These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

EVE General Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

The Heresy: a speculative guide to Under(mine) the New Order (long)
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Shao Huang
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#81 - 2013-04-20 18:48:23 UTC
Murk Paradox wrote:
Yea but the point is those who gank (NO specifically) are quite polite and friendly. Granted they are the ones causing the chaos, but still. The game supports it.

Those who wish to ignore the tenets of the game and do what they wish, when they wish and how the wish, follow the same rules and yet when "lose" go nerdraging crazy wishing RL harm.

Yet it's the gankers who are the bad guys, because they ask for 10mil isk.

Anyhow, that's all I got. For now =).


In my view the documented and debated actions of The Mittani are only relevant to this conversation as a consideration of how the boundaries of the system designated as a 'game' are drawn at any moment. Sometimes such boundaries are revealed by crossing them in whatever ways.

Part of the genius of the NO ideology is that it is actively working to redraw the boundaries of the system. My proposal is also a lesser version of this, both in terms of rhetoric and possibly strategic leverage. The NO have very effectively used agreed upon boundaries of the system as a means of working to redraw boundaries which were previously taken as given. This activity is at the heart of so called 'emergent play', in my opinion.

The NO is flying a super cap in their endeavor. I am flying a noob ship that I don't even understand how to fit.

My actual expectation is not that someone would do the exact form of what I have clumsily suggested, but that there are much smarter more experienced people with greater resources at their disposal who might take some part of it and grow it. That may or may not happen. There are weak signals of that possibility within the limited feedback mechanism of this thread and other communications I have received. No way to know without making the attempt.

Private sig. Do not read.
Audrik Villalona
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#82 - 2013-04-20 18:53:00 UTC  |  Edited by: Audrik Villalona
Shao Huang wrote:

My actual expectation is not that someone would do the exact form of what I have clumsily suggested, but that there are much smarter more experienced people with greater resources at their disposal who might take some part of it and grow it. That may or may not happen. There are weak signals of that possibility within the limited feedback mechanism of this thread and other communications I have received. No way to know without making the attempt.


The number of threads containing your proposal was in the double-digits prior to you making your version. None of the prior threads amounted to anything. If this version, by a quirk of random chance and audience, does inspire a real and effective competing corp in the field of blowing up miners, it will add to the New Order's mission and enjoyment. I say this so you will understand that when I state that your idea is not even near being new, and shows little chance of coming to fruition; I state it not gleefully, but with disappointment.
rswfire
#83 - 2013-04-20 18:58:20 UTC
Audrik Villalona wrote:
I never claimed you were a ganker, which shows a fundamental lack of reading comprehension on your part. The question "when may I expect you", was made to illustrate the typical uselessness of those who post about how vulnerable the New Order is to to competitive ganking squads--they have historically been keen to propose that 'other people' should compete with the New Order, but they typically aren't willing to do it themselves. This is exactly my point, and the flaw with every one of these proposals. You are just the latest in a long string of proposals for 'other people' to compete with the New Order; these proposals have never amounted to anything; nothing you have said is new or interesting. I fully understand that you are not a ganker, which was exactly my point.

To answer your question of whether I ever get tired of speaking 'in character' while playing a role: Yes I do,but luckily I do other things in EVE than converse in that manner, and I do other things in my life than play EVE; so what you see as a drawback worthy of question is in reality just an obvious and irrelevant fact. I also get tired of playing sports, going to parties, and eating Italian food, just to give 3 more completely irrelevant and obvious things that I do that I wouldn't want to do 24/7. And no, I haven't had reality blurred for me so that eating Italian food functions as a brainwashing method to put me into the cult of eating Italian food, what a ridiculous question for you to ask.

"Also, I think the better solution is to simply set up a corp and wardec all those permit-holding lemmings of yours and kill them without CONCORD intervention."

when may I expect your wardec?


First and foremost, I didn't start this thread, so I didn't actually propose anything. I was simply responding to it with my own thoughts. And they were based on the contents of this thread, as I haven't really given your group a great deal of attention, so if this has been said before, as I said before, I'm not particularly surprised.

