EVE General Discussion

Low sec is irrelevant, on page 3 : http://eve-kill.net/?a=home&m=5&y=2013&view=kills&scl_id=501&page=3 I see 0 jf killed in null.



You lack reading comprehension, don't blame me for that, let me explain again;
- I said that since jf are the main way to move stuff from null to hs and they are often used with corp assets and not personal assets that's why it's pretty logical to think they are getting reimbursed.
- Then you said but they don't reimburse cargo (no **** sherlock) and then something about jf not being invincible (what?).
How is that logic for you, I have no idea but my point is; a jf pilot (let alone a "decent" jf pilot) should never die and even if he die moving **** for his corp/alliance he'll probably get his hull reimbursed.
The keywords are in bold/underline, so you stop being confused.
I never said they are invincible I said a normal jf pilot is ungankable, sure people are getting killed in jfs (I really want to see a video of a jf gank) but people are sending isk to isk doublers too.
I really did my best to make it simple for you, please feel free to notice me if you still don't understand I'm a friendly person, I'll explain again.

The most bloated argument ever;
- I used the same logic as him
- Provided the same data from the same site
But I'm an obviousforum troll alt because my opinion is different, ahahahaah good joke.
Thanks for the tears bro.

Ask yourself what are they doing in lowsec and how relevant it is to the discussion about nullsec.
JF aren't invincible but a normally (or even below) constituted person flying a jf is ungankable, can you understand the difference or you want me to make it simpler.
Because I have no problem explaining basic stuff to you guys.

…as long as you're not talking about JFs as part of a null supply chain. Oh wait.

I comprehend just fine that you didn't address the points and instead tried to foist some kind of opinion on me. That is commonly called a strawman argument and is a fallacy, and is often used as a desperate attempt at trying to steer the discussion away from a point of discussion where the person making the argument starts to feel that his unsupported argument is collapsing all around him.

…and this is based on…? Also, logical shmogical. Logic is not reality. You claimed that they are reimbursed. What is that based on?

Nope. Another strawman on your part. Do you have anything to offer other than fallacies and unsupported claims?

…and the fact of the matter is that they're far from invincible, which is what matters since any claim to the contrary tries to dispute reality.

Which was not related to what I said originally.
What I responded to was an earlier post of his, saying that a number of HS people would move in if 0.0 entities moved out. To which I can say, "yeah, no 'human excrement in 4 letters', Sherlock!", and then I explained how, even if new entities from HS replaced "the old guard", CCP would generally not want the old 0.0 players gone, because of the number of subs they represent.
But seriously, you read the full quotes and still take that last part out of context?
The part you quote was my rebuttal at a totally unrelated post of himself that he quoted - not something I brought up. My thought when writing what you quote was "maybe he thinks his argument works if it had been directed at someone who argued what he might be replying to", which I showed would most likely not be the case.
So please, don't take my statements out of context, when you did have access to the whole context.
It's bad for the discussion.

People actually losing jfs are a minority for the jf population, besides how many billions isk were scammed this year?
You should never lose a jf if you're not massively bad at this game.

Yes I agree, but the game shouldn't be balanced around bad people.
It's ok mate we just have to wait for the changes from the whiteboard.

I normally don't answer to people that don't even read my posts but I feel nice here you go :


Feel free to explain why an alliance with tons of resources would not reimburse jf hulls, crippling their own economy and losing profits.
If you can actually read my post this time of course.

In what way?

Nope. I asked you what your claims were based on and pointed out that you hadn't provided any basis for a previous claim. You answered this by attempting to put words in my mouth and then ridicule the suggestion I supposedly (but not actually) made. This is called a red herring — specifically a strawman argument. It is an evasion and not an answer to anything.

Onus probandi. I don't have to prove you wrong until you prove yourself right first. Oh, and now you're going for a different fallacy: begging the question. The claim is that it's logical; your suggested basis for this is that it is logical, which is what was in question to begin with, which once again doesn't answer anything.

So, again, what is the logic based on?

Moreover. So what? You're committing a naturalistic fallacy. Just because it's (supposedly, but so far not provably) logical doesn't mean it is actually what's happening

So, again, what is the claim that they're being reimbursed based on?

I have to start before I can stop. It would have been nice to label this as yet another fallacy on your part, but why bother. Let's just call it what it is: a lie.
Also, again, I don't have to prove anything until you do.

You said that they were being reimbursed. You made no distinction. There are two sides in this thread: the “JFs are invicible” side and the “not really, and even if they were, so what?” side. You're on the former, and you keep calling them ungankable.

So, where did you prove me wrong, again?

Well, I requested evidence or logic to back up your statement, and you restated your statement.
So much for that evidence or logic.
When you move out of your 1-man-corp and/or the corp grows, I'll rely on your statement.
Until then, how about the simple "you're wrong" ? JF's are most often not corp or alliance assets, and do not get reimbursed.

As for corp assets, they probably get replaced, yeah. I pay my taxes for a reason.