EVE Search - Providence confusion

All Channels

Corporation, Alliance and Organization Discussions

Providence confusion

» 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 - 0 post(s)
Hardin Amarr Imperial Dreams Curatores Veritatis Alliance	Posted - 2007.05.10 13:54:00 - [151] Edited by: Hardin on 10/05/2007 13:53:11 So we are persecuting you now simply because we point out that you are wrong? You may not accept that you are wrong - that's your perogative, but don't expect me to roll over when you decide to slander us to forward your (or SFs) own objectives. I think that you have a pathological need to 'demonise' your enemies for whatever reason and yet cannot accept any criticism in return - indeed you characterise all criticism as a personal attack upon yourself. So be it. The CVA has an established reputation based upon its in game actions and its INTEGRITY - not least the fact that the way we play and our objectives have been made blatantly clear from the start. Unlike most alliances we are not into subterfuge and dirty dealing - we are the ultimate *'Does what it says on the tin'* alliance... We kill terorists and we kill pirates - we always have and we always will. You may seek to tarnish our reputation for your own reasons but I think the majority here have enough wisdom can see through that simple ploy. ------------------------------ CVA - Kicking Arse For The Empire - http://eve-files.com/dl/83607 AMARR VICTOR
Jasmine Constantine Gallente Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2007.05.10 15:19:00 - [152] Edited by: Jasmine Constantine on 10/05/2007 15:16:34 Originally by: Hardin So we are persecuting you now simply because we point out that you are wrong? You may not accept that you are wrong - that's your perogative, but don't expect me to roll over when you decide to slander us to forward your (or SFs) own objectives. Who mentioned "persecution"? I think you are confusing yourself now Hardin to be honest. I have pointed out a flaw and inconsistency in your rhetoric and so far you have completely failed to answer it and have chosen instead to hurl some mud around to draw attention from your inability to sustain your debating position. Thats not "persecution" though thats just a sure sign that you are a bit rattled and uncertain on this issue. Quote: You seem to have a need to 'demonise' your enemies for whatever reason and yet cannot accept any criticism in return - indeed you characterise all criticism as a personal attack upon yourself even when it is simply an attack on your arguements. So be it. See this is the part of the debate where you accuse other people of what you do yourself. "Demonise" indeed? You mean like you describing your enemies as pirates with NBSI ROE while maintaining allies with the same rules of engagement on the grounds that their destruction of neutral shipping is somehow different and more enlightened? I'm sure this difference doesn't have great significance to the captains of neutral ships blown up by Ushra'khan allies or CVA allies. End of the day its still a spaceship blown up by people practising the NBSI ideology and hence I repeat my accusation that you are practising organisational double standards to condemn this practise on the one hand while turning a blind eye to it on the other (where it suits you). Quote: The CVA has an established reputation based upon its in game actions and its INTEGRITY - not least the fact that our objectives have been made blatantly clear from the start and we have never wavered in them. Unlike most alliances we are not into subterfuge and dirty dealing - we are the ultimate *'Does what it says on the tin'* alliance... We kill terorists and we kill pirates - we always have and we always will. You may seek to tarnish our reputation for your own reasons but I think the majority here have enough wisdom can see through that simple ploy. I can see this discussion is upsetting you Hardin but really, appealing to the mob is something of an admission of your failure to contest the argument with logic and reason. Wouldn't you agree? We can all count on legions of alts and supporters to type "QFT" and bang their desks in "support" at need be Hardin, but the fact remains you still have failed to address the core element of my accusation against you. You condemn the practise of NBSI in allies of your enemies while turning a blind eye to this practise in YOUR allies. This is hypocrisy - this is single objection I have made to your rhetoric on the subject. Star Fraction is recruiting
Seleene Body Count Inc. Mercenary Coalition	Posted - 2007.05.10 15:21:00 - [153] Edited by: Seleene on 10/05/2007 15:17:25 Reading Jasmine and Hardin is like watching an excellent tennis match! Do continue!! - Vid - 'P-2 Defense'
Royaldo KVA Noble Inc. Sylph Alliance	Posted - 2007.05.10 15:33:00 - [154] this reminds me.. whatever happened to that pic from the opera in yulai?
