Report crimes should also report one's own crimes...

[Martian Successor]

Please.

Self-defence is already NOT a crime if you have RCAM enabled.

If you choose to disable RCAM, that's a choice you made, and you should take responsibility for it if you make the schoolboy error of shooting at a clean ship.

The system is fully working. Introducing another toggle to disable police response renders the whole concept of a system having security, pointless. Making such a change just to satisfy the hubris of a minority of players would be bad for the game on the whole.

First off, how about putting away your condescending attitude when responding. I haven't been purposefully rude to you so show me the same courtesy please.

Secondly, please explain to me in detail, whom exactly does it harm to make self defense not a crime? Because to me it just seems like you're hating on this simply because it concerns a bit of quality of life for PvP.

Seriously folks, just suggest the PvP flag already, get it over and done with.

Sure, no problem but a bunch of people on here who don't do PvP at all will attack anything and everything that enables PvPer's to do honourable PvP without being trolled. These folks would rather object to a proposal on principle rather than help make a better game for as many play styles as possible.

 

[Aashenfox]

fundamentally changes how Law Enforcement in systems with it would work.

You have not explained this. I am still waiting.

What mechanical issue would be introduced that doesn't exist now?

I need a situation where it's broken and I need it spelling out for me.

i.e. Pilot 1 is clean, pilot 2 is wanted, pilot 2 fires on pilot 1, etc.

Please, do, if you can, explain how some existing situation is changed by this, EXCEPT fixing the situation on the op, so that a person regains the basic flipping right of self defense at least under that circumstance.

 

[Genar-Hofoen]

You have not explained this. I am still waiting.

What mechanical issue would be introduced that doesn't exist now?

I need a situation where it's broken and I need it spelling out for me.

i.e. Pilot 1 is clean, pilot 2 is wanted, pilot 2 fires on pilot 1, etc.

Please, do, if you can, explain how some existing situation is changed by this, EXCEPT fixing the situation on the op, so that a person regains the basic flipping right of self defense at least under that circumstance.

Okay let's take the current system and your paramters above..

Pilot 1 is clean. Their RCAM is switched OFF.

Pilot 2 is Wanted. Their RCAM is switched ON.

Wanted Pilot 2 attacks Clean Pilot 1.

Clean Pilot 1 can legallyattack Wanted Pilot 2, because Pilot 2 is already Wanted!


Next scenario...

Pilot 1 is Clean. Their RCAM is switched OFF.

Pilot 2 is Clean. Their RCAM is switched ON.

Clean Pilot 2 attacks Clean Pilot 1.

Clean Pilot 1 cannot legally fire back because Clean Pilot 1 chose to have their RCAM switched OFF.

IF Clean Pilot 1 switches RCAM ON whilst being attacked by Clean Pilot 2, THEN Clean Pilot 2 becomes Wanted.

Clean Pilot 1 can now legally fire back at Wanted Pilot 2.

There is nothing wrong with how it works right now.

And lastly - not wanting the Po-Po to arrive at the scene of a crime, in a star system with Law, is not a believable scenario in this game. Police arriving to the scene of a reported crime is what gives the Law status of a star system meaning in the game. Asking for a feature to be added where Police will never arrive despite a crime being reported, waters down the point of a star system having Law. Frontier would be catering to the hubris of a handful of players, and watering down what it means for a star system to have a system of Law.

 

[Nagual]

For people citing self defence, it is always been the minimum amount of force required to defend yourself with the first action to be running away. It may have changed since I was last policing the streets though. However I can't figure out if we are using real life as a guide here or not.

