Point, @Ildrara.
And yet passive defenses incur, according to hearsay by self-alleged gankers, near instant hostile response, so it isn’t a defense so much as a way to bait them… actually not a bad idea, has anyone explored the monetary implications of using ECM-shrouded unfitted empty haulers as a fireboat to draw out ganks for harvesting?
They don’t actively attack most non-freighters because the ability to destroy properly tanked ships is difficult at best.
No, I mean industrials/freighters with anti-scan modules on them and nothing else, to provoke a gank.
They don’t exist (yet) and should have ages ago but double wrapped objects exist.
Unfortunately the majority of double wrapped objects goes unnoticed on the kill boards.
Nobody knows what was in that wrap but he definately messed up his fit.
Welp, now I just learned how to double-wrap.
It’s a weird thing when you talk to someone who’s played both sides of the coin how they know these oddities.
Oh, you obviously don’t like it and want it nerfed or hindered or whatever you want to call it, but what I was saying there is that (regardless of whether you are actually against it or not), it’s hypothetically possible to have ganked in the past and still be against suicide ganking now, and hence, that you cannot use having ganked who knows what many years ago as proof of what your real motivations for wanting the change now are.
What is relevant is what you think about suicide ganking now, not years ago, and whether that’s the real reason you want cargo scanners to get a suspect flag, and you answered that question yourself explicitly a couple days ago already…
Yes, but that this is possible doesn’t mean that’s your case. It isn’t, and you proved it yourself already…
LOL. Of course I was referring to you when I said “you” in a post where I was replying to you… Is that a reason to reply to me with such a stupid remark? And I need to learn to read to make sense of that? 
As I said, whether you had suicide ganked that many years ago proves nothing, much less if there is no way to know the context and circumstances under which you did it.
But let me get this straight (again)… You first say “my killboard shows a lot of suicide ganks”, which is obviously not the case and without you giving any more info to verify that’s the case… You’ve proven to be dishonest already (about what your real motivations are at least)… You give as “proof” generic corp killboards with no way to know what your participation was… The suicide ganking that you say you did happened nearly 10 years ago, which I wonder whether those killboards would even show… And you expect everyone here and me in particular to take your word for it? And that it should matter whether it’s true or not?
And this is gold.
You accused me of “playing pretend” because I said what your reasons for wanting cargo scanners become suspect really were… You asked me to prove what I was saying, which I did…
And now you do what you were (falsely) accusing me of doing by saying that if I’m against the proposal it has to be because I’m a suicide ganker myself… Only there is no way you’ll ever be able to prove that for the simple reason that it’s an outright lie…
Really?
Not sure what you mean by “active jamming”, but jamming a cargo scanner should (and will) give you a criminal (not suspect) timer, unless he’s free to shoot at or you’re in a limited engagement with him…
I have no idea what are you talking about here.
Which you didn’t.
I am for suicide ganking. Fact.
I am for suspect timer when you cargo scan a player ship. Fact
I was for removing insurance from suicide gank ships while I was suicide ganking. Fact.
I was for buffing Concord back when they could be tanked easily and killed in great numbers. (before you even started playing) Fact.
I never used a cargo scanner before I suicide ganked anyone.
I never bumped anyone for any amount of time before I suicide ganked them.
The only thing you have proven is that I am terrible at debate with someone that twists everything I come up with simply to try to call me a liar. I have killed more and suicide ganked more players than you. I have more kills than you. It doesn’t matter if you can reference that because I can see it. I’ll stay out of your way on the rest of this topic because you refuse to believe anything that you don’t like. You’re just as bad as the idiot that thinks the GPS in his car can be manipulated by a module in the game.
You forgot to include your own words in your list of “facts”:
Or should that be in the list of things I “twist”?
And this is my fault and proves you’re right because… let me guess… you’re also terrible at showing what it is exactly that I “twisted”…
The fact that you’re outright lying when you deny what your reasons for wanting the change are after having stated them yourself, or when you say that the only people against it are those that suicide gank, is my fault. It’s me who’s “twisting” your words because I’m evil and want to make you look like a liar, not you actually lying and doing something wrong…
LOL, what? The only things you’ve said that I don’t believe are the two I just mentioned because I know for a fact they’re false. The rest I’m inclined to believe but have the feeling you’re not telling all the truth, there is something missing, but I don’t really care whether they’re true or not because it doesn’t matter.
What I said is that those things prove nothing, that you’re being an hypocrite by pretending I should believe what you say without proof while at the same time asking me to prove what you already knew was true, and that you cannot pretend others take your word for something when you’ve proven you’re dishonest and are outright lying about other things already…
No we can include that in things you purposely take out of context.
You call me a liar again with the only proof being something that was taken out of context. I am all for hindering ganks. I don’t understand how you think giving people a target to shoot at occasionally also means I am totally against ganking.
I was unaware that the only way you can currently gank someone is to cargo scan them then bump them for over an hour.
It was different when I was doing it. Of course hulks and mackinaws in highsec were in nearly every system then.
You just want to find someone to call out instead of saying what you actually want to say.
I think ganking can use a shake up. I don’t want it banned from high sec. I just think more loss should be involved. A scanning frigate isn’t much to lose and it fits that someone scanning another player has ill intentions in mind.
