Joy

Subjects : Questions on Amending the Aegis Treaty From : Ambassador Joy Two To : The Aegis Diplomatic Corps, visiting diplomats, and Aegis Command Staff My initial reading of the Ferengi 'Amendment 2' proposal was positive. I still believe it is a good proposal. If there is a general agreement among the various allies that it should be passed as is, I could in good faith recommend it to Council for ratification. However, there are some questions I might like to ask of all representatives. I have no firm fixed idea on how any of these questions must be answered. I am also open to discussing other similar questions. I would like to see these questions answered in a slow, calm way, with all powers treated with honor, with all opinions listened to with respect, with no single power attempting to dominate the conversation, with no one attempting to pressure or coerce. Granted, things are developing quickly. It might be prudent to pass the Ferengi proposal as is, answer these questions later, and refine the treaty when there are not so many fleets in proximity. While that is likely the proper path, I would like to poll the various participants, and ask if they have opinions on these matters, and how strong these positions might be. The questions. 1. Should the reconstruction of Cardassia be considered complete? While I will not commit firmly to a specific answer, I believe that the opinion of the Cardassian Union ought to be given considerable weight when this question is discussed. If the answer is yes, it might be appropriate to replace throughout the treaty purpose phrases along the lines of "reconstruction of the Cardassian Union" with a more generic "rebuilding of depressed economic areas." 2. The station is to be crewed predominately by Starfleet. Starfleet doctrine is that if the Federation or a treaty bound ally comes under unprovoked attack, Starfleet can commit to defensive operations without authorization by civilian command authority. (In fact, Starfleet had best have a very good reason not to provide a defense.) However, authorization by Council is required before offensive operations are allowed. I approve of the Ferengi proposal of unanimous consensus required to approve military action while a four of five consensus is required to revoke military authorization. Given the Starfleet crew and station management, however, we might wish to adapt what is being authorized to Starfleet doctrine. For example, throughout Aegis history, if Cardassia has been attacked, the commander of Aegis has not sought political approvals from anyone except the Federation and (sometimes) Cardassia to defend Cardassia. Still, I would find it entirely appropriate if the station were forbidden offensive use of force without political approvals along the lines proposed by the Ferengi. Station management should not of its own authority be committing acts of war. 3. Should the treaty be structured to allow the station to be moved without authorizing use of force? The Ferengi proposal seems to link the two. It seems to follow that the station cannot be moved for peaceful purposes. Might we seek an alternate wording where authorization to move the station and authorization to use force are entirely separate? We might consider an addition to the management section that specifies what authorization is required to disassemble the station and move it under warp over strategic distances. I would favor unanimous consensus be required. 4. Might we remove or alter the 'peaceful use only' language? Either the existing Ferengi proposal or variants that might fall out of the above questions speak a good deal of use of force. Rather than a simple 'peaceful use only' declaration that has proven historically to be difficult to honor, we might want to consider language requiring station management to avoid conflict, use diplomatic means first, to use force only as a last resort, or something similar. Given consensus on how these questions ought to be answered, I would of course be willing to propose specific treaty language. However, lacking such a consensus, it seems just as well to avoid the legal language. Again, given the urgent press of events, I could easily support passing the Ferengi proposal as is. I would like the above questions, however, discussed at some point in an honorable open fashion, with all party's view points being given a fair hearing, with no attempts by any party to force or coerce their own position. Ambassador Joy Two. United Federation of Planets. Sky Harbor Aegis

As many will know, I mostly play the Joy class Mudd androids. In my 'official' history, there are only 12 Joys, the true player characters, numbered 1 through 12, including the seldom seen 'evil twin' Joy 4. Back in June of 06, I decided to track unofficial Joys who serve in the STSF academy system. I've been tracking name of ship, the hosts involved, and how each one died. I was surprised, reviewing the data recently, to find only two Joys (14 and 15) died to Pandarians, and only one (Joy 29) to the Vorpal Easter Bunny. Anyway, I'll occasionally inform hosts of their current status on the list of Killjoys. All hosts present in at a run get full credit for a kill. Here is the latest score sheet, sorted first by kills, second alphabetically... Jami 5 Muon 5 NDak 4 Seiban 3 Amnor 2 BluRox 2 FredM 2 KBear 2 Laura 2 Manning 2 Atragon 1 Dacotah 1 Hawser 1 LoAmi 1 Nickles 1 I was more than a little surprised to find Jami at the top of the list. She mostly plays XO. Her five kills are shared with Seiben (3) and Muon (2). Anyway, I figured any new cadets ought to be warned. Fear not NDak so much. He hasn't been running academies so much of late. Others have climbed to the top of the List Dubious. :D

Joy 48, Sept 8, 2008, LoAmi and Sumo. Meteor swarm during rookie space walk class. Forty Eight spins off into the void with majesty and pathos.

After a few brief words with Kith Ghemor, Joy returned to the conference room to find Bruce and Crystal waiting. She sat down again, thinking. "That didn't look good," Crystal said. "I don't know what happened, but just the looks on everyone's faces..." Joy nodded. "All I got out of it is a talking point. The public isn't going to follow the full legal case. All we can do is push one sound byte. 'A change through amendment can't justify a seizure' sure made Drankum twitch." "But will the press buy it?" asked Crystal. "Some of the big organizations will, then it trickles down," responded Joy. "A Ferengi knows how to read a contract. A Mudd android is compelled to honor it. Enough of the major commentators know this to count. If I get Seven to push it, it will get out." Crystal shook her head. "That won't do any good, will it?" "I doubt it," responded Joy. "He's told the lie so often now, he can't back off of it. But that's how wars start, with lies. At least everyone will know they are lying. The legal case is a lie. Their supposed concern for the reconstruction of Cardassia is another obvious lie. Getting their credibility down to absolute zero won't hurt, and they seem focused on getting there without much help from us, but they don't need credibility to create a disaster." Crystal had to ask the question of the hour. "Does anyone know what it is about?" Joy smiled, sadly. "I think so. In part, it's my fault." This got everyone's attention. "Explain," Crystal demanded. "I'll give you the wrong answer first," said Joy. "I'll start with one small truth in Drankum's lies. Not a big truth, but it might help you find other related truths." "OK" "Among his excuses, one claim was that the Federation sometimes acts like it owns the station. There is some truth in that. There would have been more truth if he had said that sometimes Muon acts like she owns the station. But that's not how one justifies wars. It all has to be made much much larger than the usual sort of bickering that you expect among any bunch of sentients. It can't be Muon exceeding authority now and then, it has to become a conspiracy by the entire Federation against the Ferengi Alliance." Crystal nodded, but decided not to comment. "So, from that perspective, look at the other alleged casus belli. No one notified the Ferengi. No one asked the Ferengi to contribute to reports. No one asked the Ferengi to authorize anything." Crystal blinked. "But we did." She was confused. Bruce got it. "Did anyone ask Drankum?" There was a significant pause. "I didn't," said Joy, in the silence. "Can you guess why, Crystal?" She tried to think it through. War. Peace. Lives. Great ships. The naked stars. "Because he is a little creep?" "Bingo," responded Joy. "Because when I speak, he'll focus on the neck line of my blouse, not on what I'm saying. Because at a meeting he'll sit down at the refreshment table, not the conference table. Because he'll make jokes, make himself the center of attention always, rather than contributing to a working meeting. Because the best way to get anything done is to pretend he isn't there, and maybe quietly arrange that when you really need something to be done, to make sure he isn't there. I've long since given up on changing him. Drankum is Drankum. I've long since given up on him. I don't think I'm alone." "And he doesn't like it," Crystal said. It wasn't a question. "He doesn't like it," Joy agreed. "K'Vorlag put it a bit differently. He said we weren't treating Drankum with honor." Crystal snorted. Bruce looked surprised. "K'Vorlag said that?" "He did." Bruce shook his head, as if in disappointment. "What?" asked Crystal, looking to Bruce. "You can't find real honor in someone else's eyes. You can't fight for it. Not with fists. Not with words. Not with battle cruisers. Real honor is inside." Joy nodded agreement. "This isn't about honor." "What is it about, then?" Joy considered. "When Drankum starts losing the focus of the room, when all eyes aren't on him, when he can't think of anything clever to say or to do to put himself back in the spotlight, he will loudly break wind out his rear end. That's all that this is about. He is going to break wind."

