New Rule Addendum

[GhostFace]

I agree with this, bounties do not have to be placed on forums in order for a bounty to be fulfilled. I mean you can tell from a good bounty to a bad one saying "I'm placing a 5 million bounty of this guy for interferring with my companies shipment." and a bad one "Im placing 100mill on this guy for killing me"

---

Maquis|Leon.LaBreau-If your interested in joining the Maquis PM me.
[RM]Of.Viktor.Niklovach [RoS]GhostFace[E] David.DeWester[101st] Order|Ens.Adam.Jones [C]Jean.Claude.Moreau
Kruger Security-Johann Von Struger ]bd[Akio.Kimura

[Fellow Hoodlum]

So, thats just selfish RP then ... No one else is allowed to know about it ? This is a roleplay server, and
everyone is expected to be a part of it ... You cannot just dictate yours to everyone else without them
being able to counter it.

---

Some say he is a proud member of: "The most paranoid group of people in the Community."

[kingvaillant]

about first post...

Yes, that rule is pointless, I prefer a general rule asking encounters to be RPed.

Otherwise, it kills the RP of some players... LSF covert ops won't be able to fly covert anymore if that rule applies. (please note that we very rarely fight against anyone thought) I won't resort to use the LSF ID since I know what will happen "You ain't a merc, you are an LSF secret Agent, I know who you are... PEW PEW EPW"

EDIT: And yes, we do warn that we are going o engage, or that we have hostile intents

---

Director of the Liberty Security Force: Fidelity, Bravery and Integrity

The Amundsen Zone-21 Restrictions

[Reverend Del]

I'm going to weigh in here, the Junker Congress posted a covert bounty against all Hogosha, that seems to be working. This isn't about what folks characters know, it's about what folks know. You think it's fair to have folks killed when they can't figure out a justified reason? Well it's not. If it's posted then the PLAYER can see it. He knows why he's been popped, and his rage is lessened. Everyone wins. Everyone except the character blown up of course, but that's all in RP so what they hey, eh?

---

Saint Del is considered a holy healer of diseases of children, but also as a protector of cattle.

[Unseelie]

Mule, back when you were taking a contract on the QCRF...that was extremely frustrating primarily because it seemed like you -had- no rp reason to be attacking them. You did, or claim you did, but those people who were attacked had no idea, and no way to find out...It seemed very much like we were simply getting ganked.

So, aside from my agreement that such a rule hampers ingame spontaneity to an extreme extent, and is rather poorly worded...I'd also like to toss in a distinction between character and player, and the idea that if someone's character is suddenly targeted, they should be able to find out whats going on. A spontaneous ingame attack, where a merc shows up with opposing forces explains that right away. So to does the ingame arrangement where a player asks a merc for help. But when a merc, out of the blue, floats in and opens fire, without an explanation anywhere, well, I think that's abuse. And its certainly not respectful of the victim, because you've made the player a victim, rather than the character.

---

[Blodo]

So it seems like the rules are turning a circle and biting themselves in the backside... I understand this is an effort to enhance RP, but in the end it only foils it... For example a BHG BC can now rampage through Kusari, kill a KNF within the rules and not get sanctioned (because a bounty was posted), yet if a pirated trader hires a fighter merc ingame spontaenously after being pirated, the merc will get sanctioned after if the pirate decides to post a report? Now what the hell is that and how is that fair? This mentality of "guilty until proven innocent" is hilariously ridiculous, and graces the space on the pedestal of lolwuts right next to the rule stating that "halt" is not a demand.

I understand this is an effort to enhance fairness, but in the end it only affects those mercs who RP bounties ingame, and will only serve to create even more loopholes for people who want to sanction people out of personal reasons, rather than true rule breaking. And it produces ridiculous, ridiculous, ridiculous threads like these: http://discoverygc.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=26904

Think about it...

[Ash]

I can see where your coming from but the forums the only best known common place where bounties can be proven to have been posted and fulfilled by admins if it gets sticky. And i spose making this rule gets rid of most of the stickyness that can happen when someone reports problems with an unregistered bounty.

But then i guess you can just not post complaints if the bounty bites you in the ass i.e. no payment. Being the risk of taking on an unregistered bounty.

---

[Blodo]

The point is this rule should not exist in the first place, since it creates too many unnecessary loopholes as well as even more OOC madness and less spontaneousness ingame. Discovery isn't a job, it's a place for people to relax at, and while the current rules are needed to provide fair play, a rule such as this is just pushing it...

I can post another example easily. Say, I am a trader and I get destroyed by some overzealous pirate who simply hates my guts. I take a local mercenary, PM him that I will pay him 4 million to take the pirate out, now I also have to minimise the game, post a topic in the employment office saying "I contract *playername* to kill *playername* for 4 million." just so he doesn't get sanctioned afterwards? That is super ridiculous if you ask me, simply adding paperwork in order to provide an illusion of enforcement for a rule that cannot be properly enforced without impeding roleplay. The heavy handed approach is really detrimental to gameplay and RP!

The forums are an integral part of the server, yes, but until you can make it so that you can post bounties on forums from ingame, this whole effort is pointless, and in the worst case scenario the rule oughta be at least amended to take into account bounties set ingame.

[Ash]

I can post another example easily. Say, I am a trader and I get destroyed by some overzealous pirate who simply hates my guts. I take a local mercenary, PM him that I will pay him 4 million to take the pirate out, now I also have to minimise the game, post a topic in the employment office saying "I contract *playername* to kill *playername* for 4 million." just so he doesn't get sanctioned afterwards? That is super ridiculous if you ask me, simply adding paperwork in order to provide an illusion of enforcement for a rule that cannot be properly enforced without impeding roleplay. The heavy handed approach is really detrimental to gameplay and RP!

It's a necessary measure.

I would put more but I believe it's already been put into context.

---

[ProwlerPC]

Well I've always played a Bouty Hunter since joined Discovery.
I knew freom the beginning it was more work because I needed the forums to post the proof of the kill in order to collect.
I have always supported the forums as the premier method of employment for my hunting and I am less inclined to go against a ruling that makes the forum a requirement.
So far Liberty and Bretonia have posted general bounties for entire factions and we are waiting to see when Rhienland will do the same. I prefer going for specific targets over the general as they pay more but when the employment forums is low, these general bounties provide the reason to continue hunting.
Currently, as stated in the BHG ID, we are able to participate in military operations. It doesn't say anything about bounties here.
For my S/D character and his ships, participating in military actions has been the focal points of his career, particularly with Bretonian Military.
These moments have been spontaneous and defensive in nature.
If a ruling such as this were to be written in stone we'd lose out on those spur of the moment opportunities to RP including the forum stories that are born out of the larger engagements.

---