Probably around the time you explain what the problem isGǪ

Less snark: when the mechanics stop working as intended. It's really as simple as that.

Looks like the OP was bumped by a neutral Macheriel so he/she couldn't get back to gate. The DEVs don't consider this an exploit.

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=199310&find=unread


And FYI... CCP will not take any action based on evidence provided by a player. It's easy to falsify.

The video is from an alt in corp to the freighter as far as I could tell. I would have webbed my freighter whilst trying to bump the machs

He hasn't made an effort to move to another location, and they weren't following him around, so no.

How is he being completely disabled? And no, all kind of harassment must be judged on a case-by-case basis. Not that bumping someone away from a gate qualifiesGǪ

Or you underestimated your own paranoia.

I think my explanation is likelier than yours

Unless the OP is bumped by the same people no matter where he/she goes despite being unprofitable... the OP has no case.

tl;dr... computers and coding are actually quite "stupid" and can't reason. You also can't create or alter a blanket mechanic that affects so many things in the game without creating numerous exceptions and/or creating new, unforeseen consequences that will also be abused.

freighter ganking is obviously fine

he had the option to wait out the aggression timer (without which this tactic doesn't work GÇö if he had none, he didn't even need that); he had an hour to it all in order, which means the gankers ****** up somehow, but that he ****** up even more in playing into their hands.

GǪin other words, they're pretty much useless for these kinds of judgement calls.

GǪexcept that we're talking about GM evaluations of player actions and the intent behind those actions, not a computer simulation. So no, computers would be pretty much useless for these kinds of judgement calls.

Confirming TQ needs to mine data that it logs itself. It's not totally busy running a submarine sim.

You also made an amazing statement: That data mining itself would mimic human judgement.

It won't.

It will just create metadata.

Yet, they are. I mean, you can keep saying "no, they're not" but you've misunderstood what you're asking them to define, and so do not understand why you're wrong on this.

Bumping with malicious intent is fine, so what use would a simulation that showed whether it was accidental or deliberate be?

No, metadata is just data about data. It's still two steps of refinement away from actionable knowledge.

the fact that the categorization of data is not the result you're trying to mimic.

I, too, want a game that is barely functional with more than 2 people on grid because the server is logging every facet of every interaction

in the vain hope that one day heuristic analysis will be good enough to accurately determine human intent.

You're arguing something that is so removed from possibility that there's no logical objection someone can have to it.

The old addage is true here: If a computer is good at it, humans are bad at it. If a human is good at it, computers are bad at it"

No, my understanding of classification simply matches what we're talking about (the legitimacy of bumping). You could expand it, but then you'd be talking about something completely different and there would be even less reason to automate the decision-making. Nice attempt at moving the goalposts, though.

Judgement calls about harassment go beyond mere data. They're inherently case-by-case decisions, which are much better left to humans since they can judge intent and moderate their response as appropriate. That's where you went wrong from the very start: by assuming that it's a binary decision.

Hmmm it actually more interesting for me what he is using in the second video he posted here: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=254190

Can someone explain me what happens after 2 minutes and 40 seconds?
If i see this correctly the autopilot says "initiate warp to gate"
and then seconds later his noobship lands at 0 on the gate....and jumps through...

I smell warp to 0 autopilot exploit....

Here the link if you are too lazy to click the post :P http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aNZk7jBG7Ww

No. Implying that there is no classes, and (deliberately) no defined association to responses because both of those are better left to the non-binary adjudication of the human mind. Implying that action, reception and response are all subjective GÇö and that the devs explicitly wish to keep it that way so they can maintain a high degree of freedom, discretion, and not create any kind of ruleset that can will be gamed.

Read the rest of my post.

Not being afk and not auto piloting helps. Much harder to get you then.

Not as easy as you think, no. It's pretty tricky, but if pulled off correctly, then they basically got all their ducks in a row, so yeah, they deserve the kill.

And if we want to depart from the whole "solo" nonsense, if you double web a freighter, they align MUCH faster.

Also, use an Orca because it has better tank, for small(er) m3 amounts.

I'm curious what you think the problem is...

Honestly, how hard is it to not put 20 billion in the hold to start with?

The stupid are everywhere.

[tl;dr: ganking is so haaaaaaaaard]

whining about getting ganked, is probably not the guy who needs to be calling someone bad.

I do get a bit of kick seeing how mad I appear to make you.

