|
|
Post by virgil on Nov 6, 2014 23:48:00 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. I know I haven't posted on here before, but I feel that, as co-leader of SPQNR, it's my prerogative to post in the UC forums. I hope nobody minds my input. I can't even decide where to begin... I'll try to structure my objections and all of the loopholes I can see with your proposal in an organized manner. 8a) Assuming anyone but you feels it is the right of this body to dictate recruitment, you realize that once this passes, you will have to compile and address the KOS lists of upwards of 40 Corp members... or were you suggesting that only a few people's KOS lists matter? Who will be responsible for this herculean task? 8b) What about non-violent players? If I don't have a KOS list because I don't believe in PVP in this game, that doesn't mean I don't have a blacklist of players who I would bar from entry into the UC in the event that this amendment passes. Does my list have equal weight to yours? 8c) What about pre-existing KOS- or black-lists? For instance, if this passes, I have you on my blacklist. You stole a crashed alien ship from me (and though we resolved that issue when you paid me QPs in reparation, I've been told repeatedly lately that it's not about the QPs, it's about the JUSTICE), and you betrayed my IRL friend's secret publicly, forcing us to leave SSS before I was ready. Does that mean you would have to leave your own Corp because you're on my blacklist? Or are you grandfathered in because your Corp is already in the UC? How long does someone have to be in a UC Corp before they are protected from such a measure?  ) What about Corps that want to join the UC that have a blacklisted player in them already? If I have Joolz blacklisted for wasting my time on this absurd proceeding, does that bar ITO from joining UC until I can be persuaded to take him off my list? 9a) What will prevent players like me, who are furious at this whole waste of time, from producing a blacklist every time someone new joins TGE or ITO? How will you discern the difference between a genuine blacklist and one manufactured out of spite? Policing the private documents of every single member of every UC Corp seems like awfully hard work. Who gets that honor? 9b)What is the structure of a UC investigation? Who will be in charge? Does this body have a position that designates someone as chief investigator? What is the timeline of an investigation of such a nature? Will both sides be heard? Will third parties be enlisted to testify, or only UC members? 9c) How long will proposals last, and what happens if one player is so spiteful that they refuse to listen to the accepted proposal, leave the UC in a fit of rage, and persist in hostile aggression? Would the UC be bound to act towards the protection of the Corp being assaulted in such a manner? This would most likely call for the entire UC to be restructured, as I understand it to simply be a slightly more robust collection of NAPs. 9d) What happens if a Corp accepts a blacklisted member and successfully hides it for a week? Is this behavior allowed/encouraged? Or will there be other repercussions? If this happens and the possessor of the blacklist insists on pursuing vendetta regardless of the timeline, what will be the repercussions for that player? A few things that apply to both 8 and 9... a) What happens if a player joins a UC Corp who isn't on anyone's KOS/blacklist, but is in possession of a blacklist of their own? For instance, say someone peaceful joins SPQNR, but remembers being raided by JJL back in the day. Say he or she still has JJL on a blacklist. Is JJL therefore kicked out of TGE or the UC? If not, how does this body proceed in such an event? b) Is there a minimum power limit on any of this? When I was a new player, someone named Soyuz raided me several times. I have him on my theoretical blacklist... but what if he comes back and joins TGE? Do I have the right to refuse a player with less than a million player admittance into a UC Corp? It's rather absurd to suggest that such a tiny player, gone so long, deserves to be blocked entry into TGE because of his actions many months ago... c)You have suggested that the point of these is to allow for players to prove that they have changed. What metrics shall be used to decide if a player is changed? If the UC can agree, in a majority vote, that a player has changed for the better, does that nullify these proceedings? Or can one angry player still keep things going indefinitely? |
|
|
|
Post by JoolzVern on Nov 7, 2014 0:32:33 GMT -6