The tactics used by the Presidio's press corps varied. Some ambassadors stood upon their dignity, and would not respond at all to questions unless properly addressed with proper form. Some found mere reporters beneath them, and would not respond even with the proper forms. Others were not adept at handling the free press, and actually responded to the reporter who yelled loudest, whose question was the most shrill. Each ambassador was an individual. The more astute reporters, wishing to get a question answered, might have different approaches for handling each ambassador. But there was general agreement on how to handle the representative from Mudd. One of Joy Seven's background personalities was Princess Ann, who just happened to be 20th Century Hollywood's conception of the perfect government public relations representative. When Joy was wearing one of Ann's outfits -- and she always did when she came to the press room -- she would cross the floor with a dancer's grace, hit her mark with elegance and poise, then smile. It wasn't that everyone agreed that Joy was due more respect than any of the other ambassadors. Not at all. It was just that none of the waiting reporters, especially those who used imagery, wanted to do anything that might possibly diminish the smile. Then came the gracious nod to one of their members, who began the questioning. "Joy, some of us are confused by your stance on the Aegis crisis. Preservation of lives is your Priority Two. Following the law is Priority Three. Usually, this makes you the most predictable ambassador in chambers, and violence is always the last resort. Why start a war?" "Liayn, a good resolution to any problem has to involve both avoiding loss of life and following the law. One cannot start out looking at a problem with the assumption that doing just one or the other is good enough. It is true that in some cases, when it is the only way to save lives, I have not objected in the end to the Federation violating its own laws to prevent loss of life. You do know, however, that I will explore every possibility of handling such situations properly first." There were a few rolled eyes among the reporters in response to the truth of the last. "But this is not a matter of the Federation taking a few shortcuts," Joy continued. "Here we have a foreign power acting outside the law, using a threat of force. In the long run, it is seldom good policy to back down to threat of aggression. That simple truth makes a policy of preserving lives at Priority Two while honoring the law at Priority Three problematic. I sincerely do not want conflict. I have been standing firm for law and standing silent on war. There are always many others ready to beat the drum. I do not see what anyone can really gain from conflict. I am deeply sorry that the solidarity that has held among many of Alpha Quadrant's major powers is becoming one power the less. In the end, though, we must maintain as much of that solidarity, as much of the respect for law and treaty, as we possibly can. We have made commitments to some recently firm friends that must be honored if the peace that has come from these friendships is to continue." She nodded to another reporter. "Joy, some are saying that the reference to the amendment process is a technicality in the Aegis treaty. Should we be going to war over a technicality?" "That reference to the amendment process is very basic to the meaning of the treaty. Without the amendment references, Aegis and everything done out of Aegis must be tightly bound to the basic purposes of the station defined at the top of the treaty. This would have made the treaty unusually and unmanageably rigid. With the amendment references, if you ask everyone involved, and everyone says something is OK, then it is OK. The treaty as actually written provides a very practical balance between focus and flexibility. What the Federation and Cardassia did was ask everyone if something was OK." "The Ferengi could have just said no?" "Correct. And if they wanted possession of the station, they might have negotiated for it. The other allies do not see a further need for the station where it is. We might have been willing to sell, and there are provisions in the treaty for doing just that, though a sale at this point would significantly delay answering a very pressing need. Instead, the Ferengi chose to violate the treaty and send in a war fleet. That is not an acceptable way for a respectable honorable power to resolve differences." "But that isn't a war fleet," spoke a voice from the back of the pack. "Everyone knows that seventy five Ferengi merchant captains spontaneously decided to forgo profits and sit in the Cardassia Prime system innocently doing nothing." There was general laughter from the gathering. Joy gave her smile again. "Quacks like duck. Waddles like duck. Swims like duck..." Someone had to respond to her cue. "Duck?" "Feel free to ask the Ferengi. Their response will no doubt be such a fascinating display of clarity and logic as to turn any Vulcan green." Another nod, and another reporter spoke. "I understand you have other problems with the Ferengi legal stance? Would you care to expound?" "I've many differences," responded Joy. "Most of them reduce to asking whether seventy five armed merchant ships provide sufficient legal justification to name the Ferengi judge, jury and executor of the Aegis treaty." "How many armed merchantmen would it take?" Joy smiled again. "Now, Jari. I'm sure you all have legal consultants, or could hire them. Have them read the treaty. I'm sure they could come up with the correct answer to that one." Joy smiled regally, retreated, and moved on.

"Your bones are showing." Half way up the spiral stair in the embassy lobby, Joy spun around and angrily yelled at Bruce. "Good!" "Titch, Eliza," responded Bruce. "Stand up straight. Posture. Float. The rain in Spain falls mainly on the plain." Joy glared, but started up the stairs again, far slower, shoulders back, stepping gracefully and smoothly, her hips swaying gently, but her head entirely steady. One could almost imagine the long trains of an invisible skirt trailing behind. On reaching the landing, she grabbed the railing in both hands, leaned out over Bruce and very nearly screamed. "I hate you Henry Higgins!" She then turned fled from sight. Bruce laughed. Crystal looked on in confusion. "What was that all about?" He turned and briefly admired Crystal, standing in the corridor leading to the general office space. "Oh, Joy is having one of her android moments. The universe sometimes isn't entirely compatible with her programming. She's supposed to make sure all the laws are obeyed. No one should die. No one is supposed to get hurt. When the universe gets unruly, she tends to get a bit intense. Still, she's not just a walking asimov processor. The are other things buried in that little positronic brain of hers. It sometimes helps to dredge them up." "Hmm... Maybe so." Crystal looked up the stair, considered, then looked back to Bruce. "But what did you mean, 'Your bones are showing'?" Bruce smiled. "Well, sometimes the vain, violent, arrogant or stupid will put up brick walls in the way of peace and law. Formidable barriers. Obstacles in the way of what is right. Nasty things. Anyway, at such times one might occasionally be reminded of something about Joy which everyone generally forgets." "Which is?" "Foam titanium bones. Mono-fiber servo systems. On occasion, she starts to think that mere brick walls ought not to be considered a significant problem." "Ah. Joy's programming isn't going to change, so the universe had best adjust?" "That's about it. Between them, Muon and Drankum have managed to really get her going this week." "Good. I'm about ready to see some walls smashed." Bruce shook his head. "Not good." "Why not?" "It's not her. Heck, she'll call me to do anything resembling heavy lifting. I'm supposed to be strong. I'm supposed to show off on occasion. Could you really imagine Joy smashing through a brick wall?" Crystal considered for a while before answering. "No." "She'd hate herself in the morning. Heck, it may not even be allowed. The Third Law of Robotics. She can't allow herself to get killed. If she lets anyone see her break through a brick wall, she'd likely die of embarrassment." Crystal smiled. "Then what does one do about the brick walls?" Bruce considered for a while, then met Crystal's eyes. "Have you ever seen Joy Eleven dancing with Fred?" "Yes." Bruce could see her getting softer, just remembering. "You know how Fred could turn a brick wall into a dance prop?" "Fred can turn anything into a dance prop." "And there would be Joy, dancing right with him?" "In high heels. Backwards." Bruce nodded. "So, the question is, why would she ever want to ruin a perfectly good brick wall?"

"Bruce?" "Yes?" "Have you read Joy's latest?" "I'm trying. I'm having trouble with my eyes, though, somehow. They keep crossing." Crystal laughed. "I can't understand it. Anyway, I came up with another use for brick walls." "Hmmm?" "After the vain, greedy and evil build a brick wall, you just sort of nudge it over so it falls on their head." With a smile, Bruce leap over the front of his desk, rolled a single somersault, came to his feet, fell into in a martial art forward stance, then threw a fierce punch at empty air. "Horse!" he yelled. Several more punches and a kick, ending in a deep cat stance. "Dead horse!" Another combination that ended with a horse stance. "Must beat dead horse!" He then went into an exaggerated series of martial art moves, aimed at a large imaginary dead body, complete with amazing facial grimaces and exaggerated poses displaying fanatic intensity. It was all designed to produce fits of laughter in Crystal. "Henry!" It was Joy's voice, coming from the upper levels, yet it was not Joy's voice. It was high pitched, shrill, strident, recalling another voice they both knew. "Professor Henry Higgins, have you been drinking again? Yes you have! I can smell it on you! Why, you no good, rotten..." "Oh, no! Protect me, mighty warrior!" "No way. Everybody! Run for your lives!" But no one ran, being too busy controlling fits of laughter. Except Alyce 258, who observed the scene standing very still, eyes wide open, unblinking, head tilted to the side, with her network busy necklace light solidly on.

