The New Charter discussion thread

Well you already know how my superior feels about this...

The syndicate would like to propose an initial, probationary organization less structured than this even.

My proposal is nothing more than a war room. A promise between each of the corps at war with IMG (sorry NHC :/) to share information about enemy movement recent sightings. This forum already serves such a purpose. By simply having this space to talk freely away from IMG leaders we can coordinate joint war efforts much more smoothly than on the AG forums or in-game.

The S. S. Syndicate's proposal would in no-way limit or restrict players from doing what they are already doing. If situations arise where commanders from the war room must engage other commanders from the same body in combat then that would not jeopardize the integrity of the group.

That proposal though is something I can't accept. It would be for the sole purpose of forming an alliance to crush someone's enemies. That isn't what this is about. Chances are we will all be his enemies and yes form plans to crush him if he declares war on all our people. But I don't want to form an alliance based off killing off each others enemies.

The sharing of locations was just an idea. It isn't one I am set on. I do agree with making it for fueling only. The reason for military was simply so we didn't end up trying to set up in the same locations. That and that information would have been kept between corp leadership only. It would only be spread on a need to know basis. But I got no problem removing that. Also I noticed Sargas you basically just reworded most of what I said. lol. It is nice to see we are agreeing on stuff though.

lisunken
On the issue of the 2nd thing. Yes SirEmi needs to fix it but until he does, we should take matters into our own hands and not lay COMs on our allies.

Well my position is that such rules/guidelines should be more a promise than a rule and unite on these terms/pledges. If we violate them or the rest of us see them as a menace of some kind, we may be considered untrustworthy and kicked out but we should be inclusive rather than exclusive which is why I think a pledge better than a rule.

In that spirit I say,

1. ITO would plege not to attack anything belonging to another member of the UC, but for us this extends to unaffiliated players
2. ITO pledges to advise all players not to stack coms on others (unless maybe it's Dadds or some other hostile entity lol) and to condemn/reprimand those that disregard this directive.
3. ITO will not meddle meddle in the affairs other corps in this united front, including but not limited to sabotage, subterfuge, etc.
4. ITO will assist other allied corporations when convenient and or needed and ask others show the same courtesy, but we do not demand it as a rule.
5. ITO will share locations of fueling stations if we have any, as well as any other data. Military data of all kinds will depend on a need-to-know basis and who's asking and how nicely.

Joining Requirements: Agreed, with the exception that while not ITO would not require that everyone must pledge to adhere to all these 'guidelines'/code of conduct, we must obviously have substantial common points of agreement to be admitted.

And Rostin, I do agree with Jam in that sentiment, as it's not necessarily at this point aimed at that, however Dadds will likely get more hostile the closer we get.

So as corps or an alliance I could forsee us working together in that regard with SSS but this organization is aimed at something else so you would not be in it per se. As an Ambassador you and SSS can work with United Corporations operations as a joint-venture and not so much as part of the organization(make the pledge lol) between us and SSS to deal with trouble makers.

Might as well make it a rule then though. They break a rule, same results. With Pledges people could say "Well it was just a pledge. Not a rule. I don't want that excuse being used.