EVE Search - FAO: SF & U'K (concerning PAK 0.0 policy)

All Channels

Intergalactic Summit

FAO: SF & U'K (concerning PAK 0.0 policy)

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 :: [one page]
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
GoGo Yubari PAK	Posted - 2008.01.06 14:57:00 - [1] Our rules of engagement are clear. We will only attack known pirates and criminals, or those who for one reason or another choose to engage us. This extends to any activity that happens out in 0.0 territory where we will be NRDS. We do not do politics. We are not interested in territorial strife, but we will respect it by staying away from it. More to the point, we will also be operating in Providence, where we consider CVA and their allies to be the reigning power. Consequently we will appropiately restrict our targets to those which we can find on their KOS list, but we will not simply copy the list and become an instrument of CVA policy. I know this is a regular accusation by certain parties concerning those who operate in Providence and who are friendly to the local powers. It's quite simple. In Providence we will engage those who are both our targets and authorized by the resident powers. We understand that SF and U'K are political enemies of CVA. We do not consider the aforementioned as valid targets. Should you choose to agress us simply based on our acceptance of CVA (and allied) sovereignty, you're of course free to make that call, but I'd like to know of your stance before we run into each other in local space. I put this on a public forum not because this is the way I want to conduct diplomacy, but because this also serves as a public announcement of our rules of engagement concerning frontier territories. Any other interested parties as well, in reference to either Providence or other 0.0 regions, are free to contact myself for a clarification of current standings. PAK is recruiting!
zoolkhan Minmatar Freelance Unincorporated Ushra'Khan	Posted - 2008.01.06 16:21:00 - [2] what is the purpouse of your stay in providence / slaver land? A)trading, mining, ratting, docking, refining in slaver space which equals to support slavery since all stations are owned by slavers and their support. b) aid the freedom fighters in their battle against oppression - please file your answer to karn mithralia; and standings will be set, or not set. (you should have done this beforehands, since you didnt perhaps you just wanted to prepare an excuse to fight us? time will tell.)
Jade Constantine Gallente Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.01.06 16:23:00 - [3] According to Star Fraction ROE you will be treated as neutrals as long as you do not commit acts of aggression against Star Fraction vessels. Since we are an NRDS neutral-respecting entity this means we will not be engaging your ships regardless of your decision to acknowledge the corrupt and venal CVA "authority" in Providence in the terms of your wider "license". Star Fraction encourages independent thought and personal aspiration and however much we disagree with your choice to constrain yourself to hunting only "CVA approved" pirate targets in Providence that is your choice to make. As indeed will the moment of conscience-searching choice inevitable when you find the first "CVA denied" pirate target in your sights and need to stay your trigger lest you end up on the wrong end of a standings enclosure purge for the "crime" of shooting one of their "friends in need". Still these are your choices, discoveries and mistakes to make GoGo Yubari. As a neutral entity you have freedom to define your own policy and Star Fraction will treat you solely on your specific actions towards our ships and pilots. "I might not have meant anything by it"
GoGo Yubari PAK	Posted - 2008.01.06 16:55:00 - [4] Originally by: zoolkhan (you should have done this beforehands, since you didnt perhaps you just wanted to prepare an excuse to fight us? time will tell.) I'm just answering this point of your's here. As some of you may be aware, PAK has recently had a change in its focus as per this announcement. Before we made this decision, our rules of engagement have been different and we perhaps would not have needed an excuse to fight you. At this date, however, we aren't specifically looking to find an excuse and are currently totally content in treating you as friendlies. Should you choose to change this disposition, the choice will have been up to you. Originally by: Jade Constantine As indeed will the moment of conscience-searching choice inevitable when you find the first "CVA denied" pirate target in your sights and need to stay your trigger lest you end up on the wrong end of a standings enclosure purge for the "crime" of shooting one of their "friends in need". There will be very little conscience-searching involved, only simple practicality. PAK is recruiting!
Daelin Blackleaf Aliastra	Posted - 2008.01.06 21:08:00 - [5] Originally by: zoolkhan A)trading, mining, ratting, docking, refining in slaver space which equals to support slavery since all stations are owned by slavers and their support. Am I to take it from this that you consider anyone operating within CVA, Amarr, Khanid, or Ammatar space to be enemies of the Ushra'Khan? That strikes me as a somewhat extremist viewpoint.
Devilish Ledoux Caldari Naughty People The Gurlstas Associates	Posted - 2008.01.06 22:05:00 - [6] Originally by: Daelin Blackleaf That strikes me as a somewhat extremist viewpoint. Have you never heard of Ushra'Khan before? _ Now Hiring Pirates, Anarchists and Terrorists.
Daelin Blackleaf	Posted - 2008.01.06 22:45:00 - [7] Originally by: Devilish Ledoux Have you never heard of Ushra'Khan before? No, I've been living under a rock the past few years. Please, try to refrain yourself to sensible responses. Theres a big difference between being anti-slaver and anti.. well, just about everyone. If UK take this step they are setting a dangerous precedent.
MirrorGod Heretic Army	Posted - 2008.01.06 23:12:00 - [8] Originally by: Daelin Blackleaf . Theres a big difference between being anti-slaver and anti.. well, just about everyone. Why not just be both? It's more fun that way ------------------------------------------ I see all the Young Believers, your target audience... And I see all the Old Deceivers...We all just sing their song!
Becq Starforged Minmatar Ship Construction Services Ushra'Khan	Posted - 2008.01.06 23:22:00 - [9] The policy you have stated can only be interpretted as tacit support for a regime that seeks to make a space that was once a beacon of freedom and security for those seeking to escape the oppression of the Amarrian Empire into a wasteland powered by the blood of slaves. This is not about territorial claims, it is about whether our people will coninue to be abused for the enrichment of the Golden Horde. If you support CVA in securing their regime in that space, then you are aiding and abetting them their crimes against humanity, and should be unsurprised at the results. If you wish not to be identified as a friend of slavers, then I urge you to reconsider your plans. Fly free. -- Becq Starforged proprietor of Starforge Industries, a subsidiary of Minmatar Ship Construction Services At Starforge Industries, the world of tomorrow is being blown apart today!
Garreck Amarr Border Defense Consortium Curatores Veritatis Alliance	Posted - 2008.01.06 23:37:00 - [10] Originally by: Daelin Blackleaf Am I to take it from this that you consider anyone operating within CVA, Amarr, Khanid, or Ammatar space to be enemies of the Ushra'Khan? When they need to display resolve, yes. When they need to garner sympathy, no. Depends on the context of the conversation.
Reash Amarr Auctoritan Syndicate Curatores Veritatis Alliance	Posted - 2008.01.06 23:44:00 - [11] Edited by: Reash on 06/01/2008 23:44:52 Originally by: Jade Constantine As indeed will the moment of conscience-searching choice inevitable when you find the first "CVA denied" pirate target in your sights and need to stay your trigger lest you end up on the wrong end of a standings enclosure purge for the "crime" of shooting one of their "friends in need". In fact, all neutral entities in CVA space are entitled to defend themselves from acts of piracy, should you encounter such activity please defend yourself first and then report it to a CVA representitive who shall ensure law abiding citizens are informed for their own safety. ----------------------- Auctoritan Syndicate Director
Karn Mithralia Minmatar Neh'bu Kau Beh'Hude Ushra'Khan	Posted - 2008.01.07 00:27:00 - [12] GoGo, U'K already have PAK marked red, I have sent you details of why in private comms. To my mind the idea that pirates exist as clearly marked entities in 0.0 is vague and tenuous at best. Good luck distinguishing one pilot from the next with that as a credible basis of differentiation. Daelin, at risk of flogging a dead slaver hound, U'K operate NRDS everywhere in the known stars except for Providence and Catch. Those 2 regions are free-fire zones for our pilots as a matter of strategic policy. Our ROE forbids piracy, and pilots flying under our colors found doing so at the very least are required to reimburse the offended party. Any such claims should be brought to my attention. -----------------------------------------
Arelius Sarum Amarr Exodus.	Posted - 2008.01.07 00:30:00 - [13] Originally by: Karn Mithralia GoGo, U'K already have PAK marked red, I have sent you details of why in private comms. To my mind the idea that pirates exist as clearly marked entities in 0.0 is vague and tenuous at best. Good luck distinguishing one pilot from the next with that as a credible basis of differentiation. Daelin, at risk of flogging a dead slaver hound, U'K operate NRDS everywhere in the known stars except for Providence and Catch. Those 2 regions are free-fire zones for our pilots as a matter of strategic policy. Our ROE forbids piracy, and pilots flying under our colors found doing so at the very least are required to reimburse the offended party. Any such claims should be brought to my attention. You say you forbid piracy, but you received support from pirates on multiple occasions. If I say I am against slavery, but I just go along for the ride on slaver raids all the time, they will surely believe me. Per ardua ad astra - Through Adversity, to the Stars
Arelius Sarum Amarr Exodus.	Posted - 2008.01.07 00:35:00 - [14] Originally by: Reash In fact, all neutral entities in CVA space are entitled to defend themselves from acts of piracy, should you encounter such activity please defend yourself first and then report it to a CVA representitive who shall ensure law abiding citizens are informed for their own safety. You know, a few friends of mine had their ships destroyed by the CVA several months ago. They lost a navy issued Raven, Caracal and a Harbinger. No explanation was ever given by the CVA despite the fact that they were members of an anti-pirate corp. If such cases occur in the future, I suppose we are entitled to defend ourselves? Per ardua ad astra - Through Adversity, to the Stars
Occasus Vim Minmatar	Posted - 2008.01.07 01:13:00 - [15] Originally by: Arelius Sarum You say you forbid piracy, but you received support from pirates on multiple occasions. If I say I am against slavery, but I just go along for the ride on slaver raids all the time, they will surely believe me. I think the Curatores will be the first to shoot down this fallacious, composition-by-association reasoning.
Arelius Sarum Amarr Exodus.	Posted - 2008.01.07 01:22:00 - [16] Originally by: Occasus Vim I think the Curatores will be the first to shoot down this fallacious, composition-by-association reasoning. No seriously I believe you are against piracy eventhough you fly with pirates, receive aid from pirates and fight alongside pirates.[/sarcasm] Per ardua ad astra - Through Adversity, to the Stars
Daelin Blackleaf	Posted - 2008.01.07 02:32:00 - [17] Originally by: Karn Mithralia Daelin, at risk of flogging a dead slaver hound, U'K operate NRDS everywhere in the known stars except for Providence and Catch. Those 2 regions are free-fire zones for our pilots as a matter of strategic policy. Our ROE forbids piracy, and pilots flying under our colors found doing so at the very least are required to reimburse the offended party. Any such claims should be brought to my attention. Then why would you feel it necessary to threaten a group of pilots who are no more colluding with slavers than the average pod pilot who operates in or around Imperial territories? Either what has been said stands in both cases or neither. Unless of course PAK is guilty of something beyond mere association in which case such accusations should be brought to light so that they can at least defend themselves.
GoGo Yubari PAK	Posted - 2008.01.07 02:33:00 - [18] Originally by: Karn Mithralia To my mind the idea that pirates exist as clearly marked entities in 0.0 is vague and tenuous at best. Good luck distinguishing one pilot from the next with that as a credible basis of differentiation. It is difficult to talk about piracy out in 0.0, for sure. The term is typically somewhat misapplied. It's frontier space mostly consisting of a collection of robber-barons and capsuleer warlords. If you happen to be on the side of the local ruler who wishes to enforce an NBSI-type closed borders policy, then anyone making an incursion is the bad guy. If you don't agree with the local power, then they are bad the guy. This is in the realm of politics (perhaps real politik, but nonetheless) and we'll stay out of it where at all possible. On the other hand, a member of a known pirate organization is a pirate where-ever they go, whether it's a shady club in Jita or the galactic frontier. It's really quite simple and we'll investigate claims of piracy where needed and supplement public opinion with our own experiences. What is different about Providence is that it is not a regular 0.0 territory, but under the rule of regimes who operate a free space policy (albeit under the direction of their respective political affiliation). For the unassociated neutral party, however, it is open turf. This is vastly different from comparative regions and happens also to facilitate our work inside Providence. It is really not much different from operating in low-sec. These are also areas of free space, under very political rule. Yet, many capsuleers fly there, free from those regimes. On that note, let me just say that if any other groups holding sovereignty out there wish to open their borders to us for our work, we'll hear it gladly and abide under their restrictions, as long as they are reasonable. PAK is recruiting!
Mortim Minmatar Madison Industrial Co. Sylph Alliance	Posted - 2008.01.07 03:28:00 - [19] Originally by: GoGo Yubari On that note, let me just say that if any other groups holding sovereignty out there wish to open their borders to us for our work, we'll hear it gladly and abide under their restrictions, as long as they are reasonable. I believe a change of standings was made today on behalf of Sylph Alliance. We've an extensive list of people that are for some reason opposed to the wholesale of confectionary throughout the known systems. NRDS rules of engagement and the capability to refrain from shooting up the locals or groups allied to Sylph are all we ask. In return, docking rights, office space and access to amenities are available to all neutrals now that severe hostilities have ceased. Furthermore as a resident, no matter how temporary in the area, any evidence of piracy in our space will be taken seriously, resulting in additional action on our behalf. Complimentary currant buns are available to your pilots on docking. For more information on our standings, restrictions, or culinary offers, please contact either myself or Drakmor via private comms. Mort Renegade Baker
zoolkhan Minmatar Freelance Unincorporated Ushra'Khan	Posted - 2008.01.07 05:38:00 - [20] Edited by: zoolkhan on 07/01/2008 05:39:38 message scrambled
Conlin Gallente Yiotul Fighters Ushra'Khan	Posted - 2008.01.07 08:58:00 - [21] Originally by: Arelius Sarum Originally by: Occasus Vim I think the Curatores will be the first to shoot down this fallacious, composition-by-association reasoning. No seriously I believe you are against piracy eventhough you fly with pirates, receive aid from pirates and fight alongside pirates.[/sarcasm] And CVA deny any help from pirates , against piracy , fly with pirates & recieve aid from pirates (sarcasm) We fight for freedom , they fight for isk , providence was a relative free area with a good economy when we had provi , now its a warzone in the hands of religious fanatics who use it for the sole purpose to supply their need for slavery .
Becq Starforged Minmatar Ship Construction Services Ushra'Khan	Posted - 2008.01.07 10:43:00 - [22] I find it laughable to refer to the slave-filled wasteland of Providence as "free space". Clearly you define "free" quite differently than we do. -- Becq Starforged proprietor of Starforge Industries, a subsidiary of Minmatar Ship Construction Services At Starforge Industries, the world of tomorrow is being blown apart today!
Kabajashi San Minmatar Ushra'Khan	Posted - 2008.01.07 13:53:00 - [23] Mr. Blackleaf, you seem to forget, that this average pod pilot colluding with slavers in Imperial territory is considered an enemy to our people as well. It doesn't matter whether you support slavery directly by enslaving our brothers or indirectly by strengthening those who do. To not be understood please consider that this doesn't mean that UK will open fire on anyone in Imperial space for obvious reasons. On details contact an UK official. On a sidenote: There is no threat here. Our ROE apply to everyone, so it is only fair to explain them to PAK who specifically asked for them.
Daelin Blackleaf	Posted - 2008.01.07 16:59:00 - [24] I'm forgetting nothing. I'm not privy to UK policy hence my curiosity. As far as I can gather what you are saying is that in principle everyone who operates or has operated within Amarr, Ammatar, Khanid, or their associated capsuleer supporters territories is your enemy. However you pick and choose who you will actually attack based upon what exactly? How do the rest of us know we're not going to fall foul of your evidently rather flexible RoE? You tell us you operate under NRDS and are not pirates. Then tell us that almost anyone can be set red at anytime based on an overarching policy that makes nigh everyone your enemy.
