I'm gonna make this easy. Ive seen a "perfected" hulk but idk what the others do at their max. I only account for ore but feel free to include information about ice or gas. Max means all necessary skills at 5, utilizing mining drones (specify harvesters/T2 mining), and utilizing modulated strip miners w/ crystals. I also want informations about both orca and rorqual in the most efficient boosting setups (necessary skills maxxed as well).

Example Template:

Ship:
EHP:
-Ore Mining-
m3/cycle (alone):
m3/cycle (orca):
m3/cycle (rorqual):
m3/hour (alone):
m3/hour (orca):
m3/hour (rorqual):
-Ice Mining-
.....
.....


Alrighty thx guys.

Extortion is the act of threatening someone for something they have. Give us 10 mil or get ganked sure seems like extortion to me. The cost is more or less irrelevant.

Absolutely nothing, clothing it as some higher form of playing or a service just leaves a dirty taste in my mouth. If ganking and extortion is your style then by all means, go forth and racket your way to the top. Just don't tell me you're doing me any favors.

The cost associated with a permit, IMO, is to protect against petitions. If you didn't charge people IMO it could be ruled as griefing

Who made you the in game moral police?

Potentially prohibited? TOS, term 16. (one of the many terms with extensive room for interpretation) Further clarified in the k-base article: http://community.eveonline.com/support/knowledge-base/article.aspx?articleId=336 . The practice of charging for permits is easily understood as a method of staying in (greater) compliance with TOS, term 16, as charging for permits moves certain behaviors clearly outside the purview of that knowledge base article. (Specifically: "...deriving his enjoyment of the game from these activities while he does not profit from it in any way.")

Such is my understanding and opinion, at least.

You may not do anything that interferes with the ability of other EVE Online subscribers to enjoy the game or web site in accordance with its rules. This includes, but is not limited to, making inappropriate use of any public channels within the game and/or intentionally creating excessive latency (lag) by dumping cargo containers, corpses or other items in the game world.

I looked before at the TOS and the EULA and the wording is "griefplay tactics". Which I have no clue what that means. Its in one of them. It is most likely vague so they don't have to enforce it unless they feel like it.

What matters, going forwards, is which definition the GMs will/would use in applying these documents in ruling; I have no idea which definition they will use, or if they will use both, or if they have additional definitions to add in, or how much they will enjoy making their ruling.

It's not--but it is mentioned in the KB article I linked. Therefore, the KB article I linked, if it is official CCP policy, is the relevant document, no? Your argument seems to be backfiring on you--unless the KB article isn't official. It seemed official to me, but I really have no idea if it is or not. I'm posting not to prove you wrong, but to find out what the real deal is, because I don't know. (And if the KB article isn't official, the policy linked just above by Tardbar surely is, right?)

For the record, I am a longtime supporter of the New Order, and am posting out of a desire for clarity, not to advocate any side. If I were to advocate a side, I'd advocate removing rules against griefing, if they do in fact exist.

The EVE universe is a harsh universe largely driven by such conflict and notice must be taken of the fact that nonconsensual combat alone is not considered to be grief play per the above definition.

The argument you were initially responding to didn't mention bumping specifically, but all activities of the New Order (which happen to include bumping, ganking, awoxing, reverse awoxing, 'scamming',etc), and so to assume that I was only talking about bumping is a puzzling assumption. Also, I'm not really interested in any debate on potential bans that is limited to only a specific subset of the documents that would be used in any actual petition. We seem to be talking about two completely different things at this point; but thank you for the responses.

The article does not say "combat is not griefplay". The article actually says "nonconsensual combat alone is not considered to be grief play". Every example given in that article involves combat, in a prohibited place and manner (having to do with rookies). My point is that at any time, CCP could decide to retroactively apply, that clause, saying that combat is prohibited with different associations, in this case associated with a large scale racketeering scheme., and issue a bunch of bans for past behaviors. I'm not predicting they will, I'm just saying they could, and they've been pretty careful not to rule it out in their semi-regular communications about the NO.

I'm getting pretty bored of arguing that the rules aren't all that clear, and you constantly asserting that they're perfectly clear and definite. There's no real progress being made, just an exchange of assertions. Here, this guy sums up my feelings on the matter perfectly, why don't you argue with him and I"ll step out:



have fun.

We need more "clarification"s.

Basically