Throughout my time within this game I have noticed a tendency among playerbase which has been rather weird at least to me. That is the tendency that organization leaders take actions in behalf of their organizations but they do not share the responsibility as an organization at all.
And Administration supports the resolution of PK conflicts via issue but they wash their hands off from the seemingly RP ones when both of them can be forced on a player for the most frivolous reasons.
If organizations will not share burden of the decisions of their democratically elected leaders and creating enemy roles will not make their life harder then normal...why enemying exists at all? Why the organization exists at all? Why the combat roles exists at all? For the Sect and utterly controlled synthetic conflicts only?
It is not fair for all parties involved. Because it essentially says people can declare you enemy to their organization and wash their hands off as an organization while the status lingers on your STAT. PK is an IC thing and a rebel, a bandit and a vagabond or someone who tries to show that your organization is not that powerful will PK your notable members to retaliate or to get a more favorable deal, to make a point. When the orgs say "This or Else" it is not RP, it is forcing something on the character.
If people's PK issues are resolved claiming that the PK is forced on them (despite they are combat-able and Sect a lot thus has no issue with PK) their enemy statuses should be resolved as well. Or PK issues should just stop and people suck it up to share the burden of their decisions. It is not like PKing is done excessively outside reason most of the time.
Detaching PK engagement from RP engagement is a very dangerous route for the health of the game. Right now the few issues I have engaged in shows me that Administration practically says "It is okay to enemy people with bare-RP reasons and it is not okay to retaliate for their decision except the branding one"
But umm...when the leader of a nation orders a strike against someone at another nation, do you go ahead and kill the leader only or sit by doing nothing? It is not how things pan out generally. You do not create enemies and expect them not to retaliate at some point, foil your attempts and be a nuisance. For MUD games it is done within reason but as I see even those who play the lethal roles are not beneath issuing for getting killed despite their death have a valid reason.
Just trying to say that we should abandon practices which detach PvP, PvE and RP. And we should let organizations deal with the enemies they create themselves. Organizations by definition organize to deter enemies, they should be aware and alert of their surroundings and enemies. If not, they would not be an organization but a loosely-affiliated bunch of people just going their own directions and pay lip service to unity when certain Admin-events come out. This is not healthy, not at all.