Compression tax

[Qia_Kare]

Based on the explanations I’ve read and my interpretation of them, it seems the logic Wadiest Yong is using is as follows:

1. If you turn on any module, you enable certain free services (tether, for example)
2. If you turn on reprocessing you enable certain free services (the above, plus compression)
3. Because compression is a value added service without additional cost, it should be treated the same as the other free services, which are not taxed at present.

He then asks for an argument that shows how compression differs from the other free services to justify treating them differently. The absurdity of taxing tether is how he illustrates his opinion that taxing compression is just as absurd.

Sometimes a difference of opinion is simply that. Wadiest has argued with me in this thread to an extent, but he has not said anything to me that was rude, insulting, or unkind about me as a person, so I’m of the opinion that he’s trying to have an earnest discussion. He just remains unconvinced that he should change his position, and we should be able to accept that.

[Gerard_Amatin]

The main difference between taxing tether and taxing compression is that it’s really easy to implement tax for compression (same mechanics as reprocessing tax, really) and I see no workable option to tax tether.

It’s easy to tax compression, do it CCP.

[Wadiest_Yong]

Thanks @Qia_Kare. At least you make the effort to see the logic I used - which does not equate to accepting it, but I appreciate the effort to invest in the discussion. Indeed the absurdity of taxing tethering is but one example. More follows in the next paragraph.

To those who disagree without making a substantiated defense of their position (someone even claims pilots would be willing to pay…, but he may underestimate the natural reflex to taxes), or base them simply on “we have a right to demand that this new tax be enabled coz we are structure owners”, consider the hypocrisy of charging for compression (which is now free, and only available in structures with docking rights, not in NPC stations) and not charging for e.g., repairs (which are free, available in said structures and, for a price, available in NPC stations). The repairs you provide cost fuel as well, via the structure, don’t they. Or indeed tethering. There are no grounds for separating tethering and repairs from compression. On the contrary, we pay NPCs for repairs in stations, and not to you, structure owners, in your structures. So, why let us get away with that, eh ?

In case you do get your ways, and can charge for everything in your structures, you got the idea here, And I want my cut of 20% !

It’s easy to tax everything, but here’s me hoping CCP knows better, especially in these times. It’s a bad idea as such, in the way it’s presented and argumented, and unbalanced overall, in my opinion.

@Pan_Dora1 My apologies, I’ve been neglecting you for a few posts.

@Pan_Dora1

don’t ignore what people are explaining to you over and over:

they haven’t. “Because we own the structure and we should be able to” is not an explanation but a greedy twitch.

@Pan_Dora1

You need to present an argument first

Nope, already done that, you need to read them, they’re up there. Qia Kare even summarized them quite elegantly.

@Pan_Dora1

So far you only tried to divert to a discussion about different services

Nope, the elements in my points converge on the actual subject of the thread, which is Tax. Some are taxed, some are untaxed, for no apparent logical reason.

@Pan_Dora1

that is not what the OP requested.

don’t lose hope, and the prospect of more free isk. But you have that right, it isn’t what OP requested but what I use to demonstrate the flaw in the logic for demanding this particular compression tax.

@Pan_Dora1

And it seem you just want to smuggle that into the discussion to make an appeal to the negative reaction people might have with a tethering/docking tax.

A negative reaction might be a consequence, but it is not the reason. And let’s not limit to tethering, and add reparing, to make the contrast even sharper.

@Pan_Dora1

First, the “limits” set by the devs is subject to changed based on feedback (as the one presented in this thread)

This isn’t feedback. It’s a demand for new free isk. You have that right. Anyone else has a similar right to oppose that new demand.

@Pan_Dora1

Second, the current system don’t prevent the owner to charge or deny the service.

He is barred from taxing for compression, the subject of the thread, and the current limit. But yes, he can deny docking rights, or not charge for reprocessing. You feel entitled to the right to charge for more than you already can. I don’t brush it aside, but (1) point at the logical flaw and (2) in turn request a quid pro quo in terms of gameplay balance. The argument of “yes but ccp made a horrible mistake by not implementing it in the first place” is a really moot one. Instead the current situation - no possibility for compression tax - is the true reference point.

@Pan_Dora1

The structure provides a service the clients are willing to pay for. But if that is too cumbersome to setup and manage then they will not get the service. The current system also let the client more vulnerable to scams, which in turn poison the well for legitimate offers of the serivce.

The clients are willing to pay for the current taxable services. You want to expand on the number of taxable services and expect them to not put up resistance to lining your pockets with more free isk without compensation in the form of more effort or more risk. As to what scams are involved in compressing ore, bar the obvious ones on the market, I admit I’m clueless and not following you on that particular tangent.

[Pan_Dora1 (Pan Dora)]

@Wadiest_Yong

(someone even claims pilots would be willing to pay…, but he may underestimate the natural reflex to taxes)

Again, what is the problem with you? I, @Pan_Dora1 am willing to pay for compression services offered by independent structure owners in remote areas, given that i can still make a profit selling/using the ore somewhere else.

It hurts you to acknowledge my position?

@Wadiest_Yong

“Because we own the structure and we should be able to”

They are already able to do. When I go to some structure to use compression and it is not available for me I need to contact the owner and negotiate the conditions for me to use, if he ask for a payment and I find it reasonable we got a deal.

@Wadiest_Yong

consider the hypocrisy of charging for compression and not charging for e.g., repairs

All you get with that is an argument for charging repairs too. Or docking, or tether, or spinning your ship in the structure’s hangar. But no one is asking to be able to charge repairs, docking or tether, so those are subjects that don’t need to be addressed there. It remains a separate issue.

@Wadiest_Yong

And I want my cut of 20% !

Sure, I will tell structure owner they can send you the bill for 20% of their fuel and destroyed assets.

@Wadiest_Yong

Nope, already done that, you need to read them, they’re up there. Qia Kare even summarized them quite elegantly.

@Qia_Kare

• If you turn on any module, you enable certain free services (tether, for example)
• If you turn on reprocessing you enable certain free services (the above, plus compression)
• Because compression is a value added service without additional cost, it should be treated the same as the other free services, which are not taxed at present.

And that is what we call a non sequitour. And thus not a valid argument. Another example:

1. My dog drinks water.
2. Wadiest Young drinks water
3. Because Wadiest Young is a water drinker, it should be treated the same as the other water drinkers. In this case he should stay outside and be warned when he barks too much.

See? Two valid premisses and yet an absurd conclusion, because that conclusion don’t follow from the premisses, just like what you are trying to do when you bring up unrelated services.

Also you keep misrepresenting my point. “Requires fuels” is not why I think charging for compression could be allowed “Requires the owner to allow access” is. For some reason you refuse to address that all compression (or tethering, refining, etc…) will happen because the owner permit, and he is free to charge whatever he want for this permission.

@Wadiest_Yong

The clients are willing to pay for the current taxable services.

Already mentioned above, people (me included) are not just willing to pay to be able to compress, they are doing it. The only thing the current system is preventing is to have the service as standalone.

@Wadiest_Yong

As to what scams are involved in compressing ore, bar the obvious ones on the market, I admit I’m clueless and not following you on that particular tangent.

1.Owner asks for isk to allow miner access structure (in order to use compression)
2.Miner pays
3.Access is not granted
4…
??

Compare and contrast with

1.Owner set public access to the structure and a tax for the service
2.Miner is informed of the cost at the moment he is going to use the service
3.Miner keep his money when the service is not utilized
4…
??

It’s a no brainier.

[Ramona_McCandless]

If y’all didnt give in to the whoredom of Cores, this would be a moot point.

But Ive no idea whats absurd about comparing several currently free services to each other.

Either charge for everything, or leave it as it was (i.e. remove Structures).

Its all a pain in the doot now.

[Wadiest_Yong]

@Pan_Dora1

@Wadiest_Yong

consider the hypocrisy of charging for compression and not charging for e.g., repairs

All you get with that is an argument for charging repairs too. Or docking, or tether, or spinning your ship in the structure’s hangar. But no one is asking to be able to charge repairs, docking or tether, so those are subjects that don’t need to be addressed there. It remains a separate issue.

For the same reasons as you have to ask for a compression tax others, not interested in mining, have a similar right to ask for taxes for any of the other free public services they provide. You know that’s unavoidable. Who says no to some more free isk. That’s what you initiate with a demand for compression tax.

It’s an expanded view on a new “problem” you create by asking for a new tax. If I can follow that logic, which you are not able to pierce, so can many other people because isk is inspiring to many other people, which is evident from this thread.

@Pan_Dora1

And that is what we call a non sequitour etc, including the dog and me drinking water.

It’s not because YOU label a conclusion absurd that it IS absurd, an example of a non sequitur is not an argument to counter the logic or the conclusion. Have we come to the point yet where you take your dog out for a walk instead of spending your time here creating straw men, flawed logic, shifting goal posts and thinly veiled insults ?

@Pan_Dora1

Also you keep misrepresenting my point. “Requires fuels” is not why I think charging for etc, the remainder of your post…

The owner can already charge for the currently payable services to whoever he gives docking rights (when it’s non-public) and to literally everyone when he made it a public access one. Let’s go over your

@Pan_Dora1

It’s a no brainier.

example to include that as well. Charging for compression, and/or making it a standalone service, would not prevent the scam of making you negotiate access (for a fee) and then not getting the access. You seem to think that making compression payable somehow reduces that risk ? Structure owners will keep the access restriction rights regardless of what you demand from ccp, the overarching mechanism being docking rights, not “paying for services”.

