Oh. The rules. Bounding people from proper roleplaying imho.
We don't break any rule. Whoever wants will find some way to tell we are going around them.
There are already many situations where rules are going around. But it might not be seen for some elitism or friendship reasons.
I am quite sick of personal bias that is hidden and denied.
Truth should free us all.
Oh wait Zelot, you are in Reavers, and Reavers are employed by Kusari and works against Bretonia. Khem khem.
Just pointing such relations. I don't mean it's bad. Just stating that fact.
If you are so paranoid by ~5 guys doing PvP, restrict pirates for shooting lawfuls, as they must rob traders. Then, restrict Reavers from changing sides as it might be 6.10 violation etc etc. ( I don't have anything against Reavers, just first thought came to mind. Peace Dusty. )
Are you against sparking more activity in Sirius? I don't see GC or RHA or Reavers signing for our bounties. Why? There was plenty of time. F.e. I heard rumours that half of RHA is in RM so that might be a reason.
' Wrote:I understand what you mean. But... Metagaming is everywhere. Powergaming too.
Well, should our guys be indie merc contracted on our board?
What I am trying to say is, we could do this without public knowledge. But we do this with informing community without hiding. We are only four guys yet. Not much. And only I am playing on as Legal Department now.
There are a lot of examples of metagaming, powergaming, but why is this group worth discussing?
Space is a dangerous place. Personally, I case about only rules forbidding ooRP behaviour. I don't see why a character played by IC| member cannot act as a mercenary for it.
No, what I'm saying is that you should contract an already existing mercenary group instead of making your own.
You may be bringing this up to the forums as public knowledge, but bigger is the shipstorm if you do something like this without informing the public and you're caught.
Certainly there are a lot of examples of metagaming and powergaming, but just because such a problem is existent, it does not make you eligible to join in the ranks of those people.
Just my two cents.
Also, I don't personally object to you doing this, but you have to understand that this is not exactly the most approved way of gaming, bounty boards exist for a reason.
' Wrote:F.e. I heard rumours that half of RHA is in RM so that might be a reason.
Before you initiate the mudslinging campaign, allow me to clarify that we share like 3-4 members altogether and even those commonly switch sides during battles. Why the RHA is less active lately or why it doesn't sign up for bounty boards has nothing to do with a negligible proportion of our members being in both factions.
I should note that the RHA itself is running a bounty board and that they have a blanket bounty contract with the Reavers, on the RM and Corsairs.
I suggest doing your research before jumping to such conclusions.
' Wrote:We will use bounty board and will let IC friend claim those. It won't be only for us. That is even against rules iirc.
I know 3 members that are in BHG/MM already. What will differ except from targets, ech?
What you are essentially doing is paying your own members to claim bounties in the interest of the IC| via proxy chars. Still doesn't change the fact that you are paying your own members. You will have to use alternative ID's to accomplish this, which is the point of this "legal department". If you are an official faction having a secondary ID is only valid in special circumstances such as the Outcasts using Smuggler ID to ship cardamine. It isn't there for a faction like yourself to kill people where your normal Interspace ID doesn't allow it or to avoid in-game repercussions. If you want some dirty-work to be done setup a contract with an external group or mercenary company.
' Wrote:Edit: I said I heard rumours and I mean it. Rumours. It ain't a drag on mud etc.
Why do you have to resort to such petty tactics to justify the above? If they were just rumours and you have no reasonable evidence to present then avoid stating it to begin with.
' Wrote:Oh wait Zelot, you are in Reavers, and Reavers are employed by Kusari and works against Bretonia. Khem khem.
Just pointing such relations. I don't mean it's bad. Just stating that fact.
If you are so paranoid by ~5 guys doing PvP, restrict pirates for shooting lawfuls, as they must rob traders. Then, restrict Reavers from changing sides as it might be 6.10 violation etc etc.
Reavers are inactive as a whole, they aren't even claiming for the RHA at the moment. And this rule change has nothing to do with your Faction. Finally, stop trying to connect false dots. Zelot left the Reaver chat, he has hardly played his character and has made no signs of coming back.
