Smugglers, Lawful/Traders, Pirates

[Akumabito]

Still waiting for you point out where though ...

The same place it says a fighter can attack a bomber.

[Fellow Hoodlum]

Well, for those with lesser eyesight capabilities, and those who's logical interpretations fall into the rather
empty headed category, this is where it states ... You can't attack traders with capital ships

6.19 Pirates and terrorists have a right to deal as much damage as they see fit before or after demanding
money from a trader ship, but killing trader ship before demanding money or cargo is not allowed. Attacking
traders or demanding cargo is not allowed for cruisers and battleships, unless cruisers and battleship belong
to Terrorist ID or Phantom ID owner.

Just so as we are all clear on the matter.

Hoodlum

---

Some say he is a proud member of: "The most paranoid group of people in the Community."

[Zelot]

Well Akumb?

---

 

[Akumabito]

Well, for those with lesser eyesight capabilities, and those who logical interpretations fall into the rather
empty headed category, this is where it states ... You can't attack traders with capital ships

Just so as we are all clear on the matter.

Hoodlum

Yes, but under that rule a lawful in a cap ship would likewise be unable to attack a smuggler, because as the rules state in that same section "Trader and Smuggler IDs are considered Trader IDs" and the sentence that says caps cannot attack traders is a general restriction.

However attacking smugglers with cap ships is allowed because it says:

6.14 Owners of Military/Police IDs have a right to attack:

- Pirates
- Traders ships carrying smuggled goods and refusing to drop them

So for lawfuls section 6.14 trumps 6.19

So if that is the case the corresponding section for pirate ID's state

6.17 Owners of Pirate IDs have a right to attack:

- Trader ships that do not pay for passage

So that can as easily trump 6.19, and it should as 6.14 and 6.17 are the same ID rights, and could be applied to section 6.19 in the same way.

That would mean if a trader has an arrangement where he pays for right of passage he would be safe, otherwise boom.

[Zelot]

Yes but destroying traders that do not pay for passage is Piracy, which the ID says cruisers and up cant do. Pirates destroying people for not paying for passage is diffrent then a Navy Cruiser destroying a ship that wont drop it's artifacts.

---

 

[Akumabito]

Yes but destroying traders that do not pay for passage is Piracy

No, demanding money or cargo is piracy. The restriction "do not pay for passage" doesn't specify the pirate cruiser was paid, rather it could be stating that the trader who does pay for passage has a right to be in the pirates system, example I pay the HG to let my trader use chukugo then I am safe there.

My larger point is that the rules as written could be interpreted any way, the "Attacking
traders or demanding cargo is not allowed for cruisers and battleships, unless cruisers and battleship belong
to Terrorist ID or Phantom ID owner." could be applied to lawful ID's which are not terrorist ID's or Phantoms, the "6.17 Owners of Pirate IDs have a right to attack Trader ships that do not pay for passage" could be applied to allow blood dragon cap ships to smoke any trader who doesn't pay someone for passage.

It's not the rules that allow lawful cap ship attacks on smugglers and disallows unlawful cap ship attacks on traders, it's the way the admins choose to interpret them.

[Fellow Hoodlum]

Akumabito, when you join the rest of us down here on planet Earth, please do let us know ... Until then:

1.1 All players of Discovery RP server must follow the Rules listed below. Not knowing the rules does not
relieve any player from responsibility.

3.5 Attempts to pose as admins, threatening players with sanctions, attempts to interpret rules
are not allowed.
Applying to admin's name without prior consent of the admin is not allowed.

Thank you for your time and understanding in this matter.

Hoodlum

---

Some say he is a proud member of: "The most paranoid group of people in the Community."

[Zelot]

No, demanding money or cargo is piracy. The restriction "do not pay for passage" doesn't specify the pirate cruiser was paid, rather it could be stating that the trader who does pay for passage has a right to be in the pirates system, example I pay the HG to let my trader use chukugo then I am safe there.

My larger point is that the rules as written could be interpreted any way, the "Attacking
traders or demanding cargo is not allowed for cruisers and battleships, unless cruisers and battleship belong
to Terrorist ID or Phantom ID owner." could be applied to lawful ID's which are not terrorist ID's or Phantoms, the "6.17 Owners of Pirate IDs have a right to attack Trader ships that do not pay for passage" could be applied to allow blood dragon cap ships to smoke any trader who doesn't pay someone for passage.

It's not the rules that allow lawful cap ship attacks on smugglers and disallows unlawful cap ship attacks on traders, it's the way the admins choose to interpret them.

Wait.... isnt that your interpretation of the rules you are making? The rules states Pirates are allowed to attack traders that have not paid for passage. The rest is you putting your own spin on the rule.

---

 

[Grimtooth]

The only real difference between a LN cruiser blasting a smuggler that refuses to drop his cargo in front of planet Manhattan and a Corsair blasting a trader full of passengers that refuses to drop them in front of Crete are that one has LN in front of his name and the other has corsair.
I do not care what you say telling the unlawful factions that they cannot stop goods that they have deemed contraband from being smuggled onto their planets or bases by ANY means needed while allowing the lawfuls to do so is just plain wrong and biased against the unlawful factions.
As it stands i am not sure but i think the list of illegal goods for lawful ports are Cardamine, Slaves, Artifacts and counterfit software. if there are more i do not know what they are. But that's quite a list that allows lawful ships of any size to blast a smuggler without fear of a sanction.
On the other hand you would have passengers illegal at Crete but i am not sure what else would be illegal on other unlawful bases or planets but i really doubt the list would be more than 2 items at ANY one port making a very short list that "should" allow the unlawfuls guarding these ports to destroy a ship that refuses to drop them.
Not only would this balance things a bit more but it would open up a vast area for RP for smugglers who could trade routes and information on what is illegal where and how to best avoid the authorities trying to stop them.
Right now smuggling is almost as boring as trading.

[Akumabito]

I am neither posing as an admin, nor am I interpreting the rules, I am only illustrating how you, as an admin, might interpret the rules if you chose to to either disallow an attack on a smuggler from a lawful ID, or allow a pirate ID in RP to attack a trader.

Despite what you tried to portray earlier, your hands are not tied by the rules in this matter. There is plenty of leeway for you as an admin to change the way YOU interpret the rules.

And I am doing it from planet earth, thank you.

The rest is you putting your own spin on the rule.

I'm only illustrating how the admins could put their own spin on the rules, which is what they do, and stay true to the meaning of the words.