These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

[RETRACTED]Denouncement of the Wiyrkomi Honor Guard
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Leopold Caine
Stillwater Corporation
#21 - 2012-09-19 13:08:28 UTC
Well, it's commendable to see some people still have the guts to admit when they made a mistake.
A rather rare sight lately.
  • Leopold Caine, Domination Malakim

Angels are never far...

Stillwater Corporation Recruitment Open - Angel Cartel Bloc
Desiderya
Blue Canary
Watch This
#22 - 2012-09-19 13:30:32 UTC  |  Edited by: Desiderya
YC114.09.19
Samanuni, Aokinen, Black Rise

From the office of the Commander,


The Wiyrkomi Honor Guard is tasked with defending Wiyrkomi Corporation's interests and assets as a capsuleer partner as well as fighting on behalf of the Caldari State through the EMWPA, mainly focusing on keeping Black Rise free of hostiles and outlaw elements, as witnessed by the recent and still ongoing Operation Broken Bridge.
As such its pilots will adhere to strict RoE as long as they are in civilized - the entirety of the four empires sovereignity - space as they were set in stone by former leadership.
Legal targets are:

  • Vessels that are at war with the State or the Wiyrkomi Honor Guard itself
  • Vessels piloted by outlaw elements as classified by CONCORD not affiliated with STPRO or being allied to the State.
  • Vessels in the vicinity of military installations in the warzone

In the outer regions as well as uncharted space, every non-blue vessel will be considered a potential hostile and will be treated as such, as is common with the vast majority of entities operating there. This includes potentially hostile supply lines.

In the light of recent events I, personally, want to reinforce that WHG will not engage State loyal forces under any circumstances. The operations concluded Catch were done with these RoE in mind - in one circumstance WHG pilots were ordered to hold their fire to not accidentially engage a pilot from 4TH.

Desiderya Kyiokkinen
Eskeitan Reijokkan
Wiyrkomi Honor Guard

Ruthlessness is the kindness of the wise.
Malcolm Khross
Doomheim
#23 - 2012-09-19 13:53:09 UTC
So it would seem that I have miscalculated, grievously so.

My stance regarding piracy and the ethical operation of a militant corporation has been extremely rigid and unyielding throughout my term of service. Even in this, I suspected that my public opposition to activities that I had always opposed would serve as a reinforcement to my initial opposition and rebuke of the Honor Guard's actions.

Instead, I have pressed the issue too strongly and discovered that perhaps my expectations are the product of a naive belief that war can be won without compromising on certain moral and ethical lines. It would seem that those lines are drawn differently than I perceived to be drawn and there must be an acceptable deviation from the desired expectations in order to bring about a greater goal. I have been unyielding in this regard and refusing to accept that sometimes compromise is necessary.

I can, at this point, only reiterate my apology to the solid and experienced leadership of Desiderya Kyiokkinen-haani over the Wiyrkomi Honor Guard and to the dedication of pilot Solarienne. I have redacted my initial allegations with the understanding that they are no longer relevant to the Honor Guard's operations as the Honor Guard has expanded in its capacity beyond that of my original intent, which is something that naturally occurs when leadership is shifted.

I have responded dishonorably and disfavorably. While I still personally feel that a line was crossed that should not have been crossed, it was not may call to make and I will refrain from doing so again.

Forgive me, reijokkan.

~Malcolm Khross
Silas Vitalia
Doomheim
#24 - 2012-09-19 13:57:08 UTC
In many cultures the crimes of one's children are the responsibility of their parents.

Your children are misbehaving, Mr. Khross? I suggest you give them a beating.

Sabik now, Sabik forever
Malcolm Khross
Doomheim
#25 - 2012-09-19 13:59:41 UTC
Silas Vitalia wrote:
In many cultures the crimes of one's children are the responsibility of their parents.

Your children are misbehaving, Mr. Khross? I suggest you give them a beating.



