I could say it until I'm blue in the face.

So you, too, want CONCORD removed?

Arena=10 Times more Destruction.

No I never said anything about removing Concord - why would I?

Regardless though, a criminal expecting a payout from their insurance company while committing a crime, ridiculous.

I doubt it. Mostly because you lack a clear referent, but also because whatever it is, you haven't even been able to say it once so far.

Because you wanted to use realism as an argument for how insurance is handled when you start to tangle with the law enforcement. The same realism would lead us to making CONCORD almost two orders of magnitude slower to react, making them very easy to destroy, making them ridiculously easy to evade, and making them not destroy ships as a default action to begin with.

In effect, you're asking for CONCORD retribution to be removed because the nasty ebil ganker will not be around when they arrive.
Just as ridiculous as having an insta-teleporting, insta-gibbing, omniscient, unkillable, unavoidable police force. What's good for the goose is good for the gander GÇö remove one, and the other should go as well.

No I did not ask for Concord retribution to be removed

Most police forces I have heard of are NOT "easy to destroy and ridiculously easy to evade".

You are correct in one thing, a police force usually does not try to destroy your vehicle. They incarcerate you instead.

So where is that link on disincentivised?

Again, that is the result of asking for realism in this area. Whether you ask for it explicitly or not, it comes as a direct consequence of what you are asking for.
Sure they are. You run away before they get there. Or you stick around and shoot them in the face GÇö they're humans and react pretty poorly to this, as humans in general do. So they should be about as easy to destroy as the target you just ganked.
GǪif they know who you are and where you are. This is not always the case.
How can you not have a link you provided yourself? I've heard about senile, but thisGǪ

I provided the link?

Yes. Posts 37 and 45.

He posted no links in the posts you claim he did.

He's just being a little troll

pot calling kettle black?

Wow you are nuts. The way you post is making more sense... you don't really take time to comprehend or read thoroughly.

He posted no links in the posts you claim he did.

In those posts, he mentioned two particular sites that will help him get what he wants. He already knows of the sites and how to use them. He already has the links he needs GÇö in fact, he was the one who provided them.

He's just being a little troll by going Gǣoh, I looked and didn't find anythingGǥ, as proven by the fact that if he had looked, he would have found it using the sites he himself mentionedGǪ

*sigh*

Protip: don't feed the troll! If you ignore it, hopefully it'll go away.

He mentioned site names in his posts, you kept talking about his posting links.

Not really interested in your games.

I still can't find those links I provided.

No. I said he provided the links.

It might be better if you used the proper word, especially if you're trying to make someone look stupid for whatever need you have to do that.
Not really a game GÇö just pointing out the conclusion of your line of reasoning.
Put another way: why is realism desirable in one case and not the other?
Posts 37 and 45.

Relentless trolling?

There are no links in those posts.

Why?

Indeed you are. Is it because you ran out of invented claims, or because you were called on to back them up or couldn't?
Try reading them. You mention two sites: google and lmgtfy. You lied and said you had used them (or at least google, but since the two have the same results, it makes no difference). Try doing it for real this time, using the sites you proposed. Suddenly trying to act as if you are unable to read and/or understand your own posts only further highlights the ridiculous lies you invented previously and how easily they were exposed for having no basis in reality.

Now, do you want to keep trolling and generally posting off topic nonsense, or do you want to present some kind of argument as to why insurance should be removed from criminal acts?

[quote=Adunh Slavy]You risk not finding a suitable target. You risk finding an intelligent target (so your gank failes)GǪ granted, that risk is very tiny because gank victims are stupid as hell, but stillGǪ. You risk angering the Randum Number God and get a T2 Suitcase out of the whole deal. Assuming you do it legally, you either risk missing the juicy targets while you grind your sec status back up, or you risk being shot down while travelling to the target.

How about if I take out insurance on drones and hybrid ammo then?

Respectfully tippia.....bullshit. It is a zero risk proposition. And your constant arguments to the contrary are ridiculous.

Yes it does. It also suggests the correct spelling.

I didn't lie.

Those aren't posted links either

You read my arguments and came back with the almighty, "why?" time and time again.

Btw disincentivised doesn't bring up hits in Google.

Even then it's slang.