Register Register

Author Topic: [out of story] Things got a little heated.  (Read 1165 times)

al103

  • Private
  • *
  • Posts: 49
Re: [out of story] Things got a little heated.
« Reply #30 on: 26 November 2020, 18:31:08 »
Moralist vs. Legalist, if you will.  Right versus Permitted.
Can't exactly agree here. Thing is for me opponent argument smells of that old debate of "civilian life is sacred, soldier life is worthless". If you troops siege a city you have a choice of either sending your troops to meatgrinder for the sake of sparing civilians or shelling defensive position with the rest of the city civilians be damned. If it's your civilians? Yeah, soldiers are obligated to die to save them. But if it's enemy civilians? They don't. You sacrifice you people to "sleep good" afterwards and they are people you actually obligated to care about. Terra is one such "city" and quite well defended at that. That's on one hand.

On other hand while eye for eye make everybody blind, system of proportional retaliation also exist for reason. Both in our world and in BT, Third Succession War was different from 1st and 2nd because all sides toned down that shit even if incidents still happened and some sides caused more such incidents than others. Even Kurita and Liao for all their problems could see writings on the wall and that writing were "yeah, we WILL start glassing planets too if..." And good government is not just legally, but morally obligated to provide it's citizens protection, including protection like that. Which means very pointed "do NOT try to fight dirty against Lyrans, just DO NOT". Because Mutual exist in MAD for reason and "oh, you can use worst things and it's cost effective, they can't properly retaliate by their doctrine" does lead to "cost effective" choices. And no, "Terra is not WoB" do not fly, Terra is not only WoB and WoB is not only Terran, but WoB is heavily Terran and Terra is heavily WoB.

So that Liz managed to keep high ground of legality and comparative morals while doing her duty is added bonus.
« Last Edit: 26 November 2020, 18:33:15 by al103 »

georgiaboy

  • Master Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 272
Re: [out of story] Things got a little heated.
« Reply #31 on: 26 November 2020, 18:54:02 »
When Liz is tried, each target will be evaluated by Joint Command Battle Damage Assessment team. I can see all except Geneva being ruled as ok.


Geneva is a valid Total War Target, ie: Seat of Government, Security Command, Control, and Records, - Valid Targets.

Weapon used and Damage Caused evaluation:
Question, Is the minimum weapon type and size used necessary to totally destroy targets.

The Question would be the deciding factor.
If Geneva had deep-dwelled bunkers that had to be hit, then target valid and weapon valid

If not. Then the Question is, why not use smaller size and multiple weapons to generate required damage without causing a Penetration/Access to a Magma Chamber or Active Vents.

Accessible Geological records would have shown any such.
"Constructive critism is never a bad comment"
-Me

"By all means marry. If you get a good wife, you'll be happy. If you get a bad one, you'll become a philosopher."
- Socrates

EAGLE 7

  • Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 196
Re: [out of story] Things got a little heated.
« Reply #32 on: 26 November 2020, 20:10:09 »
Edit from original


. ... reprisals, which are war crimes in themselves but war crimes which become legal in order to punish an enemy who violates the law of war, deter him from violating it, and remove the advantages which accrue from such violations.....

.....Reprisals work? You're kidding us, right?

Wrong. Why wasn't poisonous gas used in the Second World War? The threat of reprisal. What happened when, in 1944, the Germans threatened to execute some numbers of French resistance fighters and the French Resistance, which was holding many German prisoners, answered, "We will kill one for one"? The French prisoners held by the Germans were left unharmed. Why didn't the Southern Confederacy during the American Civil War execute the white officers of black regiments as they had passed a law to do? Because the Union credibly threatened to hang a white Southern officer for every man of theirs so mistreated. Why didn't the United States or South Vietnam execute, generally, Viet Cong guerillas who had gravely violated the laws of war in the course of the insurgency there? Because the North Vietnamese had prisoners against whom they would have reprised had we or the South Vietnamese done so.

Reprisals work; courts and statutes do not. The law of war, because of the nature of war, must be self enforcing, through reprisals. Nothing else can work and any attempt to do away with reprisal is an indirect attack on and undermining  of the law of war.....


     Something about reprisals, if the reprisal does not keep the enemy from committing more atrocities, you can argue it is morally wrong to commit an act of reprisal.

The flip side of that is it could be argued it is morally wrong not to commit a reprisal, if it will keep an enemy, or future enemy from committing an atrocity.
“ My Clan honor is bigger than your Dragon honor, and comes in 18 clan flavors.”

Cannonshop

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4765
Re: [out of story] Things got a little heated.
« Reply #33 on: 26 November 2020, 21:05:00 »
The core rules for interacting with me:

1.) I am not a moderator, game developer, member of Cryptic staff, relative of any members of cryptic staff, not close friends with anyone involved with the game, not a distributor of product, not an employee, employer, professional reviewer, or member of any powerful conspiracies.  What I think is my own and has no impact on the Battletech franchise in any way, shape, or form.

2) If you don't like something I've said, refer to rule 1.  If you do, god help you poor soul, you're screwed up.

