These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Why is there no way for us to attack supply lines in eve?

First post
Author
James 420
EVE Corporation 98188875
#561 - 2013-06-01 22:43:31 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
James 420 wrote:

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.


People jump up their items at their own risk, no JF pilot who dies outside of an official operation will get reimbursed. This is from the people with the most generous reimbursement programme.

Agreed but completely irrelevant, we are talking about attacking supply lines of big alliances not about a single indy moving stuff and dieing in his jf somehow.

Alphea Abbra wrote:
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. Shocked


It's very difficult for me to gather data, I would need to join all the corps in null at the same time. Which I can't do, but I can use my brain and give you what most alliances/corps must do because it's logic and profitable.
Can you show me data? No, then can you prove my logic wrong? Welp, seems like you can't.
This is not my only character, I don't want to post with them (or maybe am I?) for strategical reasons so please be gentle.
You are just getting proved wrong by a 1man corp person that seems to know more stuff about null than you do, kinda sad.

Proud enforcer of 420 BLAZE IT

Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#562 - 2013-06-01 22:43:41 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
James 420 wrote:
Not a good way.
…so you can't actually explain yourself or provide any basis for your claim, as usual.

Quote:
I answered on the second post, you are the one calling me names
Nope and nope, in that order. In the second post, you just made more unsupported claims without anything to back them up, which was added to the pool of things I would like to know what they're based on.

Quote:
Yes in this case my opinion is not better or worse than yours unless any of us can provide actual legit data on how many jfs are getting reimbursed in null.
So you admit that your claims have no basis then. Good. That's all you had to say.

Consequently, your supposed logic doesn't matter either even if you could offer anything to support it (and you still have no basis for it anyway).

Quote:
Please you really need to stay focused and only prove me wrong when you can.
You need to prove yourself right before I have to do anything. Until you do, all I have to focus on is to get you to provide said proof. Since you just admitted that you can't and that you have no basis for your claims, my job is done.

Quote:
Do you actually read my posts, I said more than 3 times that they are not invincible but risk-free it's a pretty big difference.
…and yet you keep arguing that they are, and you keep trying to suggest that I've said things that I haven't. Based on the pattern above, I feel pretty safe in concluding that you have no basis for these claims (or for the first one quote above) either.
Alphea Abbra
Project Promethion
#563 - 2013-06-01 22:46:02 UTC
James 420 wrote:
(...)
Tippia wrote:
Onus probandi.

Avada Kedavra.
(...)
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH.
Damn your excrements from a male bovine is so thick, you could use it to reinforce your cave. Anyway, as you have shown time and time again, you're not interested in learning yet.
When you are, please read the thread again. Feel free to thank any posters who opened your eyes when you're done.
James 420
EVE Corporation 98188875
#564 - 2013-06-01 22:58:01 UTC
Tippia wrote:
…so you can't actually explain yourself or provide any basis for your claim, as usual.

Well either you are a massive zealot on steroid, either you don't understand my posts because you keep asking the same questions I just answered.


Tippia wrote:
Nope and nope, in that order. In the second post, you just made more unsupported claims without anything to back them up, which was added to the pool of things I would like to know what they're based on.


They are not claims, it's just my opinion based on logic and data from eve-kill and the official eve forums and my personal knowledge of the game.
Please feel free to notify me If I left any of your questions unanswered, I'm pretty sure I didn't.

Tippia wrote:
So you admit that your claims have no basis then. Good. That's all you had to say.

Consequently, your supposed logic doesn't matter either even if you could offer anything to support it (and you still have no basis for it anyway).


No I don't claim to know about every single corp and their politics on reimbursing jfs but It's pretty safe to think that they reimburse most jfs that are used to move corp assets.
If my logic is so flawed, please feel free to give me arguments and not just comment on my claims and ask questions.

Tippia wrote:
You need to prove yourself right before I have to do anything. Until you do, all I have to focus on is to get you to provide said proof. Since you just admitted that you can't and that you have no basis for your claims, my job is done.


I am right till proved wrong, same here.

Tippia wrote:
…and yet you keep arguing that they are, and you keep trying to suggest that I've said things that I haven't. Based on the pattern above, I feel pretty safe in concluding that you have no basis for these claims (or for the first one quote above) either.


I think you are confused, JFs are not invincible (that's your claim) they are risk free please answer my question on how to gank a JF that know his timers.
Still right, I'm waiting for your data.

