The heart of Ther'avare! Join in the conversations and make yourself known amongst your clan, and participate in its life, culture, and art!

Re: LEADER A.: Minor Clan Status, Interesting Results

Postby Kir'ima on Tue Mar 03, 2009 2:25 am

Catriana wrote:As I've stated in the Strange Bedfellows thread, it is not what you do, but the why that matters to Drow.

So if we kill someone by mistake, their family and friends are just going to accept it because hey, we didn't mean to do it? Or if we whack someone as part of a job, that is okay, too, because it was "just business"? Drow or not, that just doesn't make sense. It's the same type of reasoning as hoping that people will love us even though we killed their father/mother/brother/uncle/whatever, just because we feed their children (and in this case we aren't even doing that).

kirio wrote:In that situation, it really doesn't matter who fired first. Any armed person at a battle who points a weapon at a combatant is automatically part of the battle. Sure the sniper is upset about her father (who wouldn't be?) but unless she's green as grass she's not going to hold it against our clan in the future.

See above.

Also, question for Nasfors and other military people out there - when you are on patrol and you notice a "disturbance", have you ever approached with weapons at ready and trained at the disturbance, even if you were not planning to actually shoot anyone involved in the fracas, just in case? This is the contradiction in the modern rules of engagement - we assume that we can do this, but when others do the same thing, they are hostile.

Now, I have no doubt that the two up high were hostile, but we still shot at them first, and thus have no real way of telling whether or not they would have gotten actively involved had we not attacked them.

There is also the matter of how the Svartelos operate. They always hire mercenaries. We are not going to be held politically responsible for work we do for them under their banner (rather than our own). Being mercenaries won't get us a lot of respect, but we have to start somewhere.

Aside from the fact that we were not carrying a Svart banner and wearing their colors or anything identifying us as such, and that our main group went directly home to Ther'avare from the battle site, I think this is pretty naive.

Personally, I think there will be repercussions, if for nothing else but because it is part of the game. What we do - the choices we make (like attacking what appear to be civilians for money) - will affect us on the future. If it did not, then what would be the point of choosing? The game might as well be a series of random encounters if that is the case.
waiting patiently for my next chance at Sayatt
everyone stay clear of my blast radius
User avatar
Kir'ima
the scout
 
Posts: 2646
Joined: Thu May 08, 2008 7:51 am
Location: Here and there
Clan: Tei'kaliath

Re: LEADER A.: Minor Clan Status, Interesting Results

Postby Catriana on Tue Mar 03, 2009 3:13 am

Kir'ima wrote:So if we kill someone by mistake, their family and friends are just going to accept it because hey, we didn't mean to do it? Or if we whack someone as part of a job, that is okay, too, because it was "just business"? Drow or not, that just doesn't make sense. It's the same type of reasoning as hoping that people will love us even though we killed their father/mother/brother/uncle/whatever, just because we feed their children (and in this case we aren't even doing that).


Who cares? They're civilians. No major drow clan is going to care if we bully up some civilians or were hired by a minor clan to take out some upstart civilians. The only thing that I could see harming our reputation is if the Svartelos are enemies with every minor clan and major clan, NOT in the fact that we killed civilians. Commoners don't mean anything to nobility and are treated as such. Our clan is different, obviously, but I seriously, seriously, seriously doubt any clan is going to see us as horrible 'people' because we killed commoners for a Drow clan. This is common. This happens. It's the way the society is built, and is mostly how any system where you have a heirarchy is going to act. Commoners are insignificant.

So if they're not commoners and they were another minor clan, even then our reputation isn't going to be as badly damaged as everyone seems to make it out to be. There may be some minor clans that might be disgruntled if they had an alliance with them, and that clan itself may be disgruntled with us, but they probably would be anyway, considering that we're allied with the Svartelos. It's a dog-eat-dog world in the Drow society, if you can't handle your own, too bad, so sad. It was nice knowing ya.

