Astro Galaxy - a realistic space exploration game

General Talk => Non-member Requests => Topic started by: sargas on January 01, 2014, 02:12:53 PM



Title: EoS
Post by: sargas on January 01, 2014, 02:12:53 PM
The Sargasian Empire formally requests admission to the Galactic Council.


Title: Re: EoS
Post by: JamJulLison on January 01, 2014, 02:16:18 PM
Sargas I think in order for us to consider your request you need to have more then just you in your corp. Once you have more people, like say at least 3,  I would have no problem with you joining the GC.


Title: Re: EoS
Post by: sargas on January 01, 2014, 02:28:32 PM
I understand what you are saying,  but...

A Corporation (sole) is as valid as a Corporation (multi) in international law.


Title: Re: EoS
Post by: JamJulLison on January 01, 2014, 02:37:25 PM
This is not international law though.  Raph's corp has 2 people but both Dadds and myself don't see it as a valid corp. To me a valid corp eligible for GC membership should have at least 3 people in it.  As much as I would like to go ahead and say yes,  I am sure IMG and ITO will see this the same way as I am.  Get 2 more members though and you should at least be able to count on a yes vote from PMI and ITO.  IMG I guess is a wildcard and NHC I doubt will even read this.


Title: Re: EoS
Post by: sargas on January 01, 2014, 05:48:06 PM
I understand (and will stipulate 3 active members), please keep my request open and I will contact you when this criteria is met.

I am still interested in the opinions of NHC, ITO, and IMG (in reverse alphabetical order).






(edit because - I wanted to wish all a very happy and enjoyable new year...

...besides, it's starting to become an art form...

...just think about it, 'Coming Soon, another piece of drival'...

...giggle...

... ...)


Title: Re: EoS
Post by: Dadds on January 02, 2014, 09:10:20 AM
I understand the requirements to admission into the GC is firstly to be a fairly top and powerful corp. Secondly is by action or deed. Raphael i would have serious doubts ever to be admitted, even if he was 1 member or 10 drone members, based on the erratic game play and constant attacks and criticism of the GC . The number in your corp isnt that important (though i do believe a corp does need to prove itself by growing into a multi-member entity over time) Heck, i was once a 1 member corp, for around 15minutes lol
EoS is a new corp (albeit with senior player leader, and a former senior member of a corp member of the GC. This is in your favour, in our eyes.)

However, I would like to see how EoS conducts and stabilizes into a new form of government and corporation before giving my blessing to this.
Like the birth of a star, one can never tell which form the birth will take: a slow, long burning stable system, or a turbulent, explosive and short lived one.

I vote to see how leadership (or lack of company, in a 1 person corp) molds this new corporation and its directives. so while that is not a definitive: no for me. it also is not a clear yes.
EoS is 1 day old. Other than the fact that we know you better than new borns to the game, the facts are that any 1 day old corp would get a "no not yet" vote at the very least.
The fact that you do have good connections to members of the high council will more than likely expedite your request

In an aside: The membership of the GC needs some looking at, and i would welcome many corps and individuals to sign up to its charter, but only after the voting and administrative structure of the organisation is overhauled a little, to allow for an executive council, a member council, and a fellowship of pilots perhaps. From that executive council, perhaps an acting chair person, with the task being shared between exec reps on a cyclic nature. When there are many players signing up to what we believe is fair game play and structure, those few anarchists out there cannot then claim we are trying to control the game or tell players how to play the game.



Title: Re: EoS
Post by: sargas on January 02, 2014, 11:32:46 AM
those are valid points Dadds and I thank you for you input.


Title: Re: EoS
Post by: Jazzbob on January 02, 2014, 01:36:45 PM
In my personal opinion I see no problem beside the age of your corp. But I have to discuss this topic within the ITO first.


Title: Re: EoS
Post by: JamJulLison on January 02, 2014, 03:28:40 PM
Ok now I am not even sure about letting them into the GC.  Mata just went over and joined him which he is fine. But he removed all the stuff he had made for the big corp ship.  Stuff that was made for corp use.  That means it no longer personally belonged to him. There was no understanding that it was just a loan.


Title: Re: EoS
Post by: sargas on January 02, 2014, 06:05:36 PM
I knew nothing about that.


Title: Re: EoS
Post by: JamJulLison on January 02, 2014, 06:08:29 PM
Maybe so but he is still a part of your corp and his actions reflect on your corp.  I told him if he had just let me know I would have let him have some of them back.  I would have just asked to have kept the shields.  Him leaving, his only message being on the corp board and then just siezing them back is very frusterating. As far as I could see it, it was corp property.  But as you know I can be nice and wouldn't have had an issue giving most back to him.  Just as I gave you a bunch of advanced mines and harvesters from the corp mining ships i was working on to help your new corp.


Title: Re: EoS
Post by: sargas on January 02, 2014, 10:53:26 PM
The three active member criteria has been met.

How old do I need to be?


Title: Re: EoS
Post by: sargas on January 02, 2014, 11:10:56 PM
Maybe so but he is still a part of your corp and his actions reflect on your corp.  I told him if he had just let me know I would have let him have some of them back.  I would have just asked to have kept the shields.  Him leaving, his only message being on the corp board and then just siezing them back is very frusterating. As far as I could see it, it was corp property.  But as you know I can be nice and wouldn't have had an issue giving most back to him.  Just as I gave you a bunch of advanced mines and harvesters from the corp mining ships i was working on to help your new corp.

and I purchased the surplus modules from PMI...


Title: Re: EoS
Post by: JamJulLison on January 02, 2014, 11:47:12 PM
Excuse me but you did no such thing. You left some diamonds for PMI as a farewell gift.  I gave you some stuff as a gift prior to that.  We both did good on each other there.  I don't got any issues with you Sargas.  I have an issue with Mata and what he did.  Unfortunately he is a part of your corp. There for his actions reflect back on your corp.  So I can't at this time make any decisions about this.  If a vote was to be called for now I would have to say no based on what has happened.


