These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
kul Shaishi
Yurai-Tenshin Zaibatsu
#481 - 2017-05-30 17:00:46 UTC
Diana Kim wrote:
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.

Kim you are a warlord you lead your private army and you are corrupt and fat and you kill anyone that opposes you and your oh press Caldari people
Diana Kim
Caldari Colonial Defense Ministry
Templis CALSF
#482 - 2017-05-30 17:21:37 UTC
kul Shaishi wrote:
Diana Kim wrote:
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.

Kim you are a warlord you lead your private army and you are corrupt and fat and you kill anyone that opposes you and your oh press Caldari people

There are many enemies of the State that spread lies and slanders about us and me in particular. But this one? This one is a real marvel. Tell me, gallente propagandists, in which gutter did you pick this little "diamond"?

Honored are the dead, for their legacy guides us.

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

kul Shaishi
Yurai-Tenshin Zaibatsu
#483 - 2017-05-30 17:35:44 UTC  |  Edited by: kul Shaishi
enemies of the State You and you're already begun to sound like a warlord. The Kim clique Is already a reality And you're not loyal to the CEP and the Dragonaurs also warlords
Diana Kim
Caldari Colonial Defense Ministry
Templis CALSF
#484 - 2017-05-30 17:40:36 UTC
kul Shaishi wrote:
enemies of the State You and you're already begun to sound like a warlord. The Kim clique Is already in reality And you're not loyal to the CEP and the Dragonaurs also warlords

Try harder, gallente bootlicker. You are just laughable. Don't bother me until you will manage to come with something coherent, or at least remotely resembling a truth.

Honored are the dead, for their legacy guides us.

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

Pieter Tuulinen
Societas Imperialis Sceptri Coronaeque
Khimi Harar
#485 - 2017-05-30 17:54:37 UTC  |  Edited by: Pieter Tuulinen
Arrendis wrote:


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.


I know that daring to advance an opinion that disagrees with you makes me a corporate shill, but it is frequently the case that evidence is deemed inadmissible to a court of inquiry on the basis of it compromising state security. If you've never done something necessary and unpleasant that you know you're going to have to lie about, then you've never worked for a government.

In that event it is often the case that the officer being investigated is hung out to dry like washing if his organisation doesn't feel like protecting him, or a settlement is reached in order to avoid the question of why the obvious evidence never shows up on either side of the case.

So, yes, it seems like something has been covered up - but that's all we know. I'm also going to point out that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. You can certainly point out that the black boxes have obviously been suppressed - and I'd be forced to agree with you - but that is all you can point out with any degree of credibility. Claiming that you know why the black boxes were suppressed and that, therefore, you know precisely what was on the black boxes is false.

Let me enumerate this more plainly:


  1. You know the black boxes were not entered.
  2. You can infer the black boxes were suppressed.
  3. You do NOT know who suppressed them.
  4. You do NOT know why they were suppressed.
  5. You do NOT know what they would have shown if they were entered into evidence.
  6. You do NOT know how they would have altered the findings of the Inquiry if they were entered into evidence.


I'm fairly sure that if the local Customs detachment was on Crash and just decided to murder seven freighters full of Caldari (even faux-Caldari) citizens on a drug fuelled whim, then they would have hung them from the nearest signal tower. None the less, whoever was behind the ordering of it clearly prefers that narrative to whatever actually happened - which makes me suspect there was either a humongous 'official' mistake made or there was a cause to it that they've decided to keep private.

For the first time since I started the conversation, he looks me dead in the eye. In his gaze are steel jackhammers, quiet vengeance, a hundred thousand orbital bombs frozen in still life.

Arrendis
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#486 - 2017-05-30 18:09:58 UTC
Pieter Tuulinen wrote:

I know that daring to advance an opinion that disagrees with you makes me a corporate shill


Nonsense, Pieter, you're a loyal citizen of the State. There's no reason we can't hold differing opinions without one of us 'shilling'. That would just get into... well, Kim-esque levels of making everything about us.

