Jam-Jul Lison
UC Advisor 
Emperor of The Galactic Empire
Posts: 133
|
Post by Jam-Jul Lison on Nov 6, 2014 20:28:41 GMT -6
8. No member of The United Corporation shall admit someone into their Corporation that is known to be on the KOS list of a member of The United Corporations without an Unanimous vote from all of the Corporations belonging to The United Corporations.
9. If a captain that joins is on a KOS list but it is unknown to that Corporation Leader, it is the person who's KOS list job to notify that said Corporation Leader of the situation within a week. The united Corporations will then investigate the matter. After the investigation proposals will be suggested on best to proceed. The majority vote will determine the outcome.
|
|
Jam-Jul Lison
UC Advisor
Emperor of The Galactic Empire
Posts: 133
|
Post by Jam-Jul Lison on Nov 6, 2014 20:35:38 GMT -6
This is simpler and more to the point. Odds are we will see number 9 more then 8. 8 is to keep people like Dadds from slipping in the cracks. I don't like restricting who joins who's corp. I normally just stay out of it. But in some cases if people have changed they should try to prove it. People rarely get on a KOS list for no good reason. In many cases the situation can be easy to resolve. Something which can be done prior to acceptance into one of the corps here. The recent situation with Jake is one that proves something like this is needed. So say in the future someone else comes along that was like him. It will be up to him/her to prove to us he has changed. It is more convincing when it comes from the person in question then someone else.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rostinius Maximus on Nov 6, 2014 21:00:57 GMT -6
I am opposed to both amendments.
This organization is not a governing body and I will leave before I see it become one.
|
|
Jam-Jul Lison
UC Advisor
Emperor of The Galactic Empire
Posts: 133
|
Post by Jam-Jul Lison on Nov 6, 2014 21:11:39 GMT -6
I am opposed to both amendments. This organization is not a governing body and I will leave before I see it become one. Surprising considering your suggested is trying to act like one more so then this here. Not to mention it sets up much heavier restrictions. Which resembles a heavier governing body then this here. All this here does is set procedures in place to help prevent conflict and potentially war from breaking out. |
|
|
|
Post by JoolzVern on Nov 6, 2014 21:20:17 GMT -6
True, but it still tells corps what to do and while I'd say it's not AS bad as Rostin's proposition, I think the UC shouldn't get it's hands dirty governing what the corps do.
At the same time, I am honestly concerned that if hypothetically I were to take in all of SSS and IMG simply so TGE didn't come after them the rules don't stop that. This is a clear abuse of the UC. Sure it's meant to keep the peace, but not by bringing in known long-time aggressors of member corps.
As for what to do about that, I've no silver bullet suggestion yet. Jam's isn't bad as far as taking care of that problem. What I think we want to shoot for is a solution that doesn't create another problem(in this case, governing corp admissions).
Perhaps a solution would be a sort of UC "blacklist" of players that are on ANY of our KOS/hitlists that might make us feel less comfortable about being in the UC, should they join it. Not necessarily everyone on your KOS list, just the ones that you feel would compromise the UC's integrity.
Then we can *try* to get the corp leaders to agree to amendment saying that we agree to not take in such blacklisted players.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rostinius Maximus on Nov 6, 2014 21:27:53 GMT -6
The UC as I was told when helping make it is just a formal treaty organization. Stronger than any normal NAP but weaker than a full alliance.
That's all it should be. My proposition is just a provision to allow two consenting individuals to settle their differences like gentlemen.
|
|
|
|
Post by JoolzVern on Nov 6, 2014 21:32:33 GMT -6
The original one was. The one you posted here in the forum is quite restrictive, governing how such matters are settled or perhaps what constitutes "gentlemanly". It shouldn't. It should simply allow for it. How we go about it should be between corps, in my opinion.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rostinius Maximus on Nov 6, 2014 21:32:47 GMT -6
This body is a collection of corporations. Not individuals.
Your personal grudges have no place in the independent governing of other corporations. If you have a beef with someone that is between you and them. Keep the corporations out of it
|
|
|
|
Post by JoolzVern on Nov 6, 2014 21:36:26 GMT -6
This is no personal grudge Rostin. It would be if it was just me vs. Jake. As corporations, SPQNR and ITO must agree to terms to allow for a grace period for ITO, (not me) retaliate against this player, and it is not the UC's business how such a grace period is constructed. It is ours. We simply need the charter amended to allow corps to make such an agreement, not for it to govern the specifics of it.
