Good read, but I think you need to add a footnote to section (4). Some people are just there to annoy, incite argument, and get their yucks at the discussion's expense. They may be completely logical people (most legitimate trolls are) but they will not allow their logic to be visible and will make posts that are incorrect or intentionally uninformed. Not everyone is wise to their game so these detractors may be obvious to some but not all of EVE's forum-goers.

Thanks for stating the obvious...

TL;DR: People are people, people have choices, people need people.

You need to get a life and/or get laid...





Also, this:

Actually the 5 Points that are made are excelent advice. I learned those when I was in school. They have been utterly dropped in any form of electronic communication the past 30 years.....as they are probably not taught.

Especially #1 about Huge Generalizations.

It actually doesn't ,it just pretty much says "EVE is interconnected" and we all need people who are not exactly like us. We (well, most of us) know that already lol.

What that post ends up doing is making a whole bunch of assumptions about...other people assumptions, and in doing so kind defeats it's own purpose.

Nope, that's not what the point of it is at all.

Considering the source, I think the point might have been to suggest certain people back off on their crusade.

What then is the point?

But honestly, I've read the article twice, it just sounds like a guy trying to present what should be common sense as some big earth shattering revelation only he could reveal to the world.

What source would that be, and why would that affect the point?

By the looks of it, GÇ£your reasoning for the removal of the other sucks. Don't perpetuate the nonsense, but rather provide a proper argument for good change instead.GÇ¥

What source would that be, and why would that affect the point?

Especially #1 about Huge Generalizations.

Good article.

I'd just like to thank all the Goons, their Pets, and Bloggers for helping to spread the word about the idiocy running rampant with the Meta-game aspects of EVE Online.

My alt's original post (locked understandably due to 100% Goon Only responses. Where are the high sec players ? ....Oh, that's right.......) https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=119145

Actually, most of these folks need lessons in Discourse and History. First of all, comparing 2 groups is not a statement of "is". Also, I do not see the word ****** mentioned anywhere despite what the Mittani SAYS. Unreal honestly. They must be 'keeping alive the spirit of Old school Propaganda'? Whatever floats your boat.

Secondly, the Jews were castigated and chased around for time immemorial, without any kind of homeland UNTIL RECENT HISTORY. (and even then............) Somehow, it has been conveniently forgotten by these posters that the Holocaust encompassed only the smallest, most recent part of their MILLENIAS LONG history. To dismiss the previous diasporas and cultural conflagrations, EVEN AS RELEVANT TO THIS SITUATION, is to really demean their history folks. You disgust me and probably any actual Jewish people who read your crap.

Our grandparents fought in that World War with the intent of eliminating the action-by-prejudicial-mindset utterly. I guess ultimately they failed. In fact I don't guess after all.

Anyway, I just wanted to point out those few things, and provide links to the rest of the story as it has now grown and spread (thankfully) across 5 'media outlets': The Ancient Gaming Noob, The Nosy Gamer, Alikchi in EVE (thanks for Tweeting that link too Mittani--I woulda missed it), and disappointingly Jester's Trek....and Twitter. ( I love the one guy who is astonished that 'a high sec carebear would Follow the Mittani).

I want to thank The Mittani personally for showing me what a sham this game ultimately is.......a Theater of the Absurd for 35 year old bullies who never got over themselves.

Enjoy playing Goons Online.

They are not in CCP's pockets. They ARE the Pockets.

It seems like I am pointing out the obvious and as such being baited but Mittani, Goons CEO, latest EVE campaign against High Sec all have a very current feel to them.

Didn't we stop with the WW2 references back in 2010?

Considering the source, I think the point might have been to suggest certain people back off on their crusade.

What source would that be, and why would that affect the point?

People keep equating Malcanis with goon because he writes for mittens.com even though we've been hostile to Malcanis and his fellows for a long time.

I've not seen a single post from a carebear asking that the PVPers be removed from game.

High sec already has criminal flag that gets you concorded, so I have no clue what you are talking about with your " PVP-flag high sec" comment.

So as I was saying, they pantsed him.

High sec already has criminal flag that gets you concorded, so I have no clue what you are talking about with your " PVP-flag high sec" comment.

