ADMIN NOTICE : OFFICIAL FACTION RIGHTS

[pbrione]

I agree with the idea of trying to reach a consensus here. Yes, there are clearly concerns about the idea, but there is little hope of getting anywhere if we simply shoot down new ideas in flames without trying them out or attempting to improve them first.

In all honesty, the powers being given to faction leaders here is not all that great at all - apart from the BS license issuing all the powers already more-or-less exist and, if anything, explicitly restricting faction RP ordering of indies to top 2 ranks seems to me more likely to decrease rather than increase faction powers from the implicit powers that factions are already assumed by many to have here.

Regarding the controversial question of battleship control, I think it good that this idea has at least been proposed and brought out into the open for discussion. Personally I would support it as it stands - battleships are not, when you get down to it, all that great a component of most players RP, so making this out to be a fascist dictatorship is a pretty ridiculous exaggeration, and I would trust all faction leaders to make reasonable judgements here; after all they have gained their positions through having to earn trust and support of their factions, the admins and the community (the person who quoted that it was "easy to make a faction" - I'm sorry, but you clearly do not appreciate how the faction proposal system works).

However, on the other side, I appreciate that many do not share the same levels of trust that I do and for one reason or another fear they may be victimised by the factions. Well, I can understand this point of view and I think it needs to be addressed. I would support Titan's proposal of a trial for a few months of the new system in its current form, after which we can discuss if it should be fully implamented, revised to something approximating Virus's proposal, or scrapped altogether.

The objections are based on a lack of trust (understandable) and an expectation of how it will end up working. The fact is, we can't be certain how it will end up working, and there is a chance they may be right. But a trial would soon demonstrate whether these concerns were unfounded or not. If the system does prove to work the trial would go a long way towards increasing trust amongst the community that is vital for this to succeed. If the system appears to end up failing or showing biased decisions in some way, then the trial run will still be useful as it will reveal what exactly the flaws in the system are and enable us to adapt and improve the proposals to make the proposal better. Either way, at least trying some new changes, instead of shouting about it, will be of benefit to the community.

Summary of my suggestions:
1. Discuss initial proposal and cirucmstances of trial
2. 3 month in-game trial of all 5 rule alterations
4. At the end of the 3 months, a review of how the trial has worked, where both sides can actually post evidence of instances that have worked / failed to support their claims, instead of just speculating
5. Based on this review, a discussion of what amendments to be made to the new rules
6. Implement the permanent rule changes (possibly still open to further review at a later date)

---

Sir Stanley Nelson




<span style="color:#000066">Charles Canning </span><span style="color:#000066"> Foreign Secretary</span>

[Titan]

I don't believe you could actually prove anything in a month, that would be no proper test because probably nothing bad would have a chance to happen, and thus the proposition would be accepted while not properly tested, more time is needed if you want to see something **** up. People need to get used to it being there, and then get comfortable enough to take risks, if you take risks, you can go too far and make a mistake that will mess it all up and then...your "side" wins.

Edit: My post directed at Nooblet, I agree with what LeMaitre said.

---

[pbrione]

The test would need to be for a long enough time that some people actually tried to purchase battleships during it. If it was just 28 days, 50% of people would buy them before it starts, and the other 50% would be happy waiting until it was over.

I'd say 3 months is a good length to reveal any major problems with the proposals, as people will settle down into using it normally a bit

---

Sir Stanley Nelson




<span style="color:#000066">Charles Canning </span><span style="color:#000066"> Foreign Secretary</span>

[farmerman]

Awesome. Add a way to restrict Cruisers from idiots and I'll even add a :ylove:in.

I can see how people might get a bit upset. Perhaps if not that, specify in the rules that official factions can initiate an inquiry into certain characters' play if it's negatively affecting things? The way the rule is now, it seems too vague to do much.

There's always going to be objections though because there are people who are completely anti-faction. They're the backbone of the server, they should get something for all the work they need to do to get there.

