Petition to the System Security Subcommittee: Re-Evaluation of Old -1.0 Security Ratings

To the Members of the System Security Subcommittee of the Concord Assembly,
To the interested public,

I am writing this petition after becoming aware of the procedures for review of existing security ratings through the recent adjustments made in reaction to the requests and efforts of the Gallente Federation and the Minmatar Republic.

I wish to advocate on an issue that is more pertinent to the space-faring population of the Cluster, by pointing out the opportunity to enhance the internal coherence of the security rating system, as well as the information value gained by all pilots by making a specific adjustment.

The core proposal of this petition is the following:

Adjust the security rating of systems that currently have a (displayed) -1.0 security rating while following the general rules of systems in the 0.0 through -0.9 security rating band (‘Null Security Space’) to a rating of -0.9.

The main reason for this request is that these systems have much more in common with other systems in the 0.0 through -0.9 rating band than with any other system designated as -1.0, while all other -1.0 systems share certain, special, characteristics.

A re-evaluation of these ratings would allow travelers to immediately make certain conclusions about their system of travel when they reach a system with a security rating of -1.0.

From my own look-up of the system database, this would impact 38 systems with an actual -1.0 rating as well as 24 additional systems with a real security rating of <= -0.95 that are rounded to -1.0 on the display. I have attached a list to the end of the petition (a total of 62 systems).

Historically speaking, these systems were assigned their respective security rating at a point in time where they were some of the most dangerous systems in New Eden and as such fell in the lowest category of the 1.0 to -1.0 security band. This was a sensible decision at the time.

Since then, however, the classification system has needed to accommodate systems that were not envisioned at the time of its introduction. This includes, most numerously, the systems of the Anoikis-Cluster (or ‘J-Space’ or ‘Wormhole Space’). Recently, the systems woven into the region of Pochven and, as the newest addition, the system of Zarzakh have been added to the database and were assigned a displayed rating of -1.0 for their excessive danger. These were, again, sensible decisions given the circumstances.

These systems generally share certain characteristics that make them particularly dangerous:

Firstly, they are not part of the traditional gate network (being accessed via wormholes, filaments, and Jovian tollgates under control of a hostile entity respectively).

Secondly, they do feature delayed local network channels, which many capsuleers consider a major drawback to the availability of crucial information for travel safety.

Thirdly, they feature a variety of additional effects that make them less habitable (e.g. restrictions to anchoring of structures or access to asset safety).

These special characteristics are not shared by the old -1.0 security systems. These systems, instead, follow the same rules as systems at the 0.0 through -0.9 security rating band (colloquially ‘Null Security Space’ or ‘Null Sec’).

As such, these systems are fundamentally different from all other systems that share their rating, while being fundamentally similar to systems of another rating. As such, it is only logical that those systems should be assigned an updated security rating that puts them in line with the systems that follow the same ruleset.

This enhanced clarity would also allow pilots to discern that the -1.0 rating expresses certain characteristics, as they can easily discern major characteristics of other parts of space (e.g. ‘High Security Space’ etc.) by a simple look at the security band.

That there is not total homogeneity between all systems that remain in the -1.0 is also not a reason to not set them apart as a group: There is internal differentiation of rules in other major security bands (e.g. 0.5 systems allowing certain activities otherwise unavailable in High Security Space), while the major policy and framework changes remain a viable dividing line.

In fact, the -1.0 rating in that case might be used as a shorthand itself, maybe as a sort of “Dark Security” or “Neg Sec” or some other cultural marker to differentiate it into its own ‘Class’ of space.

In conclusion: This re-evaluation and clarification would enhance the informational value of these low security rating to all pilots as well as strengthening the logical coherence of the system itself.

Signed digitally,
Scius Falkenhaupt
Independent Researcher

Attachment 1: List of systems included for the purposes of this petition:

“True” -1.0 rated systems in ‘Null Security Space’:
8-VC6H, K85Y-6, V-IH6B, 4-07MU, WLF-D3, OSW-0P, ZWM-BB, M-NP5O, P-T9VC, 9P4O-F, 1S-SU1, S-LHPJ, UJY-HE, C-PEWN, IAMJ-Q, P-ZWKH, OE-4HB, 2-3Q2G, 3-QYVE, B-7DFU, 1M7-RK, B-U299, M-VACR, HB-5L3, D4R-H7, Y-1918, QYZM-W, D4-2XN, PXF-RF, Y-2ANO, G-M4GK, ZDYA-G, 3-DMQT, JV1V-O, 7L9-ZC, MVUO-F, VWES-Y, MTO2-2

Systems with a security rating that rounds to -1.0 on displays in ‘Null Security Space’:
VY-866, IUU3-L, RO-AIQ, RR-D05, RG9-7U, C3I-D5, VH-9VO, K-9UG4, 1IX-C0, QZ1-OH, NU4-2G, 7-8EOE, Y-XZA7, PWPY-4, LVL-GZ, UG-UWZ, ZID-LE, RZ8A-P, WIW-X8, 86L-9F, 8-SPNN, TN25-J, 30-D5G, DB1R-4


This topic was automatically closed 90 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.