Bore Jita!?

In consideration of all the nerfs to small gang playstyles, improvements for the donut-blob and leaving unbalanced stuff untouched for far too long, I thought how about the people affected by this organize a “Bore Jita”?

Essentially: entirely deny any and all forms of content for as long as CCP doesn’t get their sh*t together. Let grinders bore themselves while they compete with botters. Let donut f1 monkeys spin their ship.

Basically a strike. Is such a thing possible?


1 Like

Your complaints are vague, how about telling us specifically what is troubling to you so we can consider discussing it.

More interesting would be mass murder every ship on Jita undock with suicide ganking tornados or catalysts. But it would require lots of people. Make Jita unusable for traders and you will see the change.

Think they don’t have balls to do that…cause they would be hunted at some time, it’s much easier to camp gates and kill t1 haulers

1 Like

If you start this burn Jita-esque event let me know beforehand so I can be there and grab (some of) the loot. :wink:

I don’t want to make another thread for discussing what people don’t like. I want to find out, if people are willing to make their voices heard by actually doing something about it. A kind of content-strike is hard to imagine, despite there seemingly being already a passive content-strike, by those who apparantely stop playing the game or play less due to small-gang content nerfs.

My point would be, that spontaneous conflict, small/medium roams and such are a very important factor in making EVE feel lively for every player. If players feel that this kind of content is nerfed/ignored by the Devs, there needs to be a way to show the ultimate consequences of that. I thought one such way could be to actively deny content and see what happens, but I guess the lack of an organization between the small gang scenes makes this pretty impossible.

If you don’t like it, do something more substantial.

I don’t like the Abyss feature so I hunt traces and Gilas.


You have the same chance at getting every single eve player to stop playing eve for a week.

Sure it’s possible.

You just won’t get many people that give a ■■■■. I know I don’t. I’ll continue logging in, undocking, and blowing up spaceships. Eve is still a game that I choose to play.

Ironically, This Thread sounds like a lot of the observations I have read where it’s always someone asking other people to do a thing.

Well, that’s the entire idea of a strike - doing it together. If no one ever starts speaking about it, it would never happen.

Yeah I think that’s true. It’s weird though - for me. I also care about the game and still like it, but exactly that tells me that we as players have a responsibility to have positive influence on the game. And we do, with actions and often with words. But many of these steps seem to be ignored, so out of affection for the part of the game that is our playstyle, it seems like a natural thought to increase the pressure together.

We don’t have the majority of the CSM on our side, but that doesn’t mean we can’t do ■■■■.

Therein lies the rub.

A strike is organized by a union. The union makes the collective decision to strike, and then ostracizes anyone and everyone that crosses the picket line to work because they don’t agree with the strike (and thus undermines the strength of that strike). That’s the principle reason I hate unions. They dictate (with a vote where nearly every member votes how the union tells them to vote) that it doesn’t matter if YOU are happy, WE aren’t and you’re expected to endure sacrifice for OUR goals. They might not even benefit you in the end.

Extend that into Eve, where here we have people (such as yourself) unhappy with CCP messing up something they enjoy. If by and large the community wants to cross the picket line and keep the status quo, does it really warrant a strike?

No it doesn’t. Although in the specific case, this is not about all the community, this is about people who are adding something specific to the game. Other players claim they don’t need this playstyle, but I argue that it has direct and positive influence on theirs. Without wardeccers, small gang roamers and pirates, a lot of content for other players would suffer. So I’d say the ignorance of others shouldn’t be the measurement for own action. The question is, wether or not those directly affected are willing to organize and fight back. My assumption is that the answer is ‘no’, but you never know until you ask around.

Yeah, a union is not there for you as an individual, a union manifests the idea that solidarity is better than colleagues betraying each other for a tiny advantage. Of course this means some will always think they get the rake and they’d be better off without unions - but the joke is that they wouldn’t. They would be off far far worse and the only reason they can moan about unions instead of working conditions, is because they’re already profiting from the positive effect the union strength brings in.

