BPO halt + Low power + Abandoned state

Just seems to me like it’s easier to defer to authority in this case? If a thing is in the “structure browser,” then it can simply be referred to as a structure. It doesn’t matter what semantic arguments there are outside of EVE. CCP has names for things that they decided on, and we use them. Same reason why “high-sec” is high-sec, “security status” is security status, etc.

Like, I’m not, as a player, going to go down an encyclopedic rabbit hole about what “structure” means when I want to set up or use a refinery to smelt my Veld.

Why even have this argument? It’s pointless.

The argument that’s not pointless is whether or not this new BPO fiasco is a bug or a feature.

1 Like

No.
For the same reason, just because a pet store sells pet food, does not mean that pet food is pet.

You need to use the definition for those. The definition of “structure” is NOT based on its presence in the structure browser. The definition of structure, like for station, ship, drone, charge, fighter, skill, etc. is that its category’s name IS said name. An item is a structure when its category IS structure ; an item is a station when its category’s name IS station ; just like an item is a ship when its category IS ship. ; just like an item is a cruiser when its group is cruiser ; just like an item is a maller, when its type is maller. Saying a station is a structure is just like saying a maller is a celestis, or a drone is an asteroid.

It’s not. People claiming that stations are structures, are wrong. The structures can have a reinforcement timer. Stations can’t even be damaged. They are just completely different.

If you start by asserting two different things are the same, it allows you to deduce false things.
I understand that people want to have a common notion for both ; but don’t use an existing term as it leads to mistakes.

The only authority, is the nomenclature from CCP. You can find it in several sites, include everef which I already linked. You can also go on ESI and se by yourself what are the categories, group, types that each item must belong to.

1 Like

Tell you what: I’ll do it anyway, and if you don’t like it, you can do something about it. Lots of in-game means of imposing your will on others, I’m sure someone as clever as you will figure out a way to convince me and/or others. :wink:

2 Likes

Indeed, you can be delusional and thus wrong. It won’t change the fact that you are just as wrong as if calling a caracal a warrior III.
Maybe you’re used to this naming convention with your friends ; it’s still wrong to do it outside of your close circle.

It’s even more wrong to claim that this based on something in-game ; for the reason, it’s only based on your habits and how hard they are to change.

I’ve done alright for myself thus far, so I’m sure I’ll figure it out. Thanks for your concern about how I’m perceived by the general public, though.

Bad analogies about pet stores aside:

Stations are still listed in the Structure Browser because stations are a type of structure. ^-^

That’s not my concern. My concern is, that you are spreading false things, therefore making Eve even harder to understand for most people.

No.

Yup. ^-^

Your argument is basically:

  1. some incorrect analogy about pet stores
  2. something something?
  3. stations can’t be attacked therefore they are COMPLETELY DIFFERENT from other structures

all of which are bad, wrong, and incorrect. ^-^

I think that players who have a hard time understanding what kind of weapon to put on their Megathron have much more pressing concerns regarding “understanding” than whether an Athanor is a “station” or a “structure” or a “space hut” or whatever.

What is asserted without a proof, is dismissed without a proof.

You made no argument, so you are wrong.

It goes together. When you accept to use wrong term for things, no wonder people have a hard time understanding the game.

Nope. ^-^

Stations are structures. They’re listed in the Structure Browser. You still have zero refutation for this. Stay mad Anderson, I know you’re seeeeething right now. ^-^

I’m starting to think that Anderson’s whole deal is coming from some extremely old-school, aristocratic family where you get flogged by the patriarch for using the wrong fork for salad at dinner or something.

1 Like

They are not.

Just because you repeat something wrong, does not make it right.

Just because you don’t understand the issue of naming things incorrectly, does not mean there is no problem.

If you want to explain, to have a discussion, you need to have a precise naming scheme.

I understand that it’s okay to use common terms when the function is identical, but it does not mean that outside of the scope of discussion the items are actually identical.

He’s just a troll. Just correct his nonsense and smile at him. He will eventually rage and get muted for a couple of days again.

Awaiting your argument. ^-^

Anderson’s argument:

Forks are not a type of utensil. That’s like saying cats are pet food because both are sold at the pet store. Furthermore, spoons - a utensil - can be used to sip soup broth. Forks cannot. Therefore they are completely different and not even in the same category of entity.

And I would’ve gotten away with it too, if it wasn’t for those meddling kids and their blasted thesaurus!

The thing is, in this case they are not functionally identical : you can’t lose your bpo in a station, but you can in a structure.

So here it’s important to note that actually, stations and structures are two distinct categories. And to make the distinction between the two.

The erroneous argument here is:

“Things are not exactly the same therefore they are completely different and not even in the same category.”

This is incorrect. ^-^ Sorry Geten.

I don’t even know what we’re talking about anymore. All I can focus on is the mental image of you wearing a nun’s outfit and walking up and down the Sunday school classroom with a stern look and a ruler in your hand.

1 Like