Well, I'd say that 'IND's shouldn't be postable/attackable as a group, anyway. If they really are INDependent, only the individual positions should be postable/attackable, not the 'aff-that-isn't-an-aff' as it is at the moment.

Stating on your system message "all INDs scanned in this system will be posted" is fair enough. But simply having 'All IND' on a posted list doesn't seem particularly fair, or realistic, and catches out new players.

Think about this scenario: At the moment a starbase can attack all INDs on sight, just because of an alleged link to what other IND positions have done in the past, which could be totally phantom. Whereas, if I were to create, or 'discover' a brand new affiliation, I could go anywhere I liked in the game, until the word got out, because nobody could possibly have me on an enemy list. Doesn't seem particularly realistic.

I propose INDs shouldnt be considered an affiliation, for the purpose on enemy lists, etc. The lists should be reworked to allow options such as "Attack anyone who isn't in my affiliation" or "attack anyone who isn't on my 'friendly' list"

Think you've made my argument here.... If the Wimble Nation can fly around with "IND" ships they will ALWAYS have an alteria motive. Now matter how good a play I am, I will always be tempted to use information gathered by that position - accidently or by design - for the benefit of my aff.
If you want to be INDipendant, leave your aff and play IND.
If you want the best of both worlds, then join an aff that has those benefits that fit you - AFT amoung others.

It makes no difference to me (or the Wimble Nation) from an IC point of view. Feel free to fly your true aff ships up to my door and scan all you like - there's not actually anything I can do about it apart from maybe a rude letter to your PD. So I not talkling advantage/disadvantage for me personally.

It's true that there are ways to circumvent the rules - but is THAT fair or good for the game? I say it's not! It makes wars less dangerous (I just change all my non-combat ship to IND so they carry on trading!) and therefore a more acceptable option. You only every risk 1 ship (or outpost, GP etc) to do anything you like, which encourages people to do anything they like....

It removes players responsability to their affiliation profile too. And for me that's a major problem with the idea. Aff A does what the heck it likes because if it's not Profile, they just use an IND position? That sucks - may aswell all just become INDs because profiles will slowly become so diluted as to mean nothing.

If you want to use an IND position for a job (and I'm sure there are 100's of 'legitimate' reasons to!) then HIRE ONE! Pay the price and take the risks. If everyone can do their own IND work, then there will become no place for IND only players - and they'll leave.

As I said before, if you don't like the restictions placed on you by being in your aff - change it to one that allows you to do what you want to do, or become a full IND yourself.

not really bothered to be honest - it's the points you make that should be discussed on merit, regardless of who is making them...so I can't really see the point of doing this, except perhaps to back up your point on this thread.


Dan

I'm only proposing that player owned ships should be able to go IND, so it's nothing which would upset the major power balances. And it's a rules loophole that could be taken advantage of now - A trustworthy player could be given loads of player owned ships by his aff, take them IND, move them through restricted territory (the London Wormhole, say) and then rejoin the original AFF. The loophole exists at the moment, it's an obvious circumvention of the spirit of the game. I have no proposals for dealing with it - I cant see any problem with having my courier as an 'unregestered (non-aff) asset' though.

Exactly the problem with going PIR. I think it fair enough to RISK being posted or discredit to the AFF, I just think it should be possible to make the choice, and the discredit not be automaticly applyable.

This proposal wouldn't be necessary if it were possible to switch back from being PIR, but that option has been ruled against. I'd consider going PIR just to do a little sneaking around where I shouldn't, if it didn't effectively mean loosing the freedom to openly go anywhere else, ever.

I might want to ask/argue about piracy next. I think that needs seriously reworking

In order to do so, the aff would have to have player owned starbases making these ships.

I think allowing players to have both normal and IND positions on one account, is opening a whole can of worms that Clay has covered quite adequately.

I dont follow what your point is with this.

No suprise that the holder of a large swaithe of territory is against anything which might make it harder to keep total control. What If I want to take the risk of nosying around in Ridley in in 'unattributable' ship, without having my aff penalized if I get spotted, or having to permanently write-off a ship even if I arnt? I can see why you wouldn't want it, but why is it a "can of worms"?

Accountability. The aff would have to allow such a base to become player owned, and my guess is that most aff's wouldn't want one of their warship producing bases to become so.

If you want to nosey around peoples territory feel free to do so with an aff flagged ship.

In your own words "Without having my aff penalized". But I'm, sure any information you gain you wouldn't hesitate to pass onto your aff. Therefore, your aff is gaining, without taking any risk.

If you wanty to do this sort of thing, there are game mechanics for it, techs you can use. If you get caught, you get punished and penalised, and possibly your aff too. Circumventing the rules may prove an easier way, but reduces accountability for your actions.

Well, next set of orders to go in is to add all IND to enemy lists. It seems the whole idea of running truely IND positions in this game is becoming a joke.

I though those who wanted to try underhand, sneaky stuff ran agents and ops.

I agree completely. This seems to happen much to often recently, one of us must be doing something wrong.