Or use handwavium, not unheard of, in order to promote gameplay and keep things fair.. like you said, it's a game mechanic being discussed.. not real life.
New Crime & Punishment Will Be Broken If You Fly with CRIMES OFF
- Thread starter Nightshady
- Start date
Or use handwavium, not unheard of, in order to promote gameplay and keep things fair.. like you said, it's a game mechanic being discussed.. not real life.
Matters of self defense are decided after the fact in real life, in which case ships logs, etc. But anyway...
1) Is it right that anyone has a right to defend themselves from attack, and if you cite uk law, also their property and another person? Agreed? Good. Then, 2) was the response reasonable in the case described in the OP, a response to an attempted murder with the same weapons and method being used in attack, with odds against at 2 to 1? Would he not have actually still been within his rights to use even MORE powerful weapons, IF he had them, due to the numbers disadvantage? IF you answer no to that, then you're kidding yourself.
And there ends any kind of 'legal' challenge to self defense of the kind 'perpetrated' by the op.
It's a matter of the game's mechanics. You have no natural rights in a video game, you only have your interaction with those mechanics. The game requires that you get permission to return fire 'Before' you start shooting. Everything is working correctly.
You want things to change. I can respect that, but your arguments don't reflect the facts of the situation at hand. Campaign for a change/addition. All the power to you. But blaming the incoming C&P for some kind of miscarriage of justice is nothing but ridiculous.
Last edited:
Erm...how can anyone blame a mechanic not yet implemented for something that's always been a thing? lol
Just in case that one went by ya, the reason this is related to the new CnP is because it was never a problem before. IF this situation happened, I would defend myself and the consequences would be next to nothing. Now that the consequences are heavy, it's time this was fixed, as per the OP, aaaaaaand, we've gone round again.
By the way, I am campaigning for a change/addition through the official channels.
You keep leaving that word legally out, of legally defend themselves.
Star systems with Law. You need to have RCAM on in order to be able to legally defend yourself. It's not rocket science. (Well technically it is rocket science - space ships and all that
)The simple fact is that it may have been self-defence, but it wasn't legal self-defence in the eyes of the Law [of the star system's local law enforcement].
You keep leaving that word legally out, of legally defend themselves.
Star systems with Law. You need to have RCAM on in order to be able to legally defend yourself. It's not rocket science. (Well technically it is rocket science - space ships and all that
The simple fact is that it may have been self-defence, but it wasn't legal self-defence in the eyes of the Law [of the star system's local law enforcement].
Yeh, but it should be under any logical legal system, this loopholery of having a single switch flipped in your cockpit invalidating your right to self defense is simply absurd.
Last edited:
Yeh, but it should be under any logical legal system, as people have patently failed to DISprove througout this whole thread.
You also keep claiming that you're winning this debate, when you lost it many, many posts ago
Yeh, but it should be under any logical legal system, as people have patently failed to DISprove througout this whole thread.
The same argument has been made in RL and has resulted in laws called 'Stand Your Ground' and 'Castle Doctirine' in the US.
It is controversial to say the least...and cannot be replicated within the game.
If clean ships are attacking with me crimes in the are just saying
"Hey man, you're really good. I need the handi-cap"
I'll just deal with the ATR if I need to.
Worst case. Wake out
Wait 5
Turn crimes on and return the favor.
"Hey man, you're really good. I need the handi-cap"
I'll just deal with the ATR if I need to.
Worst case. Wake out
Wait 5
Turn crimes on and return the favor.
Erm...how can anyone blame a mechanic not yet implemented for something that's always been a thing? lol
Just in case that one went by ya, the reason this is related to the new CnP is because it was never a problem before. IF this situation happened, I would defend myself and the consequences would be next to nothing. Now that the consequences are heavy, it's time this was fixed, as per the OP, aaaaaaand, we've gone round again.
By the way, I am campaigning for a change/addition through the official channels.
It was never a problem before, because of the Consequences. Nothing has changed, or will change with the RC switch, only the costs of acting the way the OP has. That's the crux of this. The misunderstanding or misuse of a feature, coupled with the feigned outrage of the consequences. No one is fooled here.
As to who was blaming a mechanic not yet implemented, it came from the OP. Right at the very start.
Or, the OP could have checked with his attacker, and agreed for all to turn off RC. There is no reasonable expectation that everyone interested in PvP, is going to have RC off. Plus, you can't even tell, so how would the OP's attackers know if he had RC on or off. You just miss basic points about the situation and use braggadocio to blunder through.
You guys deny the basic right of self defense under ANY circumstances, and I'm the one trolling. Yeh, kk. Nice. I never claimed victory, I simply said nobody has been able to make a credible legal challenge to self defense of the situation described in the OP. The OP should have been within his rights to defend himself. Period. No AUTOMATED system should have put him in the wrong as the victim. Had he not been MURDERED (lest we forget), the burden of prrof would be on him, sure, but that isn't what we're talking about, we;re talking about a controllable element of a video game, so here';s what it comes down to...
Either you believe that it's right, sane and normal that there should be a situation in the game that completely invalidates the basic right to self defense or you think there shouldn't. That's it. IF you are of the former school of thought, I have to wonder what your motivations are? They cannot be anything but suspicious. Genar accused me of wanting a get out of jail free card, but it's the opposite way around, it's a gank for free card that YOU want to keep. But not only gank for free, but actually cause the punishment, should the victim actually win, to be dished out to him! It must be awesome to be defending the most illogical ganking aid ever, in the face of the new CnP clearly designed to prevent it...
