These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Imperial Outlaws [I.LAW] Commence Operations

First post
Author
Ryven Krennel
Hopscotch
#41 - 2011-10-20 19:46:04 UTC
Are your dim views of the militia based on any actual facts?

And, generally bait is designed to make you attack it, not it attack you. Further, if said capitals were acting as bait then they were looking for a fight and not in fact neutral but hostile. What are these "neutrals" paying you?

I did lapse into hyperbole. My intent was to put the absurdity of your derision into clear focus.

"Oh, good, we're surrounded.  That makes this easy."

Lyn Farel
Societas Imperialis Sceptri Coronaeque
Khimi Harar
#42 - 2011-10-22 15:48:51 UTC
My views are based on 3 years spent in the militia.

You do not seem to understand what NRDS is about. If you have people flagged in hostile/red, you usually try to engage them. Be it with baits or other methods. Here, they apparently engaged bait subcapitals with their capitals. I do not say that their strategy was clever, though. They did not really seem to be seasonned pilots used to capsuleer vs capsuleer combat.
Ryven Krennel
Hopscotch
#43 - 2011-10-23 14:05:39 UTC
Ah. Side with them all you want then. Perhaps you should put in an application with them? Or maybe Electus Matari?

"Oh, good, we're surrounded.  That makes this easy."

BBJ Shepard
#44 - 2011-10-23 14:19:35 UTC
Ryven Krennel wrote:
Capsuleers of the Summit,

I am pleased to announce the formation of a new corporation. Imperial Outlaws [I.LAW] has officially commenced operations on the Amarr/Minmatar warfront, as a member of the Amarr faction. We are dedicated to furthering the interests of the Amarr Empire, and also to aiding our allies, the Caldari militia. Some of our members are likely known to you: Eran Mintor, Shalee Lianne, Almity, and others who have served ably on the front lines in the past. I am sure there are questions that will likely be asked, and I will humbly answer those that I can.

Ryven Krennel
I.LAW Diplomat

hi

?(:

Lyn Farel
Societas Imperialis Sceptri Coronaeque
Khimi Harar
#45 - 2011-10-23 17:17:32 UTC
Ryven Krennel wrote:
Perhaps you should put in an application with them? Or maybe Electus Matari?


Why ?
Ryven Krennel
Hopscotch
#46 - 2011-10-24 01:48:55 UTC
Your deliberate refusal to believe anything outside your own extremely narrow view troubles me. I suggested you join those organizations because you seem to already be on thier side anyway. Perhaps not EM, but definitely whoever these neutrals you keep defending for no reason.

"Oh, good, we're surrounded.  That makes this easy."

Lyn Farel
Societas Imperialis Sceptri Coronaeque
Khimi Harar
#47 - 2011-10-24 18:42:55 UTC
And your lack of objectivity and detachement troubles me. Should I suggest you to join say, Goonswarm, for the only reason that you both seem to share NBSI ideals ?

That would be narrow minded, I think.
Ryven Krennel
Hopscotch
#48 - 2011-10-24 19:04:07 UTC  |  Edited by: Ryven Krennel
The difference is I don't blindly support Goonswarm, whereas you blatantly stated you would support an NRDS entity over an NBSI one without any consideration of any other factors.

I have already explained the actual implimentation of our policy and the ways in which it differs from the policy of an entity like Goonswarm, which I did, as it so happens, used to fly with as one of their allies.

I would understand your position if we were literally shooting everything in space, but we are not. Hence, the narrowness of your view is in your inability to consider the possibility that our policy is anything other than your preconception of NBSI. It is telling that even Admiral Blake, a notoriously rigid and closed-minded fellow, has adopted a wait and see stance, but you are throwing out KOS rhetoric.

"Oh, good, we're surrounded.  That makes this easy."

Lyn Farel
Societas Imperialis Sceptri Coronaeque
Khimi Harar
#49 - 2011-10-25 18:46:01 UTC  |  Edited by: Lyn Farel
Admiral Blake is a partisan, and he would have answered totally differently was you not an allied for him (and his corporation do privateering too anyway).

Now then, since the beginning I have perfectly understood that you follow NBSI policies "with a conscience". Considering what I have seen in either the militia or the Knighthood, my opinion will only change if you are able to prove that you only shoot at TLF neutral camouflaged allies and direct threats (like false neutrals in military complexes). Which is, by the way, a form of NRDS and not NBSI.

