EVE Search - ASCN/AXIOM piracy in ISS soveriegn space

All Channels

Corporation, Alliance and Organization Discussions

ASCN/AXIOM piracy in ISS soveriegn space

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Weebear	Posted - 2006.05.31 12:09:00 - [61] Originally by: Butter Dog It does, because ISS systems are a DMZ, and regardless of standings you should not engage anyone else in ISS Outpost systems. This is the simple fact, Axoim were in the wrong here. If you want the benefits of a free trade outpost, shooting whatever ISS customers you please isnt the best way of going about it. They aren't a DMZ, it's only piracy that is not allowed. Count Tessaine has posted himself that the Axiom guys were within their right to shoot the guy.
Helmut 314	Posted - 2006.05.31 12:17:00 - [62] Edited by: Helmut 314 on 31/05/2006 12:19:24 When Marginis was set up ISS declared that shooting anyone, regardless of your mutual war status and standings etc, inside the KDF-GY system would mean that your docking priviliges would be rescinded. I think thats what the original poster found strange, the change in policy from ISS to suddenly allow people to shoot each other in ISS controlled space. Or should I say, allow certain people to shoot others inside ISS space... JHENR is recruiting. __________________________________ Trying is the first step of failure - Homer J Simpson
Pride NL	Posted - 2006.05.31 12:32:00 - [63] Edited by: Pride NL on 31/05/2006 12:32:54 Originally by: Weebear Originally by: Butter Dog It does, because ISS systems are a DMZ, and regardless of standings you should not engage anyone else in ISS Outpost systems. This is the simple fact, Axoim were in the wrong here. If you want the benefits of a free trade outpost, shooting whatever ISS customers you please isnt the best way of going about it. They aren't a DMZ, it's only piracy that is not allowed. Count Tessaine has posted himself that the Axiom guys were within their right to shoot the guy. Then i was lied to when i was in ISSN? Think not.
BoinKlasik	Posted - 2006.05.31 12:44:00 - [64] Originally by: Steel Rat Yes I had a conversation with an ISS representative complaining about AXE shooting people in their systems. 2 things came mind during this: 1. Why is luna lookin at nakid pictures of me? Cyvok's the cute 1 :P 2. Did I ask for this outpost in the middle of my travel route without even a reach around? So suddenly because ISS is a "neutral party", they feel they can put an outpost where ever they want and screw the rest of us? Let alone, I do not see them with a "concord" style navy that sits in these systems 24/7 to make sure my people don't get shot. 0.0 is hostile. Deal with it. Want some namby pamby NPCs to protect your butt, go back to empire. AXE has no beef with ISS with regards to their ships moving about but AXE pilots will shoot hostiles pilots in whatever system they please. sweet, i wasnt insane when i heard that ISS had talked to us about that particular incident. :phew: <3 SR doh, I broke my edited sig :/ cries this signature was lacking pink, I'll provide it for you. There. Looks better doesn't it? -Eris Fixed it for you. Oh, btw, yarr! ~kieron Didn't I tell you? The damsel moved in with me, we're having a great time. - Wrangler The damsel may not be distressed any more, but how many times does the informant have to be silenced before he gets the message? - Cortes
Emily Black	Posted - 2006.05.31 13:00:00 - [65] Originally by: Helmut 314 Edited by: Helmut 314 on 31/05/2006 12:19:24 When Marginis was set up ISS declared that shooting anyone, regardless of your mutual war status and standings etc, inside the KDF-GY system would mean that your docking priviliges would be rescinded. I think thats what the original poster found strange, the change in policy from ISS to suddenly allow people to shoot each other in ISS controlled space. Or should I say, allow certain people to shoot others inside ISS space... its quite simple $$ talks. that and i'm sure ISS wouldn't want to really **** ASCN off and have them drop the cap fleet on there door step
Pride NL	Posted - 2006.05.31 13:13:00 - [66] What is to become of an alliance when they dont take actions upon their OWN charter. But i bet Count Tassesine is talking with some ASCN rep as we speak, or at least will. ISS uses militairy as last resort, not as first.
Hawkings SJ	Posted - 2006.05.31 13:16:00 - [67] Notice that all the "ISS MUST FIGHT AXIOM/ASCN TO DEFEND ITS HONOR!" posts are coming from people neither in ISS, Axiom or ASCN. The three alliances it actually concerns are basically at an understanding about the situation. They've told everyone the deal two or three times now. But, it seems there are people and alts who think that ISS is going to goto war over this incidient.