It’s like people who claim they could live well without paying taxes, while driving on tax-financed streets, drinking tax-financed water, eating tax-subsidized food, using tax-subsidized electricity or having the state jump in to tax-subsidize their uncompetetive business. Not to forget the tax-subsidized police they can call using the tax-subsidized mobile networks, if someone decides to take everything they have. Plus, even being able to discuss this online, thanks to taxes that went into a grant to invent the internet, yay. And many other inventions… financed by taxes through the army and such.

Sometimes I wish in some really idiotic country someone would get rid of all taxes and any and all public spending, so that the rest of the world could have a laugh about, learn from and pity how that society will break apart and degenerates.

That’s the thing… back in my youth I got hired by a Telco to work as a security guard at a NOC during a strike.

I saw it all first hand. I spoke to the picketers daily (positive relationship kept tensions lower), I knew where they stood. They were on strike because the union said it could get them more than what they were getting. It had nothing to do with whether they were getting an appropriate amount or not. A lot of people lost their jobs, a lot of friendships were destroyed, some went to jail for criminal actions, and in the end, almost none of them said it was worth it.

If worker rights are being abused, a collective strike is warranted. But these days, there’s so much legislation in place that a worker’s rights can be protected by legal challenge. These days, strikes are just about money. And in that particular category, I 100% support market forces.

I, for example, would immediately quit if we became unionized and I could not get a hollow promotion to a managerial title (thus exempting me). I know my value to my organization, and they know it too. I work hard and earn my compensation (an amount we both agree is fair). If I somehow didn’t quit and did become a union member, I can assert that there would be no set of circumstances that would see me on a picket line for even one day.

Obviously, not all employers are like this, and not all employees are in professions that qualify as skilled (and are thus important to retain). But again… if the union says burger flippers are worth $20/hr, they’re simply wrong. Market forces dictate they’re generally worth minimum wage (whether that’s enough for them to live off of or not). In any case (at least, here) where a worker is placed in a dangerous or unreasonable circumstance, there are absolutely legal proceedings that can be filed - and a successful proceeding can include legal expenses. If they’re too scared or stupid to make use of those options, that’s on them and them alone.

On the topic of taxes… you’re right. Money does need to come from somewhere. That said, I would support extremely low taxes (enough to cover costs that cannot reasonably be recovered through tolls), and tolls on services that are used. I’ve no problem paying to build and maintain the roads I use, pay a doctor for services rendered, or have a for-profit law enforcement agency that funds itself through the citations it issues (of course, held accountable). But I do have a problem with tax dollars being allocated to things that I don’t use or spent on programs that I don’t agree with.

I too work in a field where unions were uncommon for a long time. Typically you’re either self-employed or have freely negotiated compensation from your employer. This only works to your advantage, if you have any set of assets (skills, experience, contacts etc.) that puts you in a comfortable place to negotiate. With time the half-life of specialist skills got lower and lower. On the one side you have enterprises who need to stay ahead in an ever accelerating race of competition - on the other side you have more and more people pressing into these kinds of jobs/fields, because they promise better than average payment.

Now, there are people who are unionizing. The reason is simply that without having any kind of leverage, the density of work accelerates at a level that devalues your skills faster than most people can pick them up. The more “workers” (actually everyone who has to work for money) compete with each other, the faster this goes. It’s good for the companies, but creates the usual problems for many of the workers, despite them being highly-skilled individuals, used to work high loads at high speeds with high responsibility and high complexity.

The market forces, that you are speaking about, are not some half-worldly, mystical thing, they can be named. Basically it’s the force of companies on the one side and people who have to work on the other side - give or take. Of course also companies against each other and workers against each other as well. The companies organize, despite their competition. You’re free to not organize, but that leaves you at a much weaker negotiating position. You have to hope that your skills stay valuable long enough and that’s it. The moment the competition amongst workers in your field rises enough or progress devalues your skills faster than you can evolve, you’ve lost all negotiating power. You are of course free to do this, but why would you self-lessly let go of an opportunity to be in a stronger position?