I reiterate that Kyiokkinen-haani is a more than capable leader and does not need me to police her actions. If anything, I am the one deserving a beating for the way in which I responded.

Your advice has been noted, however.

~Malcolm Khross
TomHorn
Horn Brothers Holdings Inc.
#26 - 2012-09-19 14:18:02 UTC
You still obiously have great fondness for the Honor Guard. You are both Caldari loyalists and fight against criminal organisations. Youve apologised in public for an error you believe on your part.

Maybe its time now to take this out the public arena and settle your differences once and for all. Join back up with your fellow comrades , work your way up the chain of command. Your paths seem to follow the same direction. Seems to me this action would benefit both parties.
Desiderya
Blue Canary
Watch This
#27 - 2012-09-19 14:50:49 UTC
There was nothing done that needs forgiveness, Khross-haan.
I might disagree with you on these matters, but this does not mean that I can not respect you as a man of honor and strong moral convictions, even if they are limiting your potential.



Ruthlessness is the kindness of the wise.
Diana Kim
State Protectorate
Caldari State
#28 - 2012-09-19 17:22:30 UTC
While honor indeed is one of the most valuable merits, strong moral convictions are more like demerit than a merit. Professionalism is not compatible with moral convictions, you should be strong enough to step over them. Leave moralism for second-grade peoples like gallentes. To be a professional means you have to apply logic rules instead of moral rules. For example, in order to save a thousand of civilians from certain death, you have to kill yourself a hundred of same civilians. Unarmed, innocent civilians with elders and children.
I would kill them without hesitation.
And you?

Honored are the dead, for their legacy guides us.

In memory of Tibus Heth, Caldari State Executor YC110-115, Hero and Patriot.
Malcolm Khross
Doomheim
#29 - 2012-09-19 17:38:01 UTC
Diana Kim wrote:
While honor indeed is one of the most valuable merits, strong moral convictions are more like demerit than a merit. Professionalism is not compatible with moral convictions, you should be strong enough to step over them. Leave moralism for second-grade peoples like gallentes. To be a professional means you have to apply logic rules instead of moral rules. For example, in order to save a thousand of civilians from certain death, you have to kill yourself a hundred of same civilians. Unarmed, innocent civilians with elders and children.
I would kill them without hesitation.
And you?


You claim professionalism and morality are exclusive, I disagree. You claim moral convictions to be a weakness, I see them as a strength.

I will answer your rhetorical question with a question of my own:

Can you provide me with one example in which a situation like the one you described would not be the orchestration of another individual or group of individuals?

~Malcolm Khross
Scherezad
Revenent Defence Corperation
Ishuk-Raata Enforcement Directive
#30 - 2012-09-19 18:07:33 UTC
Diana Kim wrote:
While honor indeed is one of the most valuable merits, strong moral convictions are more like demerit than a merit. Professionalism is not compatible with moral convictions, you should be strong enough to step over them. Leave moralism for second-grade peoples like gallentes. To be a professional means you have to apply logic rules instead of moral rules. For example, in order to save a thousand of civilians from certain death, you have to kill yourself a hundred of same civilians. Unarmed, innocent civilians with elders and children.
I would kill them without hesitation.
And you?


Moral rules and logic rules are not conflicting or exclusive. I would instead argue that logical thinking is a prerequisite for morality.
Diana Kim
State Protectorate
Caldari State
#31 - 2012-09-19 18:53:32 UTC
Malcolm Khross wrote:
Diana Kim wrote:
While honor indeed is one of the most valuable merits, strong moral convictions are more like demerit than a merit. Professionalism is not compatible with moral convictions, you should be strong enough to step over them. Leave moralism for second-grade peoples like gallentes. To be a professional means you have to apply logic rules instead of moral rules. For example, in order to save a thousand of civilians from certain death, you have to kill yourself a hundred of same civilians. Unarmed, innocent civilians with elders and children.
I would kill them without hesitation.
And you?