Edit: seems there are certain latin words that are not allowed here: "*** grano salis" - "with a grain of salt".

Cant remember, who said it:

Mittani would be a pseudo-educated douchebag. This text delivers to this line.

Only the ones that happen to coincide with colloquial names for bodily fluids.

EhGǪ ok? How is he in any way relevant to the topic at hand?

This is a must read interview with a Troll related to the topic at hand:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/tv-and-radio/2012/nov/09/confessions-of-an-internet-troll

I corrected my text. Read again.

I'd say you haven't been paying attention, then. They're around and they do indeed often come in the form of requests for PvP switches or locking people out of highsec or completely new shards (not just for restarting, but for a completely different game that is not EVE). When the mention of GÇ£allowing different play stylesGÇ¥ comes along, it often actually means GÇ£disallow certain play styles GÇö specifically the ones that interfere with meGÇ¥. EVE already allows for all the play-styles people are asking for, and that request have a nasty tendency of ultimately trying to hide a restriction of play styles behind shallow rhetoric of allowing it, and pointing this out gets you shouted down as being a close-minded nullsec zealot who's trying to keep people from playing.

Good read, but I think you need to add a footnote to section (4). Some people are just there to annoy, incite argument, and get their yucks at the discussion's expense. They may be completely logical people (most legitimate trolls are) but they will not allow their logic to be visible and will make posts that are incorrect or intentionally uninformed. Not everyone is wise to their game so these detractors may be obvious to some but not all of EVE's forum-goers.

Real world, the saying goes... your right to swing your fist ends at my face. Unless, of course, we're in the boxing ring (or MMA octagon).

What EVE needs is more PVPers that are content to PVP with other players that enjoy PVPing, and fewer sociopaths that want to blow up the ships of carebears.

What's the matter griefer? Can't win a fight against someone that is ready and looking to fight back, so have to take out your frustration by beating up on the people that are not ready for, not looking for a fight?

Pathetic losers, those people are.

BAWWW

GǪand we're in such a ring right now. You stepped in the moment you logged in GÇö highsec is as much a part of the ring as low and null. At most, it's a corner where the padding on the gloves is a bit thicker (which, as it turns out, is not always a good thing for the parties involved).

Someone else's play style as a PvPer does not disallow your play style as a carbear. The game already allows for both. The game just puts it on your shoulders to ensure that you get to play the way you want. Or to use a different Malcanisism: [playing EVE] does not mean you get to succeed at anything you want to try GÇö it means you get to try anything you want to succeed at.

Ok. At this point I'd suggest that you go and re-read the article and see if you can spot what you just did and why it's a bad thing.

Killing miners in hi-sec is not consensual pvp it like clubing baby seals on the beach with a bat.

You start out okay. You point out that burning high sec won't move the carebears to low or null. They will just quit playing.

(though, I will have to admit that the CSM notes indicate this is not completely true. CCP claims that burn high sec did, in fact, result in less mining in high sec, slightly more mining in 0.0, and lots more mining in low (of course 100% increase from near 0 is still pretty near 0 in the case of low sec). On the flip side of this, CCP was seeing enough carebear drops that they had to re-balance barges to create barges that are gank resistant to stop and reverse the drops that were being caused by burn high-sec.)

I'm not convinced that the move of miners to low or null actually created more ship boomage, or just PVPer rage at local and station/POS games where miners safe up as soon as any non-blue enters local.....



Here is where you go badly off track....
"Equally misguided are the narrowly focused vocal hi-sec uber alles types who just wish that all the drama-llama nullsecers and Jack Sparrows in lo-sec would just go away."

I've not seen a single post from a carebear asking that the PVPers be removed from game. In general, we carebears all seem to realize and accept that it is the boom that creates the demand.

The posts I see from carebears are basically, "both carebears and PVPers can co-exist within the same game, via game mechanics that set up different areas of space that have different rules, that allow different play style".


