OP, I suggest you pay the man... and soon.

The following is a dramatic re-enactment of the what happened the last time somebody failed to pay the man his money. http://youtu.be/ZomwVcGt0LE

Ok, this was a difficult fight, but I finally got one!

EVE Gate profile of target, Ship and Pod

Thats 50 Million for a director corpse, and 20 million for an in-corp kill based on your post.

Contract with showinfo of corpse.

Please accept it at your earliest convenience, Mr Toaster.

The highsec incursion in Aldrat is full of E-Uni members flying faction battleships and T3s.

The days when members left the Uni before they could properly solo level 4 missions is long, long over.

@ShipToaster:
- you should update the headline to inlude "bounty for EUNI ganking" so more people find it?

- why no bounty for T1 kills? this would give you most ganks i suppose?

PS: Can you give me a list of 20 characters in E-UNI who are not directors or else have official positions within the corp who are over a year in E-UNI? Should be easy if it's the "average" as you say.

I read this thread and all I see is QQ from a bunch of "highsec elite pvpers" because the uni deprives them of easy victims (because part of what the uni teaches is how not to fall victim to griefers, scammers, etc).

Ill admit I do my fair share of ganking, scamming, etc. but I dont go after newbies because its frankly no fun to go after newbies. Its a lot more fun when you gank that die hard macro miners 400 million isk hulk http://pwwn.eve-kill.net/?a=kill_detail&kll_id=11450037, or a freighter full of tengus (of which exactly zero dropped lol) http://pwwn.eve-kill.net/?a=kill_detail&kll_id=10909898, or scam a corp CEO out of multiple capital ships.

Fighting only in safe situations with no chance of loss is pretty much the definition of a carebear, isn't it ?

Someone could explain to me why THEY care so much that someone else is willing to just play the game and carebear in it without wanting to pvp? As in why the f should I care if someone else that pays for the game the same as I do, would want to play it differently. I personally find ganking in hs to be something that should end up being removed from the game.
After all. Why should someone else be forced to do something they have no interest in. You want to kill person x. Declare a war. But picking suicide ganking when the target has no warning and no way to defeat the attempt. I just don't see the allure. No skill involved.

Someone could explain to me why THEY care so much that someone else is willing to just play the game and carebear in it without wanting to pvp? As in why the f should I care if someone else that pays for the game the same as I do, would want to play it differently. I personally find ganking in hs to be something that should end up being removed from the game.
After all. Why should someone else be forced to do something they have no interest in. You want to kill person x. Declare a war. But picking suicide ganking when the target has no warning and no way to defeat the attempt. I just don't see the allure. No skill involved.

EVE without non-consensual pvp...lol. Good luck making that work for longer than a year.

I personally find ganking in hs to be something that should end up being removed from the game.

i agree. but nobody is talking about wanting to take anyone the ability to attack anyone anywhere.

I personally find ganking in hs to be something that should end up being removed from the game.
After all. Why should someone else be forced to do something they have no interest in.

furthermore, there are already places like low, null and wormholes where this is possible even without retribution through concord.

With a few rare, particular exceptions, not one of the three areas you mentioned constitute non-consensual pvp. One could say that a carebear stumbling into a wormholes and getting his spaceboat violenced would be one such exception, for example.

I would also like to go on and add that in the past few years, low/null pvp has been all but extinguished. Sometimes you see big blobs and supercapitals, but even that is rare nowadays. People have vested interests in their ISK farms and prefer to keep the peace. How about you ask CCP to address this before asking CCP to remove our one final avenue for enjoyment in this game?

So based on your logic: what if my interest is ganking carebears? Wouldn't removing that ability be forcing me to do something else I'm not interested in? Further, why the f should I care that some carebear paying for the game does not want to get ganked?

The fact that you have let's say 20-30 seconds of free time before concord shows up in HS due to non-instant response times I would say are not the intention of the game.

so what are you saying?
- people come to highsec to have pvp because they cant outside highsec?
- they gank in highsec because they currently can, it is so easy and people there seldom fit buffers?

otherwise, i think you are saying all those places except highsec needs to be fixed...

What? The non-instant response times are completely the intention of the game, which is why response times vary depending on the security level of the system (e.g, faster in 1.0, much slower in 0.5). The game was coded purposefully in that manner, which makes it the intent of the designers.

You're probably right on that respect, however, I really doubt that when it was coded in originally, it was done to allow players to suicide gank others.

So if you don't give your opponent a fighting chance, how could you claim to have skills if you're only engaging in 1 sided battles.

so if i go into low pirates will not start to attack me? gate camps? waiting outside station for people undocking? probe out a mission runner's site? sounds very non-consensual to me...

so what are you saying?
- people come to highsec to have pvp because they cant outside highsec?
- they gank in highsec because they currently can, it is so easy and people there seldom fit buffers?

otherwise, i think you are saying all those places except highsec needs to be fixed...

Oh and, a big LOL at everything Juicy Chanlin says. Especially the claims of non-instant CONCORD response times being a "glitch in the system" and an "exploit of the game mechanics."

There is plenty of people in each of the four categories who do not want to be killed. The question is, should they be exposed anyway, even if they want to have no part of it?

A resounding "yes" on the first point. Not much a single person or a small gang/corporation can do nowadays what with the tendency to get a single T1 cruiser hot-dropped by two dozen supercaps. An exception can be made for wormholes, but wormholes are limited in the amount of residents/visitiors they have to be a true pvp environment.

I am indeed saying that those places need to be fixed. However, they need to be fixed before high-sec is fixed in any form (and any high-sec fixes must definitely not include the removal of non-consensual pvp).

Oh and, a big LOL at everything Juicy Chanlin says. Especially the claims of non-instant CONCORD response times being a "glitch in the system" and an "exploit of the game mechanics."

... The Uni removes anyone from the roster if they have been inactive for at least 3 months ...

"members who have been inactive (not logged in) for 1 calendar month are removed from the corp"

If you're going to claim nonsense, at least get the facts right.
In quite plain English, for those who are interested, here is the EVE University Inactive Member Policy.