Directly addess Aiko Danuja comments about ganking

I would like it that people stop falsely claiming they don’t understand the issue.

Read number 1.

It literally says mass numbers of ships is a concord exploit.

Never said anyone was stupid. I am just vigorously arguing my point. Exploiting to delay concord is a bannable offence. All these words that you generate after that is to cause a smoke screen in an obvious exploit.

I have seen a live stream of someone using 30 ships. Not only is it easy it made me want to quit this game. How can someone be competitive with that?

I completely agree that exploiters should banned. I just haven’t seen evidence of an exploit yet.

So if you are being ganked by one man multiboxers controlling between 25 and 100 pilots presumably you can provide me with links to zkill so i can have a look?

Okay, I’ll engage with you as if you are a sincere poster for one more post.

No I do not call anyone who disagrees with me a troll. However, I have begun to suspect you as such for two main reasons:

  • Utterly preposterous claims- Your examples include things like asserting that Eve is not a PvP game, or that a three and a half year old player flying a 2 billion isk ship is “newish.”
  • Denying compelling evidence- For example, you assert that mechanics are not indicative of developer intent, and demand a quote. And then once provided with a quote of Falcon saying that ganking is an intended part of the game, you insist that he was speaking only of ganking with a single ship, and not with multiple ships -a claim based upon absolutely nothing.

Moreover, you check off several boxes on articles explaining how to identify trolls:

  • generally low level of activity, with sudden spurts of interaction
  • restarting topics
  • use of argumentative fallacies- i.e. sweeping generalizations- gankers are sociopaths
  • accusing others of being biased or using flawed logic
  • the use of an attention-seeking gimmick- calling out Aiko Danuja by name, even though neither her nor Safety has even been on any recent ganks against you or your corpmates.

Of course, all of this is only circumstantial evidence, because there are actually sincere people who do obstinately believe in ridiculous things, and who do exhibit other qualities of trolls. I mean, that’s why trolls are so effective at getting people to engage with them -it’s because it’s difficult to distinguish them from sincere idiots. Case in point, even though there are plenty of trolls who like to posture as flat-earthers, that doesn’t change the fact that there are still people who sincerely believe. So, the question is, how do you tell them apart? Well, I know ISD’s make judgement calls all the time when it comes to closing threads, but at the end of the day, I don’t think you can know for certain that someone is a troll without them admitting to it.

So now I find myself asking how to deal with you -especially since I don’t even know whether or not you are actually a troll. Moreover, even if you are a troll, you’re doing an excellent job of undermining a position that I disagree with (and, at least some people are having fun with you). On the other hand, it doesn’t matter how ridiculous your beliefs are, or how weak your arguments are, there is still the possibility that you can actually convince others to sincerely believe.

Meh. I’m atting the ISD’s. Let them decide.
@ISD_Dorrim_Barstorlode @ISD_Bahamut @ISD_Buldath @ISD_Golem

What you posted is from 2015

Yet in 2021
After listening to their feedback we have decided not to implement the policy update mentioned above. There will be no changes to how support are policing CONCORD interaction and that ‘pulling’ CONCORD or defensive spawning of CONCORD is currently permitted but we reserve the right to change this at a future date.

So, looks like at this time. the “exploit” is allowed. Complaining about it on the forums without showing proof just ends up with what we have here.

Am I to understand that your position is that no more than one vessel may attack another vessel in high security space?

That is the thin end of the wedge to a very brittle assertion.

The Collaborative International Dictionary of English v.0.48 (gcide)
Hornstone Horn"stone`, n. (Min.)
A siliceous stone, a variety of quartz, closely resembling
flint, but more brittle; – called also chert.
[1913 Webster]

There is or was one guy in Uedama multiboxing 20+ ships. Yes is true.
I saw it with my own “eyes” on my own ship. All with the same name. The guy even used to stream and people insist he wasn’t using any dubious software and that he plays legit. And to repeat myself… He claims and many people claim he did it the legit way.

After Jesus story… Ofc this is the next BS story ever told.

Anywyay. It was “my” fault.

They are not going to help you, i believe they have already looked at this forum and what has been said, they want to see how this plays out. Regular players are being silenced by the exploits of the gankers. You pushed it too far. We represent a large part of the economy and we will be heard.

What I’m getting at really is were they all used in a single gank? Like i said before gankers don’t typically waste ships engaging with 20 when 7 or 10 will do the job.

And seeing a kill mail will provide lists of information. Like if all 20 ships have done similar damage then they were all activated at the same time (which may suggest bottling). Or if there is a steady decline in damage across the ships (which would suggest a time delay on pressing F1 on each ship. I.e manual activation)

We cant ban players left right and centre because somebody is being irrational on the internet. I don’t think asking for evidence that supports the claims being made is unreasonable.

Confirmation bias again. I am not reading the same thing you are. The policy against the exploit still stands. Your simply not listening to what is being said.

“There are simply too many scenarios that may trigger CONCORD reaction and thus we would like to ask that players do not deliberately manipulate or interfere with CONCORD in any way.” GM from the article you linked.

That was the change to policy he was referring to. The original one still stands. So yes you can manipulate concord. Like pulling concord to your mining locations for protection. We use that for protection not for exploiting. So when you pull them away to attack that alerts us of the impending attack.

you got too much time on your hands if you are looking that up just to insult me.

What about the bitty that says specifically pulling Concord or defensive spawning of concord is currently permitted.

It’s right there.

No insult intended, Hornstone was used in ancient resonant structures not recognised by contemporary historians.

I would like an answer to the question tho.

Yes it is and i that is not what was being discussed these guys are just inserting a false issue into the argument. The exploit being used is specific and they dont want it to be known they are exploiting. This smokescreen defence must have worked in the past on the forums so thats why they are engaging in it now. I think the GM forum moderators must be on to them now. No moderation is incoming in spite of their pleas.

Is the thrust of your argument “ganking with 25 ships is an exploit because it delays concord because concord has to blow up each ship one by one,” seriously?

And the post right about what I linked is the one you linked so they are talking about the same issue.

Pulling Concord is either an exploit or it isn’t. You don’t get it both ways.

1 Like

That was part of the argument but not the whole argument. The issue is delaying Concords response. The loss of a corvette on the zkillboard shows they are using them to pull concord away by attacking a station. Then they execute the attack on the target. Sometimes they avoid all concord action this way. The numbers of ships was described in the policy for the exploit.

Then please be clearer. What is the specific exploit that you are referring to?

Pulling concord is permitted. We just established that like two posts ago