 

[CPTVICKERS]

The OP was a bit confusing, why not just say I pew pew, and peeps is using the RCAM unfairly to kill me, and when 3.0 goes live, muh funzies will be borked for sure. That's what this boils down to right? Otherwise, just run around with RCAM on. I gave this some thought, explorer, RCAM on, miner, RCAM on, trader, RCAM on, bus driver, RCAM on..... At what point is there a "victim" with RCAM off... Only PVP.... Turnabout is fair play. If you are out pvping, the simple solution would be baiting them into trying it again, then show some good manners, by returning them the ATR hammer. You know who is interdicting you, or where they will be. Just toggle the joggle and enjoy.

p.s. bait tip, for best results, use your big expensive ship with lulz of shields and armor if possible. They will think you are a punk hiding behind your non-meta ship, and are about to receive another dose of rofl. In reality, you are just giving yourself plenty of time to turn on RCAM.

 

[carlisle]

Not only is it unreasonable to deny any individual the right to defend their own life, but downright insane to punish them for it, when it is clearly entirely reasonable and appropriate. Even putting aside that it flies in the face of what FD said is the purpose of CnP.

Can I ask, because there seems to be some cross-purposes going on in this thread?

Under what circumstances would you be turning RCAM off?

As I see it, the argument that it is insane to punish someone for defending themselves is moot, as we're talking here about a pilot who, when attacked, rather than report a crime, chooses to deal with their attacker without getting the police involved. The normal thing to do would be to leave RCAM on. There are gameplay reasons why someone might turn it off but I'm not sure we're all thinking of the same kind of gameplay reasons.

Having deicded to turn RCAM off, it does open them up to the possibility that when they do fire back, the attacker will call the police and claim that they are the victim. Since you didn't provide the police with any evidence to the contrary it's a bit late now to claim after the fact that you were the victim. We're assuming here that the data sent to the police when RCAM is turned on contains incontrovertible evidence that you were fired upon and is taken by the police to be unfalsifiable. So if your attacker is clean and has RCAM on while you are clean and have it off then the police will have evidence that you fired on them and nothing to support your later claim that they fired first. We'll also assume that given the wild-west-like nature of much of space in ED the police will just turn up to any fight as soon as the evidence reaches them and fire on the aggressor as opposed to entering a debate over who the aggressor was.

Again, the simple solution if you don't want to be punished for defending yourself is that you leave RCAM turned on. It seems you are wanting to have your cake and eat it by operating outside the scope of the law but still expecting the law to protect you if you are attacked. My analogy with real life would be organised crime groups. If a Triad fires upon a Mafioso, the Mafia don't call the police, they fire back. I would assume the reason someone would turn RCAM off is similar, you turn it off because if the police turn up they will detect your crimes and attack you as well, but I think further game mechanics are required to make this truly work as I assume FD intend, mechanics where as long as career criminals stay out of the way of the police, they can go around undetected (smuggling is the current best example, if you have illegal cargo, you remain clean until the police catch you with it).

 

[CPTVICKERS]

Can I ask, because there seems to be some cross-purposes going on in this thread?

Under what circumstances would you be turning RCAM off?

I took to long writing this. Basically, its a pvp way of screwing with other pvpers....

The OP was a bit confusing, why not just say I pew pew, and peeps is using the RCAM unfairly to kill me, and when 3.0 goes live, muh funzies will be borked for sure. That's what this boils down to right? Otherwise, just run around with RCAM on. I gave this some thought, explorer, RCAM on, miner, RCAM on, trader, RCAM on, bus driver, RCAM on..... At what point is there a "victim" with RCAM off... Only PVP.... Turnabout is fair play. If you are out pvping, the simple solution would be baiting them into trying it again, then show some good manners, by returning them the ATR hammer. You know who is interdicting you, or where they will be. Just toggle the joggle and enjoy.

p.s. bait tip, for best results, use your big expensive ship with lulz of shields and armor if possible. They will think you are a punk hiding behind your non-meta ship, and are about to receive another dose of rofl. In reality, you are just giving yourself plenty of time to turn on RCAM.

