Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
Schmacos tryne
Norsk Testosteron
15
|
Posted - 2012.02.22 19:57:00 -
[151] - Quote
Aldous Sancros wrote:Schmacos tryne wrote:What other limited groups get favourable standings Tipsia? Tell me and then I can include these cases aswell.
Read the bold text. then tell me how do we deal with those unintended ships? Why Do You Care? Seriously. It doesn't affect you, you don't want one, you seem to have no actual interest in this topic beyond a somewhat obtuse means of attention-whoring. So...what gives?
I care because of what I have written throughout this thread. You should read it. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
5026
|
Posted - 2012.02.22 19:58:00 -
[152] - Quote
Schmacos tryne wrote:What other limited groups get favourable standings Tipsia? Tell me and then I can include these cases aswell. You understand how quotation marks are used, right?
Anyway: highsec players, lowsec players, nullsec players, anyone creating good content, anyone owning anything non-seededGǪ in effect, everyone GÇö they just belong to different limited groups that get different favourable standings.
Alternatively: no-one, since not even people owning highsec caps are given any kind of favourable standing. You see, the problem here is that you still haven't defined GÇ£favourable standingGÇ¥, even though I've been asking you to for a while.
Quote:Read the bold text. then tell me how do we deal with those unintended ships? You mean the bit that has nothing to do with the topic at hand and which, in fact, would go against your principled stance (the one you just rescinded)? The bit where they're proving you wrong by showing that no-one gets special treatment and some undefined GÇ£favourable standingGÇ¥?
Quote:I care because of what I have written throughout this thread. In other words, you don't care. First, it was due to some principle concerning special treatment and not having to obey the rules, which has been proven false. Then it was due to some principle concerning equal access, which you have since admitted you don't actually subscribe to. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
If not, contact Miss DSA to shed your wardecs. |
Schmacos tryne
Norsk Testosteron
15
|
Posted - 2012.02.22 20:00:00 -
[153] - Quote
Mokokan wrote:The classic paradox(?). You want CCP to give special consideration to your request that CCP stop giving players special consideration. And for your example you choose someone who is not getting special consideration.
Interesting and a well put blow. But not full score as I only seek equality and not privileges.
Mokokan wrote:The inequalities, the mistakes and flaws, the crazy, the unfair, the honor and the spite, the intentional lack of symmetry in the entire fabric of the game........it's what makes it worth playing. The insane depth of the complexity of the EVE universe is the nutty lure of the whole thing. Embrace the chaos. Or bend it to your will. Get out of the forum and play the game. I will, as soon as I get off work.
Well put. |
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
1027
|
Posted - 2012.02.22 20:00:00 -
[154] - Quote
How is it "favoring a small, select group" when apparently anyone can take 6 months and have a carrier in high sec.
Pssst: Your trolling style bleeds through after a while. You did better this time, but I still can't rate you very highly. When I check troll in the dictionary, it has a photo shopped picture of you standing somewhere in the vicinity of a point.
Also, I can kill you with my brain. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
5026
|
Posted - 2012.02.22 20:02:00 -
[155] - Quote
Schmacos tryne wrote:Interesting and a well put blow. But not full score as I only seek equality and not privileges. GǪexcept that you just said that you don't. You're arguing against things that would create equality. You are also completely unable to explain what supposed inequality there is. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
If not, contact Miss DSA to shed your wardecs. |
Aldous Sancros
Carbon-16
3
|
Posted - 2012.02.22 20:04:00 -
[156] - Quote
Schmacos tryne wrote:Aldous Sancros wrote:Schmacos tryne wrote:What other limited groups get favourable standings Tipsia? Tell me and then I can include these cases aswell.
Read the bold text. then tell me how do we deal with those unintended ships? Why Do You Care? Seriously. It doesn't affect you, you don't want one, you seem to have no actual interest in this topic beyond a somewhat obtuse means of attention-whoring. So...what gives? I care because of what I have written throughout this thread. You should read it.
I read it. It's pointless drivel.
