(If you don't want to read through pseudo-law or mild in-universe babbling, just ignore this post, it's intended to comment from a mild "in-character" point of view while giving the project idea below some spark for further debate or to encourage other reactions of any kind by other organizations)
A preliminary assessment on the Charter of Alioth
»Source thread | Awareness tags: @Rafiki
We have noted recent efforts and the first version of the Charter of Alioth (COA). Immediately, efforts have begun to assess the document in its current form, as released recently, in determining whether the document is fit for support from a corporate view. A reason for this response is also the following quote from the preamble of the charter, prompting this response:
I'm responsible for the "central branch" of Vulture Corporation and as such will reply in its name; this may not refer to other future branches that may be established, as there will be notable autonomy for each branch in how it conducts business or operations.
While we commend such initiatives and grand undertakings, and especially commend projects to revive aspects of the old world, the cradle of humanity, we as sovereign entity come to the following conclusion:
Reasoning / assessment
Foreword
It should be noted that there is no ill-will against the notion of a charter like this; the big rejection graphic is mostly symbolic or visualization. This assessment or comment on it simply intends to state the personal stance of Vulture Corporation (central) as a whole, encompassing its assets and personnel. Additionally, this "format" of public response is, in the end, intended to create further discussion about the idea, which should aid the charter draft or suggestion, generate feedback and thus be helpful to its creators and supporters, but also opponents or rejecters.
Corporate stance
While the creation is commendable and the underlying intention appears noble, aspects of the charter cannot fully be supported by us, as it may be possible that violations may occur or be deemed necessary regarding specific circumstances and articles. From our perspective, it appears outdated or may not completely be able to incorporate and mind the current situation humanity faces or might be forced into.
Due to notable, obvious conflicts with certain articles (or parts of them) of the document that could interfere with corporate sovereignty and the necessary frame to counter specific threats, we also reject the notion to agree or sign the charter for "PR purposes" only to ignore or violate it when it may be deemed suitable.
After speaking to assessors, I hereby list some articles that could eventually be deemed problematic. The conflict zones are, however, not necessarily limited to them. It is merely a selection to highlight certain potential problems that make signing of this document un-wise, if not impossible, with our stance in mind:
Potentially or likely problematic parts underlined, our comments are highlighted in teal color.
■ Article 2
Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in
this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex,
language, religion, political or other opinion, organizational or social origin,
property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the
basis of the political, jurisdictional or intergalactic status of the country or territory
to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or
under any other limitation of sovereignty.
Stance / potential conflict area:
We reserve the right to distinguish based on a notable amount of factors, partially some of those ruled out in this article, if deemed necessary. As such, "everyone" cannot be granted what is noted in the article.
■ Article 10
Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent
and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any
criminal charge against him.
Stance / potential conflict area:
We reserve the right to deal with 'criminal charges' in any form deemed necessary. While potential innocence is always taken into account and while evidence and likelihood is carefully compared and assessed, we do not guarantee "public hearing" in all cases, mostly also given our nature as non-state-actor with a sovereign status. In addition, "independent, impartial tribunal" could be provided, but is not guaranteed.
■ Article 13
(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the area
claimed by his organisation.
Stance / potential conflict area:
We reserve the right to restrict movement in any claimed and administrated (managed) area based on various factors, if deemed necessary. The same can apply for our own employees. "Right to freedom of movement" does not list any potential restrictions and thus implies "total freedom of movement", which cannot be guaranteed based and must be distinguished regarding legal status, rank, affiliation and other factors. Less abstract: A service member or new employee may not have the right to enter a restricted internal research area deemed 'sensitive'.
Given these areas of conflict between corporate regulations or interests - depending on the situation - and the framework of this charter, it is deemed partially incompatible, even if other aspects are very well aligned or supported by idea.
In different terms, the COA is deemed static and unflexible with today's practices of organizations and actors, and is based upon an old framework apparently mostly applied to classic nation state actors in such a way to find common grounds between many actors on one world. With this new rebirth of mankind and civilizations and a spread among the starts while minding a diverse set of interactions between many different types of actors, it mostly seems to restrict organizations in certain areas. Perhaps it is also unspecific in certain articles or may need rewording to find wider acceptance.
It is assumed that countless organizations would not be willing to fully accept or sign this charter in this stage as it would mildly to notably impact their ability to act in their own interests. While an intergalactic framework that lists or encourages "common ground" may certainly be useful, it can never be assumed that all organizations would support or sign it, just like certain agreements and regulations were not fully supported or signed by state actors of the old world.
In addition, it appears that authoritarian states already exist in not just a very limited number, making their support or even interest in the charter questionable. It could also beg the question how signing actors would react or interact with those that might either be anything but interested or even openly opposing the charter or its core values.
To lastly resort to a word of the old world, to some it could seem that this charter could mostly end up being a "Lippenbekenntnis" (idiom: 'Talk is cheap'; lip service) for signing actors until it no longer suits their needs or restricts them, in which case they would ignore aspects of it - overtly or covertly.
Current corporate main stance regarding support or acceptance - in a nutshell
Currently, it is our assessment that we as sovereign corporate actor will be 'better off' minding aspects of the charter, but not following it strictly to the letter, making formal support and signing impossible. We intend to support humanity's revival through innovation, research and service but deem it necessary to ignore aspects of the charter in specific situations in enforcement related cases when this aids the protection of the corporate body or others unaffiliated to it.
We also do not think, as at least indirectly implied in the preamble, that not strictly following the charter or signing it would exclude us from being a "reasonable, social and righteous" organization.
I thank you for your time and review. We remain open for debate in the specified channels you have provided elsewhere.
//If I may add my two cents below this without pseudo-babbling or fluff-talk, you have an interesting idea there. I personally do not think it's very viable or, in other words, it won't be liked by many organizations and players or supported fully at least, but one can tell you put some thought and effort into this, and seem to apply some sense or understanding of real law, whether copied from real charters and whatnot or added through own knowledge and understanding.
These are only concepts I just chose random organizations in the du community to make a logo for . Do you have a logo you want me to feature in this top post for more people to see, or do you need one made (For Free)? message me on discord CT3PO0#9810
I thought that once we are in game, and if the corps are big enough, you may not know that the guy/gal walking behind you isnt a stalker, just a fellow corp-mate going to the same place as you.
This could be fixed by having little corp mini logo's shown in the characters tag. Maybe to a max of 5 logos.
(Having corp mini logo's on part of the characters body would also be good - maybe on the shoulder/upper arms? This could be all the logo's as there are more rooms on arms than in tags.)
Assuming there is also a friend or foe system in DU maybe also a little green/grey/red circle in the tag showing if friend/neutral/enemy.
(Though technically, since there are multiple corps, you may have the situation that someone is both friend and foe )
This way you can see friends from foes - most of the times
For this article I had the chance to talk with Code24 about his organization Objective Driveyards.
Follow the link to get a closer look at ODY. We even have a preview of a concept ship that is currently being designed by Dalmont.
.png.fb85988ef5e634c839e623ee64ac9a33.png){kind=spacer}
Code24 got a reaction from BandaTalk in Ark Central: The Latest in Dual Universe News
Code24 got a reaction from Vyz Ejstu in Ark Central: The Latest in Dual Universe News
Code24 got a reaction from CT3PO0 in NEW Organization & Corporation Branding/art (Idea Mega Thread)