EDIT:
I did however think of one instance, when I am legitly within the law, outside of mutual PVP, RCAM off, where this could be exploited, against me. I often run reses with RCAM off. This is simply because when I'm on an NPC bounty murder spree, I don't want to be interrupted by accidently scratching system security paint while they swarm whatever I'm shooting. HOWEVER, its been years since I was patrol popped for being in the wrong res, at the wrong time. In said case, no amount of ATR would have saved me, or harmed me anyway.

That said, I still can't make a case for it being a problem...

 

[carlisle]

I took to long writing this. Basically, its a pvp way of screwing with other pvpers....

The OP was a bit confusing, why not just say I pew pew, and peeps is using the RCAM unfairly to kill me, and when 3.0 goes live, muh funzies will be borked for sure. That's what this boils down to right? Otherwise, just run around with RCAM on. I gave this some thought, explorer, RCAM on, miner, RCAM on, trader, RCAM on, bus driver, RCAM on..... At what point is there a "victim" with RCAM off... Only PVP.... Turnabout is fair play. If you are out pvping, the simple solution would be baiting them into trying it again, then show some good manners, by returning them the ATR hammer. You know who is interdicting you, or where they will be. Just toggle the joggle and enjoy.

p.s. bait tip, for best results, use your big expensive ship with lulz of shields and armor if possible. They will think you are a punk hiding behind your non-meta ship, and are about to receive another dose of rofl. In reality, you are just giving yourself plenty of time to turn on RCAM.

It's space fight club... and RCAM off is you not talking about space fight club.

 

[Darkfyre99]

Credit for original suggestions to Riverside and killerminster

It has recently been discussed to death in Dangerous Discussion, whether it is appropriate or not, taking into account the game's design and balancing that against fair and fun gameplay vs cruel and unusual gameplay, that...

...a clean commander can attack without provocation another clean commander while having 'report crimes against me' turned on, and teh victim has this switched off, and therefore in case of any kind of retaliation, the aggressor suffers no penalty, while the victim takes the full brunt of C&P and everything that entails, for defending himself from an unprovoked attempted murder.

A lot of said discussion was focused on whether this is a problem or not. Many correctly say the button is labelled 'report crimes against me', so that's that, stop whingeing. I see the validity of that, but I say this is bonkers and can't really be intended. It was an interesting debate, but at the end of the day it doesn't really matter who is right, if a solution can be found that neither party has any objection to.

So there is an opportunity to make it fair and fun, in a way that does not change the game in a negative way for anyone who thinks the unfair situation described above is 'fine', while solving the issue completely for those who think it's bonkers.

This is to make the switch simply 'report crimes', all crimes without exception including one's own. This would mean that in any case where a clean commander attacks without provocation or motive any other clean commander and either ship has report crimes on, the crime is reported. Only if NEITHER have report crimes on, will there be no crime recorded.

If anyone can come up with a mechanical objection to that, please do post, I've been thinking about it, and can't see a down side, in fact, it will also mean that if you want to do something naughty you have to turn your own crimes off as well, which is kinda how it should be, no? I think the alternative is called having your cake and eating it, something Elite as a game doesn't usually support.

The original definition of "outlaw" is one who has been removed from the protection of law. Sometimes, this is done by government or society. Sometimes, it is the individuals own actions that place themselves outside of the protection of law. Frequently, this is because they, themselves, are engaging in extra-legal activities. They don't want to get the authorities involved, even when they, themselves, are the victim of a crime, because they're just as likely to incriminate themselves as their victims.

That is what the "report crimes against me" option is all about. If you're engaged in extra-legal activities. Whether you're engaged in smuggling, transporting stolen goods, carrying a wanted passenger, or simply up to mischief, when you turn that option off, you've declared yourself an outlaw. Anyone attacking you, even if your ship is clean, isn't breaking the law by attacking you, because you've removed yourself, voluntarily, from the law's protection.

Personally, I objected to the recent change that doesn't allow players to turn that switch back on after they've been attacked. I know the PvP community was generating salt over some people switching it on during a duel, but IMO that is what Anarchy systems are for.