Second, why would I want to compete with you? I don't agree with your ideology. If anything, I'm more likely to oppose your ideology and consider the merits of what has been discussed here.

As for the last thing, I think you've misunderstood. I wouldn't wardec you. That'd be pointless. I was suggesting that a more effective means of countering you would be to wardec the corps that have aligned themselves with you by means of "following your code."

This was simply following a train of thought that was brought up in this thread; how do you counter the "New Order?" Well, the op is absolutely correct when he says that most of those miners with permits actually have been lulled into a sense of security. I suspect that if they were countered with wardecs (this avoids that pesky ganking situation) and attacked outright, they might not feel that permit is worth so much anymore.

About Firesworn Nation .|. FB .|. G+ .|. Steam
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#84 - 2013-04-20 19:30:29 UTC
Shao Huang wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:
Yea but the point is those who gank (NO specifically) are quite polite and friendly. Granted they are the ones causing the chaos, but still. The game supports it.

Those who wish to ignore the tenets of the game and do what they wish, when they wish and how the wish, follow the same rules and yet when "lose" go nerdraging crazy wishing RL harm.

Yet it's the gankers who are the bad guys, because they ask for 10mil isk.

Anyhow, that's all I got. For now =).


In my view the documented and debated actions of The Mittani are only relevant to this conversation as a consideration of how the boundaries of the system designated as a 'game' are drawn at any moment. Sometimes such boundaries are revealed by crossing them in whatever ways.

Part of the genius of the NO ideology is that it is actively working to redraw the boundaries of the system. My proposal is also a lesser version of this, both in terms of rhetoric and possibly strategic leverage. The NO have very effectively used agreed upon boundaries of the system as a means of working to redraw boundaries which were previously taken as given. This activity is at the heart of so called 'emergent play', in my opinion.

The NO is flying a super cap in their endeavor. I am flying a noob ship that I don't even understand how to fit.

My actual expectation is not that someone would do the exact form of what I have clumsily suggested, but that there are much smarter more experienced people with greater resources at their disposal who might take some part of it and grow it. That may or may not happen. There are weak signals of that possibility within the limited feedback mechanism of this thread and other communications I have received. No way to know without making the attempt.



I wouldn't see it as NO redrawing the boundaries, as they aren't. In fact, it would be more accurate to describe it as NO creating an environment where the miners need to rethink where their assumed boundaries lie.

That's the beauty of it. The miners do not need to choose to be there. But their self righteous entitlement, although allowed, gives them the sense of "I do what I want". While that IS in fact true, it's that same ruleset that allows them to be ganked.

Therein lies the lesson.

This post has been signed by Murk Paradox and no other accounts, alternate or otherwise. Any other post claiming to be this holder's is subject to being banned at the discretion of the GM Team as it would violate the TOS in regards to impersonation. Signed, Murk Paradox. In triplicate.
Shao Huang
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#85 - 2013-04-20 19:30:38 UTC  |  Edited by: Shao Huang
Audrik Villalona wrote:
Shao Huang wrote:

My actual expectation is not that someone would do the exact form of what I have clumsily suggested, but that there are much smarter more experienced people with greater resources at their disposal who might take some part of it and grow it. That may or may not happen. There are weak signals of that possibility within the limited feedback mechanism of this thread and other communications I have received. No way to know without making the attempt.


The number of threads containing your proposal was in the double-digits prior to you making your version. None of the prior threads amounted to anything. If this version, by a quirk of random chance and audience, does inspire a real and effective competing corp in the field of blowing up miners, it will add to the New Order's mission and enjoyment. I say this so you will understand that when I state that your idea is not even near being new, and shows little chance of coming to fruition; I state it not gleefully, but with disappointment.


I understand. If I can try to summarize the development of proposed strategic action throughout the thread, recognizing that I might be simply covering well trodden ground. All communication is redundant by nature and sometimes things emerge from such redundancy.

