Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 .. 24 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 4 post(s) |
Nerath Naaris
Pink Winged Unicorns for Peace Love and Anarchy
354
|
Posted - 2013.01.31 23:42:00 -
[61] - Quote
A very sensible decision, some faith in humanity has been restored. Forum-unbanned since 2011.10.20.
Mangala Solaris for CSM 8 |
Powers Sa
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
519
|
Posted - 2013.02.01 02:15:00 -
[62] - Quote
The Legend of the VCBee will live on through younger generations: http://eveinfo.net/wiki/ind~6531.htm#Orvolle_Patrol (before my time) |
Poetic Stanziel
Fweddit I Whip My Slaves Back and Forth
1691
|
Posted - 2013.02.01 03:30:00 -
[63] - Quote
50,000 ISK? That's a princely sum!
Amarr Militia - Fweddit - http://fweddit.com Poetic Discourse - http://poeticstanziel.blogspot.com |
Capt Starfox
Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic
257
|
Posted - 2013.02.01 07:26:00 -
[64] - Quote
Great job CCP! Emergent gameplay wins again! ..I mean it is afterall what this game is about. Thank you and supported +1 |
Alana Charen-Teng
Tash-Murkon Amalgamated Security
238
|
Posted - 2013.02.01 07:59:00 -
[65] - Quote
surrender all to you make mine i approve not sentiment please give 50,000 isk please to be sending money or for never getting away under pain of ancestors
I don't know where VCBee 205 learned to talk like that, but I think it's an instant winner! |
LizAlec
Odd Enterprises
0
|
Posted - 2013.02.01 11:22:00 -
[66] - Quote
Quote: So now some GM has to decide whether I am, in fact, harassing a miner by bumping him. Nothing solved.
I think this would be obvious. In the scenario given, the bumping of those that did not pay the ransom until they leave the belt would be ok. If you follow them to another system once you have cleared the current system and are clearly applying a tactic against ALL ice miners and including them in that, that would be ok. If you persistantly follow the same pilot system after system, griefing the same guy/gal and ignoring others, then that would be seen as harassment.
|
Lucky Jaynara
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
0
|
Posted - 2013.02.01 11:24:00 -
[67] - Quote
So repeated bumping could now be harassment, but the New Order ganks too these days. Is repeated ganking the same thing?
|
Aracimia Wolfe
Fade To Darkness
162
|
Posted - 2013.02.01 12:43:00 -
[68] - Quote
Alana Charen-Teng wrote:surrender all to you make mine i approve not sentiment please give 50,000 isk please to be sending money or for never getting away under pain of ancestors I don't know where VCBee 205 learned to talk like that, but I think it's an instant winner!
I aspire to that level of awesome.
Lucky Jaynara wrote:So repeated bumping could now be harassment, but the New Order ganks too these days. Is repeated ganking the same thing?
Again it would depend on the reasoning, it's still open to the same level of interpretation, the only difference being this time there is a consequence ie: the loss of the ganking ship
I like my coffee like I like my men. In a plastic cup http://aracimia.blogspot.co.uk/ |
Mallak Azaria
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
2207
|
Posted - 2013.02.02 01:03:00 -
[69] - Quote
LizAlec wrote:Quote: So now some GM has to decide whether I am, in fact, harassing a miner by bumping him. Nothing solved.
I think this would be obvious. In the scenario given, the bumping of those that did not pay the ransom until they leave the belt would be ok. If you follow them to another system once you have cleared the current system and are clearly applying a tactic against ALL ice miners and including them in that, that would be ok. If you persistantly follow the same pilot system after system, griefing the same guy/gal and ignoring others, then that would be seen as harassment.
This covers it pretty well. I'll probably-ábe banned for this |
Mallak Azaria
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
2207
|
Posted - 2013.02.02 01:05:00 -
[70] - Quote
Anslo must be frothing at the mouth right now, while simultaneously looking for a way to spin this. I'll probably-ábe banned for this |
|
Kainotomiu Ronuken
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
807
|
Posted - 2013.02.02 13:38:00 -
[71] - Quote
Mallak Azaria wrote:Anslo must be frothing at the mouth right now, while simultaneously looking for a way to spin this. Assuming he's even active enough to have noticed it.
