Mobius wrote:I think that even though interdiction is a player vs player action I don't think we can create a rule not to use it without looking at our no pvp rule as a whole, in the future when pvp missions are offered by the game mission screen to interdict another player carrying important cargo, interdiction will be used.
im all up for discussion on this as I would imagine that most would prefer to have a no interdiction rule.
and the other issue I have is that's its one persons version of event while the other party may see the event differently. until there is a better group management system my hands are tied.
maybe we need to create a group jury to investigate and address all future incidents.
having a jury panel will ensure that we act as a group and cant be accused of elitism if it were a chosen council.
If the interdicion is part of a dedicated mission this expection would be covered by our very simple ruleset already.
If not, I consider it non-consensual PvP. As that we would not need an additional rule as it states, "No PvP except..."
I would be careful with any system which includes some kind of "public trial". That could gve the group a very bad reputation pretty quickly. We much more need support from FD in giving out more info to us like in my feature request here: https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php?t=49388
And if FD will implement group mechanics as discussed in the DDF that would help. Like forcing a player into the all group for the current session if commiting a crime against another player until the bounty has been payed off or claimed.