Miners: act to increase the transactional cost through whatever legal means available to you. This does not include firing any shots from ship to ship. It is something you can do while mining to pass the time and amuse yourselves. I believe I understand the possible barriers to this and the cynicism that historical evidence seems to generate. Make real and even role play the attributions being made about you and 'your kind'. The NO ideology seeks to change the miners play experience based on a moral evaluation. The miners can act in simple ways to change the NO play experienced, without actively resisting NO in any way whatsoever. Minerbump itself provides a starting list of who to contact. How and in what tone would be up to you. Doing it whenever you are mining though is the key.

General: take actions to devalue the basis for miners making the decision to swear and keep the oath. In many cases the situated basis for this decision is starkly in contrast to the espoused NO view of the decision. NO has documented this pretty clearly. This might include targeting and testing all the assertions being made about the market of visibly bio'd oath miners. It might include a variety of other simpler actions.

General: the gankers and NO are reinforcing the very high sec dynamics they seek to alter by not competing with one another in open PvP for the right to gank miners. The means to such open competition are readily available, but they may have become infected by what the are attempting to address. This is not uncommon, since whenever we enter a system it also enters us. That is, systems do not actually self exist independently from us, but are an enacted and constructed phenomena.

General: wardec portfolio management- the above might present a business opportunity in the form of a wardec broker or aggregator providing some sort of subscription based service making wardecs much cheaper for a much more diverse set of people. The details of that would have to be worked through, including how this would function once it became a market. Things such as scale associated with 50 person caps, carrying costs, the constraints and synergies involved across alliance/corp wardecs when multiples are applied.... all that would have to be worked out in detail... I imagine how to do this and the possibilities/limitations would be almost self evident to those with much more experience in the area. I could imagine a menu of subscriptions containing different qualities of wardecs. If feasible it would allow a non combatant to profit either financially or ideologically. Price points for miners as investors should be competitive with NO prices. They invest in the wardec portfolio instead of the license. Price points for active PvP pilots should be matched to the value of the wardec portfolio being offered, but certainly much less than the maintenance of a wardec on their own. Of course all such ventures are speculative and take time to mature. For single agents, sitting bored in a station and ample resources, this might be a very amusing pastime. It might also be satisfying for even a very small, but profitable mining op as a side stream and if accomplished actually provides a preemptive, rather than reactive counter measure to gankers, enacted by the gankers themselves.

In some way the underlying question for me has been 'who is the oppressed and who the oppressor'? Various claims are made. It remains unclear to me and I feel fundamental pieces are missing or being actively deleted. Another way of asking the question is to ask 'what does it mean to be free in the EVErse?'

Private sig. Do not read.
Audrik Villalona
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#86 - 2013-04-20 20:29:00 UTC
rswfire wrote:
First and foremost, I didn't start this thread, so I didn't actually propose anything. I was simply responding to it with my own thoughts. And they were based on the contents of this thread, as I haven't really given your group a great deal of attention, so if this has been said before, as I said before, I'm not particularly surprised.


Is this an out-and-out lie, or a grievous mistake? In post #56 you make a proposal, and in post #58 you make clear that it is a proposal offered as a superior alternative to the one proposed by the OP: "Just seems like an easier solution than the one the op proposed." i await your answer.

rswfire wrote:
Second, why would I want to compete with you? I don't agree with your ideology. If anything, I'm more likely to oppose your ideology and consider the merits of what has been discussed here.


Why would I think you wanted to compete with the New Order? Well, you use the phrase: " What, you have some sort of monopoly in that department? No, of course not." Looking up the definition of monopoly: "Monopolies are thus characterized by a lack of economic competition to produce the good or service and a lack of viable substitute goods." You have thus explicitly referred to setting up a competitor. Again, are you intentionally lying, or is this a grievous mistake?

rswfire wrote:
As for the last thing, I think you've misunderstood. I wouldn't wardec you. That'd be pointless. I was suggesting that a more effective means of countering you would be to wardec the corps that have aligned themselves with you by means of "following your code."


As for this last point, I think you've misunderstood. I AM in a corp that has aligned itself with the New Order, as a means of following the code. I have no official position in the New Order, other than permit-holder and proud shareholder. Therefore, you are explicitly suggesting wardeccing me, although of course you wouldn't personally do it, or anything.

rswfire wrote:
This was simply following a train of thought that was brought up in this thread; how do you counter the "New Order?" Well, the op is absolutely correct when he says that most of those miners with permits actually have been lulled into a sense of security. I suspect that if they were countered with wardecs (this avoids that pesky ganking situation) and attacked outright, they might not feel that permit is worth so much anymore.


