Like I said are social corporations not an issue. You only delivered the proof for it.
Now make the next step, move foward, and start to understand how this will affect the current pool of corporations, the number of wardecs, the finding of war targets and of course less players leaving EVE due to warfare.
You cant have it both ways.
You first argue that Social Corps dont offer anything that cant be done already with Player, NPC Corps, chats and comms.
Then you turn around and try to argue Social Corps would be better, cos they can do things the above and current situation cant.
Makes no sense.
What are you hiding?
Iâm not hiding anything. You still havenât understood the need for the social aspect. Players do want to form groups and not just get tossed into a large NPC corporation. They want to have their own little organisation like most online games do.
They can, in a Player Corp.
Where they get wardecced and leave.
Iâm really starting to think you have a problem following the thread nowâŚ
Then fix wardec mechanics.
Le me be frank, the only reason you want Social Corps, is so CODE can form up proper, without risk of wardec, and suicide gank their hearts out with all the advantages a Player Corp offers, without being wardecced back.
Outlaws donât have the same âfearâ of war decs that most hi sec dwellers do
Actually no. What really amazes me is how CODE. actually own a structure in Uedama and yet nobody cares to destroy it. Now thatâs messed up. But thatâs also how EVE is.
Wardecs are then fine. They do exactly what theyâre meant to do. Whatâs wrong is quitters quitting. If we however do want to keep them here then we have to give them something where they can feel safe and among themselves. If they get left in NPC corporations, where theyâre also exposed to bitter vets and your average toxic 
-head then they might never get the solid ground they need to get started in EVE.
Have you considered, that if Social Corps are implemented, CODE can form into one, and be unwardeccable, continue suicide ganking, and have all the other benefits a Player Corp offers, even without a structure to their name?
You mean to say how this is no different from using an NPC corp?
Why would you even do that âŚ
Makes no â â â â â â â sense in the first place.
If we could somehow harvest all the effort that a paranoid person imagines in their head and turn it into real energy, then we had more power than the sun produces.
You do realise, donât you, that many of the people in ganking are -10 and can be freely shot, wardec or no wardec?
It is different.
An NCP Corp doesnt choose who gets in, or who is kicked out, and has no leadership/owner structure.
It also doesnt have shared Corp hangars, cant join an Alliance, and cant be given access Corp wide to structures, or flagged by allies/alts, but instead individual members must have their status adjusted based on preference of that character.
Many, perhaps.
Not all.
If Social Corps are implemented, CODE will become an unwardeccable Corp, which can continue to suicide gank, and run mundane PvE without wardecs, and benefits from all other Player Corp functions, except owning a structure, which they dont need anyways.
No, I meant in regard to your little CODE. example. Iâm saying it makes no difference if theyâre in a warfare corp or an NPC corp. They are all red anyway and the structure they already have in place gets ignored.
It makes a a difference as I explained here:
Not engaging a paranoid person is actually the healthy thing to do, because the more opposition they find the worse their state becomes. Good luck trying anyway, of course. Not that it really matters.
This thread is being dominated by three or four people who for some reason believe anyone who matters cares about what theyâre talking about.
vOv
No. It doesnât.
Youâre only confusing theoretical difference with actual difference. Theoretical differences are irrelevant. They are as meaningless as two players having different names. Only actual differences matter.
Honestly, it would make way more sense simply admitting that heâs right.