Stations in orbit limit

[meyyo]

Right here for non-member request.

http://forum.astro-galaxy.com/index.php/board,60.0.html

Though since they aren't in the Sol System itself.  I don't think a request will be needed.  I will have a ship sent to these areas shortly.

Thank you, JamJulLison!

[JamJulLison]

I will likely get the other 2 tomorrow.  I am kinda taking it easy the rest of the night reading comics before I go to bed.

[Jazzbob]

The Ideas of Sir Emi sound very interesting to me!

[Dadds]

Meyyo, i feel that you have been "telemarketed" into having your stations destroyed by the destroyer. i read the galactic charter plea before i read here. to pack a station all you have to do is to orbit that station, dock and there will be an option to "pack/scoop station" click on that.
If they are not already blown, i would request JamJul to not proceed with the destruction request. It has not been passed by the council as yet and may violate treaty. Lets not blow up a new member because of simple confusion. That is what the GC is all about

[JamJulLison]

It is not a violation as they are not in the Sol system itself. I tried to explain how to do it but I may have done a poor job of it.  I just offered my services here. Not like I am getting any profit from it.  I didn't "telemarket" anything here. lol

[Dadds]

Its against the general principle of protecting new players. He is obviously confused, your suggestion is to blow them out of the sky after only 1 attempt to explain. Some more JamJul "training" by blowing them up. I have issued a general combat order to my fleet to engage you around this members holdings until such time as i can resolve the matter. That is, if they are still in place. Ships are being dispatched now. Your vessels will be engaged but the option to open fire will be at my command only. That is all <out>

[JamJulLison]

Did I say I was going to attack? No.  I am holding out until we hear otherwise from him.  I just hate explaining myself multiple times.  Especially when you learn how to do this kind of stuff in the academy as it is anyways.  Regardless, destroying his stations does not violate the GC Charter.  The GC Charter covers attacks in the Sol System. Not the rest of 0,0.  I haven't violated anything.  If your ships were to open fire they would be in violation for attacking someone in an alliance that is a part of the GC. Your ships should stand down.  Once I hear from him on this matter and if he says to just blow them up I will.  The only reason a request was made to the GC at all on this is because I suggested he do so. Furthermore Aysle, who is your 2nd in command and representative on the council for your alliance's seat on the GC's council already OKed this matter to begin with. 

[Dadds]

That is an internal matter i will discuss with Aysle. He is the rep, not the law. i am willing to bet he didnt read the forum post for help and your "help" suggestion. The GC was put in place to protect from annihilation of stations etc. That is what is proposed by you as a solution to his problem. That has our ships on high alert. You will stand down from any destruction of property until i can contact the pilot and discuss this with Aysle. Until that time, i am commander-in-chief of IMG and a galactic council member and i will engage you if you blow any new member stations. I hope that is clear enough. You said you already took out one of his stations? Please report on the situation <over>

[JamJulLison]

You may wish to reread the charter then Dadds.  This situation isn't even covered in the charter.  This is a situation where someone asked for help.  I gave him an explanation of what to do and another valid option for handling the situation.  He opted for the 2nd.  I have sent him a message in game and have asked him what he wants me to do.  I am giving him until tomorrow to reply.  If there is no reply by then I will continue on to blow up the next one as planned. However you choose to open fire on me or any of our ships that might happen to be around there, you yourself will be attacking a fellow GC member and clearly be in the wrong. Not only will it be a direct assault against a GC member but it would also violate the NAP signed between PMI and IMG.

[sargas]

JJL's action has already been sanctioned by a majority vote of the GC reps (Aysle-yea,JJL-Yea,Goodperson-abstain)

[Dadds]

Then why did you suggest to him to bring it in here to the Galactic Council requests? If it has nothing to do with GC then it shouldnt be posted here. I think it is just your justification to do harm to another player. Be warned, because you are a member of the council doesnt make you immune from all of the rest of the council. I have judged this to be unfair and we will have ships in orbit to prevent your wanton destruction of a new player station, even though he seems to think its what he wants.
I dont need to read the charter. We developed it. The underlying concept was not to destroy other's bases particularly new players. If you dont agree to that then we can reopen negotiations as we did months ago. I have lots of pilots ready to reopen those negotiations. Here is a galactic member resolution.
We will put our ships in orbit around the troubled pilot's holdings. Should any "accident" happen that their station gets attacked then i will hold you personally responsible for it.
As of now, Meyyo's stations are under [IMG] protectorate. Violation of that will be a war. I am sure you are clear on that now.

[JamJulLison]

I suggested it to him before he actually gave us the locations cause I thought perhaps they might be in the Sol System which is covered in the GC.  They weren't but I gave him the link anyways. Though I told him it wasn't really a GC matter but it was up to him.

Your actions don't make you look so well and if you attack you will be in violation of the GC itself.  You really should reread the charter.  We helped to develop it as well and I know it well so here it is for you again. Actions you are suggesting against us are something that should be voted on by the GC itself.  It is not something for you alone to decide.  Especially after the vote we got from you guys initially was yes on the matter of these stations.  I don't want no internal GC War and I seriously doubt NHC will as well. I have contacted NHC about this matter and am waiting on their input on this.   In case you can't seem to find the charter here it is again for you to read.




1st Galactic Council Charter

As an alliance of the chosen we agree to promote the growth of our fellow Captains in all Corps that aspire to grow with honor.