You have become the pubbie, Mittani. Yours is the temple whose technetium-clad tables are at risk of being overthrown, whose seats need mixing. You're the one who fears war. -- Sadleric |
admiral root
Red Galaxy Persona Non Gratis
431
|
Posted - 2013.02.02 16:22:00 -
[72] - Quote
He's definitely active - for some reason he fears me enough to delete a simple comment I posted on his ineffective blog. No, your rights end in optimal+2*falloff |
Kadari Rhann
Degari Techical
0
|
Posted - 2013.02.03 02:51:00 -
[73] - Quote
So, while the wanna be extortionists pat each other on the back and say "good game" to CCP for stopping bumping, what is CCP going to do to people that gank then tell the victim that this was "CCP approved" as NEW ORDER throw-away toon Botslayer Goblin did. This is from his "bio":
Knight of the New Order Enforcing The Code in the name of the Saviour of Highsec, James 315. http://www.minerbumping.com/p/the-code.html
The Order is a CCP sanctioned movement focused on botting and AFK leeching: http://greedygoblin.blogspot.com/2013/01/why-was-i-ganked-while-mining.html
Active mining in a team is much more fun than botting!
Punishable offenses under the Code: - failing to possess a New Order Mining Permit - Bot or AFK mining - foul language in Local - disrespecting Order Agents or Knights, or interfering with their Duties
Offending miners will be bumped & ganked until they comply, or cease mining.
Grats CCP. You are now officially "sanctioning" ganking. |
Alana Charen-Teng
Tash-Murkon Amalgamated Security
241
|
Posted - 2013.02.03 04:33:00 -
[74] - Quote
Kadari Rhann wrote:So, while the wanna be extortionists pat each other on the back and say "good game" to CCP for stopping bumping, what is CCP going to do to people that gank then tell the victim that this was "CCP approved" as NEW ORDER throw-away toon Botslayer Goblin did. This is from his "bio": Knight of the New Order Enforcing The Code in the name of the Saviour of Highsec, James 315. http://www.minerbumping.com/p/the-code.htmlThe Order is a CCP sanctioned movement focused on botting and AFK leeching: http://greedygoblin.blogspot.com/2013/01/why-was-i-ganked-while-mining.htmlActive mining in a team is much more fun than botting! Punishable offenses under the Code: - failing to possess a New Order Mining Permit - Bot or AFK mining - foul language in Local - disrespecting Order Agents or Knights, or interfering with their Duties Offending miners will be bumped & ganked until they comply, or cease mining. Grats CCP. You are now officially "sanctioning" ganking. Botslayer Goblin will need to change his Bio so that it no longer claims CCP is 'sanctioning' the activity. It should say that CCP confirms that such activities are legitimate gameplay,and does not violate any rules.
That said, Botslayer Goblin is not a 'throw-away' character. |
Mallak Azaria
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
2209
|
Posted - 2013.02.04 08:16:00 -
[75] - Quote
Kadari Rhann wrote:So, while the wanna be extortionists pat each other on the back and say "good game" to CCP for stopping bumping, what is CCP going to do to people that gank then tell the victim that this was "CCP approved" as NEW ORDER throw-away toon Botslayer Goblin did. This is from his "bio": Knight of the New Order Enforcing The Code in the name of the Saviour of Highsec, James 315. http://www.minerbumping.com/p/the-code.htmlThe Order is a CCP sanctioned movement focused on botting and AFK leeching: http://greedygoblin.blogspot.com/2013/01/why-was-i-ganked-while-mining.htmlActive mining in a team is much more fun than botting! Punishable offenses under the Code: - failing to possess a New Order Mining Permit - Bot or AFK mining - foul language in Local - disrespecting Order Agents or Knights, or interfering with their Duties Offending miners will be bumped & ganked until they comply, or cease mining. Grats CCP. You are now officially "sanctioning" ganking.
