Smugglers, Lawful/Traders, Pirates

[Zelot]

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.

So that you can then call them biased and hypocrites because they are not following the rules exactly. Akumb, there is no way for them to win with you, when they interpret the rules, you call them biased, when they dont you tell them how they should.

---

 

[Culebra]

Ahem the new IDs may solve this.

Corsair ID Edited

Pilot carrying this ID is a Corsair.

Corsairs can:
* Attack at will within their Zone of Influence any:
o Bretonia Mining and Manufacturing
o Ships carrying Cardamine, VIPs, Passengers or allied pilots
* Engage bounty hunters, mercenaries, freelancers and lawfuls
* Participate in military operations on unlawful side
* Scan for contraband and demand cargo
* Trade
* Fulfil bounty contracts
* Escort traders and smugglers

Corsairs cannot:
* Ally with lawful forces except:
o Cryer Pharmaceuticals
o in joint operations against Nomad, Wild and Keeper ID

Allowed ships: Fighters, Freighters, Transports, Gunboats
Carrying unmounted IDs in your ship, as well as not equipping an ID, is a serious crime.

[Akumabito]

So that you can then call them biased and hypocrites because they are not following the rules exactly. Akumb, there is no way for them to win with you, when they interpret the rules, you call them biased, when they dont you tell them how they should.

Not true at all, I call it how I see it though and in cases where they show an indication of bias they show an indication of bias, but that has nothing to do with this issue.

I'm not telling them how to interpret the rules, I am just pointing out that despite the claims that their hands are tied by the rules they do have enough leeway in the rules themselves to either limit the lawful or allow the pirate in this case. It's their choice how this issue is enforced and they have clearly stretched the rules in the past in sanctions beyond what they would need to stretch to reach either extreme here.

As far as how it should be enforced I think most people agree it should be the same for a lawful as a pirate, either a cap ship can attack a transport, or it can't. If they chose to allow it for lawfuls and not for pirates it's them choosing how they interpret the rules and not the rules themselves that make it this way.

[Zero755]

Not to step on any toes here, but Aku, I think this is progressing more toward another anti admin thing. I dont want to see another thread locked because it turned to admin flaming.

---

[Fellow Hoodlum]

Could I point out, if you very carefully read that ID ... No cruisers or battleships ... are allowed
on it at all.

And Akumabito, seen as you are on a roll now, common sense has taken a back seat to the sound of your
keyboard clattering your own brand of logic. Us mere mortals can't possibly follow this almost 'vulcanesque'
repartee, so I for one admit defeat, as life is entirely way too short at this point.

Hoodlum

---

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

[Culebra]

Corsair Guard ID Edited

Pilot carrying this ID is a Corsair Guard.

Corsair Guards can:

* Attack at will within their Zone of Influence any:
o Bretonia Mining and Manufacturing
o Ships carrying Cardamine, VIPs or Passengers
* Escort traders
* Engage bounty hunters, mercenaries, freelancers and lawfuls
* Participate in military operations on unlawful side
* Scan for contraband and demand cargo
* Fulfil bounty contracts
* Trade

Corsair Guards are not allowed to ally with lawful forces except:

* Cryer Pharmaceuticals
* in joint operations against Nomad, Wild and Keeper ID

Allowed ships: Fighters, Freighters, Transports, Gunboats, Cruisers (limited), Battleships (limited)
Carrying unmounted IDs in your ship, as well as not equipping an ID, is a serious crime.

Still says limited but it also says they can engage at will people carrying certain things.

Edit: So if this goes through I think the pirates should be happy right?

[Akumabito]

And Akumabito, seen as you are on a roll now, common sense has taken a back seat to the sound of your
keyboard clattering your own brand of logic. Us mere mortals can't possibly follow this almost 'vulcanesque'
repartee, so I for one admit defeat, as life is entirely way too short at this point.

Hoodlum

I should have known better than to try to discuss this logically with you hoodlum. Have a nice day.

[Zelot]

edited... Too mean.

---

 

[tfmachad]

...

I'm not telling them how to interpret the rules, I am just pointing out that despite the claims that their hands are tied by the rules they do have enough leeway in the rules themselves to either limit the lawful or allow the pirate in this case. It's their choice how this issue is enforced.

As far as how it should be enforced I think most people agree it should be the same for a lawful as a pirate, either a cap ship can attack a transport, or it can't. If they chose to allow it for lawfuls and not for pirates it's them choosing how they interpret the rules and not the rules themselves that make it this way.

There's a third possibility, though, Akumabito.

You say that admins could either limit the lawfuls or allow the pirates. Those would indeed be the only two options is they were interested in treating both groups the same way. If not, they can also interpret the rules in a fashion in which they can limit pirates while allowing a greater latitude to lawfuls. Deeming that interpretation as "unfair" in itself is ignoring an aspect of the issue.