Subject : Differences in Interpretation of the Aegis Treaty From : Ambassador Joy Two, UFP, Aegis To : Cardassia Admiralty Court CC : UFP Office of the President, Earth Captain Muon Quark, Starfleet, Aegis Aegis Diplomatic Corps Ambassador Joy Seven, Mudd Embassy, San Francisco Preface This paper is intended to address the differences of opinion regarding interpretation of the Aegis Treaty. It opens by looking at Article 14(7) of the Aegis Treaty, the center of the Ferengi Alliance's claim to have acquired sole ownership of Aegis. As Article 14(7) is the sole article enabling forced withdrawal by a majority of Partner States, if it is shown to not have been validly invoked, the entire Ferengi Alliance case fails, and summary judgement is possible. Failing this simple resolution, further issues of due process are raised, then the various alleged violations of treaty are addressed point by point, with an intent to show none are substantive. The meaning of the phrase "addition of evolutionary capabilities" is key to this case. Article 14 governs the addition of new equipment and capability to Aegis. Variations on the phrase "addition of evolutionary capabilities" occur throughout. The meaning of this phrase must be examined very carefully. Something is being added. Evolution implies improvement. The capability of the station is being increased. If none of these things are happening, the requirements of Article 14 do not apply. The Ferengi Alliance case depends heavily on saying Article 14 requirements have not been met in the proposed move of Aegis. In fact, no proposal to add new equipment or capability is being made. They are insisting that engineering procedures (Article 14) must be followed when the issue involved is governed by Article 7 (Management) and Article 23 (Amendments.) The vast majority of the supposed 'substantive violations' are centered on the proposition that bridge crew and diplomats ought to be following procedures and filling out documentation that was defined for engineers. Paragraphs in italics through the rest of this paper are the alleged violations of the Aegis Treaty presented by Ambassador Drankum of the Ferengi Alliance. His full argument is attached. Article 14(7) Article 14(7) states "under terms of paragraph 1 and 3 above, if evolution to the operational impact of Facility 30218-UKRFCB fails to meet requirements of Article 1 and Article 23 has not been utilized, this Agreement shall be considered withdrawn by a majority of Partner States by default under terms of Article 24." Article 23, the section of the treaty governing amendments, is being utilized. There is a proposed amendment under consideration which has direct bearing on the issues objected to by the Ferengi Alliance. Thus, Article 14(7) may not be invoked. As there has been no addition of evolutionary capability, Articles 14(1) and 14(3) are not relevant. There are no conflicts between any new evolution and Article 1 as there is no new evolution. The Ferengi Alliance proposes that the Depository has the authority to unilaterally invoke Article 14(7). The role of the Depository is to record documents ratifying of the treaty (see Article 22, Entry into Force) and to record requests for withdrawals from the treaty (see Article 24, Withdrawal). The Depository receives and stores documents. They are an archive. The Depository is given no court jurisdiction under Article 19, and is given no role in resolving disputes under Article 20. Thus, they have no power to declare Article 14(7) to be in effect. Due Process The Federation legal system is based on Guaranteed rights of sentient beings. Among these Guaranteed rights is ownership of property. If one is to seize property under law, other Guaranteed due process rights are automatically invoked. These include the right to a trial, the right to present a defense, the right to legal council, the right to the time required to prepare a defense, the right to call witnesses, the right to cross examine opposing witnesses, the right to face the accuser, and others. Different legal systems derive different due process rights from different first principles. Emphasis varies. Still, the basic theme is common. Before something can be seized under law, the current owner gets a fair hearing. This is true under Federation law, Cardassian law, interstellar law, and admiralty law. The Aegis Treaty Article 2(1) specifies that Aegis “shall be developed, operated and utilized in accordance with interstellar law.” This would include the concept of due process. One cannot simply take up arms whenever one disagrees with another party in a contract. Such an approach is the antithesis of Rule of Law. Parties to a disputed contract must prove the contract is being violated in a court of law. The court must have proper jurisdiction. Due process must be followed. The Ferengi Alliance failed to do this. If their ships are acting as private concerns, they have made themselves pirates. If they are acting as agents of their government, they have committed an act of war. Either way, the Ferengi Alliance stands in violation of interstellar and admiralty law. And, thus, of course, Article 2(1) of the Aegis Treaty. Studies, Notifications and Agreements With it's handling of the said amendment, the United Federation of Planets to be in clear and substantive violation of Article 14(3) as no evolution study has been performed by the Allies; The proposed amendment in no way adds capability to Aegis. No evolution study is required as the station is not evolving. Still, a study was done. The Federation’s Commissioner Sorehl interviewed appropriate individuals, performed relevant analysis, and produced reports giving the reasons for the proposed move of Aegis. All knew of these reports immediately upon publishing. All had access to these reports on request. All had ample opportunities to comment or publish dissenting reports. Five of six allies found the timing and content of Sorehl’s report quite adequate as the basis to approve the movement of the station. The United Federation of Planets to be in clear and substantive violation of Article 14(5) since no prior agreement has been agreed to by the Partner States that is consistent with the overall program since an operational impact would take place due to Amendment 1; Article 14(5) states "the addition of evolutionary capabilities by one Ally shall require prior notification of other allies, and agreement from the United Federation of Planets to ensure that any addition is consistent with the overall program, and any other Ally providing a Facility 30218-UKRFCB element or transportation system on which there is an operation or technical impact, shall be parties." As no additional evolutionary capabilities are being added, no notifications or agreements involving new evolutionary capabilities are required or possible. There is no addition to test for consistency with the overall program. As no ally other than Starfleet is currently running an element or transportation system, there is no need to coordinate the nonexistent new evolutionary capability with allied crews managing elements or transportation systems. The United Federation of Planets to be in clear and substantive violation of Article 20(2) as prompt official notification of such a proposal was not provided to other Partner States in a timely fashion; Article 20(2) says nothing about prompt notification of proposals. It says allies may request meetings with other allies, and allies requested should promptly attend. Article 20(3) does say "any ally which intends to proceed with significant element design changes... shall notify the other Partners accordingly at the earliest opportunity." Again, there are no element design changes. Also, all allies were made immediately aware of Commissioner Sorehl's report. The Purpose of Sky Harbor Aegis - Amendment 1 to be in clear violation of Article 14(1) which recognizes that Facility 30218-UKRFCB with its evolution shall have its operation and use include the assisting and production of security and material support for the reconstruction of the Cardassian Union; - Amendment 1 to be in clear violation of Article 14(3) which requires that any amendments must be consistent with the overall program, understood under Article 1 to include providing all means possible for the reconstruction of the Cardassian Union; (I believe there is an error in the preceding paragraph, as it is Article 14(5), not 14(3), which requires that evolutionary upgrades be consistent with the overall program.) Neither Article 14(1), 14(3) or 14(5) have any bearing as no evolutionary capability is being added. Article 14(1) does state Aegis's "operation and utilization shall be for the peaceful purposes, in accordance with international law; its operation and utilization shall include scientific exploration, and diplomatic assistance, and to assist and provide security and material support of the reconstruction of the Cardassian Union.” Commissioner Sorehl’s report indicates that Aegis currently is not providing helpful security support for the Cardassian Union. The station’s presence attracts more hostile aggressors than it deters. The most recent examples are the 8472 and the Ferengi Alliance. The report also concludes that the reconstruction of the Cardassian Union is complete. Sensor scans indicate a significant collapse of interstellar infrastructure in Breen space. There is an apparent need for scientific exploration, diplomatic assistance, security and reconstruction in Breen space. It is proposed that the best way to use the station in the spirit of the original program is to move it from somewhere it is no longer needed to somewhere it is needed. The Ferengi interpretation of Aegis’s purpose implies a desire for carpet bagging. They seem to desire continued profit off the aftermath of war, long after the war’s end, with no regard for whether their presence is wanted, and with no regard as to whether their continued presence benefits the Cardassian Union. At no time has the Ferengi Alliance questioned the substance of Sorehl's report, let alone proven it incorrect as fact. (Actually, they have done the opposite, quite definitely demonstrating how the current Aegis position attracts hostile fleets.) The Ferengi Alliance's interpretation is a very ugly perversion of the spirit and intent of Aegis’s purpose as stated in Articles 1(1) and 14(1). While they argue to follow the letter of the original purpose, they have the spirit so wrong that their vision of the treaty is arguably in violation of the treaty. Further, the Ferengi Alliance seems to propose that the carpet bagging can never end, that it is improper to amend the treaty in a way that will terminate the reconstruction of Cardassia. Once again, it should be noted that Article 14(5) deals with evolutionary engineering upgrades. Contrary to Ambassador Drankum's assertion, neither Article 14(3) or 14(5) say anything about "amendments". They speak of "evolutionary capabilities." Article 14(5) says in part that engineering changes must reflect the purpose of the station. It does not say the purpose of the station can never be changed. Ownership The United Federation of Planets to be in danger of substantive violation of Article 6(1) with acts assuming direct ownership of Facility 30218-UKRFCB, with ownership surrendered upon activation of the facility and a failure to abide by managerial responsibilities as listed in Article 6(3) to support the Ownership clause; Article 6 relates to fiscal ownership of station elements. Article 6(2) in particular states “Any transfer of ownership of any element shall require prior notification of the other Allies with concurrence required.” The consensus allies no more intend any transfer of ownership than they intend to add evolutionary capabilities. The intent is to move the station, not to sell it, and not to improve it. It is the Ferengi Alliance that is attempting to unilaterally seize ownership of the entire station. They did not provide the required prior notification, choosing military surprise rather than treaty compliance. Whatever the merits of other articles invoked by the Ferengi Alliance in their attempt to justify seizing ownership of the station, these other articles were not invoked in a manner complying with Article 6(2). Thus, said invocations are in violation of treaty, and have no legal standing. Chain of Command Unfortunately, Ambassador Drankum failed to give an example of what was meant by “acts assuming direct ownership.” I can only guess that his concern might possibly echo a concern of my own. Note that the 'direct ownership' complaint is the only one which is not claimed to be either clear or substantive. Still, it might possibly be the only complaint that might have some vague merit, that does not depend on imaginary station improvements or similar fabrications. The search for that merit, however, requires a lengthy quest. The court's indulgence is requested. The merit might be found, but not a substantive violation of treaty. The role of chain of command in the Aegis Treaty is problematic. The treaty is written entirely in civilian language, yet the station contains powerful weapons system and is crewed by those under military discipline. The consensus allies have been struggling with several approaches to resolving this disconnect. Article 7(2) has been read as giving the Federation the right to assign a captain who commands the station. This captain is assumed to have the usual prerogatives of captains of space vessels. Captain Quark of Starfleet and General K’Vorlag of the Klingon Empire have asserted this view. Very strong precedent over the entire history of Sky Harbor Aegis supports this view. A general review of how armed stations are commanded throughout known space supports this view. Article 7(2) can also be read as giving the Federation the power to assign operations department personnel, which have the responsibility to coordinate station operations. Article 7(2) does not contain the words ‘captain’ or ‘command.’ Rather, Article 7(1) states that decision making by consensus is the desired method of management, while making no mention of a military chain of command. Article 20 then provides mechanisms to be used should the allies be unable to achieve consensus. The above is a plain reading of the treaty text, a quite plausible reading for a civilian station limited to peaceful uses only. It is also a very unusual approach to running a heavily armed station, especially a station that has been involved in conflict as often as Aegis. It is understandable that members of many cultures will respond adversely to the plain text as written, especially if the individuals involved have experience running armed stations. A third view embraces this principle that the treaty just won’t work as written. Thus, the treaty needs to be amended. Kith Ghemor of the Cardassian Union and the Federation President are beginning to advocate this perspective. The president believes this process may take a few months. I believe he is being optimistic. One proposed solution to the weapons authorization aspect of the problem is to exclusively use the Federation rules of engagement system. This has the advantage of being clearly defined and well understood by the current predominately Starfleet crew. It is problematic in that it gives the Federation civilian command authority undue precedence in determining how Aegis is to be used in a conflict situation. Such precedence cannot be justified by the treaty, which presents all civilian authorities as equal. On the other hand, the treaty does not provide a mechanism suitable to merge the intentions of multiple civilian command authorities into a single set of binding military orders. There is only the stated goal of Article 7(1), to seek consensus, which seems an inadequate mechanism for weapons use authorization. However difficult the chain of command problem might be, it is absolutely clear that the Federation is not seeking to resolve the question of moving Aegis by claiming primacy of Starfleet chain of command. It is the Federation’s position that unanimous approval of an amendment by all allies is required to move the station. While the wording is still preliminary, five of the six powers involved have already agreed in principle to the move. This clearly contradicts the Ferengi Alliance’s allegation that the Federation is unilaterally claiming ownership of the station. It is the Ferengi Alliance that is unilaterally claiming ownership of the station. I will emphatically deny that the Federation is united behind an obviously incorrect interpretation of the treaty. It is far more true to say the Federation’s military, executive and diplomatic branches are divided by sincere differences in how to best implement the treaty. The consensus allies are similarly divided. Documentation showing these sincere differences is attached. I believe the above summary to be roughly accurate, but obviously all factions can express their opinions in a stronger and more detailed manner. Positions are also constantly shifting as new and valid points are raised. While the military chain of command problem is difficult and on the surface seems very important, in practice the station is too slow to be used offensively. By the very nature of the station, the rules of engagement default to “shoot back if shot at.” Thus, the other allies have generally not found that the Federation's rules of engagement have been flawed, and thus the problem has not been addressed and resolved. It is currently being sincerely worked. Progress is being made. The lack of a satisfactory resolution to date, however, should not be held to be a substantive violation of treaty, especially as the Ferengi Alliance has yet to propose its own position on the issue. Ambassador Drankum has disparaged everyone else's proposals, which is very easy to do, but neither he nor any other representative of the Ferengi Alliance has provided the other allies a proposal to work from. If it pleases the court, I would suggest that the chain of command problem is a military and political problem. It would best be solved through military and political channels, rather than from the bench. However, if in the court’s opinion any of the above approaches are clearly invalid under the treaty text as currently written, or under admiralty law, the court’s opinion would be valued and given all due consideration. Summary There were six Ferengi Alliance allegations that supposedly show violations of the Aegis treaty. Three allege that procedures required in adding evolutionary capabilities were not properly performed, regardless that no new evolutionary capabilities are proposed. Two allegations complain that moving the station would deny the Ferengi their right to profit at the expense of Cardassia. This should be considered a feature, not a bug. The last complaint alleges that ownership of the station has been improperly changed, when in fact no fiscal transfer has taken place or is intended. One may confidently assert -- especially when adding Ferengi violations of due process, failing to provide any advance notice of an intent to transfer ownership, and an act of war (or perhaps piracy) -- that the Ferengi Alliance’s behavior has been far more questionable than the behavior of the consensus allies. Note that the consensus allies have focused on making the more routinely used day to day aspects of the treaty work. We have been concerned with the authority of the captain, seeking consensus, and the like. The Ferengi are focusing on the terminal articles, articles intended to be invoked only if the routine articles have broken down. The routine articles have not broken down. The consensus allies are using them in a difficult but still reasonably functional way. The routine articles proscribed by treaty are just producing policy that the Ferengi Alliance does not like. Rather than abiding by the results produced by following the treaty, the Ferengi are seeking to break the treaty. The common principle found throughout the treaty is that one should talk things over before doing anything, and do things together after talking. Article 6(2) requires concurrence before transfer of ownership. Article 7(1) states “decision making by consensus shall be the goal.” Article 14 requires coordination and review before evolutionary capabilities are added. Of particular note, Article 20(1) requires that “the Allies shall exert their best efforts to settle such matters through consultation between or among their Cooperating Agencies in accordance with the procedures provided.” We are supposed to try to work together. This common theme makes the question of who has best honored the spirit and intent of the Aegis treaty rather simple. Has the Ferengi Alliance or the consensus allies formed the more functional consensus of allies? Ambassador Joy Two United Federation of Planets Sky Harbor Aegis