I, as a permit-holding miner, have been lulled into a sense of security because the people, like you, who suggest wardeccing and attacking me, don't actually do it. This will not change, therefore my sense of security is based upon the real fact that I am secure.
Audrik Villalona
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#87 - 2013-04-20 20:40:22 UTC  |  Edited by: Audrik Villalona
Shao Huang wrote:

In some way the underlying question for me has been 'who is the oppressed and who the oppressor'? Various claims are made. It remains unclear to me and I feel fundamental pieces are missing or being actively deleted. Another way of asking the question is to ask 'what does it mean to be free in the EVErse?'


in my personal view, the oppressors are the bot-miners and bot-aspirants who act to reduce the value of miners' work by competing with them unfairly. The oppressed are the miners who mine fairly and legitimately. The saviors are the New Order of Highsec, led by the original Savior, James315. The answer to the question: what does it mean for a miner to be free in the EVE-verse, is: to follow the Code perfectly.

The competing answer, that freedom consists of not following the code, is faulty. Not following the code ,in essence, means playing while afk, or botting. (If you want to raise the issue of someone who for some reason wants to play atk and not botting, but doesn't want to join the only effective group dedicated solely to championing real ATK miners in highsec, that's fine, but let's finish this more central discussion first?) Playing while afk means you're not really playing at all, at which point you have gained 'freedom' IRL (actually you haven't gained freedom IRL, but free time IRL), but abdicated your entire existence in EVE. This erroneous conflation between freedom of the player, and freedom of the pilot, is central to the opposition to the New Order. The freedom of the player is absolute: no one is being forced to play EVE. EVE has rules, and 'abdicating' one's freedom by choosing to play by the rules of EVE is not a loss of the freedom of the player, but the exercise of it. By exercising this freedom, and actually being ATK while logged in and while in space, you then transmit this freedom to the pilot. By exercising your freedom as a player in the opposite direction, and choosing to log in and be in space while afk, you are choosing to take away your pilot's freedom, as your pilot cannot legally initiate any actions while the player is AFK. Surely this is obvious and elementary, once explained?
Shao Huang
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#88 - 2013-04-20 21:11:08 UTC
Audrik Villalona wrote:
Shao Huang wrote:

In some way the underlying question for me has been 'who is the oppressed and who the oppressor'? Various claims are made. It remains unclear to me and I feel fundamental pieces are missing or being actively deleted. Another way of asking the question is to ask 'what does it mean to be free in the EVErse?'


in my personal view, the oppressors are the bot-miners and bot-aspirants who act to reduce the value of miners' work by competing with them unfairly. The oppressed are the miners who mine fairly and legitimately. The saviors are the New Order of Highsec, led by the original Savior, James315. The answer to the question: what does it mean for a miner to be free in the EVE-verse, is: to follow the Code perfectly.

The competing answer, that freedom consists of not following the code, is faulty. Not following the code ,in essence, means playing while afk, or botting. (If you want to raise the issue of someone who for some reason wants to play atk and not botting, but doesn't want to join the only effective group dedicated solely to championing real ATK miners in highsec, that's fine, but let's finish this more central discussion first?) Playing while afk means you're not really playing at all, at which point you have gained freedom IRL, but abdicated your entire existence in EVE. This erroneous conflation between freedom of the player, and freedom of the pilot, is central to the opposition to the New Order. The freedom of the player is absolute: no one is being forced to play EVE. EVE has rules, and 'abdicating' one's freedom by choosing to play by the rules of EVE is not a loss of the freedom of the player, but the exercise of it. By exercising this freedom, and actually being ATK while logged in and while in space, you then transmit this freedom to the pilot. By exercising your freedom as a player in the opposite direction, and choosing to log in and be in space while afk, you are choosing to take away your pilot's freedom, as your pilot cannot legally initiate any actions while the player is AFK. Surely this is obvious and elementary, once explained?


