Surprisingly it doesn’t seem like your idea has appeared as it’s own thread yet. But there was a ton of character selling and recruitment had to filter through so… 
If this is something you may feel strongly about, perhaps start a new thread for the idea and ask for input from the community to hammer down the details to make the idea more robust and therefore more enticing for CCP to possibly take a look at.
I feel strongly about it, but I have alot on my plate for the moment (and enough white hairs already lol). If you feel like representing this idea, please feel free to. If not maybe in a few weeks when I have more free time off work, wife/kids, fleet ops etc. But you have my blessings, go ahead and make the OP, I’ll drop by now and then to contribute wherever possible. 
Forum ideas should be well written by an author that is truly sincere about the subject, allowing the best chance for readers to feel the message. Besides, I have a proposal that’s been sitting in the forum editor for over a month working on it… 
And there is nothing but time, EVE changes very slowly. Not to be discouraging at all, it’s just reality, if/when you are ever ready to post, and if the devs were to take an interest, it would probably be at least a year before anyone saw any movement more than likely. The idea could create a new interesting player based dynamic in the NPE, so seems like it’s worth investigating the details at least someday.
They primarily did level 4 distribution missions. You’d know this if you knew, and boy did they run them alot. All those loyalty point rewards on jita? At least 25% of the time you bought from a botter.
Unchecked player activity tends to have a downward effect on the playerbase, as does unchecked shitposting. Unlike some posters here, I do make every attempt to look a the matters from different angles, but the vast majority of responses against an idea are always the same, useless and hallow responses. And yet, against my better judgement, I still engage with these empty responses in a, likely in vain effort to understand why. Sadly, most of the time it’s just dumbposting.
It is possible to just drasticallly increase the security loss on alpha accounts, thereby making it a massive pain in the ass to use alphas to gank. After 1-3 attempts, the character would be attacked by concord or however on sight. Could be a useful fix.
Of course you do.
Whatever your opinion, at the very least I have much more pressing tasks to complete than sit waiting for a notification on an internet forum. And don’t take it personally, I’m sure you’re completely and 100% invested in every topic and post/reply you make… especially if it’s all you’ve got.
True. Okay I’ll add that as a note and deal with it as an idea for later. In the meantime, anyone can try their hand at it, no problems.
Says the guy that replied quicker than me…
There are two problems with this solution:
You guys do know that professional gankers dont care about sec status, as -10 does not stop you from flying or ganking in highsec? Why on earth would a ganker need to fix their sec status, what benefits would it give to them that they would need to continue their play style?
Me? Yes, I’m aware.
But my point was that even if they did care, it wouldn’t be a huge deal.
Clone soldier tags aren’t really a problem, as the price will adjust if they are used to counteract excessive security loss. However, I’m just not certain increasing the security loss on alpha accounts is complicated. A 2x or 3x multiplier perhaps? CCP want’s people to sub after all.
Which goes back to the post slobo made after mine: professional gankers don’t care about their sec status and fly around at -10 through hisec all the time.
So you’d be needlessly complicating game mechanics in a way that is both easy to bypass or would simply be ignored by the people whos behavior it said change was meant to modify.
Disallowing Alphas from going safety red in hisec is a simpler solution and it definitely discourages long-term Alpha use.
Then perhaps it’s too easy to sidestep having a low sec status
That’s potentially a separate issue, but I stand by my initial statement for other reasons that I laid out earlier in the thread.
Alphas shouldn’t be able to be gank alts for the same reason that they can’t shouldn’t be able to run level 4 and 5 missions; CCP shouldn’t be encouraging long-term Alpha gameplay because it hurts their financial standing.
CCP stated, that the reason alphas cant run lvl 4 mission, was that they were heavily botted. Are you saying ganking is heavily botted?
Two things:
First, you caught me phrasing soemthing poorly. I seem to have implied that my stance that Alphas not being able to run higher level missions was CCP’s stance. That is actually my own opinion and as far as I know, CCP has never publically stated that. (Not that they ever would, but still.) Thanks for catching that, and I’ve corrected my earlier reply for clarity.
Second, I can’t say that ganking is heavily botted per se, but given the number of hisec ganks with 20+ pilots all having essentially the same name I’d say it’s entirely likely that gankers make good use of input broadcasters.
Oh, and if they’re doing that with Alpha accounts, they’re also bypassing CCP’s restriction on only allowing one Alpha account per machine to run at a time. (I mean…I guess they could have 20+ machines running…but I doubt it…)
I stand by my position: I feel that encouraging long-term play on Alpha accounts is bad for CCP financially, so I think Alpha accounts should be more heavily restricted in terms of activities they can carry out.
I guessed that you didnt mean that gankers are bots, the idea just intrigued me as it would rise the philosophical question wether geting ganked by a bot is pve or pvp?
That is due to the alliance naming conventions. Many null alliances are encouraged to create an ganking alpha acount near burn jita and name it similarily to troll high sec residents. Needless to say, its working, examples of this are all the “BJbees” and “010101010bot” ect.
The EULA restriction is actualy one loged in alpha / person. If you get 20 machines (virtual or real) to log in more than one of your alphas, you are breaking the EULA.
This I can agree with, for CCP the best thing an alpha could do is to go omega. While I do also think that an alpha player who is playing long term is also better than no player at all, since even an alpha player creates “content” for the paying customers, thus increasing the value of CCPs product.
Now that is an interesting question. Hmmmm…
I didn’t know this! I had guessed that they were all alts made by the same player.
A-yup. That’s a whole other issue separate from Alphas and ganking, but I’m sure that some folks have worked around that limit.
Ehh, you may have a point there. But that’s tough to quantify, especially since players can’t always tell the Alpha/Omega status of other players they interact with. (I mean, if you’re ganked by a fleet of stealth bombers you know they’re Omegas. But a fleet of Catalysts or Taloses? Who’s to say.)
At least two of the 20 multibox gank fleet guys have streamed/YouTubed their operation to show they are not input broadcasting/botting, which is how they are still active. I wouldn’t think it would be difficult for Team Security to verify if those accounts are all Omegas or not, either.