Virgil, when I said any of our hitlsits, I mean as corporations. If you have a thing with Jam then you may submit to your corp that he be on the SPQNR hitlist, and then the UC could all vote on if we as UC corps can agree to not take in said player. It would be preposterous to expect the UC to do the duties of a corp leader in regards to that. As for "8b", if your corp feels that such a player is on the hitlist for reasons that would make you uncomfortable with being a UC member with them in it, then you could ask that he be added to that corp blacklist. The UC then could vote to add them to the UC blacklist. So the voting, like passing bills in Congress would be voted on in stages up the ladder- Player hitlist>player 'blacklist' of the really bad guys on their list>Corp hitlist>Corp Blacklist> UC Blacklist "8c": If you have an issue with UC corps/members as they are then this is another matter. This issue pertains to new admissions. Stay focused, Virgil. " ": If a corp has members on the UC blacklist(not YOUR blacklist, but the one the UC adopts after each corp submits their master list of 'deal-breaker' players) then I'd say they should be denied admission to the UC unless we take a vote or something on it. So Cornedo for example having Jake on his hitlist wouldn't have mattered- only if he's on ITO's list, and if we decide he's a deal-breaker, then the UC could vote to add him to the blacklist. "9a" Players can do that all they like. Unless we all get together and say, yes we can agree this person will damage the integrity of the UC, he won't be on the UC blacklist. The burden of proof would be on you/SPQNR to show us it's not just spite for that to happen. "9b" Pertains to Jam's suggestion so I'll ignore that as I propose something else. "9c" See "9b" "9d" Taking in a blacklisted player we've agreed not to take in would be considered a breach of the agreement and an exiting of the UC. UC corps would remain free to keep such a player on their list and attack them and/or the non-UC corp. A): they will have to either not join SPQNR, agree as per the UC charter to not attack UC corps including Jam, or persuade SPQNR to exit the UC to carry out justice for their new guy they hardly know lol B): This is about the integrity of the UC so if when he attacked you it was horribly wrong, (as with Dadds or Jake supporting him, over a nonsensical feud) and you felt it was so horribly unjust that he could damage the UC, then you could again ask that he be added to the corp blacklist, and then voted into the UC blacklist. To be clear, the purpose of the blacklist I propose isn't that it be a hitlist, but a blacklist of really bad guys who are on such lists for *good reason*. |
|
Jam-Jul Lison
UC Advisor 
Emperor of The Galactic Empire
Posts: 133
|
Post by Jam-Jul Lison on Nov 7, 2014 0:42:03 GMT -6
Let's start with past blacklist. When we came together and formed the UC, we knew who was in our corps more or less. We accepted them and forgave their past mistakes. I didn't have any of you on my KOS list. But if had you been, I would have written you off. As for people personal KOS list. The well known people that 8 would apply are ones that tend to be on Corp Blacklist and are people pretty well known. These are people such as Dadds. 9 pretty much is people that are obscure that others haven't let known. I did post my blacklist on here so everyone can see it. I don't expect others to. Though if there is a certain someone they feel it should be known, they should post it up in the embassy. Otherwise it comes down to number 9. A week is a fair time for someone to have noticed this person on their KOS list is in one of our corps. After a week has passed, any past complaint they have about them is moot. It is up to the individual captain who has them on their KOS list to keep tabs on this and notify the Captain of the corp that person joined. It really isn't that difficult of a concept. I admit it can be difficult to keep track of who joins what corp sometimes. But if someone is on your KOS list and you really are after them, your going to keep tabs on them. so if someone slips through then only that captain has himself to blame then and there is nothing they can do about it. BTW on the subject of betraying Rostin. He had already told me he had talked to Raph about possibly forming his own corp. From how it sounded to me it wasn't really a secret. So I didn't realize I was telling anything that wasn't already known. As for your reason to blacklist Joolz there. He isn't to blame. This is something that should have been ironed out sooner but I honestly didn't think would happen. The huge situation was created by how Rostin and Jake handled the entire matter. Though that there is pretty much resolved. All this here though, this is just something that needs to be done. Better to get something figured out now rather then later on down the road when more problems could occur.