It is a cogent and very clear argument and I thank you for that. Sadly it does not clear up my confusion, such as I am. It is typically the case that emancipatory action can only arise from the oppressed themselves, rather than well intended actions of some 'other' party. The NO ideology seems to me to fully objectify an entire class of people, which act is fundamentally violent and an act of oppression.

Honestly, I am working it through as best I can.

I am not persuaded either way, but it can be argued and I think provides a better grounding, that the NO is oppressed and the Saviors revelation is a submission to and acceptance of this oppression. The NO is oppressed by a structural reality that allows bots and bot like behavior. Such structural realities are typically taken by both the oppressed and the oppressor as a fixed condition until such a time as some dialectic process reveals them to be an act of oppression, rather than a self occurring reality.

In that awakening the oppressed while sometimes initially acting with what formally appears to be violence, commensurate with the violence of the structure itself, can also be viewed as acting on the human impulse toward freedom in a loving and compassionate way. I feel ideologically, whether true or not, this is a better grounding for NO.

Personally I feel CCP should make a structural intervention with regards to bots by vertically integrating them into the game. Make them highly visible, regulated, contributing to the in game economy rather than removing money from the games developmental pool, create a skill tree having to do with AI and the possibility of singularities, require participation with your bots, while also removing the profitability for third party vendors. This last is most important and has been progressively done with almost all forms of 3rd party parasitic, game and community destroying behaviors in MMOs over the past decade or so.

Though I feel that games, and EVE in particular, only thrive from an active, generative form of participation, whether that be conflict, collaboration or both, I am not sure I fully agree that being afk is 'not playing'. In fact, the NO makes it playing, since it makes explicit the trade offs and risks associated with the activity. Without overplaying sophistry I might ask if you have ever been afk? Bio break? Phone call? Has your attention wandered?

Time - Phrase
00:59:35 There's no time to waste, then, is there?

01:02:04 I was thinking.

01:02:06 You were drifting.

01:02:10 Yes. It will not happen again.

01:02:14 Be warned, you were drifting.

From "Lawrence of Arabia"

If so, we are talking about a difference of degree, rather than of kind. Bots represent a difference of kind since the structure is fundamentally different.

Private sig. Do not read.
Audrik Villalona
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#89 - 2013-04-20 21:27:34 UTC  |  Edited by: Audrik Villalona
Shao Huang wrote:

It is typically the case that emancipatory action can only arise from the oppressed themselves, rather than well intended actions of some 'other' party.


{citation needed}


Shao Huang wrote:
I am not persuaded either way, but it can be argued and I think provides a better grounding, that the NO is oppressed and the Saviors revelation is a submission to and acceptance of this oppression. The NO is oppressed by a structural reality that allows bots and bot like behavior. Such structural realities are typically taken by both the oppressed and the oppressor as a fixed condition until such a time as some dialectic process reveals them to be an act of oppression, rather than a self occurring reality.


Under that definition of oppression, human beings IRL are 'oppressed' by the laws of physics. I have no desire to engage in a semantical debate about what 'oppression' means, so I will just accept that this is your definition, and not respond further to that line of argument.

Shao Huang wrote:
Without overplaying sophistry I might ask if you have ever been afk? Bio break? Phone call? Has your attention wandered?

If so, we are talking about a difference of degree, rather than of kind. Bots represent a difference of kind since the structure is fundamentally different.


I go afk constantly, to sleep, eat, go to work, go out on a date, etc. It's very simple, dock up and/or quit the EVE client, then go do those more important things. There's no need to overcomplicate it with differences of degree and kinds, we all need to go afk to do these things, and we all know how to dock up and/or log off first.
Shao Huang
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#90 - 2013-04-20 22:02:21 UTC  |  Edited by: Shao Huang
Audrik Villalona wrote:
Shao Huang wrote:

It is typically the case that emancipatory action can only arise from the oppressed themselves, rather than well intended actions of some 'other' party.