Spoon Thumb Paladin Imperium	Posted - 2008.01.07 18:12:00 - [25] Just make sure your KOS list is a subset of CVA's, then there will be no problem in CVA space Khaldari khanidpublic: RP channel for Kingdom loyalists Recruiting
Kabajashi San Minmatar Ushra'Khan	Posted - 2008.01.07 18:47:00 - [26] Ok, honestly, I am not the man to explain UK's philosophy. There are men better suited for this. But I'll give you an impression. UK's single purpose of existence is the fight for our enslaved brothers. As it is the Amarr and some of their dogs enslaving them, naturally they are the ones we fight against. Unlike other Matari organisations we think any slaver has to be hit anywhere anytime and that includes anyone supporting them. We believe that by this we can show the slavers the price they have to pay for denying freedom to our brothers. In fact it is not different from ancient wars - you cannot claim to be neutral when you are helping the enemy. Due to the ignorance of Concord regarding the fate of our brothers we cannot act accordingly in Empire space. So basically we concentrate on Providence and as it is an area entirely owned by slavers we assume anyone enterering is supporting slavery until stated otherwise. You are not set red, you will be warned and shot (which normally leads to aggressive actions taken by your alliance which then leads to them being set red). To avoid this you will have to openly state your intentions, denounce slavery and stop doing business with the slavers. We don't judge you on your past as it is the future of our brothers we are fighting for. So what you have done back in time will only be of interest if you have a debt to pay to our people. To be very clear (as some of the Amarr like fighting with propaganda over fighting in space): We are not pirates. Pirates shoot for greed and mostly shy away from a fair fight. We fight because we are in a war and we will not hesitate to sacrifice anything we have or anything we are for that struggle. There will be no peace in the universe until the crimes against our brothers end. We come for our people.
Kehmor Caldari PAK	Posted - 2008.01.07 19:26:00 - [27] I am still failing to see how our motives clash with those of Ushra'khan. Our goal is to hinder and destroy those who would prey on neutral pilots for personal gain. CVA's war on ushra'khan is clearly over a political dispute. If ushra'khan were in control of space we would offer the same terms to them. So unless U'K are supporting random acts of piracy I cannot see why they would wish to hinder us in our work, nor why they wish to throw away ships to our superior tactics and firepower. However so be it. PAK is recruiting!
Daelin Blackleaf	Posted - 2008.01.07 19:40:00 - [28] I'm aware of UK's goals, just because you don't recognize me does not mean I do not know you. I'm simply trying to refine my understanding of how extreme the UK's views are, it's risk assessment. We seem to be approaching a point of understanding. UK wishes it were free to kill any and all pilots who have business within territories where slavery is legal. The only thing holding them back is the superior firepower of CONCORD forces. It appears that UK is unwilling to sacrifice security standing to uphold their goals otherwise this policy of killing those who associate with the enemy would stand in lo-sec. It also appears the UK is unwilling to expend ISK on war-declarations to assault those who support their enemies. Again, the way things appear is that almost everyone is an enemy of UK, UK simply selects who they will and will not take up arms against from amongst a target list that includes almost everyone. Even the Federation and Republic have business dealings with the Empire and of course CONCORD itself is guilty by way of being partly run by Amarrians. It appears that you would have the Matari people at war with the entirety of civilized space in an effort to free your brothers, freedom at the price of extinction. Thankfully while this seems to be the theory the practice is not all-out war. You do not follow your own philosophy. This leads to two questions. What is it that makes PAK an agreeable target, and not State, Federation, and Republic capsuleer organizations who are clearly, by UK definition, supporters of the Empire? Why are UK not camping the gates into and out of "slaver" space (or within their lo-security systems) destroying ships piloted by those with positive standing to the "slaver" factions?
Saraith Narr Amarr PIE Inc.	Posted - 2008.01.07 19:42:00 - [29] Edited by: Saraith Narr on 07/01/2008 19:43:26 Originally by: Kehmor So unless U'K are supporting random acts of piracy I cannot see why they would wish to hinder us in our work, nor why they wish to throw away ships to our superior tactics and firepower. However so be it. Politics has little to do with the Ushra'Khan and theyre cause. They are wild animals who hate the civilising aims of the Empire, and wish to continue theyre primitive existence of fighting and killing anything that passes theyre way.
Kehmor Caldari PAK	Posted - 2008.01.07 19:42:00 - [30] Originally by: Daelin Blackleaf Again, the way things appear is that almost everyone is an enemy of UK, UK simply selects who they will and will not take up arms against from amongst a target list that includes almost everyone. Even the Federation and Republic have business dealings with the Empire and of course CONCORD itself is guilty by way of being partly run by Amarrians. It appears that you would have the Matari people at war with the entirety of civilized space in an effort to free your brothers, freedom at the price of extinction. border line piracy in my opinion PAK is recruiting!
Tecam Hund Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.01.07 19:50:00 - [31] Originally by: GoGo Yubari What is different about Providence is that it is not a regular 0.0 territory, but under the rule of regimes who operate a free space policy What a bizarre statement... Under the rule of regimes who operate a free space policy. This isn't possible by definition of free space. I think you are confused about your own goals, not to mention free space ideals.
zoolkhan Minmatar Freelance Unincorporated Ushra'Khan	Posted - 2008.01.07 20:37:00 - [32] Originally by: Daelin Blackleaf I'm aware of UK's goals, just because you don't recognize me does not mean I do not know you. coward, post with your real name and stand behind your words. Originally by: Daelin Blackleaf It appears that UK is unwilling to sacrifice security standing to uphold their goals otherwise this policy of killing those who associate with the enemy would stand in lo-sec. It also appears the UK is unwilling to expend ISK on war-declarations to assault those who support their enemies. with this statement you proved - to be a coward, not daring to use a name that could be held responsible - to know sh1t about UK ; someone who says we dont spend ISK for the cause has truly no clue. Concord has a almost 4 year old record of non-stop multi corporation / alliance war - we fought until this very day against forces that exceed our numbers and your imagination by far and this ist cost intense enough. donations welcome. the fact that we limit our NBSI to the slaver lands "providence" is logical enough and doesnt need to be justified. if UK pilots stick to it displays military discipline abd the ability to follow orders. also it clearly shows that we are not after cheap kills but after weakening the enemies support. we still differentiate, we tell you the key to survival you can take it or leave it. further strategies would certainly not be discussed here or with you. it is not important that you understand or approve our motives.
GoGo Yubari PAK	Posted - 2008.01.07 20:45:00 - [33] Originally by: Tecam Hund Originally by: GoGo Yubari What is different about Providence is that it is not a regular 0.0 territory, but under the rule of regimes who operate a free space policy What a bizarre statement... Under the rule of regimes who operate a free space policy. This isn't possible by definition of free space. I think you are confused about your own goals, not to mention free space ideals. If letting folks who aren't your known enemies into your space isn't free space, I don't know what is. I'm really sorry but members of Star Fraction do not own the trademark on the concept of free space. You have your own strange views and the rest of cluster has their's. There's no confusion about our goals. What the **** are they to you anyway? PAK is recruiting!
Maggot Minmatar Freelance Unincorporated Ushra'Khan	Posted - 2008.01.07 20:47:00 - [34] Originally by: Daelin Blackleaf It appears that UK is unwilling to sacrifice security standing to uphold their goals otherwise this policy of killing those who associate with the enemy would stand in lo-sec. It also appears the UK is unwilling to expend ISK on war-declarations to assault those who support their enemies. Again, the way things appear is that almost everyone is an enemy of UK, UK simply selects who they will and will not take up arms against from amongst a target list that includes almost everyone. Even the Federation and Republic have business dealings with the Empire and of course CONCORD itself is guilty by way of being partly run by Amarrians. It appears that you would have the Matari people at war with the entirety of civilized space in an effort to free your brothers, freedom at the price of extinction. Thankfully while this seems to be the theory the practice is not all-out war. You do not follow your own philosophy. This leads to two questions. What is it that makes PAK an agreeable target, and not State, Federation, and Republic capsuleer organizations who are clearly, by UK definition, supporters of the Empire? Why are UK not camping the gates into and out of "slaver" space (or within their lo-security systems) destroying ships piloted by those with positive standing to the "slaver" factions? U'K has currently 4 CONCORD sanctioned wars in place. We will add and remove them as we see fit based on current objectives. U'K will attack whomever it deems priority in order to achieve the ultimate goal of ending slavery across the galaxy. U'K's policy in Providence and Catch has been clearly stated on many occasions. U'K does on many occasions attack those with high standing as you describe. I wish we had fewer enemies to be honest but sadly the Ammarian forces have bullied or bribed all around them into supporting their practices. PAK fighting piracy in Providence will help the slaver forces further. You have a simple choice to turn your back on slavery and keep out of Providence. Only an idiot with no understanding of the situation would claim U'K are acting like pirates, or someone who just enjoy's smearing our name. Maggot.
Kabajashi San Minmatar Ushra'Khan	Posted - 2008.01.07 21:05:00 - [35] Political dispute is an euphemism when it comes to millions of our brothers suffering. Politics is what Midular does, it has nothing to do with the way of the tribes. I know I won't convince you, Mr. Kehmor, I am looking forward to meeting you in space with only the better (or the more numerous) leaving the battlefield. But please at least understand why we do this. When alliances like yours enter a slaver controlled area, live there, do business there, hunt pirates and what else, they, with or without intention, lead to an economic growth in that area. In a slavery based economic system this economic growth will lead to an increased demand for slave labor, thus either leading to more slave raids or at least make the freedom for our brothers less likely. What UK tries to do is to make the price match the damage caused, in other words that the pain inflicted on our brothers is matched by the pain we inflict to the slavers. When you and others like you bring economic growth and prosperity to a region like Providence you, with or without intention, bring more pain to our brothers forcing us to inflict more pain to the Amarr. This conflict would very soon be other if all the other civilized entities would ban slavery and stop trading with the slavers. I predict it wouldn't last a year until the last one of our brothers and sisters would be back home. This is why we fight you and any so called neutral in Providence. Our fight might mean nothing to you but it means everything to us. There is nothing in this fight that would define us as pirates. To Mr, Blackleaf: No, I don't recognize you. You should earn a name in battle before you expect otherwise. There is no use exchanging words with someone whose only intention is to slander the name of the UK. Concord will one day recognize the right of our brothers to live free and unharmed or it will have to stand against the united front of the tribes.
GoGo Yubari PAK	Posted - 2008.01.07 21:06:00 - [36] Originally by: Maggot PAK fighting piracy in Providence will help the slaver forces further. You have a simple choice to turn your back on slavery and keep out of Providence. Well, actually, it may sound controversial to certain parties, but it'll help you as well. You'll have to plow through the pirates as well when you do your "business" there. Even if you have standings to most, there's plenty of them around. PAK is recruiting!
Pezzle Amarr Imperial Dreams Curatores Veritatis Alliance	Posted - 2008.01.07 21:48:00 - [37] GoGo. Part of the 'price' for operating in the area is opening yourself up to heckling from our detractors. My advice? Use the thick skin approach. Should they attempt to bite, simply yank out their teeth.
Tecam Hund Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.01.07 22:30:00 - [38] Originally by: GoGo Yubari Originally by: Tecam Hund Originally by: GoGo Yubari What is different about Providence is that it is not a regular 0.0 territory, but under the rule of regimes who operate a free space policy What a bizarre statement... Under the rule of regimes who operate a free space policy. This isn't possible by definition of free space. I think you are confused about your own goals, not to mention free space ideals. If letting folks who aren't your known enemies into your space isn't free space, I don't know what is. I'm really sorry but members of Star Fraction do not own the trademark on the concept of free space. You have your own strange views and the rest of cluster has their's. There's no confusion about our goals. What the **** are they to you anyway? However strange that might sound, space policed by self-appointed dictators certainly isn't my definition of free space. Although everyone is entitled to their views of course. Who am I to take away someone's right to ignorance.
The Cosmopolite Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.01.07 22:35:00 - [39] Originally by: GoGo Yubari If letting folks who aren't your known enemies into your space isn't free space, I don't know what is. The above remark covers BoB, Goonswarm, RA and pretty much every 0.0 territorial alliance since the Outer Worlds were colonised by capsuleers. Almost all such have let people who were not their known enemies into 'their' space so long as rules imposed by them were observed. It's not free space to permit those who bow to a given set of rules into a given volume of space. We don't claim a 'trademark' on the concept of free space but we do reserve to ourselves the right to point out when the term is being abused. As a matter of fact, incidentally, it is fairly rare to see any CVA personality claim that Providence is 'free space'. They at least are quite clear about their intention to rule it as a proxy province of a tyrannical empire. I'm sorry your transition from pirate to mercenary and finally to anti-pirate has resulted in you losing sight of some fundamental truths, GoGo. However, you're right, what you do is nothing to us unless you actually take hostile action against us. This will include, for completeness, reporting our movements in CVA intelligence channels should you ever be admitted to them. The Cosmopolite The Star Fraction Communications Portal
Kelsin	Posted - 2008.01.07 22:35:00 - [40] Originally by: GoGo Yubari If letting folks who aren't your known enemies into your space isn't free space, I don't know what is. The irony of "letting" someone into "your space" and calling it free should be apparent. Freecaptains don't need barbed wire, checkpoints and patrols. Free space doesn't come with conditions and it doesn't require permission to enter. It may look like a pretty necklace now, but once you have it on I think you'll find it has a leash attached.
Karn Mithralia Minmatar Neh'bu Kau Beh'Hude Ushra'Khan	Posted - 2008.01.07 22:50:00 - [41] GoGo it may appear in theory that your attacks on 'pirates' would help all who have business in Providence, on either side of the conflict, but reality is far different. There are very few true pirate groups in Providence, and certainly none at all that hamper U'K's goals there. There are of course many groups friendly to our cause labled pirates by the slavers and their holders. I'll be interested to see who comes under fire from your forces. -----------------------------------------
GoGo Yubari PAK	Posted - 2008.01.07 22:54:00 - [42] Originally by: Karn Mithralia I'll be interested to see who comes under fire from your forces. You will, apparently. Be seeing you. PAK is recruiting!
Kehmor Caldari PAK	Posted - 2008.01.07 23:31:00 - [43] Originally by: Maggot PAK fighting piracy in Providence will help the slaver forces further. You have a simple choice to turn your back on slavery and keep out of Providence. As stated, if you controlled providence we would offer you the same terms. The short comings of your alliance and your inability to fight CVA on your own are frankly none of our concern. PAK is recruiting!
Anjinsansa Caldari IronPig Sev3rance	Posted - 2008.01.08 00:24:00 - [44] GoGo, As a Providence resident and part of an alliance who is directly opposed to both of these entities whom you have chosen to address, I feel that I may be in a position to help in your understanding of the beasts that are SF and UK and at the very least cut through some of the facade displayed and the rhetoric consistently vomited by these two, and actually get to the point. Anti pirate activity by corps and alliances wishing to conduct their business in Providence is, i'm sure, encouraged by all the good peoples of the region and your announcement of intent around our home is in the first instance, welcomed. (Notwithstanding any previous difficulties between you and the CVA or Holders of which I am currently unaware of course :)). It should be understood that UK are not a realistic threat within Providence at this time. Their power is very much diminished and all neutrals throughout the cluster should note that conducting business in Providence is not half as risky as UK would have you believe. If you are a neutral and you encounter a UK member in Providence they will endeavour to kill you. There is no question of this, as ridiculous and self defeating as it is, this is their policy. But you will be hard pushed to see any UK unless you travel through Severance home systems in the KBP pocket where they are currently conducting an audacious but ultimately futile effort to regain sovereignty. So PAK members, UK will shoot you, simple as that. My advice is set UK red. The situation with Star Fraction is a little more complex for you, but immeasurably worse for Star Fraction. They will be beside themselves with your announcement to conduct anti-pirate activities in Providence. It would give Ms Constantine a major headache if your forces meet UK and SF together in the field and this is most likely as they have been working hand in hand for some months now. What would they do? Defend their supposed brothers in arms as you and UK take pot shots at each other? UK would certainly expect them to. Or do they cast aside UK who have almost outdid their usefulness as spies and cannon fodder in the Fractionites game of chance with Providence and risk losing an ally, however ineffective they may be. Ms Constantine regards herself as a talented diplomat and master manipulator and I'll wager will be contacting you privately soon, if she has not already done so to try and work some advantage for her and hers. Do not be fooled. The Fractionites declared intent is to remove the sovereign powers from Providence and create their twisted idea of 'freespace', which to all right minded peoples would be defined as lawless chaos and a haven for those very pirates that you and we intend to see off. My advice therefore, is set SF red. There can be no higher or more noble cause than bringing peace, order and prosperity to Providence and for those in need, bringing heavenly light where darkness once reigned. Shooting UK and SF may not achieve all of this, but it's a start.
