IP: 291.2203.fp15.tx
Location: Corinth Research Station
Callsign: Yev Lightwing of the Zoner Trading Consortium (]c[)
To: Zoner Council
I am not sure if Captain Reynold's escorting rule is a safe idea. To escort is to protect, and protecting targets that are hostile to certain factions risks our neutrality. Example:
-->A bounty hunter ship is persued by 4 members of The Brotherhood. Bounty Hunter approaches Freeport 9 and asks us to escort him out of the system. We perform this task, guiding him out under our protection. The Brotherhood is not impressed.
Cpt. Reynolds mentioned a restriction to this rule in regards to Battleships. But I think the safest way to make it is to extend it to all fighting ships, light fighters included. Additionally, to prevent unneccessary political tensions, I recommend restricting this law to Zoner "owned" systems: Baffin, O-74, and O-49. O-49 is not officially owned by Zoners so some factions will look down on us trying to dominate this territory, however, I think it's a smart move. All bases in the system are Zoner and Zoners fly there more than anyone else (with the exception of miners).
I also have a rule to propose:
--->Ships carrying slaves cannot dock at any Zoner base unless the pilots intent to set the slaves free.
I understand that Slavers will have a large issue with this, but.... on a personal note I would like to mention that there have been some frightning reports gathered by the University of Gran Canaria, in conjunction with those from the Ames Research Station. The reports indicated that around 1.5 to 2 million children (under the age of 14) are trafficted for sex slavery every Solar Cycle (1 Gran Canaria year). I implore the Council to take a stand against these autrocities.
From: Louisa Salome, Public Relations Zoners Trading Consortium
To: The Council of Zoners
Great Council,
I really do not know how to find a viable, just and thus strong law against loitering. Though I have to agree that we have to pass some kind of law, none of the proposed details has convinced me so far. If I put myself in the position of a watch looking after a freeport I would be confused in times of high traffic tracking all arrivals and departures in order to be able to calculate at least an approximate loitering peroid for each present vessel. This is the best precondition to keep us very busy stressing misjudgement and inequity.
My second point is that I do not really like to scare our visitors away. Our freeports live on them, and I have to admit that most of times I really appreciate it having ships from every part of Sirius around. It took our ancestors and us decades, even centuries, to build our freeports, and it required many efforts to make them vivid places, marketplaces, every child in Sirius has heard of. We succeeded due to our hospitality, and today the constant flow of commodities and information is perhaps one of our greatest advantages.
We need this law, or some kind of law, I know and I agree, but we should find one that is adjustable according to the loitering visitors as well as it should be unquestionable and clear. I would like to suggest a separation of this sought-after rule, a division in one law and its directives. The law should be easy to understand, and the directives could be altered as needed. Our advantage would be that we could take more time for finding good directives respectively behavioural guidelines.
The law could contain something like this:
Every Zoner Guard may dissolve assemblies within the NFZ around a Zoner base at his discretion. Every vessel not having a Zoner ID and Zoner IFF or Zoner Guard ID and Zoner Guard IFF has to comply immediately by either docking at the station or leaving the NFZ.
This way we could vary the directives until we would have found viable guidelines. I am even assuming that we will have to adjust them more than once which is a matter of experience that is still to be gathered, but I cannot agree with passing a law which is likely to be changed within the next few weeks, and once taken back a failed law would erode the credibility of this council.
Sincerely,
Louisa Salome
*Click click....whirrrr*.......*cough cough cough*
Whoa, that was a big one. Anyway, fellow delegates, I support standardization of NFZ's at 5 k. It allows people to know just what the rules are, without having to be familiar with that particular base. Solid sense.
Now, to the whole "no pirating" in 49 and Theta. I cannot agree with that one. Not beuase I want people pirating there, but instead I think about the last time Zoners tired to make a system a "no fire" or "no tax" zone, which led to a war with the Corsairs. I cant imagine it would be much different this time. Do we really want to go to war over protecting people outside the NFZ. That has never been our way. I didnt leave the houses to come out and be independent to feel like I was just under another houses laws. We Zoner, we are not a house, we should not be concerned with levying laws like a house would. Why do we have the NFZ? To protect our facilities, this is the only reason I find the NFZ even palatable, because it is about protecting OUR facilities, not protecting ships in the no fire zone. So someone tell me, how does making an entire system a no fire zone, server the goal of protecting Zoners? In my opinion, it only risks the lives of Zoners, and the damage that will come to our facilities from it. If we declare O49 and Theta a no tax, or no fire zone, then we need to enforce that, which will involve combat, which will involve lost Zoner lives. The loss of Zoner lives is regrettable, and should be avoided, and only an option when something threatens our way of life. Instead it seems like some people on this council would prefer to make the Zoners into a house like any other, making all sorts of laws, regulating what people can and cant do, with whom they can associate, and what can be done in space. Ladies and Gentlemen, dont look now, but I can barely tell the difference between the houses of Liberty or Kusari, and we of the Zoners. So, I might change my mind, but only if someone can give me a good reason that making theta and 49 no pirate or no fire zones protects true Zoner interests.