[Pan_Dora1 (Pan Dora)]

@Ramona_McCandless

But Ive no idea whats absurd about comparing several currently free services to each other.

comparing different services, free or not, is fine. Absurd is to claim that is not possible to just tweak one a bit.

@Ramona_McCandless

Its all a pain in the doot now.

Well, not in my doot. I just need to find the service being offered under acceptable conditions, not manage the structure myself.
Also, I don’t look back to POSes to say “It was better in my days”

[Ramona_McCandless]

@Pan_Dora1

All I can see is that you still

I still what?

@Pan_Dora1

Absurd is to claim that is not possible to just tweak one a bit.

No one is saying its not possible. He’s saying what makes the others sacred?

@Pan_Dora1

I just need to find the service being offered under acceptable conditions, not manage the structure myself.

So you dont see how it being a pain in the doot for others translates as it becoming a pain in the doot for you? Thats a bit short sighted.

@Pan_Dora1

Also, I don’t look back to POSes to say “It was better in my days”

Shame, they were much better

[Pan_Dora1 (Pan Dora)]

Sorry for the first phrase, started to answer to him, then realized you are more interesting and forget to remove that part.

@Ramona_McCandless

No one is saying its not possible.

No? So why we don’t talk about tweaking just compression in this thread? Why the other services keep popping over and over?

@Ramona_McCandless

He’s saying what makes the others sacred?

They are not sacred. If you want to propose a change for those, make a thread about it.

@Ramona_McCandless

So you dont see how it being a pain in the doot for others translates as it becoming a pain in the doot for you?

I see how it could be the case, but it seems there is plenty of people that endure with a smile what i wouldn’t endure under duress

@Ramona_McCandless

Shame, they were much better

Case in point…

[Raptor_Kane]

@Pan_Dora1

I, @Pan_Dora1 am willing to pay for compression services offered by independent structure owners in remote areas, given that i can still make a profit selling/using the ore somewhere else.

I, @Raptor_Kane, am willing to pay for compression service offered by independent structure owners provided I can still make a profit selling/using the ore somewhere else.

[Ramona_McCandless]

@Pan_Dora1

you are more interesting

Thank you

@Pan_Dora1

So why we don’t talk about tweaking just compression in this thread? Why the other services keep popping over and over?

Probably because if you are wanting to tax for them, the case for it probably would also affect those other services. In EvE its very hard to taking anything in isolation, and while you could connect everything in absurdium, it does stand that perhaps the reason its not taxed may be the same reason the other things arent taxed.

I prefer though to guess its not taxed because CCP arent very good at operating their space game.

@Pan_Dora1

it seems there is plenty of people that endure with a smile what i wouldn’t endure under duress

That would suggest you’d be more likely to empathise with those of us who find the extra hoops to station management CCP has introduced grating on our doots.

@Pan_Dora1

Case in point…

Well, they were. No Cores, completely customisable, mobile, no where near as oppressively massive and ridiculously sized. The only real complaint I had was how to manage access, and its not like these stupid Access Lists are a whole world better.

[Qia_Kare]

That I can find there are two instances of CCP addressing this topic. One is from CCP Claymore where he asks why we would want such a thing.

@CCP_Claymore

Compression we are keeping tied with reprocessing and not taxable, but I am curious why you would want it separate and taxable?

The other is from the CSM 12 Summit II and is an exchange between Sort Dragon and CCP Fozzie.

@Sort Dragon & CCP Fozzie

Sort asks if it is possible to look at compressing moon minerals. Fozzie says that their current low volume is intended to replace compression of their ores in a way that encourages players to use their local refining services.

Citadels are supposed to replace the POS, and the POS did not have such easily accessible public services. The original compression array, as far as I know, was a free service (as in clicking the button didn’t cost you any isk or precious minerals outside of the fuel to run the POS), while reprocessing was engineered to come at a cost (though for a time people were able to reach efficiencies that bypassed that cost for a while). My supposition is that the initial state of the services was simply modeled off the existing system. Though refineries did not yet exist, the refining module was part of the initial release.

At some point, CCP felt there was an issue enough with local refinery use and so moon minerals were made not to be compressable so people would use the local reprocessing facilities for reprocessing, and give the local refineries a revenue stream.

I don’t know what has them changing their mind with regard to moon ores now. I can’t think of anyone who’d label CCP as consistent, though. My guess would be the new manufacturing model has throttled nullsec now that materials from those moons are more important. I am not certain, but I believe compression was invented for null as an olive branch when the efficiencies of reprocessing were drastically curtailed. Up to then, they were manufacturing compact items, shipping those, and reprocessing them at or near 100% efficiency. Ironically, manufacturing that was used in lieu of compression in those days is a taxable service.

I could be misremembering the sequence of events or have the exact details of null affairs scrambled. I admit I never cared about null or their large scale affairs and it’s been quite a while since we got any official feedback on the subject that I am aware of.

[Dark_Lord_Trump]

@Lugues_Slive

The only issue I could see is getting double taxed. If you compress in one system so you can move to another and then reprocess there you end up paying twice.

So you gained value from both services. Why are you opposed to paying for both?

[Pan_Dora1 (Pan Dora)]

@Ramona_McCandless

Probably … probably …perhaps…

Or probably …probably… perhaps… not. Pick one, If you can demonstrate that it is indeed the case we move from there. Just don’t expect me to accept an argument you are not willing to defend.

@Ramona_McCandless

That would suggest you’d be more likely to empathise

Eve players having empathy? That is an outlandish proposition.
For practical purposes, it is not relevant if i can “emphathy” with those running the structure, what matter is if I can deal with their terms of service. And I find I will get better terms to use compression if the owner can issue a direct fee for it.

[Madlightning]

What I do with my marketing corporation if I use a structure specifically for compression I’ll rent an office at a minimum

A small tax like a half a percent or maybe even just a flat amount A flat amount would work compressing 1 million worth Of rocks for 100,000 is a lot but like me I compress 1 billion worth of rocks it’s indistinguishable

[Wadiest_Yong]

@Pan_Dora1

@Ramona_McCandless

Probably … probably …perhaps…

Or probably …probably… perhaps… not. Pick one, If you can demonstrate that it is indeed the case we move from there. Just don’t expect me to accept an argument you are not willing to defend.

When did you accept an argument in this thread The arguments you can’t counter you call “uninteresting”, or rather the author of those arguments. How amusing.

@Pan_Dora1

And I find I will get better terms to use compression if the owner can issue a direct fee for it.

From one of your previous posts I gather you live / mine in Solyaris Chtonium null space, of which your (mining) corp is not a member. You are apparently paying for access to one of their alliance structures and think you can reduce that cost by introducing some form of direct fee on compression ? Why would that make their “terms of service” as you call it more relaxed for you, they may even charge you twice then because you’ve given them the excuse to do so. I probably would tbh, because you do not belong to the sov holding alliance. One possible alternative is that you negotiate a mining or mineral contract with them, all included.
You’re opening a pandora’s box there, @Pan_Dora1.

@Madlightning

Of rocks for 100,000 is a lot but like me I compress 1 billion worth of rocks it’s indistinguishable

You’re right, in your case that would be a tiny fee by comparison. For miners with far smaller operations, especially a large number of them in hisec, a new compression tax coupled with current and future distribution of minerals (since it’s announced to be dynamic) would be unwelcome to them. And hisec currently outweighs nullsec in terms of volumes mined, one reason being that’s where the low end minerals are, of which larger amounts are needed overall in most manufacturing.

[Ramona_McCandless]

@Pan_Dora1

Or probably …probably… perhaps… not. Pick one, If you can demonstrate that it is indeed the case we move from there. Just don’t expect me to accept an argument you are not willing to defend.

Ive no idea what you are referencing here as what you quoted isnt a sentence I typed.

@Pan_Dora1

Eve players having empathy? That is an outlandish proposition.
For practical purposes, it is not relevant if i can “emphathy” with those running the structure, what matter is if I can deal with their terms of service. And I find I will get better terms to use compression if the owner can issue a direct fee for it.

So yes, in opposition to your previous statement, how it affects them does affect you. vOv

[Pan_Dora1 (Pan Dora)]

@Ramona_McCandless

Ive no idea what you are referencing here as what you quoted isnt a sentence I typed.

I asked you why other services keep popping over. You gave what you think might be the reason. And I’m asking for you to demonstrate that indeed it is. Otherwise we lose our time discussion what “might not” be. (not tht my time is that valuable…)

@Ramona_McCandless

So yes, in opposition to your previous statement, how it affects them does affect you.

I didn’t said it don’t affect me, I said it don’t bother me.

[Pan_Dora1 (Pan Dora)]

@Wadiest_Yong

From one of your previous posts I gather you live / mine in Solyaris Chtonium null space, of which your (mining) corp is not a member.

All you have to do is “show info” this char in game. And you still get things wrong.

[Ramona_McCandless]

@Pan_Dora1

I asked you why other services keep popping over. You gave what you think might be the reason. And I’m asking for you to demonstrate that indeed it is. Otherwise we lose our time discussion what “might not” be. (not tht my time is that valuable…)

Ok, then that is the reason vOv The fact you choose it to be an unacceptable reason based on pedantry about the wording doesnt void its validity.

@Pan_Dora1

I didn’t said it don’t affect me, I said it don’t bother me.

If it affects you, it can very easily be made to bother you. Unless we are talking scales outside isk spent in which case nothing in the game should bother you and so therefore mentioning it is moot.