Proposals Regarding Wrecks and Cargo Containers Containing Living Persons

[Diana_Kim]

@Melisma_Ramijozana

Thank you for your shitty spelling and grammar, your hatred, and your racism.

Always keep me on ignore, annoying creature, so I won’t have to deal with your hostile childish nonsense and lies anymore. Thanks in advance.

[Samira_Kernher]

@Diana_Kim

the people executed were not “defenseless prisoners”, they were sentenced to death war criminals

By who? You? You have no right to sentence anyone. You are an independent capsuleer serving on contract to the Caldari State. If you believe someone to be a war criminal, then you should deliver them to the appropriate authorities to handle.

[Diana_Kim]

@Samira_Kernher

By who? You? You have no right to sentence anyone. You are an independent capsuleer serving on contract to the Caldari State. If you believe someone to be a war criminal, then you should deliver them to the appropriate authorities to handle.

By a military tribunal of the officers in full accordance with martial law of Caldari State and regulations of Caldari Navy. And no, I was not among the judges. I believe I said that before in the discussion back then, why would you ever bring that now?.. If you’re interested in that, better read the materials.

[Che_Biko]

I’ve updated the list of signatures, thank you. If I’ve missed any, please let me know.

@Nauplius

Is it not the right of a Holder to dispose of his property by loading it into a freighter or industrial, destroying that ship, and then destroying the resulting wreck? Must Holders who choose to dispose their property in such fashion suffer the indignity of a suspect flag , so that abolitionist capsuleers might attack them merely for exercising their noble rights ?

I know little about a Holder rights, but I would be surprised if this way of disposing of property is explicitly mentioned.
There are easier ways to dispose of property and as such I think eliminating this way is a small price to pay for making space a safer place.

@Diana_Kim

I wonder, why you never were advertising it or bringing for discussion?
[…]
I found a fatal flaw in it:
[…]
letting occupants and aggressors escape

I have been advertising it and have had it discussed. I don’t share the opinion that it is flawed. If you wish to prevent the escape of certain people, you can take them on board your ship.

@Melisma_Ramijozana

Please add the following capsuleers to the list (the document is view-only for us):

Melisma Ramijozana
Shorai Aikyoraan Ramijozana
Renelle Ronuken

I have added yours to the list, however (and that is why the document has been made view-only now it’s been published on the IGS) I can only add the signatures of those who’ve offered them themselves, to avoid people from volunteering signatures without the knowledge of whom those signatures belong to. As such, pilots Shorai Aikyoraan Ramijozana and Renelle Ronuken will have to offer their signatures themselves.

@MantelGlobalIndustries

you can add my name to the list and that of NadSec too.

I won’t allow corporations to sign. However, as you may have noticed, you are free to send me the signatures of any of your employees who wish to sign the document, along with the total number.

Edit: I’ve also flagged a number of off-topic posts. I ask you to not respond to off-topic with off-topic, but flag off-topic as off-topic.

[Diana_Kim]

@Che_Biko

I don’t share the opinion that it is flawed. If you wish to prevent the escape of certain people, you can take them on board your ship.

That might not be as easy as it sounds. Imagine you’ve just destroyed a hostile vessel from 20 kilometers away and see ten more warping right on the wreck, you have just couple seconds to take distance or even warp out, no time to check the wreck, only to destroy it for enemies to not retrieve soldiers and equipment. For anything and anyone they will take they will use to hurt more people.

[Deitra_Vess]

Respectfully, if you were in such a situation, why would you be conducting S&R ops to begin with? Your still in combat at that point…

Would that not be a irresponsible action to take in the first place?

[Che_Biko]

Commander Kim,

While I understand your objection, I’m of the opinion that the proposal will do more to prevent people getting hurt. In the cloning age, the proposal does little to limit the ability to diminish your enemy’s military numbers in a way that many would consider morally objectionable if it was actually effective, and it does a lot to protect civilians.

[Diana_Kim]

Mr. Biko, I will politely disagree on a basis that to prevent people from being hurt you have to eliminate those who do bring that hurt, and since the modification is not an option, I am afraid in that case I will have to stand completely against this initiative as a whole, considering it unacceptable from a professional point of view.

[Tamiroth]

@Che_Biko

I’ve updated the list of signatures, thank you. If I’ve missed any, please let me know.

Thanks for adding me to the list, Mr. Biko. By the way, the titles in my post were just for reference who I actually am, there was no need to clutter the main signatory list with them. I think for CONCORD identification purposes just the pilot tag is enough.

Good luck with the petition, I sincerely hope they’ll consider it.

[Renelle_Ronuken]

@Che_Biko

As such, pilots Shorai Aikyoraan Ramijozana and Renelle Ronuken will have to offer their signatures themselves.

Confirming my signature to this document.

[Che_Biko]

Signature added.

[Ekaterina_deSilvestris]

Undoubtedly I shall come under some sort of fire for my comments, but I shall submit them regardless.

Coming from a family with a strong Naval tradition, I find myself in agreement with point 2 of the proposal. It is the moral duty and obligation for the Captain of any vessel to offer aid and rescue to groups or individuals who find themselves in peril having been wrecked or having had to abandon ship. Any such vessel offering assistance should be protected by law during operations.

However, point 1, whilst I am also, in principle, in agreement with, does, I feel, present a problem, which I believe Commander Kim touched upon.

Assuming a Captain has the time to scan or investigate a wreck (or container) to determine the presence of survivors, all very well and good, but where the luxury of such a close inspection is not available, perhaps due to the presence of enemy vessels, said Captain must make a decision - destroy the wreck regardless, to prevent any materiel or items of value falling into the hands of the enemy, or risk one’s own ship to check for survivors that may not even be present. It would be expected, I should think, that Captains use their own judgement, and this, with the proposal as written, may result in Captains commiting unwitting crimes, without intention or malice. This, I feel, will likely dissuade CONCORD or any other Power or Faction from accepting, and even perhaps considering, these suggestions.

One further potential problem comes to mind. Once a wreck or container is utterly destroyed, how does one prove or disprove the presence of living people having been on the wreck in question? Might this not lead to false charges against innocent Captains, wrongly accused of having destroyed a wreck that was in fact empty and murdering survivors that never actually existed. Perhaps there are safeguards against such a thing, of which I am ignorant, and if so, I would be extremely interested to learn of them.

Ensign Ekaterina M deSilvestris

[Che_Biko]

Thank you for your comments, ensign.

I would like to point out that safety settings exist to prevent capsuleers from committing unwitting crimes without intention or malice.
And while currently there is no way of proving or disproving presence of living people on destroyed wrecks and containers, (and as such this is not a problem created by enacting these proposals) I do think it would be possible to have the destruction of this kind logged in an automatically generated kill report.

[Ekaterina_deSilvestris]

Thank you for clarifying, Mr. Biko.