| Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Yodaron Ballsithor
   |
Posted - 2003.11.09 19:06:00 -
[1]
Dear Friends and Colleagues:
All of you are aware by now that the CFS and CA have completed the ratification of a Peace Treaty which by its very nature is unique and historic in the Eve Community.
Previously, and during the Senate vote on the Treaty, which has been slightly revised since the vote, there was concern expressed by some CFS Senators and other individuals about the CA's ability to enter our 0.0 space to mine/hunt/trade/etc. while CFS was only being given limited access to CA space. That problem has now been resolved. If you would read Paragraph 6 of the Treaty (it is posted on a sticky in this Forum) you will notice provisions concerning access to the other party's space (excluding access to Empire Space) have been REMOVED and both sides have agreed that members from the other party's Alliance WILL NOT ENTER the 0.0 space of the other party. Consequently, should a CFS member corporation (or an individual from that corporation) enter CA 0.0 space, that corporation (or individual) will be fired upon and destroyed. The same holds true for CA corporations (or individuals from CA corporations). THE ONLY EXCEPTION IS THAT ALL PARTIES ARE FREE TO ACCESS EMPIRE SPACE REGARDLESS OF WHO CLAIMS SUCH SPACE AS BEING WITHIN ITS PROTECTORATE.
The Curse Alliance claims The Great Wildlands as a CA Protectorate. Therefore, NO CFS MEMBER CORPORATIONS (or individuals of said corporations) SHALL BE PERMITTED, PURSUANT TO THIS TREATY, TO ENTER THERE.
HED-GP and the Catch Region are considered neutral space and if you desire to know about other specific regions, please contact myself, Greg Tanner or Kai Viqtorr. You may read the Curse Alliance Charter/Constitution which contains the regions that they claim here: http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=42377 (check the first post by Sarkos). For CFS claimed regions (Khanid is Empire Space and the access exception of the Treaty applies in this region) are as follows: Khanid, JK-FIX, L-4ZEB and RI6T-K.
Although HED-GP and the Catch Region are neutral space between the parties, conflict in that area between non-CFS combatants makes these areas extremely dangerous. CFS members travelling in this space take their own risk of loss. HED-GP, besides being known as a normal pirate camping point, is a flashpoint for conflict between CA and SA.
At the moment CA is engaged in conflict with other alliances. THE CFS WILL REMAIN NEUTRAL TO ALL SUCH CONFLICTS. It is not our desire to participate in any fashion in such conflicts and we shall endeavor to assure that our position of neutrality is maintained. WE REQUEST THE OTHER ALLIANCES RESPECT OUR NEUTRALITY AND HONOR OUR CHOICE TO REMAIN SO. We desire peace, not conflict. We will continue to encourage all parties engaged in these conflicts, being primarily Curse Alliance, Stain Alliance, Fountain Alliance, Curse Coalition and The Great Wildlands Alliance to peacefully resolve the differences that obtain between them and follow the path taken by the Coalition of Free Stars and the Curse Alliance. War seldom resolves anything, but the ardent support of peace and its precepts will lead to long-lasting and beneficial relationships among the parties that ultimately improves the wealth and influence of all who embrace it.
I have received reports that some CFS member corporations (or individuals) may be using alts to continue in conflict with the Curse Alliance. I have also been advised that possibly some CFS member corporations (or individuals) may be removing their CFS Alliance identification and participating in conflict in The Great Wildlands. I have received information that other such splinter groups intend to actively aide and assist Stain Alliances. Please do not understand that I credit or discredit these statements at this time. The point is very simple: CFS member corporations (or individuals of said corporations) that actively participate in conflict against CA or that violate CA space without CA permission, either of which is a Treaty violation, will be dealt with summarily. Ejection from the CFS and inclusion on the CFS KOS list will be mandated.
Should a CFS member corporation desire to continue conflict with CA, the CFS WILL NOT SANCTION IT. Notify myself or Vice-President Greg Tanner of your withdrawal from the CFS immediately and kindly remove from our space. While we will grieve our loss, but WE WILL REMAIN NEUTRAL AND TAKE THOSE STEPS NECESSARY AND PRUDENT TO ENSURE SUCH NEUTRALITY.
Hard feelings between various individual members of CFS and CA will most likely continue for some small period of time following the conflict that has now been resolved. These are natural and understandable. Let us strive to place the hardship and rancor that surrounded our conflict in the past. Let us honor those who have fallen in battle. Let us rebuild the foundation of trust that must exist between us.