So please, let us continue.

All of those were profitable to gank and none of them were empty. We happen to be fighting a little war.

Then, by all means, silence.

Its not, we are targeting enemy alts.

and as how the attack costs the attackers a sizeable chunk of cash, there is no problem.

If you think determining the human intention behind the events that occur in this game are trivial then you are the one who doesn't "get computer science".

1M per person also doesn't generate any kind of income, so yes, you're looking at an ever-growing loss, which quickly ends up being a sizeable chunk of cash.

You're right, it doesn't. Because according to the defined dev posts and precedent, bumping someone to gank them is not actionable. In any way, shape, or form. It's within the rules, and totally allowable as a recognized tactic.

So yeah, it doesn't matter here. All of this thread is a non issue.

It does when the job that has to be done is determining intent.

Not at 1M a pop, no.

The precedent? Easily, it's a sticky on C&P.

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=199310&find=unread

Highlights:




Bolded emphasis mine.

Unfortunately, no. That's exactly the case.

I wouldn't build a 200dps catalyst to begin with since it would be too weak.

If it requires that they sacrifice a ship every X minutes to keep the PvP flag on and thus prevent the random warp out on logoffski, then that's not really different from any other aggressive action that would lock you down like a scram or point.

Quite possibly, yes.

Uh-huh. 200k EHP delivered in ~15 seconds by 29 ships Gëá less than 200 DPS.

Sure it is. The fact that you can't think of a scenario rather proves the inability to automate it in the fashion you're suggesting. How do you propose that the data mining should uncover hitherto unknown facts about the bumper and bumpee that makes it a clear case of non-harassment even though they've been running into each other constantly for months?

You mean the killmail that 1) only records raw HP, not EHP and 2) is notoriously inaccurate in measuring HP damage delivered?

An Obelisk has 200k EHP against blasters. The DPS required is in the region of 500, which means we're looking at T2 equipment, which means we end up in the 5GÇô10M region depending on how close you dare to cut it and how you boost the damage.

1M doesn't even buy you the hull.

So your data sifting tool includes an Eliza implementation now? InterestingGǪ

The thought process of all three parties factor in. I assure you right back.

GǪreferring to which part, exactly?

GǪor you can try not to alter the numbers. 200k / 29 / 15 = 460 + margin to make sure you get it done = 500.

GǪand minerals you mine yourself are free. Except, you know, not. So it's just over 1M.

So: how do you propose that the data mining should uncover hitherto unknown facts about the bumper and bumpee that makes it a clear case of non-harassment even though they've been running into each other constantly for months?

The part where they made multiple suicide runs.

It's a ballpark of the actual number (13 seconds) plus/minus a two second error margin from server tick timings. So: 15 seconds. Or even as low as 11.

GǪthat would give us 630 DPS by the way.

You are cluless about what the phrase signifies, just saying. So: a bit over 1M per hull minimum; closer to 1.4 if you buy in bulk.

Care to actually have a go at that (post 105) or are you going to keep claiming it's possible whilst ignoring clear stated evidence it's not?

You're still missing the point anyway - you're disagreeing with the rules as posted which doesn't mean any change in enforcing those rules would lead to any different outcomes, unless you change the rules.

GǪand the whole counterpoint is that it misses out on the part that lets humans do what humans do: investigating and judging close calls.

No, I mean 70% reduction, because that's what's required for the wildly inaccurate HP number on the killmail to be correct. In short, the number on the killmail is GÇö as always GÇö unreliable in preeeeetty much every way. Oh, and the gankers still need the 500 DPS because no-one plans on having to do it in two runs. If you want to calculate it that way, then congratulations, the price just went up to 10GÇô20M per ganker. We're getting further and further away from the initially (incorrectly) estimate of 1M.

You mean the table that says 7 seconds for a 0.8 + 6 seconds for off-grid CONCORD -¦1 for each event due to sync-to-tick errors? 7+6-¦2 = 11GÇô15.

You evidently didn't get the meaning of what I said.

Wilful ignorance is not humorous.

So how much do you have to spend on the destroyers to get your guaranteed kill?

You had an alt there watching it happen and by your own account you had over an hour to get out. Next time just bring your alt with a webbing ship and web your freighter so you can warp out in only a few seconds.

I'm using the three things that are clear: an Obelisk in a 0.8 system against 29 Catalysts. Those are the conditions that matter.

