SSI rules of engagement - as short as I could make them. Updated slightly sept 20, 2014; changes appear inside # # symbols.
The mission of SSI is to demonstrate the viability of certain "Swiss" deterrance charactaristics:
1) Independence
2) Neutrality
3) Non-aggression
4) Undesirable target status (retaliation against raids).
The goal of every war SSI wages is the same: Prevent or punish players from profiting off of aggression against us. In theory, this should limit the amount of warfare in which we must engage. In practice, it may get hairy.
The means: Avenge attacks against our guild members on your own initiative, but stay within these parameters:
A) Don't initiate force (don't attack a player who hasn't attacked us first.* Even if they're in a hostile guild...you only attack the ^individuals^ whove aggressed)**
B) Don't initiate harmful fraud/theft (i.e. don't lie to neutral*** or friendly players if it will hurt them in some way. Don't take debris from their bases without asking first+ , and don't hit neutral players' trade.
C) Cease hostilities against each enemy player once war aims are achieved against him. (i.e. all his occupations of us are lifted and his gross financial losses from war with us are 2x his gross financial
gains.****) #Obviously the enemy may re-initiate conflict by sending a fleet, stealing derb, or attacking.#
D) Post combat reports to our guild board, so we can figure out when our war aims aginst each individual have been met.
E) Treat all players with respect, especially the ones you are killing.*****
Ultimately we'll have to rely on the same techniques that kept the Nazis and Soviets out of Geneva: Neutrality, diplomatic demeanor, deterrance and...if that fails...determination to wage costlly guerrilla war in retaliation for aggression.
* Some situations fall into a grey area but need to be adressed. If a neutral player lands on your base with a small force, it's probably an accident. Better not to just kill them. In my case I just tell them in exhange for my refusal to kill your ship, I'd like long term clearance to land cyclers on your bases. If their presence isn't hurting you, give them fair warning before removing them. On the other hand, you getting killed over a neutral player's base by a member of that player's guild is not considered an act of aggression. You losing a scout over an empty or abandoned planet is more serious but not high priority. Probably the best response is to declare a temporary exclusion zone against that player. i.e. you'll attack any of her fleets that you see over empty planets in your systems. Guild-wide excusion zones would be a sterner option. Attacks on our trade routes are acts of war. When you receive a message from AE in your inbox, notifying you of the attack, post a copy to our combat board so we can see who did it.
**The idea here is to follow Sun Tzu's advice: "If his forces are united, separate them." Attacking only certain players... tends to separate them politically from players who aren't getting attacked. It also lets us "focus our fire." However a guild's top leader is responsible for the actions of his members, so he would be fair game if you can get to him while we are at war with one of his members.
+You don't need permisson to take derb from under a guidless player who obviously isn't playing the game anymore; he won't miss it. You don't have to wait for a player to respond after you've sent a permission request, but we won't go to war over you getting killed on their base.
***Neutral in this context means the player is not at war with us....it does not mean he is a member of our neutral guild. If you want to hit an apparently inactive player, first be sure he's guildless. Ssend a message to him asking if he's still playing the game. If after 48 hours they have not responded, fire away. If at any point they come back; cease occupation and open a dialog with the player explaining we thought they were "dead." Offer them safe passage above our bases as reparations. Guildless players with the red "inactive" warning on their profile are just plain dead and may be attacked without asking.
****Hostilities by all guild members continue against an aggressing player until that player has no fleet above any SSI base. And his financial losses from war with us are 2x his financial gains.
Example 1: Player [HOS] Ustasa raids player [SSI] Denja, occupies his base and gets 1000 credits worth of debris from killing its fleet. He also gets 1000 plunder for conquering the base. His losses are 1000 credits worth of cruisers. So his financial gain is 1000. That means our guild "owes" him not only the liberation of Denja's base....but 2000 credits worth of damage. This includes damage inflicted liberating the base. If, during the ensuing conflict, Ustasa tags one of [SSI]EndTheFed's cycler fleets for a profit of 500... his financial gain rises to 1500. this means we now owe him a total of 3000 credits worth of damage. The idea here is that we can't let the enemy profit from attacking us; we can live with being harmed but the more profits he makes the more we have to kill him.
Example 2: player [HOS] Ustasa raids player [SSI] Denja, fails to conqer the base but kills 1000 credits worth of fleet. Denja collects 800 debris so he has no financial gain. Thus war aims were techincally achieved by your base defenses and no attacks on his fleets are authorized.
Calculating financial damage is important to keep conflicts from spiraling out of control, but it can get complicated.
Example 3: player [SSI] Denja attacks player [HOS] Ustasa above his base, killing 1000 credits worth of cyclers and fighters. The battle leaves behind 600 debris, which Denja fails to collect. So the damage to Ustasa is only 400....because we assume Ustasa or his guildmates will get the debris. On the other hand if Denja finds 500 debris under one of Ustasa's other bases and steals it without combat...that counts as 500 damage to Ustasa.
Example 4: Player [SDS] Cetnik conquers a neutral player's base. Player [SSI] Jarow has a trade route with that base. Cetnik attacks the route, collecting an estimated 100 in plunder with no loss. In that case owe Cetnik (not his guild!) 200 credits worth of damage. This is why you don't do long range routes.
If your ships are above planets which have no player bases, it's an act of war againt the guild for anyone to attack them. In some cases the hi-level players who do so can't be directly attacked without you losing your important level protection. #So we can retaliate against that player with recon, stealing debris or having a hi level player attack.#
If certain our war objectives have been achieved against a player, it would help to publicize this on the guild board. You may want to inform the enemy player you're attempting to shut down the attacks on him. Once fighting ends, friendly neutrality resumes until the player re-initiates hostilites.
#Some situations will defy these formulas, such as aggressive players attacking us repeatedly without making a profit. If in doubt as to whether we are or should be at war with a player, the highest ranking avaiable player has authority to make the call. #
*****This is aimed at weakening the enemy's will to fight.
either can afford to buy
or cannot afford to go to jail
I guess I was also surprised Singapore didn't rate higher.
Any shoplifters here, share experiences. What is most expensive thing lifted? What is the most difficult? Ever been caught? What is the best technique? How is the feeling or success, or failure? Any guilt or fear?
There are professional killers, gamblers, drug dealers. How does everyone feel about professional shoplifters? Hate them? Bravo them?