Suggestion for this part though:

3) Once a faction achieves official status, they will receive their downpayment 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

While a big armor upgrade is all nice and fancy, you know what I'd like way more? If an official faction could choose to take an alternative. For instance, some of those really awesome mission items, like the holstein viper venom and dangerous alien artifacts, have lots of potential for RP fun. How about being able to get those sold in the appropriate guard system? Not as a trading commodity, just as one that could be used for RP. Some of those troop movement ones would be great for the military factions for events, for instance.

---

Faction info links: Samura Heavy Industries : LWB : Watchers

[swift]

I agree with every one of those points, except Right 5, to which I'm undecided.

On the one hand I see why it would be necessary, and on the other I see why it could result in abuse.
I'll trust the community to make the right call, and everyone, be polite in the discussion, and don't go all tin foil hat on poor n00bl3t who's trying to make a discussion here.
Remember that all sides think they're fully right, and mostly none are, so they compromise, and a solution is found.

Personally, I think the power to ask the admins to make an inquiry into whether someone is not deserving on their battleship is enough.

Whatever happens, I want to specifically state that the Colonial Remnant does in fact produce all the ships it flies itself.
Therefore, we should be the ones deciding on the Zephyrs as well if such a system comes into place.
Also, I'd find it hilarious if we had to apply to the IMG to have "permission" to manufacture our own ship designs from our own bases.


And while we're on this topic, here's a little nitpick that's slightly related.
I strongly urge the admins, one of which should especially know how the situation is, to try and somehow settle the famous "Outcast dessie in the Taus" problem.
Too many times have I met you know what from them. There are some pretty good ones, but along with a couple of other NPC factions the Outcasts are the most loldessie-populated NPC faction. Everyone who hangs out in the Taus and Omicrons knows what I'm talking about, especially my Colonial colleagues, as well as the ones from the Reapers of Sirius.

---

<span style="font-familyalatino Linotype">

<span style="color:#000000">All morons hate it when you call them a moron.

</span></span>

<span style="color:#33FFFF">The CFF</span>

<span style="color:#33FF33">CFF Communication Channel and RP Collection</span>

[Derkylos]

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.

If this is true, either we are 1: going to see a lot less indies, 2: they are all going to have sub-par loadouts, or 3: top level equipment is going to need to be moved outside of guard systems.

At present, the only places to get a Supernova, MR, UAU mk 8, Enhanced thruster, and, in some cases, even class 9 guns, are in guard systems. If entry to guard systems is restricted to everyone not in the official, owning faction (as the ruling seems to imply), unofficial factions, official factions not wanting a guard system and independants have no chance to even set up a fighter properly...

---

[Dieter Schprokets]

If this is true, either we are 1: going to see a lot less indies, 2: they are all going to have sub-par loadouts, or 3: top level equipment is going to need to be moved outside of guard systems.

At present, the only places to get a Supernova, MR, UAU mk 8, Enhanced thruster, and, in some cases, even class 9 guns, are in guard systems. If entry to guard systems is restricted to everyone not in the official, owning faction (as the ruling seems to imply), unofficial factions, official factions not wanting a guard system and independants have no chance to even set up a fighter properly...

Properly Tagged and ID'd independent players may enter Guard systems.

That phrase needs to be added. Doing it.

---

[kingvaillant]

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).

I would oppose you about some points. I see NO reason to let an OORP LSF player go into my system just to get a better ship (bomber or guard ID) if he can't RP and play properly. I would like to be... allowed... to take measures against them. However, I have no clue about how to define the line between those I could attack, and those I could not. Maybe some proof in SS that the player isn't following server rules properly enough to be allowed to use the system? (pics of swearing, OOC spam, weird loadouts, see what I mean) An evidence that would justify the taken action without any risks.

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.

Myself, I am... in a way, against the cap 8. Not every faction can use them. Only Giving them out to factions able to own BS would make things partial and unfair for other factions who rely on smaller vessels as they can't use it for their faction, and I'm sure they can't use it for their own personal ship neither. I don't know what Dieter' idea is, but if someone could provide it to me, it would be nice.