{citation needed}


Shao Huang wrote:
I am not persuaded either way, but it can be argued and I think provides a better grounding, that the NO is oppressed and the Saviors revelation is a submission to and acceptance of this oppression. The NO is oppressed by a structural reality that allows bots and bot like behavior. Such structural realities are typically taken by both the oppressed and the oppressor as a fixed condition until such a time as some dialectic process reveals them to be an act of oppression, rather than a self occurring reality.


Under that definition of oppression, human beings IRL are 'oppressed' by the laws of physics. I have no desire to engage in a semantical debate about what 'oppression' means, so I will just accept that this is your definition, and not respond further to that line of argument.

Shao Huang wrote:
Without overplaying sophistry I might ask if you have ever been afk? Bio break? Phone call? Has your attention wandered?

If so, we are talking about a difference of degree, rather than of kind. Bots represent a difference of kind since the structure is fundamentally different.


I go afk constantly, to sleep, eat, go to work, go out on a date, etc. It's very simple, dock up and/or quit the EVE client, then go do those more important things. There's no need to overcomplicate it with differences of degree and kinds, we all need to go afk to do these things, and we all know how to dock up and/or log off first.


Citations:
"Pedagogy of the Oppressed", Paulo Friere, pgs 55-56 available in free PDF by googling the title and PDF.
"From Dictotorship to Democracy", Gene Sharp, summarized on page 7 also available via free PDF.

Other references are possible, but these to are readily accessible and speak directly to the point. Procedural instructions are given later in both works. FDTD is more or less considered a 'play book" for non-violent revolution.

If you review the nature of the Einstein-Bohr correspondence and later EPR experiments you might find a precedent for the constructed nature of physics within physics itself. There are other more recent arguments in physics and more esoteric approaches to the question. You could also refer to Thomas Kuhn, though I do not have page references handy. For a useful deconstruction of the 'objectivist' endeavor I would recommend the critical theorists, maybe starting with something like 'Theory and Praxis' by Habermas or something much more accessible is 'Metaphors We Live By' by George Lakoff. Should you wish to explore the biological nature of the epistemological/ontological dialectic (and get completely messed up) I might recommend 'Tree of Knowledge' by Humberto Maturana and Francisco Varela.

While I am ATK while actively playing and don't fully understand the point of anything else, I have not attained the level of constant presence you seem to imply. I die as a result no doubt. I suspect that AFK play is based on an experience of actual or assumed scarcity of time and resources coupled with the desire to get somewhere, participate in or attain something which may be unique to the player. I don't have those, about the game at least, so I cannot be certain.

Perhaps it is because of the missing citations, but you seem to have skirted the main point through referring to what you yourself introduced to the thread in response to my question as suddenly being 'semantical debate'. It seems so to me at least.

Edit: the problem with citations is that they can create an artificial impression of authorization. This is not my intent, and do not experience myself a authorized or seeking to be authorized in any way whatsoever.

Private sig. Do not read.
Audrik Villalona
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#91 - 2013-04-20 22:35:55 UTC
Shao Huang wrote:

Perhaps it is because of the missing citations, but you seem to have skirted the main point through referring to what you yourself introduced to the thread in response to my question as suddenly being 'semantical debate'.


You asked a question. I answered it. You responded to my answer. The semantic differences between our definitions of 'oppressed' were at that point understood to be massive. This long and drawn-out process is the exact opposite of "suddenly being".

I would say that instead you are skirting the main point, by drifting further and further from anything directly relating to EVE online, and citing more and more abstruse philosophies. As before, my response to this drift is to not respond to those tangents. If you perceive that as 'skirting the main point', then sobeit, consider it skirted, and fly safe.
Manny Moons
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#92 - 2013-04-20 22:40:36 UTC
The point I was trying to make, and the beauty of the New Order, in my opinion, is this:

1. If you pitch in with the New Order, it helps the New Order.
2. If you actively oppose the New Order, it helps the New Order.
3. If you compete with the New Order, by bumping or ganking miners, it helps the New Order.
4. If you attack code compliant, permit holding miners, it helps the New Order.
5. If you attack New Order knights or agents, it helps the New Order.
6. If you foment dissent among miners, you help the New Order.
7. If you create anti-New Order forum threads, it helps the New Order.
8. If you do nothing, while it does not help the New Order, it doesn't hurt them, either.

