You've been telling me to allow member nations to actually shoot at them, without any prior warning, so long as they're within the member nation's borders. I'm not sure why they can't fire a warning shot first.
Advertisement
by Gastash » Wed Nov 06, 2019 8:53 am
by Araraukar » Wed Nov 06, 2019 12:23 pm
Gastash wrote:Araraukar wrote:OOC: You're the one forbidding hostile actions. Shooting tends to be taken as a hostile action, especially if you don't know if you're being shot at (and just missed).
You've been telling me to allow member nations to actually shoot at them, without any prior warning, so long as they're within the member nation's borders. I'm not sure why they can't fire a warning shot first.
Apologies for absences, non-COVID health issues leave me with very little energy at times.Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.
by Gastash » Wed Nov 06, 2019 4:30 pm
Araraukar wrote:OOC: And I keep asking you for a realistic non-space-faring-FT-nations situation where it might actually happen that you could possibly stumble into another nation and have no idea there is a nation there.
by Araraukar » Wed Nov 06, 2019 5:26 pm
Gastash wrote:A rebel faction loses a civil war and scatters
or a country is bombed into oblivion.
Everyone thinks they're dead, until years later when they're rediscovered in the wilderness.
Or, what if the moon was inhabited? That's a first contact waiting at your doorstep, no FT required.
In those circumstances, where the nations are meeting for the very first time, why should you be allowed to shoot at them before you learn anything about them, without sending a warning signal first?
Apologies for absences, non-COVID health issues leave me with very little energy at times.Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.
by Gastash » Wed Nov 06, 2019 6:28 pm
by Tinfect » Thu Nov 07, 2019 1:37 pm
Gastash wrote:Recognizing that even the heart of the most intrepid explorer harbors a primal fear of the unknown;
Gastash wrote:Realizing that there is nothing more unknown than the first encounter between two peoples;
Gastash wrote:Concluding, therefore, that neither side of such an encounter can claim foreknowledge of the other side having hostile intent;
Gastash wrote:Asserting that the vast majority of explorers and other such border dwellers do not exist in a constant state of maliciousness;
Gastash wrote:Damning any so-called "preemptive strike" exhibited by either side to be an act of the aforementioned primal fear;
Gastash wrote:Affirming that, as a civilized body, this august assembly should strive to promote acts of logic and reason;
Gastash wrote:Declaring that logic and reason would prohibit an unprovoked attack without any knowledge of the consequences;
Gastash wrote:Proclaiming that first impressions matter;
Gastash wrote:Defines, for the purposes of this resolution, "an act of hostility" towards an entity as any of the following:
entering an area that the entity has issued clear, universal warning signals to not enter; or
Gastash wrote:acquiring a threatening position within the entity's national borders;
Gastash wrote:Prohibits member nations from committing an act of hostility towards another nation during the nations' initial encounter if the encountered nation has not committed an act of hostility.
Imperium Central News Network: EMERGENCY ALERT: ALL CITIZENS ARE TO PROCEED TO EVACUATION SITES IMMEDIATELY | EMERGENCY ALERT: ALL FURTHER SUBSPACE SIGNALS AND SYSTEMS ARE TO BE DISABLED IMMEDIATELY | EMERGENCY ALERT: THE FOLLOWING SYSTEMS ARE ACCESS PROHIBITED BY STANDARD/BLACKOUT [Error: Format Unrecognized] | Indomitable Bastard #283
by Gastash » Thu Nov 07, 2019 8:19 pm
Tinfect wrote:Gastash wrote:Recognizing that even the heart of the most intrepid explorer harbors a primal fear of the unknown;
Jasot Rehlan, Military Oversight representative of the Imperium of Tinfect and relevant official for this sort of thing stepped forward. From where, exactly, isn't known, but she certainly stepped forward. "Ambassador, if they're afraid of their work, they aren't suited to the task."
"And, try leave your cultural assumptions out of international law."
Gastash wrote:Realizing that there is nothing more unknown than the first encounter between two peoples;
"Dramatic exaggeration isn't needed in law."
Gastash wrote:Concluding, therefore, that neither side of such an encounter can claim foreknowledge of the other side having hostile intent;
"This depends on what you mean by first encounter; first contact, or first observation. Assuming there's been any kind of observation before contact, as is usually the case, the Imperium is fully able to determine hostility."
For the latter, or, in cases in which both are true, the Imperium finds it better to assume hostility than allow a massacre."
Gastash wrote:Asserting that the vast majority of explorers and other such border dwellers do not exist in a constant state of maliciousness;
"Clearly your Government doesn't have much experience on the subject matter."
Gastash wrote:Damning any so-called "preemptive strike" exhibited by either side to be an act of the aforementioned primal fear;
"Or, justified precaution, or border enforcement; this 'primal fear' theory of yours doesn't hold up to so much as a stiff breeze. The Imperium is not about to give foreigners a pass for violating the border just because we don't know who they are. Again, keep your cultural assumptions to yourself; the people of the Imperium don't share your propensity to jump at shadows."
Gastash wrote:Affirming that, as a civilized body, this august assembly should strive to promote acts of logic and reason;
"Then you don't have any problem with the Imperium enforcing it's laws?"
