Eve Terrorist
The Skunkworks
Petition Blizzard
13
   |
Posted - 2013.03.09 03:27:00 -
[1] - Quote
TheGunslinger42 wrote:Jinrai Tremaine wrote:Rex Aparte wrote:In my opinion, I'm surprised you think ganking isn't pvp. Not to say it is "leet" pvp, but pvp nonetheless. It is just profitable pvp, what it is used for is irrelevant. This is mostly just semantics, but for me the "vs" in "Player vs Player" implies the possibility of the target fighting back, which I see as absent from suicide ganking. In my experience, usually every step is taken to ensure that the target will not be able to offer any resistance; ship scans to make sure their tank is beatable, targeting ships which cannot shoot back such as freighters and, yes, targeting players who are unlikely to be at their keyboard to respond like AFK miners or autopiloting haulers. Player versus player does not mean fair and balanced, or that the other party has a good chance at fighting back, it means what it says on the tin: One player doing something that has an effect on another player. Simple. Trying to play dumb semantic games to claim it isn't PVP is something I consider a bit dishonest. Ripard knows that if he flat out said he's against certain types of PVP he'd be a laughing stock, so instead he tried to claim it wasn't PVP (and was instead more like **** or slavery) to try and make it seem like his disagreeing with it was more valid, and to try and paint it as something which everyone should inherently be against.
It's much like my bio says:
'What is called terrorism,' Brian Jenkins has written, 'thus seems to depend on one's point of view. Use of the term implies a moral judgment; and if one party can successfully attach the label terrorist to its opponent, then it has indirectly persuaded others to adopt its moral viewpoint.' Hence the decision to call someone or label some organization terrorist becomes almost unavoidably subjective, depending largely on whether one sympathizes with or opposes the person/group/cause concerned. If one identifies with the victim of the violence, for example, then the act is terrorism. If, however, one identifies with the perpetrator, the violent act is regarded in a more sympathetic, if not positive (or, at the worst, an ambivalent) light; and it is not terrorism. |