No it wouldn’t, it would mean that players can choose to operate and run missions in 1.0-0.8 systems if they choose. They could still operate in 0.7-0.5 systems as per now, but would need to take precautions exactly as now. This would mean new players can still function, learn, and earn ISK, older players can still function exactly as now, or drop back to lower missions for ease if they choose.
This allows wardec corps to still have a financial effect upon war targets, even if they won’t engage in the war. It also allows newer corps to dip their toes into wars and PvP, but with a ‘safe haven’ to drop back to for recovering from losses, planning, generating ISk etc.
You don’t, existing structures would need to be purchased back by Empires at the market rate, or moved down to 0.7-0.5 space. This would be done in tranches of change to minimize impact, and to allow those with existing structures to move them if they choose. This is a large wrinkle in my previous proposal, but by no means insurmountable. It also has the advantage that higher PvE content in hisec is concentrated into lower sec systems. Players can then create the markets to feed this activity away from the main hubs.
I feel as though that should hurt, perhaps I’m just missing some irony from my diet.
No.
There’s no law restricting me or anyone else to speak or interact with anyone (unless you’re a criminal irl)
This is libel, please stop trolling this thread Salvos…
They will have already seen it, already decided if any elements are workable and then put that forward to any CSM contact they have. I’m not about to spam people begging them to give me attention because I think my idea is the hisec wardec silver bullet.
Reread this sentence. Now think about what ‘the default state of human interaction is permissiveness, rather than restriction’ means. Here’s a hint: it means that the exceptions, the things you need to specifically ennumerate are… the restrictions. In other words ‘you can do anything unless there’s a law against it’.
Your statement is the same thing as the one you are claiming it refutes.
No, it makes sense for Social Corps to only have those additional restrictions that are necessary, rather than creating something with its own, all-new, potential vectors for attrition.
It is not.
Restrictions delineate that which is permissible, not vice versa.
The test for this is simple.
If all was permitted, it would mean there are no restrictions.
When all is not permitted, its a result of restrictions.
Restrictions, literally, restrict what is permissible. Not vice versa.
You have it backwards.
Agreed.
The restrictions I posted are necessary, to prevent Suicide Gank Social Corps and Social Corps in LS/NS/WH where wardec is irrelevant.
The Social Corp idea is specifically, and only, for HS groups of friends or solo players to form Social Corps, PvE in HS and not have to deal with wardecs which lead to them logging off and never returning.
My position is that anything which is not expressly illegal is allowed. That the restrictions, not the permissions, are the thing humanity has to put in effort to create. Do you agree or disagree?
I don’t address people specifically unless I want a definitive answer from them, or I’m asking them a question. Why spam people with the same idea over and over and over? Have some curtousy, they’ll see it and decide for themselves. If they choose to ignore it for whatever reason, that is their prerogative. If I gave someone an idea they think could be useful, or amended then fine, I did what I set out to do.
Ah.
The student challenges the teacher.
Excellent.
Agreed, with the caveat that which is not allowed, instead of that which is illegal, since the qualifier is what is allowed, rather than what is legal.
What is allowed and what is legal are not the same, nor are they the same as what is not allowed or illegal.
For example: Suicide Ganking is allowed, but is illegal in HS.
Explain “the thing humanity has to put in effort to create” part, in this context.
Alright, so for something to be ‘not allowed’, it has to be specifically indicated that that thing is not allowed. So: before anyone does anything—before anyone makes any laws or rules at all—which things are not allowed?
Lets return this to relevancy on the Social Corp idea, this thread and the Summit minutes.
Do you agree that the Social Corp idea is to enable small groups or solo HS PvErs, to have their own restricted Social Corp without wardecs, so as to prevent them logging off during wardec and never returning?
Do you agree that Social Corps are not intended for Suicide Gankers to form a Social Corp, so they can scout, gate sit, bump, suicide gank and retrieve loot, with wardec immunity?
Do you agree that there is no point to Social Corps operating or forming in LS/NS/WHs, where wardecs are irrelevant?
Before there exist any laws or rules at all, nothing is not allowed (ie: everything is allowed)
Thats what I explained above. That what is permissible is restricted, literally, by laws and rules that restrict conduct. Not vice versa. Thats the whole point of laws and rules, and extend into consent.
I don’t know why you care so much about a game you don’t even play.
Care to explain why you care so much about highsec wars, citadels, the CSM, bumping, ganking, etc. when it’s been proven again and again you have no experience or valuable imput to give on any of them?
