Congratulations, you’ve just described the default state (ie: the state in which things exist before effort is made to alter conditions) of human interaction: permissiveness. Everything is allowed, because nobody has made any rules yet.
Certainly.
I agree that the Social Corp idea, in all its various forms, is intended to allow groups of high-sec PvErs to have their own corporate structure (not ‘structures in space’) around which to form social bonds and group identity without suffering war declarations through CONCORD, Further, I agree that the intention to avoid war declarations is rooted in the theory that this will reduce attrition and promote retention, yes.
While not specifically intended for that purpose, preventing players in a social corp from engaging in these activities would either require additional time and effort on the part of developers (ganking, can flipping, ship scanning) or be outright impossible (gate-watching once a target is identified, bumping). Additionally, these additional restrictions have nothing to do with the stated intention of promoting retention among members of the social corp. They neither help, nor harm that goal.
As a result, they are restrictions that are not needed. Restrictions that are not needed are a waste of effort in their creation, as well as a waste of resources in their enforcement[1], and should at all times be avoided. The conclusion that must then be drawn is that without a specific need for these restrictions to be placed on social corps, they should not be.
Similarly, the ability to operate beyond HS is not part of the specific intention of social corps. However, this does not mean there is no benefit to be gained from allowing them to do so. In fact, if social corps can operate in areas that are acknowledged to be specifically unsafe, this increases the likelihood that those players will choose to do so.
It increases this likelihood because human behavior can be seen in a general sense to follow the physical laws of motion: inertia applies, and actions have reactions. People tend to behave in predictable ways, adhering to reliable patterns, and need incentives to break out of those patterns. If we want people in HS social corps to eventually dip their toes into PvP, they have to have avenues by which to do so.
For many, the impetus to move into more dangerous space is obvious: money. Being able to, for example, make money in a C2 wormhole without needing to worry about whether their haulers will be emerging into a wardec through a static into highsec… that, for example, could be enough motivation to get players to move beyond the PvE-only mindset.
In this manner, the fact that the social corp provides a limited safe space in high sec (they can, after all, still be ganked) while allowing players to investigate more dangerous—and more rewarding—aspects of gameplay can only increase retention overall.
As such, the established purpose of Social Corps is clearly helped by the absence of additional, artificial restrictions on this behavior. So, no, I’d have to say I don’t agree, and there is a clearly demonstrable ‘point’ to Social Corps engaging in the indicated behavior.
Then you shouldn’t ask questions which require complete and reasoned answers.
- They’re also an infringement upon the natural agency of humanity, and should be avoided on that basis alone, but as we’re talking about a computer game here, that’s kind of a tertiary concern.