For investigations the person in question would need to come on the forum here. They would be expected to give their testimony on what happened. Depending how many people were involved in what caused this person to be added to the KOS list, other people would be called in to testify as well. Give their view of what happened. We aren't going to cross examine them or ask them a bunch of questions over and over. We just get everyone's side of the story. This will help us to figure out what really happened. Trivial matters such as you suggested about having to sit through something like this would easily be thrown out. Other smaller matters depending on the situation could be as well. In other cases 1 revenge hit could be granted. It would be decided on a case by case basis and all the corp leaders will discuss the matter together to decide the best judgement. I think anyone who remains in the UC after this will accept this if we go this route. So any judgements even if they have issues with it, they should be able to just let it go if they don't like it. Just like any new corp that joins the UC would come in and agree to what is set forth in the charter. As I said before there will be no need to keep a robust list of KOS list. If a corp leader wishes though they could ask their members to send them a list of people on their KOS list and post it up on in their embassy on the UC forum. I think you will find most players don't keep a very long list.
If someone joins a UC corp. they need to be made aware of who all is in the UC, the charter and agree to it. If they got a personal issue with someone in another Corp in the UC they must set them aside if they want to be a part of that corp. No there is no minimum power list. Power is just too easy to change. Someone could easily drop the power of all their ships and follow below such a mark making them excluded from such a thing and then just power back up later. Them being small and inactive though is something that would be taken into considering by the corp leaders when deciding judgement and stuff though. I personally would suggest a simple apology in most of those situations. If it 1 or 2 attacks. Then i'd suggest just letting the guy off the hook and letting him in without having to do anything else. As for telling if someone has changed. That is up to the corp leaders to determine based on their opinion of how the person is currently acting and stuff. Some people are harder to convince then others. But at least on number 9 you only need the majority vote. Not everyone has to agree. Honestly I don't see number 8 coming up very often since a lot of people aren't likely to even share their KOS list. I don't expect everyone to compile it and post it here either. It is up to them. As for if a majority vote on number 8 nullifies the proceedings. No it does not. Because the proceeding determine the judgement. Judgement can be for the person on the KOS list or the person/people who has them on the KOS list. In most cases I don't see a person being denied entry. No it won't keep going on indefinitely. Say in number 8. If an official vote is called, people need to just accept the vote results and leave it at that. Not keep up pointless arguing. If a few months down the line they want to try again they may.
|
|
|
|
Post by virgil on Nov 7, 2014 0:55:15 GMT -6
JJL, maybe I wasn't clear... what I was offering were issues with your amendment. Things that the official document should address before I would find it sound enough to be voted on. Your personal ideas are fine, but the document needs to incorporate them in an official manner, so that the amendment is impervious from abuse. That means compiling them in a document that can be referred back to in the future, not just responding to the points I made with your opinions.
Joolz, I was responding to the actual amendment that's been proposed, which allows spiteful individuals to dictate the recruitment efforts of entire corporations, and stubbornly make problems for everyone based on personal grudges... which, while I know is a theme lately, seems like something that should be avoided in the future. If your modified proposal for Corp-blacklists is incorporated into JJL's proposed amendment, I will address the new document in the same manner as I addressed the one that's currently been proposed. And, for the record, if you want an amendment that will govern the actions of a number of individuals, you're going to have to elaborate on things like "good reason." Who decides what good reason is? Is there a vote?
You guys are offering incredibly porous counter-proposals when you already have an ironclad one offered by Rostin... I don't get it.
|
|
Jam-Jul Lison
UC Advisor
Emperor of The Galactic Empire
Posts: 133
|
Post by Jam-Jul Lison on Nov 7, 2014 1:00:07 GMT -6
I will compile something together for procedures for how this should be handled. However they shouldn't be listed in the charter itself as it would confuse people. I already had people complain when I was wanting to try to define a few things on it when we were forming it. All I was doing then was the sort of thing your suggesting here. The procedure for these can be posted on the forum where everyone can have access to read it. I do appreciate you taking time to discuss this issue though and you did make some good points.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rostinius Maximus on Nov 7, 2014 1:37:56 GMT -6
I have ethical concerns about any system of blacklists... I have already talked about them in detail, but if you want I can repeat my argument.
