[FIXED] Update to "Pulling CONCORD is now a permaban offense"

This is the first post in Crime & Punishment, since GM Arcade posted. The thread GM Arcade posted in was locked, so i had to open the discussion in a new thread.

Exactly, and are rookie ships the only ship type that are exploitative? If I undock in a battleship while criminal, is that an exploit? What if I undock in another frigate? Where’s the line?

CCP, reign in your GMs. Their rulings appear arbitrary.

I know you are just trolling anyways, but this post doesnt make sense. You are quoting the old status quo, which CCP Paragon reinforced a month ago.

GM Arcade just dropped a post, that this is not the case anymore. Any spawning of CONCORD could now be an exploit, as you always “pull” CONCORD. This is a different take compared to what we did the last 5 years.

From the top of my head, here are a few examples why this is rule that would be impossible to enforce.

  • I gank someone on one side of the system. I then move my setup to the other side. Rinse and repeat. I will have concord on the far side of the system for every gank. I did not intentionally pull them though, this just a nice sideeffect of my ganks. Surely I wouldnt get banned for this. But if the first kill is a smaller ship with less isk investment from my side, is it then pulling? Is there a lower limit for the kill value where its not a gank but a pull?

  • I operate in a fairly busy ganking system. There is guys in destroyers running around killing everything in belts. Any time i spawn concord on my gate, i never have to wait more than 30 mins before concord is gone. In this case i’m not even pulling them away myself. Is waiting for someone else to gank an exploit?

  • To further the above example. I am actually in chat channels with said destroyer gankers. If I ask them “hey can you guys gank something so my gate is clear?”, am I now exploiting? (just to be clear, these are actual other people, not my alts)

These are just 3 random examples from the top of my head, pertaining only to my ganking style.

But I hope you can see that instead of the current very clear rules, this would create huge grey areas where GM’s will have to decide what is intentional and what is not.


So any time people pull CONCORD from one grid to another (which happens after every criminal act if it is not on one grid) it could be bannable exploit based on the intention of the players invoved.

I do not see how these rules are in any way workable. :rofl:

My interpretation of the ‘do not delay CONCORD’-rule was that it was a pre-emptive exploit statement just in case anyone finds a bug to abuse to delay the intentional* CONCORD response times.

It’s really strange that a GM now comes up with such an unworkable exploit rule for something that so commonly happens, and seems to miss the spirit behind the old exploit notification.

*I would think that the current CONCORD response time variation is intended like that by CCP, as CCP once intentionally programmed CONCORD to respond faster when on grid, slower when not on grid. After all, if dynamic response times weren’t their intention, CCP could easily program CONCORD to always strike after a set amount of seconds instead.


This has been resolved: Pulling CONCORD is now a permaban offense - #54

Record time response!


Nice, glad that it got reverted.

glad that’s sorted. if anyone at CCP is reading this, please edit the exploit notification to clarify things forever and ever

1 Like

good guys win again!


Gm’s are the ones who need to update the page. so yes @GM_Arcade please update the exploit page regarding concord.


I’d be interested to know what the @CSM said to CCP that helped to ensure that common-sense reigned again?

I don’t quite understand what ‘problem’ they are trying to fix by updating the policy. He said even using CONCORD defensively was a problem…but now that’s apparently insufficient detail…so what defensive spawning WERE they trying to stop? What a head-ache.

Glad they are no longer going ahead with it. All they were going to achieve was muddying the waters and report spam.


maybe there was some edge case concord exploit they were trying to fix but decided to use a sledgehammer rather than a scalpel (not impossible but dont know of any), or maybe just maybe the complex interactions of concord are not fully understood by those who don’t work with them on a daily basis like for instance gankers.

1 Like

While I’m relieved that this update was reverted, it further demonstrates how inept this team really is.

I may be jaded but ganking as we know it will be gone in 2-3 years if it even takes that long.


you have 3 character slots on each account

I guess that exploit notification originally was meant to include all possible future bugs (and not intended game mechanics like the variation in response times per system security status or on/off grid status of CONCORD) that could allow players to delay CONCORD.

it demonstrates how inept members of the team are. the fact that it was addressed and he was forced to backpedal his rogue statements in only an hour i find pretty reassuring


Our esteemed colleague solstice would like to point out that CONCORD don’t necessarily insta-blap gankers on grid. It would appear they have a range. Not thoroughly tested but allegedly 255km. Beyond that range, normal times/delays apply.


it was also intended to stop dropping 1000s of shuttles to DELAY concord from their normal reaction time and other similar exploit shenanigans. But the wording of the exploit notification does need updated to avoid this happening every few weeks when a new ccp employee gets ganked for the first time :slight_smile: and wonders what just happened.

not saying thats what happened but i am sure new ccp employees coming from other games with no surprise pvp culture may not fully understand whats happening when they get ganked.

1 Like