Borderland banned gear change

[Cosmo]

Perhaps some BGs would PK SS pre-merger but actually most made a point of not doing it.

Not to mention SS scalps were never worth qps to Borderguards.

[Enok]

There are certainly instances where you have two soldiers who try to kill eachother and that, I agree, is not murder. However, both police officers and soldiers commit murder. Not everyone by a long shot, but still.

By your definition if a policeman shoots a criminal he's a murderer? The policeman is just doing his job. He is not acting unlawfully.

Like you know he's a convicted mass murderer or he's a black kid who strolled by? How would a police officer know if the alleged criminal has done something worthy of losing his life in the first place. Isn't that what a judge/jury does?

If you want to go around calling police/soldiers murderers in the real world I think you'll very quickly get yourself into a lot of trouble.

Some of them are. Proven and convicted. No one is above the law.

[Adael]

As already discussed in detail and clarified by staff, you can't warrant for that. You will also find the warranting rules specifically mention that someone attacking you due to faceoff is also not grounds for warranting them.

For example, if I engaged Dixon when I actually intended to engage Reyne, but faceoff.. Dixon still cannot warrant me.

Browsing this thread. I would personally disagree with this interpretation of that particular rule, and your statement that that's what it _specifically_ says .

Number 3 says that you (player A) cannot warrant other people (player(s) B) for being grouped with a wanted (player C), nor for player(s) B defending themselves/player C in their group after you (A) accidentally hit player B.

The only restrictions for warranting seem to be on YOU, player A. It doesn't say anything about player B issuing you (player A) a warrant for attacking them. You attacked player B, whether by intention or not, that's your mistake for attacking people grouped together. You done fucked up, choose your targets more carefully .

I read number 3 more as a failsafe for the person who accidentally got attacked. They don't deserve a warrant for defending themselves from your mistake. You, however, get no such protection for not being more careful with your attacks.

Do I think this is the intention of the rule? Unsure. It could probably be written more clearly. Do I think the rule should exist? Eh. But that's my interpretation of it. However, I've also never had imms tell me otherwise.

[Florry]

As already discussed in detail and clarified by staff, you can't warrant for that. You will also find the warranting rules specifically mention that someone attacking you due to faceoff is also not grounds for warranting them.

For example, if I engaged Dixon when I actually intended to engage Reyne, but faceoff.. Dixon still cannot warrant me.]Browsing this thread. I would personally disagree with this interpretation of that particular rule, and your statement that that's what it _specifically_ says .

Number 3 says that you (player A) cannot warrant other people (player(s) B) for being grouped with a wanted (player C), nor for player(s) B defending themselves/player C in their group after you (A) accidentally hit player B.

The only restrictions for warranting seem to be on YOU, player A. It doesn't say anything about player B issuing you (player A) a warrant for attacking them. You attacked player B, whether by intention or not, that's your mistake for attacking people grouped together. You done fucked up, choose your targets more carefully .

I read number 3 more as a failsafe for the person who accidentally got attacked. They don't deserve a warrant for defending themselves from your mistake. You, however, get no such protection for not being more careful with your attacks.

Do I think this is the intention of the rule? Unsure. It could probably be written more clearly. Do I think the rule should exist? Eh. But that's my interpretation of it. However, I've also never had imms tell me otherwise.

Adael seems to have the right of it, by my account.

Mainly because Warranting Rule (1) supports his claim of Player B being attacked due to faceoff and then Warranting Player A.

Rule 3 protects Player B from Rule 1 from being warranted for defending himself due to faceoff engagement by Player A until Player A explicitly tells Player B why he's attacking Playing C. At this point, if Player B continues to attack Player A, Player A can then warrant Player B.

Warranting Rules.
1. You can warrant for any attack on your person anywhere in the mud, provided this doesn't breach any of the following rules.
2. You can warrant for any breaking of your nation's laws, provided these are in line with these rules.
3. You can not warrant people for being grouped with a wanted, or for defending someone they are grouped with if they are aiding their group members in self-defense (face-off engagements). This includes their immediate retaliation and pursuit, until the point you inform them you were in error while attempting to serve a warrant.
4. If someone fulfills the pre-set conditions for a pardon, you must pardon.

[Madin]

Not to mention SS scalps were never worth qps to Borderguards.

Almost certain this is not true. Anyone else recall?

[Ragyn]

Think that is correct, actually. Been a while, but pretty sure that was how it was when I was a lancer. Could be in earlier days they were worth qp

[boboliosie]

I got my FD Pardon!

Man, they must really hate you Cosmo. Bobos for the people.