I'd like to see what you'd post on the forums if all the miners in the game, including the bots, stopped mining for a few months.

There needs to be a threat to high sec miners, belt rats are not one. So leave suiciding the way it is or up belt rats to the point where you need a fitted tank to survive. Up mining ship tanks across the board to compensate for these stronger belt rats so miners aren't gimped but restrict drones on mining ships to mining drones only. These spawns will also escalate in damage eventually to the point where no mining ships should be able to survive without external support. Two options, get support from others or warp to a different belt and wait for despawn.

Mining needs to be more dangerous, the occasional gank outside of the goon blue ice fun is not dangerous, a minor nuisance perhaps. Belt rats need buff (in damage, not in ISK, no one farms belt rats in high-sec anyway and there is no reason to add incentive). Starter systems can be the exception to the rule for these belt rats with weak belt rats spawning there but there should be a large reduction in the asteroids in these systems.

I'd like to see what you'd post on the forums if all the miners in the game, including the bots, stopped mining for a few months.

This is actually something I'd be curious about. Not the forum posts, but what would actually happen to New Eden's economy if one day the miners all went on strike (bots included.) I'm sure there are stockpiles of minerals, so it would take a while for the impact, but still...

More chaos is needed in high sec !

Invite each and every -10 and gank everything from 1.0 to 0.5

Kill haulers, missioners, miners, passers, noobs, everything on your overview just gank it!

The sooner CCP will be forced to do something about high sec the sooner "high sec" will mean something.

You guys are on the right track, just keep it, your efforts will soon pay off.

More chaos is needed in high sec !

[GǪ]

The sooner CCP will be forced to do something about high sec the sooner "high sec" will mean something.

You guys are on the right track, just keep it, your efforts will soon pay off.

[quote=Tanya Powers]The sooner CCP will be forced to do something about high sec the sooner "high sec" will mean something.

For those that gank in high sec purely for the tears and rage. And then post long winded stories and claims of a pool of tears from the victims. Is this not an admission of "Griefing" and again breaking the EULA and TOS?

This. But CCP has a history of enforcing their EULA.... "selectively"...

This. But CCP has a history of enforcing their EULA.... "selectively"...

Both of you should go to crime and punishment and read the thread CCP made dedicated to tears. There is nothing against ganking or tear collecting in the EULA

If you gank someone once, it's not griefing. If you come back five minutes later and they're back there mining away and you do it again, you might be bordering on griefing. If you do it a third time, I'd consider that griefing as you're targeting the SAME player over and over again and are now harassing them.

If you gank someone once, it's not griefing. If you come back five minutes later and they're back there mining away and you do it again, you might be bordering on griefing. If you do it a third time, I'd consider that griefing as you're targeting the SAME player over and over again and are now harassing them.

I don't know how CCP views their EULA, but that's how I'd see it if I were in their shoes.

GǪand even then, it's iffy whether it's actually griefing or not GÇö the guy might just be killing anyone who shows up in the belt, and GÇ£anyoneGÇ¥ accidentally happens to be the same one guy over and over. It's when the ganker starts to follow that one player around and gank him no matter where he goes and no matter what he does (because he tries to get away from the ganks by not mining any more) that we're properly edging into the griefing +á l'EVE territory.

There is nothing against ganking or tear collecting in the EULA

Wrong.
If you follow a player across the universe and repeatedly (10 times +) attempt to disrupt said players game play by destroying said players ships while not employing an active wardec, - that is griefing, that is against the EULA

If you repeateldy kill ships in one system with the very clear wand well stated objective of limiting the extraction or production of a certain product - that is attempted market manipulation. - it is not griefing and it is not against the EULA

If the same pilot chooses to undock the same ship and fly to the same belt knowing that you are there attempting to kill that ship type in that belt - that pilot is truly stupid.

This is actually something I'd be curious about. Not the forum posts, but what would actually happen to New Eden's economy if one day the miners all went on strike (bots included.) I'm sure there are stockpiles of minerals, so it would take a while for the impact, but still...

Classic example of how CCP is selective in how they enforce their EULA. In this case, they use equivocation to selectively interpret and apply the term "griefing".

Oh it has to be 10 times to one person? What if they do it once to 10 people? What if they're in the same systeme very day harassing anyone who happens to be in there? What if it's not just blowing up ships, what if it's flipping cans, "bumping" them away fromt he asteroids, or otherwise harassing players? There is clearly no profit in any of this for the griefer, and that is how CCP defines griefplay.

Except that doesn't describe even a minority of suicide gankers or canflippers.

Well most gankers don't sit at 1 belt. They move between belts in 1 or 2 systems. Of course, the miners could always "move to a new system", but that is now in the realm of disrupting their gameplay

and there could just as easily be griefers in that system.

Classic example of how CCP is selective in how they enforce their EULA. In this case, they use equivocation to selectively interpret and apply the term "griefing".

What you're describing is not a harassment of players GÇö it's an attempt to claim a system. If they players can go elsewhere and are left alone if they do, they are not being harassed.

GǪwhich is appropriate since most suicide gankers and can-flippers are not griefing.

It's not even close to disrupting their gameplay: they can move and they can keep doing what they're doing. They just lost their favourite hunting ground, that is all.

GǪwho then aren't griefers either since they are attacking the system, not the players, and since the people who tried to move there are not being targeted specifically.

Except that they only way for them to claim the system is via the harassment of other players... since there's no actual game mechanic to allow players or Corporations to claim hi-sec space. (You could argue "wardecs", but then you're just supporting the my argument - wardecs are a valid game mechanic, griefplay is not).

Also I don't think you quite understand the definition of the word "harassment"... In this case, the word becomes "forcible coercion" because it's harassment until demands are met... ie, to leave the system.

Of course, you could always argue that the lone nano fit Stabber who spends his time flipping cans and bumping miners out of range of asteroids is doing it for "economic reasons", or that the Rifter who keeps flipping my friends' can "isn't targetting my friend specifically, just anyone in the system my friend happens to be in in order to 'claim' that system", but, as with most of your arguments, that one won't fly either.

Yes, it does disrupt their gameplay, because now they have to be bothered to 1) find another suitable system 2) move all their required assets out there and 3) deal with the griefers who undoubtedly inhabit that system.

Except for the fact that they are actually attacking other players and specifically those players in that sysatem, you would have had a valid point..

Except for the fact that they are. CCP's position is the following:

http://support.eveonline.com/Pages/KB/Article.aspx?id=336

Read it more carefully. It says "An example of grief play would be the so called "Can baiting" in starter systems." Those are the handful of systems players are born in, not all hi sec.

Again, how is this any different to low sec and 0.0?

Read it more carefully. It says "An example of grief play".

The word "an" also means "one". "One example of grief play"

Derp derp.