In an attempt to clarify some recent issues and provide better context for conflict reasoning and resolution going forward, we have the following comments and rulings to make:

The only organisations formally recognised as having defensive property rights are proper Houses, Cities, Orders, High Clans, and democratic clans that explicitly own the property in which the combat event takes place. Defending the property of these organisations as a member does not allow the attacker the opportunity to retaliate at a later stage.

Private homes are the sole domain of the owner to defend.

Anyone entering into combat in defence of one of the above as a non-member of the organisation, or who is not the owner of the private property, is subject to full retaliatory consequences as outlined in my original announce post #5056.

Conflicts involving members of organisations that fall outside of these designations including regular clans are considered personal conflicts. In these situations, anyone opting to involve themselves in defence of another is opening themselves to retaliation or hiring at a later stage.

However, with all that said: it is not permitted for attackers to kill someone who involves themselves in defence of a personal conflict AND later hire a mark or seek an additional kill. If the uninvolved defender dies during the engagement, the conflict is then over.

Finally, concerns about faulty contracts should be resolved via direct issue against the person filing the contract. The Mark is never responsible in these instances. It is not appropriate to counter-hire and perpetuate a cycle of circular PK by repeatedly filing contracts against each other when the original reasoning is flawed.

Penned by My hand on the 19th of Mayan, in the year 845 AF.