" They want CCP to endsolung the problem with a server split or, failing that, PvP-flag hi-sec. They believe that, no longer trammeled by the demands of PvPers, EVE could be happily balanced into an eternal "

Hmmm... The people I see calling for sharding are those that want to go to 0.0, but not have to live under the yoke of goons/test and the other ubber large alliances with fleets of supers. They want to be able to start over, on equal footing, in a new shard, as all players would be insta-noobs there... I guess they do not realize that the goons/test could just insta create alts on the new shard, and still be the largest alliance on the new shard, in a heart beat.

High sec already has criminal flag that gets you concorded, so I have no clue what you are talking about with your " PVP-flag high sec" comment.


The bottom line is this. CCP wants max subscribers. They are going to do whatever is necessary to create environments where both PVPers and carebears can enjoy playing the game the way they enjoy playing the game.

It doesn't matter how loudly one side or the other calls for removing the other, CCP is going to ignore that. CCP will watch subs and unsubs, and make game changes necessary to keep as many (of each type of player) playing, and paying.

I call this BS.

I dont need a single Hi-Sec player.
What he is good for if i cant shoot him.

This is where I disagree with you Tippia. The ring as you want to call it is where both parties are shiped up and trained up for pvp. Two parties looking for a fight, not a miner in a ship that cant fight back.

You can argue all you want about sandbox but if they wanted you to pvp in hi-sec they would not have Concord at all.

Saw it's on the website of the disgraced lawyer, stopped reading.

It kind of seems like the article was Mittani trying to put foward a middle ground posistion

GǪand we're in such a ring right now. You stepped in the moment you logged in GÇö highsec is as much a part of the ring as low and null. At most, it's a corner where the padding on the gloves is a bit thicker (which, as it turns out, is not always a good thing for the parties involved).

Someone else's play style as a PvPer does not disallow your play style as a carbear. The game already allows for both. The game just puts it on your shoulders to ensure that you get to play the way you want. Or to use a different Malcanisism: [playing EVE] does not mean you get to succeed at anything you want to try GÇö it means you get to try anything you want to succeed at.

The underlined is a fine example of "This is the way EVE is meant to be played and no other. There is just this one".

The bold is a fine example of contradicting the underlined and is also blatantly false.

For starters, if someones idea of pvp (since suicide ganking a defenseless miner is not pvp. It's not pvp if the other person can't fight back) is to suicide gank a miner repeatedly, regardless of where this miner mines making it impossible for that miner to mine, then one person's playstyle has just "disallowed" another's.

since suicide ganking a defenseless miner is not pvp. It's not pvp if the other person can't fight back

Maybe miners shouldn't be so darned defenseless and fight back, or perhaps pay attention enough to actually act in their own defense, eh?

What cracks me up about **** arguments like this is you're basically admitting that miners aren't players.

Which is actually pretty hilarious in a video game, if you think about it. Miners, baby seals, the same thing... Makes sense.

How does a miner fight back? Avoidance is the only real defense that I know of for gankers/bumpers but that in no way counters the fact that the aggressors still retain full control of the situation where they choose to operate. Do you disagree or just feel it's working as intended?

Avoidance, paying attention, fitting ships appropriately, that sort of thing. The same sort of **** the rest of us do when we're PVEing in dangerous locations. Miners like Mara Rinn (I think?) are people I actually respect. They know their trade and they play the game. They think about how to compete, they form strategies, they fit appropriately.

So, yes, working as intended.

Of course there will always be those who feel statistically that the chances of actions being taken against them are low enough to not warrant changes to fitting or behavior save maybe just choosing an out of the way system. At what point do these actions cross the boundary into respectable?

The underlined is a fine example of "This is the way EVE is meant to be played and no other. There is just this one".

The bold is a fine example of contradicting the underlined and is also blatantly false.

For starters, if someones idea of pvp (since suicide ganking a defenseless miner is not pvp. It's not pvp if the other person can't fight back) is to suicide gank a miner repeatedly, regardless of where this miner mines making it impossible for that miner to mine, then one person's playstyle has just "disallowed" another's.

The underlined is a fine example of "This is the way EVE is meant to be played and no other. There is just this one".

The bold is a fine example of contradicting the underlined and is also blatantly false.