Eventually, shooting at one or two neutrals for war's sake or shooting at everything that moves is not that much different : merely on scales.

But I know your pilots, and I know that they will not be able to keep up to such policies. Of course, you can still try to prove me wrong, I will not complain.
Ryven Krennel
Hopscotch
#50 - 2011-10-25 19:34:49 UTC
A few issues. 1) We are not the Knighthood. So, keep that in mind. 2) I am thankful that my corp doesn't have to prove anything to you. My only reason in arguing with you at all is for any silent audience out there to have a better understanding. Otherwise, your condemnation of my organization is basically meaningless. Who do you represent?

Besides, since you are content to stick to your definition of piracy and privateering as whatever you say it is, any attempt of mine to say otherwise will be meaningless to you. Further, any justification I might present will be cleverly restructured to somehow discredit or disregard whatever evidence I bring you, as in the case we've been discussing, where militia defended themselves against an aggressor, that somehow you see as an act of privateering.

So, continue to operate in a world where facts are fluidly shifting to fit whatever you need them to be. But, be careful calling people pirates. I was one, and frankly, I find the insinuations here to be ridiculous. If I go pirate, there won't be any ambiguity about it.

In summation, you are entitled to your opinions. I am just very surprised at the disdain with which you view your former comrades, the black brush you paint us with, and the ease with which you can twist and distort the truth to suit your prejudices. I used to hold you in high regard, and expected better of you.

"Oh, good, we're surrounded.  That makes this easy."

Lyn Farel
Societas Imperialis Sceptri Coronaeque
Khimi Harar
#51 - 2011-10-25 20:04:29 UTC
I never said you were the Knighthood. This is why I am still expecting to see what will come out of your corporation policies. Though of course, you said NBSI, so... Unless it is not ?

Then, if you do not feel the need to prove anything to me, then prove it to the audience, as you say. Speaking of this, I only represent myself, but I would not bet that other neutral NRDS entities would think differently (like the Yulai Guard for example).

Quote:

Besides, since you are content to stick to your definition of piracy and privateering as whatever you say it is, any attempt of mine to say otherwise will be meaningless to you. Further, any justification I might present will be cleverly restructured to somehow discredit or disregard whatever evidence I bring you, as in the case we've been discussing, where militia defended themselves against an aggressor, that somehow you see as an act of privateering.


I could say the same of you. I have yet to see a single argument that I could find valuable to my eyes. I see none, as I explained somewhere above.

And by the way, it pains me to say it again and again, but you do not seem to understand that the militia baited a neutral fleet, knowing that this neutral fleet would engage them due to the militia fleet being obvious common pirates usually shooting at everything worth it. Do not even try to deny that half of the militia, or more, would shoot on anything valuable, even neutral, given the occasion, because I would not believe you the slightest. This is the people you are working with.

And finally, former comrades or not, I will never betray my beliefs for them. Question of ethics.
Eran Mintor
Metropolis Commercial Consortium
#52 - 2011-10-25 22:31:33 UTC
Miss Farel,

Thank you for your continued support and dedication to the Amarr Empire your personal morals. It always puts a smile on my face when I think about how people perceived I was a Minmatar agent sent in to cause chaos and create rifts inside the Empire when clearly such agents are unnecessary with exceptional pilots like you. When I heard you set us KOS, I must admit, it made me chuckle for quite a while. It still does.

Your KOS standings have been returned without a second thought. Remember that it was you who chose this path. Thank you, and have a nice day.

Next?
Elsebeth Rhiannon
Gradient
Electus Matari
#53 - 2011-10-26 17:53:03 UTC  |  Edited by: Elsebeth Rhiannon
Since Electus Matari was mentioned, let me clarify something:

We operate NRDS ourselves, but our red/blue requirements do not mention the term. This is because we are not really interested in how you define your standings and RoE; we are interested in who you end up shooting. To clarify this by taking it to extremes: if you are "NRDS", but set red every neutral you ever meet the minute you meet them, you end up shooting everyone; if you are "NBSI", but set blue every neutral you ever meet the minute you meet them, you end up shooting no one (possibly unless they shoot you first, depending on your RoE on firing back at blues).

