Theres your first mistake

Also lately PvP have been handed a treat that will ruin many people's living... namely implants in killmails, which mean that now there will be a serious reason to pod everyone, with or without a ransom.

It's very simple: people keep claiming that ganking has no risk, without considering what it is that creates this situation. What generates Gǣno riskGǥ for gankers is that they mitigate those risks and they accept a drastic reduction of income. They ensure that the target is weak enough; that it carries enough to conceivably turn a profit; that the ship they use gets maximum oomph for the money (because no, insurance does not cover the cost). And then they waitGǪ and waitGǪ and wait for something that fits the profile. While waiting, they're losing income.

So the question is: why is it to blasphemous to suggest that the self-proclaimed victims do the same? Why can't they accept a loss of income just like the gankers do? Why can't they mitigate their risks by carrying sensible loads and protecting them and scouting for possible targets? It's not that ganking has no risk and hauling/mining/whatever has all the risk GÇö it's that one party choose to mitigate their risks and accept a reduction if efficiency whereas the other chooses not to (and then refuses to blame themselves for the choices they made GÇö it has to be someone else's fault). Stop suffering from such epic grades of entitlement-itis and start doing what the GÇ£other sideGÇ£ is doing! They're doing it for a reason, you knowGǪ

Your entirement argument is flawed based on the assumption that both sides have an equal opportunity to mitigate their risks and costs. News flash it's not. It's not even close.

It has nothing to do with entitlement-itis or whatever nonsense you wish to label it.

Most of the easily gankable targets in game are simply unable to field any form of defense that can't be worked over in short order by 2 brutix BC's.

Your position that suicide ganking isn't risk free is laughable. Risk from what?

It's risk free in a practical sense and you know it. That's why they do it. Sure it can occasionally be profitable

Also lately PvP have been handed a treat that will ruin many people's living... namely implants in killmails, which mean that now there will be a serious reason to pod everyone, with or without a ransom. Good-bye piracy, btw.

wouldn't the same need to apply to both sides equally? (The point you missed.)

Why don't they have to accept some cost v reward? Why shouldn't they fit their ships or be active when transporting cargo, in order to mitigate the chance of being ganked? Surely the same economic argument should apply?

At the moment the gankee takes all the risk/loss, and the ganker gets the reward. That is fundamentally borked.

The 'victims' have to accept the loss. I argue that gankers should face the very same risk vs reward requirement.[/quote}They do. People just don't see it because the gankers are good at mitigating their risks (which comes at a cost that the victims don't see) and because the image of what they gain is skewed by the big-headline heists.
[quote]A system requiring that suicide ganking be economically viable doesn't eliminate the risk.

The inherently easily gankable targets are also inherently uninteresting targets unless their pilots do something stupid, such as turning them into loot pi+¦atas. They can trivially mitigate their risks by not being stupid. The commonly ganked targets, on the other hand, can protect themselves quite nicely, even more so if you actually take the time to fly them. Not only do they still have the option of not being stupid GÇö they can also be clever and mitigate it further by applying the additional options these ships offer.

you still have your logic module broken?