Kabajashi San Minmatar	Posted - 2007.05.10 16:07:00 - [155] Edited by: Kabajashi San on 10/05/2007 16:06:09 Originally by: Garreck I've tried explaining this before, and I suppose I'll try again. It really is pretty simple: the act of NBSI itself, while very much counter to the way CVA prefers to operate, does not inherently make one evil or bad in CVA's eyes. Operating NBSI in CVA space (and, in general in Providence where we have interests) is, however, a fast-track to our KOS list. IAC operate NBSI in their space. That's none of our business. They respect our rules in Providence. That is our business. And so far between IAC and CVA, business is just fine. That's not hypocrisy. That's sovereign alliances respecting each-others sovereignty. Please tell me difference betwen this and UK binding their allies to NRDS in UK space while not binding them anywhere else? Honestly, there is a fun fight going on, but what you do in the "pirate"-propaganda is seriously annoying people. Yes, there are many alliances out there who have their own understanding how to deal with neutrals. Yes, some of the faster killers are now fighting alongside UK in the defence of 9uy. What is your problem with this? Take on the fight and stop the smack. This is not a "pirate" war. You have come for our POS and we won't just give it to you. Stop. /edit: Oh yes, to not be misunderstood. I don't mind doing that kind of propaganda in the RP-Forums. I enjoy responding to it. But this is ooc. That is not the same.
Hardin Amarr Imperial Dreams Curatores Veritatis Alliance	Posted - 2007.05.10 16:12:00 - [156] Originally by: Jasmine Constantine I can see this discussion is upsetting you Hardin Not in the slightest. In fact I am quite enjoying seeing you get so worked up over this Now on to your main arguement Originally by: Jasmine Constantine You condemn the practise of NBSI in allies of your enemies while turning a blind eye to this practise in YOUR allies. This is hypocrisy - this is single objection I have made to your rhetoric on the subject. This has already been addressed by many others in this thread. However, at the risk of being boring I will reiterate a couple of the key points: 1. We disapprove of the use of NBSI by everyone - friendly or not. That includes IAC. If you dig around on these forums you will even find some posts by me congratulating IAC when they resumed NRDS after one of their previous NBSI periods and expressing a desire that they stuck to it. Not only that but we have worked with other neighbours such as Huzzah in the past and NOS more recently to ensure that they also adopt NRDS strategies across the bulk of their territories in Providence - and as a result the region has been one of the few areas in EVE where neutrals could pretty much venture where they liked provided they respected our no-piracy rules. 2. At the same time IAC and every other alliance in this game is sovereign in their territory. While we may disapprove of their system it is not within our power to make them change - all we can do is continue to advocate the benefits of NRDS and demonstrate by example of how it can actually be made to work. Again, if you can be bothered to do some research you will find a number of posts by me outlining the benefits of NRDS and highlighting some of the challenges and rewards in instituting such a system. 3. You also insist on lumping us together with IAC. Yes the two alliances are neighbours and yes we have friendly relations and yes we have worked together for mutual defence in the past, but the claim that we have some kind of formal alliance and therefore some responsibility for IAC's in-space policy is completely ridiculous. IAC know we don't like NBSI which is why they do not operate NBSI in our area. Yes there have been incidents - there always are - indeed if you read some of my previous posts on NRDS you will see that I acknowledge that accidents will happen, however as far as I am aware IAC generally pay compensation where an honest mistake has been made and I know CVA certainly does. This is in stark contrast to the vast bulk of 0.0 alliances. 4) You say that we only criticise NBSI in our enemies - as I have pointed out that is not true and have worked with all parties (friendly or not) with an interest in Providence to get them to adopt and NRDS policies. However, most normal people would probably understand those kind of discussions are not going to be publicly broadcast on these forums. Yes we will criticise our enemies publicly for adopting NBSI policies in Providence - they are after all our enemies and opent to criticism, but what is the point of alienating friends with some public outing when a quiet word in the ear works much more effectively. I see absolutely ZERO hypocrisy there. All I see is your unwillingness to accept a reality that does not suit your objectives and a desperate attempt to slander our reputation for your own ends. ------------------------------ CVA - Kicking Arse For The Empire - http://eve-files.com/dl/83607 AMARR VICTOR
Kharass Al'Quam Minmatar Team Jihad	Posted - 2007.05.10 16:23:00 - [157] Thank god for the Minnies. At least they uphold the tradition of murder death to the dog race. While the Gallente and Amarrian sit in Ivory towers beeing penpals. Long Live Uk and may your exsample be a guide for the future government of Matar. Fly Safe. And remember all the cool kids are Minnie.
Tar Kovsky Minmatar Khumatari Holdings Ushra'Khan	Posted - 2007.05.10 16:27:00 - [158] All propaganda in EVE is at least partly out-of-character. Otherwise, what would the point be? Whether it's long and impenetrable, or gold-plated and holier-than-thou, or clutched in a bloody fist, we write for entertainment and to influence others in some way.