For starters, if someones idea of pvp (since suicide ganking a defenseless miner is not pvp. It's not pvp if the other person can't fight back) is to suicide gank a miner repeatedly, regardless of where this miner mines making it impossible for that miner to mine, then one person's playstyle has just "disallowed" another's.

Cant remember, who said it:

Mittani would be a pseudo-educated douchebag. [edit: it is malcanis] ok, so Mittani not even would say this. So we can dismiss the attribut "pseudo-educated". Still the text is just trival generalisation. It costs the writer nothing. Admitting - say - HBC/CFC leadership runs a campagne vs AAA to demonize them and to manipulate their own little grunts like - say - Goebbels, that would cost something.

+1 Alex, Mittani, Gianturco


Lin would say /bow fot this interesting piece of thought and humility.

Good read, except for the section "(4) Remember that other people are rational."

I've made way to much wealth off the fact that most people are not rational. Being rational is something you have to train your mind for, and most people simply don't. People buy overpriced goods or more than they need, fall for very simplistic scams, and in general react more with their gut (pride, jealousy, hate and love).

Economists wish people were rational, because if they followed simple logic and utilitarianism their calculations on the movement of markets would actually have some predictive value. But people aren't robots, and assuming they are will get you in trouble more often then not.

since suicide ganking a defenseless miner is not pvp. It's not pvp if the other person can't fight back

Dude! You're not supposed to blow the lid off the propaganda machine, gaw! Oh well, they'll forget pretty quick. :)

I disagree with point 4

The bottom line is this. CCP wants max subscribers. They are going to do whatever is necessary to create environments where both PVPers and carebears can enjoy playing the game the way they enjoy playing the game.

It doesn't matter how loudly one side or the other calls for removing the other, CCP is going to ignore that. CCP will watch subs and unsubs, and make game changes necessary to keep as many (of each type of player) playing, and paying.

No, it's an example of GÇ£this is how EVE works, and if you want to play it, you need to consider this fundamental design decisionGÇ¥. It says absolutely nothing about how the game is meant to be played because that's the whole point: you choose. No matter what, though, the choice will exist within what the game can and cannot do GÇö you cannot choose away the PvP environment that inherently comes with the multiplayer sandbox.

How does it contradict anything and how is it false? You are free to carebear it up as much as you like GÇö the game isn't going to stop you since it fully allows for that play style, and other players can't disallow anything since that's far beyond their control.

The only way for it not to be PvP is if there's a bot at the other end. Otherwise, it's a player vs. player conflict, and the shooty bit is a pretty small part of that conflict. There are plenty of decisions that lead up to it, all of which can be GÇ£wonGÇ¥ or GÇ£lostGÇ¥.

And no, you're still not disallowing any kind of playstyle. He's as free as ever to go and mine. He just needs to be aware of his environment. The only thing that would come close to player-made GÇ£disallowingGÇ¥ would be to constantly harass him to the point where he can't play the game, and that falls under the EVE definition of griefing GÇö something that gets you bannedGǪ so it's not really something that's available in the standard player tool kit.

People sill generally make rational or semi rational decisions but they'll use incomplete or bad information to do so. Or they'll simplify their decision making with harmful generalizations (racism is a good example. All gankers are sociopaths is another.)

People are not rational by default. They have to be taught about utility and how to maximize it, to plan and strategize. There are plenty of people who have learned these things, and if you hang around them all the time, you may think that everyone is like that. When those people screw up, it is just a miscalculation or some bad input.

But many people (I would argue, most) never really learned to plan their actions in such ways.

If you're a new player reading themittani.com (or evenews24) for the first time because you're interested in what goes on in eve, ******* forget it. You're better off reading hardcore fetish inspired pornography, or hanging out on 4chan. At least trash like this has some modicum of entertainment value, whereas the eve "news sites" have become some kind of fetid sinkhole for all the worst kinds of recycled academic ************ imaginable.

This is a must read interview with a Troll related to the topic at hand:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/tv-and-radio/2012/nov/09/confessions-of-an-internet-troll

If I used a word you don't understand, just ask what it means. I'm happy to help.

I think he's referring to the status of the two sites as being propaganda dispensaries, rather than practically useful for the people who aren't controlling the message.

