Comm ID: Elias Elonen
Zoner Council Specialist on Medieval Plumbing
Topic: Loitering Ordinance
I wholeheartedly support the legislation and enforcement of a No-loitering law for all Freeports.
My suggestion for a definition of loitering: A vessel, which shows no intention of docking with Freeport, while holding position within 1 kilometer of the aforementioned Freeport.
Vessels would be given a 3-minute period to decide on whether to "evacuate their bowels or assume a upright position in respect to the chamber pot".
The conundrum here, of course, is how to enforce and implement such a law without driving off decent folk.
Elonen out.
End of transmission...
Communication link received...
Sender: Lloyd Black
Location: Freeport 6
To: Council of Zoners
Subject: Loitering rule
Opening link...
You say it's for pilots who are "obviously up to no good", so call it something other than an anti-loitering rule. We have a law that states that you are not to launch attacks directly from a Freeport, but we still let combat ships restock at our bases.
If someone's got some scheme in mind, deal with that. Some of us are just more comfortable in our ships than in a bar.
I vote against any no-loitering law. We don't need more pointless laws.
Link terminated. Closing...
Excellent start for a definition, Brother Elias! I would agree that three minutes should give any legitimate visitor time to "Squat, or get off the pot!"
"Waiting for a friend", in my opinion, is not a valid excuse, as the waiting could just as well be done in our well-stocked station bars.
And yet again, Trogdor, you seem to place very little faith in our Zoner brethren.. suggesting that they might accept bribes.. and that we don't have the gumption to enforce the laws we make.
Sir, you have been entrusted with command of one of our fabled Juggernauts. Has that trust been misplaced? You seem very reluctant to put your vessel in harm's way to protect Zoner interests. I apologize in advance if my surmise is incorrect, but some of your comments seem to indicate that you're not willing to commit to any consensus which might make your day a bit... "challenging", shall we say?
from: Persephone-II-
to: the council
"about the loitering issue - i would vote "yes" - but we should be aware of two things.
firstly, we don t want to turn out a strict governing body like the ones we fled the core from - or at least some of us.
secondly, we re dealing with people who s job qualification is to disobey the laws of most kinds - and they do so successfully for the most part - or they wouldn t exist anymore. - some of those are brilliant in the battle department, but rather lacking in the comprehending of the letter of the law department, - some do understand perfectly what they are expected to do ... just to do the opposite. - and the term we can put on such an individual is a "pirate" for most of it.
if we pass laws like that - we must be aware that ... one day... we will have to enforce them, or have them be enforced... - and the last thing we need is too many of our own ships looking to fine and punish our guests.
we should rather politicly go forward to have their respective leaders to ask their people to see the advantages of "behaving" at our stations. - the disadvantages should not include us firing on perpetrators... that is only a "possibility" that should lurk... unspokenly... in the back of their minds.
on another note - i have recently come into contact with the so called "council" in the orkney system. - as a zoner the pilot was mostly polite and welcomed me to explore. - he warned me about an unjust and rather hostile goverment in their space - the so called "royal navy" - but expressly sounded interested in establishing trades with sirius - especially when i pointed out what there was to gain... for both sides.
we should attempt to initiate negotiations with the so called royal navy, too - so we are regarded as "neutral" in gallia, too - as soon as we can. - the trade opportunities in the newly discovered country is terrific.
i will personally dedicate some of my time to work on understanding the underlaying political structures of the new house - meanwhile, omicron-delta appears to be pretty save from assaults. - we do have a powerful representation there, so that i can pass the Persephone-II- to my second in command.
E.Tate out"
From: Werner Mazursky
To: Council of Zoners
Topic: anti-loitering Law
[font=Palatino Linotype]
Dear Delegates,
Let me add one point to our discussion. While trying to design a new rule, let us bare in mind that eventually, we will have to apply this Law afterwards. Therefore I would warn us against putting our intention of clearing Freeports from unwanted elements, into very strict and quantitative rules. I wouldn't like to have to sit with the stop-watch in the hand, and a measure in another one. I'm sure you don't like this vision neither.
