ADMIN NOTICE : OFFICIAL FACTION RIGHTS

[Virus]

This is our decision, and if it turns out to be a mistake, we're not polititians, and are allowed to do u-turns.

We're not politicians, good. So then I am allowed to do what I am about to do. Suggest a change to the current rules proposal. There is a reason I voted for community input. Unlike Xoria, I would have preferred to remain unanimous as a team, but I suppose such a veil is already destroyed. We are merely human, as make mistakes. As such, I have no reservations about posting my opinion in public then. This is my current opinion:

1) Official Factions are free to restrict or not restrict access to their owned systems and tax players who enter owned system. Access to systems that surround owned system must not be restricted unless there's a war with another faction.

Fine, but it doesn't bring up a few questions: Are they allowed to restrict independents with proper tag/ID? I would personally assume not. As much as it is a pain the ass to have a bunch of indies in "your" system, it is generally the only place that one can purchase ships or equipment without flying across Sirius (Fafnir or Supernova in Rheinland, for example).

2) Official factions have authority over players of the same NPC affiliation, as long as RP justification is provided. This authority applies in forums and in-game, and applies to player faction diplomacy, and strategic and tactical direction. However, exercise of that authority,...

Fine so far. I haven't read much about any problems with this. I don't have any problems other than I still believe the top three ranks should be able to have this power.

3) Once a faction achieves official status, they will receive their down payment of $500 mill back. They will further receive a Cap 8 Armour Upgrade, once they have spent 3 months contributing meaningfully to server RP, for instance, via events and forum activity.

I believe a Cap 8 is too far. Blunt Pencil's idea of many more, smaller, interesting rewards might not be a bad idea. Unfortunately, apart from codenames or unique commodities (such as mission commodities), I can think of little and do not approve of codenames.

Returning the credits I do not mind.

-- > Edit: I have been convinced to change my mind on the matter of the Capital 8s. I was indeed thinking "I have several, why cannot you obtain the same?" A capital 8 for a faction's flagship may be acceptable. It's only credits, afterall. I am still torn on this matter. Opinion subject to change.

4) Official Factions who have planned an event can restrict participation of others in that event as they see fit.

I have always assumed this was an acceptable rule. Whoever organizes an event chooses who can show up. Either way, it puts it in writing which is rarely a bad thing.

5) Official Factions control the issuance of Battleship Licenses to independent players and faction members for their house Battleships, via the forum application process.

Players sanctioned for PVP violations in a battleship may, at the Admin's discretion, have the license removed as part of their sanction. They must then re-apply for the license from the official faction, or downgrade the ship.

An Official Faction which has granted a battleship license to a player may ask the Admins afterwards to remove the license, with reasons. Conversely a player who feels they have been treated unfairly by an Official Faction, regarding a license, may appeal to the Admins.

The important part, right? I am changing my original vote to be against this section of the faction rights proposal. Namely, I do believe this adds a level of bureaucracy that might be confusing to new players (or people who speak English as a second language). It also does, in fact, lend the ability for faction leaders to be more bias. If I wanted to buy myself a Kusari Battleship, I probably would be immediately accepted just for my name while, say... Nooblet would not. People who are abrasive (<_<), people with poor reputations, and unknown people would have a much more difficult time than I would. UNLIKE the faction proposal process.

Instead, I propose that the rule be effectively altered to instead provide a way for factions to report abusive players. For example, removing a battleship license and forcing a player to sell a battleship (or simply changing it to a Starflier/deleting the character) for violations that damage game play. Such things like cruising to catch up, smashing light fighters with battleships/ganking, oorp docking, oorp chat, disrupting a faction's role play (i.e. "I am Admiral, you listen to me!" to a Lt. in a player faction), and other such stuff. I assume you all know what I am talking about here. Yes, I know most of this is covered in current rules, but it all falls under 1.2, for which it is hard to submit a sanction report. So, I give you my proposal:

Players sanctioned for PVP violations in a battleship may, at the Admin's discretion, have the license removed as part of their sanction.

Above is a propose addendum to rule 1.5 or 6.24

An Official Faction may ask the Admins to remove a player's battleship license, providing proper reasoning is given.

Above is proposed alteration to right number five.

Personally (and the other admins may kill me for this), this would including putting a ship in Battleship with a "Contact Admin" note in their hold and a message saying which Admin to contact. Such player would then PM the admin, who would explain the situation and get his side of the story before making a decision like this. Said battleship would be in Bastille until talks with the player can be completed, at which point he would be removed from Bastille or sanctioned. Hopefully more often than not, the latter.

Assuming that this would not happen every bloody day, I would be willing to take this responsibility on.




--

As a note I'd like to place at the bottom of my post, relating to the beginning of my post:

This is--in fact--a proposal. I voted to get community input. That is what I would like to see. Simply saying, "You are wrong." is not the way to go about convincing us to change. Suggesting alternative methods (as I have done above) is one way. I would like each post to be positive from this point forward.

@ Tinkerbell:
Trust is a major issue, yes. However, suggesting alternatives would be better than simply stating the problems with the current proposal. Remember, this is only a proposal. None of us are married to the idea and I, personally, expect to change my mind multiple times.

---

Into the Maelstrom - A Measure of Salvation - Reaver Company Database