Title: Re: EoS
Post by: sargas on January 03, 2014, 12:13:36 AM
there is no need for a vote at this time.  Just keep me in mind.

I have fulfilled the PMI criteria.

I am now waiting for both IMG and ITO criteria regarding how old I need to be.


Title: Re: EoS
Post by: Jazzbob on January 03, 2014, 03:41:02 PM
representing the opinion of ITO I think you should acquit your corp well in january and we should vote at at the 1st february.


Title: Re: EoS
Post by: Dadds on January 03, 2014, 03:59:10 PM
really old...lol.
seriously, do you want to be part of this failing almost about to be dissolved, organisation again? lol JamJul was about to call for it to be disbanded by the 1st of Jan, until i started getting a little noisy in here again haha
Also remember, the GC are at war with SSS (Raphael) which conflicts with your policy on servicing anybody at your fuel stations.

(hey, can i now give you the "move on order" since Jupiter is claimed by PMI? lol) OK cheap shot from past argument/discussions lol

I for one would like to see EoS make some substantial stand against our sworn enemy before making a decision on entry to GC.
We dont want another fence sitter like NHC. What the GC needs is solidarity and total support by its members.





Title: Re: EoS
Post by: JamJulLison on January 03, 2014, 04:53:54 PM
PMI gave up it's claim to Jupiter. So he is free to set up there.   As for what I will vote.  Right now I would say no.  As for in feb. We shall see.  But at the moment I don't see myself changing my mind.


Title: Re: EoS
Post by: sargas on January 03, 2014, 05:42:16 PM
ok, then.

I'll wait until February.


Title: Re: EoS
Post by: JamJulLison on January 27, 2014, 03:17:06 AM
You can keep waiting forever if you want.  I was talking to Dadds it it seems mata informed him that your corp has a NAP with SSS now.  Taking that into consideration I seriously doubt you will be accepted anytime soon.  I would also think long and hard about any future association with Raph.


Title: Re: EoS
Post by: Dadds on January 27, 2014, 04:48:36 AM
While it is not a crime to have a NAP with an outlaw declared by the GC, it would be considered a conflict of interest regarding GC rulings toward outlaws.
Just as NHC are being re-assessed as members for failing to have say or action within the GC with regard to outlaws, so would your associations and stances with SSS, previous and present, be used to assess your application to enter into the GC, in my opinion.
The IMG rep has been informed of this latest treaty, and will likely make a call or official stance regarding your application soon.

Dadds, member GC, CiC [IMG]


Title: Re: EoS
Post by: sargas on January 27, 2014, 11:35:43 AM

The NAP was issued after y'all gave me the criteria for admission into the Council (while I was still in a 'corporation-sole').  It was to insure my safety before the Empire grew strong enough to defend itself.  Nothing is said in section 4 of the charter except that the 'outlaw' is placed on a KOS list.  It does not say we must attack him, only that we can (in SOL system).

If I rectify this, what else will y'all bring up to keep me out?

Oops, I see now the conflict of interest and will negate the NAP immediately.


Title: Re: EoS
Post by: JamJulLison on January 27, 2014, 04:48:43 PM

The NAP was issued after y'all gave me the criteria for admission into the Council (while I was still in a 'corporation-sole').  It was to insure my safety before the Empire grew strong enough to defend itself.  Nothing is said in section 4 of the charter except that the 'outlaw' is placed on a KOS list.  It does not say we must attack him, only that we can (in SOL system).

If I rectify this, what else will y'all bring up to keep me out?

Oops, I see now the conflict of interest and will negate the NAP immediately.

Are you even aware of what a KOS list is?  Kill on Sight.  That actually does mean GC members are to attack on sight if they think they can win.  I am glad your negating the NAP now cause it is a huge conflict of interest and even if you get rid of the NAP now, this is still likely to delay acceptance into the GC.  Simply because it will leave some of us wondering if you aren't actually working with Raph behind our backs.  I don't buy that it was to protect your corp.  Both you and Mata can handle yourselves well enough. Especially Mata.  Newer members are of no real interest to Raph and you weren't a part of the GC. You had no real reason to think he may come after you when he is more focused on us at the moment.  I am not trying to keep you out of the GC. I am just telling you how it looks from my end.  I get the feeling Dadds could possibly see it the same way. 


Title: Re: EoS
Post by: Matamaure001 on January 27, 2014, 04:58:59 PM
Big thanks for the compliments JJL, it is apreciated!

But the NAP dated before I joined the EoS.

If we where to plan in your back... lol... We would not want to be in the GC in the first place... lol

Sargas, I could not restrain myself again ;)



Title: Re: EoS
Post by: JamJulLison on January 27, 2014, 05:04:28 PM
Big thanks for the compliments JJL, it is apreciated!

But the NAP dated before I joined the EoS.

If we where to plan in your back... lol... We would not want to be in the GC in the first place... lol

Sargas, I could not restrain myself again ;)



That case it would make it look even more suspicious to Dadds after Raph had said back when Sargas was in PMI he wouldn't be attacking his Jupiter Station.  I am trying to give him the benefit of the doubt but you can see how some might find it suspicious.


Title: Re: EoS
Post by: sargas on January 27, 2014, 05:43:01 PM
so, you are going to listen to the word of a sworn enemy and not that of a friend...

As you have already stated in response to the earlier topic of why is he not going to attack me (Jupiter Station) and still attack other members of PMI, Rafe does this kinda thing to foment distrust between friends.

I feel this latest attempt at trying to control the upstart corporation, is fueled by your own paranoia and distrust.  At least that is how I am interpreting the situation.  I hope I am wrong, but that is how it looks.


Title: Re: EoS
Post by: JamJulLison on January 27, 2014, 06:06:33 PM
so, you are going to listen to the word of a sworn enemy and not that of a friend...

As you have already stated in response to the earlier topic of why is he not going to attack me (Jupiter Station) and still attack other members of PMI, Rafe does this kinda thing to foment distrust between friends.

I feel this latest attempt at trying to control the upstart corporation, is fueled by your own paranoia and distrust.  At least that is how I am interpreting the situation.  I hope I am wrong, but that is how it looks.


Your right Raph does like to cause problems between friends.  Before those were just words.  Now however you not only admitted to talking to him after forming your corp but you agreed to a NAP with him.  That right there causes suspicions to grow. Considering you had expressed interest in your new corp joining the GC even as you were splitting from us, I do find it odd and suspicious that you would agree to a NAP even though you had the intention of trying to join the GC.  I honestly am not sure what to believe right now.  But please consider how it looks from my point of view.  Then consider it from Dadds as well.  I know you better then Dadds.  I know you just want to avoid a lot of unnecessary hassle and don't always think things through completely when it comes to stuff like this.  So I can see the possibility you didn't mean anything by signing this NAP with SSS.   But it isn't so easy for Dadds to see it and it even makes me a little suspicious.  The thing with me is I have a hard time ever really trusting anyone completely.  However I have had a measure of trust in you for quite a while.  I hate questioning that trust.  But I can't dismiss possibilities either.  As leader of TGE and a member of the GC, I have to take into account the facts and circumstances. 


Title: Re: EoS
Post by: Dadds on January 28, 2014, 12:31:59 PM
Was there a corporation stance declared when EoS was formed? Did it state her NAP's that were in place on formation of the new entity? I ask because i could have missed something of that nature in the forums. I know its not a rule to state who you will or will not attack, or who you can and cannot attack, but I just seem to see a convenient NAP popping into place when it suits. A forum post not long ago was seeing Matamure challenge Raphael to single-handedly take on his entire fleet (along the similar lines to my challenge to SSS) and then suddenly a NAP pops into play which prevents this from happening? That posting was in the time-line after this NAP had been agreed to. So what gives there?
I will call it as i see it: Fence sitting at the very least. I can no longer be sure that if you were a member of the GC, and we called for assistance to remove a pest, that you would bother to show up. We could always put that in the charter oath, i suppose. We all know though that politicians have many ways to get around their sworn oaths. I am also aware there is a rat leaking information to SSS Raphael and until that person is brought to justice, we have to proceed with caution as to who we allow into the GC
I will recommend finding another fence to sit on!


Title: Re: EoS
Post by: sargas on January 28, 2014, 12:58:07 PM
Dadds, have you divulged who you have treaties (of any nature) with?  JJL, have you?  Jazzbob?...

It seems to me that since I appear to have differing opinions, I am not wanted in you 'Good Ol' Boys' club.

I have met your requirements (the age factor will be met in a few days).  And now that I am meeting them, you come up with more criteria.

Please list all your bloody requirements here where all can see exactually what is needed to join the Council.

sargas (EoS)


Title: Re: EoS
Post by: Matamaure001 on January 28, 2014, 01:25:09 PM
Dadds: you put intentions where there was none.

JJL: argueing, argueing, argueing, argueing, argueing, ..........words, words, words,......................meaningless, meaningless, meaningless

Judge on our actions, did I attacked you, did I disrupted your missions, Dadds, did I cam to support you against Ralph, did I ever attack anybody outside of declare wars...

You don't want us in the GC, say so here and now.

Friend or foe??????

You decide

Choose wisely little padawan


( yes Sargas, I am certainly not of the diplomatic type)


Title: Re: EoS
Post by: JamJulLison on January 28, 2014, 04:54:34 PM
I am looking at your actions.  Yes you never attacked any of us. However lets look at what has been done here and the order things have been done.

1. Raph said he won't attack Sargas's station in Jupiter.

2. After losing his station due to someone supposedly tipping off Raph, Dadds see's raph make his comment and becomes suspicious of Sargas.

3. After talking with Sargas, Sargas denies making any sort of deal with Raph.

4. Sargas decided to form his own corp and I helped him out with some mining modules and intended on peaceful relation. He even expressed interest in joining the GC.

5. After forming his corp Sargas not only applies to join the GC but he also signs a NAP with SSS. As to which occurred first I don't know.


Joining the GC would mean that any NAP would be made invalid.  While the GC won't say who a corp can and can not have a NAP with, a GC member should not have a NAP with a known outlaw.  Anyone planning to join the GC should understand this and shouldn't even think of joining if they are wanting to sign a NAP with an outlaw.  Sargas you should have known better then to form one if you wanted to join the GC.  This isn't a case of wanting to keep you guys out.  But under the circumstances, it makes you joining while having formed a NAP with him look highly suspicious.  Do you see the problem now?  As the leader of TGE I try to keep in touch with the other corp leaders in the GC.  I trust each one to an extent.  But if we let you in right now I would be constantly wondering if I should look over my shoulder to see if your going to stab one of us in the back or not.  It may not be from attacks. It could be from information that could lead to an outlaw hitting us.   Like I said I want to trust you, but under the circumstances I can not agree to accepting your Corp into the GC.   This has nothing to do with keeping people out of the "big boys club".  It has to do with GC Security.  I hope you can understand.


Title: Re: EoS
Post by: sargas on January 28, 2014, 10:18:27 PM
I am looking at your actions.  Yes you never attacked any of us. However lets look at what has been done here and the order things have been done.

1. Raph said he won't attack Sargas's station in Jupiter.  We already established the fact that he does this to foment distrust between friends.