Proud enforcer of 420 BLAZE IT

Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#565 - 2013-06-01 23:06:01 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
James 420 wrote:
Well either you are a massive zealot on steroid, either you don't understand my posts because you keep asking the same questions I just answered.
…except that piling on more unproven assertions does not qualify as proving the previous unproven assertions. So no, you didn't answer them.

Much like what you're doing here: still not explaining or proving your claim. As usual. I suspect that you just threw that “entitled” in there because you've heard it being thrown around in previous highsec vs. nullsec arguments without ever fully understanding what the word meant…

Quote:
They are not claims
Yes they are. You claim that “most jf are getting reimbursed which is true” — a claim you have not been able to provide any basis or evidence for, and which you have admitted that you can't prove.

Quote:
No I don't claim to know about every single corp and their politics on reimbursing jfs but It's pretty safe to think that they reimburse most jfs that are used to move corp assets.
…based on…?

Quote:
I am right till proved wrong
Incorrect. That is pretty much the exact opposite of how it works. You are wrong until you prove yourself right. At that point, the rest of us can prove your wrong again. You haven't even gotten past the first step since you so adamantly refuse to provide anything that even remotely counts as supporting evidence. The fact that you can offer nothing but fallacies just pushes you deeper into the bog of wrongness.

Quote:
I think you are confused, JFs are not invincible (that's your claim)
No it is not. You are the one who's on the “invincible JF” side of the argument and who keeps referring to them as ungankable, which goes counter to reality as previous link wars have amply demonstrated.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#566 - 2013-06-01 23:06:45 UTC
James 420 wrote:
completely irrelevant


Funny how every time its pointed out that your argument is wrong it suddenly becomes irrelevant.

Alphea Abbra
Project Promethion
#567 - 2013-06-01 23:14:53 UTC
James 420 wrote:
I am right till proved wrong, same here.
The post of mine that you liked a few minutes ago?
That one where you answer "Avada Kedavra." to Tippias "Onus probandi." ?
Yeah, so ... about that reality, maybe you should get back together with her?

For the record (In case you are as 'state of severely impaired mental faculties' in 6 letters as your posting shows), the words Onus Probandi are latin, AFAIK the literal translation is Burden of Proof, is a legal and scientific term for the principle that he who proposes something must first prove it, before asking others to disprove it. In law, it would normally be expressed "innocent until proven guilty".
The opposite would be that any claim is true until disproven.

It is used to be able to discard rubbish based on the lack of merit, instead of having to devote time to any claim that can be uttered. Imagine how it would be if you could be accused of anything, and the judge should convict you unless you could prove your innocense? Or if scientists were to take any claim at face value, unless they could disprove it?
That's probably why Tippia stated it before.

So, are you going to lift that burden?
James 420
EVE Corporation 98188875
#568 - 2013-06-01 23:25:45 UTC
Tippia wrote:
…except that piling on more unproven assertions does not qualify as proving the previous unproven assertions. So no, you didn't answer them.

Much like what you're doing here: still not explaining or proving your claim. As usual. I suspect that you just threw that “entitled” in there because you've heard it being thrown around in previous highsec vs. nullsec arguments without ever fully understanding what the word meant…


It's just my opinion on you based on the few posts I'm reading of you, maybe I'm wrong and you're a chill guy just having a bad day.

Tippia wrote:
Yes they are. You claim that “most jf are getting reimbursed which is true” — a claim you have not been able to provide any basis or evidence for, and which you have admitted that you can't prove.


Nope, it's just you lacking reading comprehension AGAIN, I can't prove it because it's impossible to prove since you have to gather private data from all the corps in null, you can't either and you are just dodging AGAIN, where is your data, prove me wrong?
Third time I ask you to prove me wrong, third time you dodge asking me to prove something nobody can instead of proving my logic wrong #easy Bear

Tippia wrote:
…based on…?


On logic, if they don't have a jf they can't make profit if they don't make profit they die, since most corps are still alive after a JF loss and most JF pilots don't seems to get kicked it's pretty safe to think they are reimbursing the JF.
It's logic, I might be wrong so feel free to argue.

Tippia wrote:
Incorrect. That is pretty much the exact opposite of how it works. You are wrong until you prove yourself right. At that point, the rest of us can prove your wrong again. You haven't even gotten past the first step since you so adamantly refuse to provide anything that even remotely counts as supporting evidence. The fact that you can offer nothing but fallacies just pushes you deeper into the bog of wrongness.

Where do you think wa are ? Am I right till proved wrong, feel free to prove me wrong my logic seems to be flawed. Bear

Tippia wrote:
No it is not. You are the one who's on the “invincible JF” side of the argument and who keeps referring to them as ungankable, which goes counter to reality as previous link wars have amply demonstrated.