Quote:
but it is frequently the case that evidence is deemed inadmissible to a court of inquiry on the basis of it compromising state security.


Sensor data showing the existence or nonexistence of debris would compromise State security? Really?

Quote:
If you've never done something necessary and unpleasant that you know you're going to have to lie about, then you've never worked for a government.


Those situations, Pieter, tend to be the ones where the government takes at least a little bit of care to ensure the questions are never asked. In this situation, that would've been 'the freighters all self-destructed and look, we conveniently have flight data recorder logs that show it'.

The lies, in such things, tend to be competent, and thought out ahead of time.

Quote:
Claiming that you know why the black boxes were suppressed and that, therefore, you know precisely what was on the black boxes is false.

Let me enumerate this more plainly:


  1. You know the black boxes were not entered.
  2. You can infer the black boxes were suppressed.
  3. You do NOT know who suppressed them.
  4. You do NOT know why they were suppressed.
  5. You do NOT know what they would have shown if they were entered into evidence.
  6. You do NOT know how they would have altered the findings of the Inquiry if they were entered into evidence.


I'm fairly sure that if the local Customs detachment was on Crash and just decided to murder seven freighters full of Caldari (even faux-Caldari) citizens on a drug fuelled whim, then they would have hung them from the nearest signal tower. None the less, whoever was behind the ordering of it clearly prefers that narrative to whatever actually happened - which makes me suspect there was either a humongous 'official' mistake made or there was a cause to it that they've decided to keep private.


Let's be clear: I've never said what those logs would show, only what those logs should show if the official story is true. The existence of debris around the freighters as they came out of warp is not a matter that would compromise State security. As for the freighters' recorders...

The recorders were in the hands of two groups: the freighter crews, and the Customs Service. The voice recorders on the freighters were working fine, and mention missile fire. Nothing about ships breaking up in warp (which you'd think they'd have noticed). Nothing about 'they know!' or any other indicators of suspicious activity among the crew.

So there's no indication of any motive for the freighter crews to have tampered with the data recorders. This indicates that we can, in fact, produce a reasonable hypothesis of who tampered with the data recorders.

Beyond that, all I've said about them is that it's mighty convenient and suspicious that they were all damaged in just the right way that between them, they can't account for any chunks of the missing minutes of flight time.
Arrendis
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#487 - 2017-05-30 18:15:24 UTC
Pieter Tuulinen wrote:

You do NOT know why they were suppressed.


Just as a side note: of course we know why they were suppressed. They were suppressed because someone didn't want whatever's on them to be revealed. What, precisely, that is, remains a mystery of course. But nobody suppresses recordings because 'hey, let's just mess with people'.

I mean, I would, sure, but let's face it, I'm a jerk.
Pieter Tuulinen
Societas Imperialis Sceptri Coronaeque
Khimi Harar
#488 - 2017-05-30 20:05:56 UTC
Arrendis wrote:
Pieter Tuulinen wrote:

You do NOT know why they were suppressed.


Just as a side note: of course we know why they were suppressed. They were suppressed because someone didn't want whatever's on them to be revealed. What, precisely, that is, remains a mystery of course. But nobody suppresses recordings because 'hey, let's just mess with people'.

I mean, I would, sure, but let's face it, I'm a jerk.


Ah, sure. When I say you don't know why they were suppressed I don't mean that we don't know it was because whatever is on them was being suppressed, I mean that we don't know what precisely is on them that we aren't supposed to know.

All we know is that whatever would be revealed would be worse for the State than the settlement - which says that there was no malfeasance on the part of the Quafe convoy and that customs killed the ships for some good reason which they accept responsibility for.

I'm just very uncomfortable with people talking about the moral and ethical implications when we don't know the true story - and knowing that we don't know the true story is about the only thing that we DO know.

For the first time since I started the conversation, he looks me dead in the eye. In his gaze are steel jackhammers, quiet vengeance, a hundred thousand orbital bombs frozen in still life.