LET ALL OF EVE LEARN FROM OUR EXAMPLE AND COEXIST IN HARMONY AND PEACE.
|
Kalki Nibiru
|
Posted - 2003.11.09 21:01:00 -
[2]
Had you the power to actually fight back you would have. The eve community isnt learning anything by your "example" as the CFS only had two options in the first place, 1) Be Destroyed or 2)End the war.
Whether you believe it or not, you had no choice in the matter, this peace treaty is nothing more than a diktat minus unreasonable demands by the CA (after all, they want to be seen in a good light).
Taken from the May 29th 2003 Devchat at EveGate
.
<Muaddid> Q: When will sentry gun and station and similar construction pods be introduced on the market?
<Hellmar> we have various player owned entities already implemented. Sentry guns, power/shield generators, field repair mini-stations, mobile refineries. We are still working out the last tidbits of how they can be over taken, what is the penalty of having a sentry gun kill a n00b etc. and we have been a bit busy with plugging the holes that people have found.I would say that you'd start to see these items on the market in about 2-3 weeks, very expensive to begin with |
Bach
|
Posted - 2003.11.09 22:12:00 -
[3]
Ballsithor,
I am not aware that you (Ballsithor) hold sway over the CFS. You may and perhaps I am just not current with CFS political heiracrhy. But at this time I only thought Nimitz spoke for CFS so I have to question the validity of the claims of your previous post. Please have Nimitz confirm this posts.
Thank you,
Bach
|
Asimir Kurdugal
|
Posted - 2003.11.09 22:37:00 -
[4]
 Quote:
Ballsithor,
I am not aware that you (Ballsithor) hold sway over the CFS. You may and perhaps I am just not current with CFS political heiracrhy. But at this time I only thought Nimitz spoke for CFS so I have to question the validity of the claims of your previous post. Please have Nimitz confirm this posts.
Thank you,
Bach
He is the new CFS President. He replaced Teister.
________________________________________________
Moving again, comfort of the chase
Now and again, this my saving grace
Dead on the inside, I've got nothing to prove
Keep me alive and give me something to lose
I've been gone so long, but I will come back
I will come back for you |
Bach
|
Posted - 2003.11.09 22:43:00 -
[5]
Ballsithor,
I finished reading most of the posted topics as I have been away some time. I would appear you have some negotiating rights in the CFS but I still would like confirmation from Nimitz.
I got a chance to peruse the new and ratified CFS/CA treaty. Two points concern me.
First after Nov. 12th you are giving CA forces free access to mine in CFS 0.0 space.
Second you are giving them permition to conduct combats in CFS space if they can claim right of pursuit.
I find it extremely hard to see how CFS can claim neutrality in the wars if A) your going to harbour CA logistics services with-in your borders and B) your going to allow one sided combats with-in your boarders as long as a thin excuse of pursuit can be generated.
Sir could you please clarify the following hypothetical points and how the new treaty would effect them.
1) SA/CC/FA forces discover CA mining ops inside CFS 0.0 space and decide to raid said operations. What is the CFS position on SA/CC/FA forces raiding CA logistics ops inside CFS 0.0 space?
2) CA forces pursue a SA/CC/FA ship into CFS space. It should be noted that thus far the CFS has not forbiddin travel into these regions to SA/CC/FA. Now a common CA tactic is to blockade stargates to trap pilots and this often takes hours of preparations and leaves CA forces buncvhed up at the time. Would SA/CC/FA forces/fleets on a rescue mission then be allowed to enter and combat CA forces?
On a last note you also claim that CFS forces wishing to pursue combat with CA forces will be put on the CFS KOS list. Now if said CFS forces enter and combat CA forces the treaty clearly calls for they're dismissal but said nothing of KOS lists. If CFS members still wishing to be in conflict with the CA should leave the CFS and join the cause the CFS placing these pilots on KOS lists puts you in the same position with SA/CC/FA regarding KOS list pilots that you just negotiated your way out of with the CA.