Maggot Minmatar Freelance Unincorporated Ushra'Khan	Posted - 2008.01.08 00:37:00 - [45] Originally by: Kehmor Originally by: Maggot PAK fighting piracy in Providence will help the slaver forces further. You have a simple choice to turn your back on slavery and keep out of Providence. As stated, if you controlled providence we would offer you the same terms. The short comings of your alliance and your inability to fight CVA on your own are frankly none of our concern. Sorry I fail to link your insults to my response.
GoGo Yubari PAK	Posted - 2008.01.08 00:54:00 - [46] Originally by: The Cosmopolite It's not free space to permit those who bow to a given set of rules into a given volume of space. We don't claim a 'trademark' on the concept of free space but we do reserve to ourselves the right to point out when the term is being abused. As a matter of fact, incidentally, it is fairly rare to see any CVA personality claim that Providence is 'free space'. They at least are quite clear about their intention to rule it as a proxy province of a tyrannical empire. You will never arrive to a situation where there are literally no restrictions. Freedom does not lie in denying reality, but rather in creatively accepting it. Neither does freedom exist in itself, nor can't it be found or measured in any way. It's just a human concept, a feeling and an empowerment to fulfill yourself. Too often the mythical Star Fraction free space sounds to me like simple anarchy with no rules or enforcement except that which you choose to impose on yourself. There's plenty of such places already. The galactic 0.0 frontier, for one. Any single moment of your existance, for another. Of course, you'll just have to deal with the consequences of your actions as everywhere. To think otherwise that there is some place where infinite options exist with zero consequences is madness. I don't personally mind the vast abyss of nothingness that is uninhabited space. I quite like it. Yet, I come to pockets of civilization or the the centers of the empires to find that which can never be found in places where there are no others, no rules, no communities, no nothing. These things do not restrict me except momentarily, but they empower me far and long. I'm as perfectly free as one can be, given common sense, but even so there are things I choose to restrict myself in. I choose and you get to watch. It's time to quit striving and whining and just dare to be free. It really shouldn't be that difficult for a capsuleer. Originally by: Anjinsansa If you are a neutral and you encounter a UK member in Providence they will endeavour to kill you. There is no question of this, as ridiculous and self defeating as it is, this is their policy. But you will be hard pushed to see any UK unless you travel through Severance home systems in the KBP pocket where they are currently conducting an audacious but ultimately futile effort to regain sovereignty. So PAK members, UK will shoot you, simple as that. My advice is set UK red. The situation with Star Fraction is a little more complex for you, but immeasurably worse for Star Fraction. They will be beside themselves with your announcement to conduct anti-pirate activities in Providence. It would give Ms Constantine a major headache if your forces meet UK and SF together in the field and this is most likely as they have been working hand in hand for some months now. What would they do? Defend their supposed brothers in arms as you and UK take pot shots at each other? UK would certainly expect them to. Or do they cast aside UK who have almost outdid their usefulness as spies and cannon fodder in the Fractionites game of chance with Providence and risk losing an ally, however ineffective they may be. U'K has been set red not because of any opinions expressed on this forum, but due to diplomacy privately conducted between us. I personally regret that it has come to this (and the door remains open), but will prosecute the resulting pre-emptive fire policy with no complaints. SF remains neutral and will not be fired upon. If they choose to wage a war against the local powers, we'll have to stay out of it. We're no-one's blunt instrument to be wielded as they choose in political battles nor (perhaps contrary to certain opinions) a rabid pack of wolves looking for any excuse for a fight. If we encounter a mixed gang of U'K and SF, I'm sure it'll be interesting. Providence is now back on our list of patrol destinations. PAK is recruiting!
Daelin Blackleaf	Posted - 2008.01.08 00:59:00 - [47] Edited by: Daelin Blackleaf on 08/01/2008 01:05:33 Originally by: zoolkhan coward, post with your real name and stand behind your words. This is my real name. I'm simply relatively new to GalNet. Thanks for the warm welcome. I didn't say you don't spend ISK for "the cause" I implied there are limits and want to know where they are. I also don't care about your motives. My primary concern is the risk you may pose, now or in the future, to the people and economy of the EVE cluster. Originally by: Maggot I wish we had fewer enemies to be honest but sadly the Ammarian forces have bullied or bribed all around them into supporting their practices. Ah, a far saner response, my thanks. As stated what I am trying to achieve here is a clear view of the threat posed by UK to myself, my business, and the general public. The root of that seems to be finding out what makes a person or organization a valid UK target. The answer seems to be having business with faction that endorses slavery. So basically, the rest of the cluster is only safe so long as we stay low on your priority list? I hope the men, women, and children of the State, Federation, and Republic are fairly low down on your list, though from what I see here would it be far from the truth to say that you would murder millions of these innocent people if it were in the interests of freeing your people? It's interesting, until stumbling upon this thread I have always respected, if not supported, the Minmatar and their fight for freedom. I never realized the sickening truth behind it. Freedom at any price, even if it means turning the entire cluster against your own people to achieve it. [EDIT: Oh and Kabajashi San, perhaps you should look beyond the conflicts discussed in this small public board before questioning someones combat prowess, especially when speaking of a veteran of some of the most vicious wars in the cluster to date, though I'd rate my business savvy far higher than my combat abilities and of far greater worth.]
Karn Mithralia Minmatar Neh'bu Kau Beh'Hude Ushra'Khan	Posted - 2008.01.08 02:04:00 - [48] GoGo - I was interested who you would be firing on other than U'K. As far as it being interesting if you meet a mixed gang of SF and U'K, probably not. We fight side by side often and with complete mutual respect for each others ROE. -----------------------------------------
The Cosmopolite Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.01.08 03:00:00 - [49] GoGo, we dare to be free every day. I'm not sure why you think having our own opinions on these matters and, crucially, living with the consequences every day, as we act on our beliefs, amounts to 'whining'. We choose not to accept the rules that the CVA would enforce in Providence. Those who have attacked us, we attack. No matter who they may be or have sworn fealty to. That is the freedom we dare to seize. I think it is worth you noting that the reaction of one of the CVA's 'Holder' alliance vassals is to recommend you set us red despite the fact we do not shoot neutrals. I am glad you are ignoring them for the moment but be prepared for more of the same behind closed doors. I think you will soon see how respectful of neutrality the Providence regime really is. As for Anjinsana's delusional ravings as to our relationship with the Ushra'Khan... Again, get used to this sort of thing. In brief response to his drivel, the Ushra'Khan and the Star Fraction mutually respect one another and co-operate against common enemies and where our respective RoEs permit it. I can say quite clearly that we will not fire on neutrals engaging the Ushra'Khan unless we ourselves are engaged. The Ushra'Khan know this and they respect it, as we respect their right to fire on their enemies. The Cosmopolite The Star Fraction Communications Portal
Jade Constantine Gallente Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.01.08 03:18:00 - [50] Its hardly polite to use GoGo Yubari's announcement as a forum for your personal politics and spin Anjinsansa. The public is doubtless completely aware of the divergent ROE practiced by SF and UK and it doesn't require your interjection and muddying the waters. Its quite ridiculous for you to suggest we'd be upset to see a neutral entity make its own targeting decisions when this is the essence of our ideology and vision for radical freespace in the Eve star cluster. You know perfectly well we are against the kind of standings enclosurism practiced by the CVA in Providence and it would be the height of hypocrisy to insist that a third party entity be forced to set our friends +standings for our own convenience. But then, I imagine the truth has never been a barrier to smear for aspirant CVA "holders" before. If PAK ships engage Ushra'khan shipping in the sight of our vessels while offering no aggression to SF pilots then we will not get involved. It really is as simple as that. There is no complexity but the complexity of Sev3rance spin from your lips Anjinsansa. And this is the root of our vision for a genuine freespace political ideology besides: simply minding one's own business and giving neutrals the benefit of the doubt is the essence of our evolved political pragmatism that allows disparate pilots the option of choosing neutrality rather than needing to jump in line with the derived standings of a superior imperialist entity. I take my time to correct you on these points Anjinsansa because the root of the dispute between Sev3rance and Star Fraction is as we all know, the failure of independent thought on the Sev3rance part when your pilot Dreamy choose to fire on SF vessels when our pilots were mis-reported as "hostile/pirate" in CVA combined intel channels. The irony that you believe we'd have trouble practicing what we preach is doubly amusing when taken in comparison with your own organisational failure to acknowledge the neutral status of one of the earliest and most famous NRDS entities in the Star Cluster when encountering us in space. In short Anjinsansa, we are not going to be lectured on the nature of freespace or neutrality respecting ROE from a submissive alliance deriving its hostile roster from the CVA KOS list. You do not respect neutrals - you respect only those people that the CVA tell you can be neutral. You have no independent thought or voice. Please stop pretending you do. Our declared intent in the short term is to restrict and damage Sev3rance military power in KBP system. By ensuring that you are incapable of doing the CVA's bidding we weaken the imperialist powers stranglehold in Providence by a significant degree. You did control one of the main entrances in the region and had routinely taken to locking down this pipe, thereby denying CVA-hostile traffic the opportunity to move into Providence. Now you don't and transit is free to those who choose (unlike GoGo) to travel into Providence without begging permission from the CVA leadership first. From our perspective this can only be a good thing. "I might not have meant anything by it"
Drykor Minmatar Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.01.08 03:22:00 - [51] In reality there are very few real pirates in providence, I suppose you will be fighting with U'K mostly, or getting bored in deeper providence. The first means you'll just be CVA henchmen after all, the latter means you won't have anything to do. But you'll find this out for yourself I suppose.
Conlin Gallente Yiotul Fighters Ushra'Khan	Posted - 2008.01.08 04:27:00 - [52] Originally by: Pezzle GoGo. Part of the 'price' for operating in the area is opening yourself up to heckling from our detractors. My advice? Use the thick skin approach. Should they attempt to bite, simply yank out their teeth. You want your teeth back ?.
Pezzle Amarr Imperial Dreams Curatores Veritatis Alliance	Posted - 2008.01.08 05:00:00 - [53] Edited by: Pezzle on 08/01/2008 05:02:12 We can rightfully say the same of agendas and spin with the responses of Star Fraction leaders and loudmouths to this announcement, Constantine. Many statements made by your cult are blatantly false. No matter. We respect the rights and operations of PAK in the area. May they bring many parasites to heel. Further argument on this topic is futile. PAK is under no duress. They have made their statement of intent quite clear.
Garreck Amarr Border Defense Consortium Curatores Veritatis Alliance	Posted - 2008.01.08 06:42:00 - [54] If PAK wish a list of known pirates in Providence, I'm sure they will ask. Probably already have done, as I have had preliminary talks with Ms Yubari myself and got her in contact with an official CVA diplomat. For what it's worth, I don't believe Star Fraction, Ushra'Khan, or any of CVA's ideological enemies that escape my mind should be on that list. I've publicly stated before that Star Fraction are nicely disciplined...and Ushra'Khan generally forces the issue on their own anyway, and PAK can decide how to deal with them without needing direction or coercion from the CVA. The list of "badguys," "pirates," and otherwise troublemakers for PAK to occupy themselves with in Providence beyond ideological enemies of the CVA is extensive. PAK's efforts against such forces in Providence, while appreciated by the CVA to be sure, would be beneficial to all neutral parties in the area. It's a bit silly to argue the contrary. It's pretty much binary: piracy good or bad? Pirate hunters, then, good or bad? Anything beyond that reality is just politics and rhetoric.
Octavinus Augustus Amarr Auctoritan Syndicate Curatores Veritatis Alliance	Posted - 2008.01.08 08:21:00 - [55] I think it is time for me to express a personal point of view here. Originally by: The Cosmopolite I think it is worth you noting that the reaction of one of the CVA's 'Holder' alliance vassals is to recommend you set us red despite the fact we do not shoot neutrals. I am glad you are ignoring them for the moment but be prepared for more of the same behind closed doors. Let us open the doors shall we? It is clear that SF does follow their own rather twisted version of NRDS policy. It is also clear that you reserve the right to set anyone to red given prior notice. Finally, it is clear that your ultimate aim is to "free" Providence by removing CVA and any who support us or abide by the rules we set. So if you should succeed in removing Severence (which you won't) who will be next on your list? Any who choose to make a living in Providence is likely to end on your list at some point. When will you be targetting GoGo and his corp/alliance? CVA only demand that a resident of Providence do not engage in acts of piracy and limits his targets to known enemies of our rule. We do not demand that any resident should fight on our behalf or risk be declared our enemies. In reality, that is what both U'K and SF does. Does that make you pirates? I think not. A pirate is one who fights simply for personal profit and cares not whom he targets. At least both your organisations have some sense of honour and apply your ROE's aimed at furthering your twisted political aims. Of course the end result for the civilians plying their trade in Providence and who ends up under your guns is quite the same. I don't think it matters much if you're targetted by pirates or fanatics in the end. You must fight back or die. It is as simple as that. Many have realized this. That is one of the reasons why the list of CVA friends who will actively support our efforts in Providence is so extensive as it is. Q: How many Amarr does it take to change a light bulb? A: None, we have Minnies to do the menial chores.
Telemicus Thrace Thrace Inc Ushra'Khan	Posted - 2008.01.08 08:48:00 - [56] For us there are no neutrals in Providence. Even a simple trader not only supports the slaver economy but provides information on our troop movements to the CVA intel channels. An interesting side note being that in these intel channels anyone who shoots at CVA or their allies is called a pirate. It is their blanket term for any hostile, to garner sympathy one would imagine. What can I say, most in Providence turned against us in the name of profit, some have turned to us in the name of freedom. Not always easy to tell one from the other.
Rodj Blake Amarr PIE Inc.	Posted - 2008.01.08 09:15:00 - [57] Whilst I applaud PAK's public renunciation of piracy in Providence, I am somewhat concerned by some of their activities in the Bleak Lands. Perhaps Yubari would care to explain the nature of PAK's relationship with Cruoris Seraphim? Dulce et decorum est pro imperium mori.
Kabajashi San Minmatar Ushra'Khan	Posted - 2008.01.08 12:22:00 - [58] Mr. Blackleaf, just a few words. There are many people who claim that they respect or support our cause but shy away then it comes to the practical consequences that implies. We are fighting an Empire overwhelming in its military and econmic power. We are fighting for a goal which although it should be a basic necessity for everyone in this Universe is ignored by most of them. Our fight is extreme so our means have to be. Mr. Blackleaf, I can only repeat a thing which you seem not to undersatnd to the full extend: We are at war. We are not at war with CVA or the Amarr or whatever you seem to think. We are at war with everyone who stands in the way towards the freedom of our brothers. We are well aware that the fate of our brothers means nothing to you and that for a few extra ISK you will not hesitate to do business with the slavers and thus contribute to the suffering of our brothers. How do you think the trade goods you buy from the Amarr are produced? It may mean nothing to you but it means something to us. It means that you cannot wash your hands from the guilt, that you are part of the problem. Now as we are limited in strength and numbers and have limited support from the Republic and no support from Concord we will have to adapt in our fighting style. Unlike the fairytales told by the slavers we are not raving mad animals who attack everything in their reach. I am proud to fly under the command many fine officers whose tactical abilities stand unmatched. We know our weakness and our strength and we act accordingly. Just now warriors of the UK and their allies have shut down KBP and been holding it for weeks against the overwhelming forces of the slaver front in Providence. But that doens't mean that we will build an outpost there. Maybe tomorrow we will just blend in and strike in any other system of our choice. We will strike at the time and occassion of our choosing and there will be no defined form of attack. You may be living for weeks in Providence without encountering us. You may as well be shot the moment you enter. There is no safety in Providence, there will never be until our brothers are released. So if you want to know if we pose a threat to you and your operations you should simply ask yourself if your are willing to step up to your words and end your support for the slavers. If not you will have to live with the risk of being held accountable. We come for our people.
