With all due respect, this is an artificially rigid principle that serves no utility and is ultimately self defeating. It is like stating “I find it unethical to wear purple on Wednesdays” - on what basis is this principle of any value?
It is always worth considering if player behavior, or at least their existing or lack of consequences, is undesirable. This is what prompts this discussion. It is entirely plausible the answer is “the behavior is fine”, but the discussion is worth having. Imagine EVE without CONCORD in HS, for example. Some would say “lol that’s the way it should be make PVP global”, but they’re quick to forget that not only is PVP not desirable by all players, but newbies who die all the time on entering and learning the game aren’t exactly going to be inclined to stick around, thereby tanking the EVE community as a whole. If CONCORD presently did not exist, your above principle states “I’m artificially against altering killing newbies in hisec without consequence” - your principle says the concern doesn’t merit even a conversation if not agreement?
My “tethers = no reshipping ability” proposal, rather than having unintended effects, solves two problems at once. Two issues have the same root cause - address the root cause for one and the other is resolved as a happy byproduct. I do not find it necessary to examine solutions that are in strict isolation because such solutions may not exist when they are so heavily integrated with other game mechanics, and such isolation is impractical at best, impossible/undesirable/inferior at worst.
On this much we can agree 