I have the feeling that our basic intention is to introduce a kind of Sheriff-Laws at our Freeports. This means
(a) simplicity (you seek trouble --> you're not welcome)
(b) arbitrary decisions, based on the common-sense approach (not the numbers)
If I sense your intentions correctly, I propose to proceed in this spirit. Let us grant the privilege to take the appropriate decisions to the actual "Sheriff" of Freeport, and to assure that it's not a person who will lightly escalate conflicts and act immaturely - let us appoint only the chosen persons to play this role!
Would you find this direction reasonable?
Best regards,
dr Werner Mazursky
Comm ID: J.Archer,
Chairman of the Zoner Council.
Dr.Werner, you just hit the nail on its head.
if the rest of the council agrees, we should make an list of those "sherif's"
for now I woulndt want to see Captain Trogdor as Sherrif of Fp1,
my suggestions are
Miss tate for Freeport 11,
David Archer for Freeport 2
Myself and/or Captain Matok for Freeport 1
more people I dont know yet, but thats an matter for a other time aint it..
Comm ID: Furball
Location: Freeport 9
To: Council
I say Yes to the proposed laws regarding loitering but with the same qualification as Dr Mazursky and Madam Tate, I think the Council should make it clear that this law is a response to the irresponsible behaviour of some rogue pilots and does not represent a shift in attitude to all our guests.
Furball Out.
Comm ID: Malaclypse
Fellow Delegates,
I believe we all have sufficient grey matter to determine who our legitimate "guests" are. We have also all encountered those individuals who are merely hanging about "yanking our chains", as the ancient saying goes. It is these individuals, who seem bent on testing our resolve and our patience, that this new Ordinance would be meant to address.
A prime example is the Freeport 1 incident with the Legate Cruiser. Obviously, this fellow was attempting to provoke an incident with Captain Trogdor.
Now, we can continue to let these folk push the envelope, and prove us powerless and ineffective, or we can work on drafting an ordinance which will specifically address this inflammatory behaviour by a few individuals, while still allowing access to our stations.
**Incoming Transmision**
To: The Zoner Council
From Samuel Nichols of Omicron Supply Industries.
Message reads:
I vote Yes on a no loitering "law"
Being I am mostly at Freeport 9 and 11 I see this a lot. Most folks just move on or dock. Some get grumbly about it, but oh well. Considering I am usually in OSI-Integrity when I do this, I think that most will respect it. Integrity is a border worlds transport. Most fo thewse folks are not looking for a fight and will respect us. Those of them that will not it will not matter if we are in fighters or Jugs when we do ask they will always be a problem.
If we do pass this we must be ready to face the fact we may have to enforce it with force. I think that will be a relativly rare case though. If asked, repectfully, to move on, most will. On that note I was toying with the idea of hiring an indipenent Zoner cruiser captain for Freeport 9. This way Miss Tate can deal with just Freeport 11.
Samuel Nichols
CEO - OSI
**End of Transmission**
Comm ID: Captain Trogdor
' Wrote:And yet again, Trogdor, you seem to place very little faith in our Zoner brethren.. suggesting that they might accept bribes.. and that we don't have the gumption to enforce the laws we make.
Sir, you have been entrusted with command of one of our fabled Juggernauts. Has that trust been misplaced? You seem very reluctant to put your vessel in harm's way to protect Zoner interests. I apologize in advance if my surmise is incorrect, but some of your comments seem to indicate that you're not willing to commit to any consensus which might make your day a bit... "challenging", shall we say?
I never said we lacked the ability to enforce our rules. I said that when none of us are looking, our rules are oft ignored. That's what we need to change. We need to come up with some way, besides the threat of violence or banishment, of convincing our guests to behave while guests at our houses.
On the issue of bribes and favoritism, as we are a varied people, I wouldn't put anything past anyone, eh?
As to your last comment...what? Huh? I'm being criticized for trying to avoid conflict now? Trying to find peaceful solutions? The very thing I've been prodded at in the previous weeks for supposedly not doing?
Would you have preferred I engaged that battleship and blown it up, no doubt starting a war between our factions?
With respect, please don't tell me how to do my job, as I don't tell you how to do...whatever it is you do.
' Wrote:for now I woulndt want to see Captain Trogdor as Sherrif of Fp1,
I imagine you have a good reason for saying this, chairman. Do you think the Corsairs may target Freeport 1 because they were unsatisfied with my replies to their demands, and they know I guard it? Or is there some other reason?