These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Intergalactic Summit

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Quafe Convoy Destroyed By Caldari Forces On Caldari-Gallente Border

Author
Arrendis
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#461 - 2017-05-26 18:09:18 UTC
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?
Veikitamo Gesakaarin
Black Advent
#462 - 2017-05-26 18:32:08 UTC
Arrendis wrote:
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.


Respondent is a capsuleer speaking about the morality of reducing human life to revenue streams.

Thinking.

It's like someone who is involved either first hand or third party with reducing human life to revenue streams is suddenly outraged by this fact occurring elsewhere in their own view. But logically, if they view this as contemptible in this case then they are contemptible in their own case.

Hmm.

Kurilaivonen|Concern

Ashlar Vellum
Esquire Armaments
Jayai Syndicate
#463 - 2017-05-26 18:52:48 UTC
Arrendis wrote:
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.

...

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.

Arrendis wrote:
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.

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.
Arrendis
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#464 - 2017-05-26 20:31:08 UTC
Veikitamo Gesakaarin wrote:
Respondent is a capsuleer speaking about the morality of reducing human life to revenue streams.

Thinking.

It's like someone who is involved either first hand or third party with reducing human life to revenue streams is suddenly outraged by this fact occurring elsewhere in their own view. But logically, if they view this as contemptible in this case then they are contemptible in their own case.

Hmm.


BREAKING NEWS: DEDICATED LOGISTICS PILOT DOESN'T THINK KILLING PEOPLE ON UNARMED SHIPS OUT OF HAND IS A PARTICULARLY MORAL THING TO DO!!!

I'm sorry, what was that you were saying again?
Arrendis
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#465 - 2017-05-26 20:36:48 UTC
Ashlar Vellum wrote:

I do have to say, without proper quoting conversation becomes more like crime link chart than a proper conversation.


Yeah... yeah it does. Heh.

Quote:

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.


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.
James Syagrius
Reclamation
#466 - 2017-05-27 02:16:59 UTC  |  Edited by: James Syagrius
James Syagrius wrote:
Tyrel Toov wrote:
James Syagrius wrote:
James Syagrius wrote:
Tyrel Toov wrote:
Considering the crew were all Caldari, whose to say they haven't already been informed and the matter settled internally? This was a matter of Caldari shooting Caldari. Quafe just supplied the ships that got destroyed.
Actually it's not and I think you know better.
Personally, I think we all know what this was, and in time will know the truth of it.
Until we do, fear not. I will remind you regularly.
Your weekly reminder, as promised.
While I guess, I should feel honored that you find it worth your time to do this for me, but consider your reminder duly noted and disregarded.
Mr. Toov.
I will forgo my promised weekly reminder as we have since our last conversation received additional information.
But never fear, I won’t forget, let’s say, in a month if additional clarification isn’t forthcoming.
Well… I didn’t need to issue my promised monthly update to Mr. Toov, which was due on the 30th.

But can any of us truly say we were surprised?

The Caldari in the State, have their… honor.

While admittedly biased, I can think of no better exemplification of such in practical demonstration.
Veikitamo Gesakaarin
Black Advent
#467 - 2017-05-27 14:18:56 UTC
Arrendis wrote:
Veikitamo Gesakaarin wrote:
Respondent is a capsuleer speaking about the morality of reducing human life to revenue streams.

Thinking.

It's like someone who is involved either first hand or third party with reducing human life to revenue streams is suddenly outraged by this fact occurring elsewhere in their own view. But logically, if they view this as contemptible in this case then they are contemptible in their own case.

Hmm.


BREAKING NEWS: DEDICATED LOGISTICS PILOT DOESN'T THINK KILLING PEOPLE ON UNARMED SHIPS OUT OF HAND IS A PARTICULARLY MORAL THING TO DO!!!

I'm sorry, what was that you were saying again?


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.

Kurilaivonen|Concern

Arrendis
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#468 - 2017-05-27 16:29:58 UTC
Veikitamo Gesakaarin wrote:

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.


Ah, but you're leaving off one of the key bits there, aren't you? Killing people on unarmed ships out of hand. Miniluv doesn't do that. Miniluv targets capsuleer vessels only, and as we've established many, many times here on the IGS, all capsuleer trade feeds into the permanent warfare economy.

If it's not ours, then as far as we know, it belongs to someone who does, has, or likely will want to shoot at us.

Now, if you want to say that's a pretty flimsy fig leaf to hide behind, I won't necessarily say you're wrong. However, it also happens to be true. As I've said to Aria, quite publicly: we all deserve a bullet to the brain. Nor have I ever denied being an enabler of death and destruction. As I've said: I'm a Logistics pilot. I keep people from blowing up so they can keep making people blow up.

