Incorrect
There is not “only one spawn per system”
There are as many as there are illegal activities that happen simultaneously
Example:
Toon A does an illegal thing in Asteroid Belt 1, at the EXACTLY same time, as Toon B does an illegal thing in Asteroid Belt 2
Both will have CONCORD arrive at the same time, and both will be different CONCORD entities
Tipa is right. There is only one spawn per system. FOR EACH CHARACTER. You should know this.
You can move parts of the spawn around the system.
If you spawn 20 CONCORD squads at one gate and then suicide 10 noob ships on another you have now 10 squads on each.
You can also despawn CONCORD, is that an exploit too? Who knows 
Something tells me all the real gankers aren’t going to get slowed down at all.
The problem is CCP was never explicit with regard to what “delaying” means. Did they mean delaying the reaction beyond the longest possible maximum through exploits, or did they mean by playing around with the extra couple of seconds via positioning? That picture kind of makes it seem like the former.
I know this, but Tipa didn’t say FOR EACH CHARACTER…
SLOWING. Genius I am.
Slowing means slowER than the base. If the base is intended to be +7s when already spawned elsewhere, then pulling concord is not slowing it because it’s actually working as intended.
This would make sense if CCP had mad an official statement about what is base spawn time, and that statement was used as a basis of what is acceptable or not. What’s more, this has already been notified several times and CCP said it was working as intended. Plus of course, CCP can very easily change the mechanism and make concord warp time constant - which they did not, inferring they actually consider this is working as intended.
100% agreed 
It is my understanding that CCP intentionally does not provide strict definitions of exactly which behaviours are warnable/bannable and which are not. This is in order to prevent rules-lawyering on the part of offenders.
They have their internal guidelines, which they communicate in some ways (as seen in multiple posts/links above), and after that they leave the situation up to the interpretation of the GM or other official party.
The region of ‘uncertainty’ is also assumed to operate as a general deterrent against shady behavior, since the perpetrator can’t be 100% certain which action will cross the line and get them banned.
Gonna have to agree with Jim H. on this one - it is a rare that I would side with the ganking community - musta been some bad coleslaw or something warping my thinking-anyways lets pretend I fly a Falcon and adapted to the changes over the years to hunt down gankers- one would think as a miner i would be rejoicing screaming finally Justice - nope this move by the Gods(CCP -dev’s) is a bad call-thinking should be how do we improve the tools needed to create promote hero’s within the (better Implants would be nice geared towards those who fly Recons/ECm boats) current game mechanic’s-- Sign - Just a humble miner…
That may make sense for player interaction but not for basic game mechanics like this. Suicide ganking is an intended game mechanic. This is not something the players came up with. CCP deliberatly put CONCORD and their mechanics in the game including their behaviour.
But this means the rules and the application of the EULA is arbitrary, which makes the EULA actually lose any sense.
The basis of the law, is that you must be able to know, by the sole strict interpretation of the law, if an act is forbidden by the law or not.
Something that is “left at the good will of the GM” is by definition not a law. Therefore such a rule can not be used as a basis to enforce punishment on players. This is actually illegal in any civilized country.
CCP
Hey all,
Sorry for not jumping in sooner, we are all currently running around getting AT ready. I’ll just address the general concerns real quick before I hop back to AT stuff.
#1 - The method of moving CONCORD off a grid is not something that we have historically had any problems with and still don’t as far as I am aware. No one should be getting banned or warned for this alone. If you have then you can DM me and I’ll check it out.
#2 - It’s been pointed out here correctly that CONCORD has a set response times depending on security status and the known methods of manipulating this mechanic still retains the normal response times given the factors of; CONCORD Not being in system, being on-grid and being in-system. The “Pulling” here that’s been discussed does not affect these response times and no one should be getting banned or warned for this alone.
#3 - The exploit notification for delaying CONCORD is still in effect and the Known & Declared Exploits page does state in the notes that delaying CONCORD’s response for an extended period is not allowed. What does that mean ? It means that any methods employed that increase the previously mentioned response times in point #2 are not allowed.
This is how I understand it but It’s been a while since we’ve last had to address this and I’ll see about getting some updates on this to clear this all up.
Thanks everyone.
This is going to be a classic case of a dev saying one thing, and the GMs doing something else entirely.
I almost made a very heartfelt reply to your post, because I thought you were CCP Paragon xD
That would have been embarrassing if I had hit enter…
But regardless, I found the source thread here on Reddit if anyone wants it:
Thanks Dracvlad for reposting this, in this thread o7
I think I’m gonna go gank someone today.
Now that you have all finished looking at your belly buttons, I expect you will take out this angst on some poor blighter pottering around hisec.
I said it would not stick.
Awesome sauce
Please mail any salt to me !!! <3