No, they're officially sanctioning playing the game with in the rules as they always have. I'll probably-ábe banned for this |
Pap Uhotih
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
1
|
Posted - 2013.02.04 17:31:00 -
[76] - Quote
Alana Charen-Teng wrote: Botslayer Goblin will need to change his Bio so that it no longer claims CCP is 'sanctioning' the activity. It should say that CCP confirms that such activities are legitimate gameplay,and does not violate any rules.
The bit that stood out to me from that bio was the mention of punishment and bot. I think player organisations shouldnGÇÖt be encouraged to suggest or imply that they are able to take action against players who violate the rules of the game. Violations of rules should only be handled through the appropriate official channels, it wouldnGÇÖt seem unreasonable if that was made clear. Ganking a ship flown by a bot affects the character and you could argue that depriving a char of isk is punishment but in the case of botting it is the account holder and not the char that requires punishment, which cannot be achieved by player interaction.
Also since the bots are likely based on subsumption or similar basic logic they would leave a pattern but the clarity of the pattern would be degraded the more the bot was interacted with making it harder to spot in any human or automated analysis of behaviour. At the worst case it encourages the development of more sophisticated AIGÇÖs which wouldnGÇÖt help, the more simplistic they are the better as that leaves the window open for mass detection and mass banning. Interfering with them seems to only be self defeating in the longer term.
There is also the more human issue that if person thinks someone else is doing something for them then they tend not to do it themselves, that in effect means that in the systems where bumpers operate the player could be less inclined to report a suspicious char since someone else is yapping away in local professing that they are already doing something about it. The reality appears to be that anything but the reporting of suspected bots with a collection of sensible observations is the goal of the organisation; it would be somewhat of a dead end activity if it actually did so. As well as that there is the curious method of detection that is asking in local if someone is there as if a response or not demonstrates the presence of a human. Given the level of complexity of the questioning even the more basic chat bots available would be able to survive it, certainly for long enough that the bot master could intervene. Encouraging more advanced bots is still not a good idea even in this paragraph.
A risk exists of introducing a demand for answer phone style chat bots for the casual miner that would be all but impossible to detect but allow miners to afk without interference. Demand is the first step towards supply. I might fire up the retriever and cut and paste between local and Jabberwacky as an experiment, although they may guess if I have to ask it GÇ£Do you have a permit?GÇ¥ and it responds GÇ£I have a permit to carry concealed Toddlers.GÇ¥ as it just did.
Really it would seem more accurate that the bio mentioned that the organisation serves as a long term bot development, security, concealment and expansion task force rather than suggesting that it provides a punishment for botters. It seems a better idea to leave bots to CCP and the player population rather than attempt uncoordinated overt actions that may well have undesirable consequences.
As far as the mechanic of one ship bouncing off another I donGÇÖt see that is an issue, perhaps irritating at times but it doesnGÇÖt seem fundamentally wrong. |
Kainotomiu Ronuken
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
827
|
Posted - 2013.02.04 17:36:00 -
[77] - Quote
Pap Uhotih wrote:Violations of rules should only be handled through the appropriate official channels, it wouldnGÇÖt seem unreasonable if that was made clear. Why? Fair enough that all violations of rules should be reported to CCP, but why would CCP ever make it clear that you shouldn't suicide gank someone if they're botting?
You have become the pubbie, Mittani. Yours is the temple whose technetium-clad tables are at risk of being overthrown, whose seats need mixing. You're the one who fears war. -- Sadleric |
Pap Uhotih
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
1
|
Posted - 2013.02.04 18:54:00 -
[78] - Quote
Kainotomiu Ronuken wrote:Pap Uhotih wrote:Violations of rules should only be handled through the appropriate official channels, it wouldnGÇÖt seem unreasonable if that was made clear. Why? Fair enough that all violations of rules should be reported to CCP, but why would CCP ever make it clear that you shouldn't suicide gank someone if they're botting?