As such a council of the "three" is to be formed. The Galactic Council hence forth referred to as the 'GC' will handle all complaints and disagreements between Captains when called upon.

1. All issues must be brought to the attention of the GC via the public forums by the complainant. Supporting documentation in the form of screenshots of Battle Reports and PMs must be posted so that the GC may evaluate the situation and deem a proper response.

2. The agreement of the majority shall hold the rule of law throughout the Galaxy.

3. Attacks in Sol except as authorized by terms 3, 4, or 5 are forbidden.
3.1 If someone contacts a member of the GC about a raid in progress against them, a ship may be dispatched to the reported location to investigate. If the reported ship is found in orbit, if the owner of the ship is online and if the person who's reported the incident's holdings are present, it will be engaged in combat.
3.2 Each Corp's GC representative or leader shall be authorized to appoint a Corp member to perform a single retaliatory strike after the fact upon said aggressor if it was not possible to stop the raid in progress. So long as said aggressor is NOT a member of a GC Corp. Raids where a GC Corp member is the aggressor must be brought before the GC for a vote of repercussions.

4. Players deemed "outlaws" shall be added to the GC KOS list by a majority vote of the GC. All outlaw holdings are valid targets for raiding or destruction.
4.1 Players deemed "outlaws" may petition the council after a minimum time period of one (1) month has passed for removal of said designation. Removal shall only occur upon majority vote of the GC.

5. In extreme cases of destruction or repeated (5x) rulings concerning the same aggressor the Corp that harbors the "outlaw" after fair warning (5 days) shall be deemed accessories after the fact and all raiding upon said Corp's holdings shall be fair game until such time as said Corp rectifies the situation.


6. Additions to the GC shall be considered by petition of any Corp that reaches sufficient total power and demonstrates consistent activity. Inclusion in the GC will be at the discretion of the GC. A vote will take place and the majority shall rule. The new GC member Corp must agree to all terms of GC charter.

7. The GC charter may be amended via a majority vote of GC members.
Amendments concerning attacks, raiding, or addition to the GC KOS list require a super majority (75%) to be achieved.

8. Each Corp member of the GC may appoint it's own representative to the GC. The representative may be changed via notice of said Corp's leader.

9. All corp members who are part of the GC may review GC meetings and discussions as long as they remain quiet. Discussions of GC business must be via the appointed Corp representative or Corp Leader. If a member wishes to discuss this matter they may contact their Corp Leader or representative about their thoughts privately and he or she can bring them to the table if they so choose.

10. Permission to remove an inactive player's holdings may be given via the GC.
10.1. The process is as follows. Notice is posted to the GC of the player's holdings and location simultaneously a message informing said player of the intention to remove their holdings after a five (5) day waiting period. If said player does not respond and no GC representative objects then the permission is automatically granted by the GC.

11. Members Corps of the GC may petition to claim solar objects for their sole Corp use. Sole Corp ownership is contingent upon approval of the majority of the GC.
11.1. If another player sets up holdings on or around a GC claimed solar object the owner of said holdings may contact said player giving forty eight (48) hours notice of intent to remove the holdings in question by force.

Signatures
Jam-Jul Lison,
Leader of Pirating & Mining, Inc

Sargas
PMI Commissioner of Mines

Captain Matamaure
Navy Leader, PMI

Dadds
Commander-in-Chief [IMG]

Aysle
IMG Diplomat / Military Commander

Captain Goodperson,
Leader of New Horizon Corp.

Morbius
Vice-Leader of the New Horizons Corporation

[Dadds]

@ Sargas, Aysles comment was not discussed nor sanctioned by this member of the galactic council. I am sure he was not given all the information before making a rash decision, but it was never discussed with me nor the corporation. Therefore i, as leader to the corporation to which is signed to the Galactic council, overturn Aysle's decision to sanction an attack, based on his prior insufficient information to make a ruling.... The GC cannot exist without its corp leader signing off on it.
I re-iterate. Meyyo's holdings will remain under [IMG] Protectorate until such time as i can discuss this with said pilot and Aysle. Any action against this pilot will result in my considering PMI JamJul as an outlaw.

[JamJulLison]

@ Sargas, Aysles comment was not discussed nor sanctioned by this member of the galactic council. I am sure he was not given all the information before making a rash decision, but it was never discussed with me nor the corporation. Therefore i, as leader to the corporation to which is signed to the Galactic council, overturn Aysle's decision to sanction an attack, based on his prior insufficient information to make a ruling.... The GC cannot exist without its corp leader signing off on it.
I re-iterate. Meyyo's holdings will remain under [IMG] Protectorate until such time as i can discuss this with said pilot and Aysle. Any action against this pilot will result in my considering PMI JamJul as an outlaw.

Declaration of an outlaw must be voted on by the GC. Not just you. Also it would require a voting PMI out of the GC by both you and NHC. Furthermore Aysle is your representative. He is the one that gives the vote. Not you. Yes he should have discussed it with you but that is hardly my fault if he did not.  This is why I am our representative. Though I do make a point to discuss this kind of stuff with my division leaders.

[Dadds]

I have claimed him as a protectorate new member under my ruling, "thou shalt not kill other stations" i dont care where u read or dont read that in the GC, but that was what it was designed for. Go ahead, test my resolve on this. If you touch this members holdings, we are at war. I have ships underway now and if i dont find this member there......you and i are going to some very harsh negotiating tables for killing new member holdings.