Melystus Gallente Legio Immortalis	Posted - 2007.05.10 16:38:00 - [159] Edited by: Melystus on 10/05/2007 16:44:10 Originally by: Seleene Edited by: Seleene on 10/05/2007 15:17:25 Reading Jasmine and Hardin is like watching an excellent tennis match! Do continue!! LOL, couldn't agree more, Sel. Originally by: Karn Mithralia Edited by: Karn Mithralia on 10/05/2007 10:27:24 Yet the same day you posted that explanation I watched your guys help rob a neutral corp mining POS in DNR. How do I know it was neutral - I asked your guys and those being robbed who had never heard of IAC. As for this, I can also attest to these events. Though I will admit, it seemed the IAC pilots in the area were lending assistance to a third party who were involved in an act of internal espionage. So, from a neutral standpoint, they may or may not have been aware of the situation. I place no judgement, simply confirming the events occured. --------------------------------------------------- Melystus CEO - Legio Immortalis
Hardin Amarr Imperial Dreams Curatores Veritatis Alliance	Posted - 2007.05.10 16:38:00 - [160] Originally by: Kharass Al'Quam Thank god for the Minnies. At least they uphold the tradition of murder death to the dog race. While the Gallente and Amarrian sit in Ivory towers beeing penpals. Oh rest assured that us Amarrian do our fair share of shooting. Why else would the brave Minmatar terrorists called in the nefarious foreign legion to save their arses? Not that I am complaining as I, like the whole CVA and our loyalist friends, are enjoying the new challenge However, it is amusing to waste working hours (when I cannot be logged in) exchanging missives with the misguided Gallente wench... ------------------------------ CVA - Kicking Arse For The Empire - http://eve-files.com/dl/83607 AMARR VICTOR
Jasmine Constantine Gallente Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2007.05.10 17:04:00 - [161] Edited by: Jasmine Constantine on 10/05/2007 17:01:52 Originally by: Hardin 1. We disapprove of the use of NBSI by everyone - friendly or not. That includes IAC. If you dig around on these forums you will even find some posts by me congratulating IAC when they resumed NRDS after one of their previous NBSI periods and expressing a desire that they stuck to it. Not only that but we have worked with other neighbours such as Huzzah in the past and NOS more recently to ensure that they also adopt NRDS strategies across the bulk of their territories in Providence - and as a result the region has been one of the few areas in EVE where neutrals could pretty much venture where they liked provided they respected our no-piracy rules. Excellent, so we accomplish a statement of principle here Hardin, that you disapprove of the NBSI ideology. Its not something you consider to be a good thing and would explain why you are so keen to describe the Ushra'khan NBSI-class allies as "pirates" (which I'm sure you'll agree to being a Pejorative term in this context right?) Quote: 2. At the same time IAC and every other alliance in this game is sovereign in their territory. While we may disapprove of their system it is not within our power to make them change - all we can do is continue to advocate the benefits of NRDS and demonstrate by example of how it can actually be made to work. Again, if you can be bothered to do some research you will find a number of posts by me outlining the benefits of NRDS and highlighting some of the challenges and rewards in instituting such a system. Oh dear, so because IAC is an entity that you don't fancy fighting at the moment its not an entity you can bring yourself to criticise? Politically sensible no doubt, but its hardly the shining example of integrity and credibility you were awarding yourself a few pages ago Hardin. IAC doubtless see the advantages in shooting neutrals for fun and will be grateful for your moral flexibility on this issue. Quote: 3. You also insist on lumping us together with IAC. No I don't. I merely address your description of one 3rd Party NBSI entity as "pirate" while another (coincidentally CVA friendly entity) is "sovereign and beyond reproach. Quote: 4) You say that we only criticise NBSI in our enemies - as I have pointed out that is not true and have worked with all parties (friendly or not) with an interest in Providence to get them to adopt and NRDS policies. However, most normal people would probably understand those kind of discussions are not going to be publicly broadcast on these forums. Yes we will criticise our enemies publicly for adopting NBSI policies in Providence - they are after all our enemies and open to criticism and cooercion, but what is the point of alienating potential allies and friends publicly when a quiet word in the ear works much more effectively and achieves the same objective. Then Hardin I'm going to challenge you to drop the propaganda classification of your enemies in the current campaign as "pirates". Since you admit your allies practise NBSI and shoot neutrals its ridiculous for you to try and blacken the name of enemies for committing the same deeds. Accept it is simply a "turf war" and neither side is better than the other in terms of relations with 3rd party allies. Quote: I do not see any hypocrisy here. Providence has and will continue to be (once we have defeated the terrorist/pirate menace) a haven for neutral pilots interested in visiting 0.0 without having to pay taxes/rent/tribute to distant overlords. Thats irrelevant. The question here (and I'll keep dragging you back to it) is that you cannot justifiably condemn the Ushra'khan for benefiting from NBSI-class "pirate" allies while your organisation has a long standing friendship and understanding with an NBSI-class "pirate" alliance in IAC. To do so is rank hypocrisy Hardin and so once again I ask you to address this point without the distraction of external matters. Star Fraction is recruiting