You claim professionalism and morality are exclusive, I disagree. You claim moral convictions to be a weakness, I see them as a strength.

Moral convictions may add to logical solutions, making it even stronger. In this case they will be strength. But when moral convictions contradict logical solutions, they are definitely weakness. When you follow logical reasoning, you will get professional solutions in both cases. When you follow moral reasoning, you will get professional solution for the first case and not professional for the second case. And you cannot be a professional, when you get not professional solutions for some cases. And since professional plus not professional equals not professional, you cannot use sets do describe them and your interpretation of my words, that I claimed that they are exclusive (properly it should be named mutually exclusive), is wrong. And really, please, stop interpret my words in a way I don't say them, I hate talking to you because of that. I never said 'exclusive' word, I said not compatible. Buy ABC book. Really.

Malcolm Khross wrote:
Can you provide me with one example in which a situation like the one you described would not be the orchestration of another individual or group of individuals?

I don't understand why should I provide such example, since majority of situations you have to solve are someone's orchestration. But well, if you insist, quite general example would be bad planning and lacking some resource beyond critical point by ~10%. Like fuel, oxygen or food in spaceship to land everyone safely and alive.

Scherezad wrote:

Moral rules and logic rules are not conflicting or exclusive. I would instead argue that logical thinking is a prerequisite for morality.

Well, indeed, you use logical thinking to form moral rules. But when you follow these moral rules no matter what (as strong moral convictions) disregarding logical thinking to every application of this rule, ugly things will happen.
There should be only one condition to disregard logical thinking: DIRECT ORDER.

Honored are the dead, for their legacy guides us.

In memory of Tibus Heth, Caldari State Executor YC110-115, Hero and Patriot.
Scherezad
Revenent Defence Corperation
Ishuk-Raata Enforcement Directive
#32 - 2012-09-19 19:43:03 UTC
Diana Kim wrote:

Moral convictions may add to logical solutions, making it even stronger. In this case they will be strength. But when moral convictions contradict logical solutions, they are definitely weakness. When you follow logical reasoning, you will get professional solutions in both cases. When you follow moral reasoning, you will get professional solution for the first case and not professional for the second case. And you cannot be a professional, when you get not professional solutions for some cases. And since professional plus not professional equals not professional, you cannot use sets do describe them and your interpretation of my words, that I claimed that they are exclusive (properly it should be named mutually exclusive), is wrong. And really, please, stop interpret my words in a way I don't say them, I hate talking to you because of that. I never said 'exclusive' word, I said not compatible. Buy ABC book. Really.


(Professional) + ((not) Professional) is not equal to ((not) Professional). It is a contradiction and generally indicates a failure state of the system. I would like to ask what you mean by a "Professional" solution though. Illogical and immoral actions can be performed in a professional manner, after all.

Diana Kim wrote:

Well, indeed, you use logical thinking to form moral rules. But when you follow these moral rules no matter what (as strong moral convictions) disregarding logical thinking to every application of this rule, ugly things will happen.
There should be only one condition to disregard logical thinking: DIRECT ORDER.


A moral rule, constructed to be logical, is logical within the domain to which it applies. Applying a moral rule outside of the domain to which it applies is invalid, and will obviously give the wrong result.

This said, morality is more heuristics-driven and based on the conditions of the system in question, so the idea of a broadly applicable rule doesn't work in the real world. Morality is hard. I understand why so many decide to do away with it, more's the pity.
Dilaro thagriin
Doomheim
#33 - 2012-09-19 19:53:21 UTC
Diana Kim wrote:
Well, indeed, you use logical thinking to form moral rules. But when you follow these moral rules no matter what (as strong moral convictions) disregarding logical thinking to every application of this rule, ugly things will happen.
There should be only one condition to disregard logical thinking: DIRECT ORDER.



every person in this universe makes choices, choices about how they will live, and what actions they will take.
evil does not exist independantly of mankind, people do evil things by choice. Choices require the ability to think, even if ineffectually.

the most basic of choices, is whether to think, or to let others tell you what to do, even if the things you are told to do are evil.
if you follow the teachings of others while refusing to think rationally, and do evil in their name, the innocent victims of those evils are still harmed, dead is dead, their lives are over.

wise choices require more. they require rational thought. refusal to think rationally affords one the ability to maintain the illusion of knowledge, wisdom or even righteousness while commiting deeds of unspeakable evil.