Kehmor Caldari PAK	Posted - 2008.01.08 12:57:00 - [59] Originally by: Maggot Originally by: Kehmor Originally by: Maggot PAK fighting piracy in Providence will help the slaver forces further. You have a simple choice to turn your back on slavery and keep out of Providence. As stated, if you controlled providence we would offer you the same terms. The short comings of your alliance and your inability to fight CVA on your own are frankly none of our concern. Sorry I fail to link your insults to my response. I am merely pointing out that we are in no way taking sides. Your coice to make us an enemy will only result in further losses on your side. PAK is recruiting!
Kehmor Caldari PAK	Posted - 2008.01.08 13:06:00 - [60] Originally by: Rodj Blake Whilst I applaud PAK's public renunciation of piracy in Providence, I am somewhat concerned by some of their activities in the Bleak Lands. Perhaps Yubari would care to explain the nature of PAK's relationship with Cruoris Seraphim? For some time now Cruoris Seraphim have been not random pirates, but a political force. Due to the limited number of PAK pilots we occasionally find the need to ally with other locals to to achieve our goals. If you can provide solid evidence of Cruoris pirating neutrals please forward it and it will be considered. PAK is recruiting!
Rodj Blake Amarr PIE Inc.	Posted - 2008.01.08 13:25:00 - [61] Edited by: Rodj Blake on 08/01/2008 13:38:34 Originally by: Kehmor For some time now Cruoris Seraphim have been not random pirates, but a political force. Due to the limited number of PAK pilots we occasionally find the need to ally with other locals to to achieve our goals. If you can provide solid evidence of Cruoris pirating neutrals please forward it and it will be considered. So far they have been nothing but helpful in our destruction of local pirate forces. If I had wanted information on PAK's relationship to generic pirate groups, I would have asked about your relationship with Lords of the Underworld. Cruoris Seraphim are an anti-Amarrian group of deviant blood cultists, and as such PIE will consider all those who co-operate with them as anti-Amarrian as well. We consider any operations that they conduct against pirates to be more along the lines of a turf war between undesirables rather than an effort to uphold law and order. Dulce et decorum est pro imperium mori.
Mebrithiel Ju'wien Veto Corp	Posted - 2008.01.08 14:42:00 - [62] Gogo, Hira, Kehmor, the rest of PAK (♥Soren), when you became anti-pirates and bounty hunters, I fully endorsed your move. I've flown with many of you in the past and I know that when it comes to a good fight, I'd usually expect the best from PAK. But you're moving away from that now. You're entering the realm of "slaver hound": Sure, you're violent and efficient - I'd expect nothing less from some of the previously more vicious pirates and murderers I've ever known. But this? This is disgusting! I don't expect you to really care of 'ickle Meb's opinion, but I'm stating it for the record - I don't think I'm alone in saying that all respect for your moral objectives drop the minute you align with Amarrians. Hell, I'm no angel, but even I couldn't turn right around and ally with an Empire that's both enslaved my race and tried to purge my religion from the universe in place of their watered down version. Personal Library
Kehmor Caldari PAK	Posted - 2008.01.08 14:54:00 - [63] Originally by: Rodj Blake Edited by: Rodj Blake on 08/01/2008 13:38:34 Originally by: Kehmor For some time now Cruoris Seraphim have been not random pirates, but a political force. Due to the limited number of PAK pilots we occasionally find the need to ally with other locals to to achieve our goals. If you can provide solid evidence of Cruoris pirating neutrals please forward it and it will be considered. So far they have been nothing but helpful in our destruction of local pirate forces. If I had wanted information on PAK's relationship to generic pirate groups, I would have asked about your relationship with Lords of the Underworld. Cruoris Seraphim are an anti-Amarrian group of deviant blood cultists, and as such PIE will consider all those who co-operate with them as anti-Amarrian as well. We consider any operations that they conduct against pirates to be more along the lines of a turf war between undesirables rather than an effort to uphold law and order. We co-operate with any who appose piracy, and will remain neutral to any who refrain from acts of piracy or, of course, choose to engage us for whatever reason. If you are asking us to engage neutrals on your behalf I'm afraid it will not happen. Nor will we shun those who wish to aid us in our quest against the scum of the galaxy, whatever their political stance. As gogo stated, we are politically neutral as a corporation. PAK is recruiting!
Jade Constantine Gallente Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.01.08 15:16:00 - [64] Edited by: Jade Constantine on 08/01/2008 15:22:28 Originally by: Rodj Blake Cruoris Seraphim are an anti-Amarrian group of deviant blood cultists, and as such PIE will consider all those who co-operate with them as anti-Amarrian as well. I donÆt think you ôgetö this discussion thread Rodj Blake. Let me explain it for you. This is the discussion where the CVA supporters attempt to pass themselves off as genuine free-spacers while sweeping all that nasty standings enclosure detritus under the rug and hoping that nobody notices the implications of their avowed political system. Instead here you come and say that youÆll be branding PAK as ôanti-amarrianö for flying with their friends in Cruoris Seraphim since ôconsorting with anti-amarriansö is good enough for a -10/KOS in your book. But the problem is that youÆll end up either needing to set PAK -10 on your principles or stomach them being on friendly terms with Cruoris and giving you a standings headache. And of course, if PIE set PAK to -10 then it wonÆt be long until the rest of the CVA Providence pack set GoGoÆs ôanti piratesö to -10 as well by a consequence of creeping standings enclosure that will ultimately achieve the same effects as a blanket NBSI policy would have done in the first place. And this in a nutshell is the problem with CVA Providence. When you have a mix of political, ideological and religious factors determining who the ôsupreme authorityö considers a ôneutralö then the term becomes every bit as devalued and practically useless as the term ôpiracyö does when reported in the Citadel intelligence channels. ôNeutralö to the Amarrian bloc does not mean ôneutralö. To CVA and friends ôNeutralö means ôsomeone we are happy to have in providenceö And these are two very different things. What Rodj Blake achieves above in his typically bull-in-a-chinashop fashion is to graphically illustrate the problem for PAK in Providence. The self-appointed ruling power is never going to be happy for PAK to choose its own friends and enemies and while operating in region its going to be one demand after another since the CVA ôNRDSö is exists purely for its own political advantage and those standings will always be subordinate to the interests of CVA military power above any actual sense of ôethicsö. Compare and contrast to the SF ROE for a view of how true respect for neutrality works. WeÆve just come out of a short defensive concord war with Cruoris Seraphim on the Providence borders. We have them set to -10 currently and consider them free targets - but do we care who they are friends with or who is friends with them? Absolutely not û if we saw Cruoris and PAK operating combined fleets in 0.0 together weÆd engage and target the Blood Raiders and ignore PAK up until the moment that we received positive confirmation of incoming aggression logs from them. If PAK chose not to interfere in the private unresolved feud between Cruoris and SF then they would remain neutral and untouched by our vessels. Ultimately we leave the choice entirely to PAK as to whether they wish SF as an enemy or whether they prefer a neutral relationship. Whereas Rodj Blake makes it abundantly clear that PAK will end up being set -10/KOS to Amarrian interests in providence for ôbeing friendsö with ôanti-amarrian interestsö and that ladies and gentlemen is precisely the practice of standings enclosurism in action and neatly summarises exactly the kind of mindset we came to Providence to fight. "I might not have meant anything by it"
Garreck Amarr Border Defense Consortium Curatores Veritatis Alliance	Posted - 2008.01.08 15:29:00 - [65] Originally by: Jade Constantine Ultimately we leave the choice entirely to PAK as to whether they wish SF as an enemy or whether they prefer a neutral relationship. Sticking to the topic at hand and not rising to blatant disinformation about CVA foreign policy (posted in response to an individual who, while my better, does not set CVA policy and is not even a member of the CVA,) I truly hope PAK remain neutral with Star Fraction. If Ushra'Khan has succeeded in anything in Providence, it has been to polarize the region; sure, not many neutral parties remain, because those who enter the area with neutral interests are quickly pushed into a pro-CVA stance because CVA does not shoot at them, Ushra'Khan does. While the "Burn Providence" campaign has certainly strengthened the "Slaver" cause in Providence, it has also created the illusion that there cannot be neutral parties in Providence. PAK, with the ability to defend themselves from terrorist attack, the strength of will to choose their friends and their enemies without outside coersion, and the discipline to maintain a "Not Red, Don't Shoot" approach in Providence, may be the first step in a long time towards returning Providence to a truly neutral political stance.
Conlin Gallente Yiotul Fighters Ushra'Khan	Posted - 2008.01.08 15:39:00 - [66] Originally by: Garreck Originally by: Jade Constantine Ultimately we leave the choice entirely to PAK as to whether they wish SF as an enemy or whether they prefer a neutral relationship. Sticking to the topic at hand and not rising to blatant disinformation about CVA foreign policy (posted in response to an individual who, while my better, does not set CVA policy and is not even a member of the CVA,) I truly hope PAK remain neutral with Star Fraction. If Ushra'Khan has succeeded in anything in Providence, it has been to polarize the region; sure, not many neutral parties remain, because those who enter the area with neutral interests are quickly pushed into a pro-CVA stance because CVA does not shoot at them, Ushra'Khan does. While the "Burn Providence" campaign has certainly strengthened the "Slaver" cause in Providence, it has also created the illusion that there cannot be neutral parties in Providence. PAK, with the ability to defend themselves from terrorist attack, the strength of will to choose their friends and their enemies without outside coersion, and the discipline to maintain a "Not Red, Don't Shoot" approach in Providence, may be the first step in a long time towards returning Providence to a truly neutral political stance. Remind your friend Rodj Blake to also stick to the topic at hand , we wouldnt want PAK thinking they were friends of ours
Garreck Amarr Border Defense Consortium Curatores Veritatis Alliance	Posted - 2008.01.08 15:46:00 - [67] Originally by: Conlin Remind your friend Rodj Blake to also stick to the topic at hand , we wouldnt want PAK thinking they were friends of ours I'm in no position to tell Master Blake what he can and cannot say...he's entitled to speak his mind. But it's a fair and accurate statement to point out that he does not set CVA policy, and that the illusions concerning CVA policy spun by Jade Constantine based on the statements of an individual who does not set that policy are...well, illusions.
GoGo Yubari PAK	Posted - 2008.01.08 16:07:00 - [68] It's funny seeing all this talk about what will and what won't happen to PAK in Providence, before we've even thought of sending a scout to the other side of the gate (after our announcement). As for the discussion about our suggested "allies", I'll try to be brief and to the point. Our policy is new to us, but even more so to our coincidental allies and old acquaintances. We're not going to backstab these people and use their lingering loyalties to us as a way of getting to them. We're in the process of redefining our relationships to many different groups. Hence, you know, this thread. I suggest that any specific complaints be directed to me first, instead of placing unclear and suggestive questions randomly out on the forums for the trolls to bite. You can go to the forums armed with clear answers from me and end up looking less like a tool. PAK is recruiting!
Rodj Blake Amarr PIE Inc.	Posted - 2008.01.08 16:13:00 - [69] Originally by: GoGo Yubari It's funny seeing all this talk about what will and what won't happen to PAK in Providence, before we've even thought of sending a scout to the other side of the gate (after our announcement). As for the discussion about our suggested "allies", I'll try to be brief and to the point. Our policy is new to us, but even more so to our coincidental allies and old acquaintances. We're not going to backstab these people and use their lingering loyalties to us as a way of getting to them. We're in the process of redefining our relationships to many different groups. Hence, you know, this thread. I suggest that any specific complaints be directed to me first, instead of placing unclear and suggestive questions randomly out on the forums for the trolls to bite. You can go to the forums armed with clear answers from me and end up looking less like a tool. Understood. To clarify my earlier comments, whilst the CVA is of course free to decide their own policies, PIE will continue to form its opinions of groups and individual pilots based upon their global actions as well as their words. We will be watching you. Dulce et decorum est pro imperium mori.
Rodj Blake Amarr PIE Inc.	Posted - 2008.01.08 16:16:00 - [70] Edited by: Rodj Blake on 08/01/2008 16:17:30 Originally by: Jade Constantine I donÆt think you ôgetö this discussion thread Rodj Blake. Let me explain it for you. This is the discussion where the CVA supporters attempt to pass themselves off as genuine free-spacers while sweeping all that nasty standings enclosure detritus under the rug and hoping that nobody notices the implications of their avowed political system. Instead here you come and say that youÆll be branding PAK as ôanti-amarrianö for flying with their friends in Cruoris Seraphim since ôconsorting with anti-amarriansö is good enough for a -10/KOS in your book. But the problem is that youÆll end up either needing to set PAK -10 on your principles or stomach them being on friendly terms with Cruoris and giving you a standings headache. And of course, if PIE set PAK to -10 then it wonÆt be long until the rest of the CVA Providence pack set GoGoÆs ôanti piratesö to -10 as well by a consequence of creeping standings enclosure that will ultimately achieve the same effects as a blanket NBSI policy would have done in the first place. And this in a nutshell is the problem with CVA Providence. When you have a mix of political, ideological and religious factors determining who the ôsupreme authorityö considers a ôneutralö then the term becomes every bit as devalued and practically useless as the term ôpiracyö does when reported in the Citadel intelligence channels. ôNeutralö to the Amarrian bloc does not mean ôneutralö. To CVA and friends ôNeutralö means ôsomeone we are happy to have in providenceö And these are two very different things. What Rodj Blake achieves above in his typically bull-in-a-chinashop fashion is to graphically illustrate the problem for PAK in Providence. The self-appointed ruling power is never going to be happy for PAK to choose its own friends and enemies and while operating in region its going to be one demand after another since the CVA ôNRDSö is exists purely for its own political advantage and those standings will always be subordinate to the interests of CVA military power above any actual sense of ôethicsö. Compare and contrast to the SF ROE for a view of how true respect for neutrality works. WeÆve just come out of a short defensive concord war with Cruoris Seraphim on the Providence borders. We have them set to -10 currently and consider them free targets - but do we care who they are friends with or who is friends with them? Absolutely not û if we saw Cruoris and PAK operating combined fleets in 0.0 together weÆd engage and target the Blood Raiders and ignore PAK up until the moment that we received positive confirmation of incoming aggression logs from them. If PAK chose not to interfere in the private unresolved feud between Cruoris and SF then they would remain neutral and untouched by our vessels. Ultimately we leave the choice entirely to PAK as to whether they wish SF as an enemy or whether they prefer a neutral relationship. Whereas Rodj Blake makes it abundantly clear that PAK will end up being set -10/KOS to Amarrian interests in providence for ôbeing friendsö with ôanti-amarrian interestsö and that ladies and gentlemen is precisely the practice of standings enclosurism in action and neatly summarises exactly the kind of mindset we came to Providence to fight. And what you seem to fail to understand is our subtle and nuanced standings policy. Nowhere did I say that PAK are either -10 or KOS. We have multiple individuals and groups in our database who are deemed to be anti-Amarrian but not sufficiently anti-Amarrian to be considered KOS. Dulce et decorum est pro imperium mori.