If you can't believe it's possible for all these statements to be true, then you don't understand the New Order.
Shao Huang
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#93 - 2013-04-20 22:49:21 UTC
Audrik Villalona wrote:
Shao Huang wrote:

Perhaps it is because of the missing citations, but you seem to have skirted the main point through referring to what you yourself introduced to the thread in response to my question as suddenly being 'semantical debate'.


You asked a question. I answered it. You responded to my answer. The semantic differences between our definitions of 'oppressed' were at that point understood to be massive. This long and drawn-out process is the exact opposite of "suddenly being".

I would say that instead you are skirting the main point, by drifting further and further from anything directly relating to EVE online, and citing more and more abstruse philosophies. As before, my response to this drift is to not respond to those tangents. If you perceive that as 'skirting the main point', then sobeit, consider it skirted, and fly safe.


I personally did not feel the need for citations, but provided them per your request.

What I am surprised by is that I think the ideological grounding I offered is potentially quite useful to NO. I am unclear what it is you imagine you are 'debating'. Sorry for my confusion.

The question I was really asking was 'what does it mean to be free in the EVErse'? I found your post distinguishing between RL and game and pointing to moments of conflation quite useful. Having introduced such a distinction I find attempting to discredit the RL references, which you requested, without actually engaging them directly to be disingenuous. It is probably not intentional on your part, but I can't tell.

I have never ceased to be considering the question within the context of the EVErse in so far as I am able. It might be relevant to consider that I have been playing less than a month. As a dismissal of the conversation this might be useful to you.

Really, if the conversation is no longer valuable to you or has ceased to be amusing in some way you could just say that, if anything. I honestly appreciate your participation this far.

"Suddenly being" seems thorny to me. If you are still present perhaps you could unfold it a bit?

Private sig. Do not read.
Shao Huang
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#94 - 2013-04-20 23:01:04 UTC
Manny Moons wrote:
The point I was trying to make, and the beauty of the New Order, in my opinion, is this:

1. If you pitch in with the New Order, it helps the New Order.
2. If you actively oppose the New Order, it helps the New Order.
3. If you compete with the New Order, by bumping or ganking miners, it helps the New Order.
4. If you attack code compliant, permit holding miners, it helps the New Order.
5. If you attack New Order knights or agents, it helps the New Order.
6. If you foment dissent among miners, you help the New Order.
7. If you create anti-New Order forum threads, it helps the New Order.
8. If you do nothing, while it does not help the New Order, it doesn't hurt them, either.

If you can't believe it's possible for all these statements to be true, then you don't understand the New Order.


Yes. I in fact believe this to be the wonderful 'logic trap' involved in the rhetoric of the NO and many such things. It is one of the reasons for my interest, such as it is. It overlaps with other interests I have. I have claimed from the beginning that the steps to Under(mine) the NO are fully consistent with the values of the NO. It does however give a different point of access, means and therefore (self authored) alternative narrative should anyone wish to engage a level of narrative that is not simply dictated to them by NO instead of CCP. Of course I have no idea if this is of interest to or viable for anyone. I certainly don't feel anyone 'needs' such a narrative or to have it be influenced by me in any way. It is as I said in the first sentence 'an offering'.

Private sig. Do not read.
Lady Areola Fappington
#95 - 2013-04-20 23:10:32 UTC
Manny Moons wrote:
The point I was trying to make, and the beauty of the New Order, in my opinion, is this:

1. If you pitch in with the New Order, it helps the New Order.
2. If you actively oppose the New Order, it helps the New Order.
3. If you compete with the New Order, by bumping or ganking miners, it helps the New Order.
4. If you attack code compliant, permit holding miners, it helps the New Order.
5. If you attack New Order knights or agents, it helps the New Order.
6. If you foment dissent among miners, you help the New Order.
7. If you create anti-New Order forum threads, it helps the New Order.
8. If you do nothing, while it does not help the New Order, it doesn't hurt them, either.

If you can't believe it's possible for all these statements to be true, then you don't understand the New Order.




Your post reminded me of the times we've bought the active "rebel resistance" new ships, because they couldn't get the ships themselves due to RL constraints.

