|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Sapphrine
Neh'bu Kau Beh'Hude
Ushra'Khan
   |
Posted - 2009.11.04 20:58:00 -
[1]
Edited by: Sapphrine on 04/11/2009 21:03:27
You'll notice that the pilot is no longer in U'K. We also take a dim view on pointless piracy. Piracy against slavers is simply the redistribution of wrongfully gotten gains.
I call it piracy to save you the trouble. Amarrian slavers are very much red to us and when we find new ones they are added as such.
The matter is closed
|
Sapphrine
Neh'bu Kau Beh'Hude
Ushra'Khan
|
Posted - 2009.11.05 08:41:00 -
[2]
Lets try once more in simple words so that you might understand Dinaahk.
We fight Slavery. CVA support the Amarrian empire and claim Providence for the empire. We aim to disagree. By operating the region NRDS they create a meat shield and fund their operation in the area. By this alone, anyone operating in Providence is likely to be supporting slavers either divectly or by filling their coffers. This is the reason providence is a free fire zone.
Catch is a free fire zone because it is what is needed to deal with the security in the area and the region is held by -a-.
But what if a neutral gets to our space and wants to live there? Well the answer is i'd be rather impressed. To have traversed at least one region of 0.0 space without thinking to speak to any of the space holding entities involved and not to discuss standings just to say, 'is it ok to come here?'. Your argument is absurd. If a neutral shows up in deep Catch they didn't just accidentally roll into the space, they have shown up for a reason. If they haven't contacted us first then there is every chance that they will be shot. I mean really, if we announced neutrals are welcome in u'k space how happy do you think people would be about getting slaughtered jumping through HED-GP / Doril. It is hardly like they can just jump in from empire space and be in our space. As Karn showed, even reds can have safe passage in our space for the right reasons.
Finally, -a- are our allies. They don't dictate standings to us and we don't tell them to set people blue. We were gifted our space as we had proved ourselves in their eyes and it was seen as necessary for our continued growth as an alliance. I understand that the concept is alien to slavers but try to understand that two groups can act in such a way that is mutually beneficial with a little bit of thought :)
|
Sapphrine
Neh'bu Kau Beh'Hude
Ushra'Khan
|
Posted - 2009.11.05 08:58:00 -
[3]
 Originally by: Jakiin
Originally by: Karn Mithralia
There's always one .. provide an honest answer and some slaver muck raker tries to make more of it than exists.
Merdaneth, we operate NBSI in all of Catch, make of that what you will, I won't repeat myself for your entertainment.
I can make the question more compact. If an ally is in your space, and a neutral or red (to the ally, mind) is present there, do you allow that ally to fire upon the pilot which is neutral to you?
This is an entirely different question from what you addressed, though you did address that question quite well.
So your question is, do we dictate standings in our space whilst claiming that the area we hold is open to all and that people are free to use the space as they like?
No we don't dictate standings to our allies. Something about this mutual respect rather than holder - master relationship.
I think the problem in this thread is that alot of people seem to not understand that there are more ways to run NRDS than Pax Providence make out.
|
Sapphrine
Neh'bu Kau Beh'Hude
Ushra'Khan
|
Posted - 2009.11.05 14:56:00 -
[4]
Originally by: Merdaneth
Originally by: Sapphrine
I think the problem in this thread is that alot of people seem to not understand that there are more ways to run NRDS than Pax Providence make out.
Running NRDS in high-security space is easy. Running NRDS in regions you rarely visit is easy. Running NRDS in the region you claim for your own, that is hard.
I only enslave people in the Amarr Empire, I don't enslave people in the Republic or elsewhere where the local laws don't allow it. Does that make me pro-slavery or against slavery?
Now, please apply the same logic to your NRDS stance.
Thats an interesting argument if i ever heard any. ok so you only enslave people in your space but you don't do it elsewhere in this example and you want me to map that to our nrds stance. So in turn we only run NRDS in our space but NBSI everywhere else? Thats what logic would dictate based on what you said....
If you mean for me to work out what you actually mean and take your general meaning that you think we should operate nrds in our space based on the comparison that it works in providence then please see my explaination further up this thread. You're rehashing the same argument. NRDS in an empire border region is likely to mean alot of people entering your space are true neutral. NRDS in a region 20 jumps from the nearest empire entrance? Which true neutrals are you going to see out there then? Even CVA allows provi holders to shoot neutrals that have little to no history with concord and are acting suspiciously, its just common sense.
So to sum up, we have an 'enquiring mind' highlighting a case where we have a u'k pilot committing piracy and being ejected from the alliance for it and we have a second point asking why we don't run space deep in null sec as a nrds haven in an nbsi sea and further thinly veiled suggestions that we're both -a- pets or should be dictating how they act in our space....
You slavers are a confusing bunch you know...
|
Sapphrine
Neh'bu Kau Beh'Hude
Ushra'Khan
|
Posted - 2009.11.05 16:01:00 -
[5]
Or from another light, we'd rather not tell a bunch of innocents to run through 20 jumps with a very high chance of getting them killed just to get to our space and then have to turn around and do the same thing back. As your colleague has noted, u'k do not enforce our ROE on others in our space so our space would not be safe.
I see no motivation for the neturals to be coming to our space, they risk death on the way to us and death whilst in our space. I see no benefit to us opening our space up that way as we do not charge our supporters to dock in our stations unlike the Providence holders.
We have a clean and orderly home. We have clear area's of engagement and they are explained in detail all over the place. This thread is just one example. We have a mission to oppose slavery. That does not hang on us running NRDS all over space. We CHOOSE to run NRDS it focuses our pilots on the task at hand. We do not tolerate piracy in u'k for this reason also.
Are we done yet or would you like to try and restate your point yet another way?
|
Sapphrine
Neh'bu Kau Beh'Hude
Ushra'Khan
|
Posted - 2009.11.06 00:06:00 -
[6]
Originally by: Merdaneth
Mr. Sapphrine,
However, don't come on the IGS pretending you are an NRDS alliance. At this moment, you are at war, and you are not trusting people unless they proven themselves friendly. That's NBSI.
Pragmatism before principle has ever been the Matari way.
That is indeed correct and is exactly what we stipulate, NBSI in our free fire zones which are very clearly indicated. That would be Providence and Catch, the area that we are running a full scale war. The rest of New Eden runs under NRDS. That is because our principles are important to us as well as pragmatism. So yes I can come into here and happily state we are an NRDS alliance that will clearly define where it is NBSI to engage in our key mission of pushing the slaver creep into 0.0 back.
I think we really are done here. If you'd like to debate any further on the matter and actually want a response from u'k on the matter kindly send me a private band neo-com.
|
Sapphrine
Neh'bu Kau Beh'Hude
Ushra'Khan
|
Posted - 2009.11.08 03:17:00 -
[7]
Can all u'k pilots leave this thread to die now. I think repeating our roe any more isn't going to make a difference no matter how you phrase it. Pilots out there will make of it what they will. That even some of our enemy are agreeing that we're consistent and clear in them is pretty telling I think.
|
|
|
| |
|