EVE Search -

Check My IP Information

All Channels

Corporation, Alliance and Organization Discussions

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 2 post(s)
DeathGrip Amarr Dirty Deeds Corp. Axiom Empire	Posted - 2006.10.17 21:43:00 - [31] Whats funny to me is I hear alliances saying the same bad things about ISS in the South Recently as well. ISS are going to have to come up with some sort of way to actually stay nuetral or call it quits IMO. Seems to me they have upset multiple corps and alliances. These are my thoughts, and feelings from people I have talked to, Not AXE's btw.
Aurel Senia Slacker Industries Exuro Mortis	Posted - 2006.10.17 21:43:00 - [32] Edited by: Aurel Senia on 17/10/2006 21:46:47 While that was a very well worded, idealistic vision of ISS Count, why don't you step back a second and realize some of the liabilities of ISS. Quote: neu‧tral‧i‧ty /nuˈtrµlɪti, nyu-/ ûnoun 1.the state of being neutral. 2.the policy or status of a nation that does not participate in a war between other nations: the continuous neutrality of Switzerland. 3.neutral status, as of a seaport during a war. The emboldening of the second entry is my own. Let us dig a little deeper into your 'neutrality' shall we? "The policy....that does not participate in a war..." Well, this sounds familiar does it not? I don't really need to go in depth for this example because everyone knows you send a large number of capital ships and armadas into 9UY4-H to defend an outpost and an alliance that did not belong to you. Argue the techicalities of this all you'd like - the fact is that regardless of previous actions, actively assisting Ushra'Khan in their war threw any remnants of your neutrality out the window. -- Second, you actively patrol heavily travelled regions of space using your internal navy's forces and agress entities you deem hostile. More specifically, I'm going to talk about HED-GP. You have on numerous occasions established bubble and carrier camps along the route to Curse/Immensa/Stain. While yes, KDF is along this route, you have still failed to pursue the exact definition of neutrality. The KDF-GY system is not located directly on the pipe from HED-GP to any region - infact it is located in a system that can be accessed from the pipe, but is normally bypassed in the route from 6-K738 to 9-8GBA. If you really respected the exact definition of neutrality, you would restrict your blockades to the three entries/exits into KDF (6-K, ZXIC, and 9-8). You would have NEVER exceeded going past the exit gates of KDF or other outposts. -- Third, going hand in hand with my second point, ISS has on numerous occasions sent out (horribly misled) hunting parties into Providence and Catch to eradicate pirates. Speaking also from experience, ISS donated a number of ships to defend an unaffiliated POS in the O-Y5JQ system from a Slacker Industries assault. Again, neutal much? I'm going to include a -- fourth point, just because I'm feeling particularly spiteful today. You allow your dearest ex-admiral of ISSN Butter Dog full access to your private forums for intelligence and tactical discussion, and yet he is not bound by the standard ISS forum-posting rules. Do you want to explain why you allow such a loud-mouthed pseudo-member of your alliance to rampantly troll nearly every single thread posted in the Corp/Alliance forum? I'm sure many people don't know that he is still intricately linked to your dear organization, but it speaks volumes for your supposed 'neutrality.' Now that I've pretty much shattered any claims of neutrality you have left, I'm going to move on to why people dislike ISS. -- First, your alliance's security is a complete and utter joke - and has been so for at least a year. ISS member corporations are rife with spies and informants, and in some extreme cases (I speak from experience) entire alt corps stuffed in right under your noses. -- Second, your POS security is again a joke. During your counter-siege of 9UY4-H, your alliance left entire POSes unpassworded with a multitude of ships left inside them. If we were any more motivated (we take our corp name very literally), you would have had a Thanatos, a Nidhoggur, several battleships and at least fifteen support ships ranging from elite battlecruisers to tech1 frigates stolen out from under your noses. And -- lastly, your claims that you will boot member corporations for misconduct is a joke. Not once have you ever done so. I think I've said enough. Have a nice day.