BoinKlasik	Posted - 2006.05.31 13:19:00 - [68] or remove our docking rights O.o (personally ive never docked there, but i do like seeing blues on the pipe occasionally) doh, I broke my edited sig :/ cries this signature was lacking pink, I'll provide it for you. There. Looks better doesn't it? -Eris Fixed it for you. Oh, btw, yarr! ~kieron Didn't I tell you? The damsel moved in with me, we're having a great time. - Wrangler The damsel may not be distressed any more, but how many times does the informant have to be silenced before he gets the message? - Cortes
DTee	Posted - 2006.05.31 13:21:00 - [69] Edited by: DTee on 31/05/2006 13:24:04 First of, I did not insult you so there is no need to call me a cry baby, neither did I say that you didn't create THOSE sigs. Agreed posting off topic does make us look bad but I'm not making a personal attack or anything. Here is the sample where the "general" idea was taken from please dont say you dont see the similaraties : Linkage Again I'm talking about the general Idea not the exsact image. The sample was made for a shinra member who in the end decided not to buy it. I'm guessing the same memeber. Its no biggy though. Just an observation.
Weebear	Posted - 2006.05.31 13:21:00 - [70] Originally by: Pride NL Edited by: Pride NL on 31/05/2006 12:32:54 Originally by: Weebear Originally by: Butter Dog It does, because ISS systems are a DMZ, and regardless of standings you should not engage anyone else in ISS Outpost systems. This is the simple fact, Axoim were in the wrong here. If you want the benefits of a free trade outpost, shooting whatever ISS customers you please isnt the best way of going about it. They aren't a DMZ, it's only piracy that is not allowed. Count Tessaine has posted himself that the Axiom guys were within their right to shoot the guy. Then i was lied to when i was in ISSN? Think not. So you are saying the policy that Count has quoted in this thread was changed in the last 24 hours just to suit Axiom ganking a hauler with hostile standings in ISS controlled space? Think not. Alliances have policy changes.
Helmut 314	Posted - 2006.05.31 14:18:00 - [71] Edited by: Helmut 314 on 31/05/2006 14:18:45 Originally by: Hawkings SJ Notice that all the "ISS MUST FIGHT AXIOM/ASCN TO DEFEND ITS HONOR!" posts are coming from people neither in ISS, Axiom or ASCN. The three alliances it actually concerns are basically at an understanding about the situation. They've told everyone the deal two or three times now. But, it seems there are people and alts who think that ISS is going to goto war over this incidient. Who says they have to go to war ? That ISS and AXIOM/ASCN have a "special" relationship is interesting in itself. Somehow I doubt that if other alliances gatecamped an ISS sovereign system and shot people they had at negative ISS would be so lenient as they are being here. ISS like to play up heir "neutral" and "beneficial" image and incidents like this proves that neutrality is a very flexible concept for the ISS. JHENR is recruiting. __________________________________ Trying is the first step of failure - Homer J Simpson
Bluehaze joe	Posted - 2006.05.31 14:18:00 - [72] Originally by: Helmut 314 Edited by: Helmut 314 on 31/05/2006 12:19:24 When Marginis was set up ISS declared that shooting anyone, regardless of your mutual war status and standings etc, inside the KDF-GY system would mean that your docking priviliges would be rescinded. I think thats what the original poster found strange, the change in policy from ISS to suddenly allow people to shoot each other in ISS controlled space. Or should I say, allow certain people to shoot others inside ISS space... KDF is a 'detour', not on a major highway. I whould say that it is an entirely diffrent ballgame. But, if say, a gank-fleet ran from impass and to KDF.. AXE whould chop them down regardless of what ISS thinkgs
Count TaSessine	Posted - 2006.05.31 14:20:00 - [73] Edited by: Count TaSessine on 31/05/2006 14:21:00 The ROE I posted from above is from the Marginis website and was first posted in October 2005. Chairman, ISS
Skape Gote	Posted - 2006.05.31 14:23:00 - [74] Surely CT's response has given any alliance carte blanche to fight anyone they like in their systems now as long as its not bad for business. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Guess I picked the wrong week to quit sniffing glue......
phredrik	Posted - 2006.05.31 15:08:00 - [75] Edited by: phredrik on 31/05/2006 15:09:55 I had assumed that ISS space was DMZ as well. Guess its only BB that do that. Seems to me that sooner or later negotiating on your knees is going to lead to demands you don't want to keep. What happens when party A demands access to outpost B to launch an invasion on alliance C BUT you agreement with allinace C is that party A have no docking rights?
Hawkings SJ	Posted - 2006.05.31 15:47:00 - [76] Staying as independent and neutral as ISS has done is an achievement in of itself. There are a lot of people complaining about how they have acted, but few who could fill their shoes or offer a reasonable alternative.
