Instead, how about we give negative sec status players some incentive to undock?

Remove facpo, that way neg sec status players are not being constantly chased around by the magic space police. That's the reason the prospective white knights can't get anything done by the way, because we can't have a margin for error thanks to the fact that the faction police can chase us down faster than a player ever will.

You want to open up player interaction? Then remove the NPCs who get in the way.

Unless they are in Concord space. Then Concord is the faction police.

Restricted Systems

Players that have low security status provoke a police drone response when going into systems with a high security status. The thresholds for provoking a police drone response are follows:

1.0: -2.0 and lower.
0.9: -2.5 and lower.
0.8: -3.0 and lower.
0.7: -3.5 and lower.
0.6: -4.0 and lower.
0.5: -4.5 and lower.
0.0-0.4: No restrictions.

Please note that the systems in the Sanctum constellation in Genesis are claimed by Interbus and CONCORD, thus the faction police are CONCORD. Entering any system in this constellation, while having a security status below the level stated above, will provoke a CONCORD response, similar to the response. Gates will be locked down to prevent you from escaping the system and you will be webbed, scrammed and your ship destroyed.

Simple solution: Boot them from Tranquility, when the gankers try to log back in they are redirected to random 100+ page threadslides to review the damage they do to like....5 people and stuff.

Doesn't look like a gank.

And when are you guys going to learn that nobody cares about this whole "kill it forward" rubbish you guys spew. In essence, (not sure about this case as I haven;t bothered reading the thread) it's a sign that someone has raised a good point, since you can;t counter the point and instead want to force people not to post by suggesting that you'll gank more if they keep talking (which you won't, since you'd kill those people anyway).

How the kills are performed is irrelevant.

I was thinking more, teach them how to be super carebeary, not ever fighting or speaking to anyone, just tanking enough to be not worth attacking, and avoiding bait. I might even have to start up a massive isboxer mining fleet made of procurers, then just add a procurer every time someone says something I disagree with.

Your comp will overload from the added processes of those who disagree with you. You troll on occasion, or frequently... I'm not sure. But speaking as a bear who's in the process of reform I can't disagree with you more.

I've had more fun in the last couple months with the Lords than I had in the seven plus years prior, and I've met some very interesting folks due to the carnage I've helped initiate. I've traded fits with victims and victors, discussed tactics and given advice. In short, I've INTERACTED with my fellow players and in many cases we've both walked away better as a result. Some have expressed interest in joining the selfsame crew I am in as a result. We are making hi-sec more dangerous, more fun, more interactive by doing what we do. And not one, not one toon who has met a Lord on their own terms can say it was someone else's fault.

EVE is meant to be played with others, playing it solo is a slow death of the soul.

Thread to long, didn't read. But do agree with stricter punishment. Simpler idea I have is just no more immortal clone, no more clone cost to upgrade (remove ship insurance, now exploding becomes the main isk sink), you update everytime you dock in a station but there will always be a minor difference between the last "save point" (like when you where working on a document, it autosaves, and the power went out a few minutes later...didn't save the work from the last couple minutes) to stick with the lore, and bob is your uncle. When your ship explodes, their ship explodes to CONCORD, you both lose at least a day's worth of skill points....problem solved. Kamikaze...where both opponents are the losers .

Additional ideas is both get heavily fined in ISK by CONCORD for wasting their time by pulling them from the donut shop while the omnipotent police destroy all the wrecks at the same time to keep the shipping lanes safe, hell CONCORD should be podding all parties involved for the last couple years (no where is safe except docked, rule one of EVE....not even CONCORD should be fair).

And if its for mining ship ganks, CCP is still better off getting rid of asteroids/mining barges/industry as a whole, seeding the minerals (or just plain ships) at outrageous prices, and not refunding the skill points for their stupid idea to put a ****** boring version of Minesweeper in EVE. Nobody likes miners, but miners think they are important but never get respect while the guys asploding them never give it in return. Double win, gets rid of the ganker's problem for them, miners can't get ganked anymore since they don't exist....yup, solves everybodies problems.

Ganking as it currently stands is way too easy. It takes days to make a gank alt, and if/when you decide to stop ganking you've got at most a 30 day wait and some tags to hand in and you've undone everything. Not that having a low sec status and kill rights really matters in the slightest. And you are against changing it to make it more difficult for the worry that putting effort into a gank would make it boring? Is that about right?

I have a better idea for those who want to RP as criminals. Its more immersive, and adds a level of realism to the game. Actually create a punishment system instead of sec status loss (which is lame because -10 is like an award).

1st Offense - Gankers market price ship value is given to gankee as compensation.
2nd Offense - compensation plus "jail time" (two hours of logged in time where no skill point increase occurs and the character is stuck in a penal station)
3rd Offense - compensation + 3 hours jail time.

And fit a covert ops cloak. I think you left it slightly underpowered.

I think there need to be harder punishments for mining, beyond the fact that it drives you insane with the boredom. We should start a campaign on the forum, rather than using the existing tools to inflict said punishments ourselves.

Well I can certainly afford to replace it. It doesn't change the fact that game mechanics make it easy for a swarm of cheap ships to gank a much more expensive one, or the fact that dedicated -10 gank alts can still effectively spend their time suicide ganking with no more punishment than a 15 minute slap on the wrist from CONCORD after the destruction of their cheap gank ship.

Well, I looked through all the responses - most were nonsensical and used strawman arguments. I thought about only responding to the well reasoned posts, but talking to myself isn't so useful. So briefly:

1) No, I don't subscribe to the concept of "isk tanking." What I do think is that there should be tools available to properly tank ships commensurate with their expense level. If my Machariel costs 3x as much as a T1 battleship, it would be reasonable to think that there are some fitting choices available to give me 3x the ehp. Instead, bigger ships tend to not have dps/ehp increases corresponding to their increased price tag. In general I would support a WoT style "penetration" system in Eve, where small destroyer/frig guns would be unable to do any real damage to a well tanked battleship. Why should 50 rookie ships with Civilian guns be able to blow up a well tanked Machariel? The system is weighted towards small ships, and lends itself to glass cannon suicide ganking.

2. that means ganking to stop the isk faucets in highsec is stupid....and shows that its just an excuse to blow things up.

.... and give 'em the ol' gankarooski.