Arbitrary choices can still be inconsistent. The burden on you is to show why an inconsistent choice would be better for the game.
Yes, other people than gankers use scanners on people, or NPC’s, or on exploration cans, or on MTU’s. But like you admit, the problem isn’t scanners giving away information. Its not that they invade ‘privacy’. Its not that they ‘penetrate hulls’. Its not that you’d get more content if scanners caused suspect, yadda yadda.
No. The burden on you is to show that there is something that describes consistency other than your “just because”. So far YOU claimed it was inconsistent, without any proof.
yes.
Sorry, you just say nothing, so i say the opposite nothing.
Your post are just full of emptyness.
The ■■■■ ?
Dude , none of your posts makes sense. You have no right to affirm what I like or not. “You don’t agree with me, that means you don’t like X or Y” . That is so childish, grow up.
You think that every ganker uses scanners ? lol. Seriously …a sabre is a much better tool.
OK. It seems you have no idea what “consistent” means.
Consistent, for rules/mechanism, means none of them oppose another one.
So if you claim there is a inconsistency, you have to exhibit a set of rules from the proposed modification that contains a contradiction.
eg if I say “people who try to destroy another protected assets without right to do so get criminal flag” and then I say “shooting a mtu gives suspect timer” there is an inconsistency.
So to remove inconsistency and keep mtu shootable, you need to remove the general rule “destroy asset=> criminal” , and instead make several case-specific arbitrary choices, eg “taking items from a can makes you suspect”, “shooting a can makes you criminal”, “shooting an npc station makes you criminal”.
Since there are so many arbitrary case-specific choices, adding another one is not an issue, eg “activating scanner on a player ship without right makes you suspect”, and since it would replace the present rule “activating scanner on a player ship doesn’t flag you” the modification is not inconsistent - until of course your show me exactly what rules are in contradiction.
Of course, it requires you to make correct sentence and not put up a bunch of words together, hopping someone will read it and find out a potential meaning.
Scanners going suspect would be inconsistent. What proof are you looking for other than other scanners/scouting/intel/indirect assistance don’t cause suspect. Why should cargo scanners be the exception?
No, you are the one claiming there is one. Without showing it, it only is false accusations.
Inconsistent with what ? You are not even making a complete sentence !
And what is this a proof of ?
Do you actually have any idea of what you are talking about ? Because those last posts of yours make no sense at all.
YOU claim there is an inconsistency. Either you explicit the rules that are in contradiction, or you accept you were wrong, concerning the inconsistency.
(of an argument or set of ideas) not containing any logical contradictions.
‘a consistent explanation’
I’m not saying a contradiction exists. I’m saying making cargo scanners would be inconsistent with crimewatch.
Right now, intel gathering like scanning does not cause suspect. But what you want is for cargo scanners to cause suspect. This would create the contradiction in crimewatch.
Now it’s true the rules are arbitrarily decided. And it’s true exceptions have been made. But each one was considered on a case by case basis. Which is why the burden is on showing why this should happen.
Yes, you are. That’s the definition of consistent, to not hold a contradiction.
If you claim it is inconsistent, then you claim there exists a contradiction, by the definition. which you thus need to exhibit.
With what exactly ? If we change the rule from “scanners don’t give a flag” to “scanners give suspect flag”, how does it create a contradiction ?
OK I think I understand : you don’t know what a contradiction is. Please don’t use words when you don’t understand their meaning.
A contradiction is when you affirm two different things, eg “there is a global rule for crimewatch” and “we can accept exceptions to crimewatch when it’s fun”.
dum… no I’m sure you wanted it this time ! You made it on purpose to trick me !!
Seriously this does not change a thing, you affirm that this modification creates a contradiction, which you still are to exhibit.
So far you gave some rules, but you are yet to produce a real contradiction.
What rule or existing mechanism that is not modified by the modification, or modified rule or mechanism, is in contradiction with the modification ?
If you can’t, then you were lying when affirming the proposal is inconsistent.
BTW I think you can totally be right, it’s very hard to add rules without creating contradictions.Still if you claim this is inconsistent, you need to have a demonstration of this.
Except we know the normal rules which crimewatch applies for. Causing damage. Theft. Direct assistance in a fight.
For example the triglavian guns are a new module but no one needed to be told how they will work with crimewatch. It’s obvious right?
And right now scanning is the same. They don’t cause suspect. Not cargo scanners. Not ship scanners. Not survey scanners. And any new type of scanner would also be assumed to not cause suspect unless told otherwise…yes?
So it’s pretty clear that having cargo scanners cause suspect would be an exception to normal crimewatch behaviour. It would be an inconsistency. A contradiction.
Turret disrupting a freighter doesn’t shoot someone’s stuff, or steal it nor does it assist or boost anyone already in a fight.
All that and crime watch says it is a criminal activity. Penetrating a frieghters hull with a scanner is more invasive than using a turret disruptor on a freighter.
Rules change all the time. Merely claiming it doesn’t cause a flag now isn’t grounds for the current rules to not be modified.
I didn’t say any of that. It would be the same for any ship that doesn’t fit guns. Turret disruptors don’t work on missile boats of any size. Just like missile disruptors don’t work on gun boats. They do no harm yet they give a flag.
The disruptor works in the same way on every ship. EVERY SINGLE ONE.
A tracking disruptor disrupts any turrets fit on the ship. No matter what ship it is. If it doesn’t have any fit thats not the disruptors fault.
You’re saying that because the freighter can’t fit turrets it should be special when a TD is used on it. Or are you saying that any ship without turrets should be special when a TD is used on it? Like an un-fit megathron?