Korzon77

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2244
Re: [out of story] Things got a little heated.
« Reply #34 on: 26 November 2020, 22:57:11 »

As for the defense?  Detection is the likely key, these are purely ballistic weapons, if you can chuck something solid enough in its path you can probably deflect or destroy it short of its target.  You just have to spot it while under boost so you can plot out its course and a possible interception point or five.

That's a lot harder then it sounds. There are a few tactics--the first one would be sending your actual planetary attack projectiles in preceded by smaller "dispensers" that would put a spray of ballberaing (or smaller) projectiles in front of them, shredding anything you use to stop them.

Equally, it's more expensive to intercept than it is to hit the target--at .75 light speed, any intercepted is going to have to be a hit to kill interceptor, so even a few meters in either direction means you miss--while the projectile itself is still going to hit the planet, especially if it's a planetary attack that doesn't are about collateral. When you consider that even something like a mammoth could unload thousands of KE rounds... yeah.

As for detection, it depends on the timeline of the attack. The longer you can wait until impact, the further away you can launch your projectiles, and Btech sensors aren't that great about detecting stuff coming in from the Oort cloud or further.

Trace Coburn

  • Starfighter Analyst
  • Global Moderator
  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4150
  • За родину и свободу!
Re: [out of story] Things got a little heated.
« Reply #35 on: 26 November 2020, 23:37:41 »
C:-)  MODERATOR INTERVENTION  C:-)

 
Ladies and gentlemen, pay attention.
  (Note the lack of a question-mark or the word ‘please’.  I am not asking.)

  The Moderators on this forum are its police, and collectively we are also its judges.  Speaking for myself, I would much prefer to spend my days here as Deputy Barney Fife, but if people here want to force me to be Judge Joseph Dredd, so be it:beatdown:

  The Moderation of this forum has well-established protocols; one of them is you are not John Wayne, so don’t go riding in with guns blazing.  If a thread-lock is needed to prevent a discussion from flaring into an outright flame-war, it’ll be put in place (as was done in the “can you tell me” thread), but that is purely an interim measure.  Anything beyond that requires discussion amongst the Moderators to reach consensus on the proper course of action.  That takes time, especially since the Mods are scattered all over the world — I’m posting from New Zealand, for instance — and time-zones and work-schedules can play a significant factor in themselves.
  The thread-lock is meant to stop a discussion from continuing, and possibly exploding, while we formulate a proper, measured response.  It’s supposed to be a not-so-subtle hint that behaviour in the thread was riding the borderline (or worse) and should not be continued, either in that thread or elsewhere, until the Mods issued a ruling; continued behaviour in that fashion could bring even more Mod action.

Just pointing out that since the previous thread was cut short by the mods maybe it would be a good idea to run the option of a continuation with them.
Kinda why I'm not writing the continuation right now.  I don't know what caused the lock, and until they tell me what the problem is?  I'm pretty much stuck at 'hands off' for that storyline.
My bet is that the lock was caused by the heat with which some of us were discussing Liz's actions rather than by anything in the story, so I appologise for my part in that.

And for that reason I'm going to bite my metaphorical tongue and not respond to Sir Chaos & nomad_345. I don't know if it's best to drop the discussion completely, or take it to another thread, but I don't want our discussions to interfere with Cannonshop's storytelling or get this thread locked too!

  Here, we see three posters wise enough to take the correct message from a thread-lock, and I thank them for posting in a restrained, responsible manner.  Unfortunately, some others have not been so astute.  I guess it’s like one of my own characters is fond of saying: “subtlety is overrated.”

  So, I will be blunt.  When a thread is locked “pending Moderator review”, the Mod staff are saying “This line of discussion is closed until further notice.  We may choose to let it re-open, but if so, it will be at our discretion.  Do not attempt to do it yourself, or we may well take action against you as well.  What’s going on here may be grounds for Warnings and Bans, and we’re talking about whether to hit someone(s), who, and whyDo not test our patience.

  Cannonshop is quite right that the discussion in, and stemming from, the “can you tell me” thread is fascinating, informed, often incisive, and for the most part has been blessedly free of real-world political comparisons that could or would oblige action under Rule #4.  He is also right that the two sides were emotionally invested not only the story, but also in their positions, and were beginning to argue past each other.  The lock was meant to prevent things from exploding into personal attacks and an outright flame-war while we consulted on possible action.

  It’s Moderator protocol that if a post is deemed a Rules infraction, it is removed from public view so it won’t provoke further incidents.  It is also protocol not to discuss who may or may not have been infracted, when, or over what, with any third party, much less the forum populace as a whole; it’s no-one else’s business.  ‘Calling people out’ is considered bad form.  As I noted at the start of this post, another protocol discourages unilateral action, since things done in the heat of the moment are not always well-thought-out.

  To sort this out here and now, I’m going to breach all three of those protocols.  If my fellow Mods choose to censure me, or overrule me on review, I accept that.