This has nothing to do with paranoia. Making sub-groups that both OORP and In-RP are serving the interest of the IC| Faction with a different ID to allow more options of killing isn't allowed and is just downright lame. No other Official Faction does this and they aren't allowed to do so either, does the IC| follow some special rule?
' Wrote:What's the difference between letting other mercenaries work for us and let our own members have fun, while contributing to IC| RP?
The difference is that you are breaking the rules, your Faction isn't losing any money because you are paying to yourselves and oh, you are breaking the rules.
Then again you can just tell two of your members to play as their Mandalorian/BHG character instead and say other parties are being paid, therefore you are not breaking the bounty rules. If you wanna loop-hole around the rules, go ahead and do that.
' Wrote:I understand what you mean. But... Metagaming is everywhere. Powergaming too.
I think you meant to say: "I understand that the purpose of the Bounty Boards, and the purpose of Mercenary Factions is that they can work for companies like ourselves - do the things we can't legal do, but we don't want to lose money so we will pay our own members to do the same work, by the way everyone metagames and powergames so we should be able to do it as well."
' Wrote:Are you against sparking more activity in Sirius? I don't see GC or RHA or Reavers signing for our bounties. Why? There was plenty of time. F.e. I heard rumours that half of RHA is in RM so that might be a reason.
What is this? So now you are telling Zelot he is against sparking activity in Sirius just because he disagrees with your method of abusing alternative ID's? And exactly how does that following statement justify the Freelancer ID usage? Because no other mercenary company or interested party signed for your bounty, that means you can create proxy characters to kill for the IC? Ridiculous arguments.
' Wrote:I am quite sick of personal bias that is hidden and denied.
Truth should free us all.
Take the arguments as they are, don't start victimizing yourself because it won't change the facts.
I personally hope one day will come when it's against the Forum-Rules to start calling everyone who can form an argument against your personal interests as trolls.
What is being done here has been done by the Congress, and more importantly to this debate, by the Kempetai, upon whom this idea was partially modeled.
This is a roleplay development.
We have established a mean nasty IC.
That is our RP, and if you don't like it, I've run all out of care.
Moderators. Please lock this thread.
Snak3. Really now. Your not good with people.
gone four years, first day back: Zoners still getting shot in Theta :|
' Wrote:What is being done here has been done by the Congress, and more importantly to this debate, by the Kempetai, upon whom this idea was partially modeled.
This is a roleplay development.
We have established a mean nasty IC.
That is our RP, and if you don't like it, I've run all out of care.
Moderators. Please lock this thread.
Snak3. Really now. Your not good with people.
The Kempeitai used Freelancer ID's as a measurement against people meta-gaming our intelligence agency ID's and thus not commit to the crimes they usually do in character. We didn't use the ID to grant us technology or rights of actions which the Kempeitai ID didn't give. So your comparison is invalid.
The Congress are also at fault for using the same cheap tactic you are using with this group.
You can call it whatever you want but it doesn't justify what you are doing.
I went into this thread under the assumption that you don't care so don't need to worry about that part.
Go ahead and lock it, I have already made my points and I laugh at this sad attempt to sling around the rules.
I never called someone troll here, as all guys raised valid points with arguments to back it up.
I really don't see the difference who do I pay, a player with MM character, or same player in Legal Department.
And no, we cannot trust few jobs for outsiders. It prooved to be not a good idea.
And for once, I will be paying those who works for Department. I will lose my personal money in the interest to fulfil that shady IC| business.
You say we would be breaking the rules. Could you quote which ones? I reread them twice yesterday and haven't found which ones are prohibiting this.
Proxies? Sort of. We aren't special or elite.
I will ask you again, what's the difference if IC| member claims bounty with a indie merc or as part of other group? Targets do not change, player is the same. Pay is the same. Just the RP backing it up differs.