As previously mentioned, I'm in an alliance that is currently hostile to the CFC (although not currently actively engaged against them). Simply dimissing the site (and therefore all its content) as a "propaganda mouthpiece" is pure laziness, and probably reveals more about his prejudices than about the content of my article. It's perhaps worth mentioning that The Big Lie is a direct attack on (amongst other things) the "pubbie" meme. Where is the propaganda mouthpiece now? Simply dismissing the article is far easier than reading it, understanding it and criticizing it.

In short: proof or STFU

As the author of the piece, I'm quite happy to publish on TheMittani, because I'm confident that there will not be any editorial interference concerning the theme and conclusions of my pieces, and I would recommend anyone who feels the urge to write something more substantial than an evanescent forum post to do the same. In the event that I submitted an article which was substantially changed by the editors, I'd instantly repudiate it and post the original piece everywhere I could. As the editors are surely aware.

The Mittani?

I thought it was The Ego.

You can argue all you want about sandbox but if they wanted you to pvp in hi-sec they would not have Concord at all. Think about it.

As the author of the piece, I'm quite happy to publish on TheMittani, because I'm confident that there will not be any editorial interference concerning the theme and conclusions of my pieces, and I would recommend anyone who feels the urge to write something more substantial than an evanescent forum post to do the same. In the event that I submitted an article which was substantially changed by the editors, I'd instantly repudiate it and post the original piece everywhere I could. As the editors are surely aware.

Care to put the article here so we are not forced to visit that trash website?

Oh please OP, you can't compare EA's DICE with CCP, CCP actually you know...cares about their audience about 10 times more.
EA DICE "promised" to deliver a game that's better than BF2/2142 w/mods but what we got was a generic "cod-ified" fps with a low skill ceiling.
-3d spotting
-very small maps for run n gun(or rather spray and pray)
-overpowered lockon weapons that lets solo engineers win vs tanks 1v1( i was in top 3% for tanks)
-no commander
-small squads
-no VOIP(seriously...)
-suppression that makes your bullets go everywhere BUT the target
-metro map(oh god the horrible corridor) that was "the most played"
- full kit/vehicle/everything unlocks with $$$$

So as you can see....CCP are so much better than DICE and you are just overreacting. It's not as if the upcoming expansion lets you buy an additional highslot with $ for a DD or something.

The difference is that BF3 was targeted at the "new*coughcodcough" audience and old players were lied to with a straight face. It's not like CCP promised to make a game as you imagined it to be and then released a poor version of it.

Eve isn't getting dumbed down as much as BF3, it's just getting more appealing to new players by looking less confusing. Core mechanics are still the same as when I started in 2007(well, mostly :P).


What upcoming changes are you actually worried about ?
Tyvm for providing the link, Im glad that mordor is still alive and well.

It isn't very often that i agree with the Mitanni, but i have to take my hat off... Well written and i enjoyed reading it throughout.

Except that by saying GÇ£this is how EVE works, and if you want to play it, you need to consider this fundamental design decisionGÇ¥ you are indeed saying how the game is meant to be played.

The example of the miner being an extreme example but certainly possible. He chooses to mine but can't undock without being suicide ganked. So what can he do? Hire mercs? Try and fight back?

It's not beyond anyone's control if they have the isk (or rather the willingness to lose isk) and manpower.

UFC, boxing, hockey, soccer, foot ball. All fine examples of real world pvp. Some kid pushing around a smaller (most likely lower grade) kid at school. A fine example of bullying.

You say that you assume the risks when you log in but I say you only assume such risks when you enter .4 or lower sec space.

Highsec is all about PvP GÇö if it weren't, it simply wouldn't be allowed. CCP has gone to extreme length to allow for combat in highsec

Erm, I think you read a different piece than the one I intended.

Yeah, i have honestly no idea how it happened unless i just took so long to write all this that by the time i submitted the post the thread got moved and put me in another one XD.

What "message" do you think I was "on"?

You failed to explicitly accuse Mittens and Goonswarm of literally killing and eating babies in real life, therefore you're A STOOGE AND PUPPET

It was a good read, im surprised :P.

