Seems quite clear you actually do. You seem very concerned that I am not AFK. That I can’t go AFK to get a sandwich or refill my glass with scotch, etc.
See, here is the proof:
You seem largely upset that I maybe logged in and every 15-20 minutes I check my market orders, or every 3-5 minutes cycle my mining lasers. Why are you so worried about why I am logged in. If I don’t react to your attempt to interact with me…move on.
You are not entitled to interact with me. You can try, but you are not assured of this. Whether because I am AFK or just don’t want to interact with you.
And what if I am logged in, looking at my client, but I am interacting with other players also logged in via OOG comms?
Seriously, stop worrying about what others are doing and worry about yourself.
I’m entitled to attempt to interact.
I’m wanting the game to make it so I have a greater chance of success by ensuring those who I’m attempting to interact with are present.
My reasoning is that if they aren’t present… they lose nothing by being logged off to prevent multiple players who are present from trying to interact with a person who’s not there.
And:
“Seriously, stop worrying about what others are doing and worry about yourself.”
Seriously? It’s a multiplayer game. The POINT is worrying about other players. What kind of stupid advice is that?
If you had a clue about EVE and some functional braincells, you’d perhaps understand why you’re wrong.
Alas you have neither.
“When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser.”
Socrates
What debate would that be, because I sure as hell did not have and won’t ever have one with you. I know easier ways to waste my time than engaging in illiterate debates with people that fail to comprehend a basic argument.
You really are the poster child for it.
If we flip your stance around.
Does the player who is trying to catch you have an actual chance to interact with you if you are already docked by the time he loads grid or worse, when he’s 4 jumps out and you are already in warp to the station due to Intel-channels.
Does this seem balanced with what you are asking?
No… but he has to make the decision to hide. If I hang around in system he can make the decision to come out and mine (giving me the chance to interact) or attack me (giving me the chance to interact) or flame me in local (probably causing interaction). He can also call in a defensive fleet (causing me interaction… possibly to my detriment). He could bait me as well.
If he leaves his computer… or I leave mine while cloaked at a safe spot… all of those potential interactions disappear. That’s why it would be better (in my opinion) for either one of us who leaves our computer to be logged off when we get considered AFK.
That would be a sign to either side that interaction is no longer possible… instead of the hunter wasting time trying to lure the player in station out or the player in station coming out to try to bait the hunter into attacking. Once someone gets logged out… the remaining party knows he’s now spinning his wheels and can move on to find a target actually at their seat.
There’s a reason why ad hominem arguments are classified as a logical fallacy. It’s one of the methods those who lack sufficient logic to make an argument use to cover that lack of ability. But by all means, continue.
At no point did I refer to cloaks. I was talking your run of the mill fleet looking for something they can catch.
Sure they can. Because your definition of interaction is both limited (they must interact with the client) and extremely broad (just about anything you do in reference to another player is interaction). You routinely interact with players who are not logged in. Why are we not applying this view to those circumstances?
And as I noted, one can not have physical interaction with the client and still be interacting with other players via OOG means. What if I am checking my in game sell orders every 15 minutes. Not only do I lose out, it is possible other players are losing out by logging me off. Please note that time frame here is largely arbitrary. I might check every 15 minutes while puttering around my kitchen another player might make it 20 minutes or 25 or 30 while puttering around his house, logged in on his work laptop, etc., etc.
I’m not sure I can quantify market actions as interaction simply because you don’t interact directly with a player. For example, I cannot buy directly from the 3rd lowest sell order on the market… instead it causes me to buy from the lowest sell order at the price from the 3rd lowest sell order. The code that runs the market works the same if the orders are NPC generated as player generated. Our actions have an impact on the market application… but not with another player until they interact with the the market application.
That would be similar to reinforcing a structure owned by a player corporation when no players from that corporation are present. Your actions have an impact… but it’s not direct player interaction because they don’t see it until after the fact. Player vs Player isn’t happening unless the other player logs in and reacts to your attempt to reinforce.
But it is an intersting point to consider.
Well… if the logoff time were 20 minutes (which I suggested but am not set on)… it wouldn’t matter. If you wait longer… it takes you an extra 20-30 seconds to log in before checking the order after walking away for an hour to do something else. If you’re waiting 30 minutes between checking orders I’m not sure why an extra 30 seconds would be an issue.
Of course it is interaction.
What do you not understand about the word “arbitrary”. You want to enforce and arbitrary rule on how people should play the game. If somebody wants to come back to their computer every 30 minutes and check something, that should be allowed. The idea with the game is do what you want.
They disappear if he logs off too. You cannot force interaction in this case. You make it sound like you are losing out on interaction, but are not in either case.
And lets ask this suppose a player is AFK in space and not cloaked and you probe him down and shoot him, is that interaction?
@Lena_Crews
You defend remote intel in the other thread, and demand to know if the afk cloaker is actually there.
What dangers are there left for you, in what is supposed to be a dangerous space?
she ganks him when she knows he’s not there. she’d never engage him if he was, because of the illusion of the hotdrop…
Link please. I’d like to look at those posts. 
Wanting both the power of local and nerfing AFK cloaking. Gee…no way somebody could see that as a buff for their preferred play style…especially since using the power of local and remote intel Lena will be docking up before I even get in system…and oh look…all that interaction disappearing. 
Starts here.
Please don’t call it a playstyle. It is not a playstyle. they just made that part up and get away with it. playing safe isn’t part of the ruleset!
Damn, I didn’t see that one earlier.
You know, every time I think you can’t surprise me with even more stupidity, you actually manage to outdo yourself.
How retarded do you have to be to think that at any point I was even remotely interested in a discussion with you? All I did was point out the flaws in your limited way of thinking and what a stupid moron you are and of course you’re so god damn stupid that you don’t even get it when it’s pointed out clear as a bright sky for you.
And you also shouldn’t talk about logic without first showing that you indeed are capable of understanding it. So far all you’ve shown is that you have no clue what logic is. No surprise there.
I wasn’t defending remote intel. I was laughing at those who tell people who get killed in pvp to “get gud” who are then complaining because they “got gud” enough to avoid being killed.
I find that humorous.
I literally never posted about remote intel itself… I just laughed at the “poor pvp players” giving salt because their prey is harder to catch.