Jade Constantine Gallente Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.01.08 16:21:00 - [71] Originally by: Rodj Blake Nowhere did I say that PAK are either -10 or KOS. We have multiple individuals and groups in our database who are deemed to be anti-Amarrian but not sufficiently anti-Amarrian to be considered KOS. Very well Rodj, if you were just impotently making murky threats that you never intend to follow through on we'll let the issue slide. "I might not have meant anything by it"
Octavinus Augustus Amarr Auctoritan Syndicate Curatores Veritatis Alliance	Posted - 2008.01.08 16:28:00 - [72] Edited by: Octavinus Augustus on 08/01/2008 16:29:50 Originally by: Jade Constantine I donÆt think you ôgetö this discussion thread Rodj Blake. Let me explain it for you. This is the discussion where the CVA supporters attempt to pass themselves off as genuine free-spacers etc etc etc. I donÆt think you ôgetö this discussion thread Jade Constantine. Let me explain it for you. This is the discussion where PAK has asked a series of questions regarding the policies of the various entities they are (more or less) likely to encounter in Providence. Of course I reallize you'll find it a lot easier to accuse Rodj Blake and PIE of whatever herecies and piratical acts you can think of rather than actually remaining on topic. Let me indulge you for a brief moment and let us suppose that PIE indeed does set PAK to -10 (which I seriously doubt they will). If they do so, they are free to shoot at PAK according to the ROE's provided by PIE leadership (unless those ROE's have changed drastically since my membership of PIE). However, if they should choose to slug it out with the neutral PAK while in Providence, they would be in clear breach of the CVA rules set for the behaviour accepted here. Being so, they would soon find themselves on our "red" list as legal targets for anyone in Providence. So the natural course for them would be to disallow hostilities while in CVA controlled Providence. If I recall correctly, they have even followed this course of action in the past in their dealings with Slammer's Republic? The men and women of PIE are honorable people. I have flown with them for more than a year, so I should know. They (unlike yourself Ms Constantine) seem to linger under the impression that when visiting someone's home it is polite to abide by the rules set by the master of the house they are visiting. So perhaps it is time to stop spewing blatant lies about an honorable organisation and get this discussion back on track Ms Constantine? Q: How many Amarr does it take to change a light bulb? A: None, we have Minnies to do the menial chores.
Jade Constantine Gallente Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.01.08 16:36:00 - [73] Originally by: Octavinus Augustus They (unlike yourself Ms Constantine) seem to linger under the impression that when visiting someone's home it is polite to abide by the rules set by the master of the house they are visiting. The one thing we can agree on from your post Octavinus Auguster is that yes, PAK do appear to be acknowledging another force their "master" whereas Star Fraction and myself never will. "I might not have meant anything by it"
Kehmor Caldari PAK	Posted - 2008.01.08 16:43:00 - [74] Originally by: Jade Constantine Originally by: Octavinus Augustus They (unlike yourself Ms Constantine) seem to linger under the impression that when visiting someone's home it is polite to abide by the rules set by the master of the house they are visiting. The one thing we can agree on from your post Octavinus Auguster is that yes, PAK do appear to be acknowledging another force their "master" whereas Star Fraction and myself never will. lol PAK is recruiting!
Octavinus Augustus Amarr Auctoritan Syndicate Curatores Veritatis Alliance	Posted - 2008.01.08 16:43:00 - [75] Originally by: Jade Constantine Originally by: Octavinus Augustus They (unlike yourself Ms Constantine) seem to linger under the impression that when visiting someone's home it is polite to abide by the rules set by the master of the house they are visiting. The one thing we can agree on from your post Octavinus Auguster is that yes, PAK do appear to be acknowledging another force their "master" whereas Star Fraction and myself never will. Which part of the master of the house they are visiting is giving you trouble? I culd try to explain it to you one more time, but would need to know which part is causing problems. Incidentally I was referring to PIE. How PAK shall behave in Providence remains to be seen, but personally I'm more than prepared to give them a chance before judging them either way. Q: How many Amarr does it take to change a light bulb? A: None, we have Minnies to do the menial chores.
Garreck Amarr Border Defense Consortium Curatores Veritatis Alliance	Posted - 2008.01.08 16:49:00 - [76] Originally by: Jade Constantine The one thing we can agree on from your post Octavinus Auguster is that yes, PAK do appear to be acknowledging another force their "master" whereas Star Fraction and myself never will. I need only look at the security standing of an average Fractionite pilot to determine Star Fraction acknowledge at least CONCORD as master, by the definition you seem to apply here. You limit most of your engagements to either "red" targets in 0.0 or wartargets in Empire space. You benefit from your apparent servitude with unrestricted travel in Empire space. In reality, of course, Star Fraction simply abide by clearly defined rules. It's no different when visiting another sovereign's space. It's a lot more fun to hurl unfounded insults though, right?
GoGo Yubari PAK	Posted - 2008.01.08 16:58:00 - [77] Jade, if not shooting certain people means you have masters, I think we're both slaves. Then again, we both know that's ridiculous. I'm pretty sure you've sometimes cooperated with someone and not shot at their friends. That still doesn't make anyone your master, but yourself. I appreciate your effort to push our buttons, though. PAK is recruiting!
Jade Constantine Gallente Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.01.08 17:24:00 - [78] Originally by: GoGo Yubari Jade, if not shooting certain people means you have masters, I think we're both slaves. Then again, we both know that's ridiculous. I'm pretty sure you've sometimes cooperated with someone and not shot at their friends. That still doesn't make anyone your master, but yourself. I appreciate your effort to push our buttons, though. I don't think you are understanding us very clearly GoGo. Since we don't shoot at neutrals there is rarely a problem with not shooting the "friends" of somebody we are cooperating with on a mutual -10 kill. But of course, if those "friends" are currently -10 to us then chances are we'll shoot them regardless unless diplomacy and standings renegotiation occur quite swiftly. The reality here GoGo is that you have chosen to view CVA as the presiding power in Providence and submitted to their standings oversight in the selection of your targets. Its your choice to make of course, but as others have pointed out to you in this thread there aren't really any significant pirates in Providence at this time. Just political enemies shooting each other. Your likely targets in Providence will be Ushra'khan because they consider your submission to CVA standings regime to be a hostile act against their people's interest and this will lead to PAK and Ushra'khan fighting while CVA applaud the involvement of another "meatshield" class combatant force in the region. Its inevitable that others will (and have) viewed your decision as cowardly and shortsighted mistake to submit and prostrate yourselves like tame slaver hounds to the CVA regime while CVA themselves consider you the latest propaganda glamour boys and girls to triumph their success in mismarketing protectionist imperialism as faux freespace in Providence. Still all is said and done it is your free choice to do this thing. As it is my free choice to say that you are embarrassing yourselves in this humiliating display of surrender and forelock-tugging obedience to a tyrannical government ever bit as corrosive to the essential nature of freedom as those imaginary "pirates" you think to hunt in Providence. But I imagine this is a discussion you wanted to have since you specifically authored this thread and part addressed it to the Star Fraction. Please don't act all surprised about our response and opinion of your actions thereby expressed. "I might not have meant anything by it"
Conlin Gallente Yiotul Fighters Ushra'Khan	Posted - 2008.01.08 17:49:00 - [79] Originally by: GoGo Yubari Our rules of engagement are clear. We will only attack known pirates and criminals, or those who for one reason or another choose to engage us. This extends to any activity that happens out in 0.0 territory where we will be NRDS. We do not do politics. We are not interested in territorial strife, but we will respect it by staying away from it. More to the point, we will also be operating in Providence, where we consider CVA and their allies to be the reigning power. Consequently we will appropiately restrict our targets to those which we can find on their KOS list, but we will not simply copy the list and become an instrument of CVA policy. I know this is a regular accusation by certain parties concerning those who operate in Providence and who are friendly to the local powers. It's quite simple. In Providence we will engage those who are both our targets and authorized by the resident powers. We understand that SF and U'K are political enemies of CVA. We do not consider the aforementioned as valid targets. Should you choose to agress us simply based on our acceptance of CVA (and allied) sovereignty, you're of course free to make that call, but I'd like to know of your stance before we run into each other in local space. I put this on a public forum not because this is the way I want to conduct diplomacy, but because this also serves as a public announcement of our rules of engagement concerning frontier territories. Any other interested parties as well, in reference to either Providence or other 0.0 regions, are free to contact myself for a clarification of current standings. Welcome to the mad house If your words are true , then you will obviously be avoiding KBP where atm there is a territorial strife . This will benefit both of us . Current sov owners are in the practice of using nuetrals to benefit their own means , but it wont be a problem if you plan to stick to your agenda as quoted here . Be warned , PIE are watching you
Kehmor Caldari PAK	Posted - 2008.01.08 17:54:00 - [80] Jade you seem to misunderstand our intentions. Just because U'K have decided to set us to -10 does not mean they become primary targets. Our operations in providence will be focussed on countering piracy, not fighting on behalf of CVA. If there are no available pirate targets in providence at any given time, then PAK will not waste it's time there as our skills could be put to use countering piracy elsewhere. We are not a stationary unit. The purpose of this discussion was to determine who we should consider hostile to us, not to scout out targets to be hunted. Obviously if an Ushra'khan gang positioned itself in a potentially hindering position they would be dealt with swiftly, but we would not make excursions to providence purely to track them down. PAK is recruiting!
GoGo Yubari PAK	Posted - 2008.01.08 18:01:00 - [81] Originally by: Jade Constantine I don't think you are understanding us very clearly GoGo. Since we don't shoot at neutrals there is rarely a problem with not shooting the "friends" of somebody we are cooperating with on a mutual -10 kill. But of course, if those "friends" are currently -10 to us then chances are we'll shoot them regardless unless diplomacy and standings renegotiation occur quite swiftly. Sounds rather familiar. Originally by: Jade Constantine The reality here GoGo is that you have chosen to view CVA as the presiding power in Providence and submitted to their standings oversight in the selection of your targets. Its your choice to make of course, but as others have pointed out to you in this thread there aren't really any significant pirates in Providence at this time. Just political enemies shooting each other. Your likely targets in Providence will be Ushra'khan because they consider your submission to CVA standings regime to be a hostile act against their people's interest and this will lead to PAK and Ushra'khan fighting while CVA applaud the involvement of another "meatshield" class combatant force in the region. It's pretty simple. If there are no pirates in Providence, we won't be going there very often. We don't really do sight-seeing cruises or waste our time. Originally by: Jade Constantine Its inevitable that others will (and have) viewed your decision as cowardly and shortsighted mistake to submit and prostrate yourselves like tame slaver hounds to the CVA regime while CVA themselves consider you the latest propaganda glamour boys and girls to triumph their success in mismarketing protectionist imperialism as faux freespace in Providence. I remember many occasions where you and yours have allied to closed-space alliances or NBSI pirates to achieve your aims. I find it amusing and hypocritical that you would accuse us of this behaviour. Originally by: Jade Constantine Still all is said and done it is your free choice to do this thing. As it is my free choice to say that you are embarrassing yourselves in this humiliating display of surrender and forelock-tugging obedience to a tyrannical government ever bit as corrosive to the essential nature of freedom as those imaginary "pirates" you think to hunt in Providence. But I imagine this is a discussion you wanted to have since you specifically authored this thread and part addressed it to the Star Fraction. Please don't act all surprised about our response and opinion of your actions thereby expressed. I firmly believe that if we would decide to fly alongside a homicidal pack of murderous pirates like the Blood Raiders instead, people would hardly bat an eye. Yet, we come to an agreement with a group of Amarrians, who are hardly the most villainous characters I've ever dealt with, and everyone is rabble-rousing. It's politics of course, so I don't really mind. We're just not interested. At the end of the day, we don't give a **** what others think. We don't need anyone to tell us that we are brave, free or anything. It's sad to think that there are capsuleers out there who think anyone would. Anyone who wants to try and force us to bow to their power without first seeking our consent may very well discover the depths of their mistake, though. PAK is recruiting!
GoGo Yubari PAK	Posted - 2008.01.08 18:04:00 - [82] Originally by: Conlin Welcome to the mad house If your words are true , then you will obviously be avoiding KBP where atm there is a territorial strife . This will benefit both of us . Current sov owners are in the practice of using nuetrals to benefit their own means , but it wont be a problem if you plan to stick to your agenda as quoted here. We will almost always come to Providence via KBP. Any forces that present a clear and present danger to us found camping the gate, which include yours, will be terminated with extreme prejudice. Do you want me to give you advance warning so you can clear the gate? PAK is recruiting!
Jade Constantine Gallente Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.01.08 18:12:00 - [83] Edited by: Jade Constantine on 08/01/2008 18:14:44 Originally by: GoGo Yubari I remember many occasions where you and yours have allied to closed-space alliances or NBSI pirates to achieve your aims. I find it amusing and hypocritical that you would accuse us of this behaviour. I think you should throw away the "CVA playbook of rhetorical strategies" that Garreck appears to have lent you GoGo. There is a big difference between *allying with* and *submitting too. You are not part of any kind of equal arrangement with CVA, you have agreed to limit your activities against pirates to those individuals and entities who are listed on the CVA kill list. You are under notice that your associations "will be watched". You have sought (and been granted) a license to hunt CVA-approved targets in Providence as employees and functionaries. It is the height of ridiculous and grotesque fancy for you to state that the SF diplomatic ROE that affords us the opportunity to fire on mutual -10 targets alongside anyone in space* as and when we think appropriate is in any way similar to your arrangement with CVA which sees you in the role of penitents and petitioners careful to mention your obedience to their claim of sovereignty in Providence and in nowise free to so much as "jump" unless you are authorized in advance to do so. Do not delude yourself GoGo. Quote: At the end of the day, we don't give a **** what others think. We don't need anyone to tell us that we are brave, free or anything. It's sad to think that there are capsuleers out there who think anyone would. Anyone who wants to try and force us to bow to their power without first seeking our consent may very well discover the depths of their mistake, though. You posted the thread GoGo, you obviously cared enough to do that. You asked for opinions and you have been given them. "I might not have meant anything by it"
GoGo Yubari PAK	Posted - 2008.01.08 18:14:00 - [84] Originally by: GoGo Yubari Our rules of engagement are clear. We will only attack known pirates and criminals, or those who for one reason or another choose to engage us. This extends to any activity that happens out in 0.0 territory where we will be NRDS. We do not do politics. We are not interested in territorial strife, but we will respect it by staying away from it. More to the point, we will also be operating in Providence, where we consider CVA and their allies to be the reigning power. Consequently we will appropiately restrict our targets to those which we can find on their KOS list, but we will not simply copy the list and become an instrument of CVA policy. I know this is a regular accusation by certain parties concerning those who operate in Providence and who are friendly to the local powers. It's quite simple. In Providence we will engage those who are both our targets and authorized by the resident powers. We understand that SF and U'K are political enemies of CVA. We do not consider the aforementioned as valid targets. Should you choose to agress us simply based on our acceptance of CVA (and allied) sovereignty, you're of course free to make that call, but I'd like to know of your stance before we run into each other in local space. I put this on a public forum not because this is the way I want to conduct diplomacy, but because this also serves as a public announcement of our rules of engagement concerning frontier territories. Any other interested parties as well, in reference to either Providence or other 0.0 regions, are free to contact myself for a clarification of current standings. No Jade. Don't really recall asking for your opinion about anything. I just wanted to know are you shooting at us or not. That's already been resolved. PAK is recruiting!
Jade Constantine Gallente Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.01.08 18:16:00 - [85] Originally by: GoGo Yubari No Jade. Don't really recall asking for your opinion about anything. I just wanted to know are you shooting at us or not. That's already been resolved. Originally by: GoGo Yubari but I'd like to know of your stance before we run into each other in local space. You should do something about that memory GoGo. "I might not have meant anything by it"
GoGo Yubari PAK	Posted - 2008.01.08 18:17:00 - [86] Originally by: Jade Constantine Originally by: GoGo Yubari No Jade. Don't really recall asking for your opinion about anything. I just wanted to know are you shooting at us or not. That's already been resolved. Originally by: GoGo Yubari but I'd like to know of your stance before we run into each other in local space. You should do something about that memory GoGo. That's not a matter of opinion, Jade. PAK is recruiting!
