This could really coincide well with my idea i made earlier in this thread.
Ill repost it here:
I still think this is the huge factor missing in many of the anti-gankers mentalility. They have have no perspective on the actual mechanics involved on the whole ganking affair. Jumping the fence and seeing this act from a gankers perspective would go a long way with a players surviveability and proper ship fitting knowledge.
Involving sec status would be a great addition.
The Hulk is not a solo ship. It’s the most commonly ganked mining ship
I missed post. That is what will be nice to have.
This is, by definition, a MULTIPLAYER game.
Literally =nothing= is intended for solo players.
Playing solo is a voluntary handicap.
Yea, I thought it would be fair that CONCORD response time is impacted by how lawful a character is, and it is a bit of compensation for the large increase in default response time that was part of the same suggestion.
It would be a nice addition of more player agency when it comes to CONCORD response timers.
I realize it would introduce a large sec status grind for hauling characters to get to 5 for the quickest response timer. My own hauling character isn’t nearly anywhere close to 5 either. 
Nooo. I avoid active tank wherever possible. Its one of the reasons I use passive armour or even hull tank for suspect hunting….as it frees up mid slots for sensor boosters. Most of my ships with fast scan resolution are passive tanked. I also don’t have to mentally fart about with working out shield booster levels…..as my tank never changes and I can see exactly what I have left.
The only exception is ADC on HACs. 510K EHP on a Heavy Neutron Blaster Eagle is quite nifty !
Active tank is for greedy carebears who are trying to maximize their isk/hr.
Me! Active tank is for me! It’s no fun unless you’re getting blasted while you’re capacitor is dropping to zero and you know your shields will follow soon after 
And when they employ a Nos? The adrenaline gets pumping! Hasn’t yet happened on a mining ship, but it has happened. Lost a Vindicator that way.
I love active tank. Jump into a new system, see an active gate camp, begin your warp alignment, and slide your finger across Alt F1-F6 hoping you get them all without missing any!
I would suggest that the sec standings have more of an effect in the game. currently i believe that sec status means very little in the ways of punishment/reward. my suggestion would be having sec status having drastic effects to criminals “high sec gankers”, dont get me wrong i believe that ganking is and should be a part of the game, but just like in the life we live as in the game, criminal activity should have a consequence, and a lasting one.
for example, once you reach a certain sec status, things start happening
-2 status means you are not able to dock in any high sec NPC stations
-4 status means you can no longer dock in any low sec NPC stations (empire aligned )
-6 status you’re labeled a high priority criminal and anyone is able to shoot/kill you without penalty
-8 status you’re labeled an extremist, the empire navies and concord actively hunt you while youre out in space (.5 or above) showing up where you are if uncloaked or motionless
-10 status the corp you’re in becomes war-decable no matter what
every status reached would incur a stacking negative multiplier -1 to -10 making it harder to regain sec status the more criminal acts that are committed, and this stain on your record we will call it doesnt go away, if you regain your sec status it gets rid of the negative multiplier for that status, like +5 status gets rid of the -5 multiplier, but going back down to negative status doubles the mutiplier so now a -1 would be a -2 but as the negative affects double for the high sec empires/npc stuff so do the positive ones towards pirate factions and any un-aligned empire sects or something.
the positive could be beneficial effects towards pirate factions in the game with lower sec status granting more LP/Isk rewards or access to items/bpc from pirate factions or something that makes choosing the criminal life worth it as you can only access those items at certain negative status.
to me this suggestion would help stem the flow of the “ganking needs to stop” crowd because if implemented the more criminal acts “ganking” a person does means they would have to upgrade their ship in order to avoid the penalties
again this is just an idea not sure if it would work but maybe?
That wouldn’t be any “positive” for gankers, as they have basicall no interest in shooting red NPC symbols for meaningless currencies. What they want is killmails and salt.
So, if we would accept all your pretty harsh restrictions for pirates, would you agree to increase CONCORD response time to 1 minute in 1.0 systems, scaling up to 5 minutes in 0.5 systems for example to make ganking require less accounts that then all have to be moved from some lowsec entries through highsec towards their targets? You surely understand that it is hardly possible to move a whole multiboxed squad of gankships multiple jumps through highsec without losing half of them to tacklers on the gates on your way, right? And your intention is surely not to “shut down” ganking completely, right? You want balance, right? So, do you agree with a drastically increased CONCORD response time then?