Just my $1.95 (inflation)

 

[Darkfyre99]

No, you have that backwards. Every legal system in all of history allows for the right of self defense from unprovoked attack under ANY CIRCUMSTANCE. For some completely bizarre reason, you and others think the elite universe should be the VERY FIRST EVER, either in reality or a video game, to not only deny this basic right, but actually penalize the victim.

Actually, it was the other way around. For most of human history, only the privileged class had the right of retaliation. If you killed a noble, even in self defense, you could be hung due to crimes against the state. If you were very lucky, only you were killed, not your children, grandparents, and cousins. If you were extremely unlucky, your entire village was slain.

We here in the 21st century First World have the luxury of imagining that rights are something that are inalienable. They're not. They're something that needed to be seized by force from those who would deny them from us, and something that needs to be protected.

 

[Aashenfox]

Actually, it was the other way around. For most of human history, only the privileged class had the right of retaliation. If you killed a noble, even in self defense, you could be hung due to crimes against the state. If you were very lucky, only you were killed, not your children, grandparents, and cousins. If you were extremely unlucky, your entire village was slain.

We here in the 21st century First World have the luxury of imagining that rights are something that are inalienable. They're not. They're something that needed to be seized by force from those who would deny them from us, and something that needs to be protected.

Yes, yes, history i full of 'cruel and unusual', do you want that in video games too? That's all I'm saying. This doesn't need to be backwards because all parameters are under control. If this was game of thrones, the simulator, then maybe, but even then...

By the way, just for the record, in my not insignificant research lately into self defence laws both current and historic, I did find a circumstance in which the basic right of self defense was denied, and that was Roman slavery. Since roman slaves were not people, they were commodities, it was not considered murder but asset destruction. I don't think the attackers had 'bought' the victim at any point, and therefore had any claim of ownership.

In all other evolved systems that I have found so far, you have a basic constitutional righ to defend yourself in a reasonable way from attack by a peer. Anything beyond that needs to be sorted out in court, but the point is the right of self defense is implicit at the highest level of all constitutions, there are no circumstances where that is invalidated by who reports the crime or in what order events unfold.

 

[Aashenfox]

It still exists to this day. There are governments where the right to self defense does not exist. Marxism (Nepal) Leninism, any system where the castes of people put them above others. I mean where they allow the recruitment of Child soldiers (by wiping out their villages etc) basic self defense rights simply do not exist.

But this is a game and what you want is not RCAM. But to hold on so tightly to right to self defense exists everywhere is naive.

The game is a dystopian future and as such the right to defend may not exist at all.

The Law in its implementation can not give two cares about you not wanting their help, in order for there to be law it must exist irregardless anyones personal desires. If you want a mechanism that creates that disconnect from 'imurshun' thats fine there is nothing wrong with wanting something.

Is not about immersion is about injustice and you may have just given me the win, by pointing out that only in caste systems are basic human rights denied by a higher caste to a lower. Last time I checked there are no castes in elite. We are once again taking about unprovoked attempted murder by a peer, not your pimp, not your slave driver, not the police not by a deity, by a PEER. And the defense is wholly reasonable. How do the attackers have a legal leg to stand on? And don't say because no crime was reported, that's obvious and again how it works now. I want to know if YOU think that sounds fair and reasonable in the framework of a video game.

 

[carlisle]

This whole debate isn't about the right to self-defence. The C&P system already grants you that right so long as you are in a lawful system.

The debate is about how crimes are reported, and whether a player who for whatever reason refuses to provide evidence showing they were attacked first can nevertheless claim self-defence. You have a right to self-defence but if you don't provide any evidence then you leave yourself open to the other person claiming that they in fact are the one acting in self-defence.