Subject : The Legal Aspects of the Aegis - Ferengi Situation From : Ambassador Joy Two, UFP, Aegis To : Office of the President, United Federation of Planets Captain Muon Quark, Starfleet, Aegis Kith Ghemor, Cardassian Union, Aegis General K'Vorlag, Klingon Empire, Aegis Ambassador Joy Seven, Mudd Embassy, San Francisco A preliminary brief stating the allied case will be sent shortly to Cardassian Admiralty Court, which should stand as having jurisdiction. I would be confident to put the case before any neutral court. If the judge has the usual desire to protect the authority of his own court, and the slightest pride in Cardassia's sovereignty, we will be in very good shape. We might well receive a summary judgement rather than requiring a full trial. The Ferengi's basic case is that the proposed amendment creates an "addition of evolutionary capability" which conflicts with the purpose of the station. If such a conflict exists, Article 14(7) says the Ferengi Depositary takes ownership of the station. There are several fatal flaws in the argument. Article 14(7) cannot be evoked if the amendment process has been utilized. It is an amendment that creates the alleged conflict. Second, an "addition of evolutionary capacity" is an obscure way of saying "equipment upgrade." The proposed amendment does not upgrade equipment, does not add new capability to Aegis. Finally, the Ferengi Depository is nothing but a document archive. It has no power to judge treaty violations or arbitrate treaty meaning. There are also numerous lesser flaws in their case, none of which are deadly alone, but each offers the chance to draw blood. I performed the legal equivalent of the death of a thousand cuts. I am still uncertain as to the Ferengi objectives and strategy. An exchange of property seizures and financial penalties hurts both parties. The financial game is lose-lose, though I believe we should not press on this front. They are apt to be better at such things than we. Going the military route is also lose-lose. They might have had an initial advantage, but in the long term they don't want to walk that road. The lack of profit opportunity on the financial and military fronts suggests they actually believe in their legal case, and their objective was to win the financial worth of the station. If so, I believe they have severely overestimated the worth of their legal case. It may be a matter of pride. They have not been treated with respect, of late. I am reasonably confident that we can go to court, revoke their seizure, and force their withdrawal from the treaty. My intent would be to convince them we've got the legal edge, then see if they have a face saving way of backing out of this. In negotiation, I'd let them save as much face as they can manage. We want their approval of the movement amendment. I'd like to amend article 14(7) so they can't try this again, and clean up a few other legal holes exposed by this incident. If we can get them to be cooperative in settling the chain of command related issues, that would be good, too. If they aren't willing to cooperate in these things, if they aren't interested in making the Aegis Treaty work, perhaps we do want to force them out of the treaty. I fear, however, they may not be interested in saving face. They may have lost so much face already that the only honorable solution is to burn themselves on their own funeral pyre. If this is the case, we may be called upon to play the role of cop in a game of suicide by cop. How much latinum is a Ferengi's pride worth? Ambassador Joy Two, UFP, Aegis

Subject : Aegis Treaty Interpretation Difficulties From : Ambassador Joy Two, United Federation of Planets To : Admiralty Court, Cardassia Your honor. There is currently a disagreement taking place on interpretation of the Aegis Treaty of 2376. (See attached.) The Ferengi Empire and citizens thereof differer in interpretation of the treaty from representatives of the governments of the Cardassian Union, United Federation of Planets, and Klingon Empire. (Two other signatories have not yet made their positions clear.) The legal claim on the part of the Ferengi is established by the following diplomatic messages. (See attached.) A seizure of property was declared with no opportunity for the various allied governments to present their interpretation before any court recognized under international law. Thus, we require time to assemble a legal team representing various involved parties, and to prepare our response to the Ferengi interpretations. I assure you, however, a solid legal response can be made. The Treaty of Aegis was signed upon Cardassian soil. The station in question is in Cardassian space. I believe yours is the proper court to resolve differences in interpretation of the treaty when procedures for resolving differences within the treaty have not been followed or fail to achieve consensus. I request a hearing on jurisdiction. I do not believe the Ferengi courts have legal jurisdiction to declare seizure of properties within Cardassian space. I do not believe the Ferengi navy has police powers to execute seizure of properties within Cardassian space. The position of the Government of the Cardassian Union is that this proposed seizure has initiated a 'state of conflict'. (See attached.) There are many tangential issues being raised. The Ferengi are claiming a right to be in Cardassian space according to the terms of a treaty they have declared void, and are claiming that the terms of a commercial treaty guaranteeing rights to move goods and people give a right to ignore orders issued by military authorities during a declared state of emergency. (See attached.) I would request a stay order be issued, putting the seizure on hold until hearings can be held to settle jurisdiction issues and settle differences in interpretation of treaty. I fear I must also request the obvious, a directive that the Ferengi ships must comply to movements requested by the Cardassian government during the current declared state of emergency. Ambassador Joy Two, representing the United Federation of Planets