Now, I'm just guessing here, but to answer my questions and set up standards to deal with the proposed situations I have described. The CFS will need to complete agreements with SA/CC/FA which is once again forbidden by your CA/CFS treaty. This fact once again will place the CFS on the CA side of current disputes. How can you expect to maintain neutrality in any form other than just plain words?
|
Ph0enix
|
Posted - 2003.11.09 22:46:00 -
[6]
oh grow up. just because two sides in EVE have with-held from unconstructive smack talk, random podding and exploiting long enough to talk out their diferences doesn't mean one side was forced into said situation. the truth is, whether your pathetic spin machines like it or not, the CA and CFS do not wish to fight each other.
the CA have enough on their plate with the SA trying to claim curse because they've run out of Bistot without a un-necessary war with the peaceful people of CFS. if we truely were pirates, wouldn't we of continued this war, since CFS has the greatest number of non-combatant members?
www.freetribes.net |
Bach
|
Posted - 2003.11.09 22:54:00 -
[7]
Phoenix,
I mentioned nothing about the CFS fighting CA. If they want peace they should be able to attain it and I am all for that.
That said, my concerns that they do not get involved in present conflicts on a side at odds with me is of great concern.
As you noticed my points are not spin. They are questions regarding points of neutrality and how CFS intends to maintain it. I make no call for them to bring arms against CA.
In fact, my issues have nothing to do with CA at all. They are purely as to how this new treaty is going to affect my relationship with the CFS.
Signing a treaty to create peace with you that inevitably ends up just steering them into war with me is hardly an answer to peace. It merely removes a short term problem with a short term solution.
|
The Reclaimer
|
Posted - 2003.11.09 23:17:00 -
[8]
Quote:
Signing a treaty to create peace with you that inevitably ends up just steering them into war with me is hardly an answer to peace. It merely removes a short term problem with a short term solution.
War with you? Are you a 1-man corp? Also, there are not as many stations in CFS for which to hide your sad-sack self and cowardly band of rabble. Bach, you are both rude and stupid. It was he is the CFS president CLEARLY on his sig/card. Who are you to demand a response from anyone?
|
Silinary
|
Posted - 2003.11.09 23:31:00 -
[9]
Nimitz makes those sig cards for people in the CFS. You can consider that his "Varification", not that it should be required.
Neutrality is just that, a desire to remain neutral. The only way this will lead to combat with someone else is if they come running to us for help, and we don't help, because we are neutral. If they can't take the rejection, then, aye, they may get spiteful and declare war... tho I think that would be seen in bad taste.
You can do anything you set your mind to. |
Fenring
|
Posted - 2003.11.10 00:50:00 -
[10]
Congratulations on your peace treaty, even though it could potentially put you on the side of CA.
GWP for one will not forget that you seem to think you have the right to allow CA to annex GW, when it is nothing to do with CFS so you are hardly neutral.
Being neutral is about more than just keeping out of a war, it is about being neutral to both sides of the conflict, neither harming them nor aiding them.
So how neutral are you when you can say in your post that your treaty legitimises CA's claim of GW.
I will be interrested to hear you reply and I am not interrested in any CA responce so kindly find somewhere else to spread your manure.
"The enemy to be feared is the one who wears the face of a friend"
|
Yodaron Ballsithor
|
Posted - 2003.11.10 02:29:00 -
[11]
Edited by: Yodaron Ballsithor on 10/11/2003 02:59:29
Nimitz does not speak for CFS, I do. Very simple.
Bach, read the revised Treaty. The link is here: http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=42377
Those provisions have been removed.
If CFS members leave the the CFS and remove their tags they will not be placed on our KOS, however, they will be removed from CFS membership. If they act as outlined in my initial post, they will be treated according to that post.
CFS did not legitimate anything. We reocognized, as a part of the Treaty, that CA is claiming that region, they are the holder thereof, and we are to stay out of it. Very simple. The same obtains for their recognition of the regions we claim and they are to stay out of them, except empire space.
You may choose to recognize what you wish. It does not bind us, the Treaty does. Other than that, we have no involvement in the matter.
|
Calladen Nimitz
|
Posted - 2003.11.10 03:44:00 -
[12]
Bach,
Just to confirm Yodaron is the CFS President. He was elected when Teister retired. While I was Vice-President at the time I left that position due to real life issues and have taken a position as a Councillor (advisor) to the President. Greg Tanner is the new CFS Vice President.
I did design and do maintain the sig cards for both the CFS and the CFS Navy so any updates you see on the cards we're indeed done by me.
I have full confidence in Yodaron and his ability to lead the CFS (I voted for him in fact). He's a great person.
Calladen Nimitz 
|
Scragg
|
Posted - 2003.11.10 04:42:00 -
[13]
I believe the CA/CFS have amended their treaty and agreed to stay out of the space the other claims. There should be no reason for the forces apposing the pirate alliance to enter CFS space to fight them since by treaty they should not be there.
