Rules > Roleplay. Stated by admins. Unless of course 101st, [RHA] > Rules > Roleplay. Which would mean Reavers > common players. Which would be bad example for existing anarchy, yes?
Those people hiring the Reavers may very well be in violation of that rule. Instead of debating about it, wait for admin clarification. It might take a minute for them to figure out how exactly that rule was written, why it was written, and what it was meant to prohibit. No use bickering until it's clarified.
[8:32:45 PM] Dusty Lens: Oh no, let me get that. Hello? Oh it's my grandma. She says to be roleplay.
[12:49:19 AM] Elgatodiablo: You know its nice that you have all that proof and all, Bacon... but I just don't believe you.
Also, I apologise for making this issue more on the Reavers side. Got caught in bad mood I guess. As Bindo noted, the 101st and RHA by the rules are breaking them by what we are seeing as rule text, not Reavers.
Snak3 invest your energy in something that will bring something positive bro, this is useless, reavers and co>> rest of the players, if you want to know more bump me on PM. They have the little advantage of the admin team not caring when they break the rules.
(10-09-2013, 10:51 AM)Knjaz Wrote: Official faction players that are often accused of elitism, never deploy them and have those weird, immersion killing "fair fight/dueling" suicidal hobbies. (yes, i've seen enough of those lolduels, where house military with overwhelming force on the field willingly loses a pilot in a duel. ffs.)
' Wrote:Get lost. You're "arguments" are always a fail without any grounds. Only assumptions and speculations.
Yep I am bad troll... and I have no grounds etc now check your pm.
(10-09-2013, 10:51 AM)Knjaz Wrote: Official faction players that are often accused of elitism, never deploy them and have those weird, immersion killing "fair fight/dueling" suicidal hobbies. (yes, i've seen enough of those lolduels, where house military with overwhelming force on the field willingly loses a pilot in a duel. ffs.)
' Wrote:For the Reavers, yes, it's totally valid. For those who hire them, not so much.
Why wouldn't it be valid for them to hire them?
Quote:8. Rule 6.10 states that player reputation and conduct must match player actions.
Players are responsible for their own reputation status.
Players must be at least neutral to their employer.
Players must be hostile to the faction they are targetting in a bounty. This does not apply to assassination missions where the target is a single character.
People posting bounties are obliged to ensure that the persons they are hiring have a suitable reputation. This means no hiring or paying people who would be hostile to you based on previous actions.
My understanding of this:
I'm a mercenary who registered in the Liberty Bounty Board, I kill rogues, hackers and xenos.
Surfing in the bounty board, I find a bounty sponsored by a Rogue (who doesn't even know who I am), I register on this bounty, but at the same time I'm still registered on the Liberty Bounty Board. So... I took this bounty from a Rogue while I'm still killing rogues. Which invalidates two points in the rule, that you must be at least neutral to your employer and hostile to your target, as we all know, you can't be hostile and neutral to Rogues at the same time.
In short, it's to prevent people working for both sides AT THE SAME TIME.
RHA and 101 hired reavers, but Reavers don't shoot Outcasts or Hessians anymore as part of that deal. At no point Reavers were working for RHA and shooting hessians, neither working for 101 and shooting outcasts, or working for the Corsair Elders and shooting sairs.
Sure, they change of employers as they change of underware, probably even more, but they are not trying to go around the rules.
Someone trying to go around the rules would be something like... changing sides everyday (as someone mentioned).
At least that's how I understand it... otherwise any merc would be doomed to whoever hire him first.
Or I ask anyone to tell me, if Reavers can't work for hessians or 101 because they worked for the sairs... then if the Sairs decide to don't pay the reavers anymore... then the reavers can't play on the server anymore... right?
Whether or not what the reavers do is not a clear cut case of get paid by Somebody, shoot that same somebody.
Rather, some people hire them despite them shooting close allies.
To be specific, their situation in the taus. They shoot CR for Outcasts, yet the IMG are still paying them.
gone four years, first day back: Zoners still getting shot in Theta :|
Untill players, and not the characters, hire Reavers due to being tired of being shot at this problem will exist.
At any point, yes, casero. Read the words "previous actions" and tell me isn't it about the past actions? Such as shooting your own faction or even yourself in the past? Or just yesterday? Or just hour ago? It's still past.