I appreciate the honest reply with ideas that include both positives and negatives!
I feel like that system would essentially destroy ganking though. Actively hunted by everyone, everywhere? That doesnt even happen in real life.
If we consider the empires as actual empires, I should think if you have a high standing with one or two, they might extend a non extradition clause for your protection, as a valued asset of that empire.
I really like the bonus for interaction with pirate factions. I believe this should indeed be a thing. While there is no honor amonst thieves, there certainly is respect for infamy.
an increase in concord time would only be beneficial to the ganker though, and the restrictions i believe are justified as right now there is no form of punishment/consequences for criminal acts. but yes an increase would be ok if that would balance it out but not as drastic as mentioned as if a solo player can be ganked then the ganking party should be more player based and not account, meaning not so much multi boxing to gank but a coordinated player action with more individual accounts (actual people, jeez not sure how to get that out)?
hmm youre correct it doesnt happen in real life, i dont think it would destroy it but then again i dont gank so im not sure. maybe this can be rolled into faction warfare with your mention of empire standing extradition clause, where you gank matters ? you loose status with amarr empire and the people in amarr FW can kill you anywhere any time ?
That would be interesting. I’m not sure how viable it would be to force ganksters into FW though. They are providing a service in teaching new players and lazy old players that fitting matters, especially all those folks using ORE Mining lasers. as well as it teaches them that ignoring your surroundings in an inherently hostile environment is a bad thing to do.
I would like to suggest a revision to reduce the punishments to a more reasonable proposition.
hmm, ok
-2 no docking high sec npc stations
-4 no docking low sec npc stations
-6 you are charged to go through gates, like jump bridges can have a “tax” on it, your sec status and the system sec status would determine the amount, which would change for each system as the security status is different. and as your sec status lowers the cost rises.
-8 this is where concord and the navies hunt you, but only in .8 systems or above ? or just an all out ban from .8 systems or above ?
-10 your corp is war-decable no matter what and at this point you have to be in a corp cause the npc ones will not take you and if not then you are able to be hunted by players with high sec status or something
i believe this is more acceptable maybe ?
sure, like an increase of penalties like you suggested would only be benefial for their targets. Thats why it is called “balance”. If you want to have pretty harsh downsides enforced, you’d have to grant pretty high upsides in return, else it is just another disguised “nerf ganking until no one does it any more” attempt. If that is your goal, you could just say so.
I would like to question this part. Why would lowsec be involved?
Like a contraband tax? What do you think would be an appropriate starting point?
How would this work for corps that have just a member or two participating in high-sec gankster life? Or simply killing people that are habitually bumping them, for example?
This part specifically, could actually open the doors for a whole lot of miners and others to get ganked with absolutely no repurcussions at all.
well your original question was suggestions, i suggested sec status being used as punishment/reward high sec is controlled by the empires so with sec status would attribute punishment standing with their instillations no matter where.
not really good with math, but this would depend on sec status, so if this started at -6 then i would say 60k isk then multiplied by the positive sec status of the system you are jumping into.
thats understandable, but there already is no real repercussions, i think i wrote that wrong in the sense that the miner in the corp with a corpie who is ganking would know whats going on as their corp is declared war upon so they would have an active wardec and hence get the warnings and messages associated with that. and the hunting would be individualized like bounty hunters i guess
fair, and makes a lot of sense!
the thing about a comment like this is i believe myself more in the middle while you are just on the other side of the aisle of the people who want ganking gone. as it stands right now, there is no consequences to the ganker/criminal in terms of when it comes to the effort of what people have achieved to the effort needed in taking it away form them. ganking is good, it creates content which is good, its player driven which is also good but in terms of your balance comment, if telling the recipient of the gank that they need to do better and fit and dont carry so much and yada yada ( when lets face it, if yall want it dead, its going to die) which is ok, as the original poster mentioned in a reply to me earlier in the post that lessons are being taught, but those lessons are one way when no lasting “consequences” to encourage the ganker to increase the risk to them which as of now is negligible then its not balanced. so increasing the concord time would be ok but not drastically, which is what i said but you only quoted what you want to hear.