Radiant Fire	Posted - 2006.05.31 15:57:00 - [77] Quote: Seems to me that sooner or later negotiating on your knees is going to lead to demands you don't want to keep. What happens when party A demands access to outpost B to launch an invasion on alliance C BUT you agreement with allinace C is that party A have no docking rights? ISS outposts exist because of the support they get from the other alliances. As soon as enough of these alliances lose support for the concept (as in the example above) its the endgame for ISS. Its not about what ISS would do in this circumstance that would matter, its what ISS does to prevent such a thing from happening that does. Its in equal parts vision of the ISS leadership and vision of the rest of EvEs' alliance leadership that keep ISS moving forward.
Kayoss	Posted - 2006.05.31 18:27:00 - [78] Not sure why you guys are *****ing about this so much. It's not like we are camping the station and shooting everyone that undocks. 1 guy got shot, big deal. He was in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Pride NL	Posted - 2006.05.31 20:43:00 - [79] Originally by: DTee Edited by: DTee on 31/05/2006 13:37:29 First of, I did not insult you so there is no need to call me a cry baby, neither did I say that you didn't create THOSE sigs.Agreed posting off topic does make us look bad but I'm not making a personal attack or anything. Its no biggy just an observation. Linkage Was made by the same person -.-
Pride NL	Posted - 2006.05.31 20:44:00 - [80] Originally by: Weebear Originally by: Pride NL Edited by: Pride NL on 31/05/2006 12:32:54 Originally by: Weebear Originally by: Butter Dog It does, because ISS systems are a DMZ, and regardless of standings you should not engage anyone else in ISS Outpost systems. This is the simple fact, Axoim were in the wrong here. If you want the benefits of a free trade outpost, shooting whatever ISS customers you please isnt the best way of going about it. They aren't a DMZ, it's only piracy that is not allowed. Count Tessaine has posted himself that the Axiom guys were within their right to shoot the guy. Then i was lied to when i was in ISSN? Think not. So you are saying the policy that Count has quoted in this thread was changed in the last 24 hours just to suit Axiom ganking a hauler with hostile standings in ISS controlled space? Think not. Alliances have policy changes. Then its a convenience matter.
sb404	Posted - 2006.05.31 20:48:00 - [81] Originally by: Kayoss Not sure why you guys are *****ing about this so much. It's not like we are camping the station and shooting everyone that undocks. 1 guy got shot, big deal. He was in the wrong place at the wrong time. I agree, there's no conspiracy here. Shooting a pilot with negative standing is different from camping the system for 23hours and shooting anything that moves. As per charter, this act hasn't disrupted trade in anyway... other from the trade that pilot was doing. As they say, if you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen and stay clear of people that have you on their KOS list. ---------------------- sb404 Director
Butter Dog	Posted - 2006.06.01 00:07:00 - [82] When I was in ISSN there was an absolute understanding that Outposts systems were DMZ. And they surely must be for the success of the outposts. Otherwise you get situations where people camp the systems due to the heavy traffic flow, under the excuse of 'we are hostile to them', and this adversely effects the trade and the flow of people and goods. Who is to stop any organisation delcaring war on however they wish then camping KDF 23/7, in that case? They can just pick some regular customers and bring in the easy kills. If people are genuinely friendly to the ISS they should not be camping outpost systems in the first place, as scaring off customers is bad news for shareholders. ------------------ I'm a 'liberated PvPer'
David Corbett	Posted - 2006.06.01 01:51:00 - [83] Edited by: David Corbett on 01/06/2006 01:55:01 Originally by: Count TaSessine To begin with, all pilots and corporations can dock at the outpost. Pilots, corporations or alliances will be set to -ve standings and incur either penalty surcharges or denied docking privileges for the following: - Committing acts of piracy regularly in the outpost system and neighbouring systems resulting in a major disruption of trade As you can see, the rules are quite clear and have been posted well before now. What AXE did was not an act of piracy - it was an act of aggression against a political enemy. Neither was it regular; it was a one time occurance. It was hardly the cause of a major disruption of trade: a single hauler got ganked! I've lagged out and lost more to gate rats. So, uh, what's the issue here? That someone was posessed of the decision to warp to a gate (presumably not on insta!) with a squad of -5s in the system, thinking some imaginary RoE would protect him? It sounds more to me as if those actions were, in fact, intentional and meaning to cause a diplomatic incident. Now that said diplomatic incident has completely failed to materialise and the attempt to slander AXE has failed miserably, there's nothing left here but a slew of alts trying to stir the pot and also failing miserably. There's nothing to see here. Count TaSessine said himself that nothing happened wrong. If all the alts really feel bad about this horrible breach of some supposed law of space, why don't they go down to AXE space and enforce it? I'm sure DDC would appreciate the loot they get off you. Bring T2.