It would seem, ms Kim, that you are saying that if told to do something, even something you know in your very soul is wrong, you would do it.

You would choose to do evil, not to save others, not to protect, but simply because someone else told you to do so, and you expect everyone to do the same?

And you called me the barbarian.

-Dilaro
Malcolm Khross
Doomheim
#34 - 2012-09-19 20:27:59 UTC  |  Edited by: Malcolm Khross
Diana Kim wrote:

I don't understand why should I provide such example, since majority of situations you have to solve are someone's orchestration. But well, if you insist, quite general example would be bad planning and lacking some resource beyond critical point by ~10%. Like fuel, oxygen or food in spaceship to land everyone safely and alive.


Oh, you mean like the entire Caldari history in which we learned to work together for the common good and those that refused were instead put aside.

The point I'm making is that your rhetorical situation leaves only two options: kill 100 to save 900 or let all 1000 die when any real situation involves many, many more options than this. Given your situation, however, I would never put the blood of 100 innocents on my hands to save 900 for it is better for all 1000 to perish at the hands of murderers and brigands while those whom are morally upright try and save those they can without becoming murderers themselves. In the end, the blood is on the hands of the killer, regardless of their intentions.

Also, just so we're understanding one another here, to say that two items or ideals are "not compatible" means they are mutually exclusive to one another.

~Malcolm Khross
Scherezad
Revenent Defence Corperation
Ishuk-Raata Enforcement Directive
#35 - 2012-09-19 22:07:53 UTC
Diana Kim wrote:

I don't understand why should I provide such example, since majority of situations you have to solve are someone's orchestration. But well, if you insist, quite general example would be bad planning and lacking some resource beyond critical point by ~10%. Like fuel, oxygen or food in spaceship to land everyone safely and alive.



I like this question, it is a good one to ask. I would ask for volunteers.
Urthel Drengist
Doomheim
#36 - 2012-09-20 00:59:17 UTC  |  Edited by: Urthel Drengist
Malcolm Khross wrote:
[quote=Diana Kim]

The point I'm making is that your rhetorical situation leaves only two options: kill 100 to save 900 or let all 1000 die when any real situation involves many, many more options than this. Given your situation, however, I would never put the blood of 100 innocents on my hands to save 900 for it is better for all 1000 to perish at the hands of murderers and brigands while those whom are morally upright try and save those they can without becoming murderers themselves. In the end, the blood is on the hands of the killer, regardless of their intentions.



Pardon me for interfering in this one. However, i feel that what Ms Kim is talking about is the following.

What if your job is to save 1000 people, but due to bad organization and such, you have the choice to kill 100 to save 900 or let all 1000 die.

But the catch here is the following:

It is your job to save as many people of the 1000 and i dont think she mentioned anywhere about murderers or brigands....what is your most professional choice? Logically it would be kill 100 and save 900 but morally that is entirely up to anyone's understanding to choose.

So her question is not a very generic one. It is specific and it challenges the professional ethic. She is talking about work, duty and professional ethic and not mere personal ethics. Nor she is saying about the Caldari and how much the Caldari have placed their survival above others, because i imagine she knows that everyone has done that.

Thats why Ms Kim is talking about logical professionalism. She isnt talking about what would you do in general, but what would you do should you have had a contract saying '' your goal is to save as many people as possible''

If i got this wrong i apologize and i am not attacking you Mr Khross, i am simply making a note on the overall discussion.

