| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Merdaneth
Amarr
Angel Wing.
   |
Posted - 2010.05.18 10:42:00 -
[1]
 Originally by: The Cosmopolite
The issue of given individuals who are members of independent corporations or alliances that do not as a whole actively support the purposes of Sansha's Nation do not concern us. That is properly an internal matter for the corporation or alliance in question.
Star Fraction always held an organization responsible for all the actions of its members, and thus held any individual in an organization responsible for all the actions of other individuals in an organization.
Concerning your reference to 'internal matters', if I remember the Star Fraction line, if an organization did not remove said individuals, Star Fraction considered the organization to actively supporting the actions of said individuals and thus responsible as a whole.
Has this changed?
____
The Illusion of Freedom | The Truth about Slavery |
Merdaneth
Amarr
Angel Wing.
|
Posted - 2010.05.18 10:50:00 -
[2]
Originally by: Heartstone
We are told that because of our executor's personal relationship we are not to be trusted.
No more will we tolerate this.
Mr. Hearstone, if you start an intimate romantic relationship with Sansha unit IzzyChan, and start posting that you consider your love to IzzyChan more powerful than any other bond in the universe, then yes, you *will* get distrusted.
That is not odd.
If you are also the overbearing and (seemingly) tyrannical CEO of an organization, members of that organization will get distrusted.
That is not odd.
____
The Illusion of Freedom | The Truth about Slavery |
Merdaneth
Amarr
Angel Wing.
|
Posted - 2010.05.18 10:58:00 -
[3]
All I what to know is if I can count on Star Fraction pilots to assist in destroying Sansha incursions in the Amarr Empire. Other issues are of less import. How Star Fraction pilots choose to cooperate is largely immaterial to me, as long as I see them destroying Sansha invaders I'm perfectly willing to tolerate their presence and happy to receive their aid.
____
The Illusion of Freedom | The Truth about Slavery |
Merdaneth
Amarr
Angel Wing.
|
Posted - 2010.05.18 16:28:00 -
[4]
Originally by: Jade Constantine
Your toleration is not required, permission is not sought, and your happiness irrelevant to our operations. You remain a -10 target of the Star Fraction and will be engaged whenever it is practical for us to do so.
Again I reaffirm Star Fraction pilots are not considered to have a collective KOS status to me. Also, any SF pilot that flies in the Amarr Empire to fight the recent Sansha incursion will *not* be shot at by me, and that includes even you ms. Constantine. I might want to shoot you, but sometimes individual sacrifices are needed for the greater good and for what one believes in.
____
The Illusion of Freedom | The Truth about Slavery |
Merdaneth
Amarr
Angel Wing.
|
Posted - 2010.05.18 19:41:00 -
[5]
Originally by: The Cosmopolite
Non-co-operation with enemies seems to be the preference of those committed to authoritarian statism and imperialist domination. Various of the militia forces have been seen shooting at their foes while those foes were in the midst of counter-Nation struggles. We have seen the Imperial Navy order its militia allies to attack Minmatar fighters who, only moments before, had been fighting against Nation forces in defence of a planet within the purview of the Amarr Empire. So it isn't a surprise to see non-co-operation with enemies preached by those who are imperialist or nationalist paramilitaries of one kind or another.
How would you then classify your CEO's threat after I stated my willingness to cooperate with Fraction forces on this issue? What was its purpose? Is the Star Fraction willing to co-operate with me (their stated enemy) in the face of the Sansha threat or not? I've repeated your CEO's statement below for clarity:
Originally by: The Cosmopolite
You remain a -10 target of the Star Fraction and will be engaged whenever it is practical for us to do so.
Is Ms. Constantine going to to practice what you preach for once?
____
The Illusion of Freedom | The Truth about Slavery |
Merdaneth
Amarr
Angel Wing.
|
Posted - 2010.05.18 20:16:00 -
[6]
Originally by: The Cosmopolite
What I should point out is that I haven't preached against non-co-operation with enemies. Neither have I preached against co-operation with enemies.
You've preached that non-co-operation with enemies is a sign of imperialism and statism. But as I see it, you mean to say that it is only a sign of imperialism and statism if your enemies practice it, but not when Star Fraction practices it. Then non-co-operation is a sign of 'limits of co-operation'.
Originally by: The Cosmopolite
I don't condemn the Imperial Navy for this because it was non-co-operation with enemies. I condemn it because it was basest treachery.
You mean the circumstances of the non-co-operation ending were suspect. A 24-hours notice would have removed the objection? I'm sure the Imperial Navy ordered its pilots to open fire as soon 'as it was practical' to quote your CEO. What are you trying to tell us? That your CEO is a treacherous imperialist?
Originally by: The Cosmopolite
If in the struggle against this threat it is impractical to terminate your miserable existence as a self-loathing hypocrite, then we won't. If it is practical to do so, we will.