If someone can honestly tell me why any clan is going to care why we killed some commoners, I will be more than happy to retract my statements on our reputation. As it stands, the only reason I could see any clan caring what we did is because of WHO we did it for.

Kir'ima wrote:Also, question for Nasfors and other military people out there - when you are on patrol and you notice a "disturbance", have you ever approached with weapons at ready and trained at the disturbance, even if you were not planning to actually shoot anyone involved in the fracas, just in case? This is the contradiction in the modern rules of engagement - we assume that we can do this, but when others do the same thing, they are hostile.

Now, I have no doubt that the two up high were hostile, but we still shot at them first, and thus have no real way of telling whether or not they would have gotten actively involved had we not attacked them.


Military personnel are trained that if someone comes toward you, and you believe they are hostile, if they do not halt their actions, you are authorized to use deadly force if necessary. If someone points a weapon at you, you are authorized to use Deadly Force as necessary, especially in a war zone. They had a weapon pointed at us in a hostile environment. You are, in the military, authorized to fire. If you stand there and go "Hmm, they have a weapon pointed at me, I wonder if they're going to fire, maybe I should wait" then I won't feel sorry for you when you get shot. If a hostile has a weapon pointed at you, in a hostile environment, you use deadly force, you don't wait to figure out their true motives. The fact that they were there, pointing a weapon, is enough for me to determine that they were actively involved already. Not actively involved would be in the background, out of immediate view, without weapons drawn. That is not being actively involved. Being in a strategic position to take pot shots at us with weapons drawn is hostile intent, and I'd use deadly force. That's just me.

Kir'ima wrote:
Personally, I think there will be repercussions, if for nothing else but because it is part of the game. What we do - the choices we make (like attacking what appear to be civilians for money) - will affect us on the future. If it did not, then what would be the point of choosing? The game might as well be a series of random encounters if that is the case.


What repercussions? Folks keep saying that, but what are they? If we're going to make statements that could make folks nervous or antsy, please, please at least state why you believe this to be so. I'm all fine for suspicions, guesses, and worries, but I think folks should know why they should be antsy and nervous about our future, even if it's opinion and not based on fact.
“The most I can do for my friend is simply be his friend." -Henry David Thoreau
User avatar
Catriana
Dragon of the Nether
 
Posts: 2947
Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2008 5:04 am
Location: Washington

Re: LEADER A.: Minor Clan Status, Interesting Results

Postby Nasfors on Tue Mar 03, 2009 3:17 am

Kir'ima wrote:Also, question for Nasfors and other military people out there - when you are on patrol and you notice a "disturbance", have you ever approached with weapons at ready and trained at the disturbance, even if you were not planning to actually shoot anyone involved in the fracas, just in case? This is the contradiction in the modern rules of engagement - we assume that we can do this, but when others do the same thing, they are hostile.

Now, I have no doubt that the two up high were hostile, but we still shot at them first, and thus have no real way of telling whether or not they would have gotten actively involved had we not attacked them.

Professionalism dictates that we do not. I can't say it never happens. The more disciplined the troops in question, the less likely they would. To point a weapon at an unverified target violates two of the weapon safety rules.

Treat every weapon as if it were loaded
Never point a weapon at anything you do not intend to shoot
Keep your finger straight and off the trigger until you are ready to fire
Keep the weapon on safe until you intend to fire

Instead of aiming in, we would approach with weapons in the "alert" position.. the weapon is in your shoulder, with the muzzle pointed safely downward. It doesn't take even a second to present it to a target from that position.

Remember, we're not talking about open war here. We wouldn't need to hesitate in a conventional war. But an enemy among civilians requires special care. Yes, it makes our job harder, but we're capable of overcoming it.

