So, roleplay demands are now against the rules

[Findarato Veneanar]

@sindroms, So continuing to complain about it won't change anything, what do you suggest?


I think the pirate ID demand line should be changed so that anything other than full ship destruction and demands over the price/profit of the cargo is allowed.

---

Signatures may not be bigger than 700x250, 1MB. ~Skorak

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EddX9hnhDS4 https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/6623...%20Sig.png http://i.imgur.com/BpOtRCf.jpg -My stance on all the censorship in this community.
|:~ TBS ~:|:~ LMP ~:|:~ BMF ~:|:~ SW ~:|

[Garrett Jax]

There is no need for a rule change. It's not difficult to determine if more than one demand has been made. It's not difficult to determine if a demand is excessive. The rule is fine, as is.

Regarding this sanction, did the aggressor state their demand up front prior to the ship being destroyed? I'm assuming so.
Was the demand excessive? Considering the low cost of guns, I'd say no.

Where is the argument here?

The only issue I see is that the Aggressor has a reputation for acting in a trolling manner. Demanding guns from off a ship is not a common demand. I recommended to this individual a month or so ago to involve the Admins concerning this creative RP ahead of time, so as not to catch them off guard when the complaints came rolling in. Sadly, he did not. This drama could have been avoided with a little bit of communication. I would encourage anyone who has some "creative" RP in mind, to at least run it by the Greens ahead of time so they can give feedback and not be surprised by it.

---

[sindroms]

Well, if a certain Bob was still in green, he would have been the first choice for said spot. At that point I had no friendly ties to any administration I would have chosen to participate in this.

---

--------------
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
----------

[The Savage]

@sindroms
You keep to forget about two things, and I need to point them out:

- Your demand was quite unorthodox and I shared my doubt three times, one of which was mistakenly put into system chat. No PM with even the simplest explanation followed and it was the later reason why we thought it is trolling.

- I was AFK due to real life emergency and I did not F1-ed only for two reasons: we were in roleplay and in fear of being sanctioned for avoiding roleplay. When I've returned, all I saw was being fired upon and I had to react - for me, it was already engagement, as in 3.1.

From our point of view, given we had no knowledge over something that is "roleplay demand" - as it was the first time in 4 years on Disco when I encountered such - it was wrong demand and we filed sanction for breaking ID rules (and engagement rules) for "attacking without dropping proper demand". After some thinking, we added up trolling rule, because we both found it trolling of two indie players, mainly due to lack of reply to aforementioned PM, which shared doubt about legality of X action.

As I said, whole thing is misunderstandment, due to lack of communication and knowledge. It was not my intention to ruin someone's fun, but to report players - which were supposedly trolling - and save other people from them.

[Thyrzul]

It's not difficult to determine if more than one demand has been made. It's not difficult to determine if a demand is excessive.

Apparently to a few in the wrong positions it is, else we wouldn't have this sanction and this debate around it.

@Fluff, wait a sec, so you didn't only not understand the demand, but was actually afk due to RL? Or did you not get the demand because not seeing it while afk? Here I specifically mean the three lines I earlier quoted already, the ones shortly before they began surgery on you.

---

[The Savage]

@Thyrzul The point is, right in the middle of RP I had to be AFK (no more than 1 minute) and I had no intention to avoid roleplay, but I didn't want to F1 in fear of being sanctioned, and I've returned shortly after, being interested into continuation of roleplay. But seeing my shield is down, I throw away the good manners (as my character would do) and defended myself (rule 3.1 draining shield is engagement).

Additionally, it's not about misunderstanding demand, but about the fact we were convinced what they requested was illegal demand, according to what is written in ID. Had they replied the PMs, whole thing would not happen - because, as I noted before, by lack of reply to our concern in PMs and given demand, we both thought those are two indie trolls.

[Thyrzul]

Sure the current ID versions lack the "RP demand" part, I give you that. They used to have that and while rarely, unique demands were indeed in practice. I still wonder when and why did it disappear, and most importantly why without a notice.

---

[sindroms]

It was a part of an ID rewrite two years-ish ago to simplify the then tangled ID descriptions for new players. It also changed the "cannot destroy" to "cannot attack" trade ships, which was already reported and even confirmed to be a mistake on the rewrite part back then.

If those lines were fixed along with re-phrasing the multiple demand line, things would be much easier for everyone 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
----------

[The Savage]

I didn't mean any harm, sindroms. It was all huge misunderstandment and both parties made mistakes - being convinced they do a right thing. I agree putting it into ID would solve a lot. Actually, rewriting IDs would surely be needed, because there are some issues granted by lack of actual definition in certain lines.

[Jansen]

Well, if a certain Bob was still in green, he would have been the first choice for said spot. At that point I had no friendly ties to any administration I would have chosen to participate in this.

Im not sure why you would need 'friendly ties' for a simple "Hey guys, I have this idea, can I do it? Do you have suggestions how it should be done differently?...".

I didn't mean any harm, sindroms. It was all huge misunderstandment and both parties made mistakes - being convinced they do a right thing. I agree putting it into ID would solve a lot. Actually, rewriting IDs would surely be needed, because there are some issues granted by lack of actual definition in certain lines.

Soon ™

---