No, I don’t want it banned, what are you accusing me of here? That’s fine, but it has to be made clear. Then there will be a standing fleet and that’s it, or you can only fly to Jita with an alt. The point here is that the manufacturer is deliberately creating a grey area of misinformation.
TOS and Eula are of no interest to anyone here, they are not above the rule of law, we have had all of this before.
Does this mean blowing up pixel space ships he considers as real-life property damage and biomassing is literal suicide and so on? 
No, but it is economic crime when it comes to trading virtual goods, especially for real money. Whether through contributions or direct purchases in a software client that is primarily a private commercial product, enough ships have already been sunk that were bought with real money. A game manufacturer is still a private commercial company and not a charitable organization. 
You want it declared an exploit. Being declared an exploit means you can’t do it. That’s banning it. Why do I need to explain that to you?
Congratulations on finally figuring out how the rest of us deal with it. What you’re implying as being too terrible for you to deal with is how we’ve been playing the game for 20 years. 
Only if something is wrong with your head. There’s a list of stuff that is an exploit. If it’s not on that list, go for it. Just because you didn’t think of it doesn’t make it a grey area, it just means someone else was more creative in their thought process. In the case of this topic, they likely read a guide on how to manipulate FacPo and used it.
The TOS and EULA are the legal documents that define the relationship between CCP and its customers. I’m not sure why you think any other law applies here, but it doesn’t.
There is no court on Earth that would hear your case. You’re not the first to think of this stupidity, and every single one has been dismissed with prejudice, so it cannot be refiled. CCP is not responsible for anyone’s actions in the game.
TOS and EULA are subject to legal framework conditions in the respective countries in which a software is offered. That is what is of interest here and not the TOS or EULA.
Yes, of course CCP is not responsible for the behavior of its customers towards other customers in the product they offer? In what world do I live where a company could be held responsible for its services? With all due respect, but I am not discussing this on this level, you really have no idea what you are talking about, please don’t be mad.
The game has defined rules. You accept that when you play the game. If the rules say something is part of the game even if you personally consider it an exploit then it is you who is out of sync with the rules.
If you start playing chess but don’t like how the game works then you are the one expecting something from the game that the game is not and nobody will care about your differing opinion… not even the law.
If you spend money on betting a chess match but lose your money because the rules are what they are even if you don’t like it you can’t sue the chess competition for exploit because the game works as intended and you are the one expecting it to be something it shouldn’t be.
Your logic doesn’t stand even in court or in front of a judge. It would be just thrown out and you’d have to pay for wasting the time of the justice system.
Thanks, that’s exactly what it’s about: In chess the rules are clearly defined, but not here.
This is slowly becoming off topic anyway.
EVE is much more complex than chess and is constantly being updated, extended, modernized… or in other word: evolves. Thus the rules as well. As it is complex sometimes new rules have to be made as not even the devs can foresee every situation even in their own game it is so complex.
However the fact this subject exists since more than a decade (see links in my earlier posts) and CCP still haven’t declared this as exploit (someone else linked the declared exploit support article earlier) it is clear this is part of the game rules.
Furthermore if you want clarification you can submit a support ticket and ask if this is an exploit or not, that is one of the reasons support exists, to answer game related questions and clarifications regarding the rules.
If you don’t like the rules and don’t want to play this game with its own rules then all you can do is not to play it. Everyone else plays the game according to the rules. There is nothing else. Not even real-life law would look at it any differently than this.
No, the moves are clearly defined. Gambits are not. What you’re complaining about is someone using a legal Gambit that you just don’t approve of.
This is more like en passant. The rule is there, but most people don’t know how to use it, so they accuse you of cheating when you do.
No, it’s still on topic. The topic is you think something should be banned because you don’t like it, and your refusal to listen to anything anyone has said is the only part off topic.
No, that has nothing to do with the complexity of the game and its further development if it has been known for a decade.
No, I will not submit a petition because I am simply interested in why CCP apparently does not want to comment officially on this after repeated requests and that is exactly where we come to misrepresentation: It is simply not the case that you automatically get faction aggro and CCP has not wanted to comment on this for decades. You can legitimately ask: What is going on here? And publicly too.
No, the moves are not clearly defined here and I do not want players to be banned because of this. I am not concerned with other players here but with an official statement from the game manufacturer in the form of an official public statement.
No, the legal discussion is off topic, but I am happy to continue it.
What we have here is a scientific anomaly. None of our models or predictions anticipated finding something more dense than a black hole, but alas here we are. Shame Professor Hawkins didn’t live to see all his math disproven.
You clearly have not listened to a single thing anyone has said to you this entire thread. You read it, but at no time did comprehension ever set it.
At no time have you presented anything resembling a logical discourse here. You counter facts with opinion, demand things that are never going to happen, dismiss all rational arguments as us not understanding, and start throwing legal threats when the debate doesn’t go your way. Then, when all that still doesn’t work, you double down on it all over again.
No, I read all of that and understand you. It just has nothing to do with it. I’m not talking about bans here and if that’s a legitimate game mechanic, then that’s how it should be officially. But then I would also like to have it defined as a rule: A faction police spawn in high sec is not a given for an enemy war target, it can be, but it doesn’t have to be, and please make that official in a patch note or something similar.
At least we can rest assured no matter how dense and ignorant he is to what was stated, just as in the past 10-20 years nothing will change as CCP clearly has nothing against outsmarting the NPC fleets as it takes player skill, expertise, preparation and proper execution to pull it off, thus game balance is maintained even if someone puts in the time, effort and numbers to achieve the desired results.
Especially so as with proper counterplay (probing down the related ships and messing up the preoccupation of the faction NPC fleets) the entire situation can be collapsed resulting in emegent gameplay situations at that. The squids don’t have the smarts or the numbers or the willingness (or a combination of those) to provide counterplay thus the Gallente elite PvP players can humiliate them with impunity.
It is defined as a rule without stated in words. It is called game mechanics. The way the game operates. Which is consistent. It would take thousands if not millions of pages to describe every legitimate action in the game, so instead CCP only lists the exceptions in the form of known and declared exploits.
And if someone asks for clarification they tend to provide it. But you can’t expect them to monitor every thread and respond with rules and clarification in every single thread on the forums and beyond (r/Eve is also an active “forum” where they often post but not always either). Thus if someone asks support they answer. And nobody said anything about petition or ban, it is called asking for rule clarification. People do that sometimes just as I myself did at least one occasion and they answered thus I had confirmation and did not risk breaking the rules.
It already is. It clearly states in the wiki on security status, which you get to by searching “eve online faction police” on Google, that
…and while the faction police is formidable, they are not as strong as CONCORD and can sometimes be handled and often avoided…
They don’t need to spell it out to you in detail, they just need to mention it.
handled
It also lists the purpose of the different NPC types:
CONCORD forces deal with criminals.
Faction police forces deal with people who have low security status.
Faction navy forces deal with people who have low faction standing.
They provided the clarification on this topic long ago. OP stated in his first post that he knows this, but doesn’t agree with it, thus here we are, all because OP doesn’t like something.
Insulting me and making me look incompetent won’t get you anywhere, quite the opposite.
Yes, of course you don’t need to put rules into words and certainly not write them down, right? What am I thinking? Putting rules and laws in writing is simply overrated. 
Well, for around 450 million you can now afford a few scribes to document one of the most successful games in detail.
Well, to make matters worse, there is no mention at all of the faction police spawn for WTs, maybe that’s the bug? That the faction police appear at all.
With all due respect guys, but you basically understand what this discussion is about, right?
Lmao it is true. Just for reference:
/thread
Yes, that’s exactly what it’s about. Of course CCP will know what’s going on in their own product, at least I hope so. I’m assuming that CCP has been deliberately tolerating this exploit for years. I’m just curious why they haven’t wanted to make an official statement about it for decades…
It’s not me making you look incompetent, bro. You’re accomplishing that all on your own, I’m just pointing it out rather than let it slide.
You know that’s how the US Justice system works, right? If it’s not specifically illegal then you can do it as you wish. Quite the concept, I know. 
Okay, got your checkbook handy? Because that just screams “stupid business decision” right there.
Because they don’t spawn like Concord, they have to travel. Maybe you should learn the mechanic before you criticize it? Oh, and CONCORD used to be the same way if they were already deployed in a system, but I think they changed that.
You told us in your first post, quite clearly:
it is apparently seen as a legitimate pvp tactic, but in my opinion it is an exploit
You think you know better than CCP, regardless of their long established position.
Because they assumed their customers were smart enough to figure it out without having everything spoon fed to them? Not sure. 
You ARE ! Thats why you looked incompetent… if you cant understand youre wrong …