Mica Goldstone
	While the neutrality of Yank means that traders and the likes can come and go as they please, it does mean that some players treat is a bolt hole or holding station for war fleets. What do players think to the KAS posting any scanned warships in Yank space? Obviously this would only ever be done through the use of special actions as the KAS (me) are not normally proactive. Multiple requests could be done in a single special action as it is not designed to pay for the GM's next holiday. As the KAS are allies to everyone with a starbase in Yank, anyone can attack KAS posted positions without fear of KAS reprisals. Personally, I do not care if this goes through or not, it is simply an idea. Please discuss.... Should it be implemented? What ship descriptions should it cover? Should it affect ship classes?
Avatar
	Warships might get targetted for just passing by the system. I think a max cap on warships might be the solution. Not only just in number but also in classes
llywelyn
	I think that suggestion needs further thinking... Yank is the pivot point for entry into (3) different areas of the Phoenix Map. Limiting # of warships or length of stay may well provide an answer. ttfn larry
Lord Scrimm
	Despite the fact that Yank is pivotal for moving fleets, and therefore a KAS posting of warships would be beneficial to help "keep the peace" from warships blithely passing through this space, I have a concern with the proposed implementation. Primarily, the KAS posted lists are available to all and sundry through the "Get Posted List" order. This serves to identify each and every ship that has been ID'd by other affs throughout the Yank system. On second thought, that may be appropriate in order to keep the peace - if you don't want anyone to know how many different types of warships you have, then keep them out of Yank. This does serve to make it more important for captains to manually code their flight paths though - don't want to stray into Yank by accident and get "pinged" by every newbie out there. Which also brings up - who gets charged for the SA to post the offending fleets if more than one person spots it and brings it to the attention of the KAS? I think that setting arbitrary lengths of stay and the like would cause more headache and administration for the GM than it would be worth. However, there needs to be some way to determine what exactly constitutes a warship - leaving it up to the players would be a recipe for abuse, but there does need to be provision for "escorts" to accompany legitimate freighters. Just a couple thoughts on the issue. Rich Fanning aka Lord Lawrence Scrimm CIA Director of Regional Operations
Titus Grip
	Hi Guys "if it aint broke dont fix it" I am quite happy with the way things are, but KAS has to post any and all ships that start fighting in their space. just my view Titus
MasterTrader
	Attempting to have the KAS post warships would open a whole can of worms with regards to what classes as a warship. In particular, I would not want to see escort ships posted. It is quite likely that at some point I will be wanting to use Super Carriers in Yank; Super Carriers are not going to go anywhere without escorts. Having the escorts sit outside the system is not particularly practical... That said, I could cope if there was a limit on ship sizes; in the long run I don't expect to be using ships larger than 50 hulls (certainly not larger than 75 hulls) as escorts, and those are the ones most likely to cause trouble to the KAS! Richard AFT
Nik
	I do not think that such a solution is workable. What is a warship. Why is a ban needed. There never was a ban in BSE, and there were conflicts during BSE in Yank and Skord. Why can't warships be allowed to maintain/repair in Yank? Why can't warships be allowed to jump through Yank if that is the quickest way from A to B. Provided that the KAS can enfure their laws in whatever systems they control then surely there is no problem. Nik
Lord Scrimm
	QUOTE (Nik @ Jun 14 2003, 09:02 AM) Provided that the KAS can enfure their laws in whatever systems they control then surely there is no problem.   I think that is the main problem trying to be addressed here - for the KAS to enforce their laws they would either have to be player run, give up their system claims, or have a set of rules in place that would act as a tripwire for KAS involvement. As Mica has stated - he doesn't play the game, he runs the game. Cheers, Rich Fanning aka Lord Lawrence Scrimm CIA Director of Regional Operations
Jons
	Personally, I think that aside from the affect that it would have on trade due to escorts being unable to accompany ships, the SMS has holdings in and around Yank. Does this mean that my warships are unable to travel from Solo either into or via Yank for fear of being posted? Cheers Jons - SMS
JasTomo
	Ok so any war fleet left in KAS space for over on week (maybe two?) with more than 3 ships in it could be reported and KAS authorities could contact the ships controlling officer... and given a date to leave. If this date is not met then the ship can be posted! It does not have to be an immediate ban! Anyone here play the online game MANKIND? They had a problem with imp systems (Which were neutral space, you couldn't attack here). Players would move war fleets in and leave them for protection. This clogged up the systems and caused problems. So any fleet/war ship left in KAS space without prior consent from KAS would be given a deadline to leave the system or be posted... Just my suggestion...
Garg
	I think the only good way to solve this, is to have KAS as Player aff, because then KAS could activity keep control over the system, but problem with that is that the neutrality will most likely be lost at some point The other one, that players have to keep reporting to KAS, about violations, will most likely end up with there being more small warships running around, looking for enemy warfleets and again some warships might not be found, due to them being grounded on a planet or docked at a outpost or starbase. Dont think there will be any good way to solve this, unless KAS is made player aff.
JasTomo
	So what you are all saying is... KAS space should be neutral and you do not want warships hanging about there as this could pose a threat to trade, etc... But as KAS systems are main thoroughfares for anyone travelling (Mainly between IMP/Other space) there is a need for ship (even warships) to transit these systems. So, in order to prevent Mica inspecting KAS space and then posting habitual offenders. Why not stick to the no combat ban in KAS space. As far as I can see (And this isn't always that far...) This would mean that any ship with an enemy list should avoid KAS space. Any ship entering KAS space and triggering a battle would then fall foul of KAS Law and could be hunted by KAS or even have a bounty put on them by KAS (Giving a legitimate income to RIP or other pirate types... As well as Affs...) Then any OUTLAWED ship could be attacked outside their own political system. You may even get IND's naming themselves as Bounty Hunters. If the reward by KAS is high enough, you could even get INP/Bounty Hunters offering money for sighting reports of wanted ships. This could lead to information networks (Maybe the CIA) selling info on wanted ship and there locations etc... Just an idea but I think KAS outlaws would be fun, it could even be shown on scans i.e. IND SHIP WhoCares (123456) (KAS outlaw, bounty $45000). .... They are watching your every move...
Skarrin666
	To throw a spanner in the proverbial. What happens when the KAS come under fire, and invite their allies into Yank/Skord to fight for/with them. This is going to cause no end of problems. IMP warships granted access to fight for the KAS as and when the KAS see fit. Also, i fail to see how a race in state of civil war can control a nofire system. Much less two of them. Thanks
JasTomo
	As long as its made public knowledge it should be ok... Also if the bounties on the offending ships are high enough they won't need to ask.. They should have a group of bounty hunters waiting for an offender to claim bounty on... But I do see your point...............