Everything anyone does in connection with The New Order helps us. Sure, they think they've "gotten away" with non--permit mining, in a tanked ship while ATK and watching local...but in reality, we've won. They changed ways to adapt, which is the ultimate goal.

I've got no qualms with legit miners who understand and play EVE. I dislike the AFK psuedo-bots that populate our 'roid belts nowdays.

7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided. --Eve New Player Guide
Audrik Villalona
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#96 - 2013-04-20 23:24:23 UTC
Shao Huang wrote:
I personally did not feel the need for citations, but provided them per your request.


That was a joke, a humorous reference to wikipedia, whose meaning you misinterpreted. anyway.


Quote:
I found your post distinguishing between RL and game and pointing to moments of conflation quite useful. Having introduced such a distinction I find attempting to discredit the RL references, which you requested, without actually engaging them directly to be disingenuous.


I made a simple point, that people confuse the actions and freedoms of players and pilots in EVE online. Not only do I not consider a list of philosophers a direct engagement of this point, I find it 100% the opposite, and highly impolite. So yes, that's a conversation ender. See you in space, if you're not afk and/or podded back to station, as you describe your typical status to be.
Shao Huang
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#97 - 2013-04-20 23:34:43 UTC
Audrik Villalona wrote:
Shao Huang wrote:
I personally did not feel the need for citations, but provided them per your request.


That was a joke, a humorous reference to wikipedia, whose meaning you misinterpreted. anyway.


Quote:
I found your post distinguishing between RL and game and pointing to moments of conflation quite useful. Having introduced such a distinction I find attempting to discredit the RL references, which you requested, without actually engaging them directly to be disingenuous.


I made a simple point, that people confuse the actions and freedoms of players and pilots in EVE online. Not only do I not consider a list of philosophers a direct engagement of this point, I find it 100% the opposite, and highly impolite. So yes, that's a conversation ender. See you in space, if you're not afk and/or podded back to station, as you describe your typical status to be.


Thank you. I am never in game and afk as stated. I am frequently unable to log in. I am getting better at spending much longer times between getting exploded or podded whilst also moving about, though not a lot of progress on exploding and podding others as of yet. Incremental in game improvement is fine with me though. I am not trying to get anywhere in particular.

Private sig. Do not read.
Agent Trask
Doomheim
#98 - 2013-04-22 01:43:49 UTC
Katran Luftschreck wrote:
Lin Suizei wrote:
How long before you start actually doing something about it?


Me? That would be never, as I have no interest in wrecking my 5.0 by hanging out in ice belts and becoming a ganker myself.

But for people with multiple accounts... well, isn't that what multiple accounts are for?


And that, Katran, is exactly why all these elaborate miner plans come to naught.

Every complaining miner wants someone else to fix the problem for them. They do not want to do it themselves. Wrecking your main's sec status is not even required. All you would need is a 1 week old ganking alt to do the dirty work, while your main simply looks for victims with James315 support in their bios.

But you won't do it. You couldn't be bothered. No miner can be bothered.

Which is why we continue to win.

Join the New Order, buy your permit today, and follow the code.

www.minerbumping.com
Agent Trask
Doomheim
#99 - 2013-04-22 01:47:19 UTC
Shao Huang wrote:

Miners: act to ...


And that is where you fail.

Any plan you make requires a non-carebear act by a miner.

It never happens. The most we get is the Carebear stare: A miner yellowboxing a scout, while the scout laughs at him in local and vectors in a gank fleet.

Join the New Order, buy your permit today, and follow the code.

www.minerbumping.com
Shao Huang
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#100 - 2013-04-22 02:13:16 UTC
Agent Trask wrote:
Shao Huang wrote:

Miners: act to ...


And that is where you fail.

Any plan you make requires a non-carebear act by a miner.

It never happens. The most we get is the Carebear stare: A miner yellowboxing a scout, while the scout laughs at him in local and vectors in a gank fleet.


Your analysis could well be right. I have no way of knowing. I don't consider myself failing, but I don't imagine that we share the same criteria for success/failure. That's just a guess though.

Private sig. Do not read.