Lev
I support Lev's proposal to NOT enfource a "no fire/no tax" law in Theta. Corsairs pirate because that is how they increase their budget and support their people. We need to understand this because the Corsairs are our close neighbors in the Omega/Omicrons.
As far as O-49 goes, it's a delicate situation. Many IMG ships are found mining in that system. If we impose a no-taxing law in O-49 I would extend it to Zoner IFF and ID pilots only. I would not prevent prominant Corsair factions like the Brotherhood from pirating non-Zoners, however. Rogue Corsairs are another matter as they have been known to attack Zoners more than factionlized Corsairs.
But I agree with Lev. The Zoners are not a House, and besides O-74 and Baffin, I don't believe that we should enforce House-like rules in other systems.
From: Pope David Fenderson
Source: Planet Gran Canaria, Omega-49
Re: Omega-49
I also agree that we should standardize the No-Fire Zones around our Freeports at 5k. It's an easy number for everyone to remember, and is already the standard at the majority of our Freeports.
I am, however, in favor of declaring Omega-49 a piracy-free zone. Whether you like it or not, we need to trade, and Gran Canaria is a center of that. Enforcing a no-piracy policy in Omega-49 would encourage traders to come to Gran Canaria and move Zoner-made goods to market. If you don't consider that a good enough reason, I ask you to also consider the following. Omega-49 is located directly between multiple forces hostile to one another. The Mollys, Corsairs, Bretonians, and Red Hessians all have holdings one system away. Two of those forces, the Corsairs and Bretonians, have shown direct interest in Gran Canaria itself. The Bretonians have gone as far as naming it Planet Sydney in their own records, and even in their communications with us. Every day, more and more Bretonians and Corsairs arrive on Gran Canaria. Right now, everything is peaceful enough, since there's enough planet to go around and nobody doubts that we're in charge. How long is that going to last if we don't assert ourselves, though? Enforcing a no-fire, no-piracy policy throughout the entire Omega-49 system is one step in reminding both powers that Omega-49 and Gran Canaria are
our homes, and that they are guests in
our territory.
Reject this proposal if you wish, fellow delegates, but if you do so, I hope you're prepared to raise the flag of Bretonia or Crete over Gran Canaria because things will quickly get out of hand if we don't act now.
Hail Eris! -><- καλλιστι -><- All Hail Discordia!
If protection of commerce is now the Zoners goal, why not just declare any system with a Freeport in it a no fire zone? The combined value of all of the Freeport's represents a much more substantial economic interest then Gran Canaria. So if economic protection is what this is about, why not declare any system with a Freeport in it a no fire zone?? Someone tell me? O49 is important yes, but since when have we decided protecting transports that are not Zoner is the way we should do things. We are already starting to have problems with this, Zoner warships escorting GMG transports threw Corsair territories. When did we start being concerned with the safety of anyone but ourselves? Is this what being a Zoner has become, protecting traders just because they do business with a Freeport or planet of ours? How does this ensure our neutrality? And if we think it does, why not really go all the way, every system with a Freeport would be a no fire zone, and any trader trading with a Freeport should be offered escort. The problem is, this is not in line in any way, shape or form with our Zoner values. Our neutrality and individual independence is based in our steering clear of other peoples conflicts, not to put ourselves in the position of refereeing conflicts between different groups. Why should we care whether Corsairs and Bretonians start fighting? It in fact helps us, if we think they both have intentions on Gran Canaria. if they are fighting each other, they will be less likely to try and take Canaria. If they are fighting, we will have both sides protecting Canaria, as the other taking the planet from us would hurt their efforts. The Corsairs will never let the Bretonians take it from us, and the Bretonians would never let the Corsairs take it from us. But if instead we make a no fire zone of the whole system, we are forcing them to deal with us before they can deal with each other. The Zoner Council is not some kind of reemergence of the Earth United Nations, and we Zoners are not some recreation of the UN Peacekeepers, we are not here to stand between the powers and stop them from fighting, it does not help us, and it is not who we are.