Arrendis
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#489 - 2017-05-30 20:15:57 UTC
Pieter Tuulinen wrote:

All we know is that whatever would be revealed would be worse for the State than the settlement - which says that there was no malfeasance on the part of the Quafe convoy and that customs killed the ships for some good reason which they accept responsibility for.


Uhm... except again, they don't.

Quote:

Admiral Erinen closed the press conference by further elaborating on the position of the State Armed Forces. Her words have drawn strong criticism from within Federal borders after she stated that “in conclusion, the SAF accepts no liability or responsibility for the loss of the 4,691 Quafe Company personnel who were killed in the incident.

“We do however acknowledge that at the time of the incident, the vessels and personnel involved were within Caldari borders, under the jurisdiction of the SAF, and were under instruction from Caldari Customs. The agreement of a settlement with the Quafe Company is neither admission nor confirmation of either liability or responsibility for the incident.


So, no, Pieter. They don't accept responsibility for killing those ships. They diverted those ships. They fired on those ships. They killed every single person who somehow over multiple minutes of missile-fire failed to get to the escape pods, we're told... but they totally weren't responsible for doing the things they did.

I mean, I'll totally agree that they might not be suppressing the sensor logs because they'd show no debris. We don't know what they show. Maybe they show debris. Maybe they show escape pods. Maybe they show Jamyl Sarum showing up with a damned Jovian superweapon to blow the hell out of some freighters.

Whatever it is, though, don't say that Caldari Customs "killed the ships for some good reason which they accept responsibility for", because they went out of their wat to insist that they specifically don't.
Pieter Tuulinen
Societas Imperialis Sceptri Coronaeque
Khimi Harar
#490 - 2017-05-30 20:23:50 UTC
Well, duh. The whole point of the settlement is to limit the vulnerability of the State Armed Forces to further civil law suits by the families of the dead. Even if they'd executed each crewman on video, the settlement would be worthless to the SAF without that finding.

It's the point of the settlement. Limited liability.

But this is a court of law, it is legally proper - not truth.

For the first time since I started the conversation, he looks me dead in the eye. In his gaze are steel jackhammers, quiet vengeance, a hundred thousand orbital bombs frozen in still life.

Arrendis
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#491 - 2017-05-30 20:47:56 UTC
Never claimed otherwise. Just pointing out that you saying they'd accepted responsibility for their actions is kind exactly the opposite of true.
Veikitamo Gesakaarin
Black Advent
#492 - 2017-05-30 21:08:46 UTC  |  Edited by: Veikitamo Gesakaarin
Arrendis wrote:

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.


Yes, there are discrepancies and inconsistencies in the timeline of events as presented and I cannot pass any moral judgement on the issue without an accounting of the facts. I am leaning right now in best faith on the side of the SAF however I am also aware of the wider issues at play currently.

Second quarter corporate shareholder meetings should be coming up and if this matter remains in the public consciousness then those shareholders might push the Executive boards to place the matter before the next CEP quorum. Which would make sense since the matter involves both border security and the death of citizens by a State agency. The prospect of the SAF being placed before a CBT Special Investigation is, yes, is probably what the SAF leadership is trying to avoid. Because the CBT have their own moral obligation to discover the truth and if any wrongdoing occurred their special investigators have a rather well deserved reputation for being both apolitical and relentless.

This is why the settlement was pursued: to prevent any CBT inquiry. Given my own experiences in CBT courtrooms, being placed before an Arbiter is probably the last thing they want.

So this really is the game being played here. I don't want to pass a moral judgement on the SAF in the absence of all the evidence because it's the damn SAF. I'm also not blind to the inconsistencies here either or the potential palace intrigue that might have been going on because my conspiracy sensors are activated by the whole affair.

