The tension the game creates/allows/encourages between different groups and styles of play is part of what anchors people to the game. Even those that whine about wanting a safe space. They wouldn’t whine unless they were invested in what the game already is.
I can’t see how relieving any of that tension on this sort of scale, would bring anything good to the game, and if the forum’s history shows anything, it certainly won’t stop the whining. No matter where the goalposts are, someone will want them moved.
More specifically, we’re talking about whether the argument they are making is logical. An invalid argument is inherently illogical.
Consider a breakdown of the common argument: If we stop suicide ganking, there will be more active players.
Premise1: Suicide Gankers cause victims to quit playing
Premise2: Players who quit (obviously) don’t subscribe to the game
Conclusion: Stopping suicide ganking will improve subscription numbers
Except the conclusion is not true because players quit for lots of reasons. One of which, according to CCP’s own statistical analysis, shows that even unplanned PVP will improve the chances a player will remain a subscribing player. It also fails to account for the suicide gankers that are not subscribing now because their playstyle just got killed.
Validity is 100% a prerequisite for a logical argument.
I see one good thing with this idea, the carebears will realise how boring and broken the game will be without non-consensual pvp.
There’s a lot more wrong with it though. Any healthy eco system has resources, prey and predators. Add to that the complications with eves player driven economy, you don’t really want a block of the playerbase not being part of that.