Not really, no. It's one of the best-known (and most effective) counters you have as a freighter pilot.

No. We were discussing the OP all along, since that's the topic of the thread and since that's where the numbers come from. Trying to suddenly change them into something else is quite silly.

Since I am being lenient, in reference to:
I will ask you to cite one example of a computer program achieving 95% confidence in assessing intent from datamining. Key to this will be it's ability to distinguish between identical sets of data which one is the offending article. Remember: to not be able to do this is to fail the condition that you can't change the rules to suit your analysis technique.

Feel free to link to any pay-walled journal article if necessary; I have access to near all of them.

Time and effort are also metrics by which CCP judge balance. You're forgetting the largest parts of the investment.

I don't have to imagine. It's quite easy, and if they get the weird sly smirk, you know something has clicked GÇö they've finally grasped EVE.

No. I can and will base my numbers just fine on what the gankers plan for: a single run that will be enough to kill a freighter in the 15 seconds allotted.

Uh no, they aren't. Computers can compute, and they can do it really well. They can't come up with solutions of their own to the more broad-reaching types of problems that humans face.

They can't, for example, determine intent or what would constitute harassment.

- Show a computer model that shows intent *
- Do so without changing the conditions of the rules **
- As a bonus, your "best example" achieves 90% accuracy and the banks openly admit this merely flags the account, it doesn't act as a judge.

The "you can show journals" line was a ploy, by the way - it demonstrates you're basically just hacking at google searches and don't really know what research is being done in the area. I've read recent developments in heuristic analysis and I can tell you we're 10's of years and a leap in computing technology away from doing what you want.

Quantum state computing is essentially a pre-requisite for the kind of pattern analysis you're looking for, by the way. Not sure what the cost of those was 40 years ago because they don't exist today.

Or, to put it in other terms - what you're asking for is several **orders of magnitude** more complex than being able to predict every share price rise and fall for the next 12 months.

Oh, and your article isn't even about credit card fraud .... I missed that you claimed that. Actually being able to predict whether a single transaction is fraudulent or not would be a multi-billion dollar breakthough.

You know what ... I missed a trick. It's been so long that someone was blind enough to simply say "the stats are right because the stats show it" that I forgot the most simple, most basic tenet of this type of mathematical analysis:

Correlation does not equal causation.

In context - data showing someone was being bumped for X times over Y locations does not, and cannot, tell you why.

We need to know the why, because we punish based on the why.

The rules are, that it's against the rules when the intent is to greif - it's not against the rules when the intent isn't to grief. Since the actual rule we're talking about enforcing wavers on someone's interpretation of someone else's intent - it is more than central to the argument; it is the entire argument. Showing that the intent was to grief and not valid gameplay is what makes it against the rules. Maybe you will lightbulb here and go "oh ****, yeah, I was thinking of something else" but you will likely instead grit your teeth and continue to argue black is blue.

I've demonstrated an ability to grasp the subject at a level far exceeding yours. You'll get no-where trying the "I know so much I can't tell you!" line - try me. Link anything you want. Any source. Anything at all that shows that causation can be determined mathematically by correlation.

I mean, I have asked three times for a single tangible piece of evidence that computer models can accurately determine intent, and you've failed 4 times in coming up with anything.

Kind of - insofar as you simply **can't** do what you want with computer technology as it exists so you would need to construct some manner of pseudo-pattern recognition to get around your inability to measure the data you require. It should be noted this is merely my "best guess" at how one would try to achieve something which is essentially not possible.
The current leading edge in this area is a kind-of multi-tiered pattern analysis, which is many steps below what you need to model the actual why of the origin of the data. Again, with your data-mining to measure causality approach, this is vis-a-vis to intent.

I don't. No-one does. It's a potential application of a technology not yet invented. Which is why you're reaching so far it's laughable.

Orders of magnitude past a task we can't perform with current technology is not "easy" - what are you smoking?

There is no numerical line. There is no duration after which is is harassment, and before which it is not. This is the fundamental mistake you are making over, and over again.
It is "harassment" when CCP conclude the actions taken were with the intent to harass.

Again, you need to show intent. There is nothing you can ever say which will stop this being true, so stop trying.

My argument is that to determine intent, you need to be able to determine intent.

I could very well say it needs to probably wait until Bio-mimetic gel takes the leap from science fiction to science fact, because that's no further from the truth. You can toss barbs at my terminology all you want - you're still ignoring that I have completely floored the central tenet of your argument and you're just engaging in some semantic **** flinging.