-

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:
Above is a propose addendum to rule 1.5 or 6.24
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.

Your proposal uses a safer approach to issue number 5. Only allowing faction leaders to take actions against the acts of the violator is better than simply risking some good players to be denied because of personal grudges as some have voiced. However, the last part of your proposal needs refinement. Currently, it would make the workload too heavy on the admin team in case of a BS pop explosion (every 4-5 months there is one it seems XD). I myself will try to find a solution to that... once I get rid of my headache...agrrr

---

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

The Amundsen Zone-21 Restrictions

[Malaclypse 666]

I must be going soft.. I just invisi-d two of my own posts as not contributing anything to the discussion...

Ok.. here goes:

IMPLEMENTATION REQUIREMENTS : RIGHT 1 : HOME SYSTEMS

The TAZ call it "Fithings", and collect donations on a voluntary basis, usually once or twice a year during some silly "event" or other. The occassional passers-by also throw the odd unexpected "donation" our way...always a nice surprise. I don't plan to do much more in this regard, unless a lockdown to weed out specific recognized and designated "cabbages" for a short period seems in order. If that suits you.. it suits me.

I can't imagine the Council of Zoners needing to "tax" either. More on possible "futures" for the "CoZ" later.

IMPLEMENTATION REQUIREMENTS : RIGHT 2 : OFFICIAL FACTION AUTHORITY OVER INDEPENDENTS

Official faction leaders would have to ensure that only official faction members with the rank of the official faction leader and one rank below him/her will exercise this ingame, and make sure that ALL members know this. This is not a licence for junior members to start ordering independents around.

Here it gets stickier. As TAZ, all of my members hold the equal rank of "Pope", a Discordian tradition. They seem content to give me ultimate "spiritual" forte. However, for these 'secular" matters, I will consider choosing one or two "High Priests" as well, though it would be hard to choose.

The "Council of Zoners" could be defined as the "elephant in the room". While not official Faction-wise, somehow it has gained enough notoriety and respect to be listened to. I don't claim all the credit for that, but I'm kinda the "proud poppa" of the concept.

Recently I have suggested that the Council actually go its own way, as there is still some confusion about its status: Choose their new Chairperson or "High Council", apply for official status, perhaps seek the deed to O-50 or O-74, submit their dough, and the TAZ would wish them well.

I believe they have the required "history" and respect to pull it off. Doing so would serve to remove any "gray areas" regarding its authority, real or imagined.

IMPLEMENTATION REQUIREMENTS : RIGHT 3 : SPECIFIC BENEFITS TO OFFICIAL FACTIONS

Official Factions will get their 500 mill back from the Admins once approved, and will have to demonstrate RP/Forum/Ingame presence if they want that Cap 8 after three months, and request it then.

Why not? "Wuxtra Wuxtra! Waverly LLC/COEE has Banner Year! Dividends to all Popes announced!" I'll divvie that bad boy bonus up. I'll slap the Cap 8 on a spankin' new Yacht, and "trickle down" my used stuff.

IMPLEMENTATION REQUIREMENTS : RIGHT 4 : EVENT RESTRICTIONS

This is more or less in place now. Just not officially recognised. Note that ideally, Official Factions should have as much event participation as possible from independents. But they need the right to say "No" if things are imbalanced.

There is no "Weekly Event!" for Zoners. The only way this applies might be an Indy Freeport "Guard" becoming overzealous. Telling the person that "We've got it covered, thanks for the offer." usually suffices.

Again, I'm leaning towards removing any gray areas by encouraging the "CoZ" to seek official status, and kicking them out into the big bad world on their own. Until then, I'll "Chair" em as long as they'll put up with me.

IMPLEMENTATION REQUIREMENTS : RIGHT 5 : BATTLESHIP LICENCING

NOTE : EXISTING BATTLESHIP OWNERS WOULD BE GRANDFATHERED. THEY WOULD NOT HAVE TO RE-APPLY FOR A LICENCE THEY ALREADY HAVE.

