That right there is the problem. We can probably write a list the size of a dictionary. So we will stick to case by case basis. The only issue left is the wording of the evelopedia page. I will see if I can raise the discussion on that internally, but a new wording may take a while.

No. What you said is that we're trying to defined what a rookie is. We're not.

GǪwhich, along with the inability to define rookies, is why it's not a sound basis for this kind of rule set. It is also completely unnecessary for reaching the same goal.

pfft whatever. Several of us have already worked out some excellent parameters that exclude the stupidly extreme hauling scenario as a rookie.

GǪand others have worked out excellent parameters that includes him. Which of the two will the GMs use?

This is the problem this is what need to be cleared up Because the Gm Clearly Said that it isnt True

The common sense one of course, sheesh. Like I said, you guys are still trying to break the definition of a rookie using the stupidly extreme scenario.

Really? Are you sure? Is what's 'Common Sense' to me common to both of us? Common to three parties? More?

Fact: 'Common Sense' isn't common - in the sense of "shared understandings and concepts." A causual glance a this thread will demonstrate that most convincingly. This is why definitions are good - they put everyone in the same place with the same understanding.

The common sense one of course, sheesh.

Like I said, you guys are still trying to break the definition of a rookie using the stupidly extreme scenario.

Hey Tippia.

What is your personal definition of rookie? Can you apply that definition fairly and equally to all situations?

Just curious what someone with better debating skills than I can come up with.

Hey Tippia.

What is your personal definition of rookie? Can you apply that definition fairly and equally to all situations?

Just curious what someone with better debating skills than I can come up with.

Which one is that?

How can we break something that doesn't exist?

Hey Tippia.

What is your personal definition of rookie? Can you apply that definition fairly and equally to all situations?

Mine of course.

That's what I already said about 6 posts up. It's like there is an echo in this thread today.

So what makes your common-sense definition better than the other common-sense definitions, and how can you be so sure they'll use yours?

Because it wasn't just my version of it

I'm positive that my idea won't be used.

The whole point of this discussion is that the term rookie is almost impossible to define. That is exactly why there should not be rules that rely on this definition.

Argumentum ad populum. No, that does not make your definition better than the other one.

GǪthen it's a pretty awful rule to use to determine who can and who can't be attacked, wouldn't you say?

I would say that it can't be defined other than by exposing data that shouldn't be exposed to other users (and even then, it's highly questionable), so it's a bad idea to create a rule that relies on such a definition.

Instead, you create a blanket rule that protects an unquestionably objective and clear subsection of space and its inhabitants GÇö regardless of status GÇö and then improve the education of all parties about the existence and extent of this protection. This make the definition and its applicability irrelevant.

And who's making rules here?

Not my fault you excluded yourself from the conversation.

So, if I understand correctly, this would be the creation of a No-PvP zone is that protects all players when they are in it. Which is not unlike being docked in station.

It would create much more than just safety though

You are. You have to, because the GMs will not fully provide them for you. This means you always risk running by a different rule set than the GMs are (in fact, that's the entire intent of them not providing the rules in full).

I didn't. I just questioned its conclusions.

Do all players read this forum, this thread? No.
Do all players read the TOS website? No.
Are all players forced to accept a EULA w/ each release containing concrete 'rookie' rules? No.
Does the game code enforce these (TBD) rookie rules on all players in real-time? No.

So with the greatest respect, not putting concrete rookie rules in the CODE and going into page 21 of this discussion is akin to wanking.
Ergo, you are all wanking.
Ergo, you are all wankers.

Right, you cherry picked your argument and we continued on without you.

And I'm not making any rules

I'm just using common sense while I feel my way through the gray.

Such as?

Create a place where people, when war decced, can run when things get tough and still fly their shiny ships.

A place where people can mine, belt rat, run missions, in 100% safety.

No, my argument has been very clear from the get-go GÇö very little cherry-picking there (well, aside from you picking up a few words and creating a massive straw-man out of them).

GǪexcept that, again, you have to, because no-one else will provide them to you with the current rule set. You are the one who had to determine GÇö without guidance GÇö what a rookie is, thus contributing the missing piece of the puzzle. In fact, the rest of that sentence show how you are making up the rules as you go, thereby contradicting what you just said:
GǪwhich isn't a useful foundation for a rule since common sense isn't common in any sense of the word.

GǪand do nothing, since there's nothing for them to do there that they can't do by just staying where they were and not undocking.

No. We're talking about the starter systems here. Aside from possibly some veldspar (which can be removed and the rookies can get their mining on in special mining tutorial missions which, afair, are illegal to scan down), there is none of what you just listed. So yes, you missed that little detail.