To be fair, with this new change that makes Tritanium near exclusive to Highsec, having personal pockets of Highsec sprinkled around null for the Trit, as well as having Concord provide 100% protection against neutral attackers, AND being able to camp all the in-gates against hostiles…
Might actually be useful. 
Removed some 60 posts that were off topic and broke the rules. Keep it on topic and civil. Thanks.
Of course there is a way to flip a null sec system into a high sec one. Well, sort of. There is a way to make it much safer for neutral Capsuleers.
There is a game style called Not Red Don’t Shoot (NRDS). In that gamestyle a group of players flies around some space and protects it from pirates and terrorists.
It was previously accomplished by the Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris and Curatores Veritatis Alliance in order to expand Amarr Civilization to low sec and 0.0.
The major obstacle and the greatest fun is that it requires pvp.
But yeah, if the community wants it there are means to accomplish it.
Since when has human emotion ever had to make sense?
That’s like saying you consent to being robbed, raped or murdered the moment you step out of your home. Nobody consents. If it was consensual those carebears would not be complaining. You know this but you want to pretend otherwise.
I never said YOU did. I believe I was addressing a particular person who made several posts full of disdain for people who do not play the game how she feels it should be played.
Although I do not begrudge your playstyle, let’s not pretend it’s equivalent to carebear PvE. You’re playstyle involves enforcing your will upon someone else against their will. Their playstyle does not. That they might have an issue with your playstyle is understandable. If you were to despise them for minding their own business would not be understandable. There is an actual person behind that ship model. A person with feelings and emotions and you don’t get to dictate to them how they should or should not feel when you take it upon yourself to deprive them of their work, time and ISK. Now they are free to quit EVE and go play something else, for sure, but we can at least acknowledge that so-called “predators” do cause real life anguish to actual people. Not everyone is going to be so butthurt, but there is a subset that is. I believe it’s a minority. But those are the people making commotion and they become in our minds the face of hisec. The majority who don’t care aren’t going to be making noise b/c they are content or not so careless.
However, if I blow up some poor newb’s brand new [insert ship] that took him 3 weeks to save for I have to acknowledge that I may be inflicting real life emotional suffering on another human being. And then I have to ask myself what kind of person does that make me that I enjoy said tears. I understand why people would look at certain EVE players as “e-sociopaths”. What’s the saying? Hurt people hurt people. They’re entitled to feel a certain way about you just as you’re entitled to feel a certain way about them.
Nonsense.
If you step out of your home there is a reasonable expectation that you are going into a safe area where being robbed/murdered/etc is incredibly unlikely and not tolerated by society.
If you log into EVE (a PvP game which is clearly presented as such) there is no reasonable expectation that you will not be engaged in PvP.
Playing EVE and declaring that you “didn’t consent to PvP” is like jumping into a lake and yelling “I DONT CONSENT TO BE WET”. You can say the words all you like, but by taking an action with inevitable and foreseeable consequences you have implicitly consented to those consequences happening.
Nonsense. Their play style involves forcing other people not to attack them, preferably by changing the game mechanics to block any attack.
but we can at least acknowledge that so-called “predators” do cause real life anguish to actual people.
No we can’t. If you feel real life anguish over losing some stuff in a PvP game then you have serious IRL problems. Slight annoyance, sure. But keep things in perspective here.
And these are modern levels over hyper-empathy. If I pop a newb I start a convo and 9 out of 10 times it’s a “lol what happend” kind of deal. Conversation starters in this glorified chatbox. That there exist people whom have very strong emotions about virtual goods… yeah, that is an unfortunate side effect of our coddling societies I guess. I’m not able to take a comparison to actual robbery seriously because what is and is not acceptable behavior is 100% decided by the Terms of Use (to which any player explicitly consents). You will not be able to guilt trip me into thinking myself the asshole for protecting the space that I rat in with ships that ALSO take much effort and time to obtain.
Every newbie I have ever shot understood this principle. And all that were cool about it, I gave some advice and some ISK to get back in the game. I get ganked and robbed all the time in this game. It is that inherent player-danger that makes it interesting. If you disagree, you don’t just disagree with me, but with the core mechanics of the game, which have been cloaky-campy-scammy-stealy since it’s inception.
