EVE Search - Has SF moved into Provi?

All Channels

Intergalactic Summit

Has SF moved into Provi?

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 1 post(s)
D melanogaster Minmatar The Fruit Flys	Posted - 2010.04.06 03:55:00 - [1] Looking at KBP local today, more then 90% of the pilots were owned by Star Fraction.. Is U'K going to let you rent? You would do better to stay out of 0.0 and instead declare operations with conditions impossible to not reach. By going to 0.0 you open yourself up to actually having to fight with ships rather then words.
D melanogaster Minmatar The Fruit Flys	Posted - 2010.04.06 15:03:00 - [2] Originally by: Mad Murgan I do have to question how you worked out 90% of the pilots out there today were Star Fraction.. It is easy, you simply take the number of pilots belonging to SF, then divide by the total number of pilots in system. This part may confuse you because it will give a fraction of one. Some call this a decimal. To get the pretty percentage, you multiply this number by 100 and then you can add the "%" sign after it. Practice it a few times. It will get easier. Originally by: Tomahawk Bliss There is no excuse for this level of stupid, the ISD news articles are available to everyone. We know how accurate they are... Originally by: Tomahawk Bliss cool glasses though. Thanks!
D melanogaster Minmatar The Fruit Flys	Posted - 2010.04.06 17:11:00 - [3] Originally by: Syyl'ara I think he was questioning how one could observe the conditions of an entire constellation with but one pair of eyes. Also, since your are clearly informed on such things, please share with us exactly how many active pilots SF has? Not to mention, 90% alliance participation rates for a conflict that's basically winding down would actually be something to be proud of, wouldn't it? 1. KBP is a system and not a constellation. 2. "KBP local was 90% SF" =/= "90% of SF was in KBP" I will record local next time I am there for all the haters.
D melanogaster Minmatar The Fruit Flys	Posted - 2010.04.08 02:03:00 - [4] Originally by: Jade Constantine ... enduring legend we spread of the true knowledge and dream of free space on the frontier. So one of your great achievements is something that could easily be accomplished sitting planet side in an armchair? Bravo!
D melanogaster Minmatar The Fruit Flys	Posted - 2010.04.08 12:11:00 - [5] Originally by: The Cosmopolite -A- remain red (-10) to the Star Fraction at this time. You might check your facts before making such claims. Oh, but that would be inconvenient to your thesis, wouldn't it? The fact is that no changes to our standings have been required by anyone in Providence. Certainly, no prerequisites on our establishment of infrastructure in the YWS0-Z system have been demanded. Our ideals remain quite firm. The Cosmopolite It simply does not matter what you have your standings set at. As the new landlords of Providence, no one will be able to claim sov without permission from them. So all your rhetoric about kissing the ring of others is nothing but lies as you have done the same thing in your recent claim of YWS0-Z. I may have little credibility in these channels, but it is now more then yours as your credibility is all lost. If a neutral were to fill your moons with towers within the next 24 hours would you shot them down? I believe you said somewhere that neutrals would be able to do that in Star Fraction "freespace." Or will you shoot them down and use the "if they cant defend the towers they have no business anchoring them... we wont coddle weaklings" defense?
D melanogaster Minmatar The Fruit Flys	Posted - 2010.04.08 13:39:00 - [6] Originally by: Rodj Blake Or perhaps -7- had set you red beforehand because of your track record of shooting at their allies? I wouldn't bother with this line of reasonable logic. They will only retort with a story about how -7-'s overlord, mean old CVA, forced them to. Maybe they will even use the ever creative "delete allies and replace it with a bold "masters" in your quote and say "fixed it for you" That is always a good one.
D melanogaster Minmatar The Fruit Flys	Posted - 2010.04.08 14:17:00 - [7] Mr. Wolf! Have we met before? We seem to have gone to the same place to get our pictures taken!
D melanogaster Minmatar The Fruit Flys	Posted - 2010.04.08 15:00:00 - [8] Originally by: Jade Constantine As a result Sev3rance became an enemy of the free captains and would ultimately pay the price for this choice. In reality, the price -7- had to pay has everything to do with the SC and nothing to do with you. Oh wait, are you a part of SC now?
D melanogaster Minmatar The Fruit Flys	Posted - 2010.04.08 17:14:00 - [9] Originally by: CCP Adida OOC replies cleared Adida Community Rep CCP Hf, EVE Online What a strange title.. I will assume that CCP Hf is your corp and EVE Online is your alliance. What a strange name..
D melanogaster Minmatar The Fruit Flys	Posted - 2010.04.09 11:42:00 - [10] Originally by: The Cosmopolite ..concise answers and explanations.. Thank you. The rest of your alliance should not be allowed to post.
D melanogaster Minmatar The Fruit Flys	Posted - 2010.04.09 19:57:00 - [11] Originally by: Jade Constantine On the planets below you have run one of the largest concentration camps in history and ensured that the "wealth" of the capsuleers in Providence was built on the backs of suffering baseline humans treated like animals in your work camps but here when a new generation of settlers and liberators are finally succeeding in driving out your organisation you prefer to forget all the business about "slavery" and talk about the technical aspects of NRDS administration of the capsuleer elite. Your statements are bold faced lies. IF there are slave camps on the planets in Providence it is not because of the pilots in the holders. As of now pilots are forbidden from interacting with the planetary populations. The closest action sanctioned by CONCORD and is limited to remote mining of materials from moons. I would love to see proof of these camps and proof that they are/were owned by the Holders. I hear that the rules on this will be changing soon though just in time for you to be able to take advantage of them. I do not believe that you have to pay the workers who are doing this labor on the planetary surface. Now THAT sounds like slavery to me. Will any members of your alliance be taking advantage of this new resource to capsuleers? If you do then you yourselves will be directly guilty of enforcing slavery.
