Data Packet Upload
Receiving...
Complete - [color=#33CC00]Relaying
To those of the Junker Congress and related Junkers,
We were informed about our revoked docking rights to Junker installations only recently. We wish to comment on your grave institution.
We have kept good relations with the Junkers, we took refuge in your establishment, namely Rochester, countless times, and thank you for your hospitality.
It turn, the hospitality was therefore given back.
The Gryphon squadron understood the mutual respect between the Junkers ' when conducting our business along the lanes, any Junker that we came across was greeted with open arms ' not held at gunpoint or demanding of wealth. We also helped the Junkers in several of their business dealings, as well as the secretive dealings here and there. Mutual respect was given, upon both sides, and a close alliance was formed.
We would also like to point out one of the main purposes of the Gryphon Squadron ' to establish close relations with the groups in Liberty, as it had been previously weakened.
We admit to have taken advantage of your refuge, Rochester. We admit to it. We are human, and we do make mistakes ' this was our first. But revoking our docking rights immediately because of this single incident, ignoring the mutual relationship that we previously had, has left a permanent scar in our friendship, and will not be forgotten easily as to how you throw those close to you away.
If you are so easily able to throw away those that assist you, then there can be no relationship. We cannot establish close ties with those who are so easily able to throw away their friends over a simple mistake. If we are not to receive any docking rights, then I believe our hospitality will be cut off as well ' traders will no longer be exempt, and probably not met with such open arms, Junkers will not be aided in times of crisis, and communication would be minimal.
You may think of this as a threat ' please don't. Think of it as a diplomatic compromise.
However, we, unlike what we see from you, are not quick to throw away such friends. We are still open for negotiations to gain back our rights ' we will even compensate, something you businessmen might be interested in ' but we don't expect to win our friends over with wealth, but with diplomatic negotiations. Not only are you losing a friend, but a valuable asset.
We hope we can come to a mutual decision on the matter ' hold close to friends, for as easily they are found, they are just as easily lost.
Sincerely, Gryphon Squadron.
[font=Arial]End of Stream
Save :: [color=#33CC00]Y/N Complete
****Incoming Transmission****
****Comm ID: Arbiter Jack Crow****
****location: Vieques****
If you take the time to investigate further you will see this action only applies to the offending parties and not your group as a whole. Thus the possibility for you to do business with us is still there. I understand your dismay at this happening after a first offense. I'm sorry for the inconvenience but I assure you this is for the greater good. Liberty is an obscene place where you cannot do business unless you are among the commercial elite. We provide a hub for people to do business outside of this exclusive corporate umbrella. Anyone who attracts unwanted attention from the navy and causes their guns to be pointed at us puts this entire practice at risk. You have an opportunity to conduct business here that you will not find anywhere else in Liberty. Might I add, you still have that opportunity, unless of course you decide to do away with that now. I don't think this is asking too much. We walk a delicate balance and we simply ask people to respect our ways. You claim this should not have been done for a first offense. Had it not been done, you risk having the entire operation shut down. Shut down for not only your entire group but for countless other freelancers who are only trying to scrape out an honest living. Is that really what you want?
{- [color=#CC0000]Additional Data Packet -} {-Uploading-} {-Relaying-}
To Arbiter Jack Crow,
We understand completely this does not apply to the entire group, but merely two. However, what you don't seem to understand is if you do something to a member or individual of a group, it can often result with consequences from the main group ' precisely from this case. If we were to destroy one of your trade vessels, we wouldn't be surprised if you took action against us as a whole. The consequences of your actions can reflect a group's decision.
The Gryphon squadron has four members ' two of which have had their rights revoked, which are half of the group, which is completely impractical.
You say this is for the 'greater good', who exactly is it for? It seems very much that you are only looking at your own personal benefit and not of anyone else. Yes, you're in a business for wealth, but what's the use if you lose your business partners?
That heeds another factor ' we stimulated your economy, and now we are unable to do so if our full potential cannot be met by having half of our groups rights suspended.
We have given you due respect. We are giving it to you at this moment. We wouldn't be here trying to negotiate this problem if we didn't respect the Junker's authority.
If you really think that this is the correct decision, then you are completely mistaken. There can be no relationship if you believe removing half of our group's rights is for the greater good. The only inconvenience is that we formulated close ties with you ' only to be destroyed instantaneously by one single decision. 'Sorry' doesn't deal with our problem.
On another note, you really believe the entire operation could shut down? There are several alternatives than to remove the rights of our members. And what of the freelancers? 'Trying to scrape out an honest living'? The vast majority of freelancers attempt to kill us. Whether or not you think its 'honest' for them to be blowing your associates (past tense) is a question I'd put to you. We don't want the freelancers who earn an 'honest' living to be shut down, but understand that we were stimulating your economy, making it more fruitful for businessmen. For the freelancers that don't want us dead, we thank you.
It is then evident that in your decision, you have taken no note of our previous hospitality and assistance, and are in no position to change your decision.
To reiterate, if you are in no position to negotiate the matters, to make a decision on gaining back the rights of our members, to continue to believe that throwing away those that are close to you is for the 'greater good', then this relationship is at end. It is still in your power to change this around.
As we would wish to quote: 'A bend in the road is not the end of the road'¦ unless you fail to make the turn'. Think about it carefully.
Sincerely, Gryphon Squadron.