Lev
On another personal note, I would like to mention that we (Zoner Council) have become a little eager lately in terms of setting Zoner-wide rules.
What I mean is, escorting non-Zoner factions is something that each Zoner faction should negotiate seperately with other non-Zoner factions. I do not believe that the Council of Zoners should go this far in dictating Zoner conduct. For instance, the Faction X may be on good relations with IMG and want to sign a contract stating that they will be protected in O-49, while Faction Y may have poor relations and may not want to ruin their reputation with IMG's enemies.
If it came down to it, I would vote "no" on a theoretical proposition of escorting non-Zoner ships out of the system and providing them security.
Some members of the Council also need to realize, as Lev pointed out, that while Zoners are "relatively" lawful, whatever is left of our neutrality is there only because we have not taken sides. To be neutral is to be indifferent. Protecting non-Zoner traders from Corsair factions is not.
' Wrote:IP: 291.2203.fp15.tx
Location: Corinth Research Station
Callsign: Yev Lightwing of the Zoner Trading Consortium (]c[)
To: Zoner Council
I am not sure if Captain Reynold's escorting rule is a safe idea. To escort is to protect, and protecting targets that are hostile to certain factions risks our neutrality. Example:
-->A bounty hunter ship is persued by 4 members of The Brotherhood. Bounty Hunter approaches Freeport 9 and asks us to escort him out of the system. We perform this task, guiding him out under our protection. The Brotherhood is not impressed.
Cpt. Reynolds mentioned a restriction to this rule in regards to Battleships. But I think the safest way to make it is to extend it to all fighting ships, light fighters included. Additionally, to prevent unneccessary political tensions, I recommend restricting this law to Zoner "owned" systems: Baffin, O-74, and O-49. O-49 is not officially owned by Zoners so some factions will look down on us trying to dominate this territory, however, I think it's a smart move. All bases in the system are Zoner and Zoners fly there more than anyone else (with the exception of miners).
How is the bounty hunter scenario you mention any different from what it is now? So we don't escort him out, so he just stays cowering behind the veil of our NFZ. The Brotherhood still isn't happy, so why not offer the escort so at the very least he's no longer hiding in our NFZ. once he is out of system, we don't care if the Corsairs hunt him down. and if the BH is a repeat offender about bringing his fight to our doorstep, we certainly won't continue to let him abuse our neutrality.
I merely suggest escorting as an option available to help defuse a situation. not something that is a right of any ship entering one of our NFZ's. if it turns out to be a total disaster, we rescind it. and that goes for about the whole list, if something ends up doing more harm than good, it can be rescinded.
Dear Cpt. Reynalds,
I understand what you are getting at. I had assumed however, that in general, it is forbidden for persued parties to hang around Freeports.
Instead of an escort rule, may I suggest one that dictates that a pilot who is being attacked or persued by an enemy may not use the Freeport NFZ as a safe-haven? I understand escorting trouble makers out of a Zoner system, but escorting them with protection may be a dangerous call to make.
To: The Council
Omega-49 is actually our system, as it should be. The last thing we want is for the Corsairs the Bretonians from building a base or worse, claim one of their bases as their own, de-facto. Look at what happened in Pennsylvania! Our brothers there were not vigilant in safeguarding their independence and allowed themselves to be dominated by the Libertonian government; now all but one of the bases are controlled by groups other than our own. This domination of our fellow Zoners by governments and pirates is unacceptable and must not be repeated.
By allowing others to victimize our guests in O-49, who are all either heading to or from one of our bases, we are not fulfilling our duty of keeping our fellow Zoners safe from outside interference and oppression. The RFS Freedom will not stand by and watch yet another system be taken over by one or another regime. We have felt the yoke of government and pirate oppression on our shoulders and will not tolerate it. The Freedom will relocate if necessary to preserve the rights of travelers in O-49.
While it is necessary for Zoners to defend our own interests, there is no reason for us to moralize regarding slaves or prisoners. Once again, we have faced the tyranny of certain factions regarding the carrying of certain types of passengers, including prisoners and slaves. Many of our guests make a living off of collecting prisoners or laborers and taking them to one place or another; it is extremely dangerous for us to demand that any and all unwilling human cargo be unloaded on our Freeports. While the ZAS and their ilk are perfectly entitled to enforce their own rules, we do not support taking forceful or other action against anyone who chooses to make a living that way. We are not police; we are not a House.
To address Mal's statement; we agree with the idea for the Security Force as it has been presented so far as it does not force those who volunteer to participate to enforce any particular Freeport law.
-Jonah Robinson