Again, why do you care? |
Schmacos tryne
Norsk Testosteron
15
|
Posted - 2012.02.22 20:07:00 -
[157] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Schmacos tryne wrote:What other limited groups get favourable standings Tipsia? Tell me and then I can include these cases aswell. You understand how quotation marks are used, right? Anyway: highsec players, lowsec players, nullsec players, anyone creating good content, anyone owning anything non-seededGǪ in effect, everyone GÇö they just belong to different limited groups that get different favourable standings. Alternatively: no-one, since not even people owning highsec caps are given any kind of favourable standing. You see, the problem here is that you still haven't defined GÇ£favourable standingGÇ¥, even though I've been asking you to for a while.
I'm afraid I'm not so adapted to forum PvP as you. Only have lvl 3 in quotation.
Anyway: OOOOhhhhh I see what you are trying to say. You're sayin that all groups of eve have some kind of favourable standing based on if they are high-low/null/wormhole... etc. Why didn't you just say so at once.
whel there is one fundamental flaw in what you say... A new player can choose if he/she wishes to go to low/high etc. but can never choose to aquire a cap in high. The non-seeded I am unsure what you speak of but if it is unobtainable for new players i think it should be removed or re-seeded.
Tippia wrote:In other words, you don't care. First, it was due to some principle concerning special treatment and not having to obey the rules, which has been proven false. Then it was due to some principle concerning equal access, which you have since admitted you don't actually subscribe to.
You should concider a career as a writer. You come up with good stories as you see fit.
Special treatment = big nono Equal Access = Big yesyes
hope it's not as confusing. |
Schmacos tryne
Norsk Testosteron
15
|
Posted - 2012.02.22 20:10:00 -
[158] - Quote
Ranger 1 wrote:How is it "favoring a small, select group" when apparently anyone can take 6 months and have a carrier in high sec. Pssst: Your trolling style bleeds through after a while. You did better this time, but I still can't rate you very highly.
The 6 monthers (let's call them that) are not the priveleged ones. they get kicked out once discovered.
the priveleged ones are the ones who stay there with CCP's blessings. |
Doc Fury
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
398
|
Posted - 2012.02.22 20:11:00 -
[159] - Quote
Schmacos tryne wrote:Doc Fury wrote:I am well aware what conditions caused those ships to be in high-sec. Some of them were even moved there because of petitions and brain-dead GMs. However, your argument is that all cap ships be removed from high-sec because of some "favoritism" fallacy you perceive, even the few ships that CCP grandfathered because they were built and never left high-sec.
Well then we more then half agree then. How do you suggest this should be dealt with?
First, a permanent ban on your being able to forum post.
Notwithstanding your forum ban, it should be "dealt with" how it always has been. If a cap ship was built in high sec before that was no longer possible, and that ship has never left high-sec, and the owner has not violated the rules for it to remain there, it can remain there.
The accumulated filth of all their sex and murder will foam up about their waists and all the ho's and politicians will look up and shout 'Save us!' and I'll look down, and whisper 'no.' |
Schmacos tryne
Norsk Testosteron
15
|
Posted - 2012.02.22 20:11:00 -
[160] - Quote
Aldous Sancros wrote:drivel.
Again, why do you care?
Because I do. Why do you care enough to ask? |
|
Schmacos tryne
Norsk Testosteron
15
|
Posted - 2012.02.22 20:12:00 -
[161] - Quote
Doc Fury wrote:Schmacos tryne wrote:Doc Fury wrote:I am well aware what conditions caused those ships to be in high-sec. Some of them were even moved there because of petitions and brain-dead GMs. However, your argument is that all cap ships be removed from high-sec because of some "favoritism" fallacy you perceive, even the few ships that CCP grandfathered because they were built and never left high-sec.
Well then we more then half agree then. How do you suggest this should be dealt with? First, a permanent ban on your being able to forum post. Notwithstanding your forum ban, it should be "dealt with" how it always has been. If a cap ship was built in high sec before that was no longer possible, and that ship has never left high-sec, and the owner has not violated the rules for it to remain there, it can remain there.
Ok should you and I do this or should CCP do it? |
Schmacos tryne
Norsk Testosteron
15
|
Posted - 2012.02.22 20:13:00 -
[162] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Schmacos tryne wrote:Interesting and a well put blow. But not full score as I only seek equality and not privileges. GǪexcept that you just said that you don't. You're arguing against things that would create equality. You are also completely unable to explain what supposed inequality there is.
