Well, first of all, Jenn is a dude.

Secondly, the trick is not getting caught. Knowing and using the MWD+Cloak trick, watching for probes, and judicious use of DotLan to avoid potential gatecamp systems tends to work fairly well.

So, it's not that they wouldn't shoot Jenn, it's that he doesn't give them a chance to do it.

Nerfs that effect other areas of space are not nerfs to highsec, they are nerfs to everything...

High end anom nerfs on the other hand, are nerfs to just nullsec.

Industry in any area but highsec is entirely unviable

Personal income is far more viable in highsec than anywhere else. While the individual upper bounds of nullsec may be higher, they are subtractive, and thus not sustainable for any significant population size. As opposed to L4s, which can be done by hundreds of people without end, ever, in near total safety.

make highsec less safe by some means, so that more loss can be generated.

This is about game balance. If there is no reason to go to null then people will not go to null, if the only way to fix the game is to nerf high sec then thats what must happen.

And this is exactly the double standard I speak of. Let's take this one step at a time. First, list the nerfs you consider to be exclusive to null. And keep in mind I'm using your own definition of "nerf". For example, by your own standards, a nerf to the Forsaken sites is not a nerf to null because these sites exist outside of null.

You already are.
So is Baltec.

Tell me why you would take the greater risks in null sov space to earn less than in high sec with full concord protection?

Was there ever a reason given why some space is literraly **** in null? Not why it is because thats documented somewhere I could probably read but why it was created that way? Why to 0.0 to -1.0 "hidden" sec status and all. Why not only different kind of rat and ice like in high?

If I were a betting man, I'd bet the primary reason most people don't head to null is because of the ****** politics and asshattery that is perceived to go on there, whether true or not. I for one, don't want to surrender my autonomy and my fun/play time to someone else.
You want more people in null? What have you done to change that perception? What has your alliance done to change that perception, besides admitting that its goal is to ruin everyone else's game ?

To have fun. Understand sir that ISK/hr is not how I measure success.

This is about game balance. If there is no reason to go to null then people will not go to null, if the only way to fix the game is to nerf high sec then thats what must happen.

These forsaken sites could not be run like the ones in sov null. It was a nerf to sov null to stop activity only happening in sov nul.

To have fun. Understand sir that ISK/hr is not how I measure success. The problem is that I've never really made the connection between Null and a "fun" place. Your results and experience may differ.

If I were to play the role of an ISK/hr *****, you would have to make it really worth my while to get me to go to Null. But I can also tell you that I:

Do not currently rake in 150-180 million ISK/hr running missions.
Do not run any incursions.

You might recall that I'm "doing it wrong".

Honestly, I don't have a dog in this fight. But you seem convinced that:

1) CCP is ******* clueless about what is happening in Null Sec.

And

2) CCP is not ruining the game, they're just ruining YOUR game.

Well there is the fact that we have made CCP fix several bugs and pushed to fix several more broken areas.

baltec1, this nerf did not just affect your null sec blaster boat. Anyone and everyone running these sites were affected, irregardless on where they spawned. You know this.

Well there is the fact that we have made CCP fix several bugs and pushed to fix several more broken areas.

Maybe thats the reason why are null sec SOE mission hubs sooooo much populated compared to those in hisec right? Not to mention that nullsec SOE pays 50% more LPs than in hisec.

Yeah, I'm also for fixing bugs, especially those that affect me the greatest. It doesn't mean I'm promoting an exodus into null.

Tech nerf. Who just also happened to own most of the tech moons again?

baltec1, this nerf did not just affect your null sec blaster boat. Anyone and everyone running these sites were affected, irregardless on where they spawned. You know this.

Tech nerf. Who just also happened to own most of the tech moons again?

The tech nerf was actually a fix. Tech is not even an R64! Come on, you know this :).

They couldn't run them like in null sov because they have no access to sov upgrades. It is impossible to do what we were doing outside of sov space.

The nerf was only aimed at sov space.

Yet it still affected them. It may have affected your gameplay more significantly. But it still is a nerf to everyone running these sites.

Or, would you say that the nerf to siege missiles a few years ago was a nerf to mission runners because it most significantly affected mission runners?

You can't have it both ways :).

Tech was by far the best moon to own for years. We said it was a bad change when they nerfed the old moneypot that BoB owned in fortress delve.

Yet it still affected them. It may have affected your gameplay more significantly. But it still is a nerf to everyone running these sites.

Or, would you say that the nerf to siege missiles a few years ago was a nerf to mission runners because it most significantly affected mission runners?

You can't have it both ways :).

So nerfing high sec income wont be an issue for you then.

You're changing the subject. You claimed the tech nerf was a nerf to null. Is this still your position?

Not... even... a... little... bit...

But it also won't make Null Sec any more profitable.