One Way to Balance High-Security Space šŸ—”

Communications Center General Discussion
1055

Why? Because if I use too many words itā€™s too confusing to you? ROFL.

Why are so afraid of the words? I already addressed your question. There is risk, as long as people actually yennoe, play the game.

If youā€™re AFKing your hauler full of phat l3wts on a weekend through an active trade pipeline in Cal space that goes thru Uedama well, what do you think is gonna happen?

Now if you were smart, youā€™d get two friends to pull CONCORD on gate in Uedama, so you jump in with zero risk. But yennoe, vidya games are hard :smiley:

If people actually played heh.

1056

Your just pulling arguments out of nowhere, making no point at all, and being overly wordy about it.

1057

ā– ā– ā– ā– ā– ā– ā– ā– . Shift the risk to someone else through courier contracts.

Iā€™ll gladly take them on and move wraps through ganking hotspots without any issue.

Just sticking your head in the sand and pretending there is nothing that can be done is the typical attitude that is killing the game. Educating others and helping them is far better than shedding your tears in the forum.

4 Likes
1058

I really am.

Why is risk free play ok for haulers and not for gankers?

Cant you answer it without quitting your stance?

1059

Not looking for solutions, i have solutions. But i donā€™t come to this forum for myself.

1060

Clearly. Thatā€™s why all you can do is cry about it.

1 Like
1061

Ah. So you have on counter argument.

Thankee for ceding the field :smiley:

Oh? So why not share it with those getting ganked?

1062

Again the same strawman arguments over and over and over again. Itā€™s like watching Fox News, watching gankers post.

This argument is not about the risk of players it is about the ZERO RISK OF GANKERS.

1063

You cant actually answer it.

You have no answer to why the game should be risk free to haulers and not to gankers.

You got nothing.

1 Like
1064

Again you are using a strawman argument.

I am pro-ganking. I think ganking in high sec should be a part of the game. The issue is the current state of there being ZERO RISK TO GANKERS.

Now moderator, take note, if they continue to use a strawman then i have to continue to say the same thing to redirect the argument back to the original topic of conversation. Strawman arguments are the derailing of the forum.

1065

You are using another strawman statement, that is not my argument thus it is not a question.

Strawmen are not questions.

1066

Strawman:

A straw man (sometimes written as strawman) is a form of and an [informal fallacy] of having the impression of refuting an argument, whereas the real subject of the argument was not addressed or refuted, but instead replaced with a false one. One who engages in this fallacy is said to be ā€œattacking a straw manā€.

1067

She didnā€™t argue. She asked a question.

1 Like
1068

This person is off the rails.

3 Likes
1069

Strawman in the form of a question that is not related to my argument. And yes, she is forming an argument. You cannot address a strawman at all in any way shape or form. this is about ZERO RISK TO GANKERS. She wants to discuss why people other then gankers should have zero risk.

The false equivalency being used is that she supposes by removing the ZERO RISK TO GANKERS, this means zero risk to all the other players. This is not the case. One does not equal the other. This a false equivalency fallacy and why this sounds like Fox News.

1070

I explained your gaslighting question of bull. thats all your going to get.

1071

If the equivalence is false then you should be able to answer the question. If the difference in treatment is justified, then it should be possible to provide that justification and strengthen your argument.

1072

So what is the risk to haulers that isntg ankers?

1073

not a question, see above.

1074

if they ended NO RISK FOR GANKERS, haulers will still have risk. That does not stop by stopping the ZERO RISK FOR GANKERS. Your being intentionally obtuse now.