Intergalactic Summit

There is nothing noble about shooting some random pilot who happens to pass you in space. Nothing noble in the slightest. Although, I suppose this will cause less heart-ache for some members who; until now, needed to come up with some excuse or reason for why they had destroyed a particular ship. Far less paperwork to be like everyone else.

I am not sure whether to call this a straw man or a slippery slope, but fallacious reasoning it is, nonetheless.

Just because a corporation is NBSI does not immediately mean they shoot "random pilot" who happens to pass you in space. What it does mean is that the target's declared affiliation is less important than where he/she is and what he/she is doing. I think you also forget that this isn't going on in Sarum Prime or Luminaire. This is low-security space in an active warzone. Chances of the pilot being an innocent bystander are low indeed. So, reevaluate your 'argument.' It has some holes in it.

Of course my argument has holes in it, it wasn't marked blue to you and you shot it.



Actually, that's exactly what it means. NBSI=Not Blue, Shoot It. Last time I checked, that literally means, if a certain organisation does not specifically have blue standings with you or your organisation, they are fair game.



So, no chance he is a random pilot in New Eden who decided to look around, or possibly do some mining or exploration? Of course not, that would make him an "idiot" according to your logic and; therefore, able to be shot.

Now, don't get me wrong, your policies actually mean very little to me. I just found is amusing that there was even talk of you doing good deeds, whilst concurrently speaking about shooting anything that isn't a mate.

My "argument with holes in it" stands - there is nothing noble about shooting someone you know nothing about, simply because "they were in low security space".

Condor,
I am aware of what NBSI stands for. However, the condition that pilots maintain a certain security level does actually mean a large number of neutrals do not get shot at. The choice to fire is accompanied by a fair degree of thought. So, assuming we shoot at everything wandering by is invalid. But a NRDS policy protects a large number of individuals that do not deserve protecting.

Regardless, this discussion is moot. You feel as you do, and we feel as we do. Neither is likely to be moved.

Guardian Nusak followed our R.O.E. to the letter in the incident in question, plus seeking additional clearance with an Admiral before opening fire.

Then if your leadership condone this, this means that your ROE thus includes helping pirate elements of the militia in taking down neutral NRDS local entities, which means eventually helping NBSI elements in their daily work (apparently when the target is big enough, would you have wealth issues in PIE Inc that you feel the need to resort to such blatant acts of piracy ? I have difficulties to believe it).



Crusader Krennel,

I will definitly never ask blue status with people sharing ideals that I despise, which means two things :

- As I am not going to ask you for a blue status due to differences in ethics, I have the obligation to set mark you as hostile considering that you will probably open fire on me (because I will remain neutral).
- I am and have always been a supporter of NRDS principles and will open fire on every NBSI member I find, period.

I am sorry to say this but I do not want to start yet another debate on NBSI vs NRDS.

On another note I shall remind you that this supercarrier only came after to help two of his friendly carriers that were in trouble, apparently trying to get rid of militia pirate elements. If you still consider this not "noble" enough, then I do not see what could be considered as such.

Anyway indeed, as you have noticed, I am not a huge threat to anyone at the time being. My actions are mostly symbolic at the moment.

The incident in question is indeed what you think it is, Admiral. Ms. Farel seems to be of the opinion that because they are neutral NRDS entities, we shouldn't fire on them when they openly aggress our fleet mates. Her reasoning is that they aggressed outlaw elements of our fleet first. However, the smartbombs were not very selective in who they aggressed, and thus, the battle escalated. Nonetheless, the supposedly neutral group did aggress first. The Nyx came to save the capital assets that were being destroyed and met the same fate after it too aggressed.

What I find disturbing here, Lyn, is that you assume that since an organization is NRDS it is somehow better than an NBSI one. If this is the case, that would suggest you would side with an Angel affiliated group were it NRDS, rather than an Amarr supporting group that is NBSI, and that is just silly.

We could be NRDS and set all of New Eden red, and we would be better, somehow, to you than if we maintain our current ROE. This is erroneous reasoning. Being NBSI does not mean firing at everything that moves. It means that the pilots and fleet commander have the leeway to make decisions on the fly without having to go through a long drawn out process of setting them red beforehand. This policy puts that decision process in the hands of the pilot. That's the only difference. We are not encouraging our pilots to shoot at literally everything. We are just giving them the benefit of the doubt.

As for your rhetoric and threats, well, you're allowed them. Just remember that I didn't make you make that decision. Your black and white views did.

Ms. Strife in Naraka?

Fascinating.

The reason these debates are useless is because of your refusal to even look at the issue from anything other than a black and white viewpoint. You continue to operate under some strange delusion that NBSI = pirate/evil. This is not empirically true. I should also add that I've been very calm and deliberate in my responses, whereas you continuously bandy about deliberately hostile rhetoric and remarks and have gone as far as to threaten it with violence (although you yourself admitted the threat is mostly a moot one).

Your insistence that the militia is engaging in open piracy is ludicrous. Having a security status below -5.0 does not necessarily make you a pirate. Engaging enemies set red, but not actively in a militia does deal a security hit, even though, honestly, the targets were hostile or engaging in actions that were suspect. Some organizations are constantly out engaging the enemy and have not managed to regain their lost security status. This does NOT make them pirates, per se. It does make them outlaws in the eyes of CONCORD, but not pirates. And, again, the capital assets and supercapital assets engaged at the time you keep erroneously referring to were globally flagged criminals who openly engaged the fleet, using smartbombs at first (which is not very smart).

From my point of view a pirate is one who attacks for personal gain, fun, or sheer boredom, ANYONE that passes by. Further, pirates engage in ransoming their victims.

I.LAW does not ransom, ever. I.LAW does not engage just ANYONE that passes by. We do not engage for personal gain, fun, or out of boredom. We are NBSI because NRDS doesn't allow flexibility or on the fly decision making, and because as of now, there is no clever acronym for anything between the two.

And, one other thing, allies are allies, enemies are enemies. Their particular ROE or extracurricular activities are of little concern to me when I am relying on them to have my back in a fleet engagement. While I may not particularly like everything they ever do, they ARE allies. If they are fired upon and need help, then I will aid them. Especially when its a subcapital being attacked by multiple capital ships.

So, as a recap: We are not pirates. We are not bloodthirsty baby-eating puppy sacrificing savages bent on destruction of anything and everything. We simply use a looser ROE to give our pilots and commanders the ability to make decisions in the field.

Oh, and one final thing: You are correct, I don't know of any Angels NRDS groups. However, I do find it interesting that you would side with them rather than your own people. This lack of loyalty is deeply disturbing.

Incredibly disappointing actually.
I suppose when they fall, they fall far.
From such a promising disciple too.

But that is neither here nor there.

I.Law knows very well the policies we uphold - just don't cross the line and everything will be fine. You want your commanders to have some flexibility in the field - and you are not running a 0.0 NBSI policy. But if this turns into a murderous rampage through the Bleak Lands - well that is self defeating.

A very tight line you have decided to walk.