I'm starting to think you are an android Tippia.

Data, is that you?

Bot-like behavior is debatable, and completely open to interpretation.

So you agree, then, that the reason the like of you and the OP get berated is because of your lack of evidence or logic rather than because of any of the nonsensical strawman reasons you used, since all you have as a comeback is a particularly silly ad hominem. Goodie.

Hey OP, come to Deklein.

I can say with absolute certainty that we have the laziest, most inattentive ratters in the game, and they like to bling fit and even do so in carriers. If you can't catch them, the problem is you.

You sure use the strawman term a lot.

I provided evidence of botting, or at the very least brain damage of the players piloting those hulks. It doesn't matter how many tries it takes, the evidence is there.

They are designed to look like humans, some better than others.

And yes, you are data.

And yes, you are data.

words

you sure do talk a lot for someone who sits in jita all day every day scamming.

So you agree that I'm right then, since you have to rely on fallacies rather than actual argumentation.

now why is that the most unqualified segment of the eve population makes the loudest noise?

now why is that the most unqualified segment of the eve population makes the loudest noise?

I'd just apply the good old razor:

"Among competing hypotheses, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected."

Option 1: Many people that the OP encounters are paying attention and warp to the safety of a POS when a neutral suddenly shows up in local.

Option 2: Almost every single player that the OP encounters are actually botting, despite engaging in behavior that most characters manned by human beings would do.

Option 1 assumes that most players in null enjoy keeping their ships.

Option 2 assumes a hell of a lot more :)

Just my two cents on the issue, inb4 OP flames me for not being nearly as elite as him :)

note how known awoxers, scammers, an other non-pvp'ers flock to the defense of bottling whenever its brought up.

i think even if i posted a fraps recording with 100s of attempted ganks over a period of time, you would attack me for, i dont know, using wrong resolution on my fraps.

i think even if i posted a fraps recording with 100s of attempted ganks over a period of time, you would attack me for, i dont know, using wrong resolution on my fraps.

you know what they say about arguing with trolls - better to simply stop feeding them.

100s of attempted ganks

No, I can't say that I've ever seen any of them hold anything resembling that position.
Do you have anything to support this claim, or is it (like your OP) just something you invented out of whole cloth?

So you agree that I'm right then since you can't offer any kind of actual argumentation and have to rely wholly on fallacies to fill in the gap vast yawning chasm left behind in your desperate attempt to not just come out and admit it.

keep trying to troll. you i will keep unblocked for lols while im watching this match.

That's because people sure use them as substitutes for proper arguments a lot.

It matters when your first couple of attempts just makes you seem unintelligent, and it matters even more when you get annoyed that people GÇö entirely correctly GÇö point this out to you and you try to turn their reaction to your lack of evidence into the strawman that people say that there aren't any bots. They're not GÇö they're just saying that your GÇ£evidenceGÇ¥ does not support your claim.

GǪbut when you first point to their lack of response as evidence that they're bots and then point to the fact that they respond as evidence that they're bots, you're just being stupid and self-contradictory, and are rightfully called out for it. This has nothing to do with bot design, but with your refusal to accept that your reasoning is nonsensical.

So you agree that I'm right then, since you have to rely on fallacies rather than actual argumentation.

I'll try DJ's razor thing myself.

Option 1: 100s of players are actually bots

Option 2: one player is terribad at ganking

If my first tries make me seem unintelligent, that's not logical , that's what you think.

If someone responds several hours after I blow up their ship, their pod sitting in space for hours afterwards, because I just broke their macro programming, it does not in any way mean they weren't botting.

I tend to rat while orbiting something with my 100mn afterburner running because Ishtar, but once a neutral gets within 2 systems I align & prepare to pull drones. Once you actually land in system I have enough time to let my drones return before hitting warp. Your real issue seems to be with people utilising the power of friend making & somehow this is unfair.

Clearly peoples ability to converse with one another & work together based on common interests needs to be nerfed somehow.

No, it is the reason why people are berating you: because you throw out accusation that you very obviously haven't through through properly.

GǪnor does it say that they were. That's the whole point: you keep attributing behaviour to botting that is just as easily explained by sheer inattentiveness, and you keep altering the story.

People weren't berating you for whatever inane strawman reason you invented; they were berating you because the evidence you offered did not particularly support your assertions. It's really as simple as that.

your real issue seems to be reading the part where i say i drop out of fresh wormholes on top of you, with no prior intel warning.

i think even if i posted a fraps recording with 100s of attempted ganks over a period of time, you would attack me for, i dont know, using wrong resolution on my fraps.

you know what they say about arguing with trolls - better to simply stop feeding them.

Statistical analysis would confirm, sample size would be to small.

• Are there bots in Eve? YES
• Have you encountered bots. More than likely, yes.
• Is everyone that gets away from you a bot. NO!

Confirming, you are not a 1337 ***** as you think, and posting a stealth remove local thread.