GǪexcept that insurance does not cover the loss. The consequence stands.
If they maintain a -10, you kill them. Either way, it's a consequence he has to deal with, just like with the kill rights. You accept that one, so you have to accept the standing as a consequence as well.
If they enjoy spending time ruining people's day, then not being able to do that is most certainly a harsh consequence, no?

Lets see if you can ignore my alliance tag for long enough to make a coherent point.

Why does the ratio need to favor the gankee over the ganker?

In short, you're failing the burden of proof of your own argument. You state that this ratio favors the gankers but you fail to state why this is actually a problem and why it should be considered such.

ok, we'll give you an invincible police force that instajams and neuts as soon as it shows up on the field, will show up within 20 seconds at the outer end, and destroys the ganker 100% of the time

there, problem solved

We lose our HonouR

Just like how the victimes always think that someone who condones ganks is a ganker.

I hope they do it just so you guys can cry even more when it doesn't stop people from blowing up your exhumers.

You seem to be posting an awful lot about this proposal you know won't make any difference Tippia

The only people in denial are the people who think removing insurance payouts from ships lost to concord will stop them from getting ganked. I don't care if the insurance gets removed...the wailing from pubbies and the reimbursement and bounties from my alliance will more than make up for it.