First of all, I would like to bring to everyone's attention the Mutual Protection Pact between The Lane Hackers and The Hellfire Legion. Regarding the latest I am also attaching the complete log of the event, for present and future reference. Lord Commander, you have received a copy of it in the Request For Comment. [attachmentid=510]
' Wrote:This has not been high on my list of priorities, but if you think it's really important, then I'll explain. Due to recent major incursions in Magellan by hostile forces, the Legion will be increasing security in Vespucci soon. As a result, certain individuals will find the system to be ... less welcoming to them than it has been in the past.
Informing your allies should be high on your list of priorities, I believe. It certainly is on mine. And I do not understand how this incident has anything to do with increasing Vespucci security. Increasing Vespucci security does not explain hostile behavior, orders given, and actions taken by Duncan Voss, which are in direct violation of the Mutual Protection Pact.
If you indeed feel like this is serious business, please avoid using vague terms and euphemisms and call things by their name. It will help avoid misunderstandings.
' Wrote:Perhaps Voss misinterpreted the intent of my orders, or has his own opinions on the issue, but the fact of the matter is this: Anyone who is deemed a security risk will be denied access to Vespucci, forcibly if necessary.
Responding to a friendly greeting in Magellan with insults goes a long way from misinterpreting orders to increase Vespucci security. Or what were those orders, exactly? I would prefer not to think that this sort of behavior, which I see as errant, is condoned by the rest of the Hellfire Legion, including its leader.
How exactly do you determine security risks? From what I can see, Alagar was attempting to demonstrate a friendly attitude in a joking manner. Suppose disclosure of classified information is not a good matter for cracking jokes. Is Duncan Voss the exact same security risk to the Lane Hackers? I don't think neither of the two of them is a liability. To borrow a few words from your Fleet Commander by which he described the exchange that followed the verbal hostility on his part: 20:13:18] [HF]-Sagittarius: You're not the only one who can hold a pissing match.
Which I believe is exactly what that was. Yes, it was inappropriate. If you believe it's necessary, both of them can be reprimanded the verbal misconduct, in the exact same manner. Although that is a compromise already. In words or in actions, Duncan Voss was has initiated the hostilities in both cases. Now I am beginning to think that this cannot be just a lapse of sanity. The man behaved as either mentally unstable, suffering from some kind of illness... I mean, he surely was respectable and responsible when he was promoted to a high executive position in the Legion, right? Either way, it strikes me as dangerous for the safety of anyone under his command in his current state of mind.
Because how else do you explain the following:
20:11:34] [HF]-Sagittarius: Well I was going to fly by and ignore you, but you somewhat pissed me off.
Let's see how exactly was your Executive Commander upset by this Alagar, the Lane Hacker? Let's see:
20:06:28] Alagars.Wrath: ohai legionnaire
20:06:46] [HF]-Sagittarius: And what makes you think you have the right to speak to me, Hacker?
20:06:59] Alagars.Wrath: *grins* Why not?
20:07:32] [HF]-Sagittarius: Well let's see, for one you're no more than a petty thief, hiding behind the guise of stealing to the rich and giving to the
20:07:37] [HF]-Sagittarius: poor or some crap like that.
20:07:49] [HF]-Sagittarius: When in actuality you just use extortion to fund your own agendas.
He was upset by a friendly greeting. Furthermore...
20:48:11] [HF]-Sagittarius: Frak that and frak you and frak whatever woman you crawled out from.
Is that an acceptable standard of personal conduct for a man of his position?
20:14:28] [HF]-Sagittarius: Execute him.
20:14:33] [HF]-Sagittarius: Leaking Legion information,
20:14:35] [HF]-Sagittarius: Has an attitude,
20:14:36] [HF]-John"Eagle"Fox: Yes sir
20:14:38] [HF]-Sagittarius: Was pirating.
The first accusation is untrue - as he said himself it was just a "pissing match". Alagar's "attitude" was no worse than Duncan's, and attacking lane hackers because they are involved in repossessing corporate credits or cargo is downright insane. Perhaps he had a flashback of his days in the Liberty Navy? Did the life support system on his ship malfunction? These might possibly be plausible explanations for that.
I have heard of other incidents where the Hellfire Legion attacked Lane Hackers during active operations based on accusations of piracy. The only comparison that comes to mind is moving to a new home on Leeds and then being all surprised and complaining about the pollution.
Even though some Lane Hackers might not quite approve of it, I am willing to overlook all that and turn a blind eye if this case was some kind of glitch, or a slip on Duncan's side. One heck of a slip, nevertheless.
An apology will suffice. However, the apology should have some meaning to it (after the lowly references to Alagar's parents, mere words mean little) and should be good enough to undo the damage caused. Both to Alagar's ship and Duncan's reputation. It has been mentioned that he dislikes "piracy". This dislike was being put across for the entire duration of this recording, that is, 50 minutes.
I suggest that Duncan Voss formally apologizes in this channel, and then spends 50 minutes doing supply runs to Hellfire or Lane Hacker bases or otherwise by showing what exactly is the preferred way of financing operational costs according to him. The Lane Hackers will be more than happy to provide escort or additional cargo ships as a gesture of good will and a symbol of ongoing friendship between the Lane Hackers and Hellfire Legion. The net result of these transactions by Duncan Voss should then be used as a compensation for the damage inflicted. I'm sure you have some Border World Transports at your disposal, so the 50 minutes should be enough.
' Wrote:This.. 'Alagar' character has already made that list. We do not look kindly on the disclosure of sensitive information. I have not placed all of the members of your organization on said list. However, that does not mean I will not if you prove to be too much of a risk.
To my knowledge, no information has been disclosed and there was no comm from HF to LH in that regard. Any list of "unwanted" Lane Hackers is in direct violation of the Pact. Also, as it was quite apparent from the event log and as I have written above, this incident had nothing to do with Vespucci. The encounter didn't happen in that system, either. The only thing it had to do with Vespucci is this:
20:08:30] [HF]-Sagittarius: Nope, which is exactly why you're getting kicked out of Vespucci, the lot of you. You should be *grateful* that we're giving
20:08:33] [HF]-Sagittarius: you time to move your assets.
Is that yet another nonsense and insanity or am I to actually believe it, I wonder?
So because Lane Hackers have been involved in piracy in the past several years, will lead to a hostile expulsion from the Vespucci system? As a wise man said, that is an involuntary act. Mutual agreements don't lead to involuntary acts. Perhaps I should remind you that the Mutual Protection Pact went in effect when Lane Hacker way of operations was no secret to the Hellfire Legion.
If you truly intend to "throw out" the best security experts you can get, that will not increase, but to the contrary, decrease Vespucci security. As it is now, we're helping the Hellfire Legion with keeping uninvited guests out, fully in accordance to pont (6) of the Pact.
And this is to happen because of "recent incursions by hostile forces" that you didn't even care to describe. What were those? Why weren't we informed of the incursions earlier? I believe we could have helped. Perhaps it would be a good idea to inform your strategic partners earlier - about any additional security measures you would like to take.
As for your list and this particular incident, what these two have demonstrated is certainly not a good example of pilots providing each other with strategic and tactical assistance(1). I am only glad that there is a long list of good examples from the past, showing the contrary. I sincerely hope my list will grow, and your list ceases to exist.