Now, as far as your comment regarding a contradiction is concerned, that is just a flat no. We are uniformed combatants. That is all we need. If we are hostile to you, we both know it. That is what the uniform says. This is why I don't need to care in a conventional war. He's in an enemy uniform, I shoot immediately, and ideally before he sees me. The difficulty is when war has not been declared. Were those two hostile? Were our warriors? This is where my HA/HI comes in. They proved they were hostile, justifying any response we took.
Last edited by Nasfors on Tue Mar 03, 2009 3:22 am, edited 1 time in total.
Nasfors
Vel'akar
 
Posts: 1924
Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2008 7:19 pm
Clan: Tei'kaliath

Re: LEADER A.: Minor Clan Status, Interesting Results

Postby Rulishia on Tue Mar 03, 2009 3:21 am

For the future Education of the civilian masses and to quell further discussion on the matter. I have decided to post what ALL military watchstanders are familiar with:
The RULES OF ENGAGEMENT and the Definition of DEADLY FORCE as well as the rest of the of the reference card I received when I was qualified to be an armed watchstander.

DEADLY FORCE:
That force which a person uses with the purpose of causing death or serious bodily harm, or which he knows would create a substantial risk of causing death or serious bodily harm.

You are authorized to use Deadly Force as a last resort, after all lesser means have failed or which cannot be reasonably be employed, under one or more of the following circumstances:
1. Self-defense or the defense of others
2. Serious offences against others
3. Assets involving National Security (or in our case Clan Security)
4. Assets not involving national security but inherently dangerous to others
5. Arrest or Apprehension
6. Escape
7. Protect public health or safety

RULES OF ENGAGEMENT (ROE):
ROE are the directives issued by competent military authority which delineate the circumstances and limitations under which United States Forces (sorry, from the card) will initiate and/or continue engagement with other forces encountered.
Uses the RAMP acronym:
R - RIGHT TO DEFEND You have the right to use force to repel HOSTILE ACTS
A - ANTICIPATE ATTACK You have the right to use force to respond to clear indications of HOSTILE INTENT
M - MEASURED FORCE When time and circumstances permit use only the force that is NECESSARY and PROPORTIONAL to protect lives and accomplish the mission
P - PROTECT Protect with Deadly Force only human (drow :P ) life and property designated by the Commanding Officer

THREAT/HOSTILE INTENT INDICATORS:
Include, but are not limited to:
- Force Protection Measures (don't worry about that. It's more of a state of alertness for military personnel)
- Evidence of hostile activity at outer perimeter or against adjacent facilities
- Number, age, appearance, and general demeanor of persons approaching post (ie - paramilitary clothing, brandishing weapons, etc.)
- High speed or erratic approach toward the perimeter of asset protected
- Failure to heed verbal warnings
- Physical penetration of security perimeter
- Failure to heed or be deterred by non-lethal force
Kir'ima wrote:Also, question for Nasfors and other military people out there - when you are on patrol and you notice a "disturbance", have you ever approached with weapons at ready and trained at the disturbance, even if you were not planning to actually shoot anyone involved in the fracas, just in case? This is the contradiction in the modern rules of engagement - we assume that we can do this, but when others do the same thing, they are hostile.
According to the ROE Kirima, the actions of the military members you are portraying here are in gross violation of said rules. The soldier would/should not have a weapon pointed at the "disturbance" unless it appeared that someone was in fear for their life (Deadly Force authorization #2) and then only after attempting to use a lesser means of quelling said disturbance and failing (ROE-Measured Force).