To this I actually strongly agree. So I’ve adopted the stance that I dont gank and pester people in hisec. The moment you jump that gate and CONSENT TO THE LITERAL POPUP that you might get popped by a player I’d be smart to assume you’re some guys alt trying to scout out my PVE activities. Remember, real predators do not kill for sport, but out of necessity. That some mistake this for malice is not something I am bothered with anymore. Not after getting blown up myself so many times.
So how does that work into the “venture ganking” script when Ventures are free?
That’s how many people feel about hisec. You know, a reasonable expectation that they are going into a safe area. So what exactly is your point? That it’s not reasonable to expect a certain amount of safety in HIGH SECURITY space? That’s literally the point of hisec. And by that logic it not reasonable to expect safety when you step outside you home.
EVE is not a “PvP game”. The numbers don’t bear that out. You might wish it was a “PvP game”. The developers might wish it was and/or intended it to be so. But it’s not. PvP is just one aspect. The very existence of CONCORD flies in the face of it being just a “PvP game”. There is reasonable expectation that I won’t be shot at in Hisec and 99% of the time that proves true. Just like it proves true 99% of the time in real life when we leave out homes. Don’t get me wrong, there are bad neighborhoods in hisec like in real life.
It’s nothing like jumping into a lake. Because EVE isn’t a lake. It’s a beachfront property. The people on the patio do not consent to being drenched just because the ocean is in view. People lounging by the pool do not consent to being drenched just because the pool exists. Now if I go into the ocean or jump in the pool that’s another story. That’s where low, WH and null come into play as agreed upon dangerous areas as opposed to HIGH SECURITY areas.
What you people seem to fail to understand is that you don’t get to tell anyone what they do or do not consent to. Consent is given. Nobody gave it. It doesn’t matter what you think EVE is supposed to be. Again, if consent was given then nobody would be upset because they gave me consent to blow up their ship. Do you not know how consent works? No matter how much you repeat that silly talking point it will never reflect reality.
Now perhaps CCP has given us consent to perpetrate unwanted attacks, but the mere existence of a game mechanic does not constitute consent on the part of all parties involved.
That is one of dumbest comments I read so far in this thread. Their playstyle forces you to not impose your will upon them? 
That’s like the confederate supporters claiming the emancipation proclamation imposed on their rights to take away other people’s rights (i.e. slavery). What an utterly ridiculous sentiment. 
Complete lack of empathy and self awareness. The more you talk the more I get why your type are viewed as e-sociopaths. Have you ever seen videos of people breaking controllers because they lost a match in Call of Duty or some other game. People have real emotional reactions to stuff that perhaps I can’t personally identify with. But I at least have the understanding to know that emotional reactions aren’t a choice. People feel how they feel. No amount of rationalization is going to overcome or negate emotion. Regardless of rather they have “serious IRL problems” or not the fact remains that anguish is being had. And knowing this, people are getting a kick out of causing said anguish. So maybe both sides have “serious IRL issues”.
Is it Fallacy Bingo week already?
Time flies
I believe I said it was a minority. But even if it wasn’t, where you have your anecdote someone else can come in with their anecdote on the opposite end of the spectrum.
Are you talking about hisec PvP or low/WH/null? I’m talking about people who do not leave hisec and have no wish to deal with PvP. I’m fairly certain the people I’m referring to wouldn’t even set foot in your ratting space (assuming it’s outside hisec). Maybe a brand new player who knows absolutely nothing, but it’ll be a lesson quickly learned.
Wait. You think I’m talking about people who willing go into established NO SECURITY space??? That wouldn’t even make any sense conversation wise. I’m not here talking about the equivalent of people who signed up for FW complaining that the other faction shot them. 
The people you’re dealing with chose to leave hisec knowing full well what was waiting on the other side of the gate. I’m not talking about those players. Of course they don’t care. They did consent, as you said. They literally have to read the warning and agree before leaving hisec.
Did it take 3 weeks to save for the FREE venture? Or even one bought off the market for that matter. Seems self explanatory. What a pointless question.
So if its free, then it didnt take him three weeks to save for.
And if you are going to now pretend that Ventures have nothing to do with it, its the single most cited (by players of your viewpoint) ship to be destroyed under the circumstances you describe.
Of course its relevent.
The point being it takes a new player virtually no time to get even the most basic isk printing tools together.
If it takes some one three weeks to replace their ship, they shouldnt have undocked it. Dont fly what you cant afford to lose.
If a new player hasnt read that about EvE, then they installed it blind and then why sympathy?
That’s the game though.