You two are playing this game too personally. Why? Why must you feel like your HATRED of a person outweighs DOZENS OF OTHER PLAYERS' wishes to rehabilitate someone?
|
|
Jam-Jul Lison
UC Advisor
Emperor of The Galactic Empire
Posts: 133
|
Post by Jam-Jul Lison on Nov 7, 2014 2:39:25 GMT -6
You assume we blacklist people out of hatred. People on my KOS list are not there because I hate them. They are there because their actions put them there. There is a difference. As for rehabilitation, some can be and others can not be. But part of rehabilitation needs to be owning up to past mistakes and facing justice. In order for a person to change they need to first admit they have a problem in the first place. They have to want to change. If they are convinced they have done no wrong when they have, then how can they truly change at all? They wouldn't even know what it is about themselves they need to change.
All I want is a system in place that helps to ensure that anyone coming into the UC has really changed or at the very least will own up to their mistakes against people here. Something that prevents more arguments from breaking out and helps prevent the UC from splitting apart. We need to be united. Not divided.
|
|
|
|
Post by raptoriuscruoningus on Nov 7, 2014 4:39:30 GMT -6
When the leader of ITO tells you Jake is a war criminal, understand I AM ITO's LEADER AND SPOKESMAN. I've read pretty much everything on the AG forums, but don't recall a proper court convicting anyone. Would you please provide the link that justifies the "war criminal" tag? |
|
Jam-Jul Lison
UC Advisor
Emperor of The Galactic Empire
Posts: 133
|
Post by Jam-Jul Lison on Nov 8, 2014 21:42:48 GMT -6
When the leader of ITO tells you Jake is a war criminal, understand I AM ITO's LEADER AND SPOKESMAN. I've read pretty much everything on the AG forums, but don't recall a proper court convicting anyone. Would you please provide the link that justifies the "war criminal" tag? Considering his past actions, he would be considered a war criminal by corps he was at war with. I have forgiven him for his past action and let it go. Joolz found a way to work things out with Jake. But honestly in a war, any enemy soldier who fights against you can and is considered a war criminal by the opposing side. Just as if one side captured the other, they would be considered a prisoner of war. Whether they stay a war criminal or not would only be considered after they have been tried and convicted but until that occurs they would be considered a war criminal. They might be let go if they were a lowly soldier. But if they were a higher ranking member they would surely face some sort of conviction. Especially in a case in a war where someone was provided with the information on what was really going on and still supported their leader and helped them to attack others. In the case of this game. there is no hiding who is behind attacks really. It shows you in attack reports. So it comes down more to how do you deal with the situation. How do you they react when the war is over? Are they willing to own up to their actions and admit what they did and apologize for their actions? Possibly even admit they were in the wrong. In Jake's case that is what we wanted. I am glad to have things resolved with him. Though I will say he is lucky to be getting off so easy. Some like Dadds will never have a chance to get off my KOS list. While those who aren't at war with him might not consider him a war criminal. He is recognized as such by TGE and ITO. I imagine Raph still sees him much the same way as well. |
|
Jam-Jul Lison
UC Advisor
Emperor of The Galactic Empire
Posts: 133
|
Post by Jam-Jul Lison on Nov 8, 2014 21:45:03 GMT -6
I have ethical concerns about any system of blacklists... I have already talked about them in detail, but if you want I can repeat my argument. You two are playing this game too personally. Why? Why must you feel like your HATRED of a person outweighs DOZENS OF OTHER PLAYERS' wishes to rehabilitate someone? Hatred? No hate has nothing to do with it. People get on my KOS because of actions they have committed. For example I don't hate Dadds. Sure I dislike him but I don't hate him. But because of his actions he is forever on my KOS list. If my KOS list was motivated by hatred then no one would ever be getting off it. But there are those that have gotten off it. Some quite easily. |
|
|
|
Post by sargas on Nov 8, 2014 22:50:09 GMT -6
I've read pretty much everything on the AG forums, but don't recall a proper court convicting anyone. Would you please provide the link that justifies the "war criminal" tag? Considering his past actions, he would be considered a war criminal by corps he was at war with 1. I have forgiven him for his past action and let it go. Joolz found a way to work things out with Jake. But honestly in a war, any enemy soldier who fights against you can and is considered a war criminal by the opposing side. Just as if one side captured the other, they would be considered a prisoner of war. Whether they stay a war criminal or not would only be considered after they have been tried and convicted but until that occurs they would be considered a war criminal 2. They might be let go if they were a lowly soldier. But if they were a higher ranking member they would surely face some sort of conviction. Especially in a case in a war where someone was provided with the information on what was really going on and still supported their leader and helped them to attack others. In the case of this game. there is no hiding who is behind attacks really. It shows you in attack reports. So it comes down more to how do you deal with the situation. How do you they react when the war is over? Are they willing to own up to their actions and admit what they did and apologize for their actions? Possibly even admit they were in the wrong 3. In Jake's case that is what we 4 wanted. I am glad to have things resolved with him. Though I will say he is lucky to be getting off so easy. Some like Dadds will never have a chance to get off my KOS list. While those who aren't at war with him might not consider him a war criminal. He is recognized as such by TGE and ITO. I imagine Raph still sees him much the same way as well 5.