Avon Caldari Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers	Posted - 2006.10.17 21:47:00 - [33] Ultimately it doesn't matter what ISS do, or what their policy actually is. All that matters is how people perceive them, even if that perception differs from the facts. ISS survives on reputation alone. PR is the key to their continued survival, and it is an aspect of their organisation which seems to be in a decline. The Battleships is not and should not be a solo pwnmobile - Oveur
Nyphur Pillowsoft Interstellar Starbase Syndicate	Posted - 2006.10.17 21:57:00 - [34] Edited by: Nyphur on 17/10/2006 22:04:19 Originally by: Raivi Just go around ISS if you don't want to fight them. I should point out that the area ISS inhabit in Tenerifis is a deadend constellation, the outpost is not on a travel route to LV. People who go there and attack are there to attack ISS, not LV. Originally by: Serenity Steele To address the comment on POS and capital ships, I would argue that the fact the corporations breaking the charter in ISS might place a POS, merely provides a clear marker on the map to identify them (or ISS management become aware and take action) and you know there is an organisation working on getting the POS removed. The alternative is non-ISS accidental or deliberate unknown stealth POS. This is very true. There's nothing scinister about it when an ISS corp puts a POS in closed territory, it's an act of incompetance or just an honest mistake on behalf of the corp. It's NOT an invasion and it doesn't warrant ganking ISS members using your blue status as a cover. Just yesterday I had to inform one corp to drop sov on their tower and another to remove theirs completely. I do my very best to ensure corps put their POS in the right place but there's no game mechanic stopping them sticking one up without contacting me - even though I make such consultation a matter of importance that all corps have to follow. I think what most people forget is that the ISS is not even an alliance. We're a civillian megacorp and we always have been. When an ISS corp does something they shouldn't, that's only one corp doing it. They can not and do not speak for the entire alliance (a word I am using for convenience's sake rather than a definition). Because basically anyone can join the ISS, you cannot feasibly hold the alliance responsible when someone commits a misdeed. You can report them and demand compensation, we have a specific policy on reimbursing friendly-fire incidents and as said above, the policy on violating the charter is zero-tolerance - report them with reasonable evidence and they'll be removed from the alliance or punished. The ISS is not out to make enemies of the other alliances in eve. Originally by: Aurel Senia Edited by: Aurel Senia on 17/10/2006 21:58:08 While that was a very well worded, idealistic vision of ISS Count, why don't you step back a second and realize some of the liabilities of ISS. Quote: neu‧tral‧i‧ty /nuˈtrµlɪti, nyu-/ ûnoun 1.the state of being neutral. 2.the policy or status of a nation that does not participate in a war between other nations: the continuous neutrality of Switzerland. 3.neutral status, as of a seaport during a war. Can we please use common sense a little? You're arguing that the ISS is not neutral on minor technicalities, technicalities that amount to saying we aren't neutral because we fight back when attacked. The ISS has never sanctioned attacks on anyone unless they have earned their place on the Kill on Sight list through consistently attacking us. It's self defence. And you may want to check Butter Dog's info. He's not currently a member of the ISS. Eve-Tanking.com - For tanking spreadsheet and resources.
Aurel Senia Slacker Industries Exuro Mortis	Posted - 2006.10.17 22:14:00 - [35] Edited by: Aurel Senia on 17/10/2006 22:19:09 Originally by: Nyphur Can we please use common sense a little? You're arguing that the ISS is not neutral on minor technicalities, technicalities that amount to saying we aren't neutral because we fight back when attacked. The ISS has never sanctioned attacks on anyone unless they have earned their place on the Kill on Sight list through consistently attacking us. It's self defence. And you may want to check Butter Dog's info. He's not currently a member of the ISS. First: Except not, you fight entities that for all you know have no express purpose of coming after you. Case in point: going after a fleet of mercenaries who have attacked you previously when they're travelling through the HED pipe en route to Wicked Creek. If they were attacking KDF or entering KDF, there is your chance for self defense. If ANYONE is moving through a common travel route and you attack them, that isn't neutral. Second: What, no response to the 9UY assault? You can disregard my entire post except for that point if you want, there is the single proof-positive argument that blows your entire neutrality out of the water. And for Butter Dog? Case in point: Proof Positive And Again Don't lie when you can't erase the truth.
Skeltek Caldari Asgard Schiffswerften Dusk and Dawn	Posted - 2006.10.17 22:31:00 - [36] good post, will probably improve perceival of the situation for most readers towards pro-ISS. Prooving (partially non-existing) claims to be wrong also distracts from the actual points that should be discussed. The main topic in the reffered thread is about ISS management in general dealing out a contract to forward D2 fleetmovement intel to LV. If that would be limited to LV or regionaly limited it might be acceptable somehow, but ISS scouts reporting fleet movement outside of LV space to also other enemies of D2 simply clashes with all the great ideals and ambitions that are postulated in the topicstarter¦s thread. kind regards, Skeltek
James Lyrus Lyrus Associates Interstellar Starbase Syndicate	Posted - 2006.10.17 22:49:00 - [37] Edited by: James Lyrus on 17/10/2006 22:51:57 [ Originally by: Aurel Senia I'm going to include a -- fourth point, just because I'm feeling particularly spiteful today. You allow your dearest ex-admiral of ISSN Butter Dog full access to your private forums for intelligence and tactical discussion, and yet he is not bound by the standard ISS forum-posting rules. Do you want to explain why you allow such a loud-mouthed pseudo-member of your alliance to rampantly troll nearly every single thread posted in the Corp/Alliance forum? I'm sure many people don't know that he is still intricately linked to your dear organization, but it speaks volumes for your supposed 'neutrality.' Originally by: Aurel Senia And for Butter Dog? Case in point: Proof Positive And Again Don't lie when you can't erase the truth. That's not a very solid argument. If you use forum access as your membership criterion, that makes you a member of ISS too.
Celine de'Fursac Amarr Infinite Improbability Inc Dusk and Dawn	Posted - 2006.10.17 23:01:00 - [38] Gee, get you history straight when you want to "clarify" things. D2 never owned EC. if you can't get these little details straight, what about the big things you are propagating? I call you collaborator! Disclaimer: My opinion only etc. etc. etc.
Nyphur Pillowsoft Interstellar Starbase Syndicate	Posted - 2006.10.17 23:02:00 - [39] Originally by: Aurel Senia First: Except not, you fight entities that for all you know have no express purpose of coming after you. Case in point: going after a fleet of mercenaries who have attacked you previously when they're travelling through the HED pipe en route to Wicked Creek. If they were attacking KDF or entering KDF, there is your chance for self defense. If ANYONE is moving through a common travel route and you attack them, that isn't neutral. Second: What, no response to the 9UY assault? You can disregard my entire post except for that point if you want, there is the single proof-positive argument that blows your entire neutrality out of the water. And for Butter Dog? Case in point: http://www.mentalpiracy.org/nick/img/screen1.png" Proof Positive[/url] And Again Don't lie when you can't erase the truth. If you check his info in-game, he is not part of the ISS. I'm not sure what you're getting at, Butter Dog has an account on the ISS forums, right. He was the commander of ISSN before he left, we're not exactly going to ban him from the ISS forums because he left the alliance. If you're suggesting that he is still commanding ISSN, perhaps you missed the post on the internal forums where the new commander was chosen to replace him after he left. First (since you named them, I'll respond in kind), I don't see the logic in your point that attacking anyone in a travel route is not neutral. Does it matter where someone is attacked? If someone attacks ISS pilots consistently, they are added to our kill on sight list so that members of the alliance know that these individuals consistently open fire on us. They will attack us in HED just as much as they will attack us in KDF. Are you are suggesting that the ISS somehow does not have the right to fight back unless in KDF or that we don't have the right to camp HED while moving supplies through? I think you are confusing self defence for outpost defence. People don't have to be on their way to one of the public outposts to be considered hostile. The outposts are not our only assets, there are member POS many jumps out from the outposts and the member pilots themselves that may come under threat in any system where hostiles are found. Do you really think there's something wrong with destroying known pirates/hostiles in order to prevent them attacking others that are less prepared such as haulers, miners or ratters? Second, as for 9uy, the ISS has already made an official announcement about the issue. Each corp assaulting that outpost had earned their place on our KOS list for piracy around the outpost systems. They were prevented from establishing a foothold TWO JUMPS from one of the ISS public outposts. We did not aid Ushra Kahn financially or committ any POS to the situation - all we did was engage pirate forces that were without doubt hostile to us and remove their assets within close proximity to our outpost. Whether Uushra Kahn were warring or not, our actions would have been the same. Pirates gaining a foothold, even just POS, 2 jumps from one of our outposts is not in the best interest of the public ISS outposts. Remember also that they threatened to come after the ISS outposts if they were successful with capturing Unity. We protect those outposts on behalf of shareholders and if we had not attacked the pirate fleets and removed their POS, we might well have lost those outposts. Just because our more militant members opt to pre-emptively attack people who have in the past repeatedly attacked the ISS's miners and haulers does not violate neutrality. To quote someone in my alliance (you know who you are ^^;), "We're neutral, not stupid.". You do give us cause for thought, we're constantly looking back and things we have done and re-assessing them. We're always learning and adapting and we're more than happy to get some constructive criticisms on policies. Eve-Tanking.com - For tanking spreadsheet and resources.
Nyphur Pillowsoft Interstellar Starbase Syndicate	Posted - 2006.10.17 23:11:00 - [40] Edited by: Nyphur on 17/10/2006 23:16:23 Originally by: Skeltek but ISS scouts reporting fleet movement outside of LV space to also other enemies of D2 simply clashes with all the great ideals and ambitions that are postulated in the topicstarter¦s thread. I'll be honest, I agree with you on principle there. That's something management will have to consider. The deal with LV does seem to be something of a sensitive spot and I hope we can spark some useful discussion on the issue in this thread. Constructive discussion is what will lead to diplomatic breakthroughs on these sorts of issues. I personally would enjoy hearing some points of view on the whole thing that differ from my own. Sometimes a new perspective does a lot of good. Also, the pilot who was relaying D2 fleet movements outside of Tenerifis was booted from the alliance. That most certainly is not acceptable and violates the charter. Originally by: Durvaul Yah liked you kicked us because we disagreed with your pvpers, mmkay thanks The above is crap tbh, you shoot anyone who isnt blue not in iss owned systems I understand that you are bitter about the end of your time with ISS but that is trolling and isn't constructive. ISS's policy on attacking is laid out in the charter and reported violations are dealt with. We do not shoot neutrals. Perhaps it would be better said that we do not sanction the shooting of neutrals. There will always be incidents where pilots violate the charter but we can't deal with them if people don't report them. If you have a specific issue with the ISS, there is a list of management contacts in a previous post. I'm in the list and I'm online most days so I can be contacted about incidents that need resolved. Eve-Tanking.com - For tanking spreadsheet and resources.

Durvaul Caldari SAS Strike Team SMASH Alliance	Posted - 2006.10.17 23:11:00 - [41] Yah liked you kicked us because we disagreed with your pvpers, mmkay thanks The above is crap tbh, you shoot anyone who isnt blue not in iss owned systems
Darknesss D00M. Triumvirate.	Posted - 2006.10.17 23:14:00 - [42] Edited by: Darknesss on 17/10/2006 23:14:23 As a word of advice to ISS you should make it harder to join, and only accept people whos background you can check, this would ease peoples concerns, after all that is all you can do security wise (so many people have real skill training alts). Secondly you should choose your greatest allies or friends and stay with them, enhance whatever current business agreements you may have with them and align yourself with their standings. If its true that most alliances are taking on the same view as the north, you need a swift change in policy or your alliance wont survive, except perhaps in Jita.
Legendary Clint	Posted - 2006.10.17 23:28:00 - [43] Edited by: Legendary Clint on 17/10/2006 23:36:40 Edited by: Legendary Clint on 17/10/2006 23:32:05 Edited by: Legendary Clint on 17/10/2006 23:30:00 Quote: 2.the policy or status of a nation that does not participate in a war between other nations: the continuous neutrality of Switzerland It is not correct to quote Switzerland as being continuously neutral as they have on occasion followed the principle of differential neutrality, i.e. member of the League of Nations in the 1920s, joining the United Nations in 2002 & becoming member of the NATO Partnership for Peace. This means that Switzerland will employ economic sanctions against belligerents and may also even deploy 'peacekeepers'. It should also be noted that a neutral power may legitimitely enter a condition known as armed neutraility. I could go on. Neutrality can mean a lot of different things, one person's definition can be totally different to another persons, indeed even definitions can differ by country. The ISS charter is quite clear on the alliance's vision and rules of engagement. It doesn't mention neutrality once. Why can't we simply get on with shooting each other instead of pointlessly bickering on here?
Endless Caldari Finite Horizon	Posted - 2006.10.17 23:29:00 - [44] Edited by: Endless on 17/10/2006 23:29:39 Originally by: Nyphur Remember also that they threatened to come after the ISS outposts if they were successful with capturing Unity. I don't remember us saying that, but hey i might have missed that memo. Why don't you just say you were bored and wanted to come fight?
JForce The Arrow Project The ARR0W Project	Posted - 2006.10.17 23:38:00 - [45] I think the point is that you can't deny that because of the actions of some/many of your members, ISS members can't be trusted. Having a member kicked after the event doesn't change the fact that the damage has already been done. You either have to do more to eliminate those events, or accept that it will result in corps setting you to hostile. Your membership process does nothing to warrant trust in ISS members by other corps. Until that changes I can't see that situation reversing. The Australasian PvP Championships
mishkof Caldari Emerald Empire Muffins of Mayhem	Posted - 2006.10.18 00:16:00 - [46] Edited by: mishkof on 18/10/2006 00:19:02 Everyone I fly with has known these to be lies for a while now. PvP fleets going up and down the hed pipe whom engage us regularily confirms it for me. Of course we do are part to engage them as well, but they seem to enjoy it a little to much for being "protectors of ISS space". The fact is I respect what ISS doas but do not believe any entity can remain neutral in Eve. PVP is quite simply to fun. Disband your navy and rely soley on the protection of your shareholders, and investors and then I personaly might believe you.
Murukan Minmatar The Priory Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate	Posted - 2006.10.18 00:21:00 - [47] You forgot to mention the part about how your pilots break ceasefires under strained situations when leadership are working out problems. And then mention the part about how the members say they will continue to shoot it while your issn admirals say it was the other sides fault. It's funny that the cries for nuetrality always come out when you guys are under fire, yet when you are in the clear your pilots pull all sorts of bull**. In rust we trust!!!**
Mangonis Venator Minmatar For Matari By Matari	Posted - 2006.10.18 00:39:00 - [48] Let me get this straight, Pirates are complaining about getting engaged by a Neutral entity? So when the U.S. was neutral and took on the Barbary Coast they were violating their neutrality? Being neutral doesn't mean they are stupid, nor does it deny them the right to defend themselves. Actively hunting those who hunt you is an accepted practice even for a neutral entity. Why don't those of aAa, MoM, Finite Horizons, etc. simply thank ISS for the "easy" kills they enjoy at ISS expense. In the end nobody really "needs" to justify their standings change or war decs, most of us just do it for fun. Oh, and ISS, you have about 27 hours to evacuate empire space, maybe longer if traffic is real bad. ___________________________________________________ Hunc tu caveto
Lilan Kahn Amarr ISS Navy Task Force Interstellar Starbase Syndicate	Posted - 2006.10.18 00:42:00 - [49] Originally by: Mangonis Venator Let me get this straight, Pirates are complaining about getting engaged by a Neutral entity? So when the U.S. was neutral and took on the Barbary Coast they were violating their neutrality? Being neutral doesn't mean they are stupid, nor does it deny them the right to defend themselves. Actively hunting those who hunt you is an accepted practice even for a neutral entity. Why don't those of aAa, MoM, Finite Horizons, etc. simply thank ISS for the "easy" kills they enjoy at ISS expense. In the end nobody really "needs" to justify their standings change or war decs, most of us just do it for fun. Oh, and ISS, you have about 27 hours to evacuate empire space, maybe longer if traffic is real bad. haha class see you in empire soonÖ Originally by: Eris Discordia We break after X amount of threads, then we go wild and then we get our medication.
Lygos ISS Navy Task Force	Posted - 2006.10.18 00:51:00 - [50] Originally by: mishkof Disband your navy and rely soley on the protection of your shareholders, and investors and then I personaly might believe you. Maybe we should commit covertops crews in nearby systems to make sure no neutrals fleet sneaks up on your gatecamps and commits unneutralist actions in any highways which might be used by potential customers? I really, really didn't want to comment in this thread.. but damn. What makes a man turn neutral? Lust for gold? Power? Or were they just born with a heart full of neutrality? --- Private Investment should preceed Public Investment

Baun 4S Corporation Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2006.10.18 00:54:00 - [51] Edited by: Baun on 18/10/2006 00:55:22 I think what we need is an explanation of why there are so many random corps joining and leaving ISS. If ISS exists to maintin and defend the assets of its shareholders it should, in theory, be able to maintain a policy of neutrality and shoot only those who aggress it. As it currently stands the alliance has many member corporations that seem to be members for no functional reason. Either ISS is a business or it is not. If ISS is a business then it surely only needs the corporations that are neccesary to provide the logistics for its POSs/Outposts and the corporations that are neccesary to defend them. Why are there (according to the probably lagged backstory link) 91 corporations and 2000 characters in the alliance? How is this conceivably neccesary for your business? What are these people doing for your shareholders other than shooting people they should not be shooting and wandering around every area of 0.0 "neutrally" using the space of other alliances? Clean house and in so doing fix the problems you have created for yourself. The Enemy's Gate is Down
Nyphur Pillowsoft Interstellar Starbase Syndicate	Posted - 2006.10.18 00:57:00 - [52] Originally by: Endless Edited by: Endless on 17/10/2006 23:29:39 Originally by: Nyphur Remember also that they threatened to come after the ISS outposts if they were successful with capturing Unity. I don't remember us saying that, but hey i might have missed that memo. Why don't you just say you were bored and wanted to come fight? It was in the VETO post where they tried to ransom the outpost during the siege. Originally by: JForce I think the point is that you can't deny that because of the actions of some/many of your members, ISS members can't be trusted. Since the ISS is public, it's true that its members cannot be conferred an automatic trust based on simply being in the ISS. Anyone can join, so being in it doesn't really mean anything. Our corporation and pilot turnover is quite high, most leaving into the other local alliances we are friendly with and a few being removed for misconduct. And as stated before, we are riddled with "spies" and alts, making internal actions quite transparant to anyone with good intel-gathering capabilities. You can, however, trust management. It's up to you to do that but you know that management best represent the alliance's official positions while the other members may not. Also keep this in mind: Since anyone can join the ISS, people from one alliance could easilly get alts into the ISS and use them to cause diplomatic incidents by attacking people they shouldn't. It's quite easy and it's the reason why I say that the actions of a few individuals or corps that violate the charter cannot reasonably be taken as if those actions were sanctioned by management. If your ship is unjustly destroyed by an ISS pilot (and by unjustly I mean if your corp/alliance aren't hostile to us), you will be reimbursed adequately if you report it and it is within our capability to get you reimbursement. A friendlyfire incident or rogue member/corp is no excuse to start a fight. No alliance can completely control their member's actions and it's unreasonable to ask it of them. The absolute best that can be done is to minimise the potential for misconduct and then treat it when it occurs. Originally by: JForce Having a member kicked after the event doesn't change the fact that the damage has already been done. You either have to do more to eliminate those events, or accept that it will result in corps setting you to hostile. Your membership process does nothing to warrant trust in ISS members by other corps. Until that changes I can't see that situation reversing. We can't predict the future any more than you can. People go rogue, and the ISS isn't the only alliance with that problem, they all have it. The only difference is that other alliances tighten membership to try and prevent it while our business and operation model precludes that possibility - the ISS is a public civillian megacorp and the best we can do is absorb the damage once it occurs. We may not be able to say for sure that even 10% of our members are trustworthy people and I sure won't try but if something goes wrong, there are steps that can be taken to reverse the damage that is caused. One of those things is reimbursement for friendly-fire (or neutral-fire I guess) incidents. However, the first of these steps is contacting an ISS Management representative about the incident (and not Count, he is often too busy and swamped with mails). If you mail a representative and report it and it still doesn't get sorted out to your satisfaction, then there's cause for complaint and I am more than willing to listen to constructive complaints. If we're doing something wrong, we need to know about it, but I don't believe we are doing wrong. Originally by: Murukan It's funny that the cries for nuetrality always come out when you guys are under fire, yet when you are in the clear your pilots pull all sorts of bull****. Hi. If you have a legitimate grievance, please forward me the details and I will attend to it. Eve-Tanking.com - For tanking spreadsheet and resources.
Audrea Momentum.	Posted - 2006.10.18 01:05:00 - [53] Very nice post, does answer few questions and offers solutions. However, you yourself contradict the charter: Originally by: Count LV has stated they donÆt want trespassers in their region. We help evict these to the best of our ability. When theyÆre blue to us due to standings gained from elsewhere in Eve, we ask them to leave, when theyÆre red, we shoot them. Say I am blue, and for whatever reason (really doesnt matter which!!!), I decided to come to that pocket of 8 systems. Now if I dont open fire on ISS ships, why would I be threatened and requested to leave? Earlier you said ISS claim no space, and act as neutrals as long as they arent threatened! Also the idea of setting indvidual corps which are suspected of passing intel etc isnt very practical.. due to sucky get mechanics... ------------------ yay, the Deimos has been saved!
Nyphur Pillowsoft Interstellar Starbase Syndicate	Posted - 2006.10.18 01:35:00 - [54] Edited by: Nyphur on 18/10/2006 01:39:03 Originally by: Baun I think what we need is an explanation of why there are so many random corps joining and leaving ISS. If ISS exists to maintin and defend the assets of its shareholders it should, in theory, be able to maintain a policy of neutrality and shoot only those who aggress it. As it currently stands the alliance has many member corporations that seem to be members for no functional reason. Clean house and in so doing fix the problems you have created for yourself. Some very good points here, and you've given me personally a lot to think about. Dropping corps that don't contribute to the alliance's overall goals is something that most alliances would do in a heartbeat, but the ISS doesn't have that luxury. We have goals and we meet those goals amicably with help from the corps that aid the military but also those that use the outposts. I'd say most of the money in providence IPO comes from ISS members who are just living in the area for their own (potentially selfish) reasons. People come to the ISS all the time just wanting to go live in 0.0 and there's no reason to stop them. The activity at the outposts generates income that goes directly to the shareholders and paying the shareholders is one of the ISS's most basic goals. I don't think anyone can say they've been disappointed with their outpost share dividends, those things just go up and up as we develop the areas. The providence IPO has been out for a long time but profits are still rising dramatically and there's a lot more work to be done. There's a post in the market forum about this. Essentially though, it doesn't matter who a corp are as long as they pay the required fee and can follow the charter. Those are the only two requirements for being in the ISS and if either is broken, the corp is no longer part of the alliance, they get removed. Every single corp agrees to follow that charter when they signed up and there's no excuse for breaking it. It is true that most corps join the ISS for their own selfish gain but even they help indirectly though outpost docking fees and their alliance maintenance fee etc. They could live in 0.0 outside the alliance but there is benefit in staying in it - standings are set for them, Soverignty brings fuel reduction for their POS, intel channels are availible, the ISSN will protect their POS and they gain access to the internal markets etc that we have thanks to the sheer number of pilots in the alliance. It might do good to thin the herd but what criteria could be used to separate the grain from the husk? I can't see a reasonable way to target members who contribute nothing to the alliance or those who might tend to commit misdeeds that would harm our political positions. That's because as soon as they commit a misdeed serious enough to cause problems, they're removed. Are you suggesting lowering the bar to catch repeat minor offenders? All we have to go on is what is reported to us and what we see ourselves. Beyond repeat minor offenders, it's not possible to catch a corp before they break the charter. We do enforce a zero-tolerance policy but we cannot predict what everyone in the alliance will do. As for the problems that corps cause, put it like this: If a corp breaks the ISS charter, you don't need to attack the whole alliance to get at them, report them and they'll be removed after a short investigation, then you can just attack that one corp and there will be no political consequences. The ISS's members should not be able to get the entire alliance into political situations because any actions taken by non-management personel should be kept in context - they're not nececarilly management-sanctioned actions. It's the responsibility of the other alliances to recognise this and respond appropriately, but that is of course up to them Quote: why would I be threatened and requested to leave? That's an issue that has recently come up and I suspect there will be internal discussion on it. Eve-Tanking.com - For tanking spreadsheet and resources.
