When all was said and done, Ba'Ba stood accused of the following violations of the Code:
- Failure to recognize the authority of the Supreme Protector
- Failure to show proper respect to highsec's elected officials
- Open expression of unorthodox and/or treasonous thoughts
- Insufficient enthusiasm for and/or delight with the Code
- Consorting with unsavory company
The Supreme Protector washed his hands of the matter and sent it to a vote of the Shareholders of the New Order. The shareholders met in this thread on EVE-O. Two shareholders, JIATPuOT and xploryk Hashur, voted by EVEmail. (EVEmail is always a voting option, since some of our illustrious shareholders are currently banned from posting on EVE-O.)
The following were the terms of the vote:
Shall Ba'Ba be stripped of her mining privileges and rejoin the Red Pen list?
[ ] Yes, she has betrayed the New Order with her egregious violations of the Code. She must pay 30 million isk and offer a pledge of allegiance to James 315 and the New Order before she can regain what she so thoughtlessly threw away.
[ ] No, she may continue to mine in peace as a member of the New Order family in good standing.
[ ] Abstain.
The voting process itself was tense and dramatic. The vote went back and forth, first favoring Ba'Ba then turning against her and back multiple times. Voters were split almost dead-even. Shareholder Drago Wolfbane Skorvalk voted in Ba'Ba's favor (against the motion) but then changed his mind, cursing himself for voting the wrong way--and realizing the vote he regretted casting could be decisive.
In another emotional moment, BillMurray offered an impassioned plea to Ba'Ba, drawing from his own experiences with the Screen Actors Guild. Bill was willing to vote in Ba'Ba's favor if she simply declared her recognition of the Supreme Protector's authority. Phoenix Bibbs echoed the call. With Bill's sizable holdings, the outcome of the vote was potentially at stake.
Many voters offered thoughtful explanations for why the voted the way they did. Those in favor of the motion stressed the importance of upholding law and order, and supporting the traditional values of the Code and those who enforce them. Many were put off by Ba'Ba's demeanor. They cited "neutrality" toward the New Order as an unacceptable proposition.
Those opposing the motion focused on Ba'Ba's acts of submission--namely, her payment of 30 million isk for a mining fee, and her willingness to encourage her nephew to get Code-compliant. They suggested Ba'Ba's condition would gradually improve over time. They also gave her credit for the effort she put into the EVEmail she wrote stating her case.
When the whistle blew and the votes were tallied, twelve shareholders voted in favor of the motion to strip Ba'Ba of her mining privileges and return her to the Red Pen list. Thirteen shareholders (including Drago) voted against the motion. That's as close as it gets. But what about the number of shares?
RESULTS
Shall Ba'Ba be stripped of her mining privileges and rejoin the Red Pen list?
Yes -- 2,895 votes (57.6%)
No -- 2,129 votes (42.4%)
Abstain -- 0 votes
Turnout was important. Just shy of 17,500 shares were authorized to vote (shares purchased after the commencement of the vote were not able to participate), but just over 5,000 shares voted.
Big investors played a key role. The largest investor, Gumby Inquisition Technologies corporation, declined to participate. The next two largest, Theangryhobo and Nanatoa, voted on opposite sides. BillMurray and Mallak Azaria, with 500 or more shares each, both voted in favor of the motion.
It was close, but the motion carried.
Ba'Ba is now considered fair game for bumpers. She has been added to the Red Pen list and must pay 30 million isk to an Agent of the New Order to be restored. In addition, according to the terms of the vote, she must also offer a pledge of allegiance to the Supreme Protector, James 315, and to the New Order of Highsec.
It is so ordered.
Well James, that's a shame, as I've already stated though, not until I have my answer and the shareholder vote was put in just to prove I do comply with you and your every whim. It's just a shame shareholders could not see that. You can give me that answer in private if you must, or you can state it in public.
ReplyDeleteBecause as I've already told you, it matters to me not about the others, but me personally, the one who has already submitted to you.
As for the agents, no hard feelings for doing your jobs, but it won't make a difference this time, as I've done everything to comply after the first payment.
I will be in space,
Ba'Ba
Just wait until the bounty changes. You may have to end up biomassing.
DeleteMallak, you would just be proving my points, then. Surely you can see that? I've never threatened violence, and have payed for the crimes against the New Order I've commited, continued to follow it to the letter, afterwards. You, on the other hand would be proving that you don't care to make us better if you threaten violence, even so soon.
DeleteSurely, James, you don't even see fault in that?
Ba'Ba
I mentioned bounty changes & a possible biomass. There was no threat of violence. I still had by doubts that you were beyond redemption, but it is now clear to me that you have chosen the path of a rebel & intend to remain a rebel. It is always sad to lose a brother.