Also, since I know it might come up:
Unless authorized by your command, and/or by your location, Warning Shots are NOT authorized by US Forces.
Rulishia (formerly of the House of Mithran)
Image
Squad Cute... wait, no... WYVERN!!! - Dini Nidinas, Nar'kaller, Yasha, Ys'sa (the Originals)
ImageMy little Ceru! ^.^ Image Serene! Image Leon!
Rulishia
Demon
 
Posts: 727
Joined: Thu Jan 17, 2008 2:45 am
Location: Melbourne, FL
Clan: Tei'kaliath

Re: LEADER A.: Minor Clan Status, Interesting Results

Postby Nasfors on Tue Mar 03, 2009 3:23 am

Cat, Ruli.. easy ladies. Marines have got this. Go play on your boats. ;) XD
Nasfors
Vel'akar
 
Posts: 1924
Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2008 7:19 pm
Clan: Tei'kaliath

Re: LEADER A.: Minor Clan Status, Interesting Results

Postby Rulishia on Tue Mar 03, 2009 3:30 am

Nasfors wrote:Cat, Ruli.. easy ladies. Marines have got this. Go play on your boats. ;) XD

Oh? How do you intend to get there then MARINE? aka - My Ass Rides In Navy Equipment? :P
We are quite capable of handling ourselves as well when it comes to a combat situation. Though, thankfully you and yours have kept those situations largely at bay for us. Thank you.
Rulishia (formerly of the House of Mithran)
Image
Squad Cute... wait, no... WYVERN!!! - Dini Nidinas, Nar'kaller, Yasha, Ys'sa (the Originals)
ImageMy little Ceru! ^.^ Image Serene! Image Leon!
Rulishia
Demon
 
Posts: 727
Joined: Thu Jan 17, 2008 2:45 am
Location: Melbourne, FL
Clan: Tei'kaliath

Re: LEADER A.: Minor Clan Status, Interesting Results

Postby Nasfors on Tue Mar 03, 2009 3:36 am

You're welcome. And thank you for providing the best taxi service in the world. *wee*
Nasfors
Vel'akar
 
Posts: 1924
Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2008 7:19 pm
Clan: Tei'kaliath

Re: LEADER A.: Minor Clan Status, Interesting Results

Postby Catriana on Tue Mar 03, 2009 3:36 am

For your information Nasfors, Navy goes out to the desert too. ;p Ask my cousin, he's been there 5 times already. In hostile situations.

I didn't answer Kir'ima's question on the first half, because I honestly forgot.

On a ship, if a hostile is floating towards you and you inform them to back off and they do NOT, you are authorized to fire. You do not need permission to shoot in this case. It may not have always been this way, but more than likely this changed when the USS COLE was hit by the enemy.

I'm talking mostly about a hostile floating towards you. We have other methods of stopping a hostile using a high frequency device, but not all ships have this (The USS FARRAGUT is a relatively new ship). This is what Watchstanders are taught when we go over Deadly Force Protection, and all members of the military undergo it, not just the Marines [s]who is part of THE DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY[/s].

Ruli, don't listen to Nasfors. Marines think they're better than all branches of the military, the huffy little killers.
“The most I can do for my friend is simply be his friend." -Henry David Thoreau
User avatar
Catriana
Dragon of the Nether
 
Posts: 2947
Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2008 5:04 am
Location: Washington

Re: LEADER A.: Minor Clan Status, Interesting Results

Postby Nasfors on Tue Mar 03, 2009 3:39 am

We are better. We've proven it. }:3

P.S. Department of the Navy -> Men's Department.
Nasfors
Vel'akar
 
Posts: 1924
Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2008 7:19 pm
Clan: Tei'kaliath

Re: LEADER A.: Minor Clan Status, Interesting Results

Postby Kail'odian on Tue Mar 03, 2009 4:06 am

Nasfors wrote:We are better. We've proven it. }:3


*THE WHISTLES RINGS OUT*

Now a word from a civilian. I don't mean any disrespect among anyone here, but please knock off the military branch rivalry and get back on topic. :S
If you see me online anywhere, I go by Kail, Darius Marcelino or LongSh0t82 as my user names now. I am on steam as LongSh0t82 if anyone wants to add me. I won't turn you away if you even only just want to talk.
User avatar
Kail'odian
Vel'akar
 
Posts: 1315
Joined: Wed Dec 06, 2006 5:53 pm
Location: Xyrrai'zestu Hall of Honour
Clan: Sharen

Re: LEADER A.: Minor Clan Status, Interesting Results

Postby Catriana on Tue Mar 03, 2009 4:17 am

Kail'odian wrote:
Nasfors wrote:We are better. We've proven it. }:3


*THE WHISTLES RINGS OUT*

Now a word from a civilian. I don't mean any disrespect among anyone here, but please knock off the military branch rivalry and get back on topic. :S


I'm ex-military, but we were jesting on the last bit. If we take everyone too serious around here, we'll all be uptight and fussy. It's good to let off a joke or two to lighten the mood.

