|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Miles Forrester
Reverberation Inc
10
|
Posted - 2013.03.24 14:02:00 -
[1] - Quote
After a lot of mailing this is the proposed agreement for all incursion communities.
If you are like: "But {community} was never contacted!?" Then feel free to discuss now.
If you are an incursion runner and are like: "Yes, finally, let this agreement happen!" Then feel free to like the post to let communities see how many people are behind this.
Proposed agreement:
Contesting: Honor based (Shiny fleet contesting a T1 fleet in headquarter sites should be discouraged but not forbidden). No unneeded blobbing. Blobbing is then defined as being at least 5 or more over the site's optimal fleet number (i.e. 15, 25, 45, 85). "Needed" blobbing can be under discussion. Can contest but don't overdo it in a way that the other fleet doesn't get ISK at all. MTAC stealing and preloading sites also belong to the honor system. Respect each other.
Mothership-sites: Free for all, though conditions have to be met before it can go down: - 36 hours after first sight of mobilization. Yes, 36 not 48. This is to give other timezones a chance at mothership sites as well. This is possible with screenshots and keeping MOTD's up to date with the latest "tracker". - First sight of withdrawing. Per mothership fleet, there can be checks if there can be a mixed mothership fleet (to get a varied fleet of both shield and armor). In any case, should a mothership fleet be full the rest will move to the next incursion. This is to get the ISK flowing again as soon as possible. Ban lists: To be able to get proper communications going, all ban lists should be made appealable as far as is possible. Bans since ISN's first mothership fleet (for "illegal" mothership fleets, not limited to ISN alone) should be cleared. Use a (up to) 24 hour mute instead of instant banning to act as a warning and to give time to contact others. This contact is needed to avoid unneeded bans happening. Multiple incursions: Due to all our numbers, multiple incursions can be taken down at the same time (even with this agreement) but I, personally, would discourage this such that players don't need to commute between incursions all the time. Side note about the Allied channels: I know there is a channel around (IFCC for example) that has leaders of some communities in there but I am willing to transform/convert/change Allied to such a higher platform. In this sense the channels would (most likely) be adjusted like this: - Fleet channel can then be used for the creation of mothership fleets - Public channel can be used as a sorting hat for getting players into communities (or getting people to know what incursions actually are, a kind of help-channel) - FC channel can be used as a communication ground for any and all FC's (e.g. to tell about contests and such) - Council channel can be used to have each community's leaders. Yet to be discussed is then how many representatives per community. As for: 'Why Allied?" This is because we have remained neutral over the course of time (as hard as it is). |
Miles Forrester
Reverberation Inc
10
|
Posted - 2013.03.26 06:44:00 -
[2] - Quote
Meanwhile, let's get back to discussing an agreement. If you don't like the posted one, at least provide feedback in what you'd like to see changed in the agreement.
Even if it only lasts for a year then we can always go back to the tables. |
Miles Forrester
Reverberation Inc
11
|
Posted - 2013.04.04 04:52:00 -
[3] - Quote
Noting recent events, let's bring this back up again. |
Miles Forrester
Reverberation Inc
11
|
Posted - 2013.04.15 07:30:00 -
[4] - Quote
Drama appearing to have subsided for the time being, let this be discussed again. |
|
|
|