EVE Search - Iss Marginis/Borealis (appeal to all in the interests of the game)

Check My IP Information

All Channels

Corporation, Alliance and Organization Discussions

Iss Marginis/Borealis (appeal to all in the interests of the game)

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]


Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Butter Dog The Dead Miners Society	Posted - 2006.10.16 22:08:00 - [1] Originally by: SaorAlba Judge for your self my audience. Does D2 not have every right to set ISS at -10? He was rather abrupt in the manner he meant about that, and I don't blame you for being angry. ISS rent the northern half of Tenerifis from LV. They are obliged to keep people out of the space as part of their deal with LV. I agree this should have been dealt with through a discreet convo rather than those obtuse threats in local. I'm sure ISS management will be horrified to read it. Unfortunately every alliance has the odd tard who ruins it for everyone else, and this is one such person. I know that ISS value their relationship with D2 very much, and indeed have worked with your full co-operation regarding both the Pure Blind outposts they have. Would be a shame to throw all that away because of one idiot. Hopefully they will kick him from the alliance for being a tard, and I'm sure an apology from their management will be forthcoming in your direction.
Butter Dog The Dead Miners Society	Posted - 2006.10.16 22:21:00 - [2] Edited by: Butter Dog on 16/10/2006 22:25:32 Originally by: biggums you sir are misinformed, iss does not fully co-operate with d2 regarding their space in pure blind, they allow RISK who are d2 enemies to setup POS's and harass the resident traveling through there. ISS is a thorn in the north's side and should have been removed a long time ago. (My views are mine alone, and do not reflect my corp or alliance.) Well, its true to say ISS can't police the region for you, they are simply not that kind of alliance. I know they have fought RISK in the north, and TRI, and many others who are hostile to D2. Indeed ISS often camped the Torr/EC gate with D2/IRON before the standings change. The co-operation I talked about was more than just shooting people D2 doesnt like (ISS is under no obligation to do that after all), it goes back to co-operation regarding the outpost systems. Indeed, ISS Borealis was actually constructed at the request of G/IRON and the locals at the time. They also removed docking rights for The Five at G/IRONS request following The Five using the outpost as a stage for attacks against G/IRON. So there is a definate history of friendly co-operation.
Butter Dog The Dead Miners Society	Posted - 2006.10.16 22:29:00 - [3] Originally by: Karina Harington Originally by: Butter Dog Indeed ISS often camped the Torr/EC gate with D2/IRON before the standings change. Staring at the gate from 400km in a shuttle doesn't count. lol, true... but when ISSN are up North they usually camp it pretty solidly :)
Butter Dog The Dead Miners Society	Posted - 2006.10.16 22:33:00 - [4] Originally by: marcouk2 Originally by: Butter Dog I know they have fought RISK in the north ISS have a nap with risk Yeah, they used to fight them I should have said. But read the ISS Charter, they are bound by neutrality and if they start shooting people because you don't like them... well it kind of goes against everything they should be about I guess. Its really tough trying to be neutral. You get a lot of suspicion. Most of its not really justified of course, but I can understand the paranoia, its human nature to be mis-trusting.
Butter Dog The Dead Miners Society	Posted - 2006.10.17 09:52:00 - [5] Originally by: Metal Dude Originally by: Butter Dog ... I'm biased because I like ISS and what they stand for. Its unique. Who are you kidding, bitter dog. Why would you be in an ISS thread when there's a perfectly good BoB thread going? Maybe because , em, you are an ISS alt? Kind of bad deal for your mains allince ticking off D2. It's nice to be all neutral when you can flame people from behind an alt. Too bad for ISS. Too bad one idiot can ruin it for the rest. lol @ you Seriously, you just have to look at my corp history to see I used to be in ISS. I like the people there, ISS management is mature and focused. Any of the hundreds of people who have spoken with me on vent/ts will vouch that I am not an alt. Though I do have other characters, but BD is the main character on this account.
Butter Dog The Dead Miners Society	Posted - 2006.10.17 09:59:00 - [6] Originally by: Liet Traep I'm just a grunt so my understanding is limited. But I understand that ISS pilots have been scouting and warning hostile pilots. Seems to me that's reason enough to no longer consider them a neutral party. Well, anyone who speaks with ISS management will understand how genuine they are in their desire to be neutral. There is no plot, no conspiracy. HOWEVER, and its a big 'however', because of the open nature of ISS, its pretty easy to get alt spies into the alliance. It is the actions of these few individuals on which you are judging the alliance. You are entitled to do this, but it is not ISS you are judging, it is alt spies. You could argue they should change membership criterea to make it tougher for corps to join, but that would go against what ISS is all about - opening up underused areas of 0.0 like Pure Blind and Providence to new corps who otherwise would not have 0.0 access. I guess you either believe in what ISS is trying to achieve, and respect them for being unique in this game, or you don't. If you don't, you'll look for a reason to justify shooting them, and it won't be hard to find because of all the paranoid consipiracy theories out there. ISS are a 90% industrial alliance who will be no match for d2 and friends militarily, but if you want some easy ganks, I guess you're about to get them.
Butter Dog The Dead Miners Society	Posted - 2006.10.17 10:01:00 - [7] Originally by: Feterous Jolin It's really only a matter of time before someone tries to take one of the ISS outposts. One way or the other, good luck and happy hunting. None of them have any worth other than a neutral trade hub.
Butter Dog The Dead Miners Society	Posted - 2006.10.17 17:32:00 - [8] Originally by: FireFoxx80 I feel that ISS is not providing the security in Pure Blind that it offers to alliances in the south. We have such terrorists as D00M, YNC, and other running riot in the systems surrounding both ISS outposts; yet they do nothing to ensure the safety of pilots trying to reach their stations. I hear that the ISS Navy cannot even remove a D00M POS that is anchored by one of the moons in EC-P8R. I'm sorry, at what point did ISS state they would police Pure Blind for you?
Butter Dog The Dead Miners Society	Posted - 2006.10.17 17:37:00 - [9] Originally by: grizouh Originally by: Kira Knightly + ISS will assume responsability of patrolling the northern part of the region. ISS will pursue and suppress pirate incursions into the region. ISS will keep LV central space command informed of all foreign alliance movements in Tenerifis and as such act as border guards and reconnaissance for LV. Transgressions of any one of these, all in all, very simple rules will lead to immediate expulsion from ISS. Did D2 become pirates or are ISS breaking their own contract rules? I always knew kalok (soaralba) is a pirate at heart seriously, with a contract like stated above you can not maintain neutrality... They are simply buying a service, in this case access to some mining and NPCing. What 'neutrality' means, is that you can buy the service off any other alliance, including yours. If ISS set up a similar mutually profitable agreement with D2, maybe you guys might think differently. I understand LV make a very nice profit from the arrangement, so it would seem to be potentially a very good idea to implement something similar.
Butter Dog The Dead Miners Society	Posted - 2006.10.17 17:45:00 - [10] Originally by: Scrofalitic One Originally by: Serapis Aote If someone that ISS is +10 to wants to scout out the space of their enemy...then ISS should let them. That is neutrality. Exactly. In the case in point the ISS chappy should have ignored the passing of the D2 chap, as equally if he had been travelling through (for instance) Deklein and had seen a LV pod floating by he should ignore that. To be neutral they must not engage in combat, spy on or otherwise compromise ANY activity that the other alliance is up to. Is that possible? Probably not, and therein lies the problem. I agree with this completely. They should have left that D2 pod alone. When I was in ISS I argued that we should leave people in northern Tenerifis alone unless they were actually -10 to us. I'm sure this event will cause them to think about the details of their agreement with LV, and I'm even more certain that ISS management will come up with a solution which works for all parties. They are good like that.