Kurilaivonen|Concern

Pieter Tuulinen
Societas Imperialis Sceptri Coronaeque
Khimi Harar
#493 - 2017-05-30 21:15:02 UTC
Arrendis wrote:
Never claimed otherwise. Just pointing out that you saying they'd accepted responsibility for their actions is kind exactly the opposite of true.


It's a bit like when someone says "No offence, but..." and you damn well know they're going to cause offence. "This settlement doesn't indicate that the SAF accepts any responsibility or liability for...." means you damn well know they're accepting liability and responsibility in every sense except a legally binding one.

As Veiki says - comes the Arbiter, comes the Arbitration.

For the first time since I started the conversation, he looks me dead in the eye. In his gaze are steel jackhammers, quiet vengeance, a hundred thousand orbital bombs frozen in still life.

Arrendis
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#494 - 2017-05-30 21:46:27 UTC
Pieter Tuulinen wrote:

It's a bit like when someone says "No offence, but..." and you damn well know they're going to cause offence. "This settlement doesn't indicate that the SAF accepts any responsibility or liability for...." means you damn well know they're accepting liability and responsibility in every sense except a legally binding one.


Given the sheer size of the entity in question, the legally binding sense is basically the only one that matters. Throwing pocket change at the problem to make it go away doesn't really strike me as anything more than 'here, now shut up so we can ignore this'.
Pieter Tuulinen
Societas Imperialis Sceptri Coronaeque
Khimi Harar
#495 - 2017-05-31 01:37:13 UTC
Arrendis wrote:
Pieter Tuulinen wrote:

It's a bit like when someone says "No offence, but..." and you damn well know they're going to cause offence. "This settlement doesn't indicate that the SAF accepts any responsibility or liability for...." means you damn well know they're accepting liability and responsibility in every sense except a legally binding one.


Given the sheer size of the entity in question, the legally binding sense is basically the only one that matters. Throwing pocket change at the problem to make it go away doesn't really strike me as anything more than 'here, now shut up so we can ignore this'.


I'm fairly sure this is being paid attention to somewhere where it will do more good and cause fewer headlines.

Again, I'm pretty sure it happened for a reason, even if the reason is an enormous balls up. Enough money came from the settlement that I doubt the families of the lost will suffer poverty, and I'm pretty sure that if this was a stupid call by someone, then that person will pay for it.

Do I particularly want a show-trial that would likely target scapegoats? Newp. Do I particularly want SAF to be transparent with our enemies and competitors so that they can have a nice crow about it in public? I don't see the upside of that.

And, as I said, it's entirely possible all the evidence was suppressed for a good reason.

Someone wiser than me said, earlier, that this event isn't going to change anybody's mind about anything. I don't think the SAF are composed of mindless, feckless thugs and criminals. Some others have always thought that.

For the first time since I started the conversation, he looks me dead in the eye. In his gaze are steel jackhammers, quiet vengeance, a hundred thousand orbital bombs frozen in still life.

Veikitamo Gesakaarin
Black Advent
#496 - 2017-05-31 10:24:57 UTC  |  Edited by: Veikitamo Gesakaarin
Aria Jenneth wrote:

(I wonder who you are this time..)


In the waning days of that patriotic conflict that resulted from corporate secession sometimes referred to as The Exodus War as my direct primogenitor would have called it; a group of neuroscientists, cyberneticists and those kind of guys who think sticking nanometre thick meshes of electroencephalitic materials into people's brains just to see what happens explored that ever abstract of questions: Hey, how do we bring people back out of that wetgrave?

I'm not sure if results were as planned but hey out popped me: Infomorph ex nihilo. Guilty as charged.

So I am who I always am, which much like an AI programmer with a penchant for profanity is just stochastically... recursive.

Addendum: Yes, killing people is ostensibly morally wrong and all that. Just to remain tangentially on topic here.

Kurilaivonen|Concern

Arrendis
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#497 - 2017-05-31 13:29:29 UTC  |  Edited by: Arrendis
Pieter Tuulinen wrote:

Do I particularly want a show-trial that would likely target scapegoats? Newp. Do I particularly want SAF to be transparent with our enemies and competitors so that they can have a nice crow about it in public? I don't see the upside of that.