Good read, Malcanis. Thanks for sharing it.

What "message" do you think I was "on"?

Mara Rinn is of the school of "literally everything about TM.com serves no purpose other than to advance the cause of the CFC with no exception". Trouble is, your article didn't strongly lean towards any one side of any imagined conflict. This leaves her at a loss of words to fit your article into that narrative, so she's asking you to give her one instead (she asked me what "agenda" the article was pushing on Twitter as well).

Also, how do articles about Planetside, Mechwarrior or WoT advance the CFC? Or am I being naive here?

Also, how do articles about Planetside, Mechwarrior or WoT advance the CFC? Or am I being naive here?

I never said it made sense ;)

That's how it goes, though. It was published on a site named after Mittens, therefore it must be purely to advance the CFC or its narrative in some way or another. Any attempt to explain otherwise just makes you "one of them".

Now we may be moving into the realm of splitting hairs in semantics.


Real world, the saying goes... your right to swing your fist ends at my face. Unless, of course, we're in the boxing ring (or MMA octagon).

If my play style is carebear, and your play style is PVP, then "no interferance with each other's play styles" would dictate that your right to PVP ends at my ship, unless I step into the ring.... that is, low/null sec.

Now, I would not go nearly that far, since I realize there are limited resources that even carebears are going after. How am I going to pay for my army of alt by mining fatty belts, if you have mined up all the belts and bought up all the PLEX from the market to fund your army of alts. AND, if I'm getting too big for my britches... moving around billions of ISK worth of goods in a freighter, and not even scouting and using the friendly web trick... well... I should get blown up for profit.

I actually pretty much like EVE as it is. High sec relatively, but not totally safe. Revitalize low sec with FW. Strong null sec.

What EVE needs is more PVPers that are content to PVP with other players that enjoy PVPing, and fewer sociopaths that want to blow up the ships of carebears.

What's the matter griefer? Can't win a fight against someone that is ready and looking to fight back, so have to take out your frustration by beating up on the people that are not ready for, not looking for a fight?

Pathetic losers, those people are.


Oh... look at me... I'm such an awesome PVPer that I logged off in a belt during a war, then put an out of corp, cloaked up alt in the belt. When a WT came in, I used the out of corp alt to bump the WT while I logged in my PVP toon, and blew up the defenseless miner....

Did you do it to prevent them from mining the belts so you could mine them instead? Nope... just wanted to pad my kill board sats with easy kills to inflate my epeen, and to feast on tasty carebear tears....

Sociopath!

I prefer to think of it as a convenient and excellent example.

Since your piece was "on message" the editors let it through. And since you didn't publish elsewhere and have your article syndicated, people must read it on that site, driving up page views, putting other articles in front of curious eyes, ensuring that the rest of the message gets received.

See, propaganda can work even without the assistance of the writers.

That would be rather disrespectful. Also, your request is nonsensical; by definition if the article is worth reading, the website isn't trash. I suggest you put your silly prejudices away and read it, since the article is very relevant to you. Also you're doing yourself a disservice, since most of the articles on TM are rather good in my opinion.

EDIT: You can use adblocker to remove the banner if the name really irks you so badly. But growing up and realising that you're over-reacting might serve better.

I refuse to visit a website named after a guy who encouraged the player base to harass a guy into killing himself in real life. Forgive me if I have morals. For those who are unaware, here is what I am talking about:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VbYNLmtAMAw&playnext=1&list=PL8D0C03D958222921&feature=results_video

Change the name of the website to something else, preferably unbias and I will visit it. Of course I am sure most of you will laugh at me not visiting, but there are tons of people who do not venture to a website named after a cyber bully. Deal with it.

Change the name of the website to something else, preferably unbias and I will visit it.

Forgive me if I have morals.

I refuse to visit a website named after a guy who encouraged the player base to harass a guy into killing himself in real life. Forgive me if I have morals. For those who are unaware, here is what I am talking about:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VbYNLmtAMAw&playnext=1&list=PL8D0C03D958222921&feature=results_video

Change the name of the website to something else, preferably unbias and I will visit it. Of course I am sure most of you will laugh at me not visiting, but there are tons of people who do not venture to a website named after a cyber bully. Deal with it.