Subject : Ferengi Aegis Conflict From: Ambassador Joy Two, United Federation of Planets, Sky Harbor Aegis To: Office of the President, United Federation of Planets CC: Captain Muon Quark, Starfleet, Sky Harbor Aegis, Ambassador Joy Seven, San Francisco Classification: Secret Encryption: UFP39D Precedence: Immediate The current crisis likely resulted from a hurried and clumsy handling of the move of Aegis. The Ferengi were humiliated in how a rush to move the station took place without sufficient deference to assuage their pride. Their ability to penetrate Cardassian space may well similarly humiliate the Cardassians. They take great pride in their military strength. It has been shown to be inadequate. From their perspective, this incident may show a need to increase their military strength and strengthen security procedures. While this is a natural and proper response, this counters our efforts to reduce military tensions in the region. Starfleet deployments in support of this crisis might thus be made not according to the amount of force required to answer the Ferengi threat, but according to the amount of force required to make the Cardassians feel secure. Let there be no doubt that the Federation will support Cardassia in an hour of need. Yet, I approve the Starfleet decision to hold the bulk of Federation forces out of Cardassian space until they are invited in. Allowing Cardassia to take the lead in deciding military responses is prudent. Starfleet's handling of the situation has thus far been excellent. My office and Starfleet Aegis have been offering firm support to Cardassia. I would like permission to make this total and unqualified support. And yet, as much as it is desirable to maintain and extend proper relationships with Cardassia, this office will be looking into ways to offer the Ferengi a way out of the hole they have dug for themselves. They are putting pride ahead of profits. Suggestions on approaches to breaking the escalating series of financial embargoes and restoring Ferengi pride would be welcome. You may wish to consider whether directly confronting the Ferengi in their area of strength prudent. I have begun proceedings in Cardassian Admiralty Court to resolve issue through legal channels. I do not anticipate that the Ferengi will honor legal due process, but it seems prudent to show that the allies are making every effort at non-violent resolution. Ambassador Joy Two

Captain? Kith? Take a look at the Ferengi formation. They are lining up in the Aegis shipping lanes. I bet he's counting on Article 18 Section 2, which guarantees a neutral avenue for passage of goods and persons. He'll likely claim a right under treaty to be there. Remember Admiral Goram's habit of shutting down civilian traffic? If there is a clear and present danger, it is quite proper to declare a state of emergency or martial law, and all civilian traffic must comply with military authority. All merchant treaties go poof for the duration. I thought some of Goram's dangers were obscure and distant, but this one is quite clean. I don't know if you want to declare the emergency, or the Cardassians, but if you order him to move, and he doesn't, you have your act of war, and I'll certify that to San Francisco. The main reason to delay on this is if the Cardassians want time to scramble their fleet.

Subject : Aegis Treaty Interpretation and Breen Catastrophe Response From : Ambassador Joy Two To : Ambassador Drankum, Kith Ghoram, General K’Vorlag CC : Ambassador Joy Seven, Ambassador tr'Aeolix, Cmdr Kirel The Aegis treaty is complex, containing many requirements. Four might be sufficient to illustrate the current problem. 1). Aegis shall be used only for peaceful purposes. 2) Directives to Aegis shall come through civilian command channels. 3) The goal is to manage Aegis by consensus. 4) Should consensus be unachievable, differences shall be resolved through binding arbitration. I have recently been attempting to work with Starfleet to develop procedures to implement the above requirements. Recently, Captain Quark rejected my most recent attempt with emphasis, and refused to further pursue the conversation. She insisted with emphasis that she intends to report through Starfleet chain of command and respect no other command authority. In my opinion, this is not a small stretch of treaty interpretation, but a gross violation of the letter, spirit and intent of the Aegis Treaty. Her interpretation would not stand before any reputable binding arbitration service. Her interpretation is illegal and criminal. As of now, Captain Muon is refusing to speak to me on this subject. Being who and what I am, I can no longer in any way aid or abet her current methods for operating Aegis. Thus, the cooperation between Federation civilian and military operations has become dysfunctional. Thus, I sent word to Mudd’s embassy in San Francisco that my replacement should be sent to Aegis. My sister Seven responded that “Someone on Aegis needs to be replaced.” I am awaiting developments. In the meantime, while I am still here, as it remains my duty to attempt to build a consensus on how the station should be used, I have questions for the other allied representatives present. 1. Does your nation agree that the catastrophic events reported in Breen space need to at least be investigated , likely responded to, and that Sky Harbor Aegis is an appropriate asset to commit to this purpose? 2. If the answer to the above is yes, is your government content to participate passively as an observer, yielding all decisions to Starfleet? For the duration of any Breen catastrophe operations, is your government willing to waive significant parts of the Aegis Treaty, including the peaceful use, civilian command, consensus management, and binding arbitration clauses? 3. The Aegis Treaty as written seems entirely adequate for a peaceful use station in a static situation. The Breen catastrophe situation seems likely to be neither peaceful nor static. Arguably, in violating the peaceful use clause, the station’s proscribed command procedures are likely to be stressed far beyond conditions they were intended to handle. Is your government comfortable sending assets into harm’s way with a chain of command resting on the twin bedrocks of unanimous consensus and binding arbitration? 4. I have given thought to how the Aegis Treaty might possibly be altered to a workable form, honoring the spirit of the original treaty, but adapting the mechanics to a more dynamic situation. If there is a preliminary consensus that falls through the first three questions with yes, no, and no answers, would anyone care to discuss possible alterations to make the command procedures suitable for non-peaceful use? This unit can abide if the Aegis Treaty is honored, modified, or nullified. This unit cannot function well if the treaty is to be ignored. It is my belief that the Breen Catastrophe will be best answered by a united Alpha Quad, rather than by Starfleet. I believe a consensus operation, while difficult to achieve, would be the correct answer. However, if we do not have a strong clear commitment and unity of purpose going in, any attempt to manage by anything approximating the procedures specified in the Aegis Treaty are apt to fail. Thus, it is thus important that if any attempt at consensus is to be made, it should be made immediately. Ambassador Joy Two

It seems that Scotty's last voyage has been having problems... Missing Rocket, Missing Remains Alive, he always managed to prevent her from blowing...

Subject : Declaration of War against the Breen? From : Ambassador Joy Two, Sky Harbor Aegis To : Ambassador Joy Seven, San Francisco Security : Unclassified Precedence : Flash Override Encryption : Joy0207:D7A920D3 Sister, mine I have just received word, over the Aegis public address system yet, that Starfleet intends to move Sky Harbor Aegis to Portis, the central planet of the Breen Empire. Sending an armed vessel uninvited into the sovereign territory of another power is, of course, an act of war. As Aegis flies not only the Federation flag, but the flags of several other powers, it seems to me this move would create a state of war that would instantly involve a good sized part of the Alpha Quadrant. You saw my first reaction to the move, my note to Captain Quark. I have just had a second thought. Has Council declared war on the Breen? If not, without Council’s permission, Starfleet ought not to be launching offensive operations. I would sort have hoped that if an offensive war had been authorized in this part of space that you might have informed me. Also, were the other powers involved in the Aegis treaty notified? As I read the treaty, an unprovoked invasion would be a definite change of policy. If the Council did declare war on the Breen, they would have to request a consensus of the other powers before involving Aegis in the invasion. Also, Article 14 section 1 specifies the station shall be utilized for peaceful purposes. That clause was not removed by the proposed amendment, and the amendment has not been fully ratified yet. Were the other allies told of the intent to invade? Have any of the other allies declared war on the Breen? Please keep me informed. Ambassador Joy Two

