Logs for ShadowRN and Associated Mailing Lists

From:	Starrngr@*.com Starrngr@*.com
Subject:	Corp Court: Was: Professionalism and what Questions do I ask?
Date:	Mon, 16 Aug 1999 16:26:09 EDT

Message no. 1 In a message dated 8/16/99 12:53:17 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
angelkiller404@**********.com writes:

> Well, not a watchdog, per se, but more as a way of keeping the status
> quo, IMHO. Sort of like the US Supreme Court; it was never made to
> make our lives any easier, just more orderly. I really can't explain
> it, but I've always seen the Corp Court as an "old boys' Club," for
> lack of a better term. Something on political elites, and the goal of
> keeping the machine running, regardless of who's at the
> helm...(answering mail at 3AM isn't very healthy for the brain ^^).

I'd agree with Angel Killer on this, and not the person with the agressive
Court. The CC isnt about policeing the corps, its about arbitrating
disputes. Agents of the CC would NOT, IMO, run stings trying to find corps
who's J's hire runners. In fact, given who makes up the CC, I would in fact
state that ALL members of the CC use runners to one extent or another.
Instead, the CC is where say two corps go and say "We had a contract to share
research data and X is renegging on it." sort of thing.

From:	Arkem junior@*****.net.au
Subject:	Corp Court: Was: Professionalism and what Questions do I ask?
Date:	Wed, 18 Aug 1999 21:50:47 +0800

Message no. 2 IMHO The Corporate Court only cares about the use of
shadowrunners when there is ample proof about it. Ala Technobabel
As to investigating well it is the accusee's responsibility to back up
accusations with proof.

Regards Arkem

From:	Starrngr@*.com Starrngr@*.com
Subject:	Corp Court: Was: Professionalism and what Questions do I ask?
Date:	Wed, 18 Aug 1999 16:00:06 EDT

Message no. 3 In a message dated 8/18/99 6:19:52 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
suderman@*****.ocean.fsu.edu writes:

> Our disagreement is over the investigative team, I think. To continue
> your example: When the plaintiff corp comes to Court, I expect that proof
> is required before punishment is meted out. Somebody has to supply
> (create?) that proof. An investigation occurs- perhaps it is done by the
> corps (which makes a lot of sense, since they're the ones who care) or by
> the Court (which would make sense if the Court was an official way for the
> big corps to keep the little corps down).
> Unless we assume that the Corp Court is omniscient, some kind of
> investigation is going to take place- we just need to decide whose uniform
> the investigators are wearing.

I think its a bit more than that. OK, if any corp wants to file a claim with
the CC, their going to need to have proof. What sort of proof depends on
what the problem is. IF a corp is the target of a run, unless they capture
the runners and get them to talk, all they know is that they were the subject
of a break-in. They have no proof that whoever it was was hired by someone
to take to the CC otherwise.

However, assuming they have proof, (and thats another possible reason for a
shadowrun... someone hires the runners to get proof that copr x did y) they
then go to the CC, and if the CC decides that the proof is sufficient, they
can either hear the case as it stands or start their own investigation. If
its the second, I would see the CC's investigative team being comprised of
proffestionals drafted from member corps.

Basicly, I see the CC as a semi-tame dog that keeps the worst of the Corps
excesses in check... and no reason for the CC to be stinging Runners or J's.
About the only way I would see runners being used to sting a J is that a
corp thinks that a certain J is "dipping in the company well" so to speak...
IE using company assests (including shadowrunners) for personal gain.

Mailing List Logs for

Further Reading

Disclaimer