Edit: Kir'ima, you've proven my point.
Last edited by Catriana on Tue Mar 03, 2009 4:21 am, edited 1 time in total.
“The most I can do for my friend is simply be his friend." -Henry David Thoreau
User avatar
Catriana
Dragon of the Nether
 
Posts: 2947
Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2008 5:04 am
Location: Washington

Re: LEADER A.: Minor Clan Status, Interesting Results

Postby Kir'ima on Tue Mar 03, 2009 4:19 am

You tell 'em, Oru! :O

(And the rules of engagement stuff is fascinating, because probably not one in ten civilians knows it, especially with what gets shown (and I am not talking about Hollywood or other fantasy stuff here).)
waiting patiently for my next chance at Sayatt
everyone stay clear of my blast radius
User avatar
Kir'ima
the scout
 
Posts: 2646
Joined: Thu May 08, 2008 7:51 am
Location: Here and there
Clan: Tei'kaliath

Re: LEADER A.: Minor Clan Status, Interesting Results

Postby Nasfors on Tue Mar 03, 2009 4:22 am

I'll take my Iraq ROE card somewhere where I can scan it for you then. It is all wrinkled from being in my pocket. (we're required to carry it at all times)
Nasfors
Vel'akar
 
Posts: 1924
Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2008 7:19 pm
Clan: Tei'kaliath

Re: LEADER A.: Minor Clan Status, Interesting Results

Postby Kail'odian on Tue Mar 03, 2009 4:39 am

Catrianna wrote: we were jesting on the last bit.


I know that now. Nasfors' told me. ^^;

If we take everyone too serious around here, we'll all be uptight and fussy. It's good to let off a joke or two to lighten the mood.


Im up for a joke or bit of humour anytime, but i still felt the topic had swayed off more than what it should have been.
If you see me online anywhere, I go by Kail, Darius Marcelino or LongSh0t82 as my user names now. I am on steam as LongSh0t82 if anyone wants to add me. I won't turn you away if you even only just want to talk.
User avatar
Kail'odian
Vel'akar
 
Posts: 1315
Joined: Wed Dec 06, 2006 5:53 pm
Location: Xyrrai'zestu Hall of Honour
Clan: Sharen

Re: LEADER A.: Minor Clan Status, Interesting Results

Postby Thaluka2 on Tue Mar 03, 2009 5:37 am

I don't suggest we try to apply modern firearm military ROE standards to our clan. Just play it by ear. If that was a Sharen warrior with demon-sealing armor sitting on a dragon up there with a crossbow aimed at us it would have been a *bad* idea to fire, on the off chance he wasn't going to engage. Yeah it would have given him a chance to get a cheap clean shot off but it would also have given us a chance not to provoke someone would could come down and turn us all into pulp without much effort. Or if there were twenty of those pinkies on the roof with a few aiming at us but not otherwise actively engaged, it might not have been a good idea to plink them with arrows and piss them off. We took a chance with those two because there was a reasonable chance they were hostile and a reasonable chance we could take them out of the battle quickly with a preemeptive action. That might not always apply.
Ziakas Tei'Kaliath - Scout of Ther'avere
Thaluka2
Vel'akar
 
Posts: 1760
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 9:05 am
Location: Sneaking
Clan: Tei'kaliath

PreviousNext

Return to Community Centre

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron