EoS

[JamJulLison]

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.

[sargas]

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.

[sargas]

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)!

[JoolzVern]

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.

[sargas]

that is understood, Joolz, the NAP has been dissolved.

[sargas]

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.

[JoolzVern]

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.

[sargas]

"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?

[JoolzVern]

  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.

[Dadds]

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:

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.

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.

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)

[sargas]

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.

[Matamaure001]

"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

[JoolzVern]

Dadds, you're a clear and concise communicator. I aspire to be so competent.  

Thanks for setting me straight.

[JamJulLison]

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.

[Matamaure001]

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.