I havenGÇÖt said anything of kind, CCP can ban accounts where as player organisations, no matter how well marketed, have no ability to do so. Gank them, call them rude names or whatever turns you on but it is all pointless if they are not reported to CCP. It is an account issue rather than a character one. I do think that there is a lack of awareness that there is a bot reporting system at all, or how to use it effectively, it wouldnGÇÖt hurt if it were given some mention. ItGÇÖs one of the things that miner bumping does disrupt, the casual miners are in the best position to spot a bot and report it effectively, flying in and blowing everything up doesnGÇÖt have the same long term effect but there is nothing to say you cant.
|
Alana Charen-Teng
Tash-Murkon Amalgamated Security
243
|
Posted - 2013.02.04 21:55:00 -
[79] - Quote
Pap Uhotih wrote:Ganking a ship flown by a bot affects the character and you could argue that depriving a char of isk is punishment but in the case of botting it is the account holder and not the char that requires punishment, which cannot be achieved by player interaction. I agree that the account holder (as opposed to the in-game character) should be punished. I believe that depriving a character of in-game assets, through in-game mechanics, is a setback that will be felt by the account holder. Afterall, the goal of botting is to accumulate in-game assets. Whether the setback is significant enough to stop his/her botting is another matter, and open for discussion.
Pap Uhotih wrote:Also since the bots are likely based on subsumption or similar basic logic they would leave a pattern but the clarity of the pattern would be degraded the more the bot was interacted with making it harder to spot in any human or automated analysis of behaviour. In my personal experience, the behaviors that typify a bot become more obvious when the bot is subjected to a greater range of interactions. The range of possible responses they may take is far smaller than that of a human, and this can become glaringly obvious in certain situations - situations that the bot's coding did not account for. When the bot is not interacted with, they appear as uncommunicative human-controlled characters who are choosing to play alone, and there is almost nothing to differentiate the two.
Pap Uhotih wrote:At the worst case it encourages the development of more sophisticated AIGÇÖs which wouldnGÇÖt help, the more simplistic they are the better as that leaves the window open for mass detection and mass banning. Interfering with them seems to only be self defeating in the longer term. There will always be an 'arms race' between those who try to identify botting, and those who try to evade such identification. The same is true of malicious software development.
Pap Uhotih wrote:Really it would seem more accurate that the bio mentioned that the organisation serves as a long term bot development, security, concealment and expansion task force rather than suggesting that it provides a punishment for botters. It seems a better idea to leave bots to CCP and the player population rather than attempt uncoordinated overt actions that may well have undesirable consequences. You may misunderstand the goals of the organization in question, as it was never about the detection and punishment of bots or botters. Everyone in this game is already against botting (with the exception of the botters), so there would be little purpose in forming an organization to promote an anti-botting position. |
G'monk
Naviar INC.
3
|
Posted - 2013.02.05 04:06:00 -
[80] - Quote
With this ruling, the act of bumping is now a "emerging game mechanic", That is fair, My question is, the act of charging to not use this emerging game mechanic on a person, extorsion by definition, is this not a illegal activity? And the fact that they charge to not bump you, do this not show intent is to extort fees from miners? This would be harassment by definition. the idea that I will bother you until you move away unless you pay me. If of course they owned the sector, then their ability to define what ever fees they would like would be without question. Is CCP now indicating that they are ceeding the ability of a corp to OWN or control the commerce in a high-sec system? |
|
Agent Trask
Aliastra Gallente Federation
51
|
Posted - 2013.02.05 05:42:00 -
[81] - Quote
G'monk wrote: ... My question is, the act of charging to not use this emerging game mechanic on a person, extorsion by definition, is this not a illegal activity? ...
Ransoming ships has always been a staple activity in EvE Online.
"Extorsion" is behavior that is within the EULA, and perfectly legal for players to engage in.
Get used to it.