Are you feeling alright? |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
5026
|
Posted - 2012.02.22 20:14:00 -
[163] - Quote
Schmacos tryne wrote:whel there is one fundamental flaw in what you say... A new player can choose if he/she wishes to go to low/high etc. but can never choose to aquire a cap in high. The non-seeded I am unsure what you speak of but if it is unobtainable for new players i think it should be removed or re-seeded. GǪexcept that he can, and that even if he couldn't, it wouldn't convey any favourable standing on him.
Also, why do you want to destroy the uniqueness and history that non-seeded items bring to the game?
Quote:You should concider a career as a writer. You come up with good stories as you see fit.
Special treatment = big nono Equal Access = Big yesyes GǪso why are you arguing against equal access?
Quote:the priveleged ones are the ones who stay there with CCP's blessings. What privilege are bestowed upon them? How are they GÇ£blessedGÇ¥ in any way? How does it in any way affect anything? How does it in any way differ from the GÇ£favourable standingsGÇ¥ other limited groups get? In short, what is the problem? GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
If not, contact Miss DSA to shed your wardecs. |
Doc Fury
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
398
|
Posted - 2012.02.22 20:19:00 -
[164] - Quote
Schmacos tryne wrote:Doc Fury wrote:Schmacos tryne wrote:Doc Fury wrote:I am well aware what conditions caused those ships to be in high-sec. Some of them were even moved there because of petitions and brain-dead GMs. However, your argument is that all cap ships be removed from high-sec because of some "favoritism" fallacy you perceive, even the few ships that CCP grandfathered because they were built and never left high-sec.
Well then we more then half agree then. How do you suggest this should be dealt with? First, a permanent ban on your being able to forum post. Notwithstanding your forum ban, it should be "dealt with" how it always has been. If a cap ship was built in high sec before that was no longer possible, and that ship has never left high-sec, and the owner has not violated the rules for it to remain there, it can remain there. Ok should you and I do this or should CCP do it?
Do what? CCP handles enforcing rules violations. You could certainly play messenger and petition any cap ships you see engaging in high-sec combat (which is verboten) or ships you have evidence that were improperly moved there, such as the one in Jita that could never possibly have been built there.
As for me, I don't care, because cap ships in high-sec can't do anything that affects anyone other than possibly creating some epeen envy, and some wonderment in newbie players. The accumulated filth of all their sex and murder will foam up about their waists and all the ho's and politicians will look up and shout 'Save us!' and I'll look down, and whisper 'no.' |
baltec1
654
|
Posted - 2012.02.22 20:19:00 -
[165] - Quote
Schmacos tryne wrote:Ranger 1 wrote:How is it "favoring a small, select group" when apparently anyone can take 6 months and have a carrier in high sec. Pssst: Your trolling style bleeds through after a while. You did better this time, but I still can't rate you very highly. The 6 monthers (let's call them that) are not the priveleged ones. they get kicked out once discovered. the priveleged ones are the ones who stay there with CCP's blessings.
Why shouldnt they stay? They are breaking no rules. |
Schmacos tryne
Norsk Testosteron
15
|
Posted - 2012.02.22 20:22:00 -
[166] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Schmacos tryne wrote:whel there is one fundamental flaw in what you say... A new player can choose if he/she wishes to go to low/high etc. but can never choose to aquire a cap in high. The non-seeded I am unsure what you speak of but if it is unobtainable for new players i think it should be removed or re-seeded. GǪexcept that he can, and that even if he couldn't, it wouldn't convey any favourable standing on him. Also, why do you want to destroy the uniqueness and history that non-seeded items bring to the game? Quote:You should concider a career as a writer. You come up with good stories as you see fit.
Special treatment = big nono Equal Access = Big yesyes GǪso why are you arguing against equal access? Quote:the priveleged ones are the ones who stay there with CCP's blessings. What privilege are bestowed upon them? How are they GǣblessedGǥ in any way? How does it in any way affect anything? How does it in any way differ from the Gǣfavourable standingsGǥ other limited groups get? In short, what is the problem?
You can continue to refuse to accept my position in this matter no worries. You will howeve never convince me that there is no spoon. And I think your convincing power is highly overrated.
You repeat yourself in nonsence rethorics and honnestly I have had my fill.
MY STATEMENT: CCP bestowes priveleges (Be they beneficial or not) upon some selected players (be it consiently or based on random).