Subject : Aegis Treaty Revision Ratification and Portas From : Ambassador Joy Two To : Captain Muon Quark CC : Kith Ghemor, Ambassador Joy Seven, Capt Sorehl, Gen KVorlag, Cdr Chirakis My Fellow Radical Female I quite agree the Federation has the right to appoint you. I quite agree that selecting a Starfleet officer is the proper and legal thing to do, as such officers have the correct skill mix. I emphatically disagree with your interpretation of your chain of command. Aegis receives requests for policy changes from civilian command authorities only. The Federation civilian command authorities -- derived from the Council and the President -- are given no special place in the treaty. The Grand Nagus, the Romulan Senate and other allied civilian command authorities are absolutely equal to their Federation equivalents in their ability to request policy changes. The goal, after a policy change has been requested by any such civilian command authority, becomes consensus. If a true consensus can be achieved by the civilian command authorities, such a consensus is binding upon the captain of Aegis, regardless of whether the Federation was part of that consensus. If no consensus is achieved, the request for a change by any single power, including the Federation, does not bind Aegis and does not justify any action or change by Aegis personnel. General K'Vorlag in recent conversation suggested this mistaken idea of your chain of command may be near the core of the Ferengi filibuster. The Ferengi are considered by some to be a second class power. They are sensitive to this perception. Signing the Aegis treaty as an equal to the Federation, Romulans and Klingons was at the time a major step towards achieving big league status. Declaring the Aegis mission complete robs them of this status. The matter of how it was done also plays a part. As Sorehl did not consult you before moving forward, you did not consult Ambassador Drankum. In answering to Starfleet chain of command and by treating the move as a done deal without consulting the Ferengi, their pride was trampled upon. A major part of Ambassador Drankum's life worth was trampled to dust. Article 14 paragraph one includes a summary of the original four missions of Aegis. Cardassian reconstruction is now considered done, by a consensus minus the Ferengi. By the same consensus, the mission of providing security for Cardassia Prime and the surrounding area is a negative. Aegis makes Cardassia less secure. The third mission mentioned is science. To my knowledge, there is no current science project on Aegis that could not be performed as well elsewhere, or upon any other station. The fourth mission is diplomacy. Let me briefly review my perspective on that. From the recent meeting, you might recall that Governor K'Vorlag is not entirely pleased with you. The Ferengi are less pleased. The Cardassians think you a great hero, and want you and your command far away as soon as possible. The Romulan diplomatic corps was driven off the station some time ago, and have shown no inclination to return. The Bajorans are a distant memory. I too am not pleased. My job as a diplomat is generally to maintain good relations between powers, to avoid conflicts, and to get various states to work together towards common goals. This has not been what I have been called to do at Aegis. Here, my job is to attempt damage control when Starfleet attempts to fire fight the immediate problem by the most expedient method possible. Starfleet in general has not consulted allies, has not considered their opinions, goals and values important. The recent 8472 incident is but the latest example. The Cardassians thought a fleet action necessary in order to make the point strongly enough for the Federation to take notice. Once before I was the last diplomat off the Aegis embassy row. I turned out the lights after the foreign diplomats concluded that they were not being listened to by the Federation. I warned Starfleet time and again that this was coming if they did not begin to treat the foreign diplomatic corps with respect. I feel obliged to raise the same warning now. Read the treaty. Take my interpretation of your chain of command seriously for a moment. Seriously try to understand why Ambassador Drankum might be feeling insulted and betrayed, and how he might well correctly consider himself insulted and betrayed. Aegis culture includes a contempt for the 'Vips and Dips.' The common belief is that Starfleet knows best. The diplomatic corps are often viewed as superfluous wasters of time and spouters of endless words. Starfleet thus does whatever Starfleet wants to do, sure in the knowledge that Starfleet captains can tell foreign sovereign governments what to do with impunity. Just ask Joy to pressure anyone being stubborn, and everything will be all right. This Aegis culture is much less now than it once was, but the base of it is still present. Any change in this culture will have to begin from the top. Portas. We hopefully will not be moving the station to the central system of a hostile empire without evidence that said empire is severely weakened. At best, we will be filling a power vacuum. At worst, we will have an opportunity for military glory. We will have the opportunity to expand the Federation's area of influence by force. For years, the Federation diplomatic corps has been using whatever means available to discourage certain powers from policies of military adventurism. We have been worried that the Tholian, Gorn, Cardassian, Romulan, Klingon or other empires might rush in to fill power vacuums, or engage in military adventures. We have not wanted them to fall back into what has generally been thought to be bad habits. Is it good precedent for the Federation to do the same thing? Is it OK to send a Federation station answering only to the Federation's military chain of command into a power vacuum or possible military expansion? If we do so, what sort of basis will we have to discourage other powers from initiating competing military incursions? I shall strongly urge that no unilateral preemptive incursion should happen. If the fragile peace of the Alpha Quadrant is to survive, any force sent into Breen space must be a allied force that answers equally to the values, authority and goals of all interested Alpha Quad powers. The risks, costs, opportunities and responsibilities must be shared. I will also argue, regardless of whether the situation turns more into a power vacuum or a military adventure, that we shall encounter failed states and economic disarray. We shall have to find an ally with an expertise in economic reconstruction. If such a power were to give advice, I would strongly suggest that we respectfully listen. Further, if you can think of any power that might meet this current dire need, I would strongly suggest that you go to their nearest available representative and beg for their assistance on bended knee. But that's just my opinion. No pressure, or anything. Joy

Subject : Aegis Treaty Revision Ratification From : Ambassador Joy Two To : Captain Muon Quark CC : Kith Ghemor, Ambassador Joy Seven My Fellow Rebel Female Upon reading the Aegis treaty, it has occurred to me that Captain Halloway missed a possible defense in your recent court marshal. The Federation has the power to appoint the commander of Aegis (or at least to assign the department head of the Operations department, which is responsible for coordinating station activity). However, upon accepting this post, said commander is severed from traditional Starfleet chain of command. Aegis receives direction from civilian command authorities, not military command authorities. Thus, entirely regardless of the contents of Forester’s orders, by treaty the source of the order was improper. Thus, the order was illegal. In accepting Ambassador Drankum’s request to have the treaty rewrite request come through civilian channels rather than through Starfleet, you have set a current precedent acknowledging ‘civilian control of the military’ as found in the Aegis treaty. This resend was perhaps a symbolic thing only, but one ought not totally disregard the importance of the symbolic in diplomacy. You have acknoweldged that his interpretation is correct. You have asked me to ‘pressure’ Ambassador Drankum. I am not sure that ‘pressure’ will be constructive. You have repeatedly asserted your willingness to abide by the terms of the treaty. I would like to hear that one more time. Your assurances that you understand that the Aegis treaty specifies a very different chain of command than has been implemented in recent practice might do far more to create movement than any ‘pressure’ I could mount. Mind you, Ambassador Drankum and I likely have significantly different ideas on what the proper interface between the captain of Aegis and the various civilian command authorities ought to be. He seems to be emphasizing ‘civilian,’ while I regard the stated goal of consensus among the multiple civilian command authorities to be essential and more difficult. Thus, my middle term goal will be to create a consensus on what a consensus is. Alas, it seems to be Ambassador Drankum’s intent to fillibuster. Getting an actionable impression of how he wants the treaty interpreted has been like pulling hen’s teeth. By this, I mean not only is it difficult to pull teeth, but it is not clear that what I am attempting to pull out of him really exists. He is a money man. I am not confident that he has enough of a military or political background to know how to set up an effective working relationship between a space station and a group of civilian command authorities, each of which reflects an entirely different culture. If he wanted to make the treaty work, he should have been lobbying on behalf of his interpretation of the treaty. Instead, he is attacking everyone else’s interpretation of the treaty, and inciting delay and frustration, without putting forth his own interpretation. While you were very emphatic in suggesting that the only path forward requires unanimous ratification of a revised treaty, please do not entirely close your mind to the possibility that we might have to move the station under the authority of the old treaty. There is room to do so, though I would vastly prefer not to. The most effective pressure available would come from the Cardassians, not from the Federation. Surely, the Laws of Acquisition must state somewhere that it is impossible to make a profit sonewhere where one is not at all welcome. It must be made clear that the Ferengi will not profit by forcing the station to stay. But it would be for the Cardassians to arrange the ‘stick’ argument. I would like to make the ‘carrot’ argument that the station’s new location will be more profitable than the old, but cannot without knowledge of where the station might be moved to. Joy