Feel free to explain how to gank a JF that use timers to jump, this is the second time I'm asking you. Still dodging I see Big smile

Proud enforcer of 420 BLAZE IT

James 420
EVE Corporation 98188875
#569 - 2013-06-01 23:30:26 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
James 420 wrote:
completely irrelevant


Funny how every time its pointed out that your argument is wrong it suddenly becomes irrelevant.


Maybe you should quote the whole sentence. Bear

Alphea Abbra wrote:
James 420 wrote:
I am right till proved wrong, same here.
The post of mine that you liked a few minutes ago?
That one where you answer "Avada Kedavra." to Tippias "Onus probandi." ?
Yeah, so ... about that reality, maybe you should get back together with her?

For the record (In case you are as 'state of severely impaired mental faculties' in 6 letters as your posting shows), the words Onus Probandi are latin, AFAIK the literal translation is Burden of Proof, is a legal and scientific term for the principle that he who proposes something must first prove it, before asking others to disprove it. In law, it would normally be expressed "innocent until proven guilty".
The opposite would be that any claim is true until disproven.

It is used to be able to discard rubbish based on the lack of merit, instead of having to devote time to any claim that can be uttered. Imagine how it would be if you could be accused of anything, and the judge should convict you unless you could prove your innocense? Or if scientists were to take any claim at face value, unless they could disprove it?
That's probably why Tippia stated it before.

So, are you going to lift that burden?

Your post was genuinely funny, thanks for the little latin lesson. Big smile
I'm just playing with him, he is stuck in a loop, but hey feel free to prove me wrong ahahahaha.

Proud enforcer of 420 BLAZE IT

Alphea Abbra
Project Promethion
#570 - 2013-06-01 23:34:50 UTC  |  Edited by: Alphea Abbra
James 420 wrote:
Alphea Abbra wrote:
James 420 wrote:
I am right till proved wrong, same here.
The post of mine that you liked a few minutes ago?
That one where you answer "Avada Kedavra." to Tippias "Onus probandi." ?
Yeah, so ... about that reality, maybe you should get back together with her?

For the record (In case you are as 'state of severely impaired mental faculties' in 6 letters as your posting shows), the words Onus Probandi are latin, AFAIK the literal translation is Burden of Proof, is a legal and scientific term for the principle that he who proposes something must first prove it, before asking others to disprove it. In law, it would normally be expressed "innocent until proven guilty".
The opposite would be that any claim is true until disproven.

It is used to be able to discard rubbish based on the lack of merit, instead of having to devote time to any claim that can be uttered. Imagine how it would be if you could be accused of anything, and the judge should convict you unless you could prove your innocense? Or if scientists were to take any claim at face value, unless they could disprove it?
That's probably why Tippia stated it before.

So, are you going to lift that burden?

Your post was genuinely funny, thanks for the little latin lesson. Big smile
I'm just playing with him, he is stuck in a loop, but hey feel free to prove me wrong ahahahaha.
It's likely the other way around, both for the playing, and the proving.
I also noticed how you disregarded the testimony of a Goonswarm member (CFC) and a Nulli Secunda member (N3), where we both said that freighter or JF reimbursements don't happen unless they're lost on actual operations.
And how they're not alliance owned.
And how you're flat out wrong.

See, now I disproved you, so with your proof and my disproof, you're at -1.
Do you need any further explanations of how you're wrong?

I'm sure Tippia and baltec1 can assist you with your learning disability, they have both been patient so far.
James 420
EVE Corporation 98188875
#571 - 2013-06-01 23:40:58 UTC
Alphea Abbra wrote:
It's likely the other way around, both for the playing, and the proving.
I also noticed how you disregarded the testimony of a Goonswarm member (CFC) and a Nulli Secunda member (N3), where we both said that freighter or JF reimbursements don't happen unless they're lost on actual operations.
And how they're not alliance owned.
And how you're flat out wrong.

See, now I disproved you, so with your proof and my disproof, you're at -1.
Do you need any further explanations of how you're wrong?

I'm sure Tippia and baltec1 can assist you with your learning disability, they have both been patient so far.


Please my sides are hurting, did you lose a JF moving your corp assets and did not get reimbursed? If yes please post proof (including api keys), also please post proof that your corp is not reimbursing lost jfs used for ops (because like I said, we don't care about the single indy getting blown in his JF, we are talking about attacking supply lines of big null alliances).
Checkmate again, why is this so easy? Bear

Proud enforcer of 420 BLAZE IT

Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#572 - 2013-06-01 23:41:30 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
James 420 wrote:
It's just my opinion on you based on the few posts I'm reading of you
…and the claim about entitlement is based on…?

Quote:
Nope, it's just you lacking reading comprehension AGAIN, I can't prove it because it's impossible to prove since you have to gather private data from all the corps in null
So in other words, I understood it perfectly: you haven't provided any basis or evidence for your claim for the simple reason that you can't. Until you do, you are wrong by default and there's no need or reason to prove it. The burden of proof still lies with you and the benefit of assumption lies with me. Want to change that? Cough up the proof… except you've admitted that you can't.

Quote:
On logic, if they don't have a jf they can't make profit if they don't make profit they die, since most corps are still alive after a JF loss and most JF pilots don't seems to get kicked it's pretty safe to think they are reimbursing the JF.
…and that's based on…? Anyway, it doesn't strike me as particularly safe an assumption, no. It could equally suggests that the pilots themselves have to bear the full brunt of the loss, and that's what keeps the corp from losing the money needed to stay alive and what keeps the character from being kicked.

Oh, and as mentioned, a naturalistic fallacy is not a good basis for any kind of argument so your claim is still as baseless as ever.

Quote:
Where do you think wa are ? Am I right till proved wrong
I think we're on Earth, where we're subject to the same logic that has been around for much of recorded history: one where you are wrong until you've proven yourself right — again, onus probandi. You have been unable to prove yourself right, so the default position that you are wrong still stands.

Quote:
Feel free to explain how to gank a JF that use timers to jump
Nah. I'm going to exercise my freedom to wait until there's any reason for me to do that. In the meantime, your claim that they're ungankable is still in conflict with reality and recorded history as previously shown. Again, the burden of proof is on you and the proof available actually proves you wrong, so the default position not only remains but is reinforced.
James 420
EVE Corporation 98188875
#573 - 2013-06-02 00:00:42 UTC
Tippia wrote:
It's just my opinion on you based on the few posts I'm reading of you…and the claim about entitlement is based on…?

...Your posts, your logic... ?

Tippia wrote:
So in other words, I understood it perfectly: you haven't provided any basis or evidence for your claim for the simple reason that you can't. Until you do, you are wrong by default and there's no need or reason to prove it. The burden of proof still lies with you and the benefit of assumption lies with me. Want to change that? Cough up the proof… except you've admitted that you can't.


Except that they are not claims just my opinion/suppositions on JF reimbursements, because in this particular case it's impossible to gather enough legit data to tell if most JFs are getting reimbursed, you can't either.
But my opinion is pretty clear, most JFs lost moving corp assets are getting their hull reimbursed.
Prove me wrong or confirm this if you have enough data, if you don't please just post your opinion and I'll gladly answer. Bear

Tippia wrote:

…and that's based on…? Any way, it doesn't strike me as particularly safe an assumption, no. It could equally suggests that the pilots themselves have to bear the full brunt of the loss, and that's what keeps the corp from losing the money needed to stay alive and what keeps the character from being kicked.

I already answered that first question, feel free to read my posts If you don't understand reformulate your question. What if the JF player can't, for most alliances/corp in null the loss of a JF is nothing compared to their whole assets.
Reimbursing the JF as soon as possible is the best thing to do for them so they can go back to profit, if they don't well it's a bad decision since local market is pretty bad compared to hs for null indys.


Tippia wrote:
I think we're subject to the same logic that has been around for all of recorded history: one where you are wrong until you've proven yourself right — again, onus probandi. You have been unable to prove yourself right, so the default position that you are wrong still stands.

That's just like your opinion on how arguing works, in fact it's just pure and simple damage control since you can't prove me wrong nor can't prove that most JF aren't getting reimbursed. Bear
Too easy *yawn*

Tippia wrote:
Nah. I'm going to exercise my freedom to wait until there's any reason for me to do that. In the meantime, your claim that they're ungankable is still in conflict with reality and recorded history as previously shown. Again, the burden of proof is on you and the proof available actually proves you wrong, so the default position not only remains but is reinforced.

So you can't prove me wrong, seems like we are both in the same default position.
Prove that you can kill a JF that use timers to jump, this is the third time I'm asking you. Bear

Proud enforcer of 420 BLAZE IT

baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#574 - 2013-06-02 00:13:57 UTC
James 420 wrote:


Except that they are not claims just my opinion/suppositions on JF reimbursements, because in this particular case it's impossible to gather enough legit data to tell if most JFs are getting reimbursed, you can't either.


Yes we can. We have access to every main powerblocks internal reimbursement programme. Nobody reimburses JF unless it was part of an official operation, like dropping an outpost. Any who loses a JF has to pay for a new one out of their own pocket.
James 420
EVE Corporation 98188875
#575 - 2013-06-02 00:19:51 UTC
baltec1 wrote:

Yes we can. We have access to every main powerblocks internal reimbursement programme. Nobody reimburses JF unless it was part of an official operation, like dropping an outpost. Any who loses a JF has to pay for a new one out of their own pocket.


That's a cute claim but where are the api keys? I need to check it for myself and I'll then confirm or not that what you are saying is true.
Can't wait to have every guy who lost a jf api key. Cool

Proud enforcer of 420 BLAZE IT

baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#576 - 2013-06-02 00:26:08 UTC
James 420 wrote:
baltec1 wrote:

Yes we can. We have access to every main powerblocks internal reimbursement programme. Nobody reimburses JF unless it was part of an official operation, like dropping an outpost. Any who loses a JF has to pay for a new one out of their own pocket.


That's a cute claim but where are the api keys? I need to check it for myself and I'll then confirm or not that what you are saying is true.
Can't wait to have every guy who lost a jf api key. Cool


Why would we need API keys?
James 420
EVE Corporation 98188875
#577 - 2013-06-02 00:34:28 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
James 420 wrote:
baltec1 wrote:

Yes we can. We have access to every main powerblocks internal reimbursement programme. Nobody reimburses JF unless it was part of an official operation, like dropping an outpost. Any who loses a JF has to pay for a new one out of their own pocket.


That's a cute claim but where are the api keys? I need to check it for myself and I'll then confirm or not that what you are saying is true.
Can't wait to have every guy who lost a jf api key. Cool


Why would we need API keys?

I was being "ironic" using Tippia's "logic", you are probably right mate (that seems kinda hard to believe), we will never know.
That's nice then, you guys shouldn't reimburse dumb losses, even tho from a strategic point if it's the only way to get your stuff out/in of null it can cripple your economy pretty bad.

Proud enforcer of 420 BLAZE IT

Stonecrusher Mortlock
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#578 - 2013-06-02 00:50:21 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
James 420 wrote:



Low sec is irrelevant



Not to those JF pilots it isnt. Clearly JF are far from invincible.





You do know i stated in the opening posts i know RANDOM NONE LOGISTICS SCRUBS die all the time.


and made it competently clear this is a thread about the killing of REAL null sec LOGISTICS JF's.


But you link a KB full of random none affiliated alliance scrubs, these are they same people that end up as stupid dead carrier's and other dumb ****.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#579 - 2013-06-02 00:58:11 UTC  |  Edited by: baltec1
Stonecrusher Mortlock wrote:



But you link a KB full of random none affiliated alliance scrubs, these are they same people that end up as stupid dead carrier's and other dumb ****.


You might want to look up what has been happening in QPO lately. Or Even VFK.

Also you do realise that most alliances use none affiliated alts for most of their transport needs.
Stonecrusher Mortlock
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#580 - 2013-06-02 01:00:35 UTC  |  Edited by: Stonecrusher Mortlock
baltec1 wrote:
Stonecrusher Mortlock wrote:



But you link a KB full of random none affiliated alliance scrubs, these are they same people that end up as stupid dead carrier's and other dumb ****.


You might want to look up what has been happening in QPO lately. Or Even VFK.

Also you do realise that most alliances use none affiliated alts for most of their transport needs.

Yes, and so do most alliance line members because most alliances have active war dec's, so a dead neutral player in a null sec system is still just that, unless you have a list of known CFC logistic members, and a accurate list of all losses.


THESE people are the ones running your logistics supply lines.


MY WATCH LIST is populated with neutral supply running JF's. i made this list by adding people to my watch list and when they log out i run locator agents on them to get there NULL sec locations, depending on what systems, area in space.

When i have confirmed there not a alt hauler for some null scrub(in jita every other day/daily) they get added to the KNOWN x alliance supply hauler.

Do you know how often the PRO's die?

I have seen only a few die, to ganking..... in ..... high sec.... NEVER in low sec or null sec.





As soon as you provide a acceptable list of Logistic alts from your alliance, showing clear API losses of JF, in use in low sec or null sec, that are CLEARLY members of your Logistic wing( we know its there its the same people that haul the loads of alliance moon poo to high sec)

But you cant do that can you, because they have no losses of any notable amount(ships lost), because they NEVER DIE during there runs.