Kehmor Caldari PAK	Posted - 2008.01.08 18:26:00 - [87] Originally by: Jade Constantine I think you should throw away the "CVA playbook of rhetorical strategies" that Garreck appears to have lent you GoGo. There is a big difference between *allying with* and *submitting too*. You are not part of any kind of equal arrangement with CVA, you have agreed to limit your activities against pirates to those individuals and entities who are listed on the CVA kill list. You are under notice that your associations "will be watched". You have sought (and been granted) a license to hunt CVA-approved targets in Providence as employees and functionaries. CVA are not allied with any pirate forces in the area that I am aware of. Therefore it is ridiculas to suggest we are submitting to their will in any way. submitting to their will would include shooting all targets they regarded as hostile. I think this discussion is solid proof that this is not the case. PAK is recruiting!
GoGo Yubari PAK	Posted - 2008.01.08 18:38:00 - [88] Edited by: GoGo Yubari on 08/01/2008 18:38:26 Originally by: Kehmor Originally by: Jade Constantine I think you should throw away the "CVA playbook of rhetorical strategies" that Garreck appears to have lent you GoGo. There is a big difference between *allying with* and *submitting too*. You are not part of any kind of equal arrangement with CVA, you have agreed to limit your activities against pirates to those individuals and entities who are listed on the CVA kill list. You are under notice that your associations "will be watched". You have sought (and been granted) a license to hunt CVA-approved targets in Providence as employees and functionaries. CVA are not allied with any pirate forces in the area that I am aware of. Therefore it is ridiculas to suggest we are submitting to their will in any way. submitting to their will would include shooting all targets they regarded as hostile. I think this discussion is solid proof that this is not the case. Let me come in here before the troll-squad arrives. Sure they do shelter certain entities which we would (and will) consider pirates elsewhere. IAC at least, and Goons I believe. There's probably more. There's no need for us to agree with the CVA policy 100% for us to work together in certain respects, though. PAK is recruiting!
Jade Constantine Gallente Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.01.08 18:43:00 - [89] Originally by: Kehmor CVA are not allied with any pirate forces in the area that I am aware of. Therefore it is ridiculas to suggest we are submitting to their will in any way. submitting to their will would include shooting all targets they regarded as hostile. I think this discussion is solid proof that this is not the case. You are opening up a rather large tin of worms there Kehmor. Goonswarm, IAC, their hangers on and lamprey-fish alliances are NBSI class combatants and shoot neutrals (that being precisely the same category of target that you are going to be engaging Ushra'khan on) Difference being if you shoot IAC or the Goons in Providence during an important CVA op you'll find yourself being censured or straight KOS'ed. Further of course, you have even Sev3rance and CSA itself in the KBP pocket - both alliances confirmed hostility against Star Fraction by aggressing us from neutral with no prior hostility on our part. A "pirate" action no? or was that straight politics? Point being Kehmor that you are going to have a very hard time finding "pirates" in providence in any sense you recognize the word while you will find political allegiances and feuds and NBSI class entities cooperating with space enclosurists to mutual self interest. As for you submitting to their will. Clearly you are since you asked their permission to come to Providence and operate and have promised to double-check your targets against their KOS book. If that isn't "submitting to the will of a stronger power" I don't know what it is. I think everyone would have more respect for your position if you hadn't sought the permission of the CVA in advance and simply announced your intention to hunt genuine NBSI class combatants wherever they might be found. Lets face it, you aren't that far away from Bleaklands and the Muffinmen if you wanted to seek action there. Instead you're in the position of antagonizing Ushra'khan by your cooperation with CVA standings enclosurism and ensuring that you will be fighting on the KBP gate regularly against forces opposing CVA in Providence. That makes you supporters of the CVA regime and doubtless keeps you in their good books but its not going to win you any respect or understanding from those who are opposing the cloying stink of CVA imperialism here. Point is Kehmor you have to check your targets with CVA KOS list. You are assured to be fighting Ushra'khan. Your effective place in the fighting is pretty much clarified. I fully expect to see you cooperating with CVA in KBP against Ushra'khan and the free populous in the immediate future and while we are bound by our ROE not to engage you unless you aggress us first it doesn't mean I'm going to be silent about what a regressive and humiliating stance I believe PAK has taken in this issue. I hope you re-think it. In time I suspect you will. "I might not have meant anything by it"
Kehmor Caldari PAK	Posted - 2008.01.08 18:50:00 - [90] Originally by: Jade Constantine Originally by: GoGo Yubari Let me come in here before the troll-squad arrives. Sure they do shelter certain entities which we would (and will) consider pirates elsewhere. IAC at least, and Goons I believe. There's probably more. There's no need for us to agree with the CVA policy 100% for us to work together in certain respects, though. Okay GoGo, so you are not really anti-pirate in Providence are you? Be honest. You are anti CVA's "enemies". This is nothing to do with pirate-hunting and everything to do with shooting targets on the CVA target list. If you can't shoot CVA friendly "pirates" and you can only shoot CVA -10's you have precisely no independence in Providence and are simply serving the interests of a self appointed "ruling" territorial power. I have absolutely no respect for a stance that has you aligning with CVA interests and lacking even the courage to announce that in a clear and honest fashion. Poor show. how is this an different from the way SF act in high sec. You only shoot those that concord deem -10 while operating in concord controlled systems. Yet many of these you would shoot while elsewhere? Am I right? PAK is recruiting!
Kabajashi San Minmatar Ushra'Khan	Posted - 2008.01.08 18:57:00 - [91] Ok, here is a question. No need to answer it if you don't want to, just curious. If PIE have a problem with people allying with anti-amarrian forces, why doesn't the CVA have one? No flamebait, honestly, but I can't make out where you are standing atm. To Mr. Garreck: I know you don't approve our current approach towards Providence. Look at it like this: By our Burn Providence Campaign we have forced everyone entering the area to clearly make a statement whether he is willing to respect our struggle for freedom or whether he will set his wish for profit over the pain inflicted on our brothers. It has shown that although many people state publicly understanding to our cause they are not willing to put their hand where their mouth is. We have demasqued the falsehood of their statements and the dishonour in their actions. While I can least accept that you and your like have a reason more than greed behind your actions the actions of these people are just shameful.
Kehmor Caldari PAK	Posted - 2008.01.08 18:59:00 - [92] Originally by: Kabajashi San Ok, here is a question. No need to answer it if you don't want to, just curious. If PIE have a problem with people allying with anti-amarrian forces, why doesn't the CVA have one? No flamebait, honestly, but I can't make out where you are standing atm. To Mr. Garreck: I know you don't approve our current approach towards Providence. Look at it like this: By our Burn Providence Campaign we have forced everyone entering the area to clearly make a statement whether he is willing to respect our struggle for freedom or whether he will set his wish for profit over the pain inflicted on our brothers. It has shown that although many people state publicly understanding to our cause they are not willing to put their hand where their mouth is. We have demasqued the falsehood of their statements and the dishonour in their actions. While I can least accept that you and your like have a reason more than greed behind your actions the actions of these people are just shameful. are you suggesting that PAK are in any way acting out of greed? Were that the case I don't think this public announcement would exist and we certainly wouldn't have come to terms with CVA. PAK is recruiting!
Kabajashi San Minmatar Ushra'Khan	Posted - 2008.01.08 19:02:00 - [93] Please don't let me be misunderstood. I was more referring to other entities living in the area much longer than you and the usual neut that comes to Providence because CVA advertises it as safe haven. I don't know about your intentions but your ignorance towards the question of slavery speaks for itself in my eyes. You think that fighting against piracy is a honourable thing to do. I think if it means contributing to the oppression of our brothers it is not.
Jade Constantine Gallente Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.01.08 19:09:00 - [94] Originally by: Kehmor how is this an different from the way SF act in high sec. You only shoot those that concord deem -10 while operating in concord controlled systems. Yet many of these you would shoot while elsewhere? Am I right? Actually you are incorrect. Star Fraction does not shoot -10 security level pilots unless we ALSO have them tagged to -10 Hostiles to Star Fraction. We don't care what Concord have to say about a pilots personal record - we do care about their corporation/alliance ACTIONS towards Star Fraction. If we see a -10 sec level NEUTRAL pod with a huge bounty drifting by one of our patrols in lowsec we will not shoot it. By the same measure, if we see a prime -10 hostile target traveling in Lowsec we will attack regardless of criminal flagging and Concord security standing loss. We also reserve the right to attack in hisec against a non-wardecced -10 target if and when the circumstances were appropriate and damage inflicted would equal or exceed the weight of shipping lost. Yes Kehmor, the Star Fraction will "suicide-gank" a -10 freighter if we believe we can do it, and the damage inflicted will be significant and worth the cost of the operation. Point being we only care about concord classification insomuch is it affects operational and opportunity cost of engagements. In all ways and times it is Star Fraction standing that sets the ultimate authority for our pilots on target/neutral ROE. No other entity in the star cluster has authority over our pilots. "I might not have meant anything by it"
Kehmor Caldari PAK	Posted - 2008.01.08 19:14:00 - [95] And we only care about CVA's standings in so much as it allows us to effectively operate in providence. At this time we beleive we can operate more effectively against pirate forces in providence while respecting the rules laid down by the ruling power. If this means one or two targets are off limits to us in their jurisdiction so be it. It is better than wasting time firing upon CVA who pose no real threat to the innocent capsuleers of New Eden. PAK is recruiting!
Jade Constantine Gallente Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.01.08 19:22:00 - [96] Originally by: Kehmor And we only care about CVA's standings in so much as it allows us to effectively operate in providence. At this time we beleive we can operate more effectively against pirate forces in providence while respecting the rules laid down by the ruling power. If this means one or two targets are off limits to us in their jurisdiction so be it. It is better than wasting time firing upon CVA who pose no real threat to the innocent capsuleers of New Eden. I think you mean "who pose no real threat to innocents who have decided to comply with the amarrian supremacist agenda in Providence." there Kehmor. And since as I think most agree there are no real Pirates in Providence you are inevitably going to be spending your time shooting CVA's political enemies. "I might not have meant anything by it"
Kehmor Caldari PAK	Posted - 2008.01.08 19:34:00 - [97] Originally by: Jade Constantine Originally by: Kehmor And we only care about CVA's standings in so much as it allows us to effectively operate in providence. At this time we beleive we can operate more effectively against pirate forces in providence while respecting the rules laid down by the ruling power. If this means one or two targets are off limits to us in their jurisdiction so be it. It is better than wasting time firing upon CVA who pose no real threat to the innocent capsuleers of New Eden. I think you mean "who pose no real threat to innocents who have decided to comply with the amarrian supremacist agenda in Providence." there Kehmor. And since as I think most agree there are no real Pirates in Providence you are inevitably going to be spending your time shooting CVA's political enemies. I guess we are not part of that "most". PAK is recruiting!
Drykor Minmatar Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.01.08 19:47:00 - [98] Originally by: Octavinus Augustus I think it is time for me to express a personal point of view here. Originally by: The Cosmopolite I think it is worth you noting that the reaction of one of the CVA's 'Holder' alliance vassals is to recommend you set us red despite the fact we do not shoot neutrals. I am glad you are ignoring them for the moment but be prepared for more of the same behind closed doors. Let us open the doors shall we? It is clear that SF does follow their own rather twisted version of NRDS policy. It is also clear that you reserve the right to set anyone to red given prior notice. Finally, it is clear that your ultimate aim is to "free" Providence by removing CVA and any who support us or abide by the rules we set. So if you should succeed in removing Severence (which you won't) who will be next on your list? Any who choose to make a living in Providence is likely to end on your list at some point. When will you be targetting GoGo and his corp/alliance? CVA only demand that a resident of Providence do not engage in acts of piracy and limits his targets to known enemies of our rule. We do not demand that any resident should fight on our behalf or risk be declared our enemies. In reality, that is what both U'K and SF does. Does that make you pirates? I think not. A pirate is one who fights simply for personal profit and cares not whom he targets. At least both your organisations have some sense of honour and apply your ROE's aimed at furthering your twisted political aims. Of course the end result for the civilians plying their trade in Providence and who ends up under your guns is quite the same. I don't think it matters much if you're targetted by pirates or fanatics in the end. You must fight back or die. It is as simple as that. Many have realized this. That is one of the reasons why the list of CVA friends who will actively support our efforts in Providence is so extensive as it is. Rubbish. Sev3rance were attacked because they attacked us first. If PAK attacks us then we will do the same, if they don't then they are no threat to us and we will not attack them. The neutrals in providence that are aligned with CVA/Sev3rance but never shot us or are known to have passed intel about us (not just a guess such as sev3rance shooting shuttles but solid proof) have always been able to rat/mine/do what they want freely in providence without us bothering them. We only set 1 alliance to red in this campaign without prior agressing because of their open declaration to shoot us as well as passing intel on us in local. You are wrong about our ultimate aim as well. It really doesn't get any simpler than this. We will NOT shoot PAK if they are truely neutral towards us.
Gaven Lok'ri Amarr PIE Inc.	Posted - 2008.01.08 20:16:00 - [99] Originally by: Kabajashi San Ok, here is a question. No need to answer it if you don't want to, just curious. If PIE have a problem with people allying with anti-amarrian forces, why doesn't the CVA have one? CVA is operating in a different situation than we are and they are doing so admirably. CVA's policy decisions have yet to prove detrimental to the empire in any noticeable way, so blatant attempts like this to get CVA and PIE arguing over the minor disagreements that may exist are doomed to failure. If PAK wish to fight to destroy common enemies, then more power to them. It takes time, however, for a transition such as this to be enacted, and more time for it to be confirmed as an actual transition rather than a PR stunt. I truly doubt that GoGo is so naive to believe that we would trust her motives this early in her new career. But what we can do is get out of her way as long as it seems that PAK is living up to this new agenda. We have changed PAK's status from "Kill on Sight" to "Potentially hostile, be on your guard but don't shoot first," and we will be watching to see whether that will last. If this change is sincere, then I applaud their decision and I hope to see them as an force supporting the rule of rational law in the future. May God guide them towards the path to redemption. Deus Vult! PIE Website Public Channel: 'PIE Public'
Kehmor Caldari PAK	Posted - 2008.01.08 20:32:00 - [100] Originally by: Gaven Lok'ri We have changed PAK's status from "Kill on Sight" to "Potentially hostile, be on your guard but don't shoot first," and we will be watching to see whether that will last. Good to finally get a clear answer on this. It is a descision I am sure, we will not make you regret. PAK is recruiting!
Conlin Gallente Yiotul Fighters Ushra'Khan	Posted - 2008.01.08 20:44:00 - [101] Edited by: Conlin on 08/01/2008 20:46:01 Originally by: GoGo Yubari Originally by: Conlin Welcome to the mad house If your words are true , then you will obviously be avoiding KBP where atm there is a territorial strife . This will benefit both of us . Current sov owners are in the practice of using nuetrals to benefit their own means , but it wont be a problem if you plan to stick to your agenda as quoted here. We will almost always come to Providence via KBP. Any forces that present a clear and present danger to us found camping the gate, which include yours, will be terminated with extreme prejudice. Do you want me to give you advance warning so you can clear the gate? You make a statement suggesting you will avoid territorial systems then have a hissy fit re : kbp . You make no sense . If that is an attempt to scare us from maintaining our blockade then I suggest you try a bit harder , because right now your just making your initial statement to be a lie . And leads us to believe you have another agenda here . In fact you only seem to be upsetting everybody , god forbid , but maybe we should all just get together and how should I say this ? , treat you with extreme predujice ? .
GoGo Yubari PAK	Posted - 2008.01.08 20:49:00 - [102] Edited by: GoGo Yubari on 08/01/2008 20:56:12 Originally by: Conlin You make a statement suggesting you will avoid territorial systems then have a hissy fit re : kbp . You make no sense . If that is an attempt to scare us from maintaining our blockade then I suggest you try a bit harder , because right now your just making your initial statement to be a lie . And leads us to believe you have another agenda here . You are grasping for straws here. We'll gladly stay out of your territorial conflict. This has been demonstrated exhaustively. I suggested to your diplomat that we set each other to +10. This was denied. I'm now ready to give you warning each time we come through. You are apparently not interested. Your belligerence isn't going to stop us from coming to Providence via any route we want, because we don't think you can order us around, but there's no reason we have to shoot at each other. The ball is firmly in your court. PAK is recruiting!
