Yes, I know this is a wall of text. Read it, please.
Hello there.
Been a busy drama-filled month, hasn't it.
If anything, the latest dealings with the administration team has made me realize that we are currently living in a time, when the active Staff involved in processing sanctions is so (relatively) new, that many of the wisdom and experience collected over the years has evaporated, as it has never been written down. I mean, seriously, if we look back at pre-2010 times, our administration team was highly varid in terms of the characters they themselves played for example.
This poses a problem for the average player and recently, as most of you know, I ended up experiencing this limitation firsthand.
My first problem is that it seems that the underlying point of having an staff overlooking sanction reports has been completely lost for the most part. The reason we are not employing an integrated punishment system (apart from the fact that it is currently impossible due to the RP nature of the server and game limitations) is that the human element involved in processing sanctions allows people to judge Context. That even though the server rules are simplefied and sometimes a bit confusing, the end result is based on context and the staff is there to evaluate said context.
Now it seems that the staff is there to ''burn through'' the reports as fast as possible and then, if something comes up, only then they go back to it for re-evaluation. The amount of sanctions reversed have been piling over the years. There is nothing much you as a player can do at this point, so I will leave it to the Team to decide whether or not I am correct here or I am assuming a bit too much.
In any case, I want to talk to you guys about rule 3.3.
As it is now, it states thus:
3.3 Aggressors are not allowed to issue further demands during the same encounter after the trade vessel has complied, or destroy a trade vessel prior to issuing a demand, in system or local chat. "Halt" on its own is not a demand, however, a trade vessel can be destroyed if they refuse to stop after being asked to in the form of a proper demand.
When this rule was first implemented, I had my concerns. At the time, however, I was taking a well-earned hiatus from unlawful characters and it did not really impact me all that much. When I did play a pirate, it was mostly for the fun and lulz of it and demands for cargo and credits were all that I was asking. That is true for most active pirates these days.
But when it came to the replacement for the now disbanded LR-, I ran into a bit of a rules-related wall, which, imho, could have been completely avoided. The problem is that right now the rules (and the IDs, but I will come back to those further down in the post) have come to treat piracy and the overall interaction between a pirate and piratee as a standartized no-nonsense, no-alternatives thing. And while I will agree that currently there are not enough pirates on the server who would ask demands other than cargo or credits, this sort of ruleset does not encourage otherwise.
A small sidenote, even though I am going to be talking bad things about 3.3, I will acknowledge that it is there for a very damn good reason. Around two years ago the unlawful population realized that you could turn any ID into a Terrorist ID by stopping a trader and asking for a steep but not unreasonable demand (10 million, for example), and then ask for cargo as well. The steep demand would already bring lots of traders to decline and end up as blues, but the subsequent demands would make sure EVERY trader ended up as a +1 easy blue. This lead to sanctions and soon this rule was implemented to stop it.
The problem with 3.3 is a purely RP related one. In most cases, you cannot provide a genuinely good roleplay, when you have to systematically pre-prepare any non-money-non-cargo demands so that they resemble one demand in the logs. As seen HERE, the administration team, regardless of the context of the encounter, treat every single order (regardless of its intention) during one encounter - as a demand. Heck, the administration team even took an IRP response to a Junker's tears and telling them to "Shut their mouth" as a separate piracy demand in order to slap me for 3.3. I will not address Tunicle's reasoning for not being able to shoot off someone's turret as that would somehow kill the pilot, because as far as Teamspeak goes, that line from him has already turned into a meme.
Imagine the situation where I want to roleplay the kidnapping of a ship. I would need to stop the trader, tell them what is going on, DEMAND them to follow me into the field and then DEMAND they (act irp) that they transfer their ship over to me. (Obviously, after this they can fly away, as they have completed the demand and IRP their ship is captured, but as they have complied, they are not killed).
Now imagine having to do all of that in ONE SENTENCE.
You know how that will look like?
Hey there, buddy boy.
How about you stop and chat with me for a moment, hmm?
See, you look like a decently plump man and with the cargo to prove it, but as it so happens I am not after your wallet today.
/l1 (condensed demand stating intentions)
How does that sound, hmm? Or would you rather have me worry about patching up holes in MY new ship?
Do you really want RP to be reduced to that? A minefield to figure out if ANYTHING you ask from a person is considered another demand? When you feel as if the player flying the trader is basically sitting on the edge of their seat, ready to press the Prt Scr button against you?
No, in my opinion no RP interaction should be like that. And, as far as I know, this can be fixed with three simple amendments to the server rules:
1. Remove the line about multiple demands and replace it with the following change:
3.3 Aggressors are not allowed to issue demands that result in the destruction of trade vessel once it complies, or destroy a trade vessel prior to issuing a demand, in system or local chat. "Halt" on its own is not a demand, however, a trade vessel can be destroyed if they refuse to stop after being asked to in the form of a proper demand.
2. Bring back rule 0.0 or implement a rule 3.4 to combat unreasonable demands on a case-by-case basis.
3.4 Server administrators have the right to impose sanctions on players whose demands are designed to specifically result in a player's death or result in an unreasonable monetary loss. (Might need to be worded differently due to gun shops characters)
3. Change the following line to implement roleplay demands. As of right now, rule 1.3 comes into play.
4. Change "Attack" to "Destroy" as to prevent rule-layering regarding hull damage. Any actions to loophole this rule (blowing off high-value POB equipment) can be removed by enforcing 0.0 or - currently 1.0. Alternatively make these bits of equipment indestructible to remove this chance fully. Can be left unchanged on Generic unlawful IDs.
That would be all I have to say regarding these recent experiences with the admin team and the server rules. As far as IDs go, please look into IDs that do not state if certain actions are allowed inside or outside their ZOI.
The Indie Core ID is one of them. Yesterday I wanted to go shoot some Wilde, but I could not say if I could engage nomads/infested/nom-weapon-wielding characters only inside or outside the ZOI. Kinda uncomfortable.
EDIT: Also, please disable post edits within the sanction section. Admins editing their posts without there being a notification or any sort of way to tell if the posts are being amended leads to the assumption that the player replying to them is ignoring what is being said. I noticed @Tunicle saying that telling the junker to shut up is a separate piracy demand (lol) only yesterday, because they edited the post without notice. Or unblocking the damn thread.
EDIT2: Okay, lol, enough. Have my thoughts. Viewer discretion advised, lots of swearing involved.
--------------
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
----------
3. Change the following line to implement roleplay demands. As of right now, rule 1.3 comes into play.