Subject : Aegis Treaty Renegotiation From : Ambassador Joy Two To : Captain Muon Quark Captain I have been meditating upon the contents of the 2376 Aegis treaty, and waiting patiently for Ambassador Drankum to reveal his objectives and legal approach. His recent note rejecting the proposed amendments on the basis that it coms from a non-civil organization is revealing. It also echoes my reading of the treaty. The commander of Aegis does not answer to Starfleet, or to any other military organization, but to an amorphous ‘consensus’ of civil authorities. The treaty does not contain a section on military chain of command. I believe this to be a significant oversight. Given it’s weapons, given the history of Aegis, and even given the name ‘Aegis,’ the station is in part a military asset. As such, it requires a commanding officer, a single source of over riding orders should conflict arise. However Aegis is not a sovereign entity. The captain of Aegis, of any ship or station with military capability, must answer to some higher authority. The treaty is clear that said higher authority is not Starfleet, but is a consensus of civilian authorities. I share memories with my sister, Ambassador Joy Seven, who has considerable experience with a committee which oversees and directs military organizations. The exercise is not trivial. I shall state as a self evident truth that when trouble arises, there will be no initial consensus. The civilian command authorities will require weeks to months to get their acts together. Thus, when there is no consensus, there ought to be a default set of rules of engagement, a default area of operation, and a default set of missions that may be undertaken. Such missions might include suppression of piracy, diplomatic exchange, supporting interstellar trade, and providing humanitarian aid. At the same time, the Aegis commander should not be free to launch any mission he or she pleases. Missions such as supporting insurrection, improving planetary cultures at gunpoint or launching war of aggression should be explicitly forbidden without a consensus of relevant civilian command authorities. Also, if one signatory power becomes involved in a conflict, but other signatory powers wish to remain neutral, under what circumstances would Aegis become belligerent? Also, if two or more Aegis signatory powers come into active conflict with one another, under what circumstances does Aegis become belligerent? These are not abstract questions. In the lead up to their attack on Aegis, the Breen launched a disinformation campaign which suggested the Romulans committed acts of war against Cardassia and the Federation. The treaty does not cleanly handle that situation. Not long ago, the Cardassian government did not wish the Federation to contact species 8472. The act of one signatory government was seen as putting other signatory governments at risk. Again, the question might be what sort of missions are allowed under the initiative of the Aegis commanding officer without the permission of a consensus of civilian command authorities. I do not know if Ambassador Drankum has thought this through in detail. It seems clear that he does not wish policy set by Starfleet. Given the rocky recent history of Aegis, I can see where he is coming from. It is not clear that he has throughly thought through what would be required to create an alternate chain of command. I too noted that there is no provision in the existing treaty that describes what is required to authorize moving the station. I also noted that there is no provision in the treaty forbidding the Federation assigned commanding officer from moving the station. Clearly, a consensus of civilian command authorities would have the power to define an area of operation for Aegis, but given no are of operations has ever been defined by a consensus of civilian command authorities, it is generally the prerogative of a captain to move his or her vessel. Not that I would use said argument until and unless someone gets totally obstructionist. If at all possible, let us strive for the proposed unanimous consensus. There are a number of other items in the Treaty which might be cleaned up. For example, the precedent seems to be that Starfleet security and Federation law prevails throughout the station (excepting the embassies), while the treaty calls for multiple security forces and multiple jurisdictions. We might wish to clean up such things, but I am not eager to raise more issues than absolutely necessary. Comments Welcome Joy

"He killed a robot?" Joy Seven, on distant Earth, raised an eyebrow. "A basic cleaning unit that had impacted Ambassador Drankum's cane," replied her sister Two from Aegis. "Not sentient. The Robot's attack wasn't much of one. I don't even know if the bot was under Federation or Cardassian control, or whether it's programming had been tampered with. I'll have to dump some pineapple about the floor of the Federation Embassy, and check the programming of the responding cleaning unit." "Not a big deal, then?" "On a spiral of violence scale of one to ten, I'd rate it at about point two. I am considering acquiring the bot, mounting it on a wall plaque, and presenting it to Sorehl as a trophy." "Sorehl? Not K'Vorlag?" “Sorehl,” responded Two quite firmly. "Remember how upset Muon got at Sorehl for being 'blind sided'? At not being consulted? Muon at least was properly angry at Sorehl. It's feeling like K'Vorlag and Drankum are being more broad and general in their emotions. I suspect they are placing the blame for not being consulted on the entire Federation, not just Sorehl." "Ah." "K'Vorag.... He's sealed his brand shiny new embassy complex, and basically washed his hands of Aegis. Drankum... is being more obscure. One definitely gets the impression he is displeased. He is invoking the old Aegis treaty as if he intends to block changes with it, but has not gone beyond vague statements of displeasure, with no specific change being objected to, nor any particular line in the treaty being invoked." "What do you think he intends?" "To feed his ego. Sorehl did not bow and scrape properly before the Great One, so there shall be spite and grandstanding until his status is adequately restored in his own eyes." “Would you like Council to assign Sorehl as Special Commissioner for bowing and scraping?” “Don’t tempt me. Justice might properly be served, but Vulcans are not noted for possessing a high talent for bowing and scraping.” Seven smiled. "Quite right. How much trouble is Drankum in a position to make?" "Considerable. The treaty seems to have been written under the assumption that since the victors of the Dominion War were in agreement at that time, they would be in agreement indefinitely. The reoccurring word on setting policy is 'consensus,' but they neglected to define the word, nor specify a procedure by which consensus could be achieved. If the treaty is litigated, it will take years just to get the courts to establish the meaning and procedures required to achieve ‘consensus’. If we involve the courts, the station is going nowhere for years.” “How do we not involve the courts?” “We would have to assume ‘consensus’ means agreement by all parties. In theory, Drankum represents the Ferengi, whose primary values center on profits. If Cardassia grants trade facilities on or about Cardassia Prime with profit opportunities compatible with Aegis, and if Aegis’s new location shows good potential for profits as well, the interests of the Ferengi ought to be enhanced by the move. As Cardassia’s and the Federation’s priorities at this time are political, rather than economic, I suspect we can get a continued Ferengi presence, both here, and at the new location. Ferengi presence is generally good for business. The questions are how much Drankum might attempt to extort, and to what extent he might put personal ego ahead of doing business.” Seven considered. “It is a bad treaty?” “A very bad treaty. As best as I can read the legal section, each power is responsible for enforcing its own laws, in its own section of the station, and on its own citizens. If a Klingon feels wronged, and invokes the proper challenges and rituals before taking revenge on a citizen of another power, he is to be prosecuted under Klingon law under Klingon jurisdiction. If the other powers disagree with the Klingon legal decision, and try to invoke interstellar law, the defense lawyer would start with the principle of double jeopardy. One can not try the defendant again for the same crime.” Two shook her head. “It is clear that many powers have rights to assign department crews and department heads responsible for various equipments, but it is far less clear that said department heads have any obligation to answer to a captain, to a station wide command staff. Who assigns the command staff, what authority the command staff has over the various independent crews, and what chain of command has authority to give orders to the Aegis command staff were all apparently too difficult political problems to solve, so they didn’t solve them. The politicians just let the crews work things out. The crews, being military, knew there had to be a unified command structure. What eventually evolved was a Starfleet assigned captain with a Starfleet crew answering to Starfleet chain of command, but you can’t establish that as being the original intent of the treaty. The treaty has all signatories being essentially equal.” Seven leaned back and thought. “Could we use Admiral Goram’s argument? If various powers have not been contributing to the upkeep, have not been providing crew, their rights under the treaty are void?” “Almost valid,” Two replied. “We could walk that road. If a power is no longer willing or able to contribute to station upkeep, to provide crews, parts and funds as the treaty requires, a consensus of the rest of the powers gets to decide how to reassign defaulted rights and responsibilities.” “Consensus. That word again...” Two nodded. “One might possibly argue that the Federation alone rebuilt Aegis after the Breen attack, and thus the Federation alone gets to form a consensus with itself about how to divide rights and responsibilities defaulted by everyone else. Ambassador Drankum only returned to Aegis after the rebuilding was complete, after all. If the station was financed, manned and commanded exclusively by the Federation, the Federation arguably is the consensus.” “I distinctly remember disliking Admiral Goram’s use of that argument.” “It would not be a good way to make friends and influence people. If you think people are ticked at Sorehl...” “Right.” “I wouldn’t use it as the primary approach, but you might look about for a bad cop.” Seven considered. “I can think of any number of Pragmatists who might be goaded into making that argument. What is the good cop position?” “The treaty needs to be rewritten from scratch. The situation is not at all what it was at war’s end.”

Joy Two strode into the Federation with diplomatic haste, attempting to insert enough of Audrey’s old leftover grace to make it not too obvious that the android was in a hurry. “Bruce! Crystal! 144! To me, briefly.” Joy unhooked a velvet rope that formally blocked access to a spiral stair, and scrambled briefly up the to the second level of the embassy. “We are ready for the formal opening?” “Yes,” Alyce 144 responded politely. “No more than the usual problems. We were not able to acquire sufficient unreplicated caviar, but the glagh is fresh.” “Bruce, did you check programming on the cleaning robots? We just had a micro incident over in the Cardassian Embassy.” “Clean and commercial.” “Check them again. It seems they had sensor access to a diplomatic meeting, and one managed to get itself clobbered by General K’Vorlag. Assume Section 31 might try to use them.” “Right.” “Any attempt to penetrate the second floor yet?” “Negative.” “Programming is complete?” “The ship is in the bottle.” “Good enough. Crystal? I’ve another project for your spare time.” “What spare time?” “Find out who is deciding where Aegis is to be repositioned, and what criteria are being used to place it. If no one else is thinking that far ahead, try to prod your aunt into getting that project going, and maybe form your own informed opinion on the subject. It will likely be essential that any new location be good for business.” “Noted.” “Any last minute changes?” “The caviar is the closest we have to a major problem at the moment,” Crystal stated. “If you don’t count Savage and Forester,” Bruce added. “Let’s pretend, on the surface, that they don’t count.” Joy took a deep breath, pushed away any Regina Lampert thoughts, embraced her Princess Ann public persona, and started down the spiral staircase. “Everybody, smile.” If there was one thing Joy could do, it was to walk down a spiral stair.

