Why just 1.0 systems?
Why not all systems.
No one wants pvp. It causes too many hurt feelings. Everyone should be able to go about grinding their isk risk free from the other sociopaths that insist on ganking, pvp and/or any other form of player interactions.
no its addition to already existing wardecks. Im never say you cant continue wardecking corps same way! READ IT AGAIN
So to wardec you more easily I just form a fake corp and join it.
So whats the point?
Reading the 2nd paragraph leads me to infer that there is an unspoken limit of 1 active ‘individual’ wardec and a person so 'decced cannot be individually 'decced again by anybody until a month after the first ends.
That’s how I am making sense of the line suggesting a person could 'dec themselves for immunity from this gank replacement proposal and instead turn it into an isk sink.
Utterly fail to see the point in it.
Why individually dec someone for 500m when you can just dec their corp for much less?
Because you can’t do that unless their corporation is eligible and this would get around that limitation, I assume. Depending on how it was actually structured it might also skirt having to have a structure yourself. You would also avoid getting tangled up with your potential target’s presumed corporate friends, should they turn out to be the fighting sort. I am interpreting it as a protracted duel that costs money and does not require the target to assent. There could be other means to exploit the idea that would not be known until the exact implementation’s permissions and limitations could be put to the proof.
Mind I’m not trying to endorse the idea, just make sense of it.
Given how its an alternative to ganking, I wouldnt assume that.
Im not ignoring what you are saying and broadly agree, its written in such a way as to make it as difficult as possible to do while still making it technically feasible.
But if I pay 500m for a ganking permit how on earth am I supposed to make it profitable if one of the tennents of griefing is attacking someone without it having a profit motive?
None of this also covers the fact that by turning a gank into a wardec it makes it even easier to avoid.
It’s a terrible, ill-thought proposal.
People paying 500 million ISK to declare war on a single person is going to be an extreme statistical outlier.
Now that you’ve got some more specifically outlined complaints I’ll let the person who proposed the idea defend against them, if they wish. I just wanted to detail the concept enough we could get some articulated issues for the sake of making things more interesting for me to read.
Lol fair point well made.
I appreciate you helping me understand their proposition a bit more, ty.
Cept I never give up 
Its funny when he finally breaks tho
Actually again if you were honest about the data and process this wouldn’t happen.
But we already know you ain’t honest bro
When working with datasets to do research it’s of key importance to put stringent conditions on the filters. For instance, if in this case one would fail to have access to
“victim ship type” and “victim character age” and “cargo value” and “location” and “time of kill” (notice the “and”) on one side
and “attacker ship type” and “attacker character age” and a correlated “attacker ship type” and “location” and “attacker = concord” and “time of loss” on the other side
then there is an inherent flaw in the building of the subdataset, and render it useless. Moreover, on the subject of griefing in particular, you would have to demonstrate that there are repeated losses for the same character, and repeated kills by the other side.
I’m not going to list the inherent flaws of the public data, you know them, and what they mean for any conclusions people may draw from them.
As to drawing conclusions it will be key to clearly state:
I don’t have to remind anyone that the biggest pitfall is conclusion bias - finding what one wants to find. Even worse would be data manipulation by purposely using the wrong selection criteria. So be very aware of the inherent flaws and don’t overstretch looking for what would be “a good find / a clear correlation”. Be very aware of what you do not know, because of lack of public data. There is only so much you can demonstrate, and a good critic will know that.
Anything less and all your hard work will be going through the grinder of the (rightfully) critical and objective observer, and one would land himself in an indefensible position. That is what I think Scipio was alluding to in his post, not observer bias.
You’re welcome.
LOL it’s already happened my guy.
Oh I got no problem with his data. He’s trustworthy. You aren’t LOL.
If it came from someone credible, it’d have merit. You’ve already shown your quality bro It’s lacking.
Breaking already? LOL.
You think you’re saving EVE, but you have no idea what EVE really is.
It’d be better served if you taught those being ganked how to bounce back.
They don’t need daddy CCP. They need to learn the skills to survive.
The only thing I was trying to point out, and hopefully be of some help, was that being very objective and open about strengths and weaknesses of the work done is your only way to quell undue criticism (or expose it).
And that is not because this is a “touchy” subject with lots of emotions on either side, but because that is how analyses are done professionally and reliably.
I’m very curious about what you guys will be able to collect.
Good luck !!
He won’t be tho. And has already proven his bias and his propensity of lying
I’m loving farming him for content tho
Remember every time Lucas makes a post, an Eve Newbie quits Eve permanently.
He must really dislike new players and not care about the long-term health of the game.
Well, when you come up with your citation, it will be kind of funny seeing that you wasted a lot of time and energy on something that doesn’t matter because:
Nobody wants your cherrypicked numbers.
Or, by pulling these numbers and doing the data analysis, are you actually saying I was right all along? How kind of you!
It’s a small team effort, a collaboration between Lucas and Scipio, so that will affect any bias levels. Also, I’m never worried about bias in any way - it will be detected if it is present. Until then I can only support what they are trying to do and judge after they present their analysis and conclusions.
Nope, I’m not worried either way 
Give them a chance. The truth is out there, and if it can be found, all the better.
LOL so you’ll just say you did it and post a pic that’s meaningless and conveniently support your views.
I pity you bro. Truly.