Seeing that the thread has run its course, I owe it to everyone who responded to share my own opinion (or very brief analysis) now, without having pushed the discussion in any direction before it started.
First off, I am convinced that the Not Red Don’t Shoot concept is valuable. The idea is/was a) to give newer players the opportunity to visit at least one region without being shot at “on sight” (Not Blue Shoot It) as soon as they pass the gate, which is the case in all other nullsec regions coupled with b) protection provided by the local sovereignty holders. Neutrals are free to roam, free to run anoms/signatures, mine, use certain facilities, etc, as long as they follow the NRDS rule itself by not initiating fights with locals or fellow neutrals.
The first couple of weaknesses present themselves there. 1) The rules need to be explained to any neutral visitor, 2) one must keep track of wrongdoers (hence the famous KOS list) - which proved a vast chore to manage - and 3) neutrals have to be kept informed of who is a potential attacker so they have at least a chance to get safe.
More important than the day to day administration of an NRDS region is the necessity to enforce the rule itself and to protect the sovereignty.
NRDS space, just by being “different” from the rest of nullsec, is - inevitably - an attractant. Some groups will come in to challenge the standing fleets, and others will come in to harass the weakest part of the population, i.e. the neutrals for whom all this was installed in the first place, to spite the sov holders, spite the whole NRDS idea, or get easy kills on unsuspecting targets. The feeling of being perpetually farmed, btw, was real but usually manageable until around 2015. Couple that with hisec wardec’ing and it becomes even more complicated (newer players don’t have the necessary alts trained up). Even without sovereignty challenges the pressure is high and constant. The sov holders have to be armed to the teeth and constantly vigilant if they want to retain credibility and reason-of-being, with presence in all time zones.
The final point. What if sovereignty is challenged ? The simple truth is that no single mid-sized coalition can hold on to sovereignty, even if they have a sizeable titan/super/dread fleet, when they’re up against a bigger and determined challenger usually accompanied by opportunist groups. And in a New Eden that has the aspect of a “blue donut”, bat phones are scarce and interests may be conflicting. Without a general consensus that a single NRDS region would benefit the game itself, and without appropriate enforcement of the region’s neutrality, it is only a matter of time before the region collapses. Is there any hope for such a consensus ? This is a dog eat dog environment, so it’s highly unlikely. And that, I fear, seals the fate of any mid to long-term NRDS effort in sov nullsec.
An NRDS initiative stands or falls with the adherence to the rule. It requires a level of self-restraint (don’t fire on a neutral until you are attacked). That also makes it inevitable that the NRDS sov holder’s coalition will be mid-sized at most, with only those pilots that are willing to follow the rule and forego the easy kills. Many say “if you can’t defend sov then you don’t deserve it”. That is of course true. But the same is true for even the largest coalitions, groups of pilots and influencers with a common interest. Without the definition of a common interest there is nothing but “shoot whenever, capture whatever, tears guud”. That is why diplomacy exists in EvE, no single group can pull everything off by themselves alone (one only has to look at past and ongoing wars in New Eden), including and perhaps especially an NRDS coalition.
If anything, NRDS could be seen as idealistic, a willingness to take the risk of being different. Being different, of course, creates an extra vulnerability that can never be overcome, an open invitation to aggressors who enforce uniformity in their own one-dimensional thought pattern of greed. Staying independent from larger coalitions while relying, at some point in time, on their military support or diplomatic influence with aggressors, is contradictory to say the least. But again, the same is true for any group.
That it has taken Provibloc 15 years to succumb is testament to their relentless effort and unfaltering belief, despite the meager resources at their disposal. They have been standing alone together for a very long time. They’re probably as much surprised as the rest of us that it has lasted this long. Yes, of course mistakes were made during those years, but which group hasn’t. Respect and thanks, Provi.
