are you kiddin me?

[Baltar]

If we remove it all together it would be good and bad.

GOOD: Because then people wont get sanctioned
for killing under level players.

True statement

BAD: because under level 30 you basically die instantly.
So if you enter the wrong place and dont respond
because you are trying to get to another location
You end up dieing and having to try again.

How is this different than the present situation? Go back to the beginning of this thread ... Tenacity is experiencing blood lust.

[stewcool]

Remove it all together in Guard systems Im fine with.. ALL together not so much

---

[jpo]

This topic no longer deserves 14 pages.
He was a little civve, we CD'ed him and he blabbed on about something he had no idea about.
No more.
I post less because of everyone taking their opinions and rule lawering and whats RP and whats not.

dude someone started a trial by forum and admitted to breaking a server rule in the OP. what do you expect?

[Lux]

What server rule was broken here jpo?

---

THEY TOLD ME I COULD BE ANYTHING SO I BECAME A SIGNATURE PLS HLP

[sovereign]

What server rule was broken here jpo?

None. Not even in technical terms.

Assuming that Camera Ships are treated like normal vessels for intentions of the cruise rules (which I think is silly), Tenacity went into cruise after engaging a valid target (level rule DOES NOT apply in guard systems), and was thus fleeing, and should have made his way out of the system. If he was following the guy on his way to the Omicron Major Jumphole, Tenacity could be considered to be heading that jumphole- thus out of the system and off the hook. As soon as the Camera Ship left, Tenacity can do whatever he wants in that system again unless the Camera Ship re-enters.




In realistic terms, its a Camera Ship. You have every right to engage under the Guard System rules, but you don't have to. You said you did it to get the point across for when the guy comes back, and that's fair enough. Nothing bad there. However, because of the nature of the Camera Ship, I would put it past all PvP rules. It simply does not exist unless it is RP'd as, say, a cloaked version of another ship (someone in Liberty does this) or some such.

The closest thing to an infraction here is the Camera Ship demanding you leave system. Depending on how it was phrased, that could be rule-lawyering, thus sanctionable. In this case it isn't even mildly warranted, since you didn't break the rule in the first place.



Eh. I ignore camera ships and starfliers. Setup is inherently ooRP, so if someone is setting up (actually setting up, anyway, not exploring and saying "//I'm setting up") they don't exist. If they flaunt it, report them for lawyering.

---

[Lux]

None. Not even in technical terms.

Assuming that Camera Ships are treated like normal vessels for intentions of the cruise rules (which I think is silly), Tenacity went into cruise after engaging a valid target (level rule DOES NOT apply in guard systems), and was thus fleeing, and should have made his way out of the system. If he was following the guy on his way to the Omicron Major Jumphole, Tenacity could be considered to be heading that jumphole- thus out of the system and off the hook. As soon as the Camera Ship left, Tenacity can do whatever he wants in that system again unless the Camera Ship re-enters.
In realistic terms, its a Camera Ship. You have every right to engage under the Guard System rules, but you don't have to. You said you did it to get the point across for when the guy comes back, and that's fair enough. Nothing bad there. However, because of the nature of the Camera Ship, I would put it past all PvP rules. It simply does not exist unless it is RP'd as, say, a cloaked version of another ship (someone in Liberty does this) or some such.

The closest thing to an infraction here is the Camera Ship demanding you leave system. Depending on how it was phrased, that could be rule-lawyering, thus sanctionable. In this case it isn't even mildly warranted, since you didn't break the rule in the first place.
Eh. I ignore camera ships and starfliers. Setup is inherently ooRP, so if someone is setting up (actually setting up, anyway, not exploring and saying "//I'm setting up") they don't exist. If they flaunt it, report them for lawyering.

Thanks, I'll try to remember that in the future:)

---

THEY TOLD ME I COULD BE ANYTHING SO I BECAME A SIGNATURE PLS HLP

[Zelot]

not to through water on your fire gents, but the rules are alittle murky when it comes to whether a under level can be killed, even in a guard system. I will show you.

6.7 All PvP/RP rules listed below in section 6 are void in the following situations:

- Self-defense - level 30 limit is not active;
- Attacker and defender belong to two NPC factions that are at war (Kusari vs Bretonia, Outcasts vs Corsairs, House vs local pirates) - level 30 limit is active;
- Attacker and defender belong to two server factions that are at war (officially declared) - level 30 limit is active.
- In systems belonging to server factions and in Connecticut - level 30 limit is not active;

This is the section of the rules we are talking about, correct? It says that all pvp rules listed in section 6 are voided under those circumstances. Now the problem comes from this rule is section 5, which is not voided by section 6.7 of the rules.

5.3 Attacking characters of level 29 and below is prohibited. Characters under level 30 cannot be attacked by players of any level, except if they have non-Civilian ID onboard, and except cases of self-defense.

So until these two conflicting sections of the rules are clarified, it is impossible to know whether under level killing in Guard systems is o or not, a case could be made using the rules for either argument.

---

 

[Lux]

6.7 All PvP/RP rules listed below in section 6 are void in the following situations:

- Self-defense - level 30 limit is not active;
- Attacker and defender belong to two NPC factions that are at war (Kusari vs Bretonia, Outcasts vs Corsairs, House vs local pirates) - level 30 limit is active;
- Attacker and defender belong to two server factions that are at war (officially declared) - level 30 limit is active.
- In systems belonging to server factions and in Connecticut - level 30 limit is not active

That part states that killing under-30s in guard systems IS allowed, no matter what section 5 says. Yes, the rules say that those instances nullify section 6, but they don't state that the rules inside don't apply. Otherwise, why put the part that I marked in red there?
There is no case that could be made here; it's quite clear that you can kill anyone with good reason and RP with any or all of those circumstances.

EDIT: Sorry for the rule lawyering... I just wanted to try to make that clear, please correct me if I'm wrong.

---

THEY TOLD ME I COULD BE ANYTHING SO I BECAME A SIGNATURE PLS HLP

[Zelot]

That part states that killing under-30s in guard systems IS allowed, no matter what section 5 says. Yes, the rules say that those instances nullify section 6, but they don't state that the rules inside don't apply. Otherwise, why put the part that I marked in red there?

If you will look at the top of the section you are quoting, it says only the PVP rules in section 6 are voided in these cases, and the other rule I quoted is in section 5 and not covered by what you have underlined. No where does it say that section 5 fules are voided.

edit: how can you say it doesnt matter what section 5 says, when nowhere in the rules does it say you can ignore the rules in section 5.

---

 

[Lohingren]

edited*

yeah pretty sad thing you done today none the less.... get a grip

---

Reapers of Sirius Database