If the CA pirates turn up in CFS space in large numbers we can probably assume the treaty is no longer relevant and the CFS probably would not mind us being their to fight the pirates since at that time they would most likely be at war with the pirates again. This is of course pure speculation on my part.
Oh, and The Reclaimer calling ANYONE rude is just... funny.
Scragg, Tyrell Corporation
Vice-Director Military Operations |
Supe
|
Posted - 2003.11.10 05:42:00 -
[14]
Bach the coward just cause you can't run into cfs space to hide and we are allowed to chase you into there space is no reason to cry. This peace and all your comments are further proof that CC is a joke.
CFS does not want to get involved what is so wrong with that?
|
Cormyat Astara
|
Posted - 2003.11.10 09:34:00 -
[15]
Quote:
CFS does not want to get involved what is so wrong with that?
It's an indication of extreme self-deception, that's what's wrong with it. CA will turn on CFS as soon as it is politically and militarily viable to do so. It's pretty obvious they don't care about peace with the same passion that CFS does.
|
Wren
|
Posted - 2003.11.10 09:58:00 -
[16]
Quote:
It's pretty obvious they don't care about peace with the same passion that CFS does.
Sure it is. And CA are really vampire longlegs with vitoc spitting stingers and x-ray vision.
Let events tell the story, not *****pots on forums.
--------------------------------------------------
|
Sarkos
|
Posted - 2003.11.10 10:01:00 -
[17]
Quote:
Quote:
CFS does not want to get involved what is so wrong with that?
It's an indication of extreme self-deception, that's what's wrong with it. CA will turn on CFS as soon as it is politically and militarily viable to do so. It's pretty obvious they don't care about peace with the same passion that CFS does.
Cormyat,
If you realized the amount of work that both sides put into this treaty, you would realize how wrong you are. I commend the CFS for their hard work and dilligence in helping to create the first ever official peace treaty in the history of EVE.
No pirates would put in this level of toil for anyone, nor put up with the levels of frustration or stress. What we have forged, let no one destroy.
Either free the slaves or we will come and get them.
|
Cormyat Astara
|
Posted - 2003.11.10 10:04:00 -
[18]
Edited by: Cormyat Astara on 10/11/2003 10:07:47
Quote:
Sure it is. And CA are really vampire longlegs with vitoc spitting stingers and x-ray vision.
Let events tell the story, not *****pots on forums.
I think it's pretty obvious what CA's intentions are from the evidence Xanadu has presented. I notice it was difficult for CA members to respond to that evidence in any sort of rational manner until the spin-doctors had sufficient time to agree which drum of denial you all should be beating on. If you continue to deny it long enough, you may even come to believe it yourself.
Perhaps you weren't informed, Wren? Could it be that you and Sarkos and Oracle Corp were out-of-the-loop on this one?
I am the first to admit I could be mistaken about this whole thing, but I can only say that I wouldn't trust CA any further than I could throw the lot of you.
The worst part is, I think most of the CA corps are probably respectable people who have every intention of honoring said treaty.
Problem is, "most" does not = "all."
|
Wren
|
Posted - 2003.11.10 10:14:00 -
[19]
Quote:
...most does not = "all"
Thanks. Very nicely wraps up the entire affair. The majority in the council makes the policy, not some of the ragged edges of the CA.
--------------------------------------------------
|
Cormyat Astara
|
Posted - 2003.11.10 10:21:00 -
[20]
Quote:
Quote:
...most does not = "all"
Thanks. Very nicely wraps up the entire affair. The majority in the council makes the policy, not some of the ragged edges of the CA.
But if the "ragged edge" decides to take matter into their own hands, won't they drag the entire alliance down with them?
Or is CA willing to expunge those who are not willing to keep the peace?
|
Wren
|
Posted - 2003.11.10 10:33:00 -
[21]
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
...most does not = "all"
Thanks. Very nicely wraps up the entire affair. The majority in the council makes the policy, not some of the ragged edges of the CA.
But if the "ragged edge" decides to take matter into their own hands, won't they drag the entire alliance down with them?
Or is CA willing to expunge those who are not willing to keep the peace?
We have already. And will do so again if it is needed.
--------------------------------------------------
|
Art Dillinja
|
Posted - 2003.11.10 10:39:00 -
[22]
Quote:
We have already. And will do so again if it is needed.
