Intergalactic Summit

When the point being addressed is whether or not the involved parties are found morally wanting for reducing human lives to revenue-stream equivalents, the amount is, indeed, irrelevant.

In that situation, both parties are, of course, held to be equally contemptible.

However, when the point being addressed is the assertion that a 'sizeable[sic] fine or settlement' represents an effective way to promote change, then the amount becomes relevant, as part of determining whether or not there has, in fact, been a 'sizeable[sic] fine or settlement'.

So, while I agree with you that the amount is completely irrelevant when evaluating whether or not Quafe and the SAF are morally bankrupt in their handling of this matter, that's a separate issue from evaluating the validity of Jev's assertion.

As for the 'different standards'... I wouldn't say there are different standards, only that I had previously held the two companies in different regard. I am more disappointed in the SAF than I am in Quafe, because there is very little the Gallente soft drink giant can do that will lower my estimation of them.

Does that make sense?

It does indeed make sense.
I do have to say, without proper quoting conversation becomes more like crime link chart than a proper conversation.


Well, Quafe had a diplomatic role between Amarr/Gallente at some point and I think they are the only one from the Fed that has legal corporation status in the State. So they are quite esteemed across the cluster.

Yeah... yeah it does. Heh.



Yup. Quafe did a lot of things to get access to more markets. Such nobility. So admirable.

Don't get me wrong, I don't fault them for that... but it's not like any of it was done for any reason except fattening up the old wallet. And really, I have to admit that diplomatic relations between the cluster's two bloated, pushy, 'we want you all to do things our way' powers? Not exactly a high mark in my book.

Pointing out some contradictions for my own amusement.

For example, the contradiction inherent in your belief that killing people on unarmed ships out of hand is a particularly moral thing to do. GSF does in fact kill people on unarmed ships and you are ostensibly a Director in the organization of which they are part. If such an act truly is contra to your moral belief system, and if your position in leadership in the organization which prosecutes such potentially morally reprehensible conduct (according to yourself) then would you not use your moral agency to do something about it? Even if only to resign in protest against such contemptible behaviour.

That would at least lend some sort of credence that you actually believe what it is that you state if only to prevent any parallels being drawn between your own evaluations on the potential moral bankruptcy of the leadership of either Quafe or SAF over their handling of the killing of people on unarmed ships while you are also in the leadership of an organization that does much the same -- albeit on a far more regular basis -- which by your own professed moral standards would make you equally morally bankrupt.

Even as a dedicated logistics pilot while you may not pull the trigger on the reduction of human life in order to preserve and defend Alliance revenue streams -- such as moon mining operations or anomaly sites -- you enable those who do.

However the salient issue to me is not whatever personal blinkers you might have put on, I certainly have my own. Rather that a quick parse of this thread displays similar expressions of supposed moral outrage that make me remark to myself: My it seems a lot of these capsuleers involved in the present war economy and self-professed mercenary types have suddenly had some kind of moral epiphany regarding the loss of human life at least where commentary on current events is concerned yet seem content in continuing their present courses of action otherwise.

When asking myself, "Why could that be so?"

The answer that most readily comes to mind is: Oh that good old appeal to moral exigency for a way to try and score some agenda pushing points while shedding fallacious tears of outrage over the loss of life. Hoping of course no one notices the moral hypocrisy of those who would espouse such a stance while partaking either personally or organizationally in the loss of life.

Which really won't change the outcome of events nor the end result: The histrionic political theatre groups will find another cause célèbre to find themselves no doubt readily outraged over; maybe a few local governments in the Federation will have representatives attempt to pass token legislation of outrage which may or may not pass; Galnet conspiracy groups will speculate if it was all related to Nyx fuel melting tritanium beams; and in the State I suspect most citizens will look on it all as just the usual foreigners and those not involved being outraged over two registered companies reaching a settlement agreement in a liability case while finding little to fault in the SAF of which they are either current or former members.

