|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
![Butter Dog Butter Dog](https://images.evetech.net/characters/943964550/portrait?size=64)
Butter Dog
Gallente The Littlest Hobos Ushra'Khan
|
Posted - 2010.02.26 12:45:00 -
[1]
Enlighten me, do the 'great powers' cordially decline to roam providence out of respect for CVA's NRDS policy?
Of course not.
UK have been a primarily NRDS entity since inception. We would not wish to manage Providence in the same way CVA does, but we're not stupid. We know there needs to be a feeling of some law and order to encourage new corporations and alliances to make their first move into 0.0 space.
Roaming gangs are easy to avoid - a cloak or a POS provide that (or docking rights). And if the 'great powers' do not territorially assault Providence, which under UK influence they would not (since we have no other territorial ambition like CVA), then life would be better under UK influence than it is under CVA rule, for most Providence residents.
There is nothing to prevent Providence residents under UK influence from joining together and 'defending their space', much like they do now. A key difference is that CVA currently hold a lot of space, and make ISK from docking and refinery taxes. A UK influenced Providence would see this evil empire removed and returned to the people, younger corps and alliances who perhaps wish for an outpost of their own - leading to an increase, not a decrease, in the number of people living in Providence.
The future for a Providence under greater influence of UK is bright.
----------
~bitter dog~
etc |
![Butter Dog Butter Dog](https://images.evetech.net/characters/943964550/portrait?size=64)
Butter Dog
Gallente The Littlest Hobos Ushra'Khan
|
Posted - 2010.02.26 14:02:00 -
[2]
Originally by: Rodj Blake
Originally by: Butter Dog Enlighten me, do the 'great powers' cordially decline to roam providence out of respect for CVA's NRDS policy?
Of course not.
The difference is that "great powers" have been set KOS by the CVA in the past for attacking neutrals in Providence, whilst it seems very unlikely that UK would set their -A- benefactors red for doing so.
This does not make Providence safer - quite the opposite.
----------
~bitter dog~
etc |
![Butter Dog Butter Dog](https://images.evetech.net/characters/943964550/portrait?size=64)
Butter Dog
Gallente The Littlest Hobos Ushra'Khan
|
Posted - 2010.02.26 14:25:00 -
[3]
Originally by: Rodj Blake
I disagree. Whilst giving in to terrorists such as yourself may give the short-term impression of safety, in the long-term it does not.
It would seem that in the long-term it is CVA's model of Providence which is failing - costing their holders capital ships, assets, control towers, and even outposts.
This happened because of CVA's imperial delusions. We habour so such greed.
----------
~bitter dog~
etc |
![Butter Dog Butter Dog](https://images.evetech.net/characters/943964550/portrait?size=64)
Butter Dog
Gallente The Littlest Hobos Ushra'Khan
|
Posted - 2010.02.26 18:10:00 -
[4]
Originally by: Wildcard Trek
So what your saying here is that your form of NRDS is basically NBSI dressed in NRDS clothing, ( An old Earth addage of the Emperors Clothes comes to mind ) unless of course you see a red shooting a red where you can shoot whoever, but that means you would be helping someone who isnt blue or neutral, which might get you in a situation where you are thought to be collaborating with the enemy.
So basically the UK NRDS Policy is do what you want. Thank you for clearing that up.
I cannot begin to fathom how you read that into the perfectly simple explination of our ROE. I can only assume your logicial reasoning ability is matched by the prowess of your capital ship FC'ing.
Of course, being CVA, you probably cannot even begin to understand the concept of not forcing others to follow your own standings, or operating outside a forced-standings enclave.
----------
~bitter dog~
etc |
![Butter Dog Butter Dog](https://images.evetech.net/characters/943964550/portrait?size=64)
Butter Dog
Gallente The Littlest Hobos Ushra'Khan
|
Posted - 2010.03.02 09:26:00 -
[5]
Originally by: Wildcard Trek
Just check your own public killrecords for my history of killing you terrorist, you have a 9.33% chance of survival Makk, I have killed close to 14 Billion in ISK in your hulls, close to 1 Billion of that in cloaks alone , bring it .
Do you even know how kill records work? Pretty much every single pilot has an individual efficiency equal to or better than your own - it means nothing, other than how many CONCORD kill notification you've *****d onto.
CVA used to be quite good. But then the active fleet commanders left, the leadership became delusional, and you were left with a bunch of fat spaceship bishops who couldn't tell their Megapulses from their Miner II's.
This is why we publically offered a 1v1 conflict between our two alliances. CVA have consistently refused and hidden behind their holder meatshield. UK regularly field double CVA's fleet numbers, we have more active fleet commanders, and we're not fat and lazy from years of relying on other people to do our combat work [insert comment about UK being AAA pets here].
The CVA of today is nothing compared to the CVA of yesteryear. Please stop living in the past and accept that your arrogant delusion is just that - folly driven by a total lack of self-awareness.
We're coming for our people. ----------
~bitter dog~
etc |
![Butter Dog Butter Dog](https://images.evetech.net/characters/943964550/portrait?size=64)
Butter Dog
Gallente The Littlest Hobos Ushra'Khan
|
Posted - 2010.03.02 10:30:00 -
[6]
Originally by: Tharrn At least we do not lower our recruitment standards for the sake of numbers. The proud Ushra'Khan is no better than Goonswarm in that other section nowadays. Congratulations on that achievement. But what can you expect from random terrorist rabble.
Judging by the corporations accepted into CVA over the last 12 months, I'd say you have a thing or two to learn about recruiting standards ![Embarassed](/images/icon_redface.gif) ----------
~bitter dog~
etc |
|
|
|