Call to Arms for a Free Colonia

Deleted member 192138

D
Ian Doncaster said:
Strictly, it does.

Anarchy is a government type. Criminal is an ethos.

The Nameless faction happens to be both (which is the most common combination) ... Smiling Dingo Crew and Macrath Science & Research are Criminal but not Anarchy (they're Feudal) ... I've heard very credible reports of (rare) factions which are Anarchy but not Criminal in the bubble ... no-one took the option to create one of those in Colonia during the CEI waves, but they could have.

(The Cooperative government type also has fairly strong resemblance to anarcho-socialist or anarcho-communist approaches, as far as can be told from a few bits of text)
Click to expand...
Generally the NPC faction types represented by anarchy government are not political anarchies but rather criminal cartels that have internal laws (can be damaged by the sale of illicit and illegal goods at black markets) but do not care to establish system wide laws (ie there are no rules against murder, but an anarchy controlled station will shoot you if you blow up one of their ships right outside it).

I'm not sure if there are any non-player factions that are politically anarchy - unless they're lore specific factions (I don't know the lore background of The Nameless, for example).

The players supporting anarchy factions, in my experience, are generally more minded towards political anarchy rather than criminality with some exceptions. Players that are pirates, either through RP or activity (so, criminal - of a sense) tend towards anarchy factions (though they tend also towards political anarchy mindset). Players that are mercenary or bounty hunters may pick anarchy for the beneficial security state and political neutrality, without being specifically or necessarily criminal (though any number of government types may also suit this playstyle.)
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Deleted member 192138

D
Addendum to my last post - Though it's useful to reiterate that gankers don't care whether or not the system they're in is anarchy. It's high footfall hotspots that make the difference. The only real difference anarchy has to PvP is an added (but not necessary) convenience for organised PvP. That is - if anarchy has any bearing on PvP, by tendency it promotes and facilitates things to do that are not ganking, so reduce ganks. Which is ironic, considering the SPEAR propaganda they have on the topic.
fishevi said:
Can someone with more ganking experience(no offense DJ :)) confirm this? @Bigmaec ? @Phisto Sobanii ? @TEBORI?
Click to expand...
What does your heart tell you?
 

Phisto Sobanii

Phisto Sobanii
TEBORI said:
As long as the current Reaper leadership has not been effectively removed for all future and all links to SDC/GGI have been severed there will be no negotiations in my view.
Click to expand...

What links do we have to SDC? What's the GGI?

People who have driven in the past a larger group of people out of this sector and out of this game have, in my opinion, lost any right of co-determination in this area of space.
Click to expand...

Who did we drive out of the sector and out of the game?

(I'll read up on the rest of this thread in a minute.)
 

Vetinari

V
Jellicoe said:
I think part of the problem is that the game draws no distinction between 'anarchy' and 'criminal' so groups/minor factions who play crime syndicates such as (for example) Black Omega are indistinguishable in game terms from the Children of Raxxla (Are they on SPEAR's hit list? ) as both are lumped together as anarchies despite the huge differences in the lore and activities of the two factions. I would much prefer political anarchy to be a different category from crime syndicate in the in game description
Click to expand...
Ian Doncaster said:
Strictly, it does.

Anarchy is a government type. Criminal is an ethos.
Click to expand...

Anarchy systems also cover the non-inhabited ones. This is partly confusing for me (Lawless or Ungoverned or some label would be better) Anarchy is reppresented in inhabited as 'No laws but those which the group applies to themselves' or similar.

Some Anarchies should be almost lawful safe havens just no central control (political focus) and some should be absolute hell-holes with battles and lasers in every window (Criminal or anti-lawful focus). There is room for more differentiation I think. And room for Pirate systems too, named and run as such, maybe an Anarchy sub group bu ta separate entity with separate expectations even? I go to Political Anarchy, Im probably safe, go to Pirate Anarchy Im gonna get hatchbreakers but probably less risk of being nlown up (not zero risk, just less expectation), go to Criminal Anarchy and I get hatchbreakers with added assassins and n'er do wells who want nothing but to blow me up for no reason, this is hell. And this should include NPCS who have increased Interdictor % chance and better weapons (Grom bombs etc to stop the easy wake out, make it matter and make it a choice I make when I go there, I can choose a safer system or I can choose the risk).

Black Markets should be less widely available outside these Anarchies or rare goods should be available in these Anarchies only, something to make it a real choice whether to go in or not.

fishevi said:
Recently i pulled cmdr out of supercruise, was flying around him, wanted to chat
Click to expand...

I had the opposite yesterday said 'hello 07 Cmdr' and 2 mins later they pulled me out of SC and started firing. Admittedly I was in Shin Des in a ship called 'A Weak Explorer Build' but a 'Hello Im coming to attack would have been nice' :) instead I got a salty response after I waked out and back in. This behaviour doesnt help the image.
 