DeleteI will leave it at that then, it sounded like a threat to me, but if you say it's not I will take your word for it. The code doesn't ever mention of threat of violence, which is why your words worried me.
DeleteBa'Ba
Whilst I am personally disappointed of the outcome, what I am pleased about is that when we have someone who has sent us an eloquently written letter and tried to argue their case well that we will not just landslide against their appeal and that there will be a justified divide in our discretion. And for this my faith in the new order grows ever stronger.
ReplyDeleteIn all honesty, Chippie, I am surprised as well, I thought for sure it would all sway one direction, there is faith to be had in the New Order, some that made me very proud. While some didn't even seem to read what I have asked of them, quite a few did, that gives me hope that this cause is righteous. Though, even before this whole thing started I asked for an answer, the stipulations were even mentioned in my plea, everything I have said after the outcome, have been said the entire time.
DeleteBefore I can wave a flag, I need an answer for peace in my own mind. Because the code never asks me to wave a flag, for the job I do, I need my answer.
To the shareholders that actually read the entirety of the situation and voted for me, thank you, for those that have read the entirety of the situation and voted against me, thank you. For those that didn't read at all, you, make us afraid of the New Order.
Ba'Ba
The new order, above all, is fair - 315.
DeleteI personnally doubt the fairness of said outcome. There are a lot of mindless rebels simply spitting insults out there. Compared to them, it's possible to discuss with Ba'ba, and although the support to the New Order isnt total, it's within acceptable bounds.
Ba'ba wanted to know what she was protected from, here it is :
-From a dull and boring experience with little to no interaction with other capsuleers.
-From being AFK
-From being ganked by various types who will avoid new order targets in priority,
She also paid to be removed from the Red Pen list, and did not gravely offend the New Order. Her non-compliance to the code is situational and opinion-based, and might actually come from a desire of clarification that got sidetracked, rather than a full-front offense.
When i go to strike an agreement with offending corps, am i not "Consorting with the unsavory"?
As i am already helping settle this kind of matter in court, this would be akin to matters we often get in final court of appeal, which check the compliance of the decisions to the law, in this case, the Code.
This court, presided by James, previously stated that Ba'ba would join the Red Pen list for the crime of petitioning James 315, glorious leader of the new order and Supreme Protector.
The crime has been purged by the payment of the standard fee. (Code art.14)
Further offenses, as stated by james were :
- Failure to recognize the authority of the Supreme Protector
- Failure to show proper respect to highsec's elected officials
- Open expression of unorthodox and/or treasonous thoughts
- Insufficient enthusiasm for and/or delight with the Code
- Consorting with unsavory company
By accepting the sentences issued by you multiple times, Ba'ba did recognize your authority, she would otherwise refused them and would not have coped with the Code.
For the lack of respect, she is very far from the offenses this court judged so far, and remained polite and constructive after the initial offense. I also personally witnessed Ba'ba showing support for the New Order in local. Also, lack of respect isn't really a quantifiable amount, and needs further legislation to be properly judged.
Ba'ba did express unorthodox thoughts, that might have been borderline at best regarding the code, but neither treacherous, neither in a direct violation of the Code.
The insufficient enthusiasm is also a source of controversy. Ba'ba might have shown interest in her own way, which consists in pinpointing every aspect of the code in order to better understand it. While it may have been regarded as an offense, further investigation might be needed to properly state the fate of Ba'ba.
As stated in the opening of the session, consorting with the unsavory is not precise enough to be worth such a severe sentence.
Therefore, as a court decision, this would be the result :
In reserve of acceptation of the Leader of High Sec, James 315, Supreme Protector, and given the facts and the decision of the previous court, this court BREAKS AND CANCELS said decision, and states in favor of Ba'ba.
I am displeased with the outcome, but will carry out the sentence myself if needs be, for a body whose arms do not obey the head isnt a body anymore.
Glory to the New Order.
Neltharak Idrissil
Chief of the New Order's secret police.
Head Diplomat of Arctic Dungeon.
What a shocking development. Well, not really.
ReplyDelete"- Mining indulgences may be purchased for 10 million isk per character, and are good for one year, subject to forfeiture.
ReplyDelete-- Red Pen. On my desk there is a sheet of paper. In my desk there is a drawer. Inside this drawer is a Red Pen. If a miner commits an egregious offense or series of offenses, his name will be written on the paper with the Red Pen. If your name is written in Red Pen, the cost of an indulgence will be trebled and you will be at increased risk of bumping."
Quoted from The Code, for reference. Not that I'm of any authority, but that's what I read.
Wow, nice post,there are many person searching about that now they will find enough resources by your post.Thank you for sharing to us.Please one more post about that..
ReplyDeleteDirk Kettlewell