2 I don't understand what you are trying to say here. Is it this: Is the POW or the Captor the war criminal?
3 JJ, how long did it take Japan to apologize for involving the USA in WW II? An apology is never in order at the end of a war, however, the demand of an apology will prolong a war.
4 I think you meant to say 'I' and not 'we'. Otherwise, who is the 'we' to whom you refer?
5 The Empire of Sargas does not consider Dadds to be a war criminal (there has been o evidence produced supporting that claim).
Instead, the EoS considers Dadds to be insane.
Because of his insanity, he needs to be separated from decent society.
This has been done (IMG has nobody left besides Dadds except for the ghost of Aysle and a prospect from SOL Corp).
I see no reason for this argument to procede.
|
|
Jam-Jul Lison
UC Advisor
Emperor of The Galactic Empire
Posts: 133
|
Post by Jam-Jul Lison on Nov 8, 2014 23:05:27 GMT -6
1. By supporting Dadds and conducting attacks against TGE and ITO, we (TGE) considered him a war criminal. The matter has been settled though and we no longer regard him as such.
2. Before the trial and during they would be considered a war Criminal. If they are in custody they would also be considered a prisoner of war. Though if released, they be excused of all charged and considered neither. If convicted they would remain both. Of course in the game arresting people is impossible. lol
3. To be fair Japan was nuked. After that happened I am not even sure an apology was really needed. Nothing even close to what we did back them can be done in the game though. Yes an apology can prolong the war. But it is a good way for them to show they want to make peace. Especially when they can admit what they did was wrong.
4. For there I was referring to both TGE and ITO.
5. TGE also questions his Sanity. He clearly isn't right in the head. But we still consider him a war criminal. I agree he needs to be isolated and kept to himself. Shame we can't have him comitted
Your right. There is no need to proceed with this now that another discussion is on the table. I only posted here before hand because I checked this before I read that thread. But I felt I should explain the war criminal thing a little more here which is the main reason I posted here in the first place this time.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rostinius Maximus on Nov 10, 2014 1:47:08 GMT -6
So anyone who fights in a war is a war criminal? Would your veteran relatives like to hear you say that to their face?
|
|
Jam-Jul Lison
UC Advisor
Emperor of The Galactic Empire
Posts: 133
|
Post by Jam-Jul Lison on Nov 10, 2014 1:58:38 GMT -6
So anyone who fights in a war is a war criminal? Would your veteran relatives like to hear you say that to their face? Do you think the axis troops and their higher ups thought our people should just walk away? To them the allies were the enemies and they likely would have considered them War Criminals. It comes down to point of view on that. To us their people were War Criminals. Imagine if the allies had lost the war. Do you think the higher up officers would have been spared? Do you think the Germans would have put up with other countries harboring them or telling them to play nice with them? The allies certainly didn't do that with German higher ups. Pest as Jake was he was Dadds 2nd in command, was informed of the situation in the beginning and just ignored everything he was told. So to us he was a war criminal. All I wanted was to see make some sort of effort to show us he was really sorry and to own up for his actions. I already made my peace with him and my goal from all this is to prevent anything like this from happening again. |
|
) What about Corps that want to join the UC that have a blacklisted player in them already? If I have Joolz blacklisted for wasting my time on this absurd proceeding, does that bar ITO from joining UC until I can be persuaded to take him off my list?