I'd just like to say that I find it incredibly ironic that you're simultaneously saying 'I trust the SAF to have been moral actors in this' and 'I believe the SAF would find scapegoats and leave them swinging in the wind, rather than conduct an investigation in good faith that might expose systemic and cultural issues'.

If they're so trustworthy... why don't you trust them to conduct an honest investigation?

Transparency about obvious failures in policy and the chain of command means cleaning it up. Only an idiot would crow about his enemy fixing problems. Covering them up? Leaving them to fester? Oh, if the Gallente Senate wanted to 'crow' over the actions of their 'enemies', this would give them a much better moral and political position to do it from. They'd be painting this as Quafe being forced to accept money instead of justice, and "the SAF using hush money and the corrupt Caldari legal system to shelter and protect xenophobes and murderers".

It's a lot harder to pontificate about something like that when your 'enemy' can just say 'there was a problem. We've taken steps to correct it. We haven't hidden any of that. Now how are you doing with the FIO's shady activities around the Kyonoke Inquest?'
Aria Jenneth
Societas Imperialis Sceptri Coronaeque
Khimi Harar
#498 - 2017-05-31 14:02:26 UTC  |  Edited by: Aria Jenneth
Arrendis wrote:
Transparency about obvious failures in policy and the chain of command means cleaning it up. Only an idiot would crow about his enemy fixing problems. Covering them up? Leaving them to fester? Oh, if the Gallente Senate wanted to 'crow' over the actions of their 'enemies', this would give them a much better moral and political position to do it from. They'd be painting this as Quafe being forced to accept money instead of justice, and "the SAF using hush money and the corrupt Caldari legal system to shelter and protect xenophobes and murderers".

It's a lot harder to pontificate about something like that when your 'enemy' can just say 'there was a problem. We've taken steps to correct it. We haven't hidden any of that. Now how are you doing with the FIO's shady activities around the Kyonoke Inquest?'


Does it really seem like people wait for a really strong rhetorical position before saying nasty stuff about an enemy, though, Arrendis? It seems like in practice, it's always, "You're wrong, and awful people, and X is clear evidence of that." If X is something that hasn't been fully exposed and fixed, the cry is corruption and rot. If it has, the claim becomes that it was a symptom of a deeper problem-- so, also corruption and rot.

It seems like people generally look for the worst in their opponents, and find it.
kul Shaishi
Yurai-Tenshin Zaibatsu
#499 - 2017-05-31 15:23:15 UTC
Diana Kim wrote:
kul Shaishi wrote:
enemies of the State You and you're already begun to sound like a warlord. The Kim clique Is already in reality And you're not loyal to the CEP and the Dragonaurs also warlords

Try harder, gallente bootlicker. You are just laughable. Don't bother me until you will manage to come with something coherent, or at least remotely resembling a truth.

Kim you are a gallente bootlicker
Pieter Tuulinen
Societas Imperialis Sceptri Coronaeque
Khimi Harar
#500 - 2017-05-31 20:06:17 UTC
Arrendis wrote:

I'd just like to say that I find it incredibly ironic that you're simultaneously saying 'I trust the SAF to have been moral actors in this' and 'I believe the SAF would find scapegoats and leave them swinging in the wind, rather than conduct an investigation in good faith that might expose systemic and cultural issues'.

If they're so trustworthy... why don't you trust them to conduct an honest investigation?


I absolutely trust them to conduct an honest investigation. I absolutely believe they would sacrifice the careers of a few officers in the cause of the public smokescreen that would conceal any unpallatable findings of that investigation from foreigners.

Seriously. Get over the idea that the SAF believes the public has any right to know what is happening under the mask.

For the first time since I started the conversation, he looks me dead in the eye. In his gaze are steel jackhammers, quiet vengeance, a hundred thousand orbital bombs frozen in still life.