Here we go then. The other "elephant in the room":

1) MOD CHANGE : Licences would not automatically be bought with a battleship. They would only be available on the Admin base.

Yup.

2) FORUM CHANGE : A new "Battleship Licence Requests" forum would be required.

3) OFFICIAL FACTION MAINTENANCE DUTIES : Processing Applications promptly.

Yup and Yup. As TAZ and the Council of Zoners are currently joined at the hip, I will consult on applications, with the Council Delegates. (More bloody voting!)

My personal view is to buttcheek imprint every application, give the lucky winner a trial run, and call Harry's towing if necessary. If the CoZ acts on my suggestion and we part ways, then I'll keep them on speed dial regarding any TAZ applications, (Do missionaries fly capital vessels..?), and trust they will do the same regarding their applicants.

4) ADMIN MAINTENANCE DUTIES : Keeping Official factions supplied with licences. May also be neccessary to intervene in Battleship Licence Requests forum if a faction is being unreasonable and/or tardy.

and

These are the people who will approve the use of the corresponding battleship.
Ship, NPC Affiliation, responsible faction, leader (s):

Zoner Juggernaut - Zoner, TAZ, Malacalypse/Council of Zoners
Aquilon Carrier - Zoner, TAZ, Malacalypse/Council of Zoners

Again, due to the "quasi-official nature" of the CoZ, this is a head scratcher.

Currently, my thoughts are that consultation between TAZ and the CoZ will be necessary; but, until my name is taken off as "creator" of the Registry and "message dump" topics, I reserve the right to "veto" the Council. That might not happen in a blue moon, but let's just call it "health insurance", shall we?

To a Trial Period on this whole Revision: A definite YUP! See, I can accept and see the logic of stuff! I'm not "All Discordian, All the Time!"

To Admin Vetting on each and every approval: A definite NOPE! Let's keep these felllas up and flying, rather than buried in paperwork. As Factions and Faction leaders, we need to step up and take some of the responsibility, and the attendant "heat" on occassion. I think the danger is slight for abuse, and that Factions will regulate each other for the most part to prevent abuse of our new "Godlike" powers; If not, appeal to the Admin is always possible as a last resort.

There ya go, folk. Pair o' digms! Hot Springs, Massages, and Chakra Hoovering, here I come!

23's,
Mal

---

[Jihadjoe]

I think I will demonstrate the process by which I, as a faction leader, would be putting #5 into practice.

1. Myself, or one of the LN high command would receive the application. If this application is reasonable (by that I mean not piloted by a race of aliens from a planet called Zerg from a galaxy far far away, with the battleship being named "Luke.Skywalker's.Stripclub") it will be accepted on a few conditions. If the application for it is completely out of whack, then we will help the applicant in reworking his application, and eventualy it will be accepted.

2. A few conditions will be layed down on the use of the battleship. These will regard obeying the server rules, roleplaying, and being reasonable in PvP situations.

3. Should these be broken we would reprimand the individual, and (if my interpretation of the idea is correct) we would be able to revoke the licence in extreme cases, such as multiple rule violations, grotesque overkill and a refusal to roleplay.

Now, aside from the applications theselves this would all be done transparently. The reason I personally would prefer not to have seen by the general public in order not to humiliate those who hand over a sub-standard app.

In terms of abuse, I would take it extremely seriously if I was told I was being unreasonable with this, and would look into the way I'd enforce it again.

I have no wish to prevent independant battleships from flying, but I would like to see a little more accountability from players who wish to fly large, and often very destructive ships. I have spent far too much time seeing some very stupid things done with battleships. Not least the day when I saw two liberty dreads chasing a nomad light fighter.

As much as the idea of impinging on the freedoms of another player burns me, I can't help but feel me doing this has less of a negative impact on the gameplay of others than the current state of afairs does on many people who have their enjoyment ruined by people who skirt the rules with their large ships and create problems for those who wish to roleplay.

It is only a very few individuals this would affect in the end.

---