I read Article 7 Section 2 as the Federation running the operations department and being able to name the Ops officer, not that the operations chief is higher in the chain of command than various other chiefs appointed by other powers. The Joys have often served as operations officers, and Article 7 Section 2 sounded to her like an Ops job description, not a captain's. If there is a consensus that doesn't question your interpretation, fine. If any power other than the Federation claims another interpretation, there is a problem. Joy would have wanted wording a lot less ambiguous, for example using the word 'command' rather than 'coordination'. That would suggest giving orders not managing a consensus, though that would fly in the face of the rest of the treaty. Joy sees the difference between a captain who gives rudder orders and has authority over all departments and an operations manager who doesn't as key to the discussion. Article 7 Section 2 isn't clear enough for her to want to go to court with it. Question. Do you see the Klingons as having contributed funding, parts and crew continuously over the course of Aegis history? Assume someone is digging into the history data base. After reading the treaty, Joy is apt to interpret your recent speech as an intent that K'vorlag and the Klingons do not intend to participate in any 'consensus' discussions in the near term. Basically, it sounded like a default on participation in any decisions that require 'consensus' under the treaty. After reading the treaty, she is going to want to confirm that said speech was a temporary policy statement, not a notification of permanent withdrawal from the treaty. That you think blood spilled gives the Klingons a permanent say and presence in Cardassia's skies... is not how she interpreted your speech.

I see them as a governing class, but any one ambassador might be essentially powerless unless carrying a specific authorization. You cannot have each individual carrying diplomatic credentials behaving as if he were a petty dictator. In a game environment where the host is playing a captain or admiral, you won't see the host allowing players to wander around acting as if they were petty dictators. One thing I've seen here at STSF is ambassadors with specific charters from Council. In the Excalibur sim a while ago, Council authorized the use of a certain class of weapons against the Scorpiad under certain conditions, and sent Ambassador Joy Five out to Gamma Quad to judge whether such conditions had been met. On Aegis, Commissioner Sorehl was recently given a mission by Council to review it's mission and recommend changes, while Ambassador Joy Two was given a charter to investigate a small war fought between Aegis and Section 31. We occasionally did similar things in the Council sims. Ambassadors might be delegated by Council to have specific authority to address specific problems, but by preference Council would issue policy directives to the executive branch and relied on the traditional Starfleet chain of command. In general, it is not wise for politicians to bypass chain of command and over ride the professionals. It should not be done lightly or often. I do see oversight as a tricky thing. An ambassador who sees Federation law or policy being violated ought not be powerless, yet shouldn't be able to step in and over ride the local Starfleet commander, either. As I see it, an Ambassador should not have too much difficulty acquiring a subpoena to investigate wrongdoing should there be probable cause. Most Starfleet and other local officials should likely not want to put the Ambassador through the trouble of getting the subpoena. (Do not meddle in the affairs of wizards, for they are subtle and quick to anger.) I'd suggest that Ambassadors ought to be treated with respect, and one wants to keep them content in a belief that things are being done correctly, but strictly speaking any given Ambassador is powerless unless backed by a majority of Council. On the other hand, if one is clearly violating Federation policy or law, and if one forces an ambassador to go through the trouble of putting together a majority of Council, I would not expect either Ambassador or Council to be pleased.

I had forgotten that one. Funny Face meets Roman Holiday. Poor poor Men in Black... Everyone does know that the Men in Black archetype goes at least as far back as Roman Holiday?

In the Berman universe where highly militant aggressor cultures like the Borg, Dominion and 8472 constantly wage wars of genocide, ethnic cleansing and cultural slavery, one needs a very coherent foreign policy and an effective military. No ifs. No ands. No buts. At the same time, if the Roddenberry history and background is not entirely ignored, the planets are sovereign, and the Federation cannot meddle in the internal affairs of member planet cultures, and cannot use force offensively without approval of ambassadors appointed by the planets. These two need not be incompatible. One can have a coherent foreign policy and effective military that is not allowed to meddle in internal politics. Joy ran for years in the Council with the TOS Prime Directive at Priority One, Asimov's First Law of Robotics calling for the preservation of sentient lives at Priority Two, and to Preserve, Protect and Defend the Federation Constitution (including the Guarantees) at Priority Three. There were times when she would side with the Berman faction in allowing work outside the law if this was the only way to preserve lives, but if there was a way to preserve lives while still honoring the Constitution she would push for it very hard indeed. (The Foreign Policy of Mudd could almost be derived from the contents of Joy's Asimov Processor. I had a flowchart I ran through to determine how she would have to vote.) Some of the most satisfying old Council plots featured the Berman Hawks looking for all out use force to solve a problem, debating Roddenberry Doves seeking to uphold ideals and rule of law. Joy would go out of her way not to satisfy Priority Two, or Priority Three, but to find a solution that satisfied both Priorities. If one could pull votes from both sides of the floor, this was good. It was generally not true in many many issues that there is a choice between Asimov / Berman and Roddenberry. If one puts a little energy into it, one can honor both. One just has to overcome prejudices of fellow ambassadors who favor one set of values so strongly that they go out of their way to disparage and crush the opposing values. While Joy is an Idealist by preference, her programming compels her to honor both. The normal working balance over many (not all) Council years was to have a vaguely Berman leaning executive branch setting strong policies while a vaguely Roddenberry leaning Council does active oversight, providing very real checks and balances. Starfleet and the Executive would present strong coherent Federation policies in a belief that the Federation was sovereign. The Roddenberry centered Council let the executive do what absolutely had to be done, while stonewalling on any attempt to weaken the Guarantees or meddle with the cultures of member planets. Most Council members generally saw the planets as sovereign, while the Federation had only those powers ceded to it by the Constitution under the oversight of planet appointed ambassadors. This perspective is continued with the various STSF Joys. Starfleet must be given the tools and command freedom to get their tasks done, but woe to Starfleet officers that neglect the importance of the Guarantees, that meddle with local cultures, or try to use or provoke violence without notifying and getting blessed by civilian command authority. After years of watching numerous disaster scenarios being put before various incarnations of Council, the Joys are not inclined to let Starfleet get into bad habits. This is perhaps not the only way to run a federation, but the above broad approach seems to be one practical vision of a Federation where both Roddenberry and Berman are canon.

A lot to agree with and disagree with. Ship sims commonly have four or more departments active, each in a different place working a different sub plot. The Council was traditionally run as a single 'department,' with all players working the same plot, attacking the same problem. Without department heads and multiple subplots, it is harder to handle large numbers of players. Most Council hosts believed from experience, and I agree, that the optimum number of players is in the 9 to 11 range. Fewer, and there aren't enough conflicting opinions for debates to get as interesting. More, and things bog down. The planetary biography was a useful tool for helping introduce new players to the game. It took not much more time than the usual character biography common to the SFOL tradition. Yes, you got a lot more out of the Council experience if you put more into it. If one didn't spend the time thinking through the problems being debated and writing the logs arguing for one's position, it was not as involving an experience. Still, almost all plots were independent, not depending on detailed knowledge of prior plots. I disagree that learning the past history of the Council sim is any more important or time consuming than, say, in Aegis or Excalibur, where there is a lot of history and new races one has to become familiar with if one is going to do more than follow orders. I'm not sure that 'restrictive' is the best word for the old Council sims. STSF's political sims such as Aegis and Excalibur are generally prudently selective in bringing in players allowed to run diplomats. You want players who will show up regularly, write logs, and think things through. STSF's political players are generally long term veterans and often experienced hosts. The old Council games were more open, having more political slots to fill, and thus less experienced players were allowed to swim with the sharks. Not a trivial exercise, swimming with sharks. Some were not ready to put in the time and effort, while others grew into it quickly enough. The major difference is that with more political slots open, more players got a chance to determine if it was right for them. I personally liked the mix of logs and chat room. E-mail and forum posts are good to initially set up the problem, and for longer speeches that defined a player's position and proposed solutions to the problem. The chat room was better for interrogating witnesses, point counterpoint debate, amending proposals and collecting votes. I'm not sure how one would make a pure e-mail council format work. I'll also mention that Council is something of a competitive environment, while most ship and station sims are played as cooperative. In any give Council plot line, you would expect at least two competing solutions to develop, with those committed to a solution attempting to persuade the uncommitted. The more work and time a player put into it, the more apt he would be to be arguing for a position rather than being one of the uncommitted. The dynamics are different. A key for both hosts and players is to have interesting conflict while maintaining civility and respect. When it becomes clear one is not going to win a majority, players had to learn to back down gracefully so as to not build enmity and resentments. No matter how much one wanted to resolve the current problem well, one had to remember that one will need the votes of various other players in future plots. There comes a time to make the speech which would give one the ability to say 'I told you so' at some future unspecified time, then get out of the way of the majority. One should count one's votes and avoid burning bridges. This element of managing competition and giving both factions a chance to participate and have fun changes the role of the host as well. The usual role in most station or ship sims is for the hosts to guide the plot. They know what has to happen, and use out of character action statements and in character orders to move things in desired directions. Some Council hosts got into trouble assuming they could run a competitive sim the same way. If a host went in thinking a problem should be resolved in a particular way, but a majority of Council became fond of a different solution, you could get a large collision between the host's out of character prerogatives in the SFOL tradition and the in character Federation Constitution. I would recommend that the the council hosts think of their role as more like a referee at a sporting event than as director of a play or movie. The job is more to stage a friendly competition than to tell actors where to stand and what lines to speak. The hosts that presented the players with a problem, ready to accept any solution that was fun to get to, fared much better than hosts who tried to force the players to follow a pre conceived plot. If one intends to run a majority rules sim, one had best be ready to let the majority rule. Anyway, I miss it. It was a definite change of pace from the more traditional format.