I don't like it and I want it gone. I actually want CCP to do somthing about this. As you probably by now have understood, other issues stand for fall after this.
You like it and you want it to stay OR you really like to discuss about things you don't care about (which is the more likely?) |
Zag'mar Jurkar
QC Steel Industries
11
|
Posted - 2012.02.22 20:24:00 -
[167] - Quote
I don't like you and want you gone.
See ? |
Schmacos tryne
Norsk Testosteron
15
|
Posted - 2012.02.22 20:24:00 -
[168] - Quote
Doc Fury wrote:Do what? CCP handles enforcing rules violations. You could certainly play messenger and petition any cap ships you see engaging in high-sec combat (which is verboten) or ships you have evidence that were improperly moved there, such as the one in Jita that could never possibly have been built there.
As for me, I don't care, because cap ships in high-sec can't do anything that affects anyone other than possibly creating some epeen envy, and some wonderment in newbie players.
Since you have concluded with the fact that the 6 monthers should be removed I ask you one last thing:
Why shouldn't they be allowed to stay? |
Schmacos tryne
Norsk Testosteron
15
|
Posted - 2012.02.22 20:25:00 -
[169] - Quote
Zag'mar Jurkar wrote:I don't like you and want you gone.
See ?
I don''t like you either, you best watch yourself |
Schmacos tryne
Norsk Testosteron
15
|
Posted - 2012.02.22 20:26:00 -
[170] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Schmacos tryne wrote:Ranger 1 wrote:How is it "favoring a small, select group" when apparently anyone can take 6 months and have a carrier in high sec. Pssst: Your trolling style bleeds through after a while. You did better this time, but I still can't rate you very highly. The 6 monthers (let's call them that) are not the priveleged ones. they get kicked out once discovered. the priveleged ones are the ones who stay there with CCP's blessings. Why shouldnt they stay? They are breaking no rules.
Well regarding this CCP has made up their mind, they are out. sorry, guess you didn't belong to the favoured ones. |
|
Zag'mar Jurkar
QC Steel Industries
11
|
Posted - 2012.02.22 20:28:00 -
[171] - Quote
Schmacos tryne wrote:baltec1 wrote:Schmacos tryne wrote:Ranger 1 wrote:How is it "favoring a small, select group" when apparently anyone can take 6 months and have a carrier in high sec. Pssst: Your trolling style bleeds through after a while. You did better this time, but I still can't rate you very highly. The 6 monthers (let's call them that) are not the priveleged ones. they get kicked out once discovered. the priveleged ones are the ones who stay there with CCP's blessings. Why shouldnt they stay? They are breaking no rules. Well regarding this CCP has made up their mind, they are out. sorry, guess you didn't belong to the favoured ones. Where did he/she said they are not ? The GM just said it was a known "bug", nothing about caps in hi-sec being prohibited. |
baltec1
654
|
Posted - 2012.02.22 20:28:00 -
[172] - Quote
Schmacos tryne wrote:
Well regarding this CCP has made up their mind, they are out. sorry, guess you didn't belong to the favoured ones.
What? |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
5026
|
Posted - 2012.02.22 20:29:00 -
[173] - Quote
Schmacos tryne wrote:You can continue to refuse to accept my position in this matter no worries. You will howeve never convince me that there is no spoon. And I think your convincing power is highly overrated. I'm not trying to convince you of anything. I'm trying to make you argue your case and answer some very simple questions.
I repeat myself because you fail or refuse to answer those questions, even though they are quite important for the case you're trying to make.
Quote:MY STATEMENT: CCP bestowes priveleges (Be they beneficial or not) upon some selected players (be it consiently or based on random). Do they? What privileges? On whom?
Quote:I don't like it and I want it gone. GǪand the question you are unable to answer is: are there there to begin with, and if so, in what form? If there aren't none, it'll be quite tricky to remove themGǪ alternatively, you've already gotten your wish they since they're GǣgoneGǥ as in Gǣwere never there from the startGǥ.
So, to that end: what GÇ£special treatmentGÇ¥ or GÇ£favourable standingGÇ¥ or GÇ£privilegesGÇ¥ do they get? How does it in any way affect anything? How does it in any way differ from the GÇ£favourable standingsGÇ¥ other limited groups get? In short, what is the problem?
