I’ve done a bit of mercenary work in the past so the concept is not completely alien to me. I’m still in a mercenary alliance now so I suppose I haven’t strayed too far from that line of work, although my role has changed somewhat. I still keep the merc contracts channel up in game although it’s mostly host to “I’ll give you 15 mil to kill this hurricane that blew up my mining ship” type commentary. A few nights ago I was pleasantly surprised with a fairly interesting conversation and the issue behind it is worth exploring. The conversation centered around a dispute between Alekseyev Karrde of Noir. Mercenary Group and Gevlon Goblin over a particular contract. I’ll let you read their respective sides and then review.
It’s not about money – Greedy Goblin
So the TL’DR is that Goblin hired Noir to jam out Goon ships in Burn Jita when they went hostile so that they cannot do their respective dps to targets. Noir was also hired out to defend Goon forces in Jita against their attackers. Goblin refuses to pay Noir based on his opinion that this is betrayal, while Alek (Noir) insists that the contracts do not contradict and that they could indeed both attack GSF ships and defend them. So what gives? Who has a better claim to their argument? I explored these questions with a few people in the Merc Contracts channel and I’ll do my best to express the varied opinions on the matter. This goes much further than just Noir and Goblin, but the the ethos (NOT morals) of mercenary culture.
Now most people are familiar with highsec mercenary wardecs such as Marmite. When you hire them, you don’t hire them on “your side” usually. You provide a corp/alliance name, you pay, and they are under wardec for as long as you pay. Marmite works for and against anyone. This was one example that was brought in defense of Noir’s actions. They can fight both and against anyone who hires them. Mercenaries are loyal to money, not people. However, others would say that there is a distinction in this situation and that the specifics of the context brings about a conflict of interest.
My mercenary work experience is exclusive to 0.0 space, usually to harass residents with Cov ops. There may be a conflict of interest if side X hired me to attack side Y and then side Y hired me to protect them from side X. Would I then shoot side X when they attack Y and when X was gone, turn right around and shoot Y?
One line of argument would say that Noir’s actions simply followed the specific terms of the contract. One contract had them jam out Goon ships during burn Jita when they went flashy, and a second was to defend GSF against their enemies. From a strictly “lawyering” point of view, both aspects were fulfilled. But from a strictly “lawyering” point of view, a lot of things can happen that people can point to and say that certain standards were not upheld.
If for example you set terms to a mercenary alliance to wardec a competitor, then by these standards, JUST wardecing them and doing nothing else is “following the contract.”
To use a real life example, when you go to a restaurant, the waiter is there to take your order and bring you food. But we all know the difference between a crappy waiter and a good one and while both of them may be doing their job, we certainly appreciate the one that goes above and beyond in doing their job and providing service.
Another real life example that perhaps fits Eve a bit better would be the US military hiring Blackwater in Iraq. If they were likewise hired by AQ (their “competitor”) they could “lawyer it” and fulfill both sides of the contract but there is an obvious conflict of interest.
I provided another example in the merc contracts channel which was very telling to me. The individual I was speaking with was using the “lawyer” sort of reasoning in justifying Noir’s actions very strongly. The example I provided was of me being a mercenary hired to join someone’s fleet and fight their enemies. Yet at the same time I would be hired by their enemies to kill my own fleet members that also hired me. Using the “lawyer” reasoning, I could do that and be justified. Kill one, then the other, both contracts fulfilled. Yet what this individual told me was very telling and contradictory to his argument. He stated that me joining his fleet automatically meant that I had to follow his orders and that even though my contract wording did not specify that, by extension of the circumstances, I had agreed to those terms. So in one instance this individual thought Noir was justified in following the strict bare minimum of their contract, yet in my example I was suppose to think ahead and follow through with the “spirit of the contract” even if the specific contract wording did not include anything beyond just joining my employer’s fleet.
Personally I think it was poor judgement on Goblin’s part to hire someone just to more or less whore on killmails in Jita. Noir has already done that year after year and no extra money needed to be thrown at them for it. The idea that Noir could jam the GSF ships right as they go flashy is also a bit difficult to track. If you have isk to burn, Goblin could have set up a “counter gank” event where the person with the most ganks on GSF ships would be paid out a prize for example. Over all the idea and execution did not seem well planned out.
Alek on the other hand used poor judgement in not seeing the conflict of interest between the contracts. Also:
“For the record, I checked to make sure our first employer would not have a problem with us pursuing CFC more vigorously to earn bounties from another employer (Goblin) and because that employer was not a manic conspiracy theorist he told us to go for it.” ~Alek
Leaking any sort of contract details is generally a big no no. At the very least Goblin should have been informed that you would be working with his competitor too.
Instead of focusing on doing a particular job well, he sort of “tagged” each contract and ended up with this mess. He should have focused either on jamming out the GSF flashies OR defended them from their attackers. Instead of being seen as effective, the image put forth is of someone more interested in bagging as many contracts and making as much isk as possible rathe than someone committed to providing a quality service. This is sort of a “Killboard green, let’s go home” type thing. I like Alek’s motto of “If you do something well, never do it for free” but this motto may be one that fits a little bit better in this situation:
I have my own perspective and opinions based on my own background that perhaps does not allow me to grasp the situation as fully as some other individuals or groups. But I want to know, what do YOU think? Would you hire the merc that “technically” did their job and simply followed strictly the wording of the contract, or one that preferred to go out of their way providing a service that reinforced the “spirit” of the contract and all of its “extensions?”
– Seraph IX Basarab
