Extradtion Treaty

Farming
A) I agree
B) Why is a need for punishment necessary, if they always pay the compensation and fine?
C) No

Assassination & Sabotage
A) I agree, but we should also agree to work out other methods IF the honesty system doesnt bring adequate results.

PS: This treaty must remain a separate thread, since it's a separate treaty.

Kenzu wrote:Farming
A) I agree
B) Why is a need for punishment necessary, if they always pay the compensation and fine?
C) No

Assassination & Sabotage
A) I agree, but we should also agree to work out other methos IF the honesty system doesnt bring adequate results.

PS: This treaty must remain a separate thread, since it's a separate treaty.

So your telling me someone repeatedly hitting others unacceptably and then compensating is fine?

1.) What about all the time the alliance leader/members of the victims alliance will waste having to work out the compensation and damage due for each illegal hit

2.) What about the lost revenue the victims suffers in between the unacceptable attacks and compensation, and the disruption caused?

As for the honesty system - thats as much as your getting.

If your paranoid enough to suspect TIE to be responsible... thats not our responsibility. There are now several other alliances each with players with the capacity to sabb/assassinate T.O.C, so if sabbing/assassinating happens.... TIE is merely one of several alliance suspects, and our players merely among at least several dozen able to do so.

We won't be singled out or treated any differently to anyone else....

Sabs Ian

ian wrote:

Kenzu wrote:Farming
A) I agree
B) Why is a need for punishment necessary, if they always pay the compensation and fine?
C) No

Assassination & Sabotage
A) I agree, but we should also agree to work out other methos IF the honesty system doesnt bring adequate results.

PS: This treaty must remain a separate thread, since it's a separate treaty.

So your telling me someone repeatedly hitting others unacceptably and then compensating is fine?

1.) What about all the time the alliance leader/members of the victims alliance will waste having to work out the compensation and damage due for each illegal hit

2.) What about the lost revenue the victims suffers in between the unacceptable attacks and compensation, and the disruption caused?

As for the honesty system - thats as much as your getting.

If your paranoid enough to suspect TIE to be responsible... thats not our responsibility. There are now several other alliances each with players with the capacity to sabb/assassinate T.O.C, so if sabbing/assassinating happens.... TIE is merely one of several alliance suspects, and our players merely among at least several dozen able to do so.

We won't be singled out or treated any differently to anyone else....

I am pretty sure that the majority of people would LOVE to be farmed constantly in farming breaches and then receive 130% of what they lost each single time.

Why would anyone be against gaining more than what he lost. Don't forget that the 30% fine is more than enough to cover lost interest.

Of course if someone doesn't pay in a timely manner, it's fair to use other means of punishment.

Then again I don't believe these breaches will happen to often, because no one who has a brain would ever try to make multiple farming breaches, because the only one it would hurt would be the attacker.

Imagine someone steal 2 billion, has 1.5 billion losses, and then has to pay a compensation + fine equal to 2.6 billion.
So the attacker lost a total of 4.1 billion and the defender gained 0.6 billion.

Therefore I dont think this will be an issue.

That's why I think it's not necessary to add point B and point C to the extradition treaty.

However, point B merely states that further punishment can be discussed. Why adding this point if we can discuss further punishment anyway.
It's not necessary.

Point C on the other hand brings the whole thing into a dubious light. What is meant by "case by case"? Does it mean that someone who breaches it more often but has more political/military power will be spared and someone who has no allies will be massed because he can't defend himself? To me it sounds like a clause that reserves the right to treat people who do similiar farming breaches differently. This is against the idea of equality, which is so important to World Republic.

I say, a side can always discuss any breach with other alliances, and can also discuss further punishment, no matter what. There is no need to add it to the extradition treaty. At the same time it should be made clear, that a request alone, to punish someone more if he always paid compensations and fines in a timely manner, is not enough for a punishment to be allowed.

Why have points B and C been suggested at all? What purpose are they supposed to serve?

--------------------------------------
Suspecting TIE is not relevant to this discussion at all.
The only thing that's relevant are the problems that I have exposed for the Honesty System.
The points which you make support the view which I present, namely you saying that there are more alliances capable of striking an alliance, not just one, this further supports the view that a foolproof system will be required to find out who is innocent and who is guilty.

To have it documented what will happen.

Lol.

Compensation = Not an exception to the new trading rules.

This means compensation = liable to be illegal.... which means our method (compensation + 30% fine) for dealing with farming breaches = useless.

Therefore the only options now regarding farming breaches:

1.) Ignore them
2.) Punish them via military force (i.e. partial sabbing, complete massing, assassinating, defence neutralisation, strike neutralisation or whatever)

I guess that what you call a default win when it comes to arguing in favour of a clause to allow military force - since now the only way to actively enforce a breach against a problem farmer is via military force (unless you want to run the risk of getting banned for illegal activity).

Ouch

Thank you admin for helping solve this.

or you guys wait until the end of the weekend how the development of the new system goes on

Admin wrote:or you guys wait until the end of the weekend how the development of the new system goes on

OK

I believe we can come to a reasonable and legal solution.

Kenzu wrote:this further supports the view that a foolproof system will be required to find out who is innocent and who is guilty.

First off its called a covert attack for a reason.

Second off there is NO full proof system to find out who is innocent and who is guilty.

Lastly, Do you really want that? I mean why not just ask for the button to be removed?

Nomad wrote:Lastly, Do you really want that? I mean why not just ask for the button to be removed?

Now we all know that they aren't going to ask for that because they wouldn't be able to carry out their cowardly attacks

Capt_Blood wrote:

Nomad wrote:Lastly, Do you really want that? I mean why not just ask for the button to be removed?

Now we all know that they aren't going to ask for that because they wouldn't be able to carry out their cowardly attacks

Since when is a covert attack an attack of cowardice?

isnt it a game mechanic? isnt it there for a reason? You think that if its "???" are removed it won't be used?

I bet as long as it is the cheapest, most profitable, and most efficent way to make a kill it will still be used.

Nomad wrote:

Capt_Blood wrote:

Nomad wrote:Lastly, Do you really want that? I mean why not just ask for the button to be removed?

Now we all know that they aren't going to ask for that because they wouldn't be able to carry out their cowardly attacks

Since when is a covert attack an attack of cowardice?

isnt it a game mechanic? isnt it there for a reason? You think that if its "???" are removed it won't be used?

I bet as long as it is the cheapest, most profitable, and most efficent way to make a kill it will still be used.

It appears you haven't been visited by any assassins recently.

If you cannot see who made the assassination attack then the message you receive advises of a cowardly attack.
Sorry but I can't remember the exact wording. I'm sure that if you were to ask Admin he would tell you or alternatively you could ask nicely for someone to send a few assassins your way

While you're correct and it's an underhanded tactic I would suggest to you to set up your account to not make it worth assassinating it Simple math and it's easy to do so

Since when do Sabs kill? I thought they destroyed weps..

Capt_Blood wrote:
It appears you haven't been visited by any assassins recently.

Actually no, that was one of the first things I did with my account and it has served me well. to me its more important then defense LOL