The only reason I personally can see for not doing it is the gankers tears that are already flooding the forum.
Just because you will have to recycle more ganking alts more often shouldn’t mean others can’t use a win. That is against the rules by the way. You shouldn’t recycle gank alts like you do.
You’re welcome to show what I did wrong and how what you said could be interpreted in the right context to mean something else. Just saying I took it out of context is not enough.
And that’s not the only thing you lied about either. Saying that the only people against this proposal are those that suicide gank is an outright lie too, and a specially hypocritical one because, when you say that, you’re doing exactly the same you were falsely accusing me of about “playing pretend”… except you required me to prove I had something to base my claims on, which I did, whereas you’ll never ever be able to prove your claim, not even with anything taken out of context, and you know it…
You cannot understand that because I never said that in the first place. YOU are twisting my words to make it appear I said something that, had i said it, would be wrong, but I just didn’t…
What?
So what? Who cares how things were when you did it or even whether what you’re saying is true?
LOL. Do I? What is it that I actually want to say and seem to not even be aware of? Are you “playing pretend” again? You’ll have some proof to base this claim on, I hope…
Don’t stop there. Be honest and say in which direction do you want the shake up to happen, not just vague things such as “more loss” and “more PvP”. Say where do you want those additional losses to come from too…
I know. I never said otherwise. Moreover, I assert that you “accept that ganking is here to stay”…
LOL, what? Can you show an example of ganker tears in these forums that most other gankers wouldn’t ridicule themselves, please? Are you calling tears the mere fact of being against biased proposals aimed at nerfing suicide ganking maybe? Why would a well balanced proposal not aimed at nerfing suicide ganking cause any amount of ganker tears?
WTF are you talking about now? Why would anyone have to recycle gank alts? And who is this “you” that’s doing it already?
From a previous post of yours:
Obviously you care.
what is interesting about the passive target lock and scanners…
is that if ‘you’ are scanned you still hear a ping, and if you are paying attention enough…you still see a scan beam from the scanner ship hit your ship
I cannot believe this argument has gone on this long.
Some modules are defined as being Aggressive. Cargo scanners are not among them.
Yes, it would technically be harmless to try and Tracking Disrupt a Freighter. However, that module has been defined as an Aggressive module regardless of the target. Which is why you will still get Concord’d for your efforts.
Scanners are passive. They themselves do not hurt anyone. Using one to decide whether or not to gank a target is not an “exploit”. It is the intended usage for the module. It’s meant to scan the target’s fit and cargo. That’s what it does. What happens after that is on the player, it has nothing to do with the module’s function.
So no… we should not Flag people for using a scanner. No more than we should Flag people for using Combat Probes or the Dscan. They are not Aggressive modules.
Not sure, but you might be somewhat missing their point here.
The proponents of the change (or at least some of them) believe that the decision of which modules are considered aggressive and which aren’t is arbitrary, and hence, that cargo and ship scanners might just be included in the list of aggressive modules as well because of their “intentions”. They believe that including the scanning mods in the list is as arbitrary as leaving them out, and hence, that there is nothing wrong about asking for them to be included as well.
They key is not which mods have already been defined as aggressive or not. They key is WHY, that the decision is NOT arbitrary, that all the mods that cause a Crimewatch timer have something in common that the scanning mods don’t. And that’s what you said and I’ve said countless times too, that ALL the mods included in the list may directly by themselves damage, harm or adversely affect someone else’s assets in some way, and actual assets at that, not simply expectations of “privacy” or whatever.
Whether the target ship has actually fitted the mod that might be adversely affected by the offending mod is irrelevant because the system simply doesn’t check that at all at the moment of activating the timer. It just checks whether the offending mod is in the list.
Which is why I have said several times in this painfully long running thread… they’re treading on a slippery slope.
If Cargo and Ship Scanners are reclassified as Aggressive modules b/c the user “clearly” intends to do harm to the target after scanning them…
Then we should also reclassify Combat Probes for the same reason.
And then we should reclassify narrow band Dscans.
And then we should reclassify targeting another player.
And then we should just Flag everyone in the game, b/c ■■■■ it all, everyone is out to get everyone.
Just stop if you can’t stay on topic.
No, there is not declaration of it being an exploit. Merely suspect. Nothing more.
And you have gone off topic again. For you to not understand that means you are willingly ignoring the effects of your own argument the slippery slope. Even after giving you a link to your fallacious argument you persist in using it.
You aren’t clever for citing a Slippery Slope. I literally said it in the post you referenced. And you guys are the ones treading it. You’re crying about how unfair it is that someone can use a Cargo Scanner to decide if you’re worth popping. Pretty soon you’re going to cry about how someone can use Combat Probes to find you in your secret hiding spots.
And yes, if you skim through the rest of this ridiculous thread, you’ll find several times when the cry babies have called Cargo Scanning just before a Gank as an exploit.
The only ones in support of Flagging someone for Scanning you, are the folks who have been playing Eve for a month or so. Anyone who’s been around longer than that realizes how dangerous it can be to undock, and is willing to deal with the consequences.
You want a designated safe space to hide from all the bad guys? Don’t undock.