I have questioned this matter a few times here and there, as it seems that in the past, there wasn't any restriction over factions of non-generic IDs to fly and tag a few ships with other IDs.
One of these cases was the Tokkeitai wing of the KNF faction, which played a role of intelligence/spec ops within the Naval Forces, and regularly used the KPT id on their ships. While we have not received any bad warnings about it, we were under the impression that this was not allowed anymore (KNF id only), and gradually discontinued most of the KPT IDed ships (and their roleplay ).
More recently however, there came a case<br> where characters tagged as BDM were playing with Wilde ID, and acting mainly as a Wilde/Infected agent, rather than a BDM operative. I don't know of any cases in Rheinland, but I've witnessed as a KPT agent an attack from wilde rheinland agents on zoners in Baffin, with the support of a BDM| tagged cruiser with Wilde ID, as well as D9 wilde agents.
I know that Wilde people performing as members of organization x is common, but having a character of a tagged official faction acting as a wilde or as a member of any other thing than the said faction is odd.
What I wish to know from the decision makers these days is the following: are the official factions subjected to the one ID only rule or not? Can there be exceptions?
Is the Tokkeitai example an invalid use of a secondary ID on a official faction? Is the Wilde BDM| a valid use of a secondary ID on a official faction?
If the factions can fly a secondary ID, is it possible "all IDs", only "rp reasonable ones" (with affinity to the faction), or just generic ones? If factions cannot fly a secondary ID, please state so as well, if you may.
Thank you for your attention. Discussion is open to the community that wishes to provide input on the ID matter (specific cases or alleged rule infactions should be discussed on the feedback threads, or directly on rule violation reports).
I remember that GNG, among other groups, were slapped hard for not sharing an ID among all of their characters in the group/faction, so there definitely is a rule that forbids multiple IDs.
(07-31-2015, 05:46 PM)LordVipex Wrote: I remember that GNG, among other groups, were slapped hard for not sharing an ID among all of their characters in the group/faction, so there definitely is a rule that forbids multiple IDs.
I'm fairly sure it's one of those rules that apply to some and not to others. As long as you don't upset Liberty factions, you'll be fine.
(07-31-2015, 05:46 PM)LordVipex Wrote: I remember that GNG, among other groups, were slapped hard for not sharing an ID among all of their characters in the group/faction, so there definitely is a rule that forbids multiple IDs.
I'm fairly sure it's one of those rules that apply to some and not to others. As long as you don't upset Liberty factions, you'll be fine.
T̶a̶k̶e̶ ̶y̶o̶u̶r̶ ̶s̶a̶l̶t̶ ̶e̶l̶s̶e̶w̶h̶e̶r̶e̶.̶.̶.̶ EDIT: Would you please consider taking your non-existent salt elsewhere.
Quote:Each faction or group can only use one ID. Official factions may request their own ID based on the original ID of their NPC faction, to allow for a more specialized line of roleplay or to remove certain restrictions applied to their original ID, which would require admin approval before implementation. The faction ID can only be requested if the official faction's roleplay as a whole, or the roleplay of a sub-group of the faction can no longer be played out within the allowances of their original ID.
I don't have any pineapples, I am just pointing out the obvious - that the GNG case can't be used as reference, as it was a special case that was handled in a very special way.
Also, it's not your thread so who are you to pass around orders, good Sir?
There is reference to another ID for sub-groups but the wording could be clearer. Thank you for raising this issue, we will clarify secondary ID's in the near future.
Can official factions be allowed to use a generic secondary ID again? We used to be able to, but now we no longer can. Fair enough a non-generic ID raising a fee eyebrows, but a generic ID wouldn't be detrimental.
Thank you everyone for their replies and opinions. Seems that it acquired the attention of the needed people.
Has any new developments came out of those deliberations yet?
).![[+]](/forums/images/collapse_collapsed.png "[+]")
SIGNATURE![[Image: 5tZIDB3.jpg]](https://i.imgur.com/5tZIDB3.jpg)
![[Image: 120px-BhgLogo.png]](https://discoverygc.com/wiki/images/thumb/7/7c/BhgLogo.png/120px-BhgLogo.png)
![[Image: 120px-LH_Logo.png]](https://discoverygc.com/wiki/images/thumb/7/7b/LH_Logo.png/120px-LH_Logo.png){kind=logo}
![[Image: w3gBAeX.gif]](https://i.imgur.com/w3gBAeX.gif)
![[Image: Lythrilux.gif]](https://sig.grumpybumpers.com/host/Lythrilux.gif)