Pet peeve time.

Why should they rename the site to GÇ£unbiasGÇ¥. It doesn't make much sense and isn't even a proper verb.

"the mittani is a MURDERER (he told a guy to kill himself! OMG) he should not be allowed to do things like run a site"

I refuse to visit a website named after a guy who encouraged the player base to harass a guy into killing himself in real life. Forgive me if I have morals. For those who are unaware, here is what I am talking about:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VbYNLmtAMAw&playnext=1&list=PL8D0C03D958222921&feature=results_video

Change the name of the website to something else, preferably unbias and I will visit it. Of course I am sure most of you will laugh at me not visiting, but there are tons of people who do not venture to a website named after a cyber bully. Deal with it.

Real world, the saying goes... your right to swing your fist ends at my face. Unless, of course, we're in the boxing ring (or MMA octagon).

If my play style is carebear, and your play style is PVP, then "no interferance with each other's play styles" would dictate that your right to PVP ends at my ship, unless I step into the ring.... that is, low/null sec.

Now, I would not go nearly that far, since I realize there are limited resources that even carebears are going after. How am I going to pay for my army of alt by mining fatty belts, if you have mined up all the belts and bought up all the PLEX from the market to fund your army of alts. AND, if I'm getting too big for my britches... moving around billions of ISK worth of goods in a freighter, and not even scouting and using the friendly web trick... well... I should get blown up for profit.

I actually pretty much like EVE as it is. High sec relatively, but not totally safe. Revitalize low sec with FW. Strong null sec.

What EVE needs is more PVPers that are content to PVP with other players that enjoy PVPing, and fewer sociopaths that want to blow up the ships of carebears.

What's the matter griefer? Can't win a fight against someone that is ready and looking to fight back, so have to take out your frustration by beating up on the people that are not ready for, not looking for a fight?

Pathetic losers, those people are.


Oh... look at me... I'm such an awesome PVPer that I logged off in a belt during a war, then put an out of corp, cloaked up alt in the belt. When a WT came in, I used the out of corp alt to bump the WT while I logged in my PVP toon, and blew up the defenseless miner....

Did you do it to prevent them from mining the belts so you could mine them instead? Nope... just wanted to pad my kill board sats with easy kills to inflate my epeen, and to feast on tasty carebear tears....

Sociopath!

I refuse to visit a website named after a guy who encouraged the player base to harass a guy into killing himself in real life. Forgive me if I have morals. For those who are unaware, here is what I am talking about:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VbYNLmtAMAw&playnext=1&list=PL8D0C03D958222921&feature=results_video

Change the name of the website to something else, preferably unbias and I will visit it. Of course I am sure most of you will laugh at me not visiting, but there are tons of people who do not venture to a website named after a cyber bully. Deal with it.

I actually can understand Marlona Sky's concerns. I don't normally visit the site linked in the OP in part due to the bias it blatantly promotes and in part due to its name, which sends a message of approval for Mr. Gianturco's actions.

Somehow the discussion of the article has stopped............and for the usual reasons.

Gee, thanks Marlona for resurrecting the dead from April.

EDIT: Ever heard of "Let Go" and "Move On" ?

Besides, you went off topic by not discussing the article AND bringing up nonsense the AUTHOR was not even involved in that is absolutely irrelevant.

This was not a thread to air opinions of Alex. You did nothing but throw another Victory in that general direction. Congratulations.

The throuble with any society, be it real or virtual, is that members all too easily succumb to existentialist bad faith . An interesting read Malcanis, but I very much doubt it will change any of the entrenched viewpoints held within the game.

That involves an EVE-O and GD thing that has been in the works from the beginning. It's less a matter of what works in the end, the method remains the same. Derail to fail. Troll it, flame it, inject a more popular side topic. It's a derailing tactic and it sends threads off to the bottom.

The original link has a point to make. Motive. That's the tldr version. What motivates us to do anything in EVE?

Well written article. Could not have written better words on the topic myself.


So, once we have dispelled the Big Lie, where do we go from here?