Bacchanalian Stimulus	Posted - 2008.01.08 21:12:00 - [103] Originally by: Drykor Rubbish. Sev3rance were attacked because they attacked us first. Quite so. I seem to recall hunting Sanshas in low security space nearly a year ago in a spot of boredom and jumping through a gate only to find my Vexor under attack from a combined gang of CVA and the then-neutral S3verance. Glad to see that S3verance has paid dearly for my Vexor. On the current topic, I find PAK's submission to CVA rather gutless and sad. Castrating themselves in order to find targets of convenience is what it sounds like. ____________________ GM Sunshine > oops Neurotica > Hate to see a GM in your gang say 'oops'
Kehmor Caldari PAK	Posted - 2008.01.08 21:37:00 - [104] Edited by: Kehmor on 08/01/2008 21:38:41 Originally by: Bacchanalian On the current topic, I find PAK's submission to CVA rather gutless and sad. Castrating themselves in order to find targets of convenience is what it sounds like. I find your meaningless **** flinging gutless and sad. PAK do not fight for convenience, we engage battle hardened pirates in order to protect those who cannot protect themselves, and put our ships and the lives of our crews at risk on a daily basis. CVA do not engage in these activites and so we have no argument with them, and it is obviously vastly preferable to maintain standings with those who do not stand in our way. It allows us to maintain focus. This is the precise reason we are open to negotiations with the political enemies of CVA, something I would hardly call submission. The simple fact is CVA are merely being more reasonable than U'K, they are not asking us to go against our ROE, U'K are. Any who have fought with or against PAK can tell you we have little difficulty looking after ourselves, so if you believe that this descision was made out of fear I am afraid you are very much mistaken. If you have a problem with our policy come do something about it or keep your opinions to yourself. We are doing nothing that goes against our stated goal. It is spineless opinionated filth like yourself that make me regret I am a part of a NRDS organisation, however that is the way it is. However I fail to see how this has anything to do with you, seeing as you are not a member of any organisation involved in this announcement. PAK is recruiting!
Gaius Kador PIE Inc.	Posted - 2008.01.08 22:07:00 - [105] As far as I am concerned PAK still carries the taint of WarHounds legacy, but I will follow the directions of my CEO until you put a foot wrong. On another note, I see one Constantspin has replaced another, but the lies remain the same, and her degenerate followers still make up the carnival of fools which is the Star Fraction. Your forked tongue will get you nowhere, again. ----------------------------------------------
Kabajashi San Minmatar Ushra'Khan	Posted - 2008.01.08 22:20:00 - [106] Thank you for clarification, Mr. Lok'ri. It was in no way an attempt to drive a wedge betwen you, I know that your evil deeds will glue you together till the day we will end your existence. I'm just wondering whether CVA is still about reclaiming Providence or simply about holding it, that's all. To Mr. Khemor: What needed to be said was said. I can only laugh when you claim to fight for those who cannot fight for themselves but put a blind eye to the fate of our brothers. I will meet you in space as soon as I get this fricking ship going again. To Mrs. Yubari: I appreciate your effort in avoiding confrontation by giving a warning in advance. I just believe that being true warriors we both are we will not shy away from a fight whatever the odds may be. You seem to have made your decision to aggravate the life of our brothers, we will react accordingly.
Kehmor Caldari PAK	Posted - 2008.01.08 22:24:00 - [107] Originally by: Kabajashi San Thank you for clarification, Mr. Lok'ri. It was in no way an attempt to drive a wedge betwen you, I know that your evil deeds will glue you together till the day we will end your existence. I'm just wondering whether CVA is still about reclaiming Providence or simply about holding it, that's all. To Mr. Khemor: What needed to be said was said. I can only laugh when you claim to fight for those who cannot fight for themselves but put a blind eye to the fate of our brothers. I will meet you in space as soon as I get this fricking ship going again. To Mrs. Yubari: I appreciate your effort in avoiding confrontation by giving a warning in advance. I just believe that being true warriors we both are we will not shy away from a fight whatever the odds may be. You seem to have made your decision to aggravate the life of our brothers, we will react accordingly. My personal concern is for fellow pod pilots. I will admit I care little for your cause, but will not judge those who choose to waste their time on such issues. PAK is recruiting!
Kelsin	Posted - 2008.01.08 22:27:00 - [108] Originally by: Kehmor we engage battle hardened pirates in order to protect those who cannot protect themselves One of the points being raised is that in Providence you won't find many of either of those, because the conflicts in the region are by and large political. So no matter how noble your goals are, you're getting involved in politics by making a point of kowtowing to CVA. You'd do far better coming in with a declaration of a strong commitment to remaining a politically neutral anti-pirate force. What is so wrong with setting your own standings instead of looking to CVA for permissions?
Kehmor Caldari PAK	Posted - 2008.01.08 22:31:00 - [109] Originally by: Kelsin Originally by: Kehmor we engage battle hardened pirates in order to protect those who cannot protect themselves One of the points being raised is that in Providence you won't find many of either of those, because the conflicts in the region are by and large political. So no matter how noble your goals are, you're getting involved in politics by making a point of kowtowing to CVA. You'd do far better coming in with a declaration of a strong commitment to remaining a politically neutral anti-pirate force. What is so wrong with setting your own standings instead of looking to CVA for permissions? This issue, along side many others being raised ove rand over again have all already been adressed. The issue at hand has been solved, that is who will set us to + and who will not. We have also stated our goals and policies very clearly. I think we can let this one die. PAK is recruiting!
Saraith Narr Amarr PIE Inc.	Posted - 2008.01.08 22:51:00 - [110] Originally by: Kelsin So no matter how noble your goals are, you're getting involved in politics by making a point of kowtowing to CVA. You'd do far better coming in with a declaration of a strong commitment to remaining a politically neutral anti-pirate force. What is so wrong with setting your own standings instead of looking to CVA for permissions? It is impossible to be neutral in Providence, according to your allies. By theyre logic, you are either against CVA, or you are kill on sight. CVA does not appear to be demanding that PAK kills anyone on sight. But of course, it is CVA who are the domineering monsters here, and not Star Fractions allies. For you would not fly alongside an alliance that seeks to hold space and imposes its will and politics forcefully on others, would you? PAK, I salute your move towards lawfulness, and I will pray that you find sucsess, riches and more importanly salvation. Fear not the idle tongues of these vipers, for what they cannot defeat in battle they try to bring low with petty words and venal lies.
jtps Minmatar Si chou zhi lu	Posted - 2008.01.08 23:01:00 - [111] Edited by: jtps on 08/01/2008 23:01:09 Quote: PAK do not fight for convenience, we engage battle hardened pirates in order to protect those who cannot protect themselves, and put our ships and the lives of our crews at risk on a daily basis. Oh, such a noble incentive to enter Providence, but somehow slightly flawed. What seems to have escaped you is that Providence is a slaver controlled region, do you not regard slaves as those that "cannot protect themselves"? You fight to protect those stated above but find it morally correct to collaborate with a state that endoreses slavery? Somewhere along your path to rightousness or whatever you seek you lost your way... Take a look in the mirror and question your incentives, infact question your entire existence, you seem to be a living contradiction.
Kehmor Caldari PAK	Posted - 2008.01.08 23:12:00 - [112] Originally by: jtps Edited by: jtps on 08/01/2008 23:01:09 Quote: PAK do not fight for convenience, we engage battle hardened pirates in order to protect those who cannot protect themselves, and put our ships and the lives of our crews at risk on a daily basis. Oh, such a noble incentive to enter Providence, but somehow slightly flawed. What seems to have escaped you is that Providence is a slaver controlled region, do you not regard slaves as those that "cannot protect themselves"? You fight to protect those stated above but find it morally correct to collaborate with a state that endoreses slavery? Somewhere along your path to rightousness or whatever you seek you lost your way... Take a look in the mirror and question your incentives, infact question your entire existence, you seem to be a living contradiction. My personal opinion (not that of my corporation) is that slavery is completely acceptable. Care much? PAK is recruiting!
jtps Minmatar Si chou zhi lu	Posted - 2008.01.08 23:25:00 - [113] Originally by: Kehmor Originally by: jtps Edited by: jtps on 08/01/2008 23:01:09 Quote: PAK do not fight for convenience, we engage battle hardened pirates in order to protect those who cannot protect themselves, and put our ships and the lives of our crews at risk on a daily basis. Oh, such a noble incentive to enter Providence, but somehow slightly flawed. What seems to have escaped you is that Providence is a slaver controlled region, do you not regard slaves as those that "cannot protect themselves"? You fight to protect those stated above but find it morally correct to collaborate with a state that endoreses slavery? Somewhere along your path to rightousness or whatever you seek you lost your way... Take a look in the mirror and question your incentives, infact question your entire existence, you seem to be a living contradiction. My personal opinion (not that of my corporation) is that slavery is completely acceptable. Care much? Thanks for clearing that up, i'll have even more pleasure watching you fall at the hands of Si Chou Zhi Lu and U'K now. But that being your opinion, what is your corporations regard towards slavery?
Kehmor Caldari PAK	Posted - 2008.01.08 23:32:00 - [114] Originally by: jtps Thanks for clearing that up, i'll have even more pleasure watching you fall at the hands of Si Chou Zhi Lu and U'K now. But that being your opinion, what is your corporations regard towards slavery? A) Are you officially stating Si Chou Zhi Lu will be engaging PAK vessels? If not please contact our corp diplomate immedietely. B) I am not aware we have an official stance. Some pirates are slavers, some are not. We shoot both. Prehaps you can ask GoGo when you are begging us to reset our standings towards you? PAK is recruiting!
jtps Minmatar Si chou zhi lu	Posted - 2008.01.08 23:43:00 - [115] Edited by: jtps on 08/01/2008 23:44:12 Originally by: Kehmor A) Are you officially stating Si Chou Zhi Lu will be engaging PAK vessels? If not please contact our corp diplomate immedietely. B) I am not aware we have an official stance. Some pirates are slavers, some are not. We shoot both. Prehaps you can ask GoGo when you are begging us to reset our standings towards you? I cannot speak on behalf of Si Chou Zhi Lu or our relasionship with PAK, but i can speak on behalf of our stance against slavery. Your words here have shown your support to slavery, slavers are targets, those who support slavers are targets, therefore you are a target.
Kehmor Caldari PAK	Posted - 2008.01.08 23:45:00 - [116] Originally by: jtps Edited by: jtps on 08/01/2008 23:44:12 Originally by: Kehmor A) Are you officially stating Si Chou Zhi Lu will be engaging PAK vessels? If not please contact our corp diplomate immedietely. B) I am not aware we have an official stance. Some pirates are slavers, some are not. We shoot both. Prehaps you can ask GoGo when you are begging us to reset our standings towards you? I cannot speak on behalf of Si Chou Zhi Lu or our relasionship with PAK, but i can speak on behalf of our stance against slavery. Your words here have shown your support to slavery, slavers are targets, those who support slavers are targets, therefore you are a target. standings will be changed accordingly, thank you for the heads up. PAK is recruiting!
GoGo Yubari PAK	Posted - 2008.01.08 23:50:00 - [117] Originally by: jtps But that being your opinion, what is your corporations regard towards slavery? We don't care what our members believe in as long as they are on board with what we do. We don't do politics, control space or set laws - nor do we want to. We're just a collection of misfits who've decided to focus our guns on pirates. I'm sure everyone in here has their own reasons for doing that and we seem to be attracting more of the kind. PAK is recruiting!
Drykor Minmatar Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.01.08 23:51:00 - [118] Well, considering you're asking CVA for permission before killing pirates like goonswarm, I can't really take you serious. Don't pretend to be the heroic anti-pirate force that you claim to be now, when you let others dictate for you who is a pirate and who isn't. Too much drama for a 19 man corp anyway.
jtps Minmatar Si chou zhi lu	Posted - 2008.01.08 23:55:00 - [119] Originally by: Kehmor standings will be changed accordingly, thank you for the heads up. I would expect nothing less. Now run along, i think i hear CVA calling you.
Daelin Blackleaf	Posted - 2008.01.09 00:09:00 - [120] Originally by: Kabajashi San So if you want to know if we pose a threat to you and your operations you should simply ask yourself if your are willing to step up to your words and end your support for the slavers. If not you will have to live with the risk of being held accountable. Step up to my words? As I said I used to respect but not support UK's actions. Now you have neither my respect nor support, though of course you do not desire or require my endorsement. Also as I have said I couldn't care less for your motives or ideals, I've seen Minmatar happier in the Empire than they are in the Republic and vice-versa it is not my place to claim to know what is right for an entire people either way. Much like almost every other person in empire space I will take the risk. It appears that you will have far too many targets to bother yourselves with myself or other such non-militant collaborators any time soon. Thankyou to all UK members who clarified your position and aided me in creation of my risk-assessment report. [And my, my can't a discussion move once certain "stars" of the community enter it.]
GoGo Yubari PAK	Posted - 2008.01.09 00:10:00 - [121] Originally by: Drykor Too much drama for a 19 man corp anyway. I wholeheartedly agree. PAK is recruiting!
Kehmor Caldari PAK	Posted - 2008.01.09 00:17:00 - [122] Originally by: Drykor Well, considering you're asking CVA for permission before killing pirates like goonswarm, I can't really take you serious. Don't pretend to be the heroic anti-pirate force that you claim to be now, when you let others dictate for you who is a pirate and who isn't. Too much drama for a 19 man corp anyway. ok i'll make it simple so even you can under stand. We are better than you. PAK is recruiting!
GoGo Yubari PAK	Posted - 2008.01.09 00:31:00 - [123] Originally by: Kehmor Originally by: Drykor Well, considering you're asking CVA for permission before killing pirates like goonswarm, I can't really take you serious. Don't pretend to be the heroic anti-pirate force that you claim to be now, when you let others dictate for you who is a pirate and who isn't. Too much drama for a 19 man corp anyway. ok i'll make it simple so even you can under stand. We are better than you. Hello Captain Obvious! PAK is recruiting!
Conlin Gallente Yiotul Fighters Ushra'Khan	Posted - 2008.01.09 05:29:00 - [124] Originally by: GoGo Yubari Edited by: GoGo Yubari on 08/01/2008 20:56:12 Originally by: Conlin You make a statement suggesting you will avoid territorial systems then have a hissy fit re : kbp . You make no sense . If that is an attempt to scare us from maintaining our blockade then I suggest you try a bit harder , because right now your just making your initial statement to be a lie . And leads us to believe you have another agenda here . You are grasping for straws here. We'll gladly stay out of your territorial conflict. This has been demonstrated exhaustively. I suggested to your diplomat that we set each other to +10. This was denied. I'm now ready to give you warning each time we come through. You are apparently not interested. Your belligerence isn't going to stop us from coming to Providence via any route we want, because we don't think you can order us around, but there's no reason we have to shoot at each other. The ball is firmly in your court. Were past caring anymore , we got past caring when everyone realised your just attention seeking . Come to provi , dont come ...youve contradicted yourself from the start , nobody really cares . I tried to be nice and got someone bumping there gums without engaging there brain , Why, thou dish of fool .