It’s fine and normal to get invested in a game to a certain extent. Part of the fun is the emotional highs and lows when you succeed or fail. Problems only arise when you can’t detach yourself from the game and those emotions affected you negatively in your real life.
If you can’t handle losing a close match at Call of Duty, you shouldn’t be playing Call of Duty. If you can’t handle losing a ship in highsec, you shouldn’t be playing Eve. Because that’s the game - nowhere is safe and both player and NPC pirates can show up anywhere and explode your ship.
It is completely unreasonable and unfair to expect people playing the game to consider “the feelings” of people behind the avatars in the game when they are playing the game as intended. I am onboard that any communication should be respectful and free of threats, insults and other prohibited things, but you can’t expect a player to consider the emotions of people they don’t know every time they take a action in a competitive game like Eve. Will this market order make someone sad? Will mining this rock make someone disappointed? Will exploding this dude mining in “my space” make them cry?
Eve is a competitive game. That people “get their kicks” and derive satisfaction from beating other players in a competitive game is perfectly normal. That’s what Eve is, so if you don’t want to, or can’t deal with that, then you shouldn’t be playing.
The breakdown in the argument happens when you try to claim that the existence of CONCORD somehow lessens the game’s PvP aspect.
That’s like saying that the existence of penalty cards makes soccer/football any less of a competitive team sport. Just because a player chooses to pick up the ball with their hands, and then casually walks into the opposing team’s goal (before getting ejected from the game) doesn’t turn the ball game into an entirely different experience from the one it’s advertised and widely accepted as.
CONCORD isn’t some kind of abstract, morality-based deterrent; it’s just a transaction tax.
The concept of “consent” with regard to EVE is entirely misplaced and erroneous. Consent is an act of choice in a system in which choice is a possibility. But in many aspects of life, consent is meaningless because choice doesn’t exist. For example, if it’s raining and you go outside without an umbrella, you’re not “consenting” to getting wet, because getting wet is a cause and effect relationship for a specific set of actions. Or, if you want a man-made example, let’s consider driving a car; if you do, then you’re not consenting to the car consuming gasoline - once again, it’s a cause and effect relationship.
Likewise, when you play EVE, you aren’t “consenting” to have your ships blown up when you undock; it’s a cause and effect relationship of merely playing. The possibility of opting out of player aggression never existed in this environment in the first place, so the notion of consent is meaningless.
If certain people have emotional reactions to such events as losing ships in an online video game, then they shouldn’t play that game, and should seek out other entertainment.
Just because certain individuals have gambling problems, doesn’t mean that we as a society are going to outlaw playing for real money in casinos. Just because certain individuals are prone to fits of anger, doesn’t mean that we as a society are going to ban violent action films. The examples go on and on.
And just because certain individuals become sad when their EVE spaceships are blown up, doesn’t mean that we will allow them to opt out of the open-world PvP that is one of this game’s core features.
Some self-policing has to be involved in any choice that a person makes. It’s unreasonable to dumb down all aspects of society so that it’s always in line with the capability of its lowest common denominator members. Would you like to live in a world like that?
Implied consent.
Maybe we will be able to make a liminality system into high or low sec again, who knows. And then it will be again a cozy place when u can relax mining in orca or bumble around foolishly, carebearing like usual.
I went camping in a forest once. I set my picnic basket out on a sheet, and arranged everything nicely. Then I went for a swim in the lake. When I came back, I caught the final glimpses of a bunch of wild animals finishing up the scraps of what was left of my feast! Well, I didn’t just take that lying down, I tell you what. I barged right into the park ranger’s cabin office, and told him that I did not consent to the animals taking my food like that. I understand that the animals gave their consent to eat my food, but I never reciprocated in kind! How could’ve they treated me like that? There must be something wrong with them mentally.
I explained my position to the park ranger, and told him that I demand that the rules of the park be changed so that taking a camper’s food isn’t allowed. The ranger said: “well you see, the only way to do that would be to put all of the animals in cages, effectively turning the park into a zoo.” But I said: “No! I don’t want to go camping in a zoo, I want to camp in a natural forest! I don’t see any reason why we can’t make it so that campers are able to eat their own food, while the animals eat theirs! Then everyone is happy!”
The ranger looked away in deep thought for a few seconds, and I finally felt like he started to understand what I was trying to tell him. “Hm,” he said, “that’s very interesting…”
“…Could you get the ■■■■ out of my office?”