  I will not quarantine the posts that prompted the lock of the “can you tell me” thread, nor the related ones in this thread, as they are insightful, on-topic, informative, and worthy of being read; however, they will not be open to further comment where they are.  By order of a Moderator, the open-forum debate over the morals, ethics, or legalities of Elizabeth Ngo’s use of ‘precision’ KKV bombardment in “can you tell me” ends here and now.  The discussion is now over; attempting to publically continue or re-open it, here or elsewhere, would be unwise[«— THIS IS A ‘SUBTLE’ HINT.]
  However, if the participants wish to continue the discussion in a mass-PM, they are more than welcome to do so.  Indeed, I would ask them to include me in that discussion; I’d like to take off the Mod hat and keep reading such a highly engaging conversation.
  Similarly, I eagerly invite Cannonshop to continue the “Tribunals” thread, being a fic based on the in-universe legal and political fallout of the Kowloonese tendency towards... impolitic wartime behaviours, though I do ask all posters to be mindful of the Rules when posting responses.

  I would also remind certain posters in this thread — Sir Chaos in particular — of Rule #3:
Quote
3. Don’t start trouble
Posts the Moderators consider overly confrontational will not be tolerated. This includes, but is not limited to, trolling and ignoring in thread requests from moderators.
Additionally, this rule covers actions that span more than a few posts. This includes deliberate, conscious and continued antisocial behaviours like thread crapping. If you have a problem with the basic premise of a discussion such that you wish it weren’t taking place at all, just ignore it. Blotching the thread with confrontational posts that don’t add anything to the discussion will infringe rule 3.
  (Added emphasis is mine.  A thread-lock is a ‘request’ to stop talking about the current topic.)
  Much like a sitting Judge in the USA can cite people in his court for ‘acting in contempt of authority’, posters on this forum can be, in the past have been, and in the future (sadly) will be, issued Warnings and/or attendant Bans under Rule #3 for flouting or attempting to circumvent Moderator rulings.  This includes behaviours like, for instance, continuing a line of discussion after it has been locked and declared subject to Moderator review.

  Ladies and gentlemen, I love reading Cannonshop’s story-threads, just as much as any of you.  Please, don’t make me come into them as a Mod.
« Last Edit: 26 November 2020, 23:40:01 by Trace Coburn »

Korzon77

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2244
Re: [out of story] Things got a little heated.
« Reply #36 on: Today at 00:58:12 »
Then asking for a bit of mod clarification here. In the current open thread, so talking about Elizabeth's actions in relation to say, Kentares, the succession wars or stuff like that is allowable, correct? that's the in-universe bit.

the Ban would be on relating it to real world political figures and recent events?

Just want to be certain I have it right.

Trace Coburn

  • Starfighter Analyst
  • Global Moderator
  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4150
  • За родину и свободу!
Re: [out of story] Things got a little heated.
« Reply #37 on: Today at 01:13:39 »
 C:-)
  Correct.  As a rule of thumb, we’d rather no parallels are drawn to real-world events more recent than World War 2, so references to Oradour-sur-Glane, Malmedy, or Chenonge are permissible; touching on anything fresher tends to strike raw nerves.  The explicit in-universe parallel, the mass-impalements and other abuses of prisoners by the 171st Volunteers on Elbar in the backstory, is absolutely fair game as well.
C:-)

Sir Chaos

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2408
  • Artillery Fanboy
Re: [out of story] Things got a little heated.
« Reply #38 on: Today at 13:56:48 »
C:-)
  Correct.  As a rule of thumb, we’d rather no parallels are drawn to real-world events more recent than World War 2, so references to Oradour-sur-Glane, Malmedy, or Chenonge are permissible; touching on anything fresher tends to strike raw nerves.  The explicit in-universe parallel, the mass-impalements and other abuses of prisoners by the 171st Volunteers on Elbar in the backstory, is absolutely fair game as well.
C:-)

In light of what you said, would there be any objection to discussing the purely practical aspects of Liz´s actions (which I didn´t touch on previously because they really only clicked while thinking about this over the course of today), while ignoring whatever legal, political or ethical aspects there are to the whole issue? The phrase "the genie is out of the bottle now" is a pretty good summary of those practical aspects.

Regarding real-world parallels, the parallel I would like to use, since it is the most similar to what I intend to argue, is nuclear weapons proliferation. Nuclear weapons themselves are technically still a WW2 topic, but their proliferation really only happened afterwards. (FWIW I am more than willing to let you look over whatever I write on that before I post it, if you´re on the fence about this one)
"Artillery adds dignity to what would otherwise be a vulgar brawl."
-Frederick the Great

"Ultima Ratio Regis" ("The Last Resort of the King")
- Inscription on cannon barrel, 18th century

mikecj

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2036
  • Veteran of Galahad 3028
Re: [out of story] Things got a little heated.
« Reply #39 on: Today at 15:47:52 »
TAG.


There are no fish in my pond.
"First, one brief announcement. I just want to mention, for those who have asked, that absolutely nothing what so ever happened today in sector 83x9x12. I repeat, nothing happened. Please remain calm." Susan Ivanova
"Solve a man's problems with violence, help him for a day. Teach a man to solve his problems with violence, help him for a lifetime." - Belkar Bitterleaf
Romo Lampkin could have gotten Stefan Amaris off with a warning.