Join the New Order, buy your permit today, and follow the code.
www.minerbumping.com |
Pap Uhotih
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
1
|
Posted - 2013.02.05 20:21:00 -
[82] - Quote
Sorry, this seems to be longer than I thought it was
Alana Charen-Teng wrote:I believe that depriving a character of in-game assets, through in-game mechanics, is a setback that will be felt by the account holder. Afterall, the goal of botting is to accumulate in-game assets. Whether the setback is significant enough to stop his/her botting is another matter, and open for discussion. I agree that it would be a setback of some sort but, if youGÇÖll excuse me rambling for a while, I think the frequency that an individual could be targeted is so low that as a percentage the impact on an individual miner would be in low single figures if not trapped behind a decimal point. My ball park calculations would make the ganking effect on me about <0.4% of my wealth but that is only so high because I havenGÇÖt been playing for ever, going for maximum isk per hour and because IGÇÖm awful at following my own rules (a problem a bot would not have). I guess only CCP can run the proper numbers on it but my (very) rough scribbling suggest that given a moderately sensible bot master and bot vs a reasonable suicide ganking operation then the impact on the bot would probably average around 100k a day (but the bot could mine more than 100m a day without having to operate for excessive periods on time). That figure is of course being very generous since it would not be complex for a bot to dock up if a gank capable ship entered a belt. That simple behaviour would give a bot almost total immunity from the operation and it would seem to be an obvious requirement if you were designing a bot - although that is not the same as saying that all bots have that behaviour.
So in my opinion entering a belt in a gank capable ship is only going to allow you to be effective against poorly designed bots. A half decent bot should spot the threat quicker than a human could, it would simply avoid any scrutiny, where as ships that are not a threat would be able to get much closer.
That is not to say that ganking is wrong or shouldnGÇÖt happen, if people enjoy doing it then that should really be the reason that they do it and good luck to them. I guess the inescapable reality is that Eve wouldnGÇÖt last very long if a player losing a ship had any long term impact on them.
Alana Charen-Teng wrote: In my personal experience, the behaviors that typify a bot become more obvious when the bot is subjected to a greater range of interactions. The range of possible responses they may take is far smaller than that of a human, and this can become glaringly obvious in certain situations - situations that the bot's coding did not account for. When the bot is not interacted with, they appear as uncommunicative human-controlled characters who are choosing to play alone, and there is almost nothing to differentiate the two.
Whilst, as you say, perfectly possible it is however potentially a lesson that anthropology already learnt from and gave a clever name that must for now remain hidden inside the dictionary because I canGÇÖt remember what it is. Essentially it is prudent to consider the value of the observation if the fact of observing is having an effect on the observed.
Engineering a situation may reveal a bot however it seems a lot easier to simply watch them. Playing out a predictable pattern endlessly is not something a human is good at. I think it worth considering that if all behaviour is a single set then bot and human exist as subsets and have an area of intersection, it must be more useful to be certain that an approach doesnGÇÖt reveal behaviour that is shared GÇô stubbornness is a good example as a bot and a human will be quite adept at implementing it but that can easily be confused with (strict) repetition which only the bot will manage.
Initiating multiple behaviours at once would seem to add unnecessary noise, perhaps it would snag something simple but it may vindicate something more complex. Keeping things as simple as possible and noticing the detail will reveal most aiGÇÖs for what they are, humans are great at recognising patterns but are generally terrible at sifting through complexity. Interaction may still be necessary as part of a process but deploying it early may simply alert the suspect to what you are up to.
Alana Charen-Teng wrote: There will always be an 'arms race' between those who try to identify botting, and those who try to evade such identification. The same is true of malicious software development. I agree that it is an inevitable arms race but the song and dance made about where exactly bumpers are likely to be seems to provide an unnecessary tool. The service is exactly the sort of thing an ai developer would be thrilled to have on tap, they should consider being slightly less predictable. But as ever it is up to people to chose what they want to do, there is no way of forcing an organisation to act in a certain way and there is no need for that to change.