Miniluv does not, however, execute freighters belonging to the Imperium or loosely-allied organizations. That would be wrong. That would be like... I don't know... blowing up a convoy of freighters full of our own citizens.

However, and I think this may be an epiphany for you: Morality's a funny thing. Truth is binary, for example. Something's either true, or it's not. If it's partly true, then parts of it are, and parts of it ain't, and you can identify what's what.

Morality, on the other hand, has a whole 'nother setting.

There's 'Moral', or course... and there's 'immoral', and those are the two settings people seem to love to get hung up on...

... but then there's also amoral: actions which aren't inherently moral, and they're not inherently immoral. As an example: choosing which socks to wear? Not a moral decision. Picking one set of socks over another is an amoral decision.

Killing people on unarmed ships out of hand—ie: just for the giggles—is definitely not a moral thing to do. Killing people, in fact, is not a 'moral' thing to do. It can be a necessary action to avoid the immoral act of letting someone murder helpless innocents, but while stopping the murder is moral, the act of killing isn't. That doesn't mean it's not the right thing to do, if it's the only real option you've got.... but that's why phrases like 'the best of a lot of bad choices' exist.

Now, I don't know about you, but I'm pretty ok with being a basically amoral person. Not immoral, mind you, I leave that to jerkwads like Napkins. But amoral? Yeah, I'm ok with amorality. And like I said: I expect no less than amorality from Quafe. Caldari Customs, on the other hand, is mandated on public service. They exist to protect State citizens. They are called on to be moral.

And that's why I'm disappointed in them.

It's not 'omg, you did something I wouldn't do!' it's 'hey, jerkoffs, aren't you supposed to be the good guys? Aren't you supposed to be better than bastards like us?'

I mean, if the 'protect and serve' crowd is going to start acting worse than the freakin' Ministry of Love... damn. Some folks are gonna have to start glassing planets just to keep from getting a positive security status.
Ashlar Vellum
Esquire Armaments
Jayai Syndicate
#469 - 2017-05-27 18:27:18 UTC
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.
Arrendis
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#470 - 2017-05-27 19:04:07 UTC
Ashlar Vellum wrote:
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.


I've never claimed to be perfect Big smile

Nor, if you've ever heard my sleep-poetry, particularly sane.
Ashlar Vellum
Esquire Armaments
Jayai Syndicate
#471 - 2017-05-27 20:03:09 UTC
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?
Arrendis
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#472 - 2017-05-27 20:14:16 UTC
Actually, it's a reference to what looks to have been an open comm-feed while in low-power regenerative mode after 3 days in the pod. In effect, I was cat-napping, and the pod transmitted brain-activity to an IGS-related channel.

And since I'm not going to submit it to the writing contest:

My Damaged Brain wrote:

Darkness surrounds everything.
Silence drowns out the stars.
There is no warmth, no cold.
To be cold, something must exist

A million million suns
cannot provide the day.
Unending night
cannot bring sleep.
Time ceases to be
when now is all, all is now.
Burning. Burning forever. Death lights the way.

The great beasts
herald the end.
Gods and monsters
shall follow the storm.

The heavens split
with the sounding of the gjallarhorn
the dragon endures
and all is whiteness

fire unending
white hot white cold
cold stone
what is lost is nothing
what remains, begins again
the dragon dies, the dragon endures
defeat from victory
and nothing changes


Not what I'd call 'structured verse', but... eh.
Ashlar Vellum
Esquire Armaments
Jayai Syndicate
#473 - 2017-05-27 21:08:16 UTC
Wow, that's actually an induviduation when ego and soul are becoming one self with all that beast/dragon fighting, just saying.
Big smile
Arrendis
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#474 - 2017-05-27 21:21:16 UTC
Actually, it's semi-conscious REM-sleep imagery from B-R5RB. 'The Dragon' is Sort Dragon. The 'whiteness' is 800km of anchored bubbles we were in the center of, the Gjallarhorn is, well, Doomsdays (the Ragnarok's standard DD is, in fact, a 'gjallarhorn'), and so on.
Teinyhr
Ourumur
#475 - 2017-05-27 22:01:24 UTC
Can I just say that I find it refreshing and beautiful when someone has the patience and eloquence to outjargon a Caldari?
Veikitamo Gesakaarin
Black Advent
#476 - 2017-05-30 15:30:16 UTC  |  Edited by: Veikitamo Gesakaarin
Arrendis wrote:


However, and I think this may be an epiphany for you: Morality's a funny thing. Truth is binary, for example. Something's either true, or it's not. If it's partly true, then parts of it are, and parts of it ain't, and you can identify what's what.

Morality, on the other hand, has a whole 'nother setting.