|
|
Jam-Jul Lison
UC Advisor
Emperor of The Galactic Empire
Posts: 133
|
Post by Jam-Jul Lison on Nov 6, 2014 21:38:43 GMT -6
Your idea is much more then that. It imposes heavy restrictions. Heavier then this here. Your idea would allow a member of the UC to take in any known pirate, terrorist or whatever and protect them from attack from those they have made enemies of. All they have to do is say no to any sort of duel or skirmish and be spared any having to face any consequence for their actions. That right there is the biggest hole in your idea. Then for if they say yes there are a crap load of limitations that shouldn't even be there. Not only does your idea allow this of them, it would allow corps to abuse your amendment to take in whoever they want not caring how much trouble they have caused in the game. What I am proposing my not be as long and detailed as your idea but there is also less room for error. It would also help to prevent future conflicts. Your idea on the other hand could potentially cause even more problems down the road. What gets me is how unlike the original idea you had for it was. What you sent to joolz before with some better working probably wouldn't have been a problem as all. It was small and to the point. But this idea you proposed. It seems to be designed to let a corp take in whoever they want and allow any member no matter how much they may have wronged another member of the UC to get an easy get out of jail free card.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rostinius Maximus on Nov 6, 2014 21:47:58 GMT -6
Heavy restrictions??? The UC charter already bans hostilities between members! How is this any heavier than that?
And how about this Joolz, you tell each and every one of your corp members to send me a private message telling me how jake harmed them and what they think his punishment should be? Because as far as I can tell you two are the ONLY ones who have voiced their opinions that he should be treated like a criminal. Same goes to you JJL, until I hear from your other members these are all treated as the sentiment of individuals.
And I wouldn't accept any player if I thought they actually caused you harm. Your post about Kristen in the main forums shows how pointlessly butthurt you are JJL.
|
|
Jam-Jul Lison
UC Advisor
Emperor of The Galactic Empire
Posts: 133
|
Post by Jam-Jul Lison on Nov 6, 2014 22:01:19 GMT -6
I forgave Jake already. This isn't about Jake. It is about preventing another situation like this from occurring. Your idea allows whoever is on someone's outlaw list to get away with what they want. Hell with what your suggesting you could take in Dadds and if we wanted to go after him all he would have to say to us is no on the challenges. That would be it. He would get off without any sort of justice at all. People don't usually get on my KOS list because of actual damage done. Usually it is because of their actions overall. Take Mythic. When he was on my KOS for a short period of time, it was cause he hit one of my guys. It wasn't about the damage. It was the principal of the whole situation He understood this. I never actually got a hit on him and he is no longer on my KOS list. These individuals who earn themselves a spot on someone's KOS list shouldn't just be handed a get out of jail free card. That is exactly what your proposing offers. I get this idea of mine isn't perfect. If you got a better suggestion I am all ears. But your proposal as it stands now won't work and it will just cause problems down the road. Especially if you were to issue a get of jail free pass to someone like Dadds or The Reaper.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rostinius Maximus on Nov 6, 2014 22:03:53 GMT -6
If you don't like the actions of a corporation then vote them out of the UC. It's that simple
Or just do what Joolz did and leave
|
|
Jam-Jul Lison
UC Advisor
Emperor of The Galactic Empire
Posts: 133
|
Post by Jam-Jul Lison on Nov 6, 2014 22:10:08 GMT -6
The thing is then your back in the same boat we are in now. Bickering. What we need is a final solution that prevents this from ever happening again. That is what I was trying to do with my proposal. Not offer get out of jail free passes to potential terrorist or anyone else. Because the first time it happens, someone is liable to start complaining again and we got another mess on our hands. I don't want that. I want a solution that solves the problem completely. Can I assume you want the same thing?
|
|
|
|
Post by JoolzVern on Nov 6, 2014 22:10:44 GMT -6
This is heavier than that by saying that when we do allow them, we have heavy restriction on them that prevent corps from settling their differences without a bunch of UC bickering and voting and hand tying.
How about this Rostin, any unsanctioned attack on my players is an attack on ITO. When someone does so in support of a petty, unjust war, they have wronged all of our players and it becomes a matter of principle. If you're looking for how "Jake harmed" my members then again, as I previously told you, this indicates that right and wrong aren't a concern for you. He attacked us wrongly and that's how he harmed us, and made sure we won't let it go.
I have no respect for anyone that would deny that simply because I am the voice of ITO. It is a matter of fact we were attacked numerous times. When the leader of ITO tells you Jake is a war criminal, understand I AM ITO's LEADER AND SPOKESMAN. I speak on their behalf. You demand the victims speak for themselves, some of which, like Freezelove may no longer be members or even players thanks to the guy you thought nothing of taking in. I do not ask all your players to confirm they agree to the UC because as leader and spokesman you've agreed on their behalf and that is enough for me. I expect the same respect.
If you accepted Jake because you don't think he actually caused us harm(more than Raph- RAPH...I repeat, RAPH), then you further insult and disrespect us with your incredulity.
|
|