2. After losing his station due to someone supposedly tipping off Raph, Dadds see's raph make his comment and becomes suspicious of Sargas.  see #3

3. After talking with Sargas, Sargas denies making any sort of deal with Raph.  and it was accepted as true

4. Sargas decided to form his own corp and I helped him out with some mining modules and intended on peaceful relation. He even expressed interest in joining the GC.  yes, our breakup was amiable, did I forget to say 'Thank You'

5. After forming his corp Sargas not only applies to join the GC but he also signs a NAP with SSS. As to which occurred first I don't know.  does it really matter with this 'chicken/egg' question? or are you just  grasping at straws?


Joining the GC would mean that any (even the ones with GC members?) NAP would be made invalid.  While the GC won't say who a corp can and can not have a NAP with, a GC member should not (not forbidden, but please don't, we might not approve)have a NAP with a known outlaw.  Anyone planning to join the GC should understand this and shouldn't even think of joining if they are wanting to sign a NAP with an outlaw.  Sargas you should have known better then to form one if you wanted to join the GC.  this seems contradictory as while you won't say who we can sign an NAP with and then, with your next (or is it the same breath) you say we cannot sign an NAP with an outlaw.  This isn't a case of wanting to keep you guys out.  But under the circumstances, it makes you joining while having formed a NAP with him look highly suspicious.  Do you see the problem now?  no, I do not, please try to explain it to me better As the leader of TGE I try to keep in touch with the other corp leaders in the GC.  I trust each one to an extent (so, your trust is conditional, to what extent are you refering?).  But if we let you in right now I would be constantly wondering if I should look over my shoulder to see if your going to stab one of us in the back or not.  and what part of my honor are you impunging now?  It may not be from attacks. It could be from information that could lead to an outlaw hitting us.  and again, why are you challenging my honor?  Didn't this b******t we just went through show you how I treat my friends (and both you and Mata are/were friends at the time, and with both of you friends, I couldn't take sides)?  what was my response when Rafe offered a bounty on my friend Gronk (it's in the forum)?   Like I said I want to trust you, but under the circumstances I can not agree to accepting your Corp into the GC.  I have found that those who cannot trust, usually cannot be trusted.   This has nothing to do with keeping people out of the "big boys club".  It has to do with GC Security.  I hope you can understand.   actually, all I am understanding is that your issues are being fueled by your paranoid jingoistic attitude

I understand your concerns, but I feel I have responded to each of them in a timely manner.

Please give me a date when these new criteria (whatever they are) have been met (and please let me know what the new criteria are.)

What do I need to do to show you that my intentions are both honorable and aboveboard.


Title: Re: EoS
Post by: sargas on January 28, 2014, 11:39:47 PM
Was there a corporation stance declared when EoS was formed? yes, there wasDid it state her NAP's that were in place on formation of the new entity (are you willing to divulge your treaties?) ? I ask because i could have missed something of that nature in the forums. do you inform the galaxy about your treaties? I know its not a rule to state who you will or will not attack, or who you can and cannot attack, but I just seem to see a convenient NAP popping into place when it suits(when it suits, what are you trying to say? are you questioning my honor? A forum post not long ago was seeing Matamure challenge Raphael to single-handedly take on his entire fleet (along the similar lines to my challenge to SSS) and then suddenly a NAP pops into play which prevents this from happening? do you really have a problem with his swapping a jingoistic corporation to one that is peaceful? That posting was in the time-line after this NAP had been agreed to. So what gives there?
I will call it as i see it: Fence sitting (defination needed)at the very least. I can no longer be sure that if you were a member of the GC, and we called for assistance to remove a pest, that you would bother to show up. what part of my honor are you challenging?We could always put that in the charter oath, i suppose (yes, we all know that the charter needs work). We all know though that politicians have many ways to get around their sworn oaths (again, this is my honor that you are impunging). I am also aware there is a rat leaking information to SSS Raphael and until that person is brought to justice (do you have proof it is me, or is this just a witch hunt), we have to proceed with caution as to who we allow into the GC
I will recommend finding another fence to sit on (would you prefer 'barbed-wire', I am not sitting on some bloody fence)!


Title: Re: EoS
Post by: JoolzVern on January 29, 2014, 02:11:20 AM
I know it's none of my business, but it seems that Sargas is missing the point here(trust etc. aside). It's a conflict of interest.

One of the main GC directives is to be in opposition to those with outlaw status.

Asking to be on the GC after doing this is like asking the police to let you be a detective when everybody knows for a fact that your best friends with the head of the local mafia and have lunch with him every day. Maybe that's a bit far is it's a NAP rather than alliance, but you get the point. You can't police guys that you agree to leave alone.

Now, I can understand signing a NAP with SSS from the standpoint of not wanting Raph to mess with your still developing corp. But you must understand that you cannot maintain or have such a NAP with an outlaw and simultaneously live up to your duties(policing outlaws) as a member of the GC .

It's one or the other.


Title: Re: EoS
Post by: sargas on January 29, 2014, 03:45:14 AM
that is understood, Joolz, the NAP has been dissolved.


Title: Re: EoS
Post by: sargas on January 29, 2014, 12:52:46 PM
I know it's none of my business, but it seems that Sargas is missing the point here(trust etc. aside). It's a conflict of interest.

One of the main GC directives is to be in opposition to those with outlaw status.  To what directive do you refer?  The only thing I see in the charter is this:
"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."

Asking to be on the GC after doing this is like asking the police to let you be a detective when everybody knows for a fact that your best friends with the head of the local mafia and have lunch with him every day. Maybe that's a bit far is it's a NAP rather than alliance, but you get the point. You can't police guys that you agree to leave alone.

Now, I can understand signing a NAP with SSS from the standpoint of not wanting Raph to mess with your still developing corp. But you must understand that you cannot maintain or have such a NAP with an outlaw and simultaneously live up to your duties(policing outlaws) as a member of the GC .