There are NBSI organizations (e.g. friendly Militia who in practice have not killed anyone that wasn't red to us in months) that we have infinitely more in common with than some NRDS organizations (e.g. PIE Inc).

I doubt we'd at this point be interested in hiring Captain Farel, but as corporations in EM generally hire independently, I cannot comment that with full confidence. Preference for NRDS is definitely not a recommendation enough, however. Blink

Now back to the actual topic.

Elsebeth Rhiannon
Diplomat
Electus Matari
Lyn Farel
Societas Imperialis Sceptri Coronaeque
Khimi Harar
#54 - 2011-10-26 18:25:54 UTC
I agree with Ms Rhiannon, my own views are more or less the same. When I speak of NRDS, I do not refer to absurd NRDS policies setting everyone in red without reasons, to clarify. My apologies for not having mentionned it clearly until now.

Eran Mintor wrote:
Miss Farel,

Thank you for your continued support and dedication to the Amarr Empire your personal morals.


You have my thanks in return : you are one of the first to understand that.
Kuan Yida
Huang Yinglong
Electus Matari
#55 - 2011-11-01 23:20:30 UTC
Do the Imperial Outlaws espouse any of the tenants of the original Knights of the Merciful Crown? Specifically, do they have a public stance of anti-slavery, as previously held by KOTMC?

The dragon knight treasures the state, friendship, duty, promises, kindness, vengeance, honor, and righteousness more than his own life._ _- The Way of the Dragon Warrior Random Posts from Auga

Ryven Krennel
Hopscotch
#56 - 2011-11-02 19:36:46 UTC
Excellent question, Kuan. This issue has not been discussed yet on a corporate level. I will bring it to the attention of the I.LAW directors and get back to you as soon as I have an answer.

"Oh, good, we're surrounded.  That makes this easy."

Elsebeth Rhiannon
Gradient
Electus Matari
#57 - 2011-11-02 19:38:56 UTC
I am not aware of KOTMC ever taking such a public stance. Could someone point me to the archives about that?

(I am aware of individual members of KOTMC claiming to be antislavery while fighting for the Amarrian militia. That is different from a corporation public stance.)

Elsebeth
Ryven Krennel
Hopscotch
#58 - 2011-11-02 19:43:17 UTC
I have intentionally tried to keep KotMC out of this thread discussion, as it is a separate entity from Imperial Outlaws. However, to answer your question, Ms. Rhiannon, no, KotMC never made that an official corp stance. Such things were left to the individual pilots. Many, including myself, espoused anti-slavery sentiments, often for differing political or moral reasons.

"Oh, good, we're surrounded.  That makes this easy."

Elsebeth Rhiannon
Gradient
Electus Matari
#59 - 2011-11-02 20:26:09 UTC
Apologies for thread hijacking and thank you for the confirmation.

I am sure I do not need to make clear my sentiments about stating you are anti-slavery while flying for the Empire Militia.

Elsebeth Rhiannon
Tiara Sikai
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#60 - 2011-11-02 22:55:38 UTC
As stated previously, slavery in its current form is likely not going to be around much longer. It is a right and proper reading of scripture, as the theology council declared, but not the only possible one.

First, an economical perspective: A "free" subsistence-wage worker costs very little more than a properly supervised and vitoc'ed slave. Unsurprising, since the worker receives basically the slaves food and shelter, disguised as currency. In some colonies I visited, the "currency" in fact never left the hands of the sponsors, since the workers only could spend it in the company store. On the other hand, a skilled and educated specialist slave saves immensely over an employee - but that saving is only possible after huge investments into the slave's education. Prohibitive investments, frequently.

Secondly, a moral one: The goal of slavery is to bring a soul into the light. Hard labor is invaluable in this, but scarcely sufficient on its own. I imagine that soon, slavery will become a much more monastic part of our culture, where religious education and psychological conversion will take a more central role, and physical labor a reduced one.

So, why fly for the Milita if not to herd a few million minmatar into the next transport and cackle manically? Because it is the right thing to do for an Amarr. It is the right thing to do to defend our civilization, our culture and our faith from those who would bring it down, and replace it with tribal chanting. To secure the greatest empire ever against all threats internal and external. And not the least to put a scalpels point to my own faith. If it doesn't hurt, it does not count.