In addition, let it be noted that I can not agree with Ms Kim's example as i hardly have ever came to such a situation and i can not relate....

Urthel Drengist

C.E.O and Founder of Drengist Intergalactic Liberal Enterprises Ltd. [L.I.D.E.L ] 
Malcolm Khross
Doomheim
#37 - 2012-09-20 01:49:05 UTC
Urthel Drengist wrote:

Pardon me for interfering in this one. However, i feel that what Ms Kim is talking about is the following.

What if your job is to save 1000 people, but due to bad organization and such, you have the choice to kill 100 to save 900 or let all 1000 die.

But the catch here is the following:

It is your job to save as many people of the 1000 and i dont think she mentioned anywhere about murderers or brigands....what is your most professional choice? Logically it would be kill 100 and save 900 but morally that is entirely up to anyone's understanding to choose.


You're quite right, she didn't. The reason for my original response was to illustrate that in most cases where you are faced with a decision of that nature, you are dealing with a situation specifically orchestrated by another individual to force you to make such a choice. Kim agreed with my assertion by her response and then clarified.

My answer remains the same in either situation. I will not kill one hundred to save nine hundred. I will not place value and act as judge in determining who should die so that others might live. I would ask for those willing to make such a sacrifice but I will not make that choice for them.

Urthel Drengist wrote:
So her question is not a very generic one. It is specific and it challenges the professional ethic. She is talking about work, duty and professional ethic and not mere personal ethics. Nor she is saying about the Caldari and how much the Caldari have placed their survival above others, because i imagine she knows that everyone has done that.

Thats why Ms Kim is talking about logical professionalism. She isnt talking about what would you do in general, but what would you do should you have had a contract saying '' your goal is to save as many people as possible''

If i got this wrong i apologize and i am not attacking you Mr Khross, i am simply making a note on the overall discussion.

In addition, let it be noted that I can not agree with Ms Kim's example as i hardly have ever came to such a situation and i can not relate....


I do understand her question, but I appreciate your attempt to clarify just in case. Professionalism involves not only completing the terms of one's job as efficiently and effectively as possible, but also doing so in a way that does not compromise the spirit and nature of both the job and the professional. In the scenario provided, slaying one hundred people would be a direct violation of the principles I stand upon and therefore a betrayal of my own professionalism. The dilemma presented is possible (although unlikely) primarily because a professional would not make such a logistical error to begin with and when faced with such a decision on the unlikely chance it occurs would never betray their character and principles.


~Malcolm Khross
Veikitamo Gesakaarin
Doomheim
#38 - 2012-09-20 03:02:50 UTC
Malcolm Khross wrote:

My answer remains the same in either situation. I will not kill one hundred to save nine hundred. I will not place value and act as judge in determining who should die so that others might live. I would ask for those willing to make such a sacrifice but I will not make that choice for them.


With all due respect Khross-haan, every General, War Leader, and Military Commander must be able to make decisions that determine the life or death of those that they are responsible for leading. At times it will also require judging who, in all likelihood, will find their deaths and sacrifice their lives in order to ensure the success of an operation. A military is not a democracy, decisions are not to be held to a vote for they are the sole prerogative of those entrusted with the responsibilities of leadership. A General who balks at the prospect of sacrificing the few to guarantee the survival of the many is a poor leader. Success is not found in hesitation.

This does not mean a lack of compassion, rather that duty comes before all other considerations and the duty of a leader is the ability to make hard and difficult decisions with clarity, without the obfuscations of doubt and self-questioning. Admiral Tovil-Toba made the choice for his crew when he sacrificed their lives and his own in order to ensure that the many on the Homeworld would survive. He did not ask his crew to pay the ultimate sacrifice for they knew their duty and he knew his own, and that any Commander that asks for sacrifices to be made is only seeking to absolve themselves of the guilt and burdens in blood that they must always carry in the prosecution of their tasks.