Karn Mithralia Minmatar Neh'bu Kau Beh'Hude Ushra'Khan	Posted - 2008.01.09 09:54:00 - [125] Lets be honest about our diplomacy shall we GoGo? As you well know PAK were already red to Ushra'Khan for acts of piracy committed in the past. You offered to reset standings, something I have nothing against given your new found calling, but pointed out that it was likely a waste of time as if your were neutral on our overviews in Providence or Catch you would be fired upon under our well publicised ROE. You didn't respond to that so we still have you red. No where did you offer us +10. Does anyone else find this thread somewhat ironic and amusing? Slavers rabbiting on about free space, slaver holding corps gnashing their teeth impotently, while pirates turned anti-pirates trying and failing to remain neutral as they consider wading into possibly the most politically loaded theatre of war in the 'verse. Its a funny old world. Karn laughs and cuts comms -----------------------------------------
Mortim Minmatar Madison Industrial Co. Sylph Alliance	Posted - 2008.01.09 10:17:00 - [126] Originally by: Karn Mithralia As you well know PAK were already red to Ushra'Khan for acts of piracy committed in the past. ... Does anyone else find this thread somewhat ironic and amusing? Yes. It's not a funny old world, it's positively hilarious. Mort Chancellor Cherry-Picker
zoolkhan Minmatar Freelance Unincorporated Ushra'Khan	Posted - 2008.01.09 10:22:00 - [127] Edited by: zoolkhan on 09/01/2008 10:22:02 who are PAK? i have no clue until this thread started off i didnt know they exist. aparrantly they were a number on our red list ; aparrantly for piracy back then. in this thread they achieved something that paris hilton and many others in the thousands years behind her achieved... no brains, but natural instinkt for getting press. ANY PRESS IS BETTER THAN NO PRESS - is the leading motivation behind this now 5 pages which should have been rather something like: "we come to providence, we have reset standings" "welcome, our guns are waiting" - my own fault, i did the first reply :o) getting their name burned in in peoples minds just by having free press she will probably never enter providence, and if she does she will die and her horde with her. Unclear if pie/cva will kill her for past crimes, or if ushra'khan will be faster :-) irrelevant that all is they now have name, even i can remember for.. say.. a few days. congratulations slaves of the media ___ This is Zool Khan for Ushra'Khan in Providence powered by Galnet and Stellaris Artois, the beer of the free.
Xenea Amarr Ministry of War	Posted - 2008.01.09 16:34:00 - [128] Chanting the mantra, peace on earth...
Reash Amarr Auctoritan Syndicate Curatores Veritatis Alliance	Posted - 2008.01.09 22:36:00 - [129] Originally by: Karn Mithralia Edited by: Karn Mithralia on 09/01/2008 09:57:57 Slavers rabbiting on about free space Do not misunderstand, Providence is not freespace, it is CVA space, neutrals are simply free to live in if they obey our simple laws. ----------------------- Auctoritan Syndicate Director
Renosha Argaron Caldari IronPig Sev3rance	Posted - 2008.01.10 02:13:00 - [130] Edited by: Renosha Argaron on 10/01/2008 02:14:42 First and foremost, I would like to take this opportunity to welcome GoGo & PAK to Providence if and when you choose to enter this space Its always nice to see more anti-pirate corps and alliances around these parts, and Sev3rance being an NRDS alliance, you will remain neutral (or positive) to us for as long as you wish it. Originally by: The Cosmopolite However, you're right, what you do is nothing to us unless you actually take hostile action against us. This will include, for completeness, reporting our movements in CVA intelligence channels should you ever be admitted to them. The Cosmopolite I seem to recal Jade telling me that S/He informed TRI on CVA+ allies movment's on a regular basis even though TRI pilots where opeining fire on your very own corp members, Also Who PAK wish to speak to and where is there own business....what happend to your so called policy of people being "Free"? SF are very quick to call anyone's opinion that dont match there own on the subject of there relationship with UK as "delusional ravings and drivel", but the bottom line is that the UK/SF mind numbing rhetoric and opinion's on the Sev and CVA's relationship is just as delusional, people in glass house's cosmo!;) Im not going to get in to a smackfest about this as to be perfectly honest, i really cant be botherd going over the same old topic time and time again with an SF/UK propaganda machine that always seem's to kick in on matter's like this, propaganda and speculation seems to be your weapon of choice these days, You know nothing about Sev3rance politic's nor about our relationship with CVA, and your choice not to listen will be your own undoing, "It is impossible to defeat an ignorant man in an argument. (William G. McAdoo (1863 - 1941)" Regards Renosha
Lorna V Minmatar IronPig Sev3rance	Posted - 2008.01.10 05:18:00 - [131] I have a hypothetical for Jade or Cosmo: If PAK were to say anchor a large bubble for us and we were to catch and destroy one of your pilots in it, would that be considered a hostile act by PAK against you? You've said you don't consider it a violation of your "NRDS" policy when you do the same to facilitate UK's attacks in Providence on individuals you have set to neutral, and I'm just wondering if you're at least willing to be consistent with your hypocrisy? Cheers, Lorna V
Jasmine Constantine Gallente Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.01.10 05:49:00 - [132] Originally by: Lorna V I have a hypothetical for Jade or Cosmo: If PAK were to say anchor a large bubble for us and we were to catch and destroy one of your pilots in it, would that be considered a hostile act by PAK against you? No. War Diary : Operation Terminus Est
Rikelov Masuat'aa Matari Ushra'Khan	Posted - 2008.01.10 08:14:00 - [133] This is an amusing thread...Pak, 'pirates= bad...slavers= cool...pirates who are friends with slavers= we can live with that'. 19 man corp? So next time I form a 12 pilot gang it will be 12 v 130+19...that doesn't make much of a difference to me. I wouldn't be posting, but for Renosha...always nice to see you about, glad you are in good health. Carry on, Rikelov
G0rF Gallente The Causality Electus Matari	Posted - 2008.01.10 13:47:00 - [134] Originally by: Daelin Blackleaf This is my real name. I'm simply relatively new to GalNet. Thanks for the warm welcome. It's interesting, until stumbling upon this thread I have always respected, if not supported, the Minmatar and their fight for freedom. I never realized the sickening truth behind it. Freedom at any price, even if it means turning the entire cluster against your own people to achieve it. I appreciate this response is late, but, welcome Mr. Blackleaf. I'd like to point out that not all Minmatar Alliances are Ushra'Khan. Not all anti-slavery campaigners / activists are terrorists. Please don't tar us all with the same brush. Our motivations may be the similar to those of the U'K - an end to the forceful suppression of the self-determinism of sentient beings in my own personal case, an end to slavery, and a free and safe homeland for the Minmatar peoples in the case of my alliance - but our methods may differ widely. Thankyou for your time.
Niding Polaris Project Curatores Veritatis Alliance	Posted - 2008.01.10 14:26:00 - [135] Originally by: Rikelov This is an amusing thread...Pak, 'pirates= bad...slavers= cool...pirates who are friends with slavers= we can live with that'. 19 man corp? So next time I form a 12 pilot gang it will be 12 v 130+19...that doesn't make much of a difference to me. I wouldn't be posting, but for Renosha...always nice to see you about, glad you are in good health. Carry on, Rikelov They clearly said they would hunt pirates. As it is, Providence has a fairly large population of pod pilots that are flagged as outlawed, but not nessisarily considered pirates. To avoid shooting friendly neutrals, PAK did the right thing, and contacted the local authorities (CVA) for a comprehensive list of known criminals. If they choose to omit some of these criminals from their targetlist, thats their prerogative. If you decide to alienate PAK, thats your own doing, not CVAs.
Daelin Blackleaf	Posted - 2008.01.10 15:04:00 - [136] Originally by: G0rF Please don't tar us all with the same brush. My apologies, you are quite right it was not my intent to bundle all Matari organizations together, my comments were aimed solely at UK. I'm aware that the vast majority of Minmatar aligned organizations (and the Republic itself) approach this issue with far less self-defeating aggression. Still, you do well to distance your organization from the UK. There is an gestalt image forming of the typical Minmatar and it is not a pretty one.
Kabajashi San Minmatar Ushra'Khan	Posted - 2008.01.10 18:56:00 - [137] Originally by: Daelin Blackleaf There is an gestalt image forming of the typical Minmatar and it is not a pretty one. That of blood thirsty warriors, willing to take up any fight that seems to be right to them, ignoring the squabble others call politics and not compromising on their ideals? I wouldn't call that pretty, more ... honest.
Azure Skyclad Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.01.10 19:01:00 - [138] Originally by: Renosha Argaron "It is impossible to defeat an ignorant man in an argument. (William G. McAdoo (1863 - 1941)" There ought to be a law against having this much irony in one place. Welcome to Providence PAK. I think you know the lay of the land around here by now. http://ultravixen.co.uk/
Conlin Gallente Yiotul Fighters Ushra'Khan	Posted - 2008.01.10 20:44:00 - [139] Originally by: Niding Originally by: Rikelov This is an amusing thread...Pak, 'pirates= bad...slavers= cool...pirates who are friends with slavers= we can live with that'. 19 man corp? So next time I form a 12 pilot gang it will be 12 v 130+19...that doesn't make much of a difference to me. I wouldn't be posting, but for Renosha...always nice to see you about, glad you are in good health. Carry on, Rikelov They clearly said they would hunt pirates. As it is, Providence has a fairly large population of pod pilots that are flagged as outlawed, but not nessisarily considered pirates. To avoid shooting friendly neutrals, PAK did the right thing, and contacted the local authorities (CVA) for a comprehensive list of known criminals. If they choose to omit some of these criminals from their targetlist, thats their prerogative. If you decide to alienate PAK, thats your own doing, not CVAs. Your choice in words is interesting , whats also interesting is the fact PAK chose the title to be towards U'K & SF .
Gaven Lok'ri Amarr PIE Inc.	Posted - 2008.01.10 22:01:00 - [140] Considering that you are the only two non-piratical organisations likely to take issue with them respecting the CVA authority, there is very little interest in this being for the attention of SF and U'K. Though I'm not sure why they bothered addressing it to the blood mad terrorists of the U'K, as there was no shadow of a doubt that the U'K would continue to show its true nature as blood thirsty savages far more interested in their perceived ideas of revenge and in killing those working for peace than they are interested in actually freeing anyone. I never thought I would say this, but you all make even the anarchists look like reasonable people these days. Deus Vult! PIE Website Public Channel: 'PIE Public'
Niding Polaris Project Curatores Veritatis Alliance	Posted - 2008.01.10 22:06:00 - [141] Edited by: Niding on 10/01/2008 22:07:44 It seems logical to adress UK/SF as their relations to CVA is strained to say the least. PAK assumingly wanted to pre-empt any issues you might have had with them using the CVA criminal records for operations, and judging by this thread, it was prudent of them.
The Cosmopolite Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.01.10 23:09:00 - [142] Originally by: Renosha Argaron Originally by: The Cosmopolite However, you're right, what you do is nothing to us unless you actually take hostile action against us. This will include, for completeness, reporting our movements in CVA intelligence channels should you ever be admitted to them. The Cosmopolite I seem to recal Jade telling me that S/He informed TRI on CVA+ allies movment's on a regular basis even though TRI pilots where opeining fire on your very own corp members, Also Who PAK wish to speak to and where is there own business....what happend to your so called policy of people being "Free"? You illustrate the point rather than counter it. CVA are hostiles, therefore we will give intelligence on their movements to anyone likely to do them harm, whether those people are friends, neutrals or enemies of ours. If they choose to make use of the information and attack people hostile to us, so much the better. We will not give intelligence on the movement of neutrals to anyone. Not to a hostile, not to another neutral, not to a friend. So if we verifiably see that some 'neutral' is passing intel on our movements to people who are hostile, we consider it a verified hostile act and will treat them accordingly. People are free to shoot at us so long as they understand the consequences. Similarly, they are free to pass intelligence on us to enemies so long as they understand what might happen in response. As for the relationship of CVA and Sev3rance, all we have ever really said is that the relationship is one of master and servant. That language offends Sev3rance and the CVA will publicly deny it but ultimately one who obeys the rules of another in the knowledge that failure to do so would result in penalties being incurred is a servant at best, a slave at worst. The Cosmopolite The Star Fraction Communications Portal
Saraith Narr Amarr PIE Inc.	Posted - 2008.01.10 23:30:00 - [143] Edited by: Saraith Narr on 10/01/2008 23:30:00 Quote: but ultimately one who obeys the rules of another in the knowledge that failure to do so would result in penalties being incurred is a servant at best, a slave at worst. Does this not also aptly describe Ushra'Khans policy towards neutrals in Providence? This is a policy that you tacticly support through your alliance with the terrorists.
The Cosmopolite Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.01.11 00:14:00 - [144] Originally by: Saraith Narr Quote: but ultimately one who obeys the rules of another in the knowledge that failure to do so would result in penalties being incurred is a servant at best, a slave at worst. Does this not also aptly describe Ushra'Khans policy towards neutrals in Providence? This is a policy that you tacticly support through your alliance with the terrorists. We don't support the Ushra'Khan policy of shooting neutrals in Providence in any way whatever. We have our view on the matter but we are not about to insist that the Ushra'Khan adopt our RoE or similar policies. They must make decisions on these matters for themselves and we will always respect their right to do so. The Cosmopolite The Star Fraction Communications Portal
Conlin Gallente Yiotul Fighters Ushra'Khan	Posted - 2008.01.11 06:25:00 - [145] Originally by: Gaven Lok'ri Considering that you are the only two non-piratical organisations likely to take issue with them respecting the CVA authority, there is very little interest in this being for the attention of SF and U'K. Though I'm not sure why they bothered addressing it to the blood mad terrorists of the U'K, as there was no shadow of a doubt that the U'K would continue to show its true nature as blood thirsty savages far more interested in their perceived ideas of revenge and in killing those working for peace than they are interested in actually freeing anyone. I never thought I would say this, but you all make even the anarchists look like reasonable people these days. I ask the organ grinder I get the monkeys . You amarr are always full of opinions , normally other peoples , let them speak , or is it a case they recquire your permission first ?.
Daelin Blackleaf	Posted - 2008.01.11 13:02:00 - [146] Originally by: Kabajashi San Originally by: Daelin Blackleaf There is an gestalt image forming of the typical Minmatar and it is not a pretty one. That of blood thirsty warriors, willing to take up any fight that seems to be right to them, ignoring the squabble others call politics and not compromising on their ideals? I wouldn't call that pretty, more ... honest. More an image of a blood-thristy psychotic for whom the killing has become more important than the goal. Very close though.
Drykor Minmatar Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.01.12 06:03:00 - [147] Originally by: The Cosmopolite Originally by: Renosha Argaron Originally by: The Cosmopolite However, you're right, what you do is nothing to us unless you actually take hostile action against us. This will include, for completeness, reporting our movements in CVA intelligence channels should you ever be admitted to them. The Cosmopolite I seem to recal Jade telling me that S/He informed TRI on CVA+ allies movment's on a regular basis even though TRI pilots where opeining fire on your very own corp members, Also Who PAK wish to speak to and where is there own business....what happend to your so called policy of people being "Free"? You illustrate the point rather than counter it. CVA are hostiles, therefore we will give intelligence on their movements to anyone likely to do them harm, whether those people are friends, neutrals or enemies of ours. If they choose to make use of the information and attack people hostile to us, so much the better. We will not give intelligence on the movement of neutrals to anyone. Not to a hostile, not to another neutral, not to a friend. So if we verifiably see that some 'neutral' is passing intel on our movements to people who are hostile, we consider it a verified hostile act and will treat them accordingly. People are free to shoot at us so long as they understand the consequences. Similarly, they are free to pass intelligence on us to enemies so long as they understand what might happen in response. As for the relationship of CVA and Sev3rance, all we have ever really said is that the relationship is one of master and servant. That language offends Sev3rance and the CVA will publicly deny it but ultimately one who obeys the rules of another in the knowledge that failure to do so would result in penalties being incurred is a servant at best, a slave at worst. The Cosmopolite Good explanation but I wonder if you should even bother. She was comparing very different things with each other, that would make no sense to someone who would think before they speak. As Azure already pointed out, the irony is stunning.
Manticore PL Amarr Deratization Inc.	Posted - 2008.01.14 17:59:00 - [148] Originally by: Kabajashi San We come for our people. We come for your people too, on a regular basis. We keep getting full holds every time.
Conlin Gallente Yiotul Fighters Ushra'Khan	Posted - 2008.01.15 05:44:00 - [149] Originally by: Manticore PL Originally by: Kabajashi San We come for our people. We come for your people too, on a regular basis. We keep getting full holds every time. Never heard of ya !!

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 :: [one page]

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.