Gastash wrote:Declaring that logic and reason would prohibit an unprovoked attack without any knowledge of the consequences;
"Ambassador, 'logic and reason', is not 'whatever agrees with my position'. If you can't take action without prophetic knowledge, one wonders how your Government gets anything done at all."
Gastash wrote:Proclaiming that first impressions matter;
"If they're considered a legal military target from the outset, they aren't making a good first impression."
Gastash wrote:Defines, for the purposes of this resolution, "an act of hostility" towards an entity as any of the following:
entering an area that the entity has issued clear, universal warning signals to not enter; or
"And what, exactly counts as universal? If we're first meeting, presumably we don't speak their language and they don't speak ours. The Imperium marks its territory as best we can; it's not exactly possible to put up a sign every meter along the border. That doesn't make it acceptable to violate our border; ignorance of the law is no excuse, and all that."
Gastash wrote:acquiring a threatening position within the entity's national borders;
"You mean, any position within our borders?"
"'threatening' enough."
Gastash wrote:Prohibits member nations from committing an act of hostility towards another nation during the nations' initial encounter if the encountered nation has not committed an act of hostility.
"Given the lax definitions of hostility in this Legislation, you're putting lives at risk. The Imperium-" She was cut off by an alert chime from a tablet. "That, shouldn't happen, one moment."
When she looked up from the tablet, her expression was very different. "The Imperium... won't support this draft, or any further variation upon it." With that, she left in quite a hurry.
by Gastash » Thu Nov 07, 2019 8:36 pm
by Liberimery » Fri Nov 08, 2019 6:19 am
by Gastash » Fri Nov 08, 2019 8:56 am
Liberimery wrote:If it doesn’t apply in member nations boarders the there are two conditions where it does apply: when a member state is invading another nation or a member state enters unclaimed territory. In the first case, it’s an action of war
Liberimery wrote:and the second case it’s non judicable because the territory in question is not a party to this August Assembly at the time of incident and thus the aggrieved is not party to the claims in this proposal.
by Araraukar » Fri Nov 08, 2019 3:45 pm
Gastash wrote:Liberimery wrote:and the second case it’s non judicable because the territory in question is not a party to this August Assembly at the time of incident and thus the aggrieved is not party to the claims in this proposal.
"That isn't true; there are several resolutions that legislate in unclaimed territory."
Apologies for absences, non-COVID health issues leave me with very little energy at times.Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.
by Gastash » Fri Nov 08, 2019 6:36 pm
Araraukar wrote:Trying to legislate what nations can do inside their own borders, is where it goes too far."
by Araraukar » Fri Nov 08, 2019 6:40 pm
Gastash wrote:"It doesn't do that anymore, thanks to clause 1(d)."
Apologies for absences, non-COVID health issues leave me with very little energy at times.Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.
by Gastash » Fri Nov 08, 2019 6:42 pm
by Araraukar » Fri Nov 08, 2019 7:47 pm
Gastash wrote:"If I took out the 'threatening', member nations could claim whatever stretch of space their exploratory vessel happens to be in as their territory."
Apologies for absences, non-COVID health issues leave me with very little energy at times.Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.
by Gastash » Fri Nov 08, 2019 8:18 pm
by Kenmoria » Mon Nov 11, 2019 12:07 pm
Gastash wrote:"I interpret the silence to mean unanimous, unconditional support."
by Araraukar » Mon Nov 11, 2019 12:21 pm
Gastash wrote:"I interpret the silence to mean unanimous, unconditional support."
Apologies for absences, non-COVID health issues leave me with very little energy at times.Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.
by Gastash » Mon Nov 11, 2019 2:02 pm
Kenmoria wrote:"I ask how it is possible for the WA to ascertain why a member nation did a certain course of action.”
by Morover » Mon Nov 11, 2019 2:30 pm
by Gastash » Mon Nov 11, 2019 3:02 pm
Morover wrote:"In clause one, you say that 'an act of hostility' can be inflicted upon '[any] entity', yet in clause two you only specify that nations may not have an act of hostility inflicted upon them. I do believe that this is dismissive of sovereign groups that don't quite constitute 'nations' - such as a group of traveling merchants, or the like. I would like to support this proposal but this seems like an oversight."
"when one side of the disputed border has met a foreign entity"
by Morover » Mon Nov 11, 2019 3:34 pm
Gastash wrote:"when one side of the disputed border has met a foreign entity"
"If they have already encountered each other then it is not a first contact and the proposal does not apply."
by Gastash » Mon Nov 11, 2019 3:57 pm
Morover wrote:Gastash wrote:"If they have already encountered each other then it is not a first contact and the proposal does not apply."
"No, I mean whenever there is a territorial dispute between two nations and one nation has encountered the foreign entity and the other has not. Again, it's a very specific situation, but I would like some clarification on it."
by Morover » Mon Nov 11, 2019 4:05 pm
Gastash wrote:Morover wrote:"No, I mean whenever there is a territorial dispute between two nations and one nation has encountered the foreign entity and the other has not. Again, it's a very specific situation, but I would like some clarification on it."
"In that case, the member nation is free to interpret 'national territory' as the disputed territory it has claimed."
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: No registered users
Advertisement