It's one or the other.


Title: Re: EoS
Post by: JoolzVern on January 29, 2014, 07:21:01 PM
I guess you missed this part:

"3. Attacks in Sol except as authorized by terms 3, 4, or 5 are forbidden."
"3.1 ...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..."

As I understand it, this is one of the main reasons for forming the GC- to police SOL and as you noted, to target "outlaw holdings" for raiding or destruction to ensure the game is fun for those of us that aren't pirates. This language and partly the spirit of the GC charter is as far as I can ascertain, intended to be that of "peace-keepers". It may not be mandatory to hunt outlaws, but if GC members sign NAPs with outlaws it defeats the purpose of the language "forbidding" Sol raids etc.

Of course, that is all sort of a separate issue from the trust issue which Jam and Dadds express as a result of it all. The fact is, doing this has possibly damaged your reputation to the point that those on the council will not let you in any time soon for fear that you are at best on the fence, and at worst "in bed" with outlaws.

Note:
I have no horse in this race, so I'm not taking sides so much as sharing my view of the situation. If I had GC rep status I can't say as I would vote you in just yet because of all this. That said I'm not quite as suspicious of you as the others, but I might be if I was in Jam's shoes and it was my corp you left and then signed a NAP with Raph.


Title: Re: EoS
Post by: sargas on January 29, 2014, 10:34:43 PM
"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."

what does this have to do with outlaws?


Title: Re: EoS
Post by: JoolzVern on January 29, 2014, 10:43:35 PM
 :21: Ahem...EVERYTHING.

Forbidden = outlawed, prohibited

Dispatching a ship to "engage in combat" with those conducting prohibited raids, and conducting retaliatory strikes(punishment)= opposing/policing outlaws, regardless of if they are given offficial outlaw status (repeat offenders).

Siding with, or agreeing to not oppose an outlaw is a direct contradiction to agreeing to follow this part  of the charter as I read it. But I'm not a GC representative so if I'm wrong about that then I fully expect and accept Dadds or some other GC rep straightening me out on that.


Title: Re: EoS
Post by: Dadds on January 30, 2014, 07:17:25 AM
yeah OK. Lets put this all into perspective a little. We drift a bit.
Sargas is correct in a way to ask what has directive 3 and its subordinate rules isnt to do with dealing with "outlaws" as such. The definition of "outlaw" in GC terms is a player, or players, found to be considered not in the best interest of other players by their actions or devices toward others. You can be a target of a GC attack without being a declared outlaw and article 3 deals with the procedure to allow GC members to police inside of the Sol system (which has been banned otherwise, by the previous 2 articles)
There is no actual rulings insisting that all GC members will actively seek and/or destroy them or report their presence to other GC members. This sort of action is implied, inferred or naturally assumed to happen to further the cause of the GC and to display solidarity and cooperation within the alliance.
The GC charter was set down as a self-policing alliance of the top corps, who before its implementation, could raze and ruin all smaller players and rampage as they see fit without any checks and balances. The GC Charter and its articles was created as an agreed upon set of rules and values to be as unambiguous as it could be to form judgement on oneself and peers. When it was formed there was a lot less power in the universe, a lot less active growing corps and needed to be simple. It wasnt designed to appoint ourselves as sol police against whoever we decided annoyed us, but by its extension allowed some of us to help enforce some of our own restrictions on others who persisted to hinder the development and interest of new pilots to the game. It probably needs a revisit to develop its directive as the galaxy and pilots grow in numbers and power.
That is all i will say about the GC charter in its current form. 
The real issue is this:
Raphael has constantly vowed to bring low the GC for his own reasons. I wont go into his reasons here.
One of the ways he attempts this is to pull apart its fellow members and corporation leaders. He does this by offering those part of the GC to be left alone, or even granted a NAP, so long as they dont have an opinion or say in the Galactic Council with regards to his status, ie "fence sittiing". (And sorry Sargas, for all the fancy words you love to quote, if you need me to define that meaning any further than what it has always clearly stood for as an analogy, then i think you are just trying to pick a war of words with me)
He has openly informed everyone that NHC are left alone since they play no part in the GC......and now NHC have been removed, mostly for this reason.
EoS ask for entrance into the GC. It then goes on to NAP with a GC outlaw while their petition is under review.... I wont even bring into the history of Sargas-Raphael dealings prior to the application.
You ask for "tasks" or "conditions" to comply to to become a member? This isnt a Sorority where you get to be tar and feathered, cop a few spanks and go on a girl panty raid, and then you are in. It is by deed an action. I or we are not going to tell you what deed or action means in the specific context of current events. You dont become a hero by following a set of tasks assigned and a waiting period.
EoS has had several chances to prove themselves as wanting to be part of the GC, by act or deed.
1. The first thing they do after applying is NAP with its sworn enemy.
2. When offered or asked to come and assist in dealing with this enemy by a senior member of the GC, it was refused stating that NAP as reasoning.
3. When we bring these very concerning issues up with EoS, we are then subjected to the next very disturbing outcry's and i quote:
Quote
Dadds: you put intentions where there was none.

JJL: argueing, argueing, argueing, argueing, argueing, ..........words, words, words,......................meaningless, meaningless, meaningless

Judge on our actions, did I attacked you, did I disrupted your missions, Dadds, did I cam to support you against Ralph, did I ever attack anybody outside of declare wars...

You don't want us in the GC, say so here and now.

Friend or foe??????