Yeah, that's not relevant to passing a knowledge threshold though, which is the very problem I have outlined multiple times and you've failed to show anything for.

- Show any computer analysis technique that is able to take identical data-sets and classify them based on the external circumstances that caused them to be in different groups.

why should a freighter be allowed to disappear from space in 30 seconds at the first sign of danger?

You're looking at this the complete wrong way - logging off shouldn't be an encouraged outcome for any scenario.

But actually ... with adequate data-mining we can say with a very small margin of error whether this disconnect is pure coincidence or is statistically likely to be motivated by the aggression flag.

The bumping didn't in any way hamper the logoff. If you instead mean the aggression timer - well it impacts the logoff conditions of every ship in space. That is to say, everyone at all times.

It's pretty significant.

He usually does. I find it's a common tactic when faced with something irrefutable.

You infer incorrectly, and you are aware therof.

You are faced with several points that you cannot refute, and thus you dissemble.

You can't just wait for a few pages to go by and then pretend that didn't happen.

Again friend, I'm not sure you realise how juvenile "I know the answer but can't tell you" appears to be.

readers of the thread who might, you know, think it really weird you would rather spend, by now, nearly 5000 words telling someone why they can't take 30 seconds pasting a URL.

banging your head against a wall frequently described by its peers as 'slow'

He didn't mention that they were keeping him aggressed. Because it didn't happen.

Funny, it looks like no damage was done by that ship. Guessing they scrammed him, which, once again, is legitimate gameplay(and would have required them to refit).

Oh, and I notice, with some degree of amusement, that his video was removed. No doubt because it contained information that did not support the "facts" of the case.

intent.

Waaah waaah ccp I'm incompetent and want to solo an mmo save me from a coordinated group of players so I don't have to get help waaaah waaah.

Moving **** is solo play defending yourself from people that want to blow your stuff up isn't.

hey I'm moving stuff in my freighter can any of you bros scout me with a highsec alt.

Bumping with the intent to harass is against the rules.

no computer analysis has been able to form a judgement on issues of mens rea.

That's intent to bump (do the action) - whereas I'm referring to the intent to cause harassment through the actions. It can be commonly used as a noun or adjective, or in other forms in context. Your semantic dodging is rather silly.

An example ruling "Player A harassed Player B"

If two players are identically bumping for an hour each, it is fully possible for one player to be breaking the rules, and the other not to be.

contextual information in this case is generally going to be chatlogs. feel free to show how you can datamine harassment from those

The brain is not a digital computer. At least, not in the traditional sense. There's quite a bit of evidence that suggests that the human brain (and indeed that of many or even most animals that have a central nervous system) is more analogous to a quantum computer.

That the player claims to feel harassed does not make the actions that led to him making that claim harassment.

Therefore, CCP look at the facts and try to make a determination of the players intent - was he intending to make ISK or satisfy any tangible in-game goals doing this, or was he doing it just to harass the person?

Well OK, now we're getting to the nuts and bolts of it - the discussion I asked to have with you countless posts ago.

Alternately, you can demonstrate similar techniques used in very similar applications and argue they can be applied.

I have demonstrated that scenarios can exist where identical server logs can lead to different judgement-based outcomes, based on contextual information that the server doesn't log.

you're going to have to demonstrate the ability of a machine to accurately read a written language.

This is at least a start, I guess. I'll offer a hint: CCP have said that certain actions can be against the rules - how is that determined?

If this is "easy" in the same way everything else you say is "easy" - then what you really mean is "yeah, there's kinda some research in the area, it's being improved on but is yet to reach statistical significance" ... then I think we've proven that when you say something is "easy" what you mean is "potentially possible in the future" and I think we can leave it there.

Which is still demonstrably untrue, now even more so since you have proven several elements of any such data-mining task would be unable to achieve statistical significance.

In EvE, players raise petitions when something like this happens, so there is no need to have a massive data analysis tool running around and repeating that task.

Yes, but this is just you (once again) seemingly clinging onto the dream of what might be and (for some reason) claiming it would be trivial to implement.

Just two years ago, one of the world's leading tech companies, with a massive budget, produced a highly specific algorithm, running on a supercomputer, for answering knowledge-based questions in a clear unbroken and expected format. The reason you know about it, the reason I know about it, is because it is/was a computing breakthrough.

You claimed that going WAY beyond the scope of Watson was possible 30-40 years ago.

Do you have any idea why you are being pointed and laughed at?

CCP GMs specifically mentioned this concept with regards to how they determine whether the intent of the player was to harass

The paper from a scientific measurement POV, was simply "we can kinda analyse this a little bit, here is one possible analysis technique that does a little better. Yep, it did better! Still can't tell us harassment from non-harassment in a manner which is statistically significant, though"

The problem will be your sample for the instance in question will, in effect, be a small sample and be over-ruled by the individual biases that would otherwise be smoothed out in a larger dataset.

What is hard to classify is singular data points, wherein you can only make a judgement call and "know it when you see it".

Bwhatever

[Study I claimed was statistically insignificant went well beyond the significance threshold]

If you want to sit around pontificating over whether such a study could possibly achieve better if not for the limitations in the method, then find me such.

when speaking on the subject of "determining harassment by text-mining is easy" you linked a study which literally states "determining harassment by text-mining (even with other data supporting it) is not easy".

I'm laughing at your superior intellect.

The irony here being, that a large part of the meaning of the short story can be taken as an argument at how absurd it is to try to prove a negative - something this S Byerley thinks is a good debate technique.

GǪaside from determining intent, which will be required if it is to be classified as harassment.

See previous GM quotes.

In the end all this thread boils down to us botching a gank. We are sorry about this and garentee the third one to take no more than ten minutes of your freinds time.

How on earth are you still acting like intention isn't key?

That could potentially cause all kinds of problems when it comes to killing stuff, yes. There's also no reason to limit the timer.

Please list all your reasons for introducing a time limit on ship on ship violence. I'd be interested to see if any of them don't boil down to "baw i dont want to explode"

Let's cut out the irrelevant parts of that question before answering itGǪ

The majority of L4 missions are completed in under an hour, should we therefore make it impossible to complete a L4 mission if you dilly dally and take longer than an hour?

It's not relevant because the rules apply the same everywhere for the same reasons.

Reducing the reward is not the same as making it mechanically impossible to complete.

You also ignored the other example I provided. Should you not be able to reach your destination if your trip takes longer than the majority of freighter trips do?

You just made supers invincible again.

Red herring.

It's rude to ignore people you know.

So being rude is the appropriate response when someone merely questions an argument you made? That's rather childish.

So you agree that it breaks things and that there is no upside to it, so reducing the timer would be a pretty horrid idea?

laughable, friend.

No its a very big issue.

So why are you ignoring the fact that he sat there for an hour and let this happen?

So, again, why did he let us keep him there for an hour and do nothing to help himself?

Answer mine.

You said High Sec. The Wartarget status of a ship generally only matters in.... [drumroll] Highsec.


Why do you feel that a frigate who catches a WT freighter in HS shouldn't be able to kill it?

GǪexcept that he obviously did, even by his own description. In fact, he must have, or it wouldn't have gone on for an hour. That's how the mechanics work. If you are so interested in them, maybe it's about time you learn this fact.

You didn't ask any question.

Very well we will take this refusal to answer as yet more evidence that you have no argument and should be ignored by CCP.

Well they followed my advice and feedback on the second look at the Megathron hull slot layout.

Now, why is it that given an hour of being under attack the freighter pilot didn't get help from the hundreds of pilots in his alliance?

There are plenty of counters, but I suspect that you took two words out of context to read it as if there aren't.

If it's executed flawlessly and without outside interruption, the victim is pretty much dead, as he should be. As illustrated, it's a fairly complex set of actions that need to be taken in a co-ordinated fashion between a number of people GÇö as with most such things, a single player's main option is to try to not find himself in such a situation to begin with. With freighters, in particular, this is best done by not being a worth-while target.

which was answered in full

While you're at it, why not answer all the other questions you've skipped?

Right...

So a whole alliance did not have anyone able to fly logistic ships, insta canes/zealots/anything with medium guns, blackbirds, anything fitted with webs? Sounds like a terrible alliance that the freighter pilot should leave.

GǪso in other words, there are plenty of counters and I never said otherwise

Yes it was

Of course you are. It's all you do, after all. If you're actually not interested in doing so, here's a tip: just stop.

im pretty sure i know how were making up for that and it doesnt involve highsec freighters

jamming us or just repping means we will give it up and go after something easier.

Demanding huge game breaking changes to the game because a handful of players are terrible is no argument.

Context, silly. I said that once the attack has begun.

We can therefore safely conclude that it is the same thing and that you cannot think of even the slightest shred of an argument to the contrary.

Goodie, surrender accepted.

Of course I do.

If that's not your objective, how about answering a simple question: why did the OP let the gankers keep him there for an hour and do nothing to help himself?

there were things he did

Prove it.

Here's the problem with that. Miner bumping is not used ion the same way. Miner bumping is to encourage the miner to leave. Freighter bumping is to keep the ship from leaving.

Intent CAN be proven, simply by the actions of the target (log of warp being clicked for instance).

Now, since you CAN data mine that freighter spamming warp, you can infer intent. "Yes, as you can see by the number of times I was spamming my warp shortcut and right clicking with my mouse, I was trying to get away".

But you cannot prove intent by the bumper except for hitting the approach key. You know he wanted to bump, but that's all.

(By the way, this is why I first replied that miner bumping was a terrible example when it first came up).

Now, since we know the differences of intent, we can then look to the differences of intent, in regards, to harassment.

For instance, we do know, by GM declaration, that harassment was decided by following the miner, from system to system while continuing to bump. This is in regards to knowing you are bumping a miner from a rock so he cannot mine it, to which a simple recourse is to leave the system and find somewhere else.

Using that same model (but in reverse since freighter bumping is meant to KEEP the ship in system, not force it out), continually NOT letting that freighter to leave would be deemed harassment since that freighter was then pushed around multiple grids in system (proven by Concord placement and vectors of such) as well as kept from the gate and gate guns and not able to leave. Approach versus Warp/jump, as the command given to facilitate the harassment.

Before this gets argued, we already know bumping is not illegal. Yes yes we know this. The act by itself did not get the freighter killed.

It was a combination of mechanics that led to what looks like 1 specific instance of how those mechanics, when used in combination, by manipulating current mechanics to reduce risk of the ganker and increase risk of the freighter that relies specifically to highsec's mechanics.

Of which was used to what looks like a matter of excess to the point of harassment.

So now you're proposing two separate Aggression logoff timers depending on WT status? Can a WT Aggro timer extend a non-WT timer? Can a non-WT aggro timer extend a WT timer?

Why should the WT status of the person shooting at you affect the type of timer you get?

Why should HS have not one, but two sets of special snowflake logoff mechanics?

Keep in mind that the explicit intent of the Aggression logoff timer is to keep your ship in space until people who are actively shooting at you are done doing so.

Not only are you (immensely) interested, as your posting history show

but I measure up just fine.

but the question remains: why?

There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were, and ask why not?

The ways to actually PvP are far more numerous.

Sure it is. Because there is no sensible reason for the game to care what ship you're using to actively shoot someone.

and explain why your definition of the term is better than CCP's definition of "gaps longer than 15 minutes."

[rabble rabble rabble]

No, I can't quote CCP saying this because it's the logical result of someone saying they will judge someone's actions on a case-by-case basis.

Where on Earth are you getting this garbage? Where have CCP said that the only "[best]" way to PVP in highsec is through wars? I've never seen that anywhere. Do you believe that suicide ganks, baiting, etc are all invalid forms of PVP? If they're not the "[best]" way to PVP why have CCP explicitly implemented those abilities?

If you are reported and we find you actively following around a target without a war to continue bumping a specific player, it will still (at some point) considered harassment, even if you divert your 'attention' a little while doing so. If you have a bone to pick with someone, declare a war and take the risk that your target may actually taste blood and fight back (or finds allies for that part).

Well then lets go back to the two situations I posted ten pages back - how do you determine which of those is harassment without judging intent.

Go.

you mean when you sperged out about computers data mining chatlogs? (this would also be judging intent)

The posts where you simply quoted one word from it and claimed the opposite? Well no, re-reading those won't be illuminating as answers because they ignored the question.

Well, no you didn't.

Throwing out insults to disguise the fact you haven't been able to demonstrate a factual basis for any of your claims made in this thread hasn't worked so far.

This thread has no evidence of any bumping due to the user deleting the video.

Which demonstrated an [ability] to accurately determine harassment by text mining.

Yes, claiming you're right because you know you're right .... somehow we're not letting that qualify dude.

My only claim has been you can't support your claim

it's probably in your best interest to stop quoting posts and saying "nope"

All of my complaints have been cited examples of your poor ability to form an argument.

None of the timers require constant fire; they were designed specifically with that in mind (to be able to probe down ships sitting in safe spots with aggression).

So they haven't actually said that wardecs are in any way GÇ£the best wayGÇ¥ to PvP someone in highsec.

Ok. We'll reduce it to 14 minutes 58 seconds instead. Happy? Or, hell, let's just round it off to 15 minutes to make it easy to remember.

What would prove you right is has nothing to do with his ability to provide anything

So prove it.

No. He's merely asking you to prove your assertion, which you haven't been able to do. You are the one trying to dodge said methodology. He's merely taking the null hypothesis and it's up to you to falsify it. So do so.

You're also not very good at providing sources for your claimsGǪ that's a much bigger problem because it means, good teacher or not, what you teach is incorrect by default.

no, they have not said anything of the kind.

GǪexcept that by reducing the scanning time to half, it's been reduced to by a couple of seconds. So we'll reduce the timer by that amount GÇö to 14 minute, 58 secondsGǪ or let's just say 15 to round it off to something easy to remember.

GǪunless you suggest that all combat ships get their DPS doubled (and all siege timers halved)? Because that would be a good reason to reduce the timer by half rather than by the few seconds difference the change in scanning is worth.

Let's not do that, and instead assume that the null hypothesis is GÇ£no, you can't do that [with the suggested equipment and methods].GÇ¥

If you want to claim otherwise, you have to provide evidence GÇö something you've failed to do.

you still need proof to show that it's ill-formed. Either way, it's your duty to provide that proof.

Where I said that it's a bigger problem? Ok, we'll call the two equal. Better?

S Byerley you still haven't answered my questions :(

Yet another loophole/exploit closed. Bumping is also not classed as an exploit.

Both of which were stated guesses at how something can be achieved

In every definition of harassment as a concept of unwanted behaviour, it is essentially stated as



Harassment, fundamentally, consists of intent.

(1) : to annoy persistently (2) : to create an unpleasant or hostile situation for especially by uninvited and unwelcome verbal or physical conduct

aggressive pressure or intimidation

behavior that annoys or troubles someone

So, why is bumping a problem generally, or why are Freighters deserving of special protections simply because you can't be bothered to protect your own ship?

Where's the ambiguity?

If anyone is missing the point it's you, the only way for any gank to be profitable/ cost effective is if the victim makes it profitable. Success isn't guaranteed, gankers play the odds on both success and loot drops.

If you're moving a large shipment of cash/ jewels/ firearms through a modern city you will usually have some form of security presence.

The same goes with your argument of conceptually senseless.

If all that trit is in one stack, there's only a 50/50 chance that any will drop, IIRC stacked items count as 1 item for loot drop purposes, the loot fairy is quite fickle like that.

The important word there is armoured, an armoured car is specifically designed to resist an attack and in countries without draconian gun laws the guards are probably armed. A freighter on the other hand is not, and the pilot doesn't have a side arm, ergo, you bring friends to assist and provide the equivalent to both armour and side arms.

It's not an offensive action if it's applied by a corp member, it's clever use of game mechanics to get a ship into warp faster

I don't think this means what you think it means[/url][/i]

a load of minerals doesn't really equate to a sack of cash

But please carry on with your circular and specious reasoning, because it's quite amusing watching you tie yourself in knots over a long established, much used and totally legitimate use of game mechanics.

You forget that these are members of the "time I spend is free" crowd, so the fact that you can, theoretically kill a freighter for under 100m is magically relevant to them.

The mack is almost as big as a freighter.

A little under a tenth, a little under half when the MWD is active. A freighter does around 80ms, a Machariel can easily do 1600 with sub-optimal skills.

I was thinking of the wrong penalty. A little over a 7th is more accurate. Even so, someone is trying to say that a pointy object travelling at 1600ms hitting a larger object on a flatter surface traveling at 80ms will just bounce off... He wants real world physics, but only partially.

Now that I think on it, the mack should be a better hauler than freighters. Its about as big as a freighter but only a tenth of the mass. That means it has some vast cavities inside it...

No you see ... because some dictionaries define the word by stating the concept of intent in words other than using intent explicitly, it doesn't mean intent is implied!

Also a study in 2012 that showed an inability to be useful with regards to these scenarios