Changes to Electus Matari RoE

As a Minmatar loyalist organization, EM is watching the negotiations between the four major powers with interest. We hope that cooler heads will prevail to ensure this ceasefire actually achieves what it intends to achieve and no unnecessary escalations ensue. We will take our lead from Republic policy and act accordingly.

As of today, our RoE has been amended as follows:

  • Caldari Militia are no longer considered red by default.
  • We no longer extend our requirement of NRDS in homespace to Federal space.

This brings the two neutral states to equal status on the warzones, conforming to current tribal politics.

All current blue standings hold. No current reds have been neutralized and, at least for now, no talks are ongoing.

We advice that we cannot guarantee the safety of entities without standings in the neutral (Caldari-Gallente) territory. If changes to existing standings are required, please do not hesitate to be in contact.

While this is not a policy matter but a practical one, I will also point out that as a result of the changed Militia rules, pilots belonging to entities with red standings towards each other joining the same Militia are at risk of friendly fire due to how overviews work. We are working on a solution to minimize such incidents on our behalf.


Just to clarify, is this “We can’t help it if other people shoot you” boilerplate, or is this a statement of “We may shoot you if we feel like it”?

We might open fire if the circumstances make it reasonable. We are generally not in the habit of going out of our way to hunt civilian traffic and our priorities are in the defense of homespace, but it is not impossible that this might happen, if standings are not set.

So, NBMS, as it were? Not blue may shoot?

That generally is the true meaning of NBSI. Despite the literal implication of the term, there in practice are very few organizations for whom neutral standings means kill-on-sight (outside of territories actively defended).

I completely understand. I just want it clearly stated. “EM cannot guarantee the safety blah blah” is vague, while “EM is NBSI” is crystal clear.

I thought “We no longer extend our requirement of NRDS in homespace to Federal space” was clear enough on that. Apologies for any unclarity.

There’s a difference between “Not NRDS” and “NBSI.” I have reams of screeds about that left over from my days in the Jericho Fraction, if you’re interested.

I am not Jericho Fraction, and you can usually just read what I say (in less than three walls of text) and take it as what it says.

I’m glad to have been able to clarify for you, though.

Understood, Captain.

Thank you for issuing this releaseand I can (whilst I am still typing up a Peacekeepers Statement on recent affairs) confirm that our standings, both positive and negative, remain unchanged as they were before the signing of the Treaty of Airaken as of writing.


This swing in the prevailing winds of policy leaves a hollow to our stomach and a chill to our shoulder where once was warmth.

Can confirm, standing orders for Imperium combat pilots are ‘Holy carp DO NOT SHOOT NEUTRAL JFS JUMPING TO THE KEEPSTAR’ and have been for a number of years.

They weren’t always, though.

I do not believe that simple turning down ‘red’ status would abdicate you of the crimes that your corporation has committed.

I have a ‘weak’ rule to not shoot neutrals (weak - because it is easily circumvented by order of superior or by any hostile or suspicious behavior of said neutral).

By this message I am notifying you that you are not neutral, and that you still will be treated by me or those under my command as enemies of the State, with policy of elimination on contact.

I have to place notification explicitly, because here in the State we do not backstab people and instead make our intentions known ahead.

– D. Kim, Strike Cmdr.

1 Like

I don’t see an issue here.

From practical point of view I see all conflicting standings as situations where “an enemy tries to pretend to be a friend” and would engage freely if someone with red status will fly under the same flag with me, or someone with blue status will fly under hostile flag: they are all to be eliminated without questions.

I do not consider either of these situations as “friendly” fire (or even as “incidents”, though for sure the other side might start some drama about it) while at least one characteristic shows a pilot as actual enemy, and if pilots really wish to be friendly they shall remove all the hostilities completely through diplomatic channels or otherwise.

After all, nobody banned negotiations.

To be quite blunt about it, Diana Kim, for both me and the organization I represent your opinion of our policies is entirely inconsequential.

(EDITed to comply with a code of conduct.)


It’s just a position of logic.
But it’s not my job to waste time on educating tribals, suit yourself.

It is my humble suggestion that the virtuous Electus Matari to maintain this change of Caldari State affiliated combatants to be no longer considered Red, but have Diana Kim as a sole exception.

We have not made changes to explicitly set reds and blues on either side of the GalCal conflict.

pink is the color to look for. a red suited man with a space truck full of pink pigs. red, blue… it is all about losses. if a red kills more enemies than you then are they not your symbiotic partner? this being so reds and blues are intertwined. stabilizing one another in an ever-changing struggle to smuggle red and blues through CONCORDS nets. keep up your valiant fog of war for the cause. i salute you. but don’t forget to set some things to purple as well. dk.

This topic was automatically closed 90 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.