Phisto Sobanii

Phisto Sobanii
Vetinari said:
Calling on that one. One person actions are their responsibility, youre supposed to be Anarchists remember?
Click to expand...

So then why are the AAA targeting people just for knowing me? Or is that only true when you need to criticize us, and not the AAA/SPEAR?

This has already been 'negated / dismissed' in a post by SPEAR...but assuming it hadnt. One bad apple spoils the barrel, you dont leave the bad apple in the barrel would be the argument.
Click to expand...

See above.

Ironically the argument against this is again that certain players have chased noobs out of Open or even out of the game completely.
Click to expand...

If things don't go your way in a video game and you decide to stop playing, that's on you.

Targeting individual players with a mob in order to harrass them out of the game is very, very different.
 

Phisto Sobanii

Phisto Sobanii
Idiot_Savant said:
So let me understand this straight. In order for some of the factions to negotiate, Phisto has to leave the Reapers or uninstall or what have you?

I don't think this is how you negotiate being the losing party.
Click to expand...

It's also not very likely to work. We all know who I am...

giphy.gif
 

CMDR M. Lehman

CMDR M. Lehman
TEBORI said:
The following only reflects my own personal opinion and has no relation to the opinions of Spear as a whole or the Triple A Alliance.

I had done my homework and informed myself sufficiently about the overall situation in this sector before I proposed a campaign in which a large part of Spear's forces would be deployed 20,000 light years away.
Click to expand...

If you'd done your homework, you'd know that Colonia was at peace, with no ganking problem, and a treaty in place between the Reapers and EN. That you chose to enable this treaty to be broken and initiate hostilities means that you either didn't know about the status quo (which is bad) or didn't care (which is worse).
TEBORI said:
There are some rational people on the other side with whom one could probably even negotiate reasonably, but as long as the tyrants who are currently in control are not disempowered I will not sit down at any table.
As long as the current Reaper leadership has not been effectively removed for all future and all links to SDC/GGI have been severed there will be no negotiations in my view.
Click to expand...

The Reapers have never flown alongside or colluded with SDC, so I have no idea where these allegations come from. We are also not participants of the GCI. You are either grossly mistaken or grossly dishonest in these allegations.

TEBORI said:
And it is very high on my personal agenda to change the balance of power in this sector to stabilize it in the long run.
People who have driven in the past a larger group of people out of this sector and out of this game have, in my opinion, lost any right of co-determination in this area of space.
Click to expand...

If your idea of a "power imbalance" is one anarchy amid 40+ lawful government types (setting aside the benefits that the anarchy's shipyard brings to the entire Colonia community), then I'm afraid that it is you who are being unreasonable, not us.

Also: who did we drive out of the sector? You make many claims but provide no substantiation for them.

And as for "stabilizing" the region? Again: there was a treaty already in place to which the Reapers had faithfully adhered. There was no instability before you showed up.


TEBORI said:
I say the following as fleet commander of SPEAR and this also applies to all forces that are currently in the Colonia Sector and will continue to be.

Of course, pilots who fought for their cause in this war and believe in their cause are not automatically targets of our task forces.
Click to expand...

Given your history of targeting Lawful commanders with zero bounties on their heads purely for associating with commanders you don't like, I'd say that one could be forgiven for not believing this.
TEBORI said:
They will of course continue to hunt only killers who repeatedly and demonstrably attack peaceful people who cannot or do not want to defend themselves.
Click to expand...

Then explain why you target peaceful players without a history of ganking or even a bounty on their ship. I know you won't, but it's quite damning that SPEAR's standard of guilt isn't anything tied to game mechanics but your own personal bias.

Overall, I find your position remarkable for one who-- despite such significant backing- still managed to suffer defeat at the hands of a lore squadron and those neutrals who found their position preferable to yours. A reasonable squadron leader would probably reconsider if their presence was needed or even wanted in the area that they're "stabilizing"- but judging from your words, your attitude, and your actions, reasonableness was never your priority.
 
Last edited:

Tharrn

Tharrn
CMDR M. Lehman said:
If you'd done your homework, you'd know that Colonia was at peace, with no ganking problem, with a treaty in place between the Reapers and EN. That you chose to enable this treaty to be broken and initiate hostilities means that you either didn't know about the status quo-(which is bad) or didn't care (which is worse).
Click to expand...

I wouldn't call people who think installing a dictatorship might give faction ships if they are lucky well informed. And yes, even if you can't imagine: having the option to buy them out here DOES mean something to those who live here ALL THE TIME. Maybe it doesn't get into your thick campaigning skulls but it does.
 

Phisto Sobanii

Phisto Sobanii
Tharrn said:
I wouldn't call people who think installing a dictatorship might give faction ships if they are lucky well informed. And yes, even if you can't imagine: having the option to buy them out here DOES mean something to those who live here ALL THE TIME. Maybe it doesn't get into your thick campaigning skulls but it does.
Click to expand...

Naw man, you don't care. That's why The Nameless won the war four days to one.

DON'T YOU SEE???
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom