EVE Search - My Take on ISS's Neutral Clause.

All Channels

Corporation, Alliance and Organization Discussions

My Take on ISS's Neutral Clause.

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Horatio Nately Caldari 808 Enterprises	Posted - 2006.12.14 03:41:00 - [1] Why Bother? I'd have a lot more respect for you guys if you would just flat out have a policy that read out loud "If we don't see ISS friendly or you're not blue we're gonna blast your ass". I fully understand that you have an established force to protect your assets such as any other corporation in EVE has and that's fine. I just really think the charter has to be re-worked because everyone has such a different stance on what they consider neutral. Adding in for the fact that it only takes a few bad apples to destroy your credability, and once that's gone it's gone for good with the general eve community. So instead of trying to do damage control, just declare the ISS controlled territory a no-fire zone or something. Anyone caught taking part in hostile activities will be destroyed. War targets or not. Doesn't that sound like more of an interesting idea than "we dont take sides"? Personally the notion of "we're protecting our business interests" sounds much more of a practical endevour. Essentially its an idea to turn ISSN into the Concord of their own space. I understand that this idea could probably use some fine tuning, but it sound a hell of a lot better than the he said she said of whats been going on as of late. --------------------------------------- Implement Isk Stipends (no its not asking for your donations) Isk Stipends
Torquemanda Corteaz Gallente Infinite Improbability Inc Dusk and Dawn	Posted - 2006.12.14 03:54:00 - [2] i always thought ISSN's duty was to keep pirates out of their home systems? however I can understand that it does become difficult when alliances are involved, if i see someone who is red to me in ISS territory I know it's going to be no different than if i saw him anywhere else in 0.0, if ISSN were to get involved on either side they would be accused of non-neutrality. I appreciate the service ISS provide and can understand that they try to be neutral as best they can, there are always going to be people who question their neutrality and will look for any excuse to attack them seeing them as being easy target because of their supposed neutrality It is very difficult to keep every single member of your alliance neutral hell practically impossible, and i sympathize with count tessaine with the trouble he must have
Nyphur Pillowsoft Interstellar Starbase Syndicate	Posted - 2006.12.14 03:59:00 - [3] We cannot and will not try to police 0.0. It's a nice idea but the ISSN really isn't capable of it. We used to try to dictate terms of combat in outpost systems by declaring them no-combat zones but that didn't work at all as people tried to hide under that rule. Now, the only policing action we will take regarding combat around the outposts is to revolk docking rights for people who disrupt trade or are using the outpost as a staging point in a war. have you had a good rea read through the ISS charter since it was last updated on the 22nd of November 2006? There is no "ISS controlled territory", we inhabit other people's space under friendly agreement with them and only go where invited. We can't dictate the terms of use for someone else's space. The only systems we claim are the outpost systems and that claim is because we phyically (by way of game mechanics), cannot avoid keeping soverignty there permanantly. The system officially still belongs to the original owners but unlike other systems with an ISS Sov marker, we will not drop soverignty when asked by the official owner of the system. Second, and this is probably the most important part, the ISS is not a neutral entity in every sense of the word. We are, more accurately, a non-political entity (which is what the charter says, not neutral). We work toward the end of keeping the shareholders happy, which means the only political or military actions we will undertake will be defensive in nature, when ISS pilots, assets or stations are brought under direct threat. As an alliance, we will never initiate aggression, even against a percieved threat who hasn't otherwise gotten themselves on our kill on sight list. We have pirates that use our outposts and as long as they don't pirate around the outposts or shoot at ISS, that's perfectly fine. Eve-Tanking.com - For tanking spreadsheet and resources.
Yonos	Posted - 2006.12.14 04:19:00 - [4] Lets resurrect Curse Coalition and finish the job on ISS. Still remember when CC took one of ur outposts hostage for 24 hrs
Hellown Shinra Lotka Volterra	Posted - 2006.12.14 04:23:00 - [5] And the NAPed them when things got to hairy. Shinra, the good guys.
Rick Thwaites Elite Storm Enterprises Storm Armada	Posted - 2006.12.14 04:38:00 - [6] So... The Big Blue, much? Tried to have 0.0 open for neutrals and couldn't? Hard to keep just the hostiles out when you are allowing neutrals in, hostiles were neutrals at one point, and sometimes it takes a few hulks asploded before it is always realized I think... Any time someone opens up 0.0 to allow neutrals in is a good idea, hard to do with the current situations and with a lack of outside support. Disclaimer: I speak only for myself, not my corp/alliance/mother/etc. -- Max sig dimensions are 400W x 120H - Cathath ([email protected]) Purple matches your eyes a little better, Catath. = )! Not the first time I have been told I am too big...
Manas The Graduates Interstellar Starbase Syndicate	Posted - 2006.12.14 05:48:00 - [7] What has not been fully understood by many is that the ISS charter has been significantly reworked recently, in response to suggestions from folks like D2 and (ironically) IAC. Amoung the changes: - ISS is now much, much more difficult for corps to get into. Corps have been weeded out. - We now have explicitly in the charter a clause that allows us to deny station access to those trying to base at ISS stations in territorial wars. - More explicit stated clauses controlling ISS pilot behavior to decrease incidents. NRDS (Not Red Don't Shoot) is a guiding principle at ISS, and it's rather hard to be get set red by ISS. It is due to shooting ISS pilots in the past. Conversely, it is rather easy to get off the KOS list again, if you are willing to stop. Yes NRDS can be tough to manage, but ISS does it at least as well as any. We have no more bad apples than any other organization, and we have been shown to be quite willing to react & change for incidents. The charter changes are a sign of this. TGRAD info & video here
Beringe Caldari Raptus Regaliter	Posted - 2006.12.14 07:57:00 - [8] It seems to me that a lot of people don't get what ISS is about. ISS is not like the Big Blue, or like CFS. Yes, they open up space for neutrals, but they are trying to make isk out of it. Most importantly, they represent the shareholders of the outposts that they build, which makes them different. They exist only because nearby alliances let them, and invest in them. Neutrality is hard, and apparently hard to understand. In its simplest form, it is a NRDS policy. Not red, don't shoot. Most people you'll see complaining about the ISS' lack of neutrality are, in fact, red to them. The second part of the neutrality bit is this: They don't claim space, they build infrastructure. Now, when one of those nearby alliances becomes red to them - perhaps by attacking ISS members or property, perhaps by camping the outpost systems - they defend themselves...and in EVE, the best defense is a good offense. This does not change neutrality status. Only if they are the aggressors can you claim that they are no longer neutral. ------------------------------------------- "Sarcasm and irony are not to be used by the uninitiated." --Daitan Beringe, honorary director in charge of bottles--
Emrod Amarr Legion Du Lys Tau Ceti Federation	Posted - 2006.12.14 08:10:00 - [9] Nobody can stay neutral forever...one day or another neutral entity finish to don't have choice to make choice between one side or another... War its unavoided in human society...now they must defend theirself or die! Gl in this war Iss...you gonna need it
DHB FooFighter FIRMA Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate	Posted - 2006.12.14 08:15:00 - [10] Originally by: Emrod Nobody can stay neutral forever...one day or another neutral entity finish to don't have choice to make choice between one side or another... War its unavoided in human society...now they must defend theirself or die! Gl in this war Iss...you gonna need it /me agrees with above statement
thetwilitehour Omega Enterprises Dusk and Dawn	Posted - 2006.12.14 08:24:00 - [11] The problem I see, is that ISS is only neutral in that they dont want to gain and hold sovreignty in the traditional alliance sense. They do want to gain and hold territory in order to run outposts, for the benefit of their shareholders. Thats not really that different from Dusk to Dawn or Band of Brothers, in a very real sense i consider myself a part owner of my corp and alliance, I attempt to contribute to our mission and goals. ISS does the same thing, but since ISS stations are spread all over space, ISS ends up in a situation where they mostly have to do what the dominant political entity in the area wants. If they dont, ISS doesnt really have the muscle to defend its own stations from military superpowers bell (filter) bent on taking them, and definitely not if multiple entites decide to deal with the ISS. Clearly entities like BoB dont really care about the goal of developing 0.0 space in a sense of letting other alliances peacefully co-exist. This seems to be the dominant paradigm of Eve, if an alliance wants something and can, they will take it. Given this and the lack of trust regarding ISS and its member corps especially in light of recent actions, (both sharing of intelligence and MC basing an offensive out of an ISS outpost) its hard for me to see an easy future for ISS. Nice region we'll take it could easily be nice outpost we'll take it, and this mantra could apply to any number alliances in Eve. If I was trying to make ISS a more viable entity I would ask myself how I could a) be valuable to local powers while not catering to them, b) deter pirates and other aggressors and c) attract and recruit stronger muscle.
Joshua Foiritain Gallente Coreli Corporation Corelum Syndicate	Posted - 2006.12.14 08:52:00 - [12] Originally by: thetwilitehour Clearly entities like BoB dont really care about the goal of developing 0.0 space in a sense of letting other alliances peacefully co-exist. This seems to be the dominant paradigm of Eve, if an alliance wants something and can, they will take it. Actually quite a few of large alliances rent out access to their space and stations in exchange for services. Originally by: thetwilitehour If I was trying to make ISS a more viable entity I would ask myself how I could a) be valuable to local powers while not catering to them, b) deter pirates and other aggressors and c) attract and recruit stronger muscle. Constellation soverneigty and system defences should make ISS' job easier. ----- [Coreli Corporation Mainframe]
Merin Skaa Amarr Atoch Family Holdings	Posted - 2006.12.14 09:14:00 - [13] Edited by: Merin Skaa on 14/12/2006 09:14:33 Originally by: thetwilitehour Clearly entities like BoB dont really care about the goal of developing 0.0 space in a sense of letting other alliances peacefully co-exist. This seems to be the dominant paradigm of Eve, if an alliance wants something and can, they will take it. It seems that BOB care a LOT about the goal of developing THEIR 0.0 space. BOB's territory is used by other entities paying BOB rent. Development within that space is pretty extensive. The more valuable the resident corps make it the more their income the more BOB's income. Alliances seizing control of regions and renting out the constellations within seems to be the dominant pradigm. One reason for ISS's relative stability is that the unclaimed constellations they have public outposts in are pretty poor resource wise. Originally by: Joshua Foiritain Originally by: thetwilitehour If I was trying to make ISS a more viable entity I would ask myself how I could a) be valuable to local powers while not catering to them, b) deter pirates and other aggressors and c) attract and recruit stronger muscle. Constellation soverneigty and system defences should make ISS' job easier. Thetwilitehour, I think ISS are already ahead of you. a) The ISSO half trillion isk IPO seems to provide services that are pretty valuable to the local powers http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=441709 The market seeding in the IPO, the capital ship prodcution at their factories, the loans, even the managed refineries. Pretty impressive stuff. If only I had the isk available now :( b) MOST pirate groups engage ISS, and are in turn partailly suppressed by ISS's PvP'rs. c) The new terms in their charter for members corps (one capital ship per 20 members!?!?) seem designed to beef up their defensive potential. Joshua, there I think ISS missed a trick. They talk in terms of stations systems. Yet constellation seems a much more manageable territorial unit. How long till constellation sovereignty and system defences though.
Joshua Foiritain Gallente Coreli Corporation Corelum Syndicate	Posted - 2006.12.14 09:19:00 - [14] Originally by: Merin Skaa Joshua, there I think ISS missed a trick. They talk in terms of stations systems. Yet constellation seems a much more manageable territorial unit. How long till constellation sovereignty and system defences though. Kali 2, Q1 2007. ----- [Coreli Corporation Mainframe]

Chribba Otherworld Enterprises Otherworld Empire	Posted - 2006.12.14 09:53:00 - [15] Originally by: Joshua Foiritain Actually quite a few of large alliances rent out access to their space and stations in exchange for services. Which, and who do I contact? EVE-Files \| EVE-Search \| Monitor this Thread

Joshua Foiritain Gallente Coreli Corporation Corelum Syndicate	Posted - 2006.12.14 09:56:00 - [16] Originally by: Chribba Originally by: Joshua Foiritain Actually quite a few of large alliances rent out access to their space and stations in exchange for services. Which, and who do I contact? Bob, Lv, -V- (Though theyre a bit busy). I'm sure many of the other alliances do as well but i've never talked to them about it. ----- [Coreli Corporation Mainframe]
Sammell	Posted - 2006.12.14 10:36:00 - [17] It does seem like the ISSN would be best suited to patrol ISS territory and destroy all of those that endanger buisness trasactions. Even if two fleets from two neutral entites engage in ISS space they should in turn be engaged by ISSN. They only way to maintain neutrality is to punish everyone the same and still allow everyone the same rights. Treat the territories as an open area until someone messes up. Sure there's logistic problems but nothing that a few determined folks couldn't figure out. I think once people get the hint that no one will play around in ISS territory and the such. You only need to set a few examples and people will get the picture.
MrTriggerHappy Caldari Interstellar eXodus R0ADKILL	Posted - 2006.12.14 10:51:00 - [18] "What makes a good man go neutral? Lust for gold? Power? Or were you just born with a heart full of neutrality?" --Zapp Brannigan My Comments in no way reflect my corp or alliance
Taikun Gallente Reaver Academy	Posted - 2006.12.14 14:42:00 - [19] Originally by: Nyphur the only political or military actions we will undertake will be defensive in nature, when ISS pilots, assets or stations are brought under direct threat. As an alliance, we will never initiate aggression, This is a bold faced outright lie. ISS members do, and will attack neutrals as and when they see fit. Do NOT believe Nyphurs lies. I am ex-ISS Navy and that did not prevent ISS members from attacking me without provocation 2 days ago. Taikun
Manas The Graduates Interstellar Starbase Syndicate	Posted - 2006.12.14 15:36:00 - [20] The surrounding circumstances of which have been discussed ad nausium in the alliance summit thread already.
Taikun Gallente Reaver Academy	Posted - 2006.12.14 17:11:00 - [21] Originally by: Manas The surrounding circumstances of which have been discussed ad nausium in the alliance summit thread already. By which you mean "spin" BS and excuses were presented by ISS leadership, but neutrals in ISS patroled systems will continue to be subjected to ISS aggression without stopchecks and control. Taikun
Manas The Graduates Interstellar Starbase Syndicate	Posted - 2006.12.14 19:42:00 - [22] By which I mean endlessly, until the dead horse has been beaten, drawn and quartered.
Metacannibal Celestial Fleet Ascendant Frontier	Posted - 2006.12.14 19:44:00 - [23] durka durka durka!
Monkey Spankah coracao ardente Sani Khal'Vecna	Posted - 2006.12.14 21:20:00 - [24] ISS is a joke, i've had farts more neutral, many a time has ISS flown far out of there range of influence to attack us with BOS and UK, if they were neutral they would stay out of it.
w0rmy Intensive CareBearz Imperium Alliance	Posted - 2006.12.14 21:31:00 - [25] Originally by: Beringe They exist only because nearby alliances let them, and invest in them. And this is exactly what prevents them from being nuetral. Originally by: Avon Originally by: Dark Shikari What single item is larger than a jetcan? My ego?
Kaylana Syi Minmatar The Nest Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate	Posted - 2006.12.14 21:54:00 - [26] Originally by: Nyphur Second, and this is probably the most important part, the ISS is not a neutral entity in every sense of the word. We are, more accurately, a non-political entity (which is what the charter says, not neutral). We work toward the end of keeping the shareholders happy, which means the only political or military actions we will undertake will be defensive in nature, when ISS pilots, assets or stations are brought under direct threat. If ISS is a non political entity then why did the Count try to nudge IAC to listen to LV about the southern demographics between our two alliances? Simple... LV has been a good partner to ISS and obviously they don't want Tenerifis to become hostile since it is so close to ZXIC and F4. Team Minmatar Carriers need Clone Vats
James Snowscoran Coreli Corporation Corelum Syndicate	Posted - 2006.12.14 23:43:00 - [27] Originally by: Monkey Spankah ISS is a joke, i've had farts more neutral, many a time has ISS flown far out of there range of influence to attack us with BOS and UK, if they were neutral they would stay out of it. Haha, BOS are still around? Seriously though, being proactive certainly doesn't equate with not being neutral. If ISS is going to simply react to the moves of their enemies, they'll die. Some people seem to think them taking action by themselves constitute a violation of their neutrality policies, while in reality it's just survival tactics. I don't know, to me it looks like the ISS outposts are still standing. Since people has been claiming for over a year now that ISS couldn't fight their way out of a wet paperbag, I guess there's a certain amount of frustration out there. -----

Pages: [1] :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

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.