D melanogaster Minmatar The Fruit Flys	Posted - 2010.04.10 00:49:00 - [12] Originally by: Darveses Yes, I believe I saw a CONCORD patrol in KBP yesterday, checking if we capsuleers behave well down in Providence! Get your facts straight or stop talking...or, well, preferably both. You found my mistake. Congrats. You knew what I meant though.. So now that the question is fixed do you have the courage to answer it?
D melanogaster Minmatar The Fruit Flys	Posted - 2010.04.10 04:39:00 - [13] Originally by: Syyl'ara What workers? What labor? Ever heard of automated factories? It took all of about 2 seconds of referencing reality to disprove what you took such a long walk for, how disappointing. Then I stand corrected on my second paragraph. The first still stands. What slaves? What concentration camps?
D melanogaster Minmatar The Fruit Flys	Posted - 2010.04.11 14:02:00 - [14] Originally by: Jade Constantine Breaking news in 0.0 ... don't warp to unexplored moons in non-cloaking vessels. I guess we're lucky we don't post losses to factional baseline pirate groups either or this could lead to much scandal on the IGS! But to answer your question. At this time we don't (and have never yet) considered the generally autonomous defense systems of a corporate-flagged tower to be indicative of formal attack on the Star Fraction leading to setting of negative standings. This is a hazard of life in lowsec and nullsec and when losses such as these happen we pick ourselves up, dust ourselves down and just get on with the business of freespace revolution on the frontier. [/quote Does that mean that when someone sets up towers in your system and configure them to shoot you, you will not be all butthurt? I am sure that the best case for neutral pilots that set up in your system will be a loss to your allies after you tip them off.
D melanogaster Minmatar The Fruit Flys	Posted - 2010.04.11 15:30:00 - [15] Originally by: Jade Constantine Originally by: D melanogaster [ Does that mean that when someone sets up towers in your system and configure them to shoot you, you will not be all butthurt? I am sure that the best case for neutral pilots that set up in your system will be a loss to your allies after you tip them off. Don't you have anything better to do? I mean really. You don't answer questions. And post far more often then me.
D melanogaster Minmatar The Fruit Flys	Posted - 2010.04.11 16:02:00 - [16] Originally by: Jade Constantine You should leave aside interpretation of our ROE since you clearly understand precisely nothing of the ideology that underpins it. The issue people have is that your ideology is so full of loopholes and open for interpretation that you might as well be NBSI.
D melanogaster Minmatar The Fruit Flys	Posted - 2010.04.20 04:25:00 - [17] Originally by: The Cosmopolite There is only one reason and one alone for placing a sovereignty blockade unit in a system without invitation where another entity administers infrastructure: to render their infrastructure vulnerable to attack by the unilateral action of placing those SBUs in the system. It is a hostile act. That is the only construction that can be put on the uninvited deployment of SBUs. Making infrastructure vulnerable is not attacking it though. Kind of how anchoring a bubble off a gate makes the pilot warping to it vulnerable. You have made it clear that it is actually the entity attacking the ship (or station or IHUB) that is the actual aggressor and not the entity that makes one more vulnerable to attack.
D melanogaster Minmatar The Fruit Flys	Posted - 2010.04.20 04:48:00 - [18] Originally by: Fridarey Amarrian publicity mouthpieces seem to be as stupid as Amarrian Nationalists when it comes to this question of SBU's. Are you sure you don't work for Archbishop too? I see you have learned from the Star Fraction propaganda masters that when you are confronted with logical arguments (or illogical arguments that run parallel to previously posted star fraction logic) it is best to: A) question the integrity of a poster, B) claim that they are the pets of someone else you don't like, C) spit on them. I don't think that anyone really questions the issue of the SBU. Everyone knows it it a hostile act. Everyone also knows deploying a bubble is a hostile act too. Get over yourself..
D melanogaster Minmatar The Fruit Flys	Posted - 2010.04.20 12:31:00 - [19] Originally by: Jade Constantine Originally by: D melanogaster [ I see you have learned from the Star Fraction propaganda masters that when you are confronted with logical arguments (or illogical arguments that run parallel to previously posted star fraction logic) it is best to: A) question the integrity of a poster, B) claim that they are the pets of someone else you don't like, C) spit on them. I don't think that anyone really questions the issue of the SBU. Everyone knows it it a hostile act. Everyone also knows deploying a bubble is a hostile act too. Get over yourself..] I think you need to face facts and realize that some of us don't believe that false flag propaganda mouthpieces can make logical arguments. The essential cowardice involved in hiding your true identity means you are implicitly dishonest and any of your arguments are extremely dubious. That is the downside of cloaking your identity. I wish more would find the courage to stand up and be counted with their true colours rather than hiding through fear of consequence. The IGS would be a far better place without so many false personnas peddling the vitreol of their gutless masters. I see that you again went with option A. If you would care to read the whole thing, It is clear that I believe my argument to be illogical. It is just the same ill logic that you and your lackeys use every day. As an added note, the identities of the "mouthpieces" who post on here are really not important. When well known pod pilots post about you you simply default to spitting on their face and refusing to actually answer their questions. It is pretty frustrating for those who want answers from you.

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.