If you’re doing it right, it can easily require more effort.
Nothing takes away from the fact that I’m right.
Not every battle is worth winning.
Why would you use chatgpt to format your text if it requires more effort than writing it the usual way?
That doesn’t make sense to me. Care to explain?
If anything that sounds like using chatgpt the wrong way?
If you care about what you’re saying and the content you’re trying to convey, sometimes it takes real effort to get it right.
I think you’re assuming I just type something like, “Make me look as smart as @Gerard_Amatin,” and ChatGPT magically handles the rest.
That might be how some people use it—I can’t speak for them. I can only explain how I use it.
Most of the time, I rely on it to break down complex info or large blocks of text into summaries. It’s also replaced my old spellchecker—spelling’s never been my strong suit. Back in high school, I aced every section of my college placement exams except spelling.
Over time, the AI started suggesting I could phrase things more clearly or with a bit more finesse. Normally, I’m blunt and straight to the point.
I started using it to help analyze legal statutes, case law, and pleadings. You’d be shocked how many contradictions exist in supposedly “official” documents.
So while I get where you’re coming from, it’s just not accurate to assume that it always—or even usually—requires little or no effort.
Especially when you’re not the fastest typist to begin with. 
*I have a lot of respect for you, and I apologize for any argument that I’ve entered into with you.
I see you as part of the solution, not part of the problem.
Try to be constructive, don’t insult, ridicule or provoke others. Simple as that. I use my personal anecdotal evidence, having made thousands of posts and only a handful have ever been successfully hidden by flagging them. And that handful was in hindsight, rightfully hidden because I replied unnessessary harsh or made a joke that was maybe a bit too dark.
I find the current system to be a pretty effective one, because to get some real “flagging weight” (aka a very high accuracy, so your flag will be priorized higher), you need to build yourself a reputation of de facto mainly flagging content that is really problematic. If you just flag others for the sake of trying to hide their posts, you will gain no credibility or even ruin an existing crediblity. Which makes it very had and ineffective to try and establish a “system to downvote” others. And easily detectable too.
If your posts are getting constantly flagged and even stay hidden (because a moderator will look at them), then the problem is clearly you and your way of participating in debate.
3 Likes
Barely any . . . you’re new here, right?
m
2 Likes
Nice to get some insight into why you use chatgpt. And I appreciate that you this time took the effort to structure your thoughts with that post before letting AI rewrite the text for you.
You have shared your reason why you like chatgpt.
Now please let me share what I dislike about chatgpt.
For one, if you make a post like this it’s soulless and ‘everything is important and trying to grab the attention of the reader’ style reminds me of this:
It’s all screaming for attention. I see that post and wish to close my eyes again.
Humans who get used to writing text will learn how to write in such a way to grab the attention of a reader in a pleasant way. Chatgpt hasn’t learned that yet, it seems.
Bullet points, emojis, bold text, em-dashes, it all can help make the text clearer but please use moderation. Chatgpt clearly doesn’t know that.
Another problem is that not every chatgpt-refined post has got as much effort as the one I’m responding to now.
For example this other response you sent me earlier completely missed it’s mark and feels like zero effort went into it. It feels like an automated snarky chatgpt response. And it probably is.
That is what I dislike about chatgpt usage. Not every post is bad, but a lazy response is just a press away and risks flooding a place for discussion like this forum with spam.
1 Like
It certainly is.
Chat GPT can’t tell the difference between EvE and !WoW.
1 Like
But I always argue as logi with the FC in the monitor about loot!
I agree, but I’ll defend one element of it. The information was accurate and concise.
That was the goal: to inform the person asking the question.
How could I have done better, in your humble opinion?
Removed at Aiko’s Request
I guess we can see why your posts are being hidden.
I thought that was flattering.
Honestly, do you not?
I don’t speak to bots.
I don’t flagged posts even once. It’s fun in here. In the end this site was not designed for serious discussions.
1 Like
I’m a real person. Can verify. Are you scared?
God bless you. 
For a discussion to yield results, it MUST be robust!
Keep telling yourself that.
1 Like
Interesting data. But If that’s the case, Why are the CryBears cry out loud about it?
Coming from the most risk-averse activity in the game…
That’s rich…
*Alts incoming!!!
You could have said:
Corporate Evermarks are used for structure skins and logos.
For more info see: https://support.eveonline.com/hc/en-us/articles/9280347824540-SKINR-Tool-Structure-License
Simple, clear and with extra info if they want to read more.
1 Like
if Ganking is Risk-Averse then Mining is Risk-Neutral.
That claim is flawed both logically and practically.
1. Mining is far from risk-neutral.
Mining ships—especially Exhumers like Hulks or Mackinaws—can cost upwards of 300–500 million ISK, sometimes more with faction fits or yield rigs. They’re slow, have virtually no escape potential, and once tackled, are dead meat. A mining barge doesn’t get a choice about engaging. It’s a passive activity by nature. That’s not risk-neutral—that’s high-risk with low agency.
2. Ganking is risk-averse by design.
Gankers choose when, where, and who to hit. They preload catalysts, scan cargo, warp in as a squad, alpha-strike the target, and fully expect to lose their ships—which are disposable by design. The real risk is shifted entirely onto the miner, who likely doesn’t even get a chance to react. The ganker accepts a known, low-cost sacrifice (e.g., 2m ISK Catalyst) for a highly asymmetric kill. That’s calculated. That’s risk-managed. That’s the textbook definition of risk-averse predation.
3. The asymmetry is the entire point.
Saying miners are “risk-neutral” because gankers are “risk-averse” is a false equivalence. Miners have no way to create risk. They don’t get to pick their fights. Their only “choice” is whether to mine or not. Gankers, on the other hand, manufacture risk for others while controlling it for themselves.
Ganking is risk-averse because it’s deliberate, cheap, and overwhelmingly favors the attacker.
Mining is high-risk and passive, with expensive, vulnerable ships and limited defenses.
Calling that “risk-neutral” is either dishonest or shows a fundamental misunderstanding of EVE’s risk mechanics.
