EVE Search - Flashpoint Providence - AAR

Check My IP Information

All Channels

Corporation, Alliance and Organization Discussions

Flashpoint Providence - AAR - Operation Fedaykin

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]


Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Rodj Blake Amarr PIE Inc. Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris	Posted - 2008.01.23 16:37:00 - [1] Originally by: Jade Constantine Standings enclosure works both ways Olavane. The creeping (manipulative) standings enclosure of the CVA Red List is one thing, but then so is the fact that one CANNOT have independent RED standings in Providence without the CVA signing off on it. Neither of which represents any kind of freedom or freespace experience and is precisely what I was arguing (and you initially took umbrage with). I'll ignore the first part of your post as it seems that no amount of telling you otherwise will get you to accept that the CVA don't force anyone to adopt their standings. Regarding the CVA not liking pilots shooting at people not on the red list, what do you think would happen if this wasn't the case? Clearly, everyone would be shooting at whoever they liked with the result that the strong would prey on the weak. That's not freespace, that's a recipe for anarchy. Providence would cease to be a place where less experienced people can dip their toes into the 0.0 waters. Dulce et decorum est pro imperium mori.
Rodj Blake Amarr PIE Inc. Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris	Posted - 2008.01.23 16:42:00 - [2] Edited by: Rodj Blake on 23/01/2008 16:43:39 Originally by: Jade Constantine Originally by: Rodj Blake I'll ignore the first part of your post as it seems that no amount of telling you otherwise will get you to accept that the CVA don't force anyone to adopt their standings. No amount of CVA propaganda is going to get me to accept that when I am told overwise by people trying to live in Providence Rodj. As long as SF keep getting shot at by random organisations we've never met before and are only shooting at us because the CVA Red List tells them to shoot at us then I'm going to keep up this line of attack on your expressed principles and false claim to be a "free" region. Perhaps they just read your rubbish and decide that since they can shoot you, they will? That would seem to be the ultimate expression of freespace ideals, after all. Dulce et decorum est pro imperium mori.
Rodj Blake Amarr PIE Inc. Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris	Posted - 2008.01.23 19:29:00 - [3] Originally by: Jade Constantine Originally by: Rodj Blake Perhaps they just read your press releases and decide that since they can shoot you, they will? CAN in this case meaning because CVA provide them with the RED List and they are only allowed to shoot things on the Red list (regardless of any previous experience or interaction in space). You describing this process of absolute dictation over the terms of interaction as any sort of an expression of "freespace" is laughable Rodj. In which case I refer you back to my earlier comment which you failed to answer. By limiting who people are allowed to shoot, the CVA protects space for usage by everyone rather than those with the biggest guns. The CVA offers people the chance to dip their toes into the waters of 0.0. You offer them anarchy. Dulce et decorum est pro imperium mori.
Rodj Blake Amarr PIE Inc. Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris	Posted - 2008.01.23 19:37:00 - [4] Originally by: Jade Constantine Edited by: Jade Constantine on 23/01/2008 18:20:13 Originally by: Garreck I don't think a CVA pilot has mentioned "freespace" yet, though I could be mistaken. In the eyes of the greater community there is no difference between CVA and the CVA pets in Providence or Amarrian bloc supporters in the general Amarrian RP community. Hence to see Rodj Blake making claims about "freespace ethics" in Providence will certainly grant the appearance of CVA making this kind of entirely erroneous claim in respects to the standings enclosurist regime in force there. I'll use whatever language I see fit, subject to basic rules of common decency. Actually, now that I think about it, my view of freespace is somewhat like my view of free speech - you can say (or do in the case of freespace) anything you want as long you don't impede the ability of other people to do likewise. I think that most sensible people would agree that this is a reasonable state of affairs. Of course, your definition of freespace allows people to remove freedom from others, which means that freespace is anything but free for those at the bottom of the pile. Dulce et decorum est pro imperium mori.
Rodj Blake Amarr PIE Inc. Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris	Posted - 2008.01.23 19:40:00 - [5] Originally by: Janu Hull And its some stylin' blingbling they offer, yo. Indeed. Despite its imperfections, Providence is a far easier place for neutrals to get the hang of 0.0 in than Venal ever was when the NVA were running things there. Dulce et decorum est pro imperium mori.
Rodj Blake Amarr PIE Inc. Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris	Posted - 2008.01.23 19:56:00 - [6] Originally by: Jade Constantine Originally by: Rodj Blake Despite its imperfections, Providence is a far easier place for neutrals to get the hang of 0.0 in than Venal ever was when the NVA were running things there. Actually thats pretty much untrue. Back when we were running the NVA as a freespace entity it was very open for corporations to come out and experience. It was only when NVA got betrayed by the closet imperialists in its roster that border closures and standings enclosure came to haunt the dream. Yes, they were free to come and go, until some people with big guns turned up and the region was closed to neutrals. Something which the CVA has never done, despite regular attacks. Dulce et decorum est pro imperium mori.
Rodj Blake Amarr PIE Inc. Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris	Posted - 2008.01.24 16:25:00 - [7] Edited by: Rodj Blake on 24/01/2008 16:25:35 nvm Dulce et decorum est pro imperium mori.
Rodj Blake Amarr PIE Inc. Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris	Posted - 2008.01.25 11:10:00 - [8] Edited by: Rodj Blake on 25/01/2008 11:10:13 I agree that in IC terms, the CVA would see the U'K as pirates, as they fit the dictionary definition of it pretty accurately. I also agree that the U'K would not see themselves as pirates either IC or OOC. Consider the case of Sir Francis Drake. As well as playing bowls while the Spanish Armada got caught up in a storm, he and his friends attacked Spanish merchant shipping in the Caribbean. He was considered a privateer by the British, but a pirate by the Spanish. It all boils down to perspective and to semantics. Now, in Eve, the word pirate has specific unsavoury OOC connotations attached to it, in that it describes a certain NRDS play style that the U'K do not necessarily use. I can therefore completely understand why they don't like being described as such. Perhaps if they were described as corsairs or buccaneers the U'K would have fewer OOC objections? Dulce et decorum est pro imperium mori.
Rodj Blake Amarr PIE Inc. Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris	Posted - 2008.01.25 15:12:00 - [9] Edited by: Rodj Blake on 25/01/2008 15:17:37 Edited by: Rodj Blake on 25/01/2008 15:12:05 Originally by: Jade Constantine Thats pretty much our argument Requiescat thank you. Its not so much the fact they choose to shoot us from neutral in defense of the CVA regime that causes all this debate. Its the fact they try to pretend to be NRDS anti-pirate while doing it. Quote: It might actually be good advise, so I'm hoping you can take the label Institutionally Deceitful Top-Down Standings Enclosurist Tyranny as an appropriate label for the CVA right? It's not a case of pretending to be NRDS and anti-pirate, it's a case of them actually being NRDS and anti-pirate. It's not a case of them being an OOC tyranny either. I really don't see what's so controversial about producing a friend or foe list for the benefit of neutrals - after all, it's something that Jericho Fraction did when they were in the NVA. Dulce et decorum est pro imperium mori.
Rodj Blake Amarr PIE Inc. Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris	Posted - 2008.01.25 15:29:00 - [10] Originally by: Jade Constantine Edited by: Jade Constantine on 25/01/2008 15:21:05 Originally by: Rodj Blake It's not a case of pretending to be NRDS and anti-pirate, it's a case of them actually being NRDS and anti-pirate. They simply aren't Rodj. You and I could argue this on and off for the next 20 pages. But you are only convincing your own side at this point. NRDS is meaningless as a term when reds can be added as a result of aggression vs a completely different 3rd party. NRDS is completely meaningful when the way in which someone is set to red is publicised. CVA have stated time and time again that aggression against one of their allies or a neutral in Providence is sufficient to get you added to their red list. This highlights one of the key differences between the SF and the CVA - namely that the CVA help out their friends while the SF are apparently willing to let their friends be massacred until such time as they're shot at. Dulce et decorum est pro imperium mori.

Rodj Blake Amarr PIE Inc. Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris	Posted - 2008.01.25 16:18:00 - [11] Edited by: Rodj Blake on 25/01/2008 16:19:23 Originally by: Jade Constantine Edited by: Jade Constantine on 25/01/2008 15:46:30 Originally by: Rodj Blake NRDS is completely meaningful when the way in which someone is set to red is publicised. Thats the point though, its not publicized, its triumphed as "NRDS Come on we love neutrals in Providence and we're anti pirate too (everything is sweetness and light!)" Quote: CVA have stated time and time again that aggression against one of their allies or a neutral in Providence is sufficient to get you added to their red list. Which is in effect standings enclosurism. The example on this occasion is ridiculously, simplistically clear. Star Fraction had a war against CVA, SF pilots prosecuted that war. A previously neutral Sev3rance pilot chose to aggress a SF ship beneath the sentry guns from neutral. I really can't see how you can argue this is in any way an NRDS/anti-pirate action because it simply isn't. Its defending an empire and falling into line and shooting people not because they are your enemy, but because the ruling caste tell you they must be shot. Quote: This highlights one of the key differences between the SF and the CVA - namely that the CVA help out their friends while the SF are apparently willing to let their friends be massacred until such time as they're shot at. Our friends don't "get massacred". Since they are independent capable and free-willed starship captains they have no need to subordinate their will and freedom beneath the Amarrian slavers for protection. We don't make "friends" unless those friends are "equals" and as "equals" those friends are big and strong enough to look after themselves in disputes with 3rd parties that are none of our business. If a 3rd party sees fit to attack US as well as our "friends" then they are choosing to fight us all. It really is very simple and a clear case of individual responsibility and honest self government. The fact you don't understand this Rodj speaks volumes to the degree you yourself have been swept up by the regressive memetics of institutional deceit and self-deceiving doubtlethink inside the greater CVA community. But Jade, if the CVA's standings policy is so restrictive, why did JF consider the publishing of their own alliance's friend or foe list to be of some benefit to neutrals? Dulce et decorum est pro imperium mori.
Rodj Blake Amarr PIE Inc. Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris	Posted - 2008.01.25 16:44:00 - [12] Edited by: Rodj Blake on 25/01/2008 16:46:38 Had a neutral corp with an NBSI policy entered Venal, would JF have supported them being added to the list of foes? And no Jade, me not directly responding to one of your points does not automatically mean that I agree with it. Dulce et decorum est pro imperium mori.

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.