So Sinister has been kicked out of the CA?
Or has "No pirates in the CA" been replaced with "No pirating other than what we agreed to till saturday"?
|
The Reclaimer
|
Posted - 2003.11.10 10:40:00 -
[23]
Quote:
Quote:
We have already. And will do so again if it is needed.
So Sinister has been kicked out of the CA?
Or has "No pirates in the CA" been replaced with "No pirating other than what we agreed to till saturday"?
Has Evol been kicked out of FA?
|
Cormyat Astara
|
Posted - 2003.11.10 10:44:00 -
[24]
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
We have already. And will do so again if it is needed.
So Sinister has been kicked out of the CA?
Or has "No pirates in the CA" been replaced with "No pirating other than what we agreed to till saturday"?
Has Evol been kicked out of FA?
Put the rhetoric aside for a moment an answer me this:
Do you REALLY think that Evol and Sinister are in the same class and have the same reputation for piracy?
And remember, I have been on the other side of Evol guns. I know how much you can develop a passionate hatred for them. But I have NEVER seen anything they have done that I would consider piracy.
Sinister, on the other hand...
|
Art Dillinja
|
Posted - 2003.11.10 10:48:00 -
[25]
Quote:
Put the rhetoric aside for a moment an answer me this:
Do you REALLY think that Evol and Sinister are in the same class and have the same reputation for piracy?
And remember, I have been on the other side of Evol guns. I know how much you can develop a passionate hatred for them. But I have NEVER seen anything they have done that I would consider piracy.
Sinister, on the other hand...
Ignore Reclaimer, he's desperately trying to troll the thread off topic and doing us a favor with it.
Because the damage Reclaimer does to the "legitimate" corps in the CA is ten times higher than any logs we could ever publish from their internal plotting channels.
So GO RECLAIMER!
And Wren, answer my question. 
|
Wren
|
Posted - 2003.11.10 10:51:00 -
[26]
Wait until Saturday. Then report any acts of piracy. Oh wait, Saturday had come and gone, and no one has said they were pirated by Sinister.
--------------------------------------------------
|
Cormyat Astara
|
Posted - 2003.11.10 10:58:00 -
[27]
Quote:
Ignore Reclaimer, he's desperately trying to troll the thread off topic and doing us a favor with it.
Because the damage Reclaimer does to the "legitimate" corps in the CA is ten times higher than any logs we could ever publish from their internal plotting channels.
So GO RECLAIMER!
And Wren, answer my question.
So you're saying that reasoned debate with Reclaimer is futile.
His use of logical fallacies not withstanding, I sometimes see a glimmer of intelligence in his posts, intelligence that seems to have been all but neutralized by his unreasoning hatred for FA.
|
The Reclaimer
|
Posted - 2003.11.10 11:00:00 -
[28]
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
We have already. And will do so again if it is needed.
So Sinister has been kicked out of the CA?
Or has "No pirates in the CA" been replaced with "No pirating other than what we agreed to till saturday"?
Has Evol been kicked out of FA?
Put the rhetoric aside for a moment an answer me this:
Do you REALLY think that Evol and Sinister are in the same class and have the same reputation for piracy?
And remember, I have been on the other side of Evol guns. I know how much you can develop a passionate hatred for them. But I have NEVER seen anything they have done that I would consider piracy.
Sinister, on the other hand...
Can you tell me who in SinC has pirated in the lqst three months?
|
Cliff Yablonski
|
Posted - 2003.11.10 11:01:00 -
[29]
poxie?
|
The Reclaimer
|
Posted - 2003.11.10 11:01:00 -
[30]
Quote:
Quote:
Put the rhetoric aside for a moment an answer me this:
Do you REALLY think that Evol and Sinister are in the same class and have the same reputation for piracy?
And remember, I have been on the other side of Evol guns. I know how much you can develop a passionate hatred for them. But I have NEVER seen anything they have done that I would consider piracy.
Sinister, on the other hand...
Ignore Reclaimer, he's desperately trying to troll the thread off topic and doing us a favor with it.
Because the damage Reclaimer does to the "legitimate" corps in the CA is ten times higher than any logs we could ever publish from their internal plotting channels.
So GO RECLAIMER!
And Wren, answer my question.
LOL, who do you think in the CA is listening to you? I can say offesive things to my enemies all day if I choose, so FO.
|
| |
|
| Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |