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.

The bumping serves two purposes.

The most important one is that it creates a controlled environment where the gankers can delay and monitor the CONCORD response. You shoot the target once as he exits gate cloak to give him a PvP timer, which ensures that the ship will stay in space for another 15 minutes, no matter what, so logging off no longer saves the victim. This is obviously a criminal act so CONCORD shows up and kills the flagging alt. To counter this, you take advantage of the 15 minute timer to use a neutral alt (or two) to bump the victim at last 150km away from where CONCORD is sitting. The bumping both ensures that the victim can't just warp off willy-nilly, and that the victim is out of reach from immediate CONCORD response.

Being this far away causes the CONCORD mechanics to consider the target (and, more importantly, the awaiting gankers) GÇ£out of rangeGÇ¥ for the purpose of responding to their actions, which in turn yields the same effect as delaying CONCORD by spawning them somewhere else in the system. When responding to a crime that's this far away, the CONCORD ships first have to despawn from the first crime scene before they can show up at a new one, which delays the response by half a dozen seconds or so. You sacrifice the loss of a newbship with civvy guns for being able to execute the gank with maybe 20GÇô50% fewer actual attack ships. You can also keep a close eye on CONCORD while doing all of this, which means you have more control over the timers.

The second benefit is that the gank now happens maybe 200km off the gate, rather than 15km away from it. As a result, loot thieves will not get as much of a chance to get to the goods, and white knights stand less of a chance counter-killing the looting ships (which will go suspect in the process). If it's a freighter gank, you're likely to need a freighter to loot the wreck, and you definitely want to keep those away from the normal traffic lanes when they go blinky.

Which, none of this matters if you are able to A.) alpha the ship or B.) able to draw concord away by attacking other ships in the system. Honestly, the ability to keep someone in space until DT just by shooting it with a rookie ship is a dumb mechanic and should be considered an exploit. Or log off and PvP timers should not renew once the pilot is logged off. You want that kill, bring enough people to do it in 15 minutes.... Oh wait, all the nullbears complained that they couldn't kill ships before they logged off, while at the same time told high sec dwellers to HTFU. The hypocrisy in this game is astounding.

Which, none of this matters if you are able to A.) alpha the ship or B.) able to draw concord away by attacking other ships in the system. Honestly, the ability to keep someone in space until DT just by shooting it with a rookie ship is a dumb mechanic and should be considered an exploit. Or log off and PvP timers should not renew once the pilot is logged off. You want that kill, bring enough people to do it in 15 minutes.... Oh wait, all the nullbears complained that they couldn't kill ships before they logged off, while at the same time told high sec dwellers to HTFU. The hypocrisy in this game is astounding.

Which, none of this matters if you are able to A.) alpha the ship or B.) able to draw concord away by attacking other ships in the system. Honestly, the ability to keep someone in space until DT just by shooting it with a rookie ship is a dumb mechanic and should be considered an exploit. Or log off and PvP timers should not renew once the pilot is logged off. You want that kill, bring enough people to do it in 15 minutes.... Oh wait, all the nullbears complained that they couldn't kill ships before they logged off, while at the same time told high sec dwellers to HTFU. The hypocrisy in this game is astounding.

What semantics? It doesn't matter if he was trying to make ISK or to actually harass the guy because the only person who can make that distinction is him (and even then it's subjective and largely philosophical).

Appropriately enough, that field is called text mining.

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.

This is how it went down. 2 machs bumped the freighter for 10 minutes or so (to get out of range of gate guns) and agressed with a rookie toon before goons showed up. Goons got there regrouped got concord in sys off grid that took em another 5-10 minutes (agressed with another rookie toon) then they warped in i went global just after they landed. Concord came in as they fired on the freighter and Concord insta popped em so they got off one or two volleys the first round (they failed), Then they bumped (just 1 Machariel now) and agressed freighter 2 more times before they came in sys (1more time after they were in sys) with rookie toons to keep timer on it for 30 more minutes (15+15) (60 or so minutes in total) while they deaggressed global and reshipped then they came back in sys for another 5-10 minutes then finished it.

i don't care about algorithms me i just want CCP to look at the video and logs in my case and determine if this is an intended use of game mechanics.

Yes it is.

of course it is for you :)

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.

The day you catch a war target in a freighter while flying a frigate solo you will understand

Of course not; there's always a murky but conventional threshold that defines when the objective actions cumulatively start to constitute harassment, as observed by a third party. The feelings of the victim can factor into borderline cases, but the goal of the aggressor (assuming the actions were conscious and the negative effects understood) not so much

You'll have to support this somehow because according to the only reference under consideration, CCP didn't give a flying **** that the offending miner bumpers did so under the guise of trying to collect a ransom. Why? Because the difference was philosophical and impossible to judge without giving the aggressor a gaping loophole

We really aren't

Of harassment detection in text logs? That's easy: http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2187995

Incidentally, data mining would mimic human judgement with an extremely high degree of accuracy in a scenario like this. Computers are smart; people are bad at utilizing them.

Even you must be familiar with Watson?

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?

Facts are facts but its opinion that matters Not yours or mine but the devs

Facts are facts but its opinion that matters Not yours or mine but the devs

Yea but ganks never take an hour maybe the devs will add a stipulation to the finding ?