These rules are designed to allow another form of concentual pvp: between guilds, especially giving a chance for normally NAP guilds to have a scrap. any guild can declare "Inter-Guild Fur-ball" anywhere except stations.

A Guild may declare an 'Inter-Guild Fur-ball' in agreement with another guild or guilds for a set time period, in one agreed sector only, no killing of noobs* or non [ONG]** traders in moths. This event may include NAP guilds, with their prior consent, the purpose of all this being a fun pvp multiplayer event for all parties.

1. arrive at furball sector you've chosen (not necessarily sedina b8), contact highest level players of [UNG] that you can, warn them that your [GUILD] is about to start "Inter-Guild Fur-ball" in this sector. If you cannot contact them, carry-on. if they say 'no', carry-on, unless they give a pre-planned event as a reason, eg mining convoy or some such.

2. announce "[GUILD] declares "Inter-Guild Fur-ball" in xxx sector" on 100 and give it start and end times, the start time being - say - the nearest next full quarter hour.

3. 'one agreed sector only': start fighting at the stated time in the stated sector only, no fighting at stations or other sides of wh's.

4. the number of times [UNG] will decline is gonna be rare, but if it does happen, start the furball, DO NOT shoot at any [UNG]. Wait 15 mins, then ask them again. ppl do like furballs, you know.....

5. dont kill noobs* or non [ONG] moths, unless it's someone's battlemoth lol.

6. the [GUILD] may select any other guild to be allied with, ie to fight alongside, the term [GUILD] then applying to them also.

7. ganking: in extremis, if one player is solely representative of a guild, then [GUILD] should not gank, but take turns fighting him/her, i suggest in alphabetical order of [GUILD] player name. this does not apply vice-versa, ie do not declare "Inte r-Guild Fur-ball"if you havent got the resources.

8. players entering the furball sector should state on sector chat if they are NOT involved, otherwise they are treated as wanting to oppose [GUILD]. (the furball was announced on 100, if you turn up, it is assummed you want some action...).

9. other guilds should ideally not fight each other, ie it is assumed that they become allies, and only attack [GUILD]. it is then [GUILD]'s problem if they cannot cope. if you want to attack [ONG] then ally with [GUILD].

FAQ:

'but this is [GUILD] asking other guilds for permission to fight'.
players already ask permission to pvp, what's the difference if it's whole guilds instead? regard it as the honorable warrior's way, a new 'vo-ttiquette'...

'why is there a time limit?'.
other players may want the sector to revert to being a 'normal pvp' arena. traders may wish to resume trade. miners may wish to wake-up and move to another roid.

'you are circumventing my guilds NAP with your [GUILD]'.
see phrase one of rule 8.

'why was is it called RoE7 before?'
it just so happens that it was the 7th in a list of RoE's i wrote for another guild i was in.

'but pirates keep attacking us'
Oh, they entered the sector, they are agreeing with rule 8 then.

'are there any restrictions on weapons?'
the usual, ie no swarming.

* definition of 'noob' as per your guild charter (what do you mean, you haven't got one...)
[ONG] = opposing nationalistic guild (or a guild you are KOS with) eg [ 1 ] vs [itan]
[UNG] = unaligned NAP guild, eg [PA], [TGFT]
[GUILD] = the aggressor's, the instigators of the RoE7 'event', and their allied guild, if any.
NAP = non-aggression pact
RoE = rules of engagement

so thats RoE7: how to give VO a new event without even being there, lol.

all comments and inquiries welcome.

i have rules pertaining to 'running', if you'd like them as well...

yours

sheffield

ONE FOR ALL AND ALL FOR ONE

WE ARE - SERCO !

"materialistic"

Now that's just labeling...

very good initiative Sheff.

/me light-heartedley digs: i can change it to 'monolithic' or 'monopolistic' if you prefer, surb.... :)

"...no killing of noobs* or non [ONMPG]** traders in moths..."

So basically outside the time period created by enaction of this "rule of engagement"...

...you're all just a bunch of dirty pirate hookers.

What the shite is this idiotcy?!

This is partly why ONE broke off of SCAR.

Morons, the lot o' ye. [SCAR] as first conceived never had this crap. We had almost no rules; we made money hand over fist from trade, mining, and piracy; and we killed just about any non-Serco pilot that crossed our path.

Serco almost unanimously liked it, and everyone else hated us. 'Twas perfect.

ok, i've had fun with my silly long acroynms, surb, 'M' taken out | SCAR drove players away from BEING serco, <edit>about time the game moved away from a small bunch of generally acerbic individualistic players tainting serco</edit>.

a small bunch of generally acerbic individualists solely representing serco

Yeah! 'Cuz that totally doesn't fit with the Serco of, like, the VO back story! Right on!!

RoE7 is a greatly misnamed way of saying 'arranged public furball.' It doesn't need huge rule sets or organization.. but I believe sheffield has taken it upon himself to make it idiot-proof with his explanation.

Bureaucracy has the innate ability of creating idiots out of thin air.

indeed.

ok, "RoE7" dropped.

I was going to say tl;dr, but then I thought it wasn't really nice to do so.

In any case, RoEs need to be shorter than that. If you cannot memorize them while reading them the first time, they are too complicated. Because you're not going to pull up a sheet of paper with the rules on them mid-fight.

[SCAR] RoE:

1. If it shot at you--shoot back.
2. If it hasn't shot at you--shoot first.

See? It used to be so easy!

read the title of this thread: roe7 explained: the bold words are the rule, the rest is the explanation.
jeez.

If you need that much bullshit to explain the rule, it's a pretty piss poor rule.

Who's the attorney here? Wait, wait. no... it CAN'T be...

If you need that much bullshit to explain the rule, it's a pretty piss poor rule.

The above is actually a pretty solid legal argument, too. It's one heard frequently--and not always in more polite terms--from judges at oral argument.

However, there is a slight twist in that the argument about the law, and not the law itself, is what's being critiqued.