Wait, I don't like those trader ships, so I'm just going to kill them because they're Zoners. Of course, that's a terroristic act, which isn't covered by my ID, but that's okay, my role-play will cover that.
Quote:6.6 Aggressors are not allowed to destroy a trade vessel prior to issuing a demand and allowing sufficient time to respond. Demands may be cargo, credits or an RP demand, such as leaving the system. "Halt" is not a demand.
Oops. You had good role play with good reasoning. Minor detail, though - you're a thief as a pirate, NOT a murderer just because the Zoners are neutral.
Consequences:
Fined all your money and since you didn't have enough funds, took enough equipment to make up the difference. You are NOT a terrorist. If you want to attack a trader ship, make a demand.
If you post in this sanction and are not directly involved or a leader of the accused person's faction be advised that you are consenting to be subjected to the reprisal of my choice which may involve in game repercussions up to a ban.
(11-21-2013, 12:53 PM)Jihadjoe Wrote: Oh god... The end of days... Agmen agreed with me.
You're making serious accusations here, as any OSI pilot misbehaving with i.e. re-engaging would get punished by me.
But(t) you're missing an important point here... you were the one opening fire, therefore anyone shot at by you (and having his shields drained to 50% or less) can return fire all they want.
If you feel like telling me who re-engaged and are able to back that up with proof, please do so.
' Wrote:You were there? I don't see any sanction for the OSI- guy that reengaged.
And yes, I demanded something from them. Their lives. But next time I will demand 1 credit + their lives. Is that better?
Thank you for punishing the ones that are RPing while the ones that reengage escape with their ships and bank accounts intact.
I'm going to point this out again, a little slower this time.
Your ID is that of a pirate. You do not have a terrorist ID. The only people that get to demand 'lives' are those people with terrorist ID's or special RP issued ID's (such as Phantoms). (That doesn't mean you can't demand a sacrificial virgin from the crew or some such, but simply seeking to destroy a ship for the sake of destroying the ship is not allowed. The term is PvP abuse.)
(11-21-2013, 12:53 PM)Jihadjoe Wrote: Oh god... The end of days... Agmen agreed with me.
OK, I understand that my ID doesn't allow me to "just destroy them"
And about the OSI- guy that reengaged... I have no proofs because I didn't expect him to come out from the station he docked and re-engage. I'm not filming every I do and everything others do in the game.
It was OSI-Amphil or something like that. He was flying a border world transport. And one of the CEO was there too. The guy flying the Recruitment Office. Not to mention that they called for support and it was like.... 5 vs 1. But I don't care about that.
Zoners, beware, I'm hunting... and yeah, next time I will demand something...
' Wrote:You still aren't making any clear accusations.
I do. OSI-Aphil re-engaged.
' Wrote:Both myself in the office and the Aphil used to move close to the station to use it's cover fire. But that was about 3 klicks away from you.
Wrong. I was near that station too.
' Wrote:And for your information, an engagement counts the moment you whack someone's shields to below 50%.
He opened fire while I was fighting others. That counts. Every nanobot/battery counts.
' Wrote:Likewise if a ship you chased away is attacked by you again and engaged (see the line above about the definition) they're free to return fire again.
I didn't attacked him. he opened fire on me
' Wrote:As for the 5 vs 1... something like that happens to a Pirate ID'd bomber prancing around a police station right at the systems tradelane hub.
0.0
' Wrote:I strongly suggest you follow the Admin's link to the forum rules and read them through.
According to his statement, Black.Sandero didn't manage to knock his shields below ~55% before he went evasive and docked. Afterwards, he fired a few volleys at him before the escort ordered him to leave the system to continue the trade run.
Furthermore, by the time I docked with the OSI-Employment.Office, the OSI-Aphil already left the system.
As such - unless someone actually can show some pictures of the incident-gone-furball, I see no reason to take the accusations against the OSI-Aphil serious.
![[Image: maxhagensandero.png]](http://img265.imageshack.us/img265/9844/maxhagensandero.png)
![[Image: OSI-Header.png]](http://discoveryfl.com/wiki/images/b/b1/OSI-Header.png)
![[Image: ZonerAllianceSig.png]](http://discoveryfl.com/wiki/images/9/94/ZonerAllianceSig.png)
[/center]
![[Image: ZZ0gBOD.png]](https://i.imgur.com/ZZ0gBOD.png)