Intergalactic Summit

If he docks up, they are effectively lost until he undocks with them in his hold again. Unless you have some manner by which interested parties might breach his personal stationside hangars and facilities, places that are effectively considered sacrosanct by CONCORD and the Empires except in the most extreme of circumstances, which, if you might have guessed, this situation does not fall under.

Which means that the only thing being done, is delaying the time until they are used in one of his sick sacrifices. By doing so you save none of them, but just delay the inevitable. The only time any of them can be saved from him is when he is in space with them in his cargo. Unfortunately, Nauplius will not be reasoned with - he has made his decision already and by all appearances has full intention of sticking to it - so attempts to push him away from the station and get him to give up his cargo will simply be met with a self-destruct sequence on the vessel, as others have stated. Not making the attempt is a cold understanding of this situation: you will save none of them with words, because he will not negotiate with anyone he views as beneath him.

But you might save some of them with weapons fire.

Everyone else here, the Matari included, seems to grasp that it is better to take a chance to save some of them than to guarantee the deaths of all of them.

I think you are missing that people have tried in the past and are not trying it anymore because it's been made clear any and all such attempts will be ignored.

Feel free to go out there and try it yourself, though.

Pilot Otsito,

It seems your information about our stance, contingencies, and open offers to Hoi Andrapodistai are mistaken. While we have a practice of not discussing a war on IGS, our stance now is the same as it was when some of us were pilots as part of Electus Matari who had to do the exact same thing many times: do what you must; save who you are able. Should you have further questions about our corporation, you may feel welcome to contact us in the future.

Also, there are at least three ways your 'safe' suggestions could end in catastrophe, but I trust you will forgive me if I do not say them in the hopes of avoiding that.

The only risks I take are carefully calculated. Going into combat as an unarmed non-combat pilot would be utterly ridiculous by any measure, but I suppose if you can't argue the points you argue the person making them. It doesn't really matter whether or not it has been attempted in the past. It costs absolutely nothing to make the attempts and there is much to gain if it succeeds.

Skipping it because it's not as fun as simply jumping straight to the killing part has yet to be even remotely justified.

I have now thought of five ways to ensure your suggestions would end with everyone dying, and I am not the one wanting to kill them. I am not willing to gamble on all or nothing with that, only my frigates. That is my calculation.

Perhaps, you might want to first consider saving your anger to those who have put slaves up on the market for sale in the first place? As that appears to be where a good number of Nauplius's slaves are coming from.

I would also suggest that you step out of your armchair and step into the reality of the situation. CONCORD prevents pilots from going into other pilots' hangars. As long as there is a caspuleer within a ship, we cannot board the ship. And as it has already been pointed out, were we capable of boarding his ships, there is nothing to stop him from self-destructing the ship and killing all involved.

The 'uproar' over this incident is...peculiar to say the least when one considers the fact that Nauplius has stated elsewhere that he makes extensive use of slaves as part of his ships' crew.

Once more, a lot of talk in favor of the killings but no reasons given not to spend that little extra time on the preceding options when they could save more of the lives in question. You lose nothing by holding him a bit. If he docks, the slaves live. If he jettisons them, they live. If he tries to self-destruct, option three comes into play and you save what you can.

This is not your normal hostage situation. There are no guns to their heads and no time pressures involved. From the moment he's pointed and webbed, time is on your side. I repeat, you lose nothing but stand to gain much. Absolute worst case scenario, you're forced to do exactly what you're already doing. Killing indiscriminately. Best case scenario, a full cargohold of live rescuees.



And here is where you've run out of arguments and try to deflect the issue. As always.

So...quick question. Why does your opinion on this situation have any merit worth considering since you, stated yourself, aren't a combat pilot? You have no experience in combat or any similar situation. Why should your criticism be worth two tugs?

I don't see the point. You're set in your opinion and just keep adding fuel to a stubborn fire. Personally, I think you just want to argue for the sake of arguing and a side of ego boosting. But whatever, just callin' 'em as I see 'em.

Flattery will get you everywhere Stitch!