Quote:You like it and you want it to stay OR you really like to discuss about things you don't care about (which is the more likely?) Neither. I just want you to argue your case and demonstrate that there is a problem.
GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
If not, contact Miss DSA to shed your wardecs. |
Doc Fury
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
398
|
Posted - 2012.02.22 20:29:00 -
[174] - Quote
Schmacos tryne wrote:Doc Fury wrote:Do what? CCP handles enforcing rules violations. You could certainly play messenger and petition any cap ships you see engaging in high-sec combat (which is verboten) or ships you have evidence that were improperly moved there, such as the one in Jita that could never possibly have been built there.
As for me, I don't care, because cap ships in high-sec can't do anything that affects anyone other than possibly creating some epeen envy, and some wonderment in newbie players. Since you have concluded with the fact that the 6 monthers should be removed I ask you one last thing: Why shouldn't they be allowed to stay?
The same reason CCP moves those (6 months unsubbed) ships back to null or low-sec. Because their owners exploited unintended game mechanics to achieve that result.
The accumulated filth of all their sex and murder will foam up about their waists and all the ho's and politicians will look up and shout 'Save us!' and I'll look down, and whisper 'no.' |
Schmacos tryne
Norsk Testosteron
15
|
Posted - 2012.02.22 20:30:00 -
[175] - Quote
Zag'mar Jurkar wrote:Where did he/she said they are not ? The GM just said it was a known "bug", nothing about caps in hi-sec being prohibited.
Check the linky in the last post in "Jita Carrier" then find the senior GM post there. |
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
1027
|
Posted - 2012.02.22 20:31:00 -
[176] - Quote
Schmacos tryne wrote:Ranger 1 wrote:How is it "favoring a small, select group" when apparently anyone can take 6 months and have a carrier in high sec. Pssst: Your trolling style bleeds through after a while. You did better this time, but I still can't rate you very highly. The 6 monthers (let's call them that) are not the priveleged ones. they get kicked out once discovered. the priveleged ones are the ones who stay there with CCP's blessings.
Except, of course, that they don't get kicked out once "discovered".
As you so generously pointed out with your GM quote on the matter, if your carrier ending up in high sec is not to your liking, you may petition to have it moved.
That's hardly being "kicked out".
You're slipping. When I check troll in the dictionary, it has a photo shopped picture of you standing somewhere in the vicinity of a point.
Also, I can kill you with my brain. |
baltec1
655
|
Posted - 2012.02.22 20:34:00 -
[177] - Quote
Schmacos tryne wrote:Zag'mar Jurkar wrote:Where did he/she said they are not ? The GM just said it was a known "bug", nothing about caps in hi-sec being prohibited. Check the linky in the last post in "Jita Carrier" then find the senior GM post there.
The one which makes no comment on the old caps which were built in high sec? |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
5027
|
Posted - 2012.02.22 20:37:00 -
[178] - Quote
Schmacos tryne wrote:Zag'mar Jurkar wrote:Where did he/she said they are not ? The GM just said it was a known "bug", nothing about caps in hi-sec being prohibited. Check the linky in the last post in "Jita Carrier" then find the senior GM post there. GǪand you'll notice that it doesn't say that highsec caps are prohibited, nor that they are getting kicked out GÇö hell, not even the 6-monthers are necessarily kicked out, going by that quote.
GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
If not, contact Miss DSA to shed your wardecs. |
Zag'mar Jurkar
QC Steel Industries
11
|
Posted - 2012.02.22 20:39:00 -
[179] - Quote
Schmacos tryne wrote:Zag'mar Jurkar wrote:Where did he/she said they are not ? The GM just said it was a known "bug", nothing about caps in hi-sec being prohibited. Check the linky in the last post in "Jita Carrier" then find the senior GM post there.
Still asking you to show me where it says as you say. |
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
1027
|
Posted - 2012.02.22 20:39:00 -
[180] - Quote
The quote in question:
Quote:This is pretty much the cause for almost all cases where a capital ship ends up in high sec space. This is a very old mechanic, predating capital ships, that had some unintended consequences. This hole will be closed at some point in time. Up until then, please file a petition if your capital ship (or someone else's) ends up in high sec that way and a GM will correct the issue. When I check troll in the dictionary, it has a photo shopped picture of you standing somewhere in the vicinity of a point.
Also, I can kill you with my brain. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |