Should we start spreading the control and containment orders around other player groups. The UA mystery is gaining traction in the EDC Facebook group. I have issued warnings cautioning commanders to cease and desist all UA trade and passed along the KOS order there.
Sorry -
who exactly is issuing KOS orders on behalf of the Canonn?
The Canonn will not, and has not, issued KOS orders to anyone for any reason - that's not what we're about.
Please - if you, or anyone else, has made that announcement on 'behalf of the Canonn' then I personally ask you to remove it or rewrite it.
We do not and cannot control the movement of UAs, and engaging in PvP over it is absolutely pointless, unless you just want to get labeled as a griefer. To break everyone's 'immersion' for a second (urgh!), remember:
Trading affects the BGS + stock levels in private groups and in open - if UA sales lead to shutdowns, then they could be being done in a PG, entirely untouchable by anyone.
Issuing a KOS order is only 'valid' (but still wrong) if everyone always played open, but they don't.
You can't infiltrate every private group - so the whole idea is pointless and nothing more than trying to windmill into a bun fight with one hand tied behind your back.
Our request to stop trading via Galnet was based on prudence and that it fit with our group's ethos, not for one second did we actually expect CMDRs to 'obey' us - the whole thing was meant to be a suggestion. People still choose their own path with that - some might agree, some might not.
If someone shoots me, I'll shoot then back (and probably lose - ask a CMDR from the other night - he knows who he is

) but I for one certainly have no interest in engaging in PvP just because someone has a UA in their hold. That's militia behaviour - and that's
not Canonn.
Now, I'm not 'the group' - but I think most people are going to agree on this.
So, please, rescind that order - or at least remove all association to us with it, because we
do not support it at all.
I will happily exclude anyone from the Canonn site found to be engaging in this and broadcasting it as 'policy'.