Of course strikes are often about money, why not? Running a company is about money too or do you think the enterprise would pay you anything, just because they like you so much? It’s all about money. Since single individual people who have to work for money do not have the same negotiating power as companies who do have capital, they try to increase their power by organizing. Companies organize as well and they’re certainly not ashamed of it :slight_smile:

Unions are not some revolutionary thing - they’re just the reasonable insight of working people, that they’re better off seeking strength in the group than heading for burn-out or minimum wage. Of course the propaganda of companies is strong and so many working people believe that it’s in their own best interest to not unionize. Fake news, that’s all that is in most of the cases.

About the burger flippers, I don’t know. What if - theoretically - the people who work in such jobs, would stop working unless they get +100% more money? Tell you what, in the end, they would get it. Them acting together would increase their part of the market force. People have to eat, take the subway, want their toilets clean, their houses safe and all of that. Highly specialized fields like mine could realistically not exist without loads of people doing “simple” jobs.

While it’s probably fun for some people to watch the super-rich living their super-rich lifes on television, it would be more fun for me, if I knew that everybodies job pays well enough to allow them things that I’d consider pretty normal things: safety, security, a house, a family, a car, holidays, good food, gadgets, hobbies, education, entertainment, health insurance, pension and so on. The truth is that the people who don’t organize are somewhat responsible for their own demise. Yes sure, there is this systemic unemployment which kind of ensures someone else will take up the “simple” job in case people strike and if that doesn’t work there is always the option to let in a few illegalized migrants who’ll work twice as hard for half as much. These difficulties are a given - the decision to be as strongly positioned as possible within the market forces, is not a given. It’s a decision.

One more thing to taxes: the problem with no or very low taxes, is that the state embodies the general interest of companies. The state is basically the union for companies. They often don’t like it, because they have to pay membership fee aka taxes, but without the state collecting these taxes, companies could not exist. Not to forget that most taxes are paid by workers, not by companies, but anyhow. Without the state subsidizing or plainly financing public infrastructure, anything related to traffic - from streets to fuel to airports -, electricity, communication networks, police, military and all kinds of other things - there would simply be no base of operations for any company. Taxes are already low, probably lower than good in the long run. In the short run, companies are happy to find tax breaks because it increases their immediate profit. In the long run, it hurts them. That’s why the state, as the union every company is member of (against their will), does the reasonable thing and ensures long-term profit for homegrown companies.

Now, of course workers can take some influence on the state as well. For instance they can argue, that tax money that comes directly from the profits they’re making for their employers, is used for hospitals and schools rather than measures that only increase companies profits. And yes, there are many working people who don’t think like that and rage about public healthcare and such (while not raging about subsidizing banks). That’s okay. They can do it. It only works though, because other people put up at least some pressure that guarantees a minimum of public infrastructure and safety. As said before, the people who deny solidarity as a rational and reasonable concept, can only do this based on other people having their backs.

That’s why I’d rather see some country give in to these cries of “everyone for themselves”, because it would make it so blatanly visible what happens if everybody would follow that same logic. The country would be ripped apart in a matter of a few years and that would be it.

In EVE regarding the small gang content this is similarly a slow and sneaking process. Someone called it “boiling frog”. People who still give to the game, despite their playstyle being equalized to burger flipper, make it possible for grinders, botters and mega-coalition members to still find sense in what they’re doing. Take the aforementioned people out of the equation and see how the rest does not work anymore.

I know, chances are low, that enough people even realize this and even lower that enough people would act on it, but I thought it’s a fun idea to throw in. You never know when real life suddenly teaches people something about acting as a group, rather than doing the ego thing.

If not now, I’ll propose it again in 10 years or something. By then, if my calculations are right, we’ll have enough scientists, it-specialists and the likes on a global level, that they’ll everywhere be down to burger flipper income. Should teach some people something - maybe.

For some reason i don’t think anyone would notice disappearing of small gangs… :thinking:

At least nobody would miss the tradehubcampers in highsec.

So mean :smiley:

This topic was automatically closed 90 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.