The final objective of any war is Final Victory. Any Commander who in their position fails to use any and every means at their disposal to ensure that end is thus guilty of betraying themselves, those that they lead, and the nation they fight for. Wars are the most brutal, barbaric and cruel of all human affairs and they require men and women both with hardened hearts to undertake it and the integrity, honour and compassion to survive it.

I also question the wisdom behind the initial announcement. A retraction still does not regain the loss in face or the gross lack in discretion displayed in questioning the decisions of current leadership by a former Executive and thus forcing an organization into the unenviable position of having to defend their actions in public.

Or was that the intent?

Kurilaivonen|Concern
Diana Kim
State Protectorate
Caldari State
#39 - 2012-09-20 07:04:31 UTC
Scherezad wrote:

(Professional) + ((not) Professional) is not equal to ((not) Professional). It is a contradiction and generally indicates a failure state of the system.

If you take them as sets, then
(Professional) + ((not) Professional) would be equal to 1 (or complete set). This would work, for example, if you take sets of professional and not professional peoples. But when you take events, describing one person, into one collection, this approach won't work.
Lets take a collection of N professional events. If we add to the collection one not professional event, then the whole collection becomes not professional, while contains both professional and not professional events.
So does for collection of moral events. When you add one not moral event, the whole collection becomes not moral.
These events, or decisions, that a person make, can be:
professional and moral,
professional and not moral,
not professional and moral,
and not professional and not moral.
As you can see, if you stick always to professional decisions, you can't stay moral all the time, and same goes counterwise: if you stick to moral decisions, you can't stay professional.
When a person in considered both professional and moral at the same time, this is a sheer luck, or just lack of experience.

Honored are the dead, for their legacy guides us.

In memory of Tibus Heth, Caldari State Executor YC110-115, Hero and Patriot.
Diana Kim
State Protectorate
Caldari State
#40 - 2012-09-20 07:39:12 UTC
Dilaro thagriin wrote:
Diana Kim wrote:
Well, indeed, you use logical thinking to form moral rules. But when you follow these moral rules no matter what (as strong moral convictions) disregarding logical thinking to every application of this rule, ugly things will happen.
There should be only one condition to disregard logical thinking: DIRECT ORDER.



every person in this universe makes choices, choices about how they will live, and what actions they will take.
evil does not exist independantly of mankind, people do evil things by choice. Choices require the ability to think, even if ineffectually.

the most basic of choices, is whether to think, or to let others tell you what to do, even if the things you are told to do are evil.
if you follow the teachings of others while refusing to think rationally, and do evil in their name, the innocent victims of those evils are still harmed, dead is dead, their lives are over.

wise choices require more. they require rational thought. refusal to think rationally affords one the ability to maintain the illusion of knowledge, wisdom or even righteousness while commiting deeds of unspeakable evil.

It would seem, ms Kim, that you are saying that if told to do something, even something you know in your very soul is wrong, you would do it.

You would choose to do evil, not to save others, not to protect, but simply because someone else told you to do so, and you expect everyone to do the same?

And you called me the barbarian.

-Dilaro

Unfortunately, not all peoples can come to logical solutions. With a proper organized society more wise, trained and experienced leaders give orders to less prepared workers. If a worker has better understanding of the things than his leader, he should apply to the higher position, justifying by his merits and achievements. And if these merits will be adequate (not made up by this worker himself), he will take this position. But if this worker will start taking decisions against his leader orders, still holding his minor position, he will turn to be not professional, and should be fired or severely punished.

I would like to emphasize, that orders are given not by someone, but by your superiors, who should be more merited than you.

This is how civilized societies work.

In uncivilized societies minor workers have voice to affect decisions, that they have no skills in, and superiors are not always more merited than minors. Typical example would be democracy.

Honored are the dead, for their legacy guides us.

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