video post ╬ 3

Oct 21, 2009 16:39

[Bat is out of uniform, dressed in jeans and a dark red and black flannel shirt with his hair tied back, and sitting on the couch in the side room of Nectar.]

FILTERED TO THE EMBRYON / JINANA / HARLEY )

ic, video post, yoh, minatsuki, sup embryon

Leave a comment

justwantsafety October 22 2009, 01:14:34 UTC

... )

Reply

justwantsafety October 23 2009, 21:23:49 UTC
*quiet a sec* We might as well agree to declare everywhere but our own territories neutral grounds like the Temple was, and have an exception for defense and the like. I don't want to see it getting called breaking the truce if I want to kick them out, if they try to come into my house's yard and won't leave short of getting shot at. A truce doesn't mean they're any more welcome around my house than they were before.

And... I guess this ought to extend to noncombatants and civilians too? Don't go after us and don't go after our friends either, even if they're not wearing our Tribe color?

Reply

shitcrazy October 23 2009, 22:10:10 UTC
Yes. Right. That's exactly what I'm looking for in this treaty.

See? We can be of like mind in some cases.

Reply

justwantsafety October 24 2009, 03:26:26 UTC
Yeah.... I guess so, huh.

What else are you looking for, for it?

Reply

shitcrazy October 24 2009, 04:40:17 UTC
Well, if we ask for too much more, they might not be willing to go along.

Reply

justwantsafety October 24 2009, 05:52:27 UTC
Maybe, but there's nothing wrong with getting somewhat specific, right? If we leave it at "don't kill people and don't eat them," then that could leave it open for stuff like torturing them to not be counted as breaking the truce, since it's not actually killing them, and Heat kept his damn teeth off.

Reply

shitcrazy October 24 2009, 22:34:05 UTC
Very true. We definitely need to be specific enough to avoid that.

Reply

justwantsafety October 24 2009, 23:13:59 UTC
You want me to try coming up with a list of things like that for it? Stuff like, if one person says to back the hell off, and means it, then the other person needs to back off?

*about to continue, but pauses as something comes to mind* Maybe it could be summed up as... not being allowed to be more hostile to each other than we would be to our own comrades, unless it's defense or something. Like I was saying about telling them to leave the territory. *quieter* But they'd sort of have to, with the whole "back off" part to it, wouldn't they.

Reply

shitcrazy October 24 2009, 23:39:41 UTC
No. It would have to be specific but simple. If you start talking about rules in relation to how individuals treat others, then that leaves things too wide open for interpretation.

Reply

justwantsafety October 25 2009, 02:18:18 UTC
Well, they're not going to beat the crap out of each other, so if that's in there, why would they think it'd be okay to beat the crap out of anyone else?

But sure. I'll try working on a list of stuff no one's allowed to do. Should I just call you back when I get done with it, since you're the one arranging this in the first place?

Reply

shitcrazy October 25 2009, 04:21:28 UTC
Uh... sure. But I'm telling you, keep it relatively simple or they won't agree to it.

Reply

justwantsafety October 25 2009, 10:02:05 UTC
Okay. So I'll call or... maybe just send you a copy typed up on this thing when I've finished, and you can look it over.

Reply

shitcrazy October 28 2009, 21:40:06 UTC
Good man.

Reply


Leave a comment

Up