You decide

Choose wisely little padawan
a. First part directed at me, "intentions where there were none" Not sure what this means, but not the real issue.
b. Judge on our actions......OK yes lets judge on that. Particularly recent turns of events.
Quote
Dadds, did I cam to support you against Ralph,
Answer: No you didnt. I pointed out a Raphael major ship and offered this position up to you to help support "our" actions vs Raphael. It was then i was presented with the information of a NAP. The enemy escaped from our justice in this instance because not enough pressure was brought to bear against him.
Sargas, i keep going back to your many worded and winded counter-statements you have posted against my comments in this thread, in particular with you questioning me because i havent declared all my NAP's. Well, for one, i have declared all my NAP's, treaties and otherwise with the community. Its in my stance. (Mostly peaceful etc etc. go read it i dont need to quote it here). However, you form a NAP with a sworn enemy of the GC, the very organisation you  wish to become a member of; and you dont think that was of much importance to mention to us? LOL Seriously!!!???!!!

Then we get to the very crux of this 3rd point:
c.
Quote
You don't want us in the GC, say so here and now.

Friend or foe??????

You decide

Choose wisely little padawan
Now here sounds like a threat to me plain and simple. Some may call it a veiled threat. It looks like Matamure's version of an application form is with a loaded gun. Raphael also tried this line of logic with obtaining a NAP from the leader of former corp [PMI]. Sign a NAP or suffer the consequences.....
You guys all know me well enough by now, NEVER have i bowed down to "I am bigger and tougher so do as i say" scenario
Contrary to popular belief by EoS, I welcome "big boys" to become part of "the big boys club". It was why it was frikkin' introduced in the first place sheeeeshhhh!
I will always block those "big boys" entry who think they can bully their way into our alliance, or think all they have to do is perform some tactless or arbitrary tasks to be rated as a valuable member and contributor to this organisation.
In summation as I stated earlier, you will be judged by your actions. So far all i have seen is a personal attack on my opinions and efforts regarding Raphael, failure to show any interest or help in any of the GC's enemies, particularly SSS who you would rather NAP with, and then a threat to choose friend or foe.
@Sargas: and then the NAP is torn up again? You guys are signing and disposing of treaties as if it was toilet paper, slightly soiled. What are we now to believe? Is it a NAP, is it not a NAP. Secret deals? You constantly say i am attacking your honor? You do your honor that disservice by your actions and wavering alliances. How do we know the GC treaty wont be torn up as soon as you sign it. All this is just too erratic a behavior for me to sign off on in your application.
It is not my call however, my appointed rep will review and submit his thoughts to me, as will all my corp. Its the reason i chose not to be the rep in the council, because i already hold much power and decision, and my personal conflicts could cloud my better judgement.
(And you know what? I was probably one of your biggest supporters up until recent events unfolded)


Title: Re: EoS
Post by: sargas on January 30, 2014, 08:12:48 AM
I understand Dadds, I admit hte NAP was not thought out (but, truthfully, the NAP was in place before the application and not the other way around).

May I ask who you are quoting?  Those are not my words and it looks as if you are trying to put them in my mouth.


Title: Re: EoS
Post by: Matamaure001 on January 30, 2014, 09:49:39 AM
"You don't want us in the GC, say so here and now.

Friend or foe??????

You decide

Choose wisely little padawan"

Let me tell you Dadds what was going in my mind at the time I wrote this in the form of a list of questions:

Do I found the procedings to become a member of the GC humiliating                 TRUE
Do I found the procedings to become a member of the GC irritating                     TRUE
Do I found that we were treated as slave not equal                                                TRUE
Do I wanted to force an answer from you and JJL                                                 TRUE
DO I used the star wars padawan for humor                                                      TRUE
DO I used humor to diminish the severity of the words                                        TRUE
Do I intended this as a threat                                                                           FALSE
Do I intend to bash you all on site                                                                     FALSE
It was the words of a very frustrated Captain                                                    TRUE


"Dadds, did I cam to support you against Ralph"

The event I refer to is when I was a member of PMI and you were facing a 9 millions ship from Ralph. When I arrived at the site I PM you to propose to you to remove the ship instantly. You told me everything was OK and I left.

The event you mention I see it as a trap to get me at fault. I fell into the trap. I did not expect a trap from a friend. And now everyone make it a big deal lol




Title: Re: EoS
Post by: JoolzVern on January 30, 2014, 02:21:40 PM
Dadds, you're a clear and concise communicator. I aspire to be so competent.  :6:

Thanks for setting me straight.


Title: Re: EoS
Post by: JamJulLison on January 30, 2014, 05:04:32 PM
Not thought out is an understatement.  Sargas you told me when you were getting ready to go form your corp that you wanted to join the GC.  So you had intentions of joining when you formed your Corp. Yet the first thing you do just before applying is sign a NAP with SSS.  Heck this makes me wonder if you didn't have some sort of deal with him before you left us.  How can we be sure that your NAP with him has even really ended?  I don't mean to insult you, but you must understand how it all looks from our end.


Mata I am sorry you feel this way, but it isn't our fault this isn't going smoothly.  Here are the roadblocks you guys are facing. Not all is our fault. Also keep in mind when he formed his corp I intended on supporting EoS joining.

1. We required him to grow a little larger and wait a month. Which he did.
2. A member of his corp when leaving PMI without notice, stole modules.  This situation is of course being handled already.
3. News reaches us from Mata himself that EoS has a NAP with SSS.
4. When confronted about this, EoS leadership suddenly gets real defensive and try to act like we are the bad guys.

You have to try to see how it looks to us.  Mata I was your friend before the theft, I still want to be Sargas's friend, but I can't ignore what is in front of me. It is hard not to be suspicious.  Considering how suspicious I am right now, then you can only imagine just how paranoid Dadds is right now.  ITO even has it's suspicions and they are the most removed from this situation. We aren't trying to keep you out cause we want it it to be a big boys club.  If it wasn't for the last 3 things there on the list you would be in by now. Hell even with number 2 there you likely would be in already.


Title: Re: EoS
Post by: Matamaure001 on January 30, 2014, 05:38:52 PM
I can confirm that the NAP with Ralph was cancelled exactly when Sargas told you so and we don't have any dealing with him. Our corp hate pirates and thinking of banning piracy, period.


Title: Re: EoS
Post by: sargas on January 30, 2014, 06:39:55 PM
piracy is now banned in EoS.  I would have done it earlier but I felt our citizens were anti-pirate anyway and would't need a ban.  But since y'all are needing to see it in print...


Title: Re: EoS
Post by: sargas on January 30, 2014, 06:54:25 PM
JJ, how long was I a member of PMI?  The only time frame I can find is Dec 13, 2012 at 3:44am, the date of posting my first lesson (please do not confuse this with the little lessons you like to give) in mining.  And that was when Kerbos was still the Miining Leader.

In all that time, did I ever do anything that made you question my honor?


Title: Re: EoS
Post by: JamJulLison on January 30, 2014, 10:51:48 PM
In all that time you didn't Sargas. That is what makes it hard for me now. Thinking back though there were signs that should have made me suspicious sooner but since your my friend I ignored them.  Such as when you were against adding Raph to the Outlaw.  Then you coming to his aid on the forums on the matter of his bug abuse. Add in him saying he wouldn't attack your Jupiter station. Then now the NAP with him. All this is enough to make anyone suspicious of you at the very least being a Raph supporter.  I want to trust you because you are my friend. But currently with how things are I have to say no to accepting you into the GC at this time. It is nothing personal. I am sorry if you feel I am insulting your honor. For now though I think it is best that we just wait and see how things turn out. You can always try to apply again at future date.


Oh and Mata, your word on it being ended isn't really enough to convince me. You lost what trust I had in you when you decided to steal from our corp.


Title: Re: EoS
Post by: sargas on January 31, 2014, 01:17:05 AM
I understand your vote JJ,  let's meet out there for lunch sometime.


Title: Re: EoS
Post by: sargas on February 05, 2014, 12:31:40 AM
Let us look at where we are now...

Application submitted and acknowledged -  yes

Criteria:

1. (imposed by PMI) - 3 (three) members (stipulated by sargas to mean 'active' members) - yes
2. (imposed by both IMG and ITO) - 1 (one) month of age  - yes
3. (imposed by the council at whole) - dissolve NAP with SSS - yes

I am calling for a vote now.


Title: Re: EoS
Post by: JamJulLison on February 05, 2014, 12:34:01 AM
fine with all that has happened, I vote no.  I don't think at this time you should be accepted. There is just too much suspicious stuff that has gone on for me to be sure about letting you in just yet.  Would the other two like to go ahead and vote?


Title: Re: EoS
Post by: Dadds on February 06, 2014, 05:48:50 AM
To clarify points 2 and 3.
2. IMG NEVER imposed a time frame to be a member before being considered, being 1 month. My comment was that you need to be a corp for more than a day and show that you are developing into a reliable corporation for the GC, to be considered. If that takes 1 week, 1 month, or 1 year, so be it.
3. IMG never insisted on dissolution of a NAP. It was never presented in a unified call for a vote with the GC to allow or deny access to a member based in its NAP and so was not IMPOSED (remember, we are a self regulating org, we dont impose our rules or standards on others. We just hope others will follow in our footsteps). We merely pointed out that your particular NAP was at a conflict of interest with the GC resolve. This conflict you would have been well aware of since being a former member of a GC corp, it was widely known that SSS and in particular Raphael was labelled an outlaw and had a KoS placed on him. And yet you went ahead and opened up dialog with his corporation anyway knowing that it would look highly suspicious at the very least as to your nature toward him and his enemies.
Based on the recent activities witnessed by this office and in particular reviewing actions of credability and stability with regard to items 2 and 3 of the mandate Sargas believes he has qualified for, my advice to Aysle would be to vote to deny at this time entry into the GC for the corporation EOS


Title: Re: EoS
Post by: sargas on February 07, 2014, 04:16:02 PM
that's one negative vote, waiting on ITO and IMG.


Title: Re: EoS
Post by: sargas on February 11, 2014, 03:50:11 PM
 :coffee1:

still waiting...


Title: Re: EoS
Post by: JamJulLison on February 12, 2014, 02:54:54 AM
We are still waiting on ITO's new leader to get his forum powers.  I PMed siremi about it but sometimes it can take a while.  He is welcome to go ahead and vote though.


Title: Re: EoS
Post by: sargas on February 19, 2014, 12:25:17 AM
 :fishing1:

still waiting...


Title: Re: EoS
Post by: sargas on February 25, 2014, 09:42:06 PM
still waiting...


(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v192/sargas37/imagesCAKAI4P7.jpg)


Title: Re: EoS
Post by: FreezeLove on February 25, 2014, 10:43:05 PM
Feel for you Sargas. :confused:


Title: Re: EoS
Post by: sargas on March 01, 2014, 01:51:11 AM
The Sargasian Empire formally requests admission to the Galactic Council.

well, it has been two months...

I see a vote of NO from TGE,

There is a NON-VOTING opinion from the leader of IMG, but the voting rep has been absent for over 19 days (leading me to beieve that the voting element of IMG doesn't care one way or the other).

ITO seems to be following their perceived 'don't care enough to vote' status...

Therefore, this application is being considered by me to be 'on hold'...

Thank you for your consideration and please let me know when and if this vote is ever concluded (so that I may close my books).

this topic is now closed (even if I cannot lock one of my...)


Title: Re: EoS
Post by: Dadds on March 01, 2014, 01:52:22 AM
In absence of my rep, IMG (thought we already settled this) votes "no"


Title: Re: EoS
Post by: sargas on March 01, 2014, 02:03:50 AM
In absence of my rep, IMG (thought we already settled this) votes "no"

As often as you have said   "his vote has no meaning unless I agree, but it is his vote"...

Your last statement on this topic said:  "my advice to Aysle would be to vote to deny at this time entry into the GC for the corporation EOS"

That was not a vote, just another attempt to slow action on a topic.  If you have the vote, then vote!  Do not delay a vote because your 'pet' is not available.  Is that not the major reason that NHC was excommunicated?


Title: Re: EoS
Post by: sargas on March 01, 2014, 02:09:45 AM
We are still waiting on ITO's new leader to get his forum powers.  I PMed siremi about it but sometimes it can take a while.  He is welcome to go ahead and vote though.

and how long did it take for him to erase my membership after you asked it?


Title: Re: EoS
Post by: JamJulLison on March 01, 2014, 02:30:33 AM
We are still waiting on ITO's new leader to get his forum powers.  I PMed siremi about it but sometimes it can take a while.  He is welcome to go ahead and vote though.

and how long did it take for him to erase my membership after you asked it?


I never asked him to remove your membership.  I asked him to just get rid of your GC powers.  He screwed up.  It took a few days.   I have PMed SirEmi twice about this now and haven't seen any reply.  If  JoolzVern aka TheCommander want's to go ahead and vote here he may.  I hate waiting around on SirEmi. This is taking too long.  I wish he could just give one of us the power to do this.


Title: Re: EoS
Post by: sargas on March 01, 2014, 03:54:47 AM
...whatever...

What were your exact words when you asked him to remove me from the GC stuff?

Were you specific or were you just saying 'erase him'?



Title: Re: EoS
Post by: Dadds on March 06, 2014, 01:31:44 PM
off topic here for certain. erase sounds like a good enough wording. You are becoming argumentative Sargas. You wanted a vote. I gave you a vote. You want to conduct another vote? i will start out with a "NO" to any and all petitions that EoS brings to this forum.
Quote
That was not a vote, just another attempt to slow action on a topic.  If you have the vote, then vote!  Do not delay a vote because your 'pet' is not available.  Is that not the major reason that NHC was excommunicated?
And on that note:
When Aysle decides to return to the arena, I would recommend you probably go hide someplace for the rest of existence. He isnt as tolerant as i am to an insult.
By the way, your best friend forever, Raphael, is getting his backside spanked by my fleet on a regular basis now. I suspect you already know that though, since you are bed partners.
In future, dont come into OUR forums shaking your fist with accusations, insult and demands, or next time i will BREAK OFF THAT FIST and anything of value attached to it

Dadds <OUT>


Title: Re: EoS
Post by: raphael on March 06, 2014, 07:20:45 PM
Won't make a big difference if Aylse comes back. Just more possible victims for me. LOL

As for the ship vs ship battles, it just shows how desperate you are to score a meaningless victory. You spend hundreds of QPs to disrupt my com missions, but in the end, you are incurring a bigger financial loss than I ever will. I could have done the same and attack your com ships but I'm not as foolish. You might as well point your BB gun at your face and pull the trigger.Haha!

I'm not as desperate as you because I'm content with the fact that I destroyed your two stations and caused many hundreds of millions of solars in damage--at minimum expense on my end, might add. :))





Title: Re: EoS
Post by: sargas on March 06, 2014, 08:29:43 PM
In absence of my rep, IMG (thought we already settled this) votes "no"

As often as you have said   "his vote has no meaning unless I agree, but it is his vote"...

Your last statement on this topic said:  "my advice to Aysle would be to vote to deny at this time entry into the GC for the corporation EOS"

That was not a vote, just another attempt to slow action on a topic.  If you have the vote, then vote!  Do not delay a vote because your 'pet' is not available.  Is that not the major reason that NHC was excommunicated?


If this offended you, I apologize.  It's just when you write "my voting advice to..." I read a slowdown on procedure.

off topic here for certain. erase sounds like a good enough wording. You are becoming argumentative Sargas. You wanted a vote. I gave you a vote. You want to conduct another vote? i will start out with a "NO" to any and all petitions that EoS brings to this forum.
Quote
That was not a vote, just another attempt to slow action on a topic.  If you have the vote, then vote!  Do not delay a vote because your 'pet' is not available.  Is that not the major reason that NHC was excommunicated?
And on that note:
When Aysle decides to return to the arena, I would recommend you probably go hide someplace for the rest of existence. He isnt as tolerant as i am to an insult.
By the way, your best friend forever, Raphael, is getting his backside spanked by my fleet on a regular basis now. I suspect you already know that though, since you are bed partners.
In future, dont come into OUR forums shaking your fist with accusations, insult and demands, or next time i will BREAK OFF THAT FIST and anything of value attached to it

Dadds <OUT>

My opinion is that the IMG voting representative's  active participation in the game need not be considered 'an insult' to you.  
And as such, please keep your veiled threats to yourself.  
If Aysle feels insulted by this, let him contact me about it.  Not you!  I will gladly speak to him regarding any situations regarding the two of us.  
The only thing of value I hold in 'my Fist' is your honor.
 

 ...and if I still had my original powers, I would have closed this bloody topic after the two negative votes...

THIS TOPIC IS CLOSED, and I request all to honor the closing by no longer responding to it.

thank you


Title: Re: EoS
Post by: JamJulLison on March 07, 2014, 02:26:26 AM
...whatever...

What were your exact words when you asked him to remove me from the GC stuff?

Were you specific or were you just saying 'erase him'?




I know this is locked but I need to comment on this.  I can't remember my exact words and I can't find it in my outbox. But I do recall asking him to only remove your GC powers.  I never asked him to remove your account.  That was a screw up on his end and I don't appreciate you trying to accuse me of purposely having him erase your forum account.  I would never do such a thing.


Title: Re: EoS
Post by: sargas on March 08, 2014, 01:34:27 PM
I believe you, JJ.

let us move on...