You are jumping to strange conclusions deluding moral and immoral which can be only applicable to decisions affecting others, especially with that sock example. By making arguments about cost of human life you are showing the opposite of amoral behavior, if you would be amoral there would be no argument at all.

Heh, well hard to argue with that, probably even impossible. I take it "sleep-poetry" is just poetry about dreams and not an idiom of some sort?

Wow, that's actually an induviduation when ego and soul are becoming one self with all that beast/dragon fighting, just saying.

Can I just say that I find it refreshing and beautiful when someone has the patience and eloquence to outjargon a Caldari?

Except, of course, that this wasn't in or about the Quarantine Zone. This was about the border. The Federation-State border was closed to Gallente baseliner traffic entering the State. The case could be made that the eralier, more vague declaration of closure applied to all Gallente traffic leaving, as well, but as has been established, Quafe is a State corporation as well, and none of the publicly-reported closures had any bearing on State traffic.

So, iwthout consideration of the Quarantine Zone, that entire paragraph falls away.

We're then left with 'countermanding orders' vs 'killing State citizens'.

Countermanding whose orders? Again: there was no prohibition against State baseliner traffic crossing the border. Does the shape of the freighter make that much differnce? Would they have been spared if they'd been in Caldari hulls?

Is that supposed to be a moral position?

That's the moral question of 'what happened?'. Then we get into the morality of what happened next, and that can be broken up into two more phases. First: The initial cover-up of 'what happened?', and then the extended cover-up of 'how do we keep from admiting responsibility in the bublic record?'

As far as the initial cover-up goes, it clearly begins immediately with the claims of how the situation unfolded in the first place. The Customs Serivce claims that seven freighters which were not fired on prior to entering warp all began to break-up upon existing warp—a behavior never observed in any warp-capable ship, as far as we can tell.

So something that's never observed before happens not once, but seven times, all in the same place at the same time.

The freighters breaking up posed a threat to the station. Have you ever come out of warp? What speed do you come out of warp at? Exactly what threat do you suppose 0m/s debris would pose to anything?

The station is claimed to have been damaged by debris—as someone who's seen titans explode within two kilometers of a station, I can tell you: debris would not penetrate those shields.

And that's all before we get to the cover-up about resolving the situation. That's just the initial cover-up about what happened.

None of the ships' scanner logs from the Caldari Customs Service vessels corroborate the existence of debris—if they did, they'd have been entered as evidence. Instead, the only telemetry from those ships that was entered into the record was their weapons-fire.

The sensor logs from the station that supposedly sustained damage from the debris were not entered into evidence—they, too, should have corroborated the claim that the freighters were breaking up. Why weren't they presented?

Seven flight data recorders, instruments designed to survive the violent destruction of a vessel even if it's a freighter struck by a Doomsday, were all conveniently damaged in just such a way that the surviving data couldn't even be assembled into a composite record of events. Really? This is supposed to be believable?

That's the real crux of the matter when looking at the morality of the actions-after-the-fact: there is a cover-up. Repeated ones. Tell me, whens' the last time you saw someone who believed they acted morally, who believed they did the right thing, even if it came at a terrible cost, feel the need to lie about what happened?

In my experience, when someone has made what they felt was a necessary, if horrific decision, that is exactly what they will tell you: 'I didn't like doing it. I'm sorry I had to do it. But there was no other choice'. They also tend to be the ones openly saying 'let's get all of the information out there, because I did what had to be done, and I don't want to be haunted by the nagging suspicion that I could have done something differently'.

People who think they did the right thing don't try to hide what they did.

On the one hand, I fully understand and support decision on our command. Wasting time and resources on such insignificant matter is unacceptable, and while we are at the war with the Federation, we need everything to defeat this ancient enemy.

But on the other hand, I would really like to know, what gallente were trying to do and why their half-destroyed freighters were on the collision course. Learning the details of this insidious Quafe attack could be used to prevent this situation in the future and to protect Caldari citizens from gallente shenanigans and terrorism.