sb404	Posted - 2006.06.01 02:34:00 - [84] Originally by: Butter Dog Who is to stop any organisation delcaring war on however they wish then camping KDF 23/7, in that case? They can just pick some regular customers and bring in the easy kills. I see no difference with this and empire wars. It is quite clear that if you are at war with a corporation, no where is safe, and I can bet my left nut that ISS outpost charters will not meddle, for neutrality sake. It might be bad for business, but if ISSN intervenes it will be because they have the numbers, the time, and the will to do it. Of course, I'm sure they would break the camp if the corporation you're at war with is an ISS member. The first DMZ mention was went we put up the outpost in KDF, and quite frankly, back then, we had no way to enforce it. So the charter was created to that effect. Times have changed, the ISSN is no longer 16 pilots sacrificing their own ships anymore, but the charter is still very valid and logical. ---------------------- sb404 Director
Plutoinum	Posted - 2006.06.01 03:09:00 - [85] Edited by: Plutoinum on 01/06/2006 03:12:42 Well, I remember an incident in the first weeks of Marginis. I was in kdf approaching the station and got targetted by a Fix gang, we were enemies at that time. I knew that fighting in kdf wasn't allowed, except shooting pirates and entities that were hostile to ISS. But to be sure I went on safe anyway. ISS told me then that I don't have to be afraid of being attacked in kdf, since Fix knows that they aren't allowed to attack visitors of Marginis and that it can result in a removal of their docking rights. So in the beginning, kdf was imho really a zone, where only ISS-Navy was allowed to shoot with the exception of killing pirates and hostiles of ISS, like RAT, who were probably the first entity that got docking rights revoked. Not that I care much about the policy, because it's too far off, but pretending that shooting hostiles has always been allowed in kdf doesn't seem correct to me.
sb404	Posted - 2006.06.01 05:04:00 - [86] Originally by: Plutoinum Edited by: Plutoinum on 01/06/2006 03:12:42 ISS told me then that I don't have to be afraid of being attacked in kdf, since Fix knows that they aren't allowed to attack visitors of Marginis and that it can result in a removal of their docking rights. So in the beginning, kdf was imho really a zone, where only ISS-Navy was allowed to shoot with the exception of killing pirates and hostiles of ISS, like RAT, who were probably the first entity that got docking rights revoked. Not that I care much about the policy, because it's too far off, but pretending that shooting hostiles has always been allowed in kdf doesn't seem correct to me. No you're right, my intentions were not to pretend that shooting hostiles was allowed, publically, I think the "DMZ" worked far longer than we had hoped it would, but in the corp chats, before the recruitement drive, we were dreading having to enforce it. Quite honnestly, and correct me if I'm wrong, we never did. I remember nights after nights, getting our asses handed to us by RATs or REDs... ---------------------- sb404 Director
Lunanie	Posted - 2006.06.01 07:37:00 - [87] Originally by: Pride NL Originally by: DTee Edited by: DTee on 31/05/2006 13:37:29 First of, I did not insult you so there is no need to call me a cry baby, neither did I say that you didn't create THOSE sigs.Agreed posting off topic does make us look bad but I'm not making a personal attack or anything. Its no biggy just an observation. Linkage Was made by the same person -.- Sorry Pride, Now I have to disappoint, the one from this link is made by Lou Ping of BoB but I didn't steal anything. (didn't even saw it when I made the logo MYSELF in 3D)
Uther Doull	Posted - 2006.06.01 10:23:00 - [88] Originally by: Lunanie Edited by: Lunanie on 01/06/2006 08:33:24 Originally by: Pride NL Originally by: DTee Edited by: DTee on 31/05/2006 13:37:29 First of, I did not insult you so there is no need to call me a cry baby, neither did I say that you didn't create THOSE sigs.Agreed posting off topic does make us look bad but I'm not making a personal attack or anything. Its no biggy just an observation. Linkage Was made by the same person -.- Sorry Pride, Now I have to disappoint, the one from this link is made by Lou Ping of BoB but I didn't steal anything. (didn't even saw it when made the logo myself in 3D) edit: typo it's pretty obvious that when you make 2 3d models of one logo, they will end up much the same :P
Braaage	Posted - 2006.06.01 10:40:00 - [89] I find this thread funny, I was in KDF (not on this account on my PVP account) and was engaged and shot at by an IAC member. So I bet this happens a lot it's just most don't come on the forums to whine about it. PS This incident I speak of was some time ago (approx 2-3 months). ___________________________________________ http://www.eve-tutor.com Picture based tutorial site for EVE-Online
Butter Dog	Posted - 2006.06.01 12:24:00 - [90] Originally by: Plutoinum Not that I care much about the policy, because it's too far off, but pretending that shooting hostiles has always been allowed in kdf doesn't seem correct to me. Exactly. And to say ASCN are the biggest customers at KDF is a joke, in the three months I lived there I barely ever saw them. They are quite content in their own outposts and pretty isolationist. ------------------ I'm a 'liberated PvPer'

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.