Alana Charen-Teng wrote: You may misunderstand the goals of the organization in question, as it was never about the detection and punishment of bots or botters. I would agree that the organisation started off with a defined set of goals but that was some time ago. Its operatives (that I have come across so far) do openly claim to be targeting bots and doing the world a favour by doing so (part of the GÇÿserviceGÇÖ that they are providing), similar things can also be read in bioGÇÖs, such as the one quoted earlier in the thread. So while the website and marketing may say one thing the operatives are doing and saying something else and it is these people on the ground that is defining the organisations goals in the here and now. My guess would be that that is due to rapid expansion with too little control leading to inevitable tail wagging dog syndrome. At some point in the future that will inevitably have to be addressed but they seem quite distracted for the moment.
|
Bing Bangboom
Ded End Damage Inc. United Sytems Against Terrorist Opperations
135
|
Posted - 2013.02.05 21:25:00 -
[83] - Quote
Pap Uhotih wrote: So while the website and marketing may say one thing the operatives are doing and saying something else and it is these people on the ground that is defining the organisations goals in the here and now.
The goal of the New Order is and always has been to ensure that ALL highsec miners comply with the New Halaima Code of Conduct. The Code has always included a no botting clause as one of its several requirements. To say that we have drifted off message because we talk about bots is as meaninless as saying a policeman operating a speed trap has stopped enforcing the no running a red light law.
We can discuss any of the clauses we choose. The most often broken ones are not having a permit and mining afk. Mining afk is defined as bot aspirant behavior so we check for it. Thus we ask non permit holding miners to reply to our questions in local. Those that don't are bots or bot aspirants. Those that do are told to buy a permit. If they don't buy one, they are rebel miners and thus, bot aspirants.
For some miner to say, either in forum or local, "I'm not a bot" or even "I don't afk mine" (right) and then accuse us of not following The Code is being deliberately obtuse or reflects bad reading comprehension. They have to 1) buy a permit, 2) not bot, 3) not afk, 4) not mine excessively, 5) not use profanity in local, 6) the rest of it to be in compliance with The Code and not get bumped or ganked. The whole Code... not just not botting.
Each Agent has his own style and choice of delivery on confronting the miners. Some emphasize different things they are looking for. But all are enforcing the same Code. It's not changing. It's right there at www.minerbumping.com where it always has been. ALL miners must be in compliance.
Or bump.
315 4 CSM8
Highsec is worth fighting for.
Bing Bangboom Agent of the New Order of Highsec Belligerent Undesirable |
Xiphos Volund
ScionTech Services
4
|
Posted - 2013.02.06 03:18:00 -
[84] - Quote
Bing Bangboom wrote: I still find it rediculous that in a game famous for destroying peoples ships, stations and even organizations that bumping into someone is considered over the line.
This about sums up the whole discussion really... |
Mac James
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
0
|
Posted - 2013.02.06 07:02:00 -
[85] - Quote
I assume what most people disagree with is the fact that its a use of a movement mechanic that possess no danger to the person doing it.
ATM any other form of pvp attacking, destroying, looting others comes with a risk/reward while high sec bumping appears to be a feature that CCP never anticipated to be used as such and has no risk while allowing them to bump without some type of risk to the behavior.
Hence why the whole if you follow someone and bump them repeatably apparently that's griefing but if you do it in one field its not? That's a ruling that seems pretty self contradictory as It's griefing if you follow someone but its not if they stick around so it is and it isn't? I personally don't get it but hey if you try and understand EVE your wasting your time Internet Spaceships being super serious business to some people. |
Kainotomiu Ronuken
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
835
|
Posted - 2013.02.06 09:41:00 -
[86] - Quote
Mac James wrote:I assume what most people disagree with is the fact that its a use of a movement mechanic that possess no danger to the person doing it. ATM any other form of pvp attacking, destroying, looting others comes with a risk/reward while high sec bumping appears to be a feature that CCP never anticipated to be used as such and has no risk while allowing them to bump without some type of risk to the behavior. Hence why the whole if you follow someone and bump them repeatably apparently that's griefing but if you do it in one field its not? That's a ruling that seems pretty self contradictory as It's griefing if you follow someone but its not if they stick around so it is and it isn't? I personally don't get it but hey if you try and understand EVE your wasting your time Internet Spaceships being super serious business to some people. The idea is that the 'victim' has to show some kind of awareness and an effort to avoid the 'griefing', or otherwise CCP doesn't feel that they deserve to be protected by the EULA.
