So, roleplay demands are now against the rules

[Karst]

http://discoverygc.com/forums/showthread...pid1729544

This is an extremely disturbing development.
Some of the admin statement here reads like they're deliberately misunderstanding/trolling the target of this sanction.
I cannot believe you are telling us with a straight face that things like "And you are going to keep your mouth shut" is to be understood as a demand that precludes additional demands?

If I'm supposed to be taking that into account, it's going to become very difficult to even have a normal roleplay conversation as a pirate. Am I to understand that if I wish to make a demand that isn't 2milordai, I must make sure not to explain it in a way that requires multiple messages, because this would be making multiple demands?
Can I no longer make another demand if I, for example, tell a trader to "move away from the trade lane"?

It seems like the bottom line here is, better stick to "stop ur ship, trader"+"drop all cargo or u die" which is technically entirely within the rules. I hope you realize that this is exactly what this sanction will be encouraging.

I don't know what's sadder, the unparalleled idiocy of this sanction and explanation thereof, or the fact that somebody was so butthurt by actually interesting pirate RP that they reported it in the first place.
Though I didn't think this was possible, my faith in the fair judgement capabilities of the admin team has actually dropped even lower.

---

[sindroms]

"The point you are dwelling on is incorrect either deliberately or because you missed it. InRP demands that do not cause damage are usually fine if they do not cause the player to suffer damage, things that cause damage are not reasonable.."

No, @Tunicle, demands that result in the death of traders is unreasonable. This is how the trader-pirate interactions have always been viewed. Or that involves damages of a monetary value that would be unreasonable to demand from a trader. Losing 5 bots in the process will not make your willy fall off.

So stopping a person full of codenames and unmounted armors and telling him them to drop all cargo is completely OK with you, but telling a person to stand still so I can remove 700 000$ in guns and maybe 15 000$ in BBs is bad?

---

--------------
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
----------

[nOmnomnOm]

"And you are going to keep your mouth shut"

that definitely doesn't count as a demand.
Whoever thinks that doesn't know what a proper demand is. they are just twisting words.

---

[Char Aznable]

What I really do not understand is that there was only one, perfectly doable request. Stopping and holding still is not a demand - and dropping your shield even has a keybinding on Discovery. The shooting off of guns is done by the pirates, and therefore not done as a demand. Nobody told them to unmount the guns, nobody told them to do anything that is impossible. It's a roleplay substitute for the pirates unmounting eqipment on the ship.

But if this sanction stays in effect, good job to the greens for not caring about roleplay on a Roleplay server. Good job.

[Moberg]

Fully agree with Sindroms and Karst here personally. I can not understand how this decision could even remotely be justified. The logs that were provided in the thread leave zero room for speculation as to what Spazzy's intent was. And if you take hull damage because you don't stand still or the pirate misses 1-2 shots (a non-lethal amount that only makes you lose bots), then that's your own fault.

I hope that in the future, admin decisions represent a much wider spectrum of opinions with more thought put into it, unlike the display we've seen in regards to that sanction.

All this sanction does is set a precedent for unnecessary sanctionlancing when damage other than monetary one is dealt to the player.

[Thyrzul]

I already expressed most of my thoughts on Skype already...

@ Amount of demands:

[17:08:56] Thyr'zul - [C]: so if you have one demand
[17:09:04] Thyr'zul - [C]: but you also explain how it can be done in three steps
[17:09:16] Thyr'zul - [C]: then it's already three demands
[17:09:19] Thyr'zul - [C]: and you break rules
[17:09:52] Thyr'zul - [C]: I wonder if it still counts as one or again three if I explain those three steps in one line of text

@ RP demands:

[17:23:55] Thyr'zul - [C]: I also remember one time I was surrounded by pirates
[17:24:06] Thyr'zul - [C]: like shortly after cap piracy became a thing again
[17:24:25] Thyr'zul - [C]: there were several cruisers, at least one scylla, but not just those
[17:24:36] Thyr'zul - [C]: between NY gate and Mojave
[17:24:46] Thyr'zul - [C]: and I was escorted to the Virginia JH
[17:24:53] Thyr'zul - [C]: told to drop my shield
[17:24:55] Thyr'zul - [C]: and jump
[17:25:02] Thyr'zul - [C]: and I complied
[17:25:07] Thyr'zul - [C]: and do you know what did I do?
[17:25:11] Thyr'zul - [C]: I didn't get salty
[17:25:16] Thyr'zul - [C]: I enjoyed it
[17:25:19] Thyr'zul - [C]: and I got creative
[17:25:28] Thyr'zul - [C]: and reenabled my shields before jumping
[17:25:42] Thyr'zul - [C]: so it charged up to half by the time I ended up on the other side
[17:26:00] Thyr'zul - [C]: I survived the encounter with two stationary LABCs in close range with half hull still intact
[17:26:08] Thyr'zul - [C]: and I enjoyed it

@ "Unreasonable" demands:

[17:28:31] Thyr'zul - [C]: You know what? Demands causing damage being unreasonable is silly. Demands causing inevitable death are unreasonable, yes, but if you still have a chance to survive if you are not outright stupid as fuck, demands should be okay.

(Not sure if it counts as Spaz ninja'd me or I ninja'd him...)

@ Toris:

[17:26:46] Thyr'zul - [C]: Btw if I didn't know Toris, I'd call it malicious reporting

Basically that's it so far.

EDIT #1: Please return the "RP demand" part into pirate IDs. We are encouraging RP on an RP server after all, aren't we?

---

[Karst]

"And you are going to keep your mouth shut"

that definitely doesn't count as a demand.
Whoever thinks that doesn't know what a proper demand is. they are just twisting words.

According to the statement in the sanction, it does.
Thus my interpretation of them deliberately trolling the target of the sanction. If they're making a joke, they should not be doing so in a sanction thread.

---

[Ciaogem]

First of all, I feel I should preface by mentioning that I'm of course very sorry for violating my probation. I'm sure, however, that the administration team can appreciate that I really don't have any intention of racking up any more black marks on my record, and that I've been watching the sanction linked/talked about in the OP with great interest - particularly with regards the 'multiple demands' part. I'd have to agree with Karst here - the outcome has been neither what I was expecting, nor what I wanted to see. I don't pirate so much, any more, but I know that (or, at least, have always acted as if) the same rules regarding demands-before-destruction apply even when you're a lawful dealing with an unlawful transport.

Code:

[07.01.2016 17:43:47] GRN|Lucie.LeBlanc.: You two in the transports. I will grant you this one reprieve, so you had better be thankful of it.
[07.01.2016 17:43:57] GRN|Ferdinand;Mounier: Didn't you hear? You've been told to keep quiet, worm.
[07.01.2016 17:44:10] GRN|Lucie.LeBlanc.: You are to empty your holds and pay compensation for your trespass here.
[07.01.2016 17:44:12] Chloe.Fladiux: *laughs* Can't make me.
[07.01.2016 17:44:31] GRN|Lucie.LeBlanc.: Then, you are to depart immediately.

Code:

[07.01.2016 17:45:40] GRN|Lucie.LeBlanc.: You are stupider than I gave you credit for.
[07.01.2016 17:45:45] GRN|Lucie.LeBlanc.: No wonder you are merely trusted with grunt mining labour.
[07.01.2016 17:45:53] GRN|Lucie.LeBlanc.: I will make this simple for you, then, so pay attention:
[07.01.2016 17:45:59] GRN|Lucie.LeBlanc.: Put the cargo in space.
[07.01.2016 17:46:05] GRN|Lucie.LeBlanc.: Pay a five million credit fine - each.
[07.01.2016 17:46:06] GRN|Lucie.LeBlanc.: Leave.
[07.01.2016 17:46:08] GRN|Lucie.LeBlanc.: In that order.
[07.01.2016 17:46:18] GRN|Lucie.LeBlanc.: If I have to repeat myself, I shan't bother.

In short: is this sort of thing going to get me in trouble down the line? There is no reasonable roleplay alternative to catching an illegal transport other than 'drop all your cargo, pay a fine, and leave via the nearest appropriate exit' - and even that is me gainsaying what would happen iRP almost all of the time, which is the transport's immediate destruction. Unfortunately, that is not possible, hence I've made always had to make do with the above as the 'best fit', so to speak.

Proper clarification would be appreciated - especially if it's the sort that lets me know I'm fine as I am.

[Impyness]

Really dont understand what people were thinking here, this seems like a totally legitimate and ultimately harmless demand. Statistically speaking even if someone were to demand the turrets on a battletransport with 12 guns it would actually only be a 5-7 credit demand which is far under the limit of what is acceptable.

---

#Snakded

[Lythrilux]

First of all, I feel I should preface by mentioning that I'm of course very sorry for violating my probation. I'm sure, however, that the administration team can appreciate that I really don't have any intention of racking up any more black marks on my record, and that I've been watching the sanction linked/talked about in the OP with great interest - particularly with regards the 'multiple demands' part. I'd have to agree with Karst here - the outcome has been neither what I was expecting, nor what I wanted to see. I don't pirate so much, any more, but I know that (or, at least, have always acted as if) the same rules regarding demands-before-destruction apply even when you're a lawful dealing with an unlawful transport.

Code:

[07.01.2016 17:43:47] GRN|Lucie.LeBlanc.: You two in the transports. I will grant you this one reprieve, so you had better be thankful of it.
[07.01.2016 17:43:57] GRN|Ferdinand;Mounier: Didn't you hear? You've been told to keep quiet, worm.
[07.01.2016 17:44:10] GRN|Lucie.LeBlanc.: You are to empty your holds and pay compensation for your trespass here.
[07.01.2016 17:44:12] Chloe.Fladiux: *laughs* Can't make me.
[07.01.2016 17:44:31] GRN|Lucie.LeBlanc.: Then, you are to depart immediately.

Code:

[07.01.2016 17:45:40] GRN|Lucie.LeBlanc.: You are stupider than I gave you credit for.
[07.01.2016 17:45:45] GRN|Lucie.LeBlanc.: No wonder you are merely trusted with grunt mining labour.
[07.01.2016 17:45:53] GRN|Lucie.LeBlanc.: I will make this simple for you, then, so pay attention:
[07.01.2016 17:45:59] GRN|Lucie.LeBlanc.: Put the cargo in space.
[07.01.2016 17:46:05] GRN|Lucie.LeBlanc.: Pay a five million credit fine - each.
[07.01.2016 17:46:06] GRN|Lucie.LeBlanc.: Leave.
[07.01.2016 17:46:08] GRN|Lucie.LeBlanc.: In that order.
[07.01.2016 17:46:18] GRN|Lucie.LeBlanc.: If I have to repeat myself, I shan't bother.

In short: is this sort of thing going to get me in trouble down the line? There is no reasonable roleplay alternative to catching an illegal transport other than 'drop all your cargo, pay a fine, and leave via the nearest appropriate exit' - and even that is me gainsaying what would happen iRP almost all of the time, which is the transport's immediate destruction. Unfortunately, that is not possible, hence I've made always had to make do with the above as the 'best fit', so to speak.

Proper clarification would be appreciated - especially if it's the sort that lets me know I'm fine as I am.

I'd assume you were demanding contraband and then you asked for a fine. Lawful IDs literally have a line that says "Can demand contraband and levy fines", so it's implied you can do such actions in one encounter.

---