Butter Dog The Dead Miners Society	Posted - 2006.10.17 17:46:00 - [11] Originally by: Yodaron Ballsithor Butter, you really have no clue or you are simply ignoring the point. It is not the fact that two (2) alliances are making profit in a mutual way. It is the fact that ISS is obligated to report movements of hostiles to LV when ISS is supposedly neutral. Comprehension for the win! Yes, sorry, I'm not ignoring the issue... I just forgot to cover it. That part of the agreement needs removing in my opinion.
Butter Dog The Dead Miners Society	Posted - 2006.10.17 18:15:00 - [12] Originally by: Rei Toai ISS HAS NO POWER - while others have. and it has nothing to do with the neighbours beeing pirates, tyrans and so on - it has only to do with flaws in the concept of ISS. This sort of ill-informed rant irritates me, and I'll tell you why. ISS set out with clear goals: Develop empty areas of 0.0, so that a new generation of EVE players outside the traditional territorial alliances can experience 0.0 life. 7 outposts and 2,000 members later, they have been REMARKABLY successful in these simple and honest goals. They have changed EVE forever, in fact, more so than almost ANY territorial alliance ever has, or ever will. And they have done all this, whilst tip-toeing around the egos of the territorial alliances with remarkable diplomatic success (for the most part). ISS required tact, intelligence, and dedication for relatively little reward. But what a success they have been. So by saying what you have said, you only show yourself up, as someone who doesnt have the first clue about what ISS is actually about, what its goals where, or what it has achieved.
Butter Dog The Dead Miners Society	Posted - 2006.10.17 19:39:00 - [13] Edited by: Butter Dog on 17/10/2006 19:40:02 Originally by: Devian 666 No a station isn't really profitable when the shares are distributed. It's only profitable to the share holders. Hang on the station is profitable and the profits are paid out. Simply if it wasn't profitable you wouldn't be there. This is ISS propaganda. Hmmm. I'm going to keep this simple for you, I think you need it. Monthy revenue from the outpost = circa 1bn ISK. Monthly cost of 12 large sov keeping POS to ISS = circa 500m ISK Revenue from outpost goes ENTIRELY to shareholders, the majority of whom are outside ISS. Total profit from running EC-P outpost = nothing. It COSTS ISS 500m a month to manage and this expense is NOT recovered from revenue which is paid directly to shareholders. Now, given this new information, do you now see why his post had merit, wheras yours is just an ill-informed rant?
Butter Dog The Dead Miners Society	Posted - 2006.10.18 18:10:00 - [14] Originally by: Devian 666 Originally by: Butter Dog Edited by: Butter Dog on 17/10/2006 19:40:02 Originally by: Devian 666 No a station isn't really profitable when the shares are distributed. It's only profitable to the share holders. Hang on the station is profitable and the profits are paid out. Simply if it wasn't profitable you wouldn't be there. This is ISS propaganda. Hmmm. I'm going to keep this simple for you, I think you need it. Monthy revenue from the outpost = circa 1bn ISK. Monthly cost of 12 large sov keeping POS to ISS = circa 500m ISK Revenue from outpost goes ENTIRELY to shareholders, the majority of whom are outside ISS. Total profit from running EC-P outpost = nothing. It COSTS ISS 500m a month to manage and this expense is NOT recovered from revenue which is paid directly to shareholders. Now, given this new information, do you now see why his post had merit, wheras yours is just an ill-informed rant? That allows for the station accounting. Now if what you were saying was the entire picture then ISS would be losing 500m per month and would soon be liquidated due to having no funds. Hmmm, I don't see that happening any time soon. The spin off benefits of having the station include mining, ratting and industrial sales. No one will fork out 500m isk and not expect some benefit either currently or in the future. Selling the shares to the stations is just a risk mitigation measure which releases ISS isk for other uses. You can now continue to add more spin to the ISS propaganda machine. You havent a clue what you are talking about, let me explain why. ISS have not just sunk 500m ISK a month into the EC-P outpost, they have spent BILLIONS defending the system. For no ISK gain. Why do they do this? Because they have goals and ideals which you clearly don't understand, but which the alliance holds dear. They do it because they wish to realise their goals of opening up 0.0 to new generations of EVE players. Your point about ratting and mining is frankly rubbish. That area of Pure Blind is not claimed, ANYONE can rat in it. Also their stations do not have refinery facilities so mining is out the question. As for why they havent gone bankrupt - ISS make enough money from POS and Industrial activity to more than cover the COSTS (and they are costs) associated with running a neutral trading outpost on behalf of their shareholders. Do you understand now?
Butter Dog The Dead Miners Society	Posted - 2006.10.23 17:35:00 - [15] Originally by: Darth Maule I noticed that during my stay down in imensia region that ppl would use iss stations as a base for agressive opps.That dosent sound very neutral does it ? If you looked up the word 'neutral' in a dictionary, you would see that it does.
Butter Dog The Dead Miners Society	Posted - 2006.10.24 21:19:00 - [16] Originally by: Fred0 Originally by: Butter Dog If you looked up the word 'neutral' in a dictionary, you would see that it does. That's bull****. One of the Hague conventions quite clearly states that neutrality means no use of the neutral parties land or facilities. Dunno where you digged your info up but there's only one authority on neutrality in armed conflicts really. IF we want to use RL analogies. I'm certainly NOT drawing RL analogies. You are. They do not work. I'm talking about the pure definition of the word.

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.