You have become the pubbie, Mittani. Yours is the temple whose technetium-clad tables are at risk of being overthrown, whose seats need mixing. You're the one who fears war. -- Sadleric |
TheGunslinger42
All Web Investigations
944
|
Posted - 2013.02.06 13:17:00 -
[87] - Quote
A few issue (which may have been covered in the last couple of pages, I'm not caught up) I see:
Saying "just declare war on them" doesn't solve anything when npc corps still exist, does it?
I also don't like the "no following people" type rule, only because it's a little bit sketchy. We mighty Agents of the New Order have been roaming several regions since we started, generally spending a couple of weeks freeing and enlightening a given area before moving to another - what if one of the poor folk we'd been trying to help in the past fled to another region, one that we eventually grace with our wisdom and kindness, and we encounter them again?
I can imagine some of them immediately turning to this thread and going "BUT I WAS IN A DIFFERENT REGION! HARASSMENT!" even though they weren't personally being targeted or followed |
Hadley X
Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic
0
|
Posted - 2013.02.06 23:20:00 -
[88] - Quote
The Code is an excuse for trying to justify the extortion of hi-sec mining where no excuse is needed. If you are being ganked and your ship is being ransomed, that is extortion. If you dont want to play by his rules (The Code) you will be bumped and or ganked. All this is within the EULA that CCP has put forth.
James 315 himself states in the URL linked above, that this is a business whos primary goal is to make him ISK. He has successfully gathered supporters who send him ISK and Agents that do his bidding. James 315 is laughing all the way to the bank.
Its a great strategy and its working. I doubt he will ever make any significant impact on the economy of EVE though there are just too many solo players doing their thing.
The extortion of hi-sec miners can continue as along as people continue to pay him. If it didn't work he would not have any profit and that is the entire goal of hte New Order.
James 315 has found a way to monitize hi-sec piracy with a face of "I'm doing this for your own good". Its a genious ploy. It makes me wonder if James 315 is an Alt account of The Mittanni.
Personally I won't cower to extortion. I dont need to, EVE IS NOT A SAFE PLACE! When I started playing EVE there were 2 rules.
1. Dont fly what you cannot afford to lose. 2. See rule number 1.
Those rules are more true now than ever.
When I do mine, I dont mine AFK, I never have. I tank my ships and I watch local. AND the New Order is not in the region where I mine anyway.
Yes, this is an alt. Im not stupid or crazy. |
Powers Sa
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
520
|
Posted - 2013.02.07 00:35:00 -
[89] - Quote
Posting again in the Deal With It thread. |
RubyPorto
Sniggwaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
2647
|
Posted - 2013.02.10 23:14:00 -
[90] - Quote
TheGunslinger42 wrote:A few issue (which may have been covered in the last couple of pages, I'm not caught up) I see:
Saying "just declare war on them" doesn't solve anything when npc corps still exist, does it?
I also don't like the "no following people" type rule, only because it's a little bit sketchy. We mighty Agents of the New Order have been roaming several regions since we started, generally spending a couple of weeks freeing and enlightening a given area before moving to another - what if one of the poor folk we'd been trying to help in the past fled to another region, one that we eventually grace with our wisdom and kindness, and we encounter them again?
I can imagine some of them immediately turning to this thread and going "BUT I WAS IN A DIFFERENT REGION! HARASSMENT!" even though they weren't personally being targeted or followed
1) When miners come calling for a removal of NPC corps and corp-hopping to evade wardecs, that will be a valid complaint.
2) I'd be surprised if that got you in trouble. I'm sure that CCP gets enough petitions that they can generally plot your movements to distinguish between "following someone" and "bad luck." This is EVE - Everybody Versus Everybody.
"the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built and we want to keep that (infact, this is much more representative of the consensus opinion within CCP)." -CCP Solomon |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 .. 24 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |