Jeez, this is why I didn't want to give you reading so obviously beyond your ability. I don't what the heck you think statistically significant means, but you're obviously wrong. Honestly, statistical significance is arbitrary enough without you redefining it; I'm really not going to teach you statistics.

Suicide ganking them is not an option, as you would need more ISK and people on grid than than the haul is probably worth.

Sure counterbump a mach, sounds so easy right. Even if you start at your freighter and go right at them, unless you are in a bigger ship that mach is going to just plow right through you.

Log off is a great tactic, that is definitely how CCP wants you to counter a game play mechanic.

The rest are non issues.

CCP has changed rules many times in the past.

It's an Asimov reference you uncultured ****.

[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.

You said that it was impossible for an algorithm to judge between cases that boil down to searching text logs for harassment; that's obviously not the case. In reality, I'd expect such borderline cases to be uncommon.

I said finding you a reference was easy; this topic is popular and highly motivated. In contrast, I've said repeatedly that proper text analysis is hard, but probably not necessary for the task.

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.

tell me more about physics models in a game where ships have maximum velocities

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

Citation needed.

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.

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.

Citation needed.

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

I did a word search for intent and didn't find it; sorry.

You wouldn't have any problem with CCP limiting the timer to 10m then?

Because despite all the wailing of you and your friends/alt, you've failed to reference CCP saying anything remotely like that.

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 one other potential encounter that would be effected by limiting the timer of a passive party in highsec to 10m.

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"

Please list one other potential encounter that would be effected by limiting the timer of a passive party in highsec to 10m.

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

That has no bearing on the question; I simply asked if he'd have a problem with aforementioned mechanic since he thinks proper ganks should take <10m.

Seems pretty relevant since all your examples happen in low/null.