I may disagree with most of what she's said in this thread, but did you have a point to make, or a counterargument to present? Or did you just wake up in the morning and decide "I'm going to use random abuse instead of arguments today!"

Mostly random abuse, though I am sure I will be banned again for saying something bad about someone on the interwebs.
Oh well, I am sure when CCP sells EVE to Sony everything will be right once more in the world. :p

You realize that John Smedley, the President of Sony Online Entertainment, plays EVE and is in the CFC, right?

I want to know how this thread became a lets bash CCP thread...

Tysinger likes doing that.

This whole concept of stealing being "bad" globally, as opposed to being "bad" only from the victim's perspective is a scary precedent to make for further development of high-sec gameplay.

So a 100% chance of being blown up automatically

I'm no stranger to low-sec, that just never occured to me, lol. High-sec mission thieving is definitely hit-or-miss. The fun comes from the reactions you get.

Yeah especially when you blow them up using in mission mechanics, they come after you in a billion isk fit ship thinking they have kill rights and CONCORD reminds them they dont. THOSE reactions are

...priceless...

I want to know how this thread became a lets bash CCP thread...

Well, sd's are now generating KM"s... And even though it doesn't seem like that would be related, it WAS a feature mentioned during the crimewatch discussion at fan fest. ;)

Risk denotes the chance of them not being destroyed. If there is a 100% chance of them being destroyed, there is NO RISK it is a certanty and the ship becomes a business expense. Like ammo for missioners. Especially as youre not getting your insurance paid out on it.

Must be another CCP alt.

this and I want to know how this micro issue can get an endless thread of 22+ pages.

A member of a professional criminal organization like Suddenly Ninjas is against being labeled a criminal for their criminal actions? Who would've thunk it!

I don't think there is anything scary about broadening the scope of retaliation for crimes for anyone but the criminals. HTFU?

My in-game occupation notwithstanding, how do you justify involving a third party into a simple theft dispute between thief and victim? What justifies the right for another pilot to open fire if they have not been wronged in any way?

Your argument deals in absolutes. My point is there should be no absolute right or absolute wrong in context of the game universe.

If there are no absolute right and wrong actions, then there should be no hisec at all, nor any Concord. Instead, CCP chose to implement laws in hisec to protect law abiding citizens, and defined certain absolute wrong actions and their punishments.

Being that this is a computer simulation, and it simulates a future society where many actions can instantly be determined to be right or wrong, and the culprit identified, there can exist absolute wrong actions with no ambiguity. Ownership of a jetcan or wreck is established with certainty, as is the identity of anyone taking from these containers.

Taking items from a can or wreck that isn't specifically abandoned is a crime with a punishment up to and including the destruction of your ship. It has been absolutely defined as such for a long time.

The difference is that the little old lady that just had her purse snatched can now call for aid from anyone else nearby. This seems entirely more realistic to me than the one we have now where the criminal can stand amongst a crowd of citizens and taunt the little old lady with impunity.

If there are no absolute right and wrong actions, then there should be no hisec at all, nor any Concord. Instead, CCP chose to implement laws in hisec to protect law abiding citizens, and defined certain absolute wrong actions and their punishments.

Being that this is a computer simulation, and it simulates a future society where many actions can instantly be determined to be right or wrong, and the culprit identified, there can exist absolute wrong actions with no ambiguity. Ownership of a jetcan or wreck is established with certainty, as is the identity of anyone taking from these containers.

Taking items from a can or wreck that isn't specifically abandoned is a crime with a punishment up to and including the destruction of your ship. It has been absolutely defined as such for a long time.

The difference is that the little old lady that just had her purse snatched can now call for aid from anyone else nearby. This seems entirely more realistic to me than the one we have now where the criminal can stand amongst a crowd of citizens and taunt the little old lady with impunity.

Silly argument. 1) This future society is not "a" society but many, with varying laws (high/low/null & local faction or alliance) and norms. Just ask a minmatar slave on amarr. 2) If you were in the middle of the pacific and a ship w/ an Indian flag claiming to be a Japanese ship fired on you, and in the ensuing battle you sunk it, would you have salvage rights when Iceland claimed it was stolen from them? Not so easy now. Who you are, who has your back, the law of the sea, the world court, every pacific nation, and who hates you would all be factors. Not telling what would happen or what would be "legal"...

If there are no absolute right and wrong actions, then there should be no hisec at all, nor any Concord. Instead, CCP chose to implement laws in hisec to protect law abiding citizens, and defined certain absolute wrong actions and their punishments.

Being that this is a computer simulation, and it simulates a future society where many actions can instantly be determined to be right or wrong, and the culprit identified, there can exist absolute wrong actions with no ambiguity. Ownership of a jetcan or wreck is established with certainty, as is the identity of anyone taking from these containers.

Taking items from a can or wreck that isn't specifically abandoned is a crime with a punishment up to and including the destruction of your ship. It has been absolutely defined as such for a long time.

The difference is that the little old lady that just had her purse snatched can now call for aid from anyone else nearby. This seems entirely more realistic to me than the one we have now where the criminal can stand amongst a crowd of citizens and taunt the little old lady with impunity.

1) We're only talking about hisec, and Concord's universal "Empire" laws that apply across all factions and alliances.

2) If I were in the middle of Amarr space and a ship with anyone's flag fired on me, Concord would sink it before I could, and I believe anyone would have loot and salvage rights on it since the wreck would be blue.

Risk denotes the chance of them not being destroyed. If there is a 100% chance of them being destroyed, there is NO RISK it is a certanty and the ship becomes a business expense. Like ammo for missioners. Especially as youre not getting your insurance paid out on it.

Must be another CCP alt.

And then people scratch their heads and wonder why there are so many suicide gankers these days.

How would your system work?