Leave a comment

heavyweaponsbot December 23 2009, 04:43:35 UTC
... Not everyone is in agreement, Blurr. Some of us will not yield to a plot.

Reply

tldriving December 23 2009, 04:54:30 UTC
I am well aware of that, Ironhide; I phrased things very carefully. Those interested in attending the truce discussions are in agreement, or in as much agreement as we can be at any rate, and are simply awaiting the location. Your lack of interest is understandable, but I hope you won't think that we don't have a healthy suspicion of the situation. I can hardly speak for Ratchet on this matter, but I hardly see how it's "yielding to a plot" to make our current situation as official as possible so as to be able to hold the Decepticons fully accountable if they make any moves against ourselves or any of the civilians on board this vessel.

Reply

heavyweaponsbot December 23 2009, 05:06:44 UTC
[... It's like being lectured by a humming bird. Or Sam on speed.]

Hmpf. Yeah. Guess so.

You do not seem to. You all act as if this is sent from the All Spark itself. It was an idea concocted by a Decepticon. And the last time we were in any sort of alliance with them, they betrayed us. They will again.

... and I do not see how this makes them more culpable.

Reply

tldriving December 23 2009, 05:31:08 UTC
[Yeah, he just kinda keeps going until your optics glaze, doesn't he?]

From the All Spark itself? Of course it wouldn't be something like that, it isn't even a blessing but instead something that should be the case. And while the idea of making the truce formal was concocted, as you say, by a Decepticon, and one that I am well aware can lie and betray with a guileless faceplate for that matter, the truce itself seems to have been in place informally for quite some time.

It may not hold them any more culpable for their actions. However, it will make retaliation and punishment both more reasonable and more efficient, and will be a chance to lay out clear rules which we expect them not to break if they do not wish to deal with the consequences.

Reply

heavyweaponsbot December 23 2009, 08:30:26 UTC
[Kinda.]

You are acting like it. And if you are so aware--as you should be--why are you trusting him with this? Who knows if there was a truce at all! All we have is his word.

... already is reasonable. They step out of line, they break.

Reply

tldriving December 28 2009, 06:22:43 UTC
I'm not trusting him with anything even as far as I can throw him. ... At our usual sizes at any rate, which, given the incredible disparity isn't likely to be any distance at all. However, when it comes down to it, a truce isn't something that's easy to fake you know, and from what I've heard there has been an uneasy truce with no full-out attacks of any sort from either side for the entirety of our factions' time on the ship. If there is any chance at all that laying down specific rules will keep them from becoming hostile and civilians out of harms way, I don't see why a temporary cease-fire would be such a bad idea as long as we are still keeping our optics on them.

Obviously, but if this goes into effect, they will know without a doubt what stepping out of line is, not to mention we will have something we can possible bring to the Captain to at least attempt to avoid punishment if we are forced to break his rules to keep them in line.

Reply

heavyweaponsbot December 28 2009, 06:40:21 UTC
And they are Decepticons. Deception is in their very name. You do not think that this could factor into their plans at all? You trust them to follow up on their end, you still trust them. And when they choose to break this truce of yours, you will all be caught with your backs turned. Perfect opportunity.

Civilians can be kept out of line regardless of putting trust in them.

Why would that madman listen to us any more than he already does? Because we have come to some agreement?

Reply

tldriving December 28 2009, 07:06:17 UTC
I do not trust them to follow up on their end and I'll hardly be turning my back on them. We are giving them an opportunity to follow up on their end, and while I cannot speak for anyone else when I say I will be keeping my optics on them I will be keeping my optics on them. Do you really think we'd be discussing consequences in case they break the truce if we didn't think it was a distinct possibility? While in some cases that sort of thing can be a formality this is not one of those times!

Civilians are best kept out of the line of fire if there is no fire in the first place, I think we can both agree on that. Of course there are other options, but this is the simplest one.

And true, it's likely he won't listen to us at all, but there's a small chance that he might if there is an agreement in place. Though for that to be the case -- I wonder if a passenger would be punished for attacking another passenger if the other told them to attack in the first place... [TANGENT! Excuse Blurr, his processor is drifting in a mostly related ( ... )

Reply

heavyweaponsbot December 28 2009, 09:33:46 UTC
If... you do not trust them any more than I do... what is the point of even attempting this truce? Hmn? If we are so certain they will break it, why even try?

I am perfectly capable of waging war with a minimum of casualties. Aside from Decepticons.

... Likely both would be punished.

Reply

tldriving December 28 2009, 10:58:38 UTC
For one thing, a truce is simply an official way of saying we do not wish to fight until and unless they start anything, which is true enough. We have no reason to attack them unless they step out of line so saying that we won't is hardly something revolutionary. And truthfully, we can not be "so certain" as you say that they will break the truce; now I hardly think they want any sort of peace with our faction, but keeping in mind the fact that their numbers are extremely low, they are out-numbered, and they're without their leader there is at least a chance that they are honestly interested in keeping a truce for their own benefit.

You may be but they would likely not be as careful. From what I saw on Earth among humans the Decepticons hardly care about civilians being in the way, and several would use them to their advantage. Avoiding such a situation is the easiest way to prevent those uninvolved from being injured or taken as hostages.

That's just as likely as anything else, unfortunately. [THOUGH, A THOUGHT OCCURS.] Were you ( ... )

Reply

heavyweaponsbot December 29 2009, 05:47:07 UTC
[So... much... speaking...]

And if their numbers should increase? What is to keep them holding their end up, hm?

Then I will simply stop them before anyone besides myself is harmed. Take care of the problem.

... No. I was not.

Reply

tldriving December 29 2009, 05:55:12 UTC
[Sorry Ironhide 8(]

If that should happen then obviously we should keep in mind that they are far more likely to break a truce if they feel it would benefit them in some way.

However, our inability to permanently take care of "the problem" would, I hope, be the same inability which would keep them from having any reason to break the truce. At the moment we're completely incapable of accomplishing anything permanent, and while it might keep them from hurting anyone temporarily even taking them offline wouldn't last more than a short time, after which they would keep coming back as you already know. If we even had stasis cuffs or any way to imprison them it might be a different story, but there are no permanent solutions as it stands now!

That's very interesting. As far as I can tell neither of them were punished as well, which may mean in theory that as long as "attacks" are arranged beforehand between both parties, it doesn't actually break any of the ship's rules. I suppose I could ask one of the crew simply to clear this up, that ( ... )

Reply


Leave a comment

Up