| Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
The End
   |
Posted - 2006.06.09 04:31:00 -
[61]
This is all my fault
If i didnt get bored with the Empire war with Praxis a few months back.
Praxis wouldnt exist today
blame me!!!! 
|
DeltaH
|
Posted - 2006.06.09 04:33:00 -
[62]
 Originally by: Alessandra Helborne
You bought jump clone standings, not a NAP.
I can't beleive you wrote that not as joke.
|
Audrea
|
Posted - 2006.06.09 05:05:00 -
[63]
Originally by: Joshua Foiritain
Originally by: Helganstandt
The point is that ISS claims to be neutral, and killing pirates isn't being neutral.
Killing pirates hardly makes them any less neutral. Thats like saying NPCing makes them less neutral too. Or living in the South/North/East. Or hell, flying ships of a certain race makes them less neutral.
Pirates are enemies of everyone, including the ISS.
I personally disagree, pirating is the dark side, while killing them is mostly considered the bright side.
Anti-pirates picked a side: they kill pirates.
Neutrals dont. simple as that.
That corp simply violated the charter, or the charter is setup to confuse regarding their proclaimed 'neutrality'.
Thats beside the point (imo) - which they lost any legit claims to be neutrals when they took over EC-P8R.
Doesnt matter that they 'supposedly' bought it out.
------------------
If you are tired of fleet combat lag, post HERE
All posts are my personal opinions. |
Crux Australis
|
Posted - 2006.06.09 05:29:00 -
[64]
Originally by: Beringe
Originally by: Crux Australis
Fine, why did ISS sell them standings if they are kos to ISS by nature, since they are pirates?
Because they didn't know they were pirates? After all, the OP is a self-proclaimed "part-time pirate" (whatever the hell that means).
This was written by the OP :
Originally by: Helganstandt
Also, your charter says you don't shoot neutrals. If we're pirating in an ISS system, the that constitutes a viable threat since we're in ISS sovereign space causing problems. This is what we agreed to when we gave the money for jump clones, and was explained to us by the ISS Marginis Corporation.
Please note the part in bold.
In this thread I see no mentions to the fact that ISS would not have sold standings to Finis Lumen 'if they knew that they were pirates'.
If you are neutral, you are *always* neutral, not just when it serves your purposes.
The policies of Corporations which are part of an Alliance must, first of all, abide to the Alliance policies.
Hence:
Quote:
It is Praxis policy to assist local pilots against pirate aggression, and persecute any known pirates in our local area of operations.
Is a violation of the ISS supposed neutral standing.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Originally by: Frezik
Detaurus isn't a person. It's a state of mind.
|
Tuijabird
|
Posted - 2006.06.09 05:32:00 -
[65]
So nuetral for iss means... once we are done podding you and your mates we are harmless and take no sides! laughing out loud it works both ways. ISS is the furthest thing from neutral. they napped their last enemies and once the world see's they have their own agenda and start pwning them. THEY ARE NOT NEUTRAL. How many times does it take for the eve community to see this as whole? I know a good lot of you do already as explained in this post.
The other part of this is for pirates to stop crying about any loss. your pirating. what do you expect? be it iss or anyone. if your part time pirate them be ready to be part time hostile too. oh yeah and you don't get to choose your own time to be hostile. mattter fact it's pretty dumb for merc corp to pirate anyways. your killing potential clients...hence maybe why your on so many "breaks"?
ISS is not neutral and they are about the worst professionals in this game. Why not stop the daily camps in ec- etc? why are you sitting with 20 + force in low sec killing want to be pvpers. when you could be handling the gangs that camp your so called "space" in groups of 10. You are about the weakest and most transparent alliance in game.
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
A rolling stone gathers no moss
|
dantes inferno
|
Posted - 2006.06.09 05:41:00 -
[66]
Quote:
Except the act of killing a pirate is essentially an act of upholding the law, and thus your definition still holds for ISS neutrality.
*Not* upholding law might be seen as taking sides, though.
umm not really this was not ISS space..so they had no right to uphold any law..and buy ganging with non ISS people they are placing themselves in a potition where they will have to breach their sham of neutrality (in fact you can argue that by ganging with non iss members they have in fact already broken neutrality). by upholding the law and attacking someone at a moon who had not agressed in 15 minutes they shattered the neutrality code...i wouldnt care less if the bloke is eve's version of hannibal lecter...they fired on some one non-red, had not agressed ISS...in non iss space..this can no be said to be neutral by any stretch of the imagination. I think without a doubt by now ISS have proven their claims of neutrality to be a load of bull droppings..and a claim made in hopes that it will reduce the amount of people shooting them.
_____
They were monsters. They rode across the world we knew and brough terror, and death. Where they were, life ceased. They were without mercy. They were without fear - They were MASS |
Nooey
|
Posted - 2006.06.09 06:17:00 -
[67]
Originally by: Alessandra Helborne
The pilot they shot up was in a gang with ISS. Working with them even. IMO, this falls under the act of protecting ISS assets.
They didn't know they were in a gang with ISS. You speak as if they knew this and fired anyway. So please, enlighten us as to how they should have figured it out. Or conversely, provide a justification for ISS to defend assets that only they know are assets.
Originally by: Alessandra Helborne
2nd, a pirate is to be considered a threat to an industrialist. Therefore they are defending their operations.
You just jumped from in the first sentence, "AN industrialist", to in the second sentence, "THEIR operations."
Or in other words, you just jumped from "an industrialist" to "an ISS industrialist".
Please, tell us, how did you make that logical leap? And how are others supposed to tell an industrialist from an ISS industrialist, if the alliance ticker displayed on the overview isn't the full story?
Simple answer is, it should be the full story. If it isn't, then that's ISS's fault, not those who lack telepathic powers.
Are we starting to see how incredibly complicated a simple thing like neutrality is becoming when it's not just a black and white 4-rule system or something similar? Neutrality is absurdly simple, but ISS always seem to wallow in the most complex shades of grey.
____ |
Torshin
|
Posted - 2006.06.09 06:21:00 -
[68]
Edited by: Torshin on 09/06/2006 06:24:19
neutral has to many shades of grey.
|
Helganstandt
|
Posted - 2006.06.09 06:21:00 -
[69]
I'm glad that this thread started taking the discussion I wanted it to, which is the one regarding ISS neutrality.
I want to reiterate one last time that the actual material loss of my boy's ship is not the issue here. We lose ships all the time, and accept that as a hazard of the trade. Niether is the fact that we had bought jump clone standings. This was just an aside note to help reinforce the non-neutral stance of ISS. The real issue is that we were hunted down, and killed by a Praxis fleet, when we never posed any threat to either Praxis, or to ISS.
I understand that people want to flame us for being pirates. I know that a lot of people get a great sense of justice when a pirate in a rifter loses his ship after getting a cargohold full of arbalest seige launchers. But this argument shouldn't be about whether pirating is right or wrong. This argument should be about what exactly constitutes being a neutral party.
If ISS gives naps to pirate corporations (just look at the recent dealings with CC and CDC), then how can they say they are neutral if they start hunting pirates in random low-sec?
The way things were explained to us is that if we don't shoot ISS members, then they won't shoot us. If we don't pirate in ISS SOVEREIGN systems, then they won't shoot us. This is why I feel we have been lied to, and betrayed in a sense.
The reason I wanted to make this thread, is that even after dealing with ISS high command, I haven't got a clue as to what will end up getting us shot at by ISS. Do we have to be one of their NAP'd "pirate" corps? Or was Praxis out of line? Is Praxis the only corp that does this? Will ISS Navy kill us if there are a few of them in Alachene or Jan and we happen to be pirating non-ISS folk?
NBSI policy is the best system we have for choosing our targets, but this failed for the first time. And I just want to figure out what our system should be.
I just want a straight answer from the horses mouth, and I haven't gotten it yet, as I was just tossed to the side when I brought it up. I'm hoping that I'll get some idea here soon.
________________________________
|
turnschuh
|
Posted - 2006.06.09 06:29:00 -
[70]
I dont get it.
you are pirating and complaining that you get pwned by ISS?
imho ISS should set you -10 :p
|
GrimDoomsday
|
Posted - 2006.06.09 08:18:00 -
[71]
what if the guy was merc hit, or war target? would prax still rabble up and avenge there buddy.
you guys let ASCN pirate in your sov system last week (i think someone was whining about it on here)
double standards.
|
Hardin
|
Posted - 2006.06.09 08:52:00 -
[72]
AFAIK Praxis have long worked with other residents in the regions they live in (Tash-Murkon) to keep their area safe.
If you then start pirating in those systems they are not going to abandon old friends simply because you aren't shooting at them. You pirate and you have to accept the consequences.
Have ISS refused to honour your jump clone contracts or have they stopped you using their stations? If yes then you might have reason to whinge - although even that might be acceptable considering your forum whinage and attack on them here.
------------------------------
Hardin's Blog
|
Sharl Hawkeye
|
Posted - 2006.06.09 09:44:00 -
[73]
A good pirate is the dead pirate.
Big *bow* to the people who kill rats.
Keep the good work folks. Clear the infestation. *thumb up*
What should be the point?
How ISS allow get paid by PIRATES for services.
That should create riot among the peacefull merchants.
|
Butter Dog
|
Posted - 2006.06.09 10:10:00 -
[74]
Originally by: Beringe
Originally by: Crux Australis
Fine, why did ISS sell them standings if they are kos to ISS by nature, since they are pirates?
Because they didn't know they were pirates? After all, the OP is a self-proclaimed "part-time pirate" (whatever the hell that means).
NOT TRUE.
ISS do not make judgements on corporations. ISS are friendly with many pirate and indeed anti-pirate organisations - they are a neutral entity.
ISS is not actually 'anti-pirate', is it 'anti-hostile to ISS'. Plenty of well known pirate organisations have positive standings with ISS and enjoy full use of the outposts. If the pirates were not enagaging ISS, then ISS should not, according to its own rules, have intervened.
Its as simple as that. You can debate the rights and wrongs of this all you like, but ISS's stated policy is one of neutrality. And the term 'pirate' can be applied (and is applied) to many forms of PvP (even NBSI). So its not as simple as some people seem to think it is.
------------------
I'm a 'liberated PvPer' |
Butter Dog
|
Posted - 2006.06.09 10:13:00 -
[75]
Originally by: turnschuh
I dont get it.
you are pirating and complaining that you get pwned by ISS?
imho ISS should set you -10 :p
Your opinion really doenst matter. This isnt a question of opinion, its a question of fact. ISS have a stated policy of neutrality and do not make judgements on a coporations behaviour unless they are hostile directly to ISS. That is how ISS operate, whether you or anyone else likes it or not.
------------------
I'm a 'liberated PvPer' |
Drasked
|
Posted - 2006.06.09 10:41:00 -
[76]
ISS broke their own rules as they are written on paper, GG.
|
Malicious Wraith
|
Posted - 2006.06.09 11:25:00 -
[77]
Interesting discussion.... hehe
|
magickangaroo
|
Posted - 2006.06.09 12:16:00 -
[78]
TBFH
this thread is priceless bearing in mind all teh pirates in teh iss navy.
mgk
(GAL11) Brigadier General yay |
Yakti
|
Posted - 2006.06.09 13:23:00 -
[79]
In my eyes, if an ISS member gangs up with non-ISS people, their RoE no longer appliesand are acting on their own.
|
Jor Azmeh
|
Posted - 2006.06.09 14:12:00 -
[80]
Originally by: Butter Dog
Originally by: turnschuh
I dont get it.
you are pirating and complaining that you get pwned by ISS?
imho ISS should set you -10 :p
Your opinion really doenst matter. This isnt a question of opinion, its a question of fact. ISS have a stated policy of neutrality and do not make judgements on a coporations behaviour unless they are hostile directly to ISS. That is how ISS operate, whether you or anyone else likes it or not.
no, Your opinon doesn't matter. You're no longer ISS, stop talking as if you are.
-
|
Lord Spidey
|
Posted - 2006.06.09 14:27:00 -
[81]
Originally by: turnschuh
I dont get it.
you are pirating and complaining that you get pwned by ISS?
imho ISS should set you -10 :p
Pirating in a low sec system is completely different from shooting neutrels who are on their way to an ISS outpost. If ISS is going to start shooting anyone in space that is not theirs (vis a vis empire) then they arent truly what they claim to be. pretty much this is a case of..."omg were iss please dont pirate us...oh wait now weve assembled a fleet of 20 people and u killed a random guy who may have been ganged with us so were gonna get youuuuuu" 
as someone posted earlier...what if the person who had been killed was someones merc target...would ISS still intervene?
|
DeathForMeh
|
Posted - 2006.06.09 14:33:00 -
[82]
Stop whining and go to iss space and start shooting. EVEMail the ceos and remind them as to why you are shooting. problem solved good game
--------------------------------------------
X I was here |
Dao 2
|
Posted - 2006.06.09 15:09:00 -
[83]
i don't particurarly like pirates, died to them myself sometimes but i'm gonna have to agree witth OP this time.
Wether or not i feel happy if they blew up a pirate or not, they state that they won't shoot ANYONE not red outside their sov. space (unless they shoot first of course). Now i really don't care if ISS aren't neutral, i don't use their stations anyway.
Just sayin that they should say somethin, and go follow it.
------------------------------------------------
NEWLY ADDED ON 1/19 (though applies to all posts before ;p)
the usual "I don't represent my corp or alliance" and stuffs like that
Also the gal |
Zaldiri
|
Posted - 2006.06.09 15:59:00 -
[84]
ISS is politically neutral, that means it shouldn't take sides as far as disptues between corps are concenernd. However in this case there wasn't a dispute between corps, there was a non-political act of piracy, if you are a pirate you are fighting everyone, expect everyone to fight you.