And stop taking my thoughts as offensive. Neither do I have anything against Reavers, nor Zelot. It just came to my mind to draw an example. Because Bounty Board rules state that it is prohibited to hire someone who is hostile to you by previous actions. Now are you a special group that is not affected by that?
I again, don't have anything against you, just drawing comparison to defend my own stand on this matter.
' Wrote:This seems more of a 'joke' than a serious thread to me. To be honest, I chuckled a bit.
Serious not this thread is. "RAWR!"
/Signed
' Wrote:I love how you work around the rules as it pleases you.
"Can this faction be part of IC| ? No ? Ok then, we'll be unofficial and pretend there is no link between us and IC| in order to use the IDs we want."
:lol:
ROFL
' Wrote:Just contract a separate, already existing group of mercenaries to fulfill this task and pay them according to bounty rules. Making your own group to pvp basically any opposition your faction leadership desires and then deny all responsibility does shed a negative light on your organization, irrelevant if you make it official or not.
PvP over RP is what he want's.
' Wrote:The Kempeitai used Freelancer ID's as a measurement against people meta-gaming our intelligence agency ID's and thus not commit to the crimes they usually do in character. We didn't use the ID to grant us technology or rights of actions which the Kempeitai ID didn't give. So your comparison is invalid.
The Congress are also at fault for using the same cheap tactic you are using with this group.
You can call it whatever you want but it doesn't justify what you are doing.
I went into this thread under the assumption that you don't care so don't need to worry about that part.
Go ahead and lock it, I have already made my points and I laugh at this sad attempt to sling around the rules.
I agree fully here. Seems his Attitude is "rules are meant to be broken" as long as he gets to PvP.
Please lock it. DarthBindo said it. Snak3. "Really now. Your not good with people."
PS. Yes I know i am also not good with people.But i have the balls to admit it.
' Wrote:I never called someone troll here, as all guys raised valid points with arguments to back it up.
I really don't see the difference who do I pay, a player with MM character, or same player in Legal Department.
And no, we cannot trust few jobs for outsiders. It prooved to be not a good idea.
And for once, I will be paying those who works for Department. I will lose my personal money in the interest to fulfil that shady IC| business.
You say we would be breaking the rules. Could you quote which ones? I reread them twice yesterday and haven't found which ones are prohibiting this.
Proxies? Sort of. We aren't special or elite.
I will ask you again, what's the difference if IC| member claims bounty with a indie merc or as part of other group? Targets do not change, player is the same. Pay is the same. Just the RP backing it up differs.
And stop taking my thoughts as offensive. Neither do I have anything against Reavers, nor Zelot. It just came to my mind to draw an example. Because Bounty Board rules state that it is prohibited to hire someone who is hostile to you by previous actions. Now are you a special group that is not affected by that?
I again, don't have anything against you, just drawing comparison to defend my own stand on this matter.
You don't call someone a troll, but you say "oh please stop attacking me and just admit you are biased", no the issue is something else and please focus on that.
If you pay your own members from a bounty hosted by your own Faction you are not losing any money. It is just being transferred from one member to another. This action, when related to bounties falls under the PvP abuse rule. Found in both the bounty rules and the server rules.
There is a specific Faction rule which states that one can only use alternative ID's or "sub-ID's" next to their main one under special circumstances. E.g. an Outcast Faction using Smuggler ID's to ship cardamine. It is not allowed to use alternative ID's under the same banner of another Faction (who has another ID) if the alternative one grants additional rights of actions or technology. A freelancer ID does exactly that. This rule applies only to Official Factions, you are one. This legal department is part of the IC|, it falls under that jurisdiction.
If you want me to stop taking your thoughts offensive then stop resorting to personal attacks and false/misleading information or rumours that have nothing to do with any raised arguments and only serves to side-track the discussion.
See, in your last statement you once again bring up stuff that has nothing to do with this. Bounty rules states you have to be hostile to the party you bounty, it doesn't say that a Mercenary Group is not allowed to change sides. You need to re-read the rules and avoid using them in the wrong context to form an invalid argument which as I said two times already, has absolutely nothing to do with this discussion.