' Wrote: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.
Ever stop to think the IMG are keeping us on so that we don't shoot them? You'll also notice they don't pay us for any work within the Taus now. So please, check your facts senor.
What the two of you are asking for is for role play to be only black and white. I'm sorry but that is rather boring. I like all the shades of grey in between those two colors.
There is no problem, it is perfectly valid that someone on the receiving end of a Reavers guns eventually gets tired of being shot and figures that if he can't beat them, the next best thing is to hire them. Thus he doesn't have to fight them, and he has the added luxury of them flying by his side.
As Casero said, no point in continuing to argue about it. You interpret the rule one way, we interpret it another. The only interpretation that matters is that of the judge, in this case the admins.
Again, there is no need to bicker about something like this. The way it is worded, the people hiring the Reavers may very well be in violation of this rule. However, I have been on the receiving end of something which contradicted the way a rule was worded, but it was what the rule was intended to do (FR5ed by the RM without ever seeing an RM). So, until we understand what the rule was intended to do, no use bickering. Clearly the rule was intended for something, since it's there, and it might not be what the people hiring the Reavers have done, since that thing has been going on for a while (Mandelorians, who previously worked for Rheinland, being hired by the Hessians, anyone?) and a very small proportion of people actually seem to care.
tl;dr the administration will clarify in time.
[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.
And conveniently pair of them has some relations to Reavers.
You interpretate in a way that it is not written.
You shot Hessians before. You were hostile on previous actions. You are now working for them. I don't know who to blame, but this is still clear disregarding of rules. Maybe I should quote it in grey, so that it would be more to your liking? Maybe you'll understand it word by word that way.
There are grey sides of the rules too. Which most of the times are being shut down by administrators. That is if they pay attention to that particular issue.
In all Reavers' existance there is something fishy. Corsair weapon deal which was for pulse guns only, yet tech thread allows you all of their weapons. Then it comes with you ignoring guidelines of using that technology with excuse. Here I hear another excuse for your unhindered existance.
You talk about how others should be accepting roleplay consequences yet you are heavily opposing the idea of those consequences put on yourself.
In this case, I believe, that being viewed as eternal hostiles by characters of factions you shot, would be good roleplay consequence. But sadly players hates being shot by you so they hire you.
Here we stand on the edge of clearly written rule yet you defend yourself. What about thousands of players that can't do that because:
a) They lack good relations with people in charge.
b) They have little knowledge of English language.
c) They are not respected players.
I'm not defending myself, I'm not breaking any rules. I'm merely pointing out to you, it is a rule, and it is open to interpretation. However, the only interpretation of the rule that matters is that of the administration. Until they state what their interpretation is, none of us know what the true meaning of the rule is.
You can claim the rule is being broken. Fine, you are free to do that. Until an admins says a rule is being broken it is just a claim.
As for one member ignoring tech guidelines and using mixed weapons, that issue was resolved and taken care of. I'm not opposed to role play consequences being applied to the Reavers. I am opposed to role play consequences being applied only to the Reavers.
Your view that we should be eternally hostile to factions we shoot contradicts the lore of vanilla Freelancer. In that it is and was acceptable in vanilla Freelancer for factions to hire mercenaries who had previously shot at them. Your view also kills mercenary factions should their employeers ever close their bounty boards.
All in all, ever since Virus rejected you from the ranks of being a Reaver, you've made it your mission to try and paint Reavers in a bad light. I wonder why?
' Wrote:All in all, ever since Virus rejected you from the ranks of being a Reaver, you've made it your mission to try and paint Reavers in a bad light. I wonder why?
I wonder do you understand that I asked to be accepted just for lulz since I knew I wouldn't be accepted. And I had major lulz. And I now smile at your [i]claim[/], which is rather poor attempt to derail my raised points and put something for yellow pages.
So yeah. At this moment, I'm not painting Reavers. In bright pink color with blue dots and green stripes. 101st and [RHA] are breaking the rule, with my perception, word by word.
I already apologised for making it look like Reavers, with silly paint, are my target of choice. It was not the intention. Simply the most obvious example.
If a mercenary can't switch sides with a solid reason/background for doing so. What if the first group which hired the mercenary decides to stop paying them?
There will be a point where this mercenary won't be able to do anything.
I repeat, I think this rule is to prevent people working for and against a faction AT THE SAME TIME.
Remember the Mercenary/Freelancer Boom? Mercenaries shooting Navy for unlawfuls and then docking on lawful stations from the same house? I think these rules were born back then.
Indeed, I guess the Admins will make a call on this.
' Wrote:Bounty Hunting, Mercenary & Freelancer Hire
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.
For clarification: If a player is registered in a lawful house bounty board - his affiliation shows the right values for claiming the common house-unlawful bounties - and there is a mixed list of single characters, who upset the house, they can be attacked, by the player without regards about his affiliations, to claim that bounty?
98.9% of the time just post them here. There have been 1-2 in the communication channel, but those were usually for one very specific group under very specific conditions.
Example: Normal bounty exists, but one group has a special claus that they report in the comm center. The master bounty is still in the bounty board subforum, but they report the special claus conditions in the comm center.
Even that is messy. Keep everything here or it'll likely be moved here. If anything to make life easy on the mods/admins.
Edit: Also, lol at the old conversations about mercs changing sides.