You’re right. The issue is that there’s a broad generalization that pvp’ers only target things that can’t shoot back, which isn’t always true.
If you look at most engagements in any area of space there’s some level of risk management and assessing the likelihood that you will lose. people shoot things that can’t shoot back everywhere, and isn’t some generalization that should be painted just in highsec because everyone elsewhere is some elite pvper just because it’s not highsec.
That’s definitely not what I meant to say. I’ve seen the “I won’t ever risk losing a ship” PvP carebears in all parts of space. This thread was about shooting rookie ships, so I just used HSers as an example.
Ok understood. I have seen and been apart of groups that were unnecessarily strict about losses, and I never understood it really. I don’t necessarily want to lose a ship, but if it happens I don’t really care. There’s also a lot of isk in shooting ships that can’t shoot back! 
lol ive watched code pop ventures right outside of rens people less than 10 days old.
As the primary protector of Arnon under James 315, this topic is near and dear to my heart!
The rookie griefing policy is pretty straight forward, easy to comprehend. Though, fairly recently it was written in a way even the GM’s couldn’t understand.
If it’s not in rookie systems, it’s legal
RIP your argument
ccp is often intentionally vague when dealing with rules and rulings . i’ve seen posts where they intend to enforce the spirit of the law , over the letter . and decline to elaborate on marginal cases , saying the more they define the rules , the more loopholes people will find .
it’s their way of giving internet lawyers a big F-U .
It’s also the card they hold in their back pocket that allows them to arbitrarily ban players who haven’t actually broken any game rules.
I just wanna creep up as close to the line as I’m allowed to go. Is that so wrong?
This whole ‘secret rules that we won’t define and you’re not allowed to discuss’ thing, I mean… Does that seem normal to you? Did you grow up in Soviet Russia or something?
In a nutshell, just use the phrase “case by case” if you don’t have a clear idea on whether something should be sanctioned or not. Look at that old post regarding Bumping.
However, persistent targeting of a player with bumping by following them around after they have made an effort to move on to another location can be classified as harassment, and this will be judged on a case by case basis.
I don’t personally think it’s wrong but I sure hope the people who get caught when they do cross the line would STFU and so would all the internet lawyers.
This is literally a thing because people can’t ■■■■■■■ stop trying to internet lawyer themselves around rules. I mean, if they want to play around the rules, they should accept the risk attached to trying to play around.
Yeah, usually you got no chances fighting people who owns the game, unless you are VERY VERY dedicated.
I do know that on Chinese server, a guy banned for botting sued Tiancity (Publisher of Chinese EVE), and won after a 3-year lawsuit. Tiancity made an apology to him and stated that “Despite we don’t won the lawsuit we’ll still try our best to stop the bots”.
Your indifference to the unfair treatment of fellow players by the administrators is a symptom of carebearism.
Here’s a wacky idea: A game with clearly defined rules so the players can toe right up to the line but still be on the legal side of it. Crazy, I know…
They make their beds and then get to lie in it. It’s not about begin a carebear, it’s about believing people should live with the result fo their action. Play “chicken” with the devs by skirting the rules and you’ll get smacked at some point.
Better play chess for “clearly defined rules”. With modern games’ complexity there are just so many things bugged and so many things not clearly defined.
That is a very carebearish thing to say. No one is talking about playing chicken with CCP, just being as bad as we’re allowed to be, which becomes difficult when they refuse to tell us, and the rules seem to change based on the GM interpreting them. This kind of gives the impression that they don’t want us being bad at all, which is weird given the fact that we’re playing EVE Online…
Are you starting to get it now?
Carebears think gankers -just by ganking- are somehow daring CCP to ban them and that’s really dumb.
I get it that you are stubborn and somehow think they will deny themselves tools. Good luck with that. If you are not happy about the current set of rules, I’m sure you are intelligent to know what you can do about it.
Indifference due to carebearism. That’s all I ever get.
Who cares if CCP abritrarily bans a ganker, right? I mean, they’re bad people in real life after all…
It’s quite entertaining to me how much carebears protest the notion that CCP should communicate to us the rules of their game and enforce them consistently. That really doesn’t seem like much to ask…
I stop following this thread for a month and it’s still filled with salty ganker tears.
Amazing.
I prefer carebear tears because they’re usually concerning EVE’s mechanics rather than it’s administration.
i support ccp being flexible on rulings , but some ‘field’ rulings are made simply to close a petition . how many times i’ve seen gm come in local and blow up bubbles or jet cans , but later what was being done is ruled -not- an exploit .
as for your frequent use of the term ‘carebear’ i don’t think it means what you think it does.
it’s considered someone who’s risk averse . and as you have > 800 kills , and NONE of them vs. combat ships , you fit in that definition very well .
so do carry on , as we all know , pirate tears are the sweetest … 