mishkof Caldari Emerald Empire Muffins of Mayhem	Posted - 2006.10.18 01:36:00 - [55] Edited by: mishkof on 18/10/2006 01:41:12 Originally by: Mangonis Venator Let me get this straight, Pirates are complaining about getting engaged by a Neutral entity? So when the U.S. was neutral and took on the Barbary Coast they were violating their neutrality? Why don't those of aAa, MoM, Finite Horizons, etc. simply thank ISS for the "easy" kills they enjoy at ISS expense. The thing is these engagements dont happen in ISS terroritory for the most part(Edit: get this through your head pls, before commenting on a situation you obviously know nothing about). They are in the Hed area. Is ISS the only ones who are allowed to defend themselves? MOM is just like any other alliance. We have naps, we have enemies just like ISS. They are not special. I cannot help it that when you fly through curse(and the surrounding areas) on a regular basis you are going to be in a system eventually that has ISS sov. I also think it is cute that you call anyone who engages ISS "pirates". The propoganda works well I guess. Besides I will admit that MOM has far bigger problems ATM then ganking miners in ISS terrirories. It simply isnt a high priority, however I find it strange that nowadays I actually fight them more then when we actually went to their station systems.
Nyphur Pillowsoft Interstellar Starbase Syndicate	Posted - 2006.10.18 01:40:00 - [56] Originally by: mishkof The thing is these engagements dont happen in ISS terroritory for the most part. We don't have territory. Eve-Tanking.com - For tanking spreadsheet and resources.
mishkof Caldari Emerald Empire Muffins of Mayhem	Posted - 2006.10.18 01:42:00 - [57] Originally by: Nyphur Originally by: mishkof The thing is these engagements dont happen in ISS terroritory for the most part. We don't have territory. Then why do you need a navy?
Nyphur Pillowsoft Interstellar Starbase Syndicate	Posted - 2006.10.18 01:52:00 - [58] Originally by: mishkof Originally by: Nyphur Originally by: mishkof The thing is these engagements dont happen in ISS terroritory for the most part. We don't have territory. Then why do you need a navy? To protect the ISS assets, assets being defined chiefly as the publically-owned outposts and the POS that our member corps run but it can be extended to the property (ships) of alliance members. Sometimes this takes the form of antipirate and peacekeeping operations in regions that we are permitted to use, which is essentially hunting for people who have earned a place on our Kill On Sight list through either piracy or attacking our pilots consistently. If your corp or alliance are on the KOS list and would like off it, we are a peaceful and reasonable bunch and are more than willing to negotiate peace. Eve-Tanking.com - For tanking spreadsheet and resources.
mishkof Caldari Emerald Empire Muffins of Mayhem	Posted - 2006.10.18 02:00:00 - [59] Originally by: Lygos Originally by: mishkof Disband your navy and rely soley on the protection of your shareholders, and investors and then I personaly might believe you. Maybe we should commit covertops crews in nearby systems to make sure no neutrals fleet sneaks up on your gatecamps and commits unneutralist actions in any highways which might be used by potential customers? I really, really didn't want to comment in this thread.. but damn. What makes a man turn neutral? Lust for gold? Power? Or were they just born with a heart full of neutrality? What? I am just commenting on the fact that ISS picks and choses who they engage. That isnt neutrality. In my experience they "pick" whoever has a smaller gang then them. I am not saying it is a bad thing. We do it(although we have defaintely done our fair share of suicide engagements). The thing is we dont lie about it.
mishkof Caldari Emerald Empire Muffins of Mayhem	Posted - 2006.10.18 02:05:00 - [60] Originally by: Nyphur Originally by: mishkof Originally by: Nyphur Originally by: mishkof The thing is these engagements dont happen in ISS terroritory for the most part. We don't have territory. Then why do you need a navy? To protect the ISS assets, assets being defined chiefly as the publically-owned outposts and the POS that our member corps run but it can be extended to the property (ships) of alliance members. Sometimes this takes the form of antipirate and peacekeeping operations in regions that we are permitted to use, which is essentially hunting for people who have earned a place on our Kill On Sight list through either piracy or attacking our pilots consistently. If your corp or alliance are on the KOS list and would like off it, we are a peaceful and reasonable bunch and are more than willing to negotiate peace. What you call anti-piracy in your book is simply "picking your targets" in my book. You attack non-lap dog Entities that do not have the backing of a major southern power. That is why ISS is having the PR problems it is having. When the ships that are ISS property happen to attack other people then at least take responsability for it. I am not trying to knock ISS for what they do. They make people rich and do a good job at it. I whole-artedly respect that. I am just saying the terms you use for your fleets actions of late drip with propoganda.



Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

An Error Occured

Invalid use of Null

The Error has been logged and will be further investigated shortly.

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.