As I said, I was offering not to try and terminate Star Fraction pilots even in cases it is practical for me to do so. Your CEO refused. Hence no more words please about non-co-operation being a sign of Imperialism or other such nonsense. Just get out there and shoot the Sansha ships would you? If defending against this Sansha threat means I must sacrifice my vessel to opportunist Star Fraction pilots trying to terminate me as soon as they think 'it is practical', then I am willing to accept that as the price I must pay.
____
The Illusion of Freedom | The Truth about Slavery |
Merdaneth
Amarr
Angel Wing.
|
Posted - 2010.05.19 06:50:00 -
[7]
Originally by: The Cosmopolite
Returning to the topic: the issue of co-operation with enemies and the limits of such co-operation is one where it is plain that one can only proceed with confidence with those that have agreed to such co-operation and can be trusted to keep their word.
Right you are. I believe that was what brother Graelyn tried to point out. Star Fraction have a reputation of not keeping their word. They are untrustworthy. When they don't like something anymore, they twist its wording, invent additional clauses or simply say 'might makes right'.
Originally by: The Cosmopolite
Indeed, even without agreement or truce, the preference of the Star Fraction, when faced with a great, mutual threat would be to co-operate with foes against this threat and then depart the scene in good order.
Is this akin to Star Fraction's (near mythical) preference for diplomacy over coercion? I'm sorry, but it is simply not very believable. You talk the talk, but I doubt you are going to walk to walk.
Originally by: The Cosmopolite
Indeed, I would see a deliberate plan to fight with enemies against a greater threat and then to immediately fall on those enemies with the threat's removal as base treachery, truce or no truce.
That is why I pointed out ms. Constantine's remark that she would attack me as soon as it was practical to do so, even in the face of a Sansha attack. Treachery by your own words. Surely you must see by now why Star Fraction isn't trusted very much outside of their allies? Star Fraction recently murdered an I-RAATA pilot who offered a truce and came out to talk because his acceptance of the truce wasn't conforming 100% to a multitude of minute Star Fraction conditions for accepting the truce. Rather than an apology for this act of treachery, he and everyone supporting him was slandered. That is the Star Fraction reputation.
Originally by: The Cosmopolite
However, we prefer clear truces and stated periods of co-operation so that everyone knows where they are. Without them, the fight often goes badly as parties fear to commit their full force should the other party plan treachery.
If you prefer truces, why not accept my offer of a truce? I've already said I won't fire on SF members aiding against the Sansha threat without needing them to reciprocate. Why the threats? What is there to lose that you won't reciprocate? Are you scared of being betrayed?
Originally by: The Cosmopolite
Possibly, what is in Jade Constantine's mind is to openly declare that we shall never consider ourselves to be fighting alongside certain deceitful creatures unless there is a firm agreement.
Possibly, you should have Jade talk for herself and not attempt damage control for her?
____
The Illusion of Freedom | The Truth about Slavery |
Merdaneth
Amarr
Angel Wing.
|
Posted - 2010.05.20 19:22:00 -
[8]
Originally by: Jade Constantine
Since we don't have a policy of setting corporations within blue alliances red the answer is an automatic no.
You considered an organization responsible for any and all actions of its members. You never needed to consider the standings of a corp within an alliance because you simply determined standings at an alliance level. You don't have a policy about it, because you don't need one.
Has your policy changed? Again?
____
The Illusion of Freedom | The Truth about Slavery |
Merdaneth
Amarr
Angel Wing.
|
Posted - 2010.05.20 20:23:00 -
[9]
Originally by: The Cosmopolite
One of our principles is that we don't interfere in the internal affairs of blue alliances or corporations. In the first instance, we must satisfy ourselves whether certain things are being done in the name of the given blue organisation or not. If they are, then we'd enter into diplomatic discussions with the organisation before taking any action. If they are not, then there is really nothing to discuss with the blue entity.
In this instance, we are quite clear that the Final Stand has not committed to any policy or taken any action that requires any diplomacy or would be likely to lead to a change in posture. We are also satisfied that no individual has taken any action in the name of the Final Stand that requires any such discussion or change. In this connection, I do believe many people simply have not read carefully enough certain announcements and the capacity in which those announcements have been made.
Cosmopolite,
I consider your last post a fairly accurate match to my perception of the Star Fraction policy and well explained too. Certainly much preferable to ms. Constantine's odd rantings.
The only issue that you leave open is that you allow an individual to act not in the name of an organization, not hold the organization responsible for it and stop diplomacy on that account. It confuses me that if an organization opposing slavery had many members trade and keep slaves on personal title, then you will simply accept it and do not hold any blame against the organization in question.
It seems like if an individual's action become suddenly (magically?) unimportant to the Star Fraction once they are not done 'in the name of an organization'. If I tell you my loyalist agenda is personal and not done in the name of my organization, and Star Fraction should therefore consider my organization neutral, wouldn't that seem odd to you?
____
The Illusion of Freedom | The Truth about Slavery |
| |
|