[font=Arial]
{- [color=#CC0000]End of Stream -} {- Save :: Y/N -} {-Complete-}
****Incoming Transmission****
****Comm ID: Arbiter Jack Crow****
****location: Vieques****
The greater good we speak of is Rochester being open to all as a port of commerce. This is not just the good of our people, although it would be to their detriment as well if Rochester were to cease to be useful. Judging by your comments you don't seem to have any respect for that fact. Not only do other people depend on Rochester to do business, my people depend on it for their livelihood. If I'm hearing you correctly, you're telling me that you really don't care about any of that as long as your men get what they want. So, I took an action which will keep the navy from camping Rochester and shutting down commerce and your only concern in this matter is how your four people will be impacted by this.
As for your suggestion that I could have dealt with this differently. I did that in the past. I made a deal with another individual about staying away from Rochester to not cause trouble. I told him if he and his people did this they would still have access to other bases. He agreed to this. However, it did not take him long to violate our agreement because it suited him to do this at the time. Your people knew of our policies. They violated them because it suited them at the time. Here's what I've seen so far.:
One, your people violated our policies knowing we object to this because it was in their interest at the time and that is all that mattered to them
Two, you telling me that the interests of of the others who use Rochester, including my own people are of secondary importance to you as long as you get what you want.
You say if we mess with two of your people, then we mess with them all. We did not make a move toward any of your people. THEY did it to us when they brought this trouble to our base. Let's cut through all the nonsense right now. You say you are not threatening us. We both know that is not true. If you want hostilities that's fine but tread carefully. If you insist on creating hostilities it will not be only against my people. You may find yourself without a place to land in Liberty at all.
I'm still willing to keep things as they are. We can still work together and if you show me that it is in my best interest to trust you we may even improve things in the future. The ball's in your court.
{- [color=#CC0000]Additional Data Packet -} {-Uploading-} {-Relaying-}
To Arbiter Jack Crow,
To simplify this, we'll only comment on what you've said, however, what is most important is the final part of this data-packet. However, this is what we have to say'¦
'The greater good we speak of is Rochester being open to all as a port of commerce. This is not just the good of our people, although it would be to their detriment as well if Rochester were to cease to be useful.'
Understood. We acknowledge this and agree that if Rochester was to shut down, it would be a valuable asset lost to several thousands of people.
'Judging by your comments you don't seem to have any respect for that fact.' Please, do not generalise, do not ignore what we said, or falsify our words. We mean our word when we give you respect. We've given it for a long time, and don't plan on short-changing it now. We'll forget what we heard there.
'If I'm hearing you correctly, you're telling me that you really don't care about any of that as long as your men get what they want.'
We do care about this ' greatly. Yes, we do indeed want the rights back, which is the reason we're here, but we're here to negotiate in order to get them back ' in other words, what we really want is alternatives. We value Rochester, you had given us one thing, but that one thing was highly valuable. For it to be taken away, we believe, is to take away a large part of our friendship. It is impractical to be helping someone if we're shut out.
'As for your suggestion that I could have dealt with this differently. I did that in the past.'
We understand. Although not all people are the same. Whether or not that 'person' had close ties with you, isn't something we need to know. But precedent mustn't always happen. Our members are not thick-headed like some individuals, let it be noted.
'One, your people violated our policies knowing we object to this because it was in their interest at the time and that is all that mattered to them'
We already admitted to the violation. They didn't openly object, but understand that, if you were being openly shot at by several fighter craft, you would have a difficult time keeping other things in interest. Again, we admitted to it.
'Two, you telling me that the interests of the others who use Rochester, including my own people are of secondary importance to you as long as you get what you want.'
The interests of both ourselves and those that use Rochester are in mind. You are not a secondary importance ' you are first. This is why we wish to attend to this matter as soon as it occurred, to figure out a resolution.
'You say if we mess with two of your people, then we mess with them all. We did not make a move toward any of your people.'
There will be no open hostilities ' not at all. Only a close friendship would be broken. And we understand that you haven't made any move toward our people. Whether or not revoking the rights of our people can equal a 'move', is a good question.
'You say you are not threatening us. We both know that is not true. If you want hostilities that's fine but tread carefully.'
We're not threatening you. And please, don't be hasty to believe that we want hostilities. Our purpose here is to form close ties, not to create warfare. If we were giving threats, it would be to the Liberty Navy, and that's final.
'You may find yourself without a place to land in Liberty at all.'
We're hoping it doesn't come to that.
'I'm still willing to keep things as they are. We can still work together and if you show me that it is in my best interest to trust you we may even improve things in the future. The ball's in your court.'
As much as it is disturbing to hear that you wish to keep the things the way they are, this is what we've been waiting to hear from you. Tell us what we can do in order to work together so that it can improve our future. If you wish to keep it the way things are, then it's fine. What we're looking for is an alternative in order to gain your trust back. If the ball's in our court, then we ask this: What can we do to gain your respect back?
We eagerly anticipate alternatives to strengthen our relationship again.
Sincerely, Gryphon Squadron.
[font=Arial]
{- [color=#CC0000]End of Stream -} {- Save :: Y/N -} {-Complete-}
![[Image: 999666994_A2vTZ-X3.jpg]](http://watersedge.smugmug.com/photos/999666994_A2vTZ-X3.jpg)