Hardin Amarr Imperial Dreams Curatores Veritatis Alliance	Posted - 2007.05.10 17:29:00 - [162] Edited by: Hardin on 10/05/2007 17:36:40 I knew I shouldn't have bothered responding I (as have others) have clearly addressed your allegations and you are deliberately ignoring the facts and changing the goalposts. Originally by: Jasmine Constantine Thats irrelevant. The question here (and I'll keep dragging you back to it) is that you cannot justifiably condemn the Ushra'khan for benefiting from NBSI-class "pirate" allies Yes we can because none of our friends have an NBSI policy in Providence and UK's do (outside UK sov systems). Neutrals in Providence have nothing to fear from CVA's friends but they do have to worry about Outbreak / Establishment / Evoke et al - as has been proved over the last week. Quite simply these organisations are shooting civilians in Providence and IAC are not. What could be more understandable? I think calling them 'pirates' is perfectly justified. (Saying that they (Establishment/ENH/Bum/Evoke etc) are actually good foes and great to fight. I am certainly sure they are not taking great offense at being labelled 'ebil pirates' in the same way that UK isn't really upset about being called 'terrorists'. They probably understand it in the spirit that it is meant - something which you quite clearly don't! Who knows they may even enjoy it The only reason you keep 'dragging' this topic up is because you have a political axe to grind against CVA and seem to be taking this way to seriously. I am afraid I am no longer going to bother playing along with you especially when it is clear that you will endlessly repeat the SAME arguements over and over again. I have made the necessary points that needed to be made. People can make up their own minds now. They can chose who they want to believe, either CVA or an individual in a corporation which prides itself on its forum warfare capabilities. I look forward to your usual witty response. ------------------------------ CVA - Kicking Arse For The Empire - http://eve-files.com/dl/83607 AMARR VICTOR
Eddie Gordo Minmatar Masuat'aa Matari Ushra'Khan	Posted - 2007.05.10 17:47:00 - [163] Ok, at first it was funny. Now its gone on for too long. Jasmine is obviously just trying to get Hardin to admit that his definition of the word "pirate" doesnt fit with everyone elses OOC definition. This is an OOC discussion, and I think over the years the lines have been blurred. Hardin spends so much time in character calling everyone pirates, he has forgotten what the word actually means. The fact that U'K shoots so called "neutral" pilots is nothing new. Ever Since the days of the Peoples front of minmatar, our pilots have been engaging those with high standings to the empire. This was in the days when we had no sovereign space, so to the outsider who may not be interested in roleplay, our actions and inentions are no different to that of a pirate. The only real difference here is the entirely different local chat. I have actually convinced people to stop running amarr missions, and run minmatar instead. I have also been accused of being a racist IRL because I was only targetting amarrians..but hey, thats another tangent. Now that we have our own sovereign space, things change a little. U'K does operate a NRDS policy within its own borders, and we enforce that on everyone we share positive standings with. The only exception to the rule, are pilots with high standing to the empire, or high standing to the CVA (same difference) Outside our own borders its the same thing. We have a NRDS policy, however there are exeptions made for those who have high standings to the Amarr empire or the CVA. We are a long way off from being pirates, and we are a long way of from being NBSI. That isnt to say we arent dodgy though of course. This is a turf war between two sovereign entities. To call us pirates over and over on OOC channels is a slap in the face. To not recognise us as a regional power is a slap in the face. Your basicly saying that our history counts for nothing. our roleplay counts for nothing and you are lumping us in with commen low sec gankers. Now Recruiting
Butter Dog The Littlest Hobos Betrayal Under Mayhem	Posted - 2007.05.10 17:54:00 - [164] Originally by: Hardin (Saying that they (Establishment/ENH/Bum/Evoke etc) are actually good foes and great to fight. I am certainly sure they are not taking great offense at being labelled 'ebil pirates' in the same way that UK isn't really upset about being called 'terrorists'. They probably understand it in the spirit that it is meant - something which you quite clearly don't! Who knows they may even enjoy it We do not take offense, but equally I don't think the term 'pirate' is accurate. It implies an economic basis for your PvP. We have a solid economic base built on T2 and Capital production, which for us is the 'enabler' of our trigger-happy stance. I prefer the term 'resource management'. We have friends in Providence, who have proven their value as friends. And yet there are hordes of leeches sucking the resources of this already barren region dry. We simply act to assist our friends, by means of effectively managing resource utilisation. If blue status has not been earned, then in our view we have no obligation to allow the 'neutral' to conduct their business, which places stress on the available resources within the region. This 'leech' effect would be detrimental to our friends (and ourselves of course), and so it is only right and proper that action is taken to remedy it. ---------- signature removed - please do not discuss moderation in your signature graphic - Jacques([email protected])
Kabajashi San Minmatar Ushra'Khan	Posted - 2007.05.10 18:01:00 - [165] Sorry, Hardin from your definition the only difference betwen UK and CVA is the number of system their allies do NBSI in. That's not enough to call the one pirate and the other one anti-pirate.
Hardin Amarr Imperial Dreams Curatores Veritatis Alliance	Posted - 2007.05.10 18:38:00 - [166] Originally by: Eddie Gordo To call us pirates over and over on OOC channels is a slap in the face. To not recognise us as a regional power is a slap in the face. Your basicly saying that our history counts for nothing. our roleplay counts for nothing and you are lumping us in with commen low sec gankers. Please point out to me where in this entire thread I have called you pirates OOC? My discussion here has been focused on Jasmine's allegations of hypocrisy... I certainly am not criticising your roleplay or even your choice of allies - as I said in a private convo with you just the other day I think it has added spice to the whole situation. ------------------------------ CVA - Kicking Arse For The Empire - http://eve-files.com/dl/83607 AMARR VICTOR
Jasmine Constantine Gallente Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2007.05.10 18:42:00 - [167] Edited by: Jasmine Constantine on 10/05/2007 18:39:23 Originally by: Hardin I knew I shouldn't have bothered responding Well you don't really have much choice do you Hardin? After all you need the "general public" to be convinced you are the "good guys" and everyone else is neutral-ganking "pirates" (or friends of "pirates") hence anytime anybody brings a rational question and debate over your stance in this you need to respond with a barrage of misdirection and counter claims to keep your hallowed name clean. Quote: Yes we can because none of our friends have an NBSI policy in Providence and UK's do (outside UK sov systems). Neutrals in Providence have nothing to fear from CVA's friends but they do have to worry about Outbreak / Establishment / Evoke et al - as has been proved over the last week. So piracy is only piracy if its conducted in Providence then? Thats what you telling me now? That you would be very happy for an NBSI class pirate corporation / alliance to shoot neutrals in lowsec Domain (or anywhere else) just as long as they didn't do it in Providence itself? (and you'd be happy to call those people allies?) And Hardin, please please, stop trying to change the subject! I'm not talking about Outbreak, Establishment, EvOke, and I'm not talking about hundreds of organisations elsewhere in the grand universe of Eve. I'm talking about you (the CVA) and your standings to an organisation (IAC) that practises NBSI/Piracy in 0.0. If your defense is going to be "but but miss they are worse than us!" then I'm afraid you aren't going to convince anyone. You are the person who has come here to make bold statements about your high principles and moral superiority to the nasty NBSI "pirates" that are helping the Ushra'khan fight you are the moment. But you simply can't make that message wash while you have good relations and alliance friendlies with the similarly NBSI/Pirate class IAC. Quote: The only reason you keep 'dragging' this topic up is because you have a political axe to grind against CVA and seem to be taking this way to seriously. Actually its because I haven't yet heard you answer the question to my satisfaction. I've heard you make excuses. I've heard you change the subject repeatedly. I've seen you wriggle in the crosshair a little. But I haven't yet heard how you can justify calling one group of NBSI entities "pirate" while you call another "sovereign". Its a double standard Hardin, and you are being hypocritical in condemning one group's practise while turning a blind eye to the other. Quote: I am afraid I am no longer going to bother playing along with you especially when it is clear that you will endlessly repeat the SAME arguements over and over again. I have made the necessary points that needed to be made. Actually this is the second time in this thread you've said that Hardin. And I'm sorry to disappoint, but I will keep asking you the same question until you are prepared to answer it honestly. At the moment you have completely failed to address the point and are looking increasingly evasive the longer this discussion continues. Quote: People can make up their own minds now. They can chose who they want to believe, either CVA or an individual in a corporation which prides itself on its forum warfare capabilities. Feeling a little bit outgunned in the debating stakes there Hardin? Seriously, just answer the question and be honest. Then this can all be over. Star Fraction is recruiting
Eddie Gordo Minmatar Masuat'aa Matari Ushra'Khan	Posted - 2007.05.10 18:42:00 - [168] Edited by: Eddie Gordo on 10/05/2007 18:40:27 Maybe I got confused with a thread on eve-chatsubo or whatever that site is. If you could clarify that you dont consider us pirates OOC i'll be happy answer me first, I have a guest arriving soon and I dont want to look like a geek infront of female company! Now Recruiting
Jasmine Constantine Gallente Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2007.05.10 18:48:00 - [169] Originally by: Eddie Gordo Edited by: Eddie Gordo on 10/05/2007 18:40:27 Maybe I got confused with a thread on eve-chatsubo or whatever that site is. If you could clarify that you dont consider us pirates OOC i'll be happy answer me first, I have a guest arriving soon and I dont want to look like a geek infront of female company! I don't think he's called you pirates OOC on this thread for what its worth Eddie. The statement I'm debating with him is: Quote: "What I will however point out is that Ushra'khan can never again claim to be an 'anti-pirate' alliance with bedfellows like those..." - Hardin In which he's basically saying your involvement with NBSI/Pirate allies means you can never again claim to be "anti-pirate". My issue is that the CVA are also involved with NBSI/Pirate allies - and they DO claim to be "anti pirate". Hence the whole thrust of my debate with Hardin is that he's setting up one rule for himself and another for everyone else. Double standards and quite hypocritical. Star Fraction is recruiting
Ivo D Minmatar 0utbreak	Posted - 2007.05.10 19:03:00 - [170] Originally by: Hardin Originally by: Kharass Al'Quam Thank god for the Minnies. At least they uphold the tradition of murder death to the dog race. While the Gallente and Amarrian sit in Ivory towers beeing penpals. Oh rest assured that us Amarrian do our fair share of shooting. Why else would the brave Minmatar terrorists called in the nefarious foreign legion to save their arses? Not that I am complaining as I, like the whole CVA and our loyalist friends, are enjoying the new challenge However, it is amusing to waste working hours (when I cannot be logged in) exchanging missives with the misguided Gallente wench... ahem, you would be amazed of how many proud and noble matar pilots there are in the Quote: nefarious foreign legion nerf gheyllente.
Hardin Amarr Imperial Dreams Curatores Veritatis Alliance	Posted - 2007.05.10 19:04:00 - [171] Originally by: Eddie Gordo Maybe I got confused with a thread on eve-chatsubo or whatever that site is. If you could clarify that you dont consider us pirates OOC i'll be happy answer me first, I have a guest arriving soon and I dont want to look like a geek infront of female company! Don't worry I am not going to answer Jasmine again On to your question I don't consider you (UK) OOC pirates. Happy now my old Minnie foe? I will however reiterate the point (only because Jasmine seems completely fixated upon it) that you no longer have credibility as an anti-pirate force (which you did used to claim) after giving ENH/Outbreak/Establishment a foothold in Providence from which they can prey on the local populace. ------------------------------ CVA - Kicking Arse For The Empire - http://eve-files.com/dl/83607 AMARR VICTOR
Caillech Freelance Unincorporated Ushra'Khan	Posted - 2007.05.10 19:05:00 - [172] Wow! What a thread. I think the whole NBSI debate is moot. Ultimately, CVA's assault and shall we say intended and unintended reconfiguration of the allegiances in the area have created a situation where both sides are going to have to force people to take a side. We have found that having allies who are not willing to help in defense of the area proves to do more harm than good and have found some friends who want to do shooting, and a lot of it. To keep them happy and our space happy, I suspect we're going to shoot up everyone who does not agree to actively engage CVA and the slavers, who now pose a consistent local threat. That will mean nobody in the area can be neutral to both parties and has to be red to someone. Unless, of course, CVA continues its policy of NRDS and ends up with the same problem U'K faced, namely neutrals earning isk under their protection but adding no value to defense. In which case, they will probably get shot up by Hardin's pirates along with CVA. So at the end of the day, everyone local is going to end up red/blue anyway, and there will be a lot more shooting going on for everyone. Which I very much approve of, as all of you fat, bloated, disgusting, decrepit, pustulent leeches on humanity known as Amarrians need to die painfully and repeatedly. I'm sorry, did I say that last bit out loud?
Aindrias Amarr Fomus-Amarr Industrial Novus Ordos Seclorum	Posted - 2007.05.10 20:05:00 - [173] I wouldn't normally jump in on a debate such as this but... CVA says NBSI in Providence/Lowsec leading to Providence is Piracy, that's there stance. They don't say 'NBSI everywhere is Piracy" even if they believe it, they don't say it because they couldn't enforce it anyways. So IAC being NBSI for the time being due to their current issues in their own space outside of Providence is "OK" and being friends/neutral with CVA is fine. CVA is staying all those corps/allliance helping U'K atm, Establishment, Outbreak, Evoke, BUMs, etc are shooting neutrals IN PROVIDENCE/CVA space who are not involved with the U'K/friends vs CVA/friends War (which I love it btw, it's fun! ) So lets put this together in very simple terms. NBSI in Prov/surrounding lowsec = Piracy to CVA The Estab, Outbreak, Evoke, BUMs, etc are NBSI'ing in Prov so they = Pirates (even though by definition... they're privateers (no, not the Alliance) because a sovereign alliance is enlisting them against another sovereign alliance... re: Sir Francis Drake). The difference I see here is simply: U'K is enlisting the help of corps/alliance who practice NBSI or other forms of random shooting/piracy e.g. Outbreak, Evoke, The Estab, BUMs in other areas of space. CVA is enlisting the help of those around them that practice NRDS, Sylph, NOS, and other corps like PIE, Aegis Militia, Etc... who all reside near and in Providence. Further, IMHO, this war was escalated not do to naked acts of aggression by CVA, but when U'K and IO were actively trying to gain sovereignty in the QBL Pocket of Providence by POS Spamming after they supposedly thought NOS was building a station there. CVA and NOS, for apparent reasons, did NOT want that to happen. This proved to CVA and NOS that U'K/IO at the time were escalating the conflict beyond the fun skirmishes prior. Right after that happened, IO stepped out of the picture leaving U'K by itself and op for attack... So I personally blame this whole thing on IO. Yay for a history lesson. All fine and good, but to those who didn't know that, NOW YOU DO If you're KOS in Prov, expect to be attacked by all alliances/corps until your get yourself off that list. MAYBE that clears things up. I for one don't see U'K as pirates, but enemies of war. Further, NOS has always come with what they can when asked by CVA, but I think it's a bigger TIME ZONE thing with that. Aindrias See what you can do with Paintbrush?
Apollyon X FIRMA	Posted - 2007.05.10 20:20:00 - [174] you're all pirates now stop whining
Tar Kovsky Minmatar Khumatari Holdings Ushra'Khan	Posted - 2007.05.10 20:25:00 - [175] Originally by: Hardin you no longer have credibility as an anti-pirate force While I'd agree that it undermines our credibility in that regard, I'd be hesitant to describe this as strictly binary. Even CVA lost a smidgen of their "anti-pirate" cred by flying alongside SNIGG while assisting IAC. (I wouldn't be surprised to hear that one of the reasons you stayed out of the IAC-ISS conflict was precisely because of the forum beatdown you got for the earlier help.) At this point, only time will tell how we continue to evolve after the resolution of the current battle. But we've never made a secret out of the fact that we rate "anti-slaver" as more important than "anti-pirate".
Maggot Minmatar Freelance Unincorporated Ushra'Khan	Posted - 2007.05.10 20:39:00 - [176] Originally by: Aindrias Further, IMHO, this war was escalated not do to naked acts of aggression by CVA, but when U'K and IO were actively trying to gain sovereignty in the QBL Pocket of Providence by POS Spamming after they supposedly thought NOS was building a station there. CVA and NOS, for apparent reasons, did NOT want that to happen. This proved to CVA and NOS that U'K/IO at the time were escalating the conflict beyond the fun skirmishes prior. Right after that happened, IO stepped out of the picture leaving U'K by itself and op for attack... So I personally blame this whole thing on IO. Nah, thats not quite true. Drop Hardin a line as I dont want to speak on his behalf.
Aindrias Amarr Fomus-Amarr Industrial Novus Ordos Seclorum	Posted - 2007.05.10 20:54:00 - [177] Edited by: Aindrias on 10/05/2007 20:51:57 Edited by: Aindrias on 10/05/2007 20:51:16 Edited by: Aindrias on 10/05/2007 20:50:07 Originally by: Maggot Originally by: Aindrias Further, IMHO, this war was escalated not do to naked acts of aggression by CVA, but when U'K and IO were actively trying to gain sovereignty in the QBL Pocket of Providence by POS Spamming after they supposedly thought NOS was building a station there. CVA and NOS, for apparent reasons, did NOT want that to happen. This proved to CVA and NOS that U'K/IO at the time were escalating the conflict beyond the fun skirmishes prior. Right after that happened, IO stepped out of the picture leaving U'K by itself and op for attack... So I personally blame this whole thing on IO. Nah, thats not quite true. Drop Hardin a line as I dont want to speak on his behalf. The blaming IO thing is just an Opinion... but.. um... check it U'K Release See what you can do with Paintbrush?
Maggot Minmatar Freelance Unincorporated Ushra'Khan	Posted - 2007.05.10 22:06:00 - [178] k, what I meant is that CVA's attack plans on 9UY pre-dated the QBL attack. It was a point of escalation. More of an interruption.
Vampire Lord World Order The Imperial Order	Posted - 2007.05.10 22:12:00 - [179] Originally by: Aindrias I wouldn't normally jump in on a debate such as this but... CVA says NBSI in Providence/Lowsec leading to Providence is Piracy, that's there stance. They don't say 'NBSI everywhere is Piracy" even if they believe it, they don't say it because they couldn't enforce it anyways. So IAC being NBSI for the time being due to their current issues in their own space outside of Providence is "OK" and being friends/neutral with CVA is fine. CVA is staying all those corps/allliance helping U'K atm, Establishment, Outbreak, Evoke, BUMs, etc are shooting neutrals IN PROVIDENCE/CVA space who are not involved with the U'K/friends vs CVA/friends War (which I love it btw, it's fun! ) So lets put this together in very simple terms. NBSI in Prov/surrounding lowsec = Piracy to CVA The Estab, Outbreak, Evoke, BUMs, etc are NBSI'ing in Prov so they = Pirates (even though by definition... they're privateers (no, not the Alliance) because a sovereign alliance is enlisting them against another sovereign alliance... re: Sir Francis Drake). The difference I see here is simply: U'K is enlisting the help of corps/alliance who practice NBSI or other forms of random shooting/piracy e.g. Outbreak, Evoke, The Estab, BUMs in other areas of space. CVA is enlisting the help of those around them that practice NRDS, Sylph, NOS, and other corps like PIE, Aegis Militia, Etc... who all reside near and in Providence. Further, IMHO, this war was escalated not do to naked acts of aggression by CVA, but when U'K and IO were actively trying to gain sovereignty in the QBL Pocket of Providence by POS Spamming after they supposedly thought NOS was building a station there. CVA and NOS, for apparent reasons, did NOT want that to happen. This proved to CVA and NOS that U'K/IO at the time were escalating the conflict beyond the fun skirmishes prior. Right after that happened, IO stepped out of the picture leaving U'K by itself and op for attack... So I personally blame this whole thing on IO. Yay for a history lesson. All fine and good, but to those who didn't know that, NOW YOU DO If you're KOS in Prov, expect to be attacked by all alliances/corps until your get yourself off that list. MAYBE that clears things up. I for one don't see U'K as pirates, but enemies of war. Further, NOS has always come with what they can when asked by CVA, but I think it's a bigger TIME ZONE thing with that. Aindrias You've just made a mistake sir. Would you like IO to come back to NOS space an finish pounding your crippled alliance back to empire were you belong. Do you really think a bunch of care bears should be pointing fingers at anyone politically knowing they can't defend themselves? Now were likely to come back an start blowing up you & your assets while your big sister is busy. Don't think because we've been away we've not been watching you. Your little history lesson should also reflect that fact that your alliance lost pretty much all there fighters due to the empire & 0.0 space beating it was taking. Note that IO numbers changed because we gave people a choice join one of the two corps or leave. Note that most of the hard core Killers/Capital pilots are still in IO. You have just become a target because of your stupidity
Solusar Amarr Auctoritan Syndicate Curatores Veritatis Alliance	Posted - 2007.05.10 22:30:00 - [180] Edited by: Solusar on 10/05/2007 22:34:56 Originally by: Caillech Unless, of course, CVA continues its policy of NRDS and ends up with the same problem U'K faced, namely neutrals earning isk under their protection but adding no value to defense. In which case, they will probably get shot up by Hardin's pirates along with CVA. Alot of the residents of our end of Providence do use the area to make ISK and add no value to defense. That is no reason for us to shoot them, that is the whole point of opening up an area of 0.0 for people to get their first taste without being insta popped at the entrance choke points. The other side of the coin is those that live in the area for awhile then decide they want to make it their home and thus step up and start fighting for it. Lets face it, you can make far more money far more quickly in low sec space than you can in Providence. As for the idea that we had made plans to attack 9UY before the attacks on QBL, that is quite ludicrous. We had ideas about long term goals, but nothing was definate on "what to do next" and at that stage QR was still an ISS station so its safe to say we wernt planning on taking it at that point :p BOTH sides had engaged multiple times in POS warfare prior to QR since the day POS were introduced. This "you started it, no you started it!" stuff is pretty stupid :p Though most of it seems to be coming from people looking in on the conflict.

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 :: 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.