Thank you for your earnest attempts to clarify matters, Lord Consort. Your response is helpful in so far as it clarifies that there are indeed certain conditions that further categorise different entities nominally considered -10 ‘engage on sight’, and that these conditions can leave those entities in practice anywhere from being actually ‘engage on sight’ all the way to ‘formally ally with if considered appropriate’.
Based on this, while the list of nominal standings in your initial post is very much appreciated, for an alliance such as mine to make well-informed decisions, particularly in light of recent hostilities directed towards us, we are understandably far more concerned with those practical realities.
You note that participation in the 24th Imperial Crusade plays a crucial part in the Vanguard’s willingness to share an alliance with and maintain de facto +10 standings towards Holy Amarrian Battlemonk, yet this would seemingly also therefore apply to Nauplius’ heretical organisation Hoi Andrapodisstai, an entity that you have personally been willing to fire upon during your time with the Excubitoris Chapter despite both entities sharing 24th IC enlistment at the time. You furthermore list the inactive status of an organisation’s leader as a considered factor, yet neither this nor participation in the Crusade would appear to apply to Ushra’Khan, whom we have previously established your alliance has been willing to cooperate within the past.
The point of considering an entity to be nominally engage on sight, but in practice friendly if both parties are enrolled within the 24th Imperial Crusade also raises questions as to how the Vanguard believes loyal Amarrian subjects should act if they themselves are not enrolled in the 24th Imperial Crusade. Would it be the Vanguard’s position that Khimi Harar, for example, without the constraints imposed upon it by enrollment in the militia, should still treat Holy Amarrian Battlemonk as ‘engage on site’ hostiles, bringing it into direct conflict with the Vanguard’s own alliance, or should it be open to cooperation with Holy Amarrian Battlemonk at the risk of ‘actively assisting known hostiles’?
Naturally, given the levels your organisation and its alliance is willing to go to both rhetorically and in-space when you consider another Amarrian organisation to have erred in its judgement, these ambiguities are concerning. Would the Vanguard therefore consider amending it’s publicised list of standings and rules of engagement to more clearly represent the actual practical realities of its positions towards entities nominally deemed hostile, making it explicitly clear which out of them are considered, in actual practice, to be reasonable to cooperate with and those that are not?
With regards to the notion of discussing these matters in private, I don’t believe that to be appropriate in this instance for two reasons. Firstly, the matter in question relates to ambiguities in publicly announced Vanguard policy, on which clarifications would therefore be most productive if also made publicly to prevent confusion and misunderstanding between all other parties to your announcement. Secondly, your organisation has already publicly accused my own of misdeeds and unfortunate stances that may necessitate aggression against it on several occasions now. Taking the conversation into private venues once asked for clarifications on your own stances would, therefore, create somewhat imbalanced impressions in front of the wider public.