reason to wish to remove me from the community over the last few years, I am giving you this chance now by openly and publicly disagreeing to your judgement and stating that I am not going to take anything from this sanction and that I will continue on roleplaying this character as I have until now. Use this excuse if you want, because I am not planning to give you any others. This encounter and any encounter regarding these demands was not motivated by malicious intentions. I respect the people currently flying these ships along with me enough to know that they too joined for promoting the quality of and variety of pirate roleplay, not get group-slapped as metagamers or trolling.

The ball is, as it is said, in your court now. If you want to discuss this on skype, you know mine. I will not be posting in this thread anymore unless you ask me to.

--------------
PSA: If you have been having stutter/FPS lag on Disco where it does not run as smoothly as other games, please look at the fix here: https://discoverygc.com/forums/showthrea...pid2306502
----------

Login
Username:
Password:	Lost Password?
	Remember me