Just so we can all speak the same language, let's come around with some definitions:

"Lawfuls" - Characters aligned to one of the four Houses (Liberty, Bretonia, Rheinland and Kusari) whose roles involve (but doesn't necessarily are limited to) protecting populace and territory and enforcing local laws. A.k.a. those that carry Police or Military type IDs for matters of the rules.

"Unlawfuls" - All characters deemed criminals by the denizens (law enforcers and civilian types) of the four Houses (Liberty, Bretonia, Rheinland and Kusari). A.k.a. those that carry Pirate IDs for matters of the rules.

Pirates - "Unlawfuls" directly involved in coercion of trading vessel's personel.

Privateer - "Lawfuls" directly involved in coercion of trading vessel's personel.

Traders - Characters involved in the transportation of goods accepted as legal by both lawfuls and unlawfuls.

Smugglers - Characters involved in the transportation of goods deemed illegal by either lawfuls or unlawfuls.

It's a part of the lawfuls' role to respect jurisdiction and have some behavior constraint (based both on rule imposed restrictions towards the IDs and on the RP legal codex followed by those characters) while dealing with the civilian types (traders of any kind for the matter of this discussion).

While lawfuls have these role imposed constraints, unlawfuls' roles have considerable greater latitude when it comes down to the same aspects. Unlawfuls, in general, are much less bound (if at all) by jurisdiction and regulations. Even the smaller local unlawful groups aren't as boxed inside one House territory the way lawfuls are (of course I'm disregarding war events). It is generally more acceptable (if not expected) for an unlawful to behave aggressivelly and erractically towards the civilian types.

The interpretation made by the people responsible that states that "piracy", as in intently pursuing and engaging trading ships with the purpose of coercing their crew (or the player for that matter) can't be done from cruiser up class for matters of balance and fairness. This is not and should not be a prerrogative of neither lawfuls or unlawfuls, any act of piracy should fall into the same regulation. We currently don't have a Privateer ID, but if we did, I'd expect to see privateers limited to gunboats the same way pirates are.

While traders are subject to piracy regardless of their status/role/cargo/location, making them prey, smugglers are purposely challenging law enforcement (both lawful and unlawful) making them aggressors. The lawful role prevent lawfuls from attacking traders while they respect local laws. In turn, the unlawful role allow pirates to attack traders regardless.

The root cause for this issue is that not always unlawfuls are acting as pirates. Sometimes unlawfuls are in the role of defenders while traders (or smugglers for this matter) "attack", pretty much in the same way smugglers challenge House legislation. In those circumstances unlawfuls have their hands tied by the current interpretation of the rules, because anytime an unlawful opens fire upon a trading vessel it is characterized as "piracy", regardless of the circumstances (I'm disregarding self-defense). This comes from the fact that all unlawful IDs characterize unlawfuls as pirates. So, while privateers use specific IDs for their roles (the Pirate ID for lack of an specific one), unlawfuls and pirates share the same ones. That in itself grants unlawful characters much more latitude than that the lawful characters enjoy, by the way, but also hurt them somewhat.

The different interpretation of the rules for lawfuls and unlawfuls probably comes from the fact that while it's possible for an unlawful to pursue in the activity of piracy against a trader, it is not possible for a lawful to do the same. In fact, while lawfuls use different IDs when they engage in such activity (Privateers), the unlawfuls can portray both roles from the same ID.

What many consider an unbalanced scenario is, in fact, balanced if you consider the latitude granted to each ID category.

---

Meet the Kriegers - The story of a family and of two men that shared more than just a name
Fantasmas de la Nube Siniestra
I Mon'Star: The Strange Case of Elizabeth Wallace

[gafwmn]

From what I am reading here,and please correct me if I am wrong,is that some smugglers are tired of getting blasted because they:

1. Got caught..that means in scan range of lawfuls and/or cd'ed
2.Got caught where they shouldn't be,same as above
3. Or,got caught and were using a route that they dang well know they shouldn't have been using in the first place,and got blasted.

Either way you look at it...If you get caught and that person is piloting a capship,then it might be better to do as you are told,cause he probably already has back-up on the way.

And if you still think that a capship doesn't have the right to scan/interdict smugglers....then don't go anywhere near Liberty space.Its really that simple.

The admins have more than enough to do than listen/read sanction reports from smugglers that got blasted cause they A.choose their route poorly and got caught/blasted
B.Got stopped/or blasted by a capship cause they pushed their luck too far
C.think cause they are in a trader they are immune to being blasted by a capship

Not all of us do well in fighters....and not all of us do well in capships.....we pilot what suits us best,rp and rules withstanding.

For all of the traders out there that haul legit cargo..hats off to you.
For all the smugglers out there...you knew the risks involved before you even fired up the ships systems.

Have a nice day:)

---