There's 'Moral', or course... and there's 'immoral', and those are the two settings people seem to love to get hung up on...

... but then there's also amoral: actions which aren't inherently moral, and they're not inherently immoral. As an example: choosing which socks to wear? Not a moral decision. Picking one set of socks over another is an amoral decision.

Killing people on unarmed ships out of hand—ie: just for the giggles—is definitely not a moral thing to do. Killing people, in fact, is not a 'moral' thing to do. It can be a necessary action to avoid the immoral act of letting someone murder helpless innocents, but while stopping the murder is moral, the act of killing isn't. That doesn't mean it's not the right thing to do, if it's the only real option you've got.... but that's why phrases like 'the best of a lot of bad choices' exist.

Now, I don't know about you, but I'm pretty ok with being a basically amoral person. Not immoral, mind you, I leave that to jerkwads like Napkins. But amoral? Yeah, I'm ok with amorality. And like I said: I expect no less than amorality from Quafe. Caldari Customs, on the other hand, is mandated on public service. They exist to protect State citizens. They are called on to be moral.


Thank you Arrendis.

I might apologize for some degree of being disingenuous in my statements -- I was curious. Over the years many have professed moral outrage over one thing or another but when pressed they tend to get rather emotive when required to qualify their moral basis at least to some degree. That, and mostly declare me a sophist. I simply think it fair, that if one brings morality into a discussion then one should at least define their moral basis, particularly when it is they themselves who bring it up.

No, morality is not binary, but neither is it an absolute -- at least unless you're an Amarrian whose morality derived from their faith demands that it be applied to all of humanity -- because the first principles chosen to construct a moral system are on the whole purely arbitrary to me. I might be able to say the moral system of the Amarr is on the whole internally consistent and axiomatic, but since it is derived from the first principles of there being a God from their religion, and I, for my own reasons do not agree with those principles then I equally do not abide by everything else that may follow morally.

The morality of the officers involved in this incident is equally wholly arbitrary, but being Caldari, I can at least understand to some degree the morality from their perspective. What is to be considered moral to a Caldari citizen is the welfare of the whole and the community which at its highest level finds its embodiment in the State and which is to be considered the highest moral authority. The SMA and its orders carry moral weight because they carry with it the authority of the people and the State. If one prescribes to the moral authority of the State then not carrying out State orders is an immoral act. As such the situation involves a moral contradiction that had to be resolved:

a) Commit the immoral decision of countermanding orders derived from a State authority in the maintenance of the quarantine zone without due cause.
b) Commit the immoral decision of killing State citizens.

Additionally, since the quarantine zone was established to prevent the transmission of a virus with the potential to kill millions if not billions then a violation of that zone represents a significant future threat. As such, in my mind, the moral requirements to prevent future significant loss of life and follow the orders of the State justified the immorality of killing State citizens in this instance.

While some might see kind of cover-up in how the situation might have been resolved, and that's a legitimate perspective to have, I still believe in the moral capability of the SMA and its officers and if any transgressions are to be found then they will surely find it.

Kurilaivonen|Concern

Arrendis
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#477 - 2017-05-30 16:21:15 UTC  |  Edited by: Arrendis
Veikitamo Gesakaarin wrote:

a) Commit the immoral decision of countermanding orders derived from a State authority in the maintenance of the quarantine zone without due cause.
b) Commit the immoral decision of killing State citizens.

Additionally, since the quarantine zone was established to prevent the transmission of a virus with the potential to kill millions if not billions then a violation of that zone represents a significant future threat. As such, in my mind, the moral requirements to prevent future significant loss of life and follow the orders of the State justified the immorality of killing State citizens in this instance.

While some might see kind of cover-up in how the situation might have been resolved, and that's a legitimate perspective to have, I still believe in the moral capability of the SMA and its officers and if any transgressions are to be found then they will surely find it.


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.
Aria Jenneth
Societas Imperialis Sceptri Coronaeque
Khimi Harar
#478 - 2017-05-30 16:30:40 UTC  |  Edited by: Aria Jenneth
Veikitamo Gesakaarin wrote:
I might apologize for some degree of being disingenuous in my statements.... That, and mostly declare me a sophist.


These might sometimes have a little to do with each other, Veiki.






(I wonder who you are this time..)
Diana Kim
Caldari Colonial Defense Ministry
Templis CALSF
#479 - 2017-05-30 16:47:54 UTC
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.

Honored are the dead, for their legacy guides us.

In memory of Tibus Heth, Caldari State Executor YC110-115, Hero and Patriot.

Arrendis
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#480 - 2017-05-30 16:52:34 UTC
I'd think it would be more important for you to investigate the Gallente fashion plot in the 'Capsuleer Muses' thread.