...and I'm trolling... rofl.
I never claimed victory, I simply said nobody has been able to make a credible legal challenge to self defense of the situation described in the OP. The OP should have been within his rights to defend himself. Period. No AUTOMATED system should have put him in the wrong as the victim. Had he not been MURDERED (lest we forget), the burden of prrof would be on him, sure, but that isn't what we're talking about, we;re talking about a controllable element of a video game, so here';s what it comes down to...Either you believe that it's right, sane and normal that there should be a situation in the game that completely invalidates the basic right to self defense or you think there shouldn't. That's it. IF you are of the former school of thought, I have to wonder what your motivations are? They cannot be anything but suspicious. Genar accused me of wanting a get out of jail free card, but it's the opposite way around, it's a gank for free card that YOU want to keep. But not only gank for free, but actually cause the punishment, should the victim actually win, to be dished out to him! It must be awesome to be defending the most illogical ganking aid ever, in the face of the new CnP clearly designed to prevent it...
...and I'm trolling... rofl.
Last edited:
Well, you are repeating the same thing over and over again. You keep using Self defense, and even used a real life example for it, but when a real life example was used against your argument, you dismissed it saying you can use that in video games. Sorry, but while I sympathise to a point with your ideas, you cannot expect people to agree with you when you are either contradictory or hypocritical.
Your interpretation of what Report Crimes is for is irrelevant. Your wishes for what it should do is also irrelevant. The only people who can say what RC is or isn't for is FDev. It's that simple.
The switch isn't part of the legal system. It's simply an "ignore my tears" option. If you set yourself as a non-entity when attacked, it doesn't necessarily mean the ship you shoot when you return fire is also a non-entity. If you want equal footing, don't turn off your footing.
Think of the justice system as a blind woman holding a scale: She only knows that a trespass has occurred if she's made aware of it. So she hears that a ship marked "innocent", i.e. "not wanted" has been attacked. A crime has therefore been reported. It doesn't matter who shot that ship, unless it's the authorities who would have done so by accident and cannot gain a wanted status (above the law and all). If the commander who shot the innocent ship was returning fire from a ship that has disabled its attack reporting system, then the blind woman will not be told about the attack on that ship ergo the offending ship will not gain a status that would excuse a return fire scenario in the blind eyes of justice. That means, for intents and purposes, the original attack never happened, and the return fire was then the original attack, in the eyes of the blind woman.You guys deny the basic right of self defense under ANY circumstances, and I'm the one trolling. Yeh, kk. Nice.
Either you believe that it's right, sane and normal that there should be a situation in the game that completely invalidates the basic right to self defense or you think there shouldn't. That's it. IF you are of the former school of thought, I have to wonder what your motivations are? They cannot be anything but suspicious. Genar accused me of wanting a get out of jail free card, but it's the opposite way around, it's a gank for free card that YOU want to keep. But not only gank for free, but actually cause the punishment, should the victim actually win, to be dished out to him! It must be awesome to be defending the most illogical ganking aid ever, in the face of the new CnP clearly designed to prevent it...
...and I'm trolling... rofl.
In this game, where there is order you are only cleared hot if your target has a wanted status (outside of a CZ). When you disable your reporting system, you intentionally prevent that wanted status from ever happening. It doesn't prevent you from gaining the wanted status however.
Last edited:
You keep leaving that word legally out, of legally defend themselves.
Star systems with Law. You need to have RCAM on in order to be able to legally defend yourself. It's not rocket science. (Well technically it is rocket science - space ships and all that
The simple fact is that it may have been self-defence, but it wasn't legal self-defence in the eyes of the Law [of the star system's local law enforcement].
Rocket *Surgery*.
Yeh, but it should be under any logical legal system, this loopholery of having a single switch flipped in your cockpit invalidating your right to self defense is simply absurd.
So, how about that safety switch on most firearms?
This is why report crimes is toggleable, surely? It's not usually good to fly with it off, and if you do you accept the responsibility of the police not helping you and possibly even siding against you.
I think this is a pretty awesome feature actually, and the way it worked against the OP made perfect sense.
I think this is a pretty awesome feature actually, and the way it worked against the OP made perfect sense.
Lulz.
PvP is rarely organized by sitting there pre-checking if crimes are on or not.
Its a handi-cap.
Man this thread is just too funny..
The premise is pulling a clean ship that has crimes off while the attacking ship has crimes on and is clean.
You are initiating combat knowing you have the upper hand in with police assistance.
Not sure how that isn't easy mode?
Last edited:
If the OP was being straight with us all they'd ask for is a PvP flag...
That is after all what they are asking for.
That is after all what they are asking for.
The amount of times I've read on these forums that the Sys Auth Vehicles are next to worthless - this message repeatedly put across by an awful lot of the usual suspect rabid PvP'ers.
And now suddenly! NPC cops are big and scary and having them with you gives you the upper hand!
Convinced of the sincerity of all the complainers about RCAM I am not.
And we're back full circle with "The premise is pulling a clean ship that has crimes off while the attacking ship has crimes on and is clean." - and the response : If someone turns RCAM off it's their responsibility as they chose to do so. Then they attacked a still-clean ship or ships, and are all surprised when they get marked Wanted. The reason they had RCAM off, is, quite frankly, hubris. Hubris and arrogance.
But instead of owning their mistake? Nah. Let's try to meta-game Frontier to make a fundamental change to the game rules. All because of hubris.