Say two countries (the equivilent of eve corps or alliences in the real world) A and B are at war, they fight naval battles international waters. Country C (ISS) does not get involved in these battles becuase it is neutral.
However while cruising in international waters country C's ship spots a pirate ship (there still are modern sea pirates) and proced to torpedo it. This is fair enough and probably happens in the real world (although I can't realy think of many recent naval conflicts).
-----------------------------------------------
Admiral of King Frieza's Super Saiyan fleet.
|
Lord Spidey
|
Posted - 2006.06.09 16:17:00 -
[85]
What if 2 corps are NOT at war but just dont like each other and are attacking each other? Does ISS assist? Where is the line drawn?
I'm also curious on ISS official stance on aiding and abetting their allies if they are wardeced. It could be argued that random wardecs are in fact a form of legal piracy. Hopefully someone can clear this up
|
Del369
|
Posted - 2006.06.09 17:22:00 -
[86]
Originally by: Nooey
Guys, Guys, Guys, you're missing the point. Helganstandt isn't whining that the ship was destroyed. I think she's said that enough times already now.
She's just pointing out the hypocrisy of claiming neutrality whilst taking sides in a conflict.
Simple as that.
Try to process that single sentence of information. It's really not hard.
almost as much of a hypocracy as claiming to be a part time piwat, no ? 
anyway you ain't seen nuffink yet, wait till the count brings out the breadknife when ya backs turned......... 
I want to die quietly in my sleep just like my dear old grandma, and not screaming in terror like her passengers!! |
Righteous Fury
|
Posted - 2006.06.09 18:19:00 -
[87]
Originally by: Del369
almost as much of a hypocracy as claiming to be a part time piwat, no ?
Not really. I'm not a full time pirate, its more of an opportunistic piracy when we're not being paid to shoot at someone or eradicating idiots. As far as I grasp the english language, 'part-time' means... not full time.
Or have I been mistaken?
|
Eade Amtyre
|
Posted - 2006.06.09 21:47:00 -
[88]
Originally by: Crux Australis
If you are neutral, you are *always* neutral, not just when it serves your purposes.
Ah right. So lets take a common enough situation.. if I am being attacked by a pirate.. I mean actually being fired upon.. I cannot claim neutrality if I fire back?
I mean, if I fire back and protect myself then im opposing the pirate - ie not being neutral.. just because it 'serves my purposes' to try and save myself.
Obviously you dont agree with that.. so where draw the line? How far is a 'neutral' corp allowed to go to defend itself from pirates?
Return fire?
Avenge a fallen comrade?
Keep security in a system where you operate miners?
|
FireLord
|
Posted - 2006.06.09 21:54:00 -
[89]
Originally by: Righteous Fury
Originally by: Del369
almost as much of a hypocracy as claiming to be a part time piwat, no ?
Not really. I'm not a full time pirate, its more of an opportunistic piracy when we're not being paid to shoot at someone or eradicating idiots. As far as I grasp the english language, 'part-time' means... not full time.
Or have I been mistaken?
It is rather a shame that your grasp of common sense is not as good as your grasp of the english language. You pirate someone, you put yourself at risk of being hunted by anyone who hasnt got you set to decently positive standings. suck it up ande live with it tbh. |
Helganstandt
|
Posted - 2006.06.09 22:38:00 -
[90]
Edited by: Helganstandt on 09/06/2006 22:39:54
Originally by: Eade Amtyre
Originally by: Crux Australis
If you are neutral, you are *always* neutral, not just when it serves your purposes.
Ah right. So lets take a common enough situation.. if I am being attacked by a pirate.. I mean actually being fired upon.. I cannot claim neutrality if I fire back?
I mean, if I fire back and protect myself then im opposing the pirate - ie not being neutral.. just because it 'serves my purposes' to try and save myself.
Obviously you dont agree with that.. so where draw the line? How far is a 'neutral' corp allowed to go to defend itself from pirates?
Return fire?
Avenge a fallen comrade?
Keep security in a system where you operate miners?
I'll give a different situation. You are in a system. You hear in local someone say "Help, I'm being attacked by a pirate!" Do you go help them? Do you help kill the guy in need of help? Or do you leave as it's none of your business?
Tell me which one of these options is neutral.
That's the situation we are dealing with. We didn't attack ISS (and make a point NOT to attack ISS). ISS chose to come get vengeance for someone who wasn't ISS.
edit: By the way, I should mention that the person asking for help isn't in your corp or alliance.
________________________________
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |