You compared apples to bananas.
That is being disputed here.
They would not be “equal” post change per my proposal either.
Just rationalises the system:
-Bump causes physical displacement of the ship, which no module can.
-Warp interrupting modules cause warp interruption, which bump cannot.
Its very simple, and may I say, elegant.
Why is it so important to some of you that bumping fks with warping?
Why not use your ship for bumping, and its modules to disrupt warp?
Why is it so important to you to change the status quo?
–Gadget in commute
To improve and rationalize game systems.
Now answer my question, as I did yours.
(Ill let it slide you answered my questions with a question above)
What harm is there in bumping no longer disrupting warp?
Strangely only by you
Lmao
Thanks for such a precise summary.
Keeping in mind the reason bumping is implemented, anyone proposing changes should think very carefully about the effects their proposal would have.
(There had been some suggestion of a 3 minute timeout on being bumped. That seems dead now, perhaps it would have broken the game engine in some way that’s not obvious to me.
(I can see what effect it could have on game play though.))
Because I think taking risky actions should have periodically have consequences. If you can find an alternative way for consequences to be imposed on that risky behavior then fine. But simply letting people off the hook for being dumb is not what EVE is about.
Emergence in action.
Emergence will occur if alignment is decoupled from bumping, too.
Its not a big deal.
You can still bump, and you can still prevent warp with scram/disruptors/bubbles.
How many more times are you going to repeat that exact same statement?
Bumping incurs no risk, as is now.
My suggestion does not incur risk to bumping, either.
But if you do want to prevent warp, you will have to activate a module for that purpose.
After some thinking
It feels like you got bumped in a freighter not too long ago and are still salty about it.
Link the killmail to that broken ego please 
What harm is there in bumping no longer disrupting warp?
What are you afraid of?
If you want to bump, then bump.
Current physics will apply, and the ship will be moved.
If you want to prevent warp, then use warp scram/disruptor/bubble.
TLDR:
Bump, bumps the ship.
Warp preventers prevent warp.
Its that simple.
If you bump, velocity vectors are modified that you’re trying to warp or not.
Points and scram don’t care about either, they just work
It’s that simple
#salvosforcsm13
What’s your excuse now?
Then why should you be allowed to keep something pointed, without concord intervention even? 
An unnecessary tool for ganking. Would bumping be removed, neither gankers not ganked targets would notice significant differences. Except for one: You are over with it 10-30 minutes sooner.
Bumping is not necessary for ganking, and hinging the viability of ganking on the ability to bump is ridiculous.
This.
Bumping is effectively a non-CONCORD trigger point, that does not require modules for the purpose of pointing.
It goes above and beyond the function of displacing a ship, (as is its primary function) to also preventing its warp, as otherwise would require a scram/disruptor/bubble.
This also.
Inb4 some crap from Dom that I will not answer to. I will take my own advise as in another thread, and no longer respond to a troll as obvious as him.
It’s a CCP-accepted mechanic that you like it or not lol
It’s a mechanic that is used by all sorts of people for all sorts of reasons in every area of space.
There’s nothing left to argue about @Salvos_Rhoska
You should know when to stop posting your repetitive drivel
And just to add to your lovely edit:
You calling people trolls has absolutely no weight to it.
Now if someone like, idk, Black Pedro, Gadget or anyone else posting knowledgeable comments were to call me a troll, I’d consider it the truth 
Back from lunch. It was a working lunch or I would have responded sooner.
Two things before I answer your question.
I know that English is your self-admittedly third language, and I laud you for your mastery of the basics, so I’ll let your apparent difficulty with the intermediate levels slide. I’ll just assume this is a poorly worded request. But, I must add, please refrain from attempting to give me an order. That will only have your request duly ignored.
Second thing, for background. In my teachings, understanding, and experience, ANY policy change will harm some subset of the population in some manner in some degree. I have yet to observe a policy change that even if agreed to unanimously that doesn’t cause some degree of harm to some portion of the population.
One key to making good(-ish) decisions is finding out what how much harm and to whom, and then weighing that information against the good to come from the policy, and then routing all of that through laws and resources available. Part of this exercise is gaming out the potential harmful future effects.
Here are some of the quick ideas I had on the commute.
There’s three, and I’m sure there are more. That’s what forums are about - debate AND information sharing.
–Helpful Gadget
Well…no. Bumpers have been ganked.
And my point was that the person taking the risk was the one getting bumped.
So you missed the point.
Nothing. I just want a risky freighter pilot to face the consequences of taking that risk and bumping is part of the process to impose consequences.
So reduce the risk…the kinder and gentler EVE…