If you're into PvP and your opponent decides to turn RCAM on mid-fight then you'd better run, because what happened was you just got played. Not a broken game mechanic at all, that is the system working as intended. Perhaps there could be some kind of PvP reputation system, like 'fight club' someone who calls the police will be known to other PvPers as a squealer and not trusted. Or you know, just do your fighting in anarchy systems.

 

[Darkfyre99]

Yes, yes, history i full of 'cruel and unusual', do you want that in video games too? That's all I'm saying. This doesn't need to be backwards because all parameters are under control. If this was game of thrones, the simulator, then maybe, but even then...

Yes, I do. As the old saying goes, dystopias make great fictional settings, but I wouldn't want to live there.

The Elite Universe is one such dystopian setting. It is a world where the horrific concept of a Corporate Town has been expanded to encompass entire star systems, where debtor slavery is common in the Empire, chattel slavery is practiced outright in independant systems, and there is a thriving black market for chattel slaves in the Federation.

It is world where a criminal cabal has a virtual monopoly on communications between the stars. This cabal has gathered enormous wealth and power, to the point where it is one of the three great Superpowers in human space. (sorry Alliance). It not only acts as if it was above the law, but it actually operates the bounty system.

That criminal cabal is the Pilots Federation, and you're a member of it.

By the way, just for the record, in my not insignificant research lately into self defence laws both current and historic, I did find a circumstance in which the basic right of self defense was denied, and that was Roman slavery. Since roman slaves were not people, they were commodities, it was not considered murder but asset destruction. I don't think the attackers had 'bought' the victim at any point, and therefore had any claim of ownership.

In all other evolved systems that I have found so far, you have a basic constitutional righ to defend yourself in a reasonable way from attack by a peer. Anything beyond that needs to be sorted out in court, but the point is the right of self defense is implicit at the highest level of all constitutions, there are no circumstances where that is invalidated by who reports the crime or in what order events unfold.

You've clearly never read the Bible. Or the code of Hamarabi. Or studied any period of time before the Enlightenment. The right of self defense was restricted to the privileged class, with the vast majority of humanity considered some form of property or subhuman. There were exceptions, but most of human history has been a long, crawling struggle for most of humanity to be recognized as fundamentally human. We struggle with this today, even in the first world, and there are plenty of parts of the world where the light of the Enlightenment still hasn't reached.

 

[Martian Successor]

Okay let's take the current system and your paramters above..

Pilot 1 is clean. Their RCAM is switched OFF.

Pilot 2 is Wanted. Their RCAM is switched ON.

Wanted Pilot 2 attacks Clean Pilot 1.

Clean Pilot 1 can legallyattack Wanted Pilot 2, because Pilot 2 is already Wanted!


Next scenario...

Pilot 1 is Clean. Their RCAM is switched OFF.

Pilot 2 is Clean. Their RCAM is switched ON.

Clean Pilot 2 attacks Clean Pilot 1.

Clean Pilot 1 cannot legally fire back because Clean Pilot 1 chose to have their RCAM switched OFF.

IF Clean Pilot 1 switches RCAM ON whilst being attacked by Clean Pilot 2, THEN Clean Pilot 2 becomes Wanted.

Clean Pilot 1 can now legally fire back at Wanted Pilot 2.

There is nothing wrong with how it works right now.

If I recall correctly you cannot switch crimes on when you are under attack so your second scenario won't work like that at all.

And lastly - not wanting the Po-Po to arrive at the scene of a crime, in a star system with Law, is not a believable scenario in this game. Police arriving to the scene of a reported crime is what gives the Law status of a star system meaning in the game. Asking for a feature to be added where Police will never arrive despite a crime being reported, waters down the point of a star system having Law. Frontier would be catering to the hubris of a handful of players, and watering down what it means for a star system to have a system of Law.