I have cleaned the off-topic posts in this thread. Please keep discussion related to the article that was posted.

Not going to stick around in this thread with no content outside of a link that goes to a cyber bullies website.

EDIT: Forget about it. Not going to stick around in this thread with no content outside of a link that goes to a cyber bullies website.

Fly dangerously guys! o7

Putting aside this hardcore advertisement for this blog that is hungry for traffic, listening to a goon is like hammering your head. We are talking about whom exactly? The drunk fuk from the alliance panel of evefest 2012? The guy whom was not arrested but instead just banned for 30 days playing a online game? Yeah. Because CCP is listing this as funny and a player driven content.

The obvious is in dire need of friends in these parts.

For one, we're not listening to any goons, nor are we talking about any one guy. We're talking about a method of reasoning that is at once both poisonous and deeply fallacious.

If anything, and if you really want to make it about individuals, it's about you and the kind of thing you just wrote.

I have deleted some posts with inappropriate links in this thread.

As a goon agent you have deleted too much links and posts, same as : JihadSwarm

Keep deleting it, I will post it as many time as it takes. If it gets me banned here, I'm sure there will be plenty of other site interested in it.

Keep deleting it, I will post it as many time as it takes. If it gets me banned here, I'm sure there will be plenty of other site interested in it.

/bump

This post is too good to let languish on page two...

Run for CSM please, OP, thank you.

Ok.

[...]

I learned those when I was in school. They have been utterly dropped in any form of electronic communication the past 30 years.....as they are probably not taught.

[...]

Good read, but I think you need to add a footnote to section (4). Some people are just there to annoy, incite argument, and get their yucks at the discussion's expense. They may be completely logical people (most legitimate trolls are) but they will not allow their logic to be visible and will make posts that are incorrect or intentionally uninformed. Not everyone is wise to their game so these detractors may be obvious to some but not all of EVE's forum-goers.

The big lie is coined by ****** in mein kampf which he quoted at that trial to assert that the jew lie and...


Seriously, when are goons going to stop with their **** Germany love affair? Like spitting in the face of all WW2 vets that saved your country to afford you middle class suburban life to play EVE.

Which reminds me, mein kampf was propaganda to create their fascism, hey wait a minute, that is what goons and their leader mittens is afterall

I think you'll find that goons are far more enamoured of the symbology and launguage of revolutionary communism. Luckily, a piece has been written about this also!

You'd think but all I ever heard was jew this n word that and hatred against russians on goons mumble. Your propaganda is always based on WW2 Germany stuff not to mention your article bringing up the "big lie" which was used against jews by ***** is just one of many things you take from them.

There are so many quotes and good examples of what you wanted to say without quoting goering, but you guys pick that, which in reality does not fit with your argument when you know that the assertion of the big lie was a big lie by ******

Anyway, go back to your space game journalism, I await more drivel soon.

You're aware that I'm not a goon, and not even affiliated with them, right? They're not answerable for my rhetorical flourishes, and I'm not answerable for theirs.

Cant remember, who said it:

Mittani would be a pseudo-educated douchebag. [edit: it is malcanis] ok, so Mittani not even would say this. So we can dismiss the attribut "pseudo-educated". Still the text is just trival generalisation. It costs the writer nothing. Admitting - say - HBC/CFC leadership runs a campagne vs AAA to demonize them and to manipulate their own little grunts like - say - Goebbels, that would cost something.

The article doesn't even describe the Big Lie, it describes the Fundamental Attribution Error and the Ultimate Attribution Error.

The article doesn't even describe the Big Lie, it describes the Fundamental Attribution Error and the Ultimate Attribution Error.

Yes, but those are weaksauce titles for an article

I can't even find that quote to exist that you mention in your article, so far only Goebbels quoting ****** of the big lie from mein kampf seem to exist. I guess you wanted to quote ****** and not goering?

I don't see a quote. I do see a short explanation of what the big lie was, but that's about it.

Maybe you should get over yourself and move on.

Off-topic posting is not allowed.

Off-topic posts are not prohibited but should be posted within reason. Excessive off-topic posts that derail a thread may result in the thread being locked.