The eccentricities and subtleties of Imperial courts are apparently lost on this poor Tribal, because I haven't got a clue who is asking what and what "correct" answer you or Blake is apparently looking for.

It's not often I'm happy I was born on a dusty backwater rock. But not regretting it now.

There's no division or discord among our people no matter how much you may wish it.

Well, Anabella was speaking about Gradient, not the Republic at large.

I know the Thukkers have taken a rather different path than some of the other Tribes, and have experienced a different side of the Republic than others, but in the end, they are equal partners in the enterprise.

The new Tribal Council should be a cause for celebration for your people.

For me, these recent developments are encouraging; all this talk of Tribal independence makes further Thukker integration into the Republic highly unlikely. A confederation of sovereign Tribal States, free in their own foreign affairs and business dealings, actually begins to look both tangible and appealing.

Should a falling-out happen between the tribes or along other loyalty lines inside the Republic.

That is a possibility.

I cannot comment on any possible contingency plans of Gradient in the case of total breakdown of the Republic, obviously. Suffice to say that as the corporation is a multi-tribal, even multi-national, operation in support of the tribal coalition, it would be require a major change, and possible directions of change are probably not even predictable in the current stable state.

But this is starting to be quite beside the point of this thread.

Elsebeth Rhiannon
Diplomat
Gradient

You'll still shoot PIE though, right?

As stated, at the time of our leaving, we adopted Electus Matari's red list. I have hard time seeing any change in either our policy or that of PIE Inc that would lead to removal of that hostile status. So, yes.

Elsebeth Rhiannon
Diplomat
Gradient

You'll still shoot PIE though, right?

I guess the better question is, what about groups not involved in the warzone fighting?

Political Crimes

-- Being a member of the Amarr Militia
-- Slavery: owning slaves, or obtaining and trading them for the purpose of someone owning them.
-- Crimes Against the Tribes
-- Support of Political Enemies

Capsuleer Crimes

-- Piracy
-- Unprovoked Wars
-- Claiming of Republic space
-- Petty Crimes
-- Support of Criminals

Your definition of your political crimes section is rather... vague, if I may say so.

- Crimes against the Tribes. What does that mean exactly ?
- Support of political enemies: same ?

What is the policy for past and present, or more precisely, does that policy recognize a difference between past and present, and how if so ?

They're vague because I didn't post them in their entirety. Mostly because the language reflects the laws of the Electus Matari, and not Gradient. My brevity was thus motivated by caution: while we continue to be inspired by EM, we are not *in* it anymore. But I assure you -- and any of our allies will confirm this -- we do take these concepts seriously, and debate them in no small detail.

As for the "policy for past and present" -- yes, we do make reasonable allowances for crimes committed in the past, assuming a change of behaviour in the present. Many among our ranks have committed crimes that are in violation of our laws, but in the interim have made amends. We do not have a standardized timeline for when the crime "elapses". That is up to the judgment of the diplomats, and of our leaders.

There are some crimes that cannot be forgiven, though, in past or present. An active dedication to the slave trade, even if years past, is unlikely to be overlooked by our leaders, short of a public apology, a disavowal of the principles of slavery and the society that gave rise to them, and a dedication of one's life to the improvement of those who have been enslaved. And that's just to start.

I see... So the best course of action is to ask your diplomats ? Am I red to you ?

Do you want to be?

Do you want to be?

We are at this time adopting the principles of the Electus Matari as the basis for our Crimes List, which will necessarily influence our Rules of Engagement. These include, but are not limited to, being a member of the Amarr militia.

These principles are still public, but in brief, are:

I'm mostly curious. You haven't really defined "crimes against the Tribes", or "support of political enemies" at all. Or is this a case of "vague so it can mean anything it needs to mean"? It won't really affect me either way, but it caught my eye. Broadly, the entire State could be considered "guilty" of supporting Amarrian interests through the current political alliances, thus fitting both criteria, despite the fact that slavery is illegal within its borders. Or are you and yours being somewhat more selective in such matters?

It is not "vague so it can mean anything it needs to mean" -- it is vague so that the multiplicity of crimes against the Tribes can be accounted for without the restrictions of a legal tome. But for some examples, you could include:

-- Active military action against Tribal assets
-- Theft of Tribal property
-- Political collusion against Tribal interests (economic sanctions, trade embargoes, bribery, blackmail, extortion)
-- Espionage
-- Agent work taken against Tribal interests

Gradient does not consider the Caldari State "guilty" of Support of Political Criminals in principle. That being said, the Political situation differs somewhat from the Military one: State Militia targets are considered hostile if they are operating in Republic space, and any State pilot known to work against Republic or Tribal interests will be summarily set red. We do consider the State to be a Government worthy of ongoing diplomatic relations, however, and we proudly count many Pilots of State origin in our ranks. As ever, State action against the crime of slavery is encouraged and appreciated.

Your definition of your political crimes section is rather... vague, if I may say so.

- Crimes against the Tribes. What does that mean exactly ?
- Support of political enemies: same ?

What is the policy for past and present, or more precisely, does that policy recognize a difference between past and present, and how if so ?

Careful now.

Questioning the nature of political crimes may itself be a political crime.