Are we really going to go down the road of "But...but... it's not believable!" That's literally the weakest argument you could put forth in a sci fi video game that's not even that strict about abiding by its own internal narrative. Holo-presence in SLF but not in SRVs anyone? A huge commodity and raw materials market that conveniently doesn't sell Engineer materials? Every player possessing magic pockets with which to store thousands of magic materials? Able to store modules and transfer ships but not able to remotely purchase or order modules and ships from other stations? Firing in the no fire zone gets you a fine but loitering on a pad gets you executed on the spot?

To quote your own previous response:

Please...

I still have yet to hear a logical argument against self defence. Your argument that law enforcement would become meaningless doesn't hold water if you read my proposal on here, which simply voids the attacker ship's crimes on status if they attacked a clean ship first. No crimes are reported in that scenario so no reason to have cops show up.

 

[CPTVICKERS]

It's space fight club... and RCAM off is you not talking about space fight club.

This quote, my new signature rofl

 

[Martian Successor]

If you're into PvP and your opponent decides to turn RCAM on mid-fight then you'd better run, because what happened was you just got played. Not a broken game mechanic at all, that is the system working as intended.

That is the text book definition of a broken mechanic because it is being exploited for an unintended purpose. That is why FDev changed it so that you can no longer turn crimes on while already engaged in combat.

 

[Martian Successor]

Can I just ask, why have some people started bringing up real life human history and caste systems and priveledges and etc. This is about improving a game mechanic in a fictional video game. Gameplay comes before immersion folks, within reason of course. Your ship's computer voiding your chance to call the police and pretend you're a victim whenever you start an attack on a clean ship first will not break immersion. It will simply close a loophole.

 

[Aashenfox]

Yes, I do. As the old saying goes, dystopias make great fictional settings, but I wouldn't want to live there.

The Elite Universe is one such dystopian setting. It is a world where the horrific concept of a Corporate Town has been expanded to encompass entire star systems, where debtor slavery is common in the Empire, chattel slavery is practiced outright in independant systems, and there is a thriving black market for chattel slaves in the Federation.

It is world where a criminal cabal has a virtual monopoly on communications between the stars. This cabal has gathered enormous wealth and power, to the point where it is one of the three great Superpowers in human space. (sorry Alliance). It not only acts as if it was above the law, but it actually operates the bounty system.

That criminal cabal is the Pilots Federation, and you're a member of it.



You've clearly never read the Bible. Or the code of Hamarabi. Or studied any period of time before the Enlightenment. The right of self defense was restricted to the privileged class, with the vast majority of humanity considered some form of property or subhuman. There were exceptions, but most of human history has been a long, crawling struggle for most of humanity to be recognized as fundamentally human. We struggle with this today, even in the first world, and there are plenty of parts of the world where the light of the Enlightenment still hasn't reached.

I think that's absurd. But not quite as absurd as you suggesting I haven't read the bible., You know absolutely nothing about me, but at least the way I write should tell you I'm well educated and well read. I have no interest in debating ancient history, as it is utterly and totally irrelevant to what 'should' be the case in a video game. I play grand theft auto, it's a great universe, very cutthroat, but Elite isn't like that, it's a functioning dystopia, not a dysfunctional one. It HAS CnP, which is anaologous with modern reality, and this one s[pecific random situatoin reverses it. Literally turns it upside down, and somehow you think that the answer to this is in the hamarabi?

 

[Aashenfox]

Can I just ask, why have some people started bringing up real life human history and caste systems and priveledges and etc. This is about improving a game mechanic in a fictional video game. Gameplay comes before immersion folks, within reason of course. Your ship's computer voiding your chance to call the police and pretend you're a victim whenever you start an attack on a clean ship first will not break immersion. It will simply close a loophole.

Quite.

Although I can tell you why, it was because I challenged them to show me a legal system (I should have said a modern evolved one) in which the right to self defence is denied. I cited roman slavery myself, and of course historically, there are others. My bad for not making myself clear, clearly it is my fault that ancient civilsations had no respect for life and we would all be better off if there were a caste system or players belonged to other players.