These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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 Great Ice Mining Interdiction: Not so Great

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Dave Stark
#701 - 2013-08-24 16:26:24 UTC
Krixtal Icefluxor wrote:
Risk: a situation involving exposure to danger (only definition I find in every dictionary.

Gamble : take a chanced action in the hope of a desired result


you mean, like the danger of being a flashy red pod with nothing to show for it?
Dave Stark
#702 - 2013-08-24 16:27:10 UTC
Krixtal Icefluxor wrote:
Dave Stark wrote:
Krixtal Icefluxor wrote:
I don't think


we know.



Booo. Try harder. Even I don't chop your sentences to shreds. Very unclassy.


there wasn't much else in there to reply to, to be fair. i had to do something to pass the time until you posted something i could actually reply to.
Kijo Rikki
Killboard Padding Services
#703 - 2013-08-24 16:29:24 UTC
Murk Paradox wrote:

Quote:

It doesn't matter what it really is, what matters is I am demonstrating the risk involved, regardless of the acknowledgement of the loss of an initial investment. And if I may be so bold, stock traders do, in fact, do exactly what you propose. Short selling and market manipulation are not new concepts.



It very much matters. If you are saying 2 things are synonymous, and you know they aren't... that's being disingenuous.


You don't receive sarcasm or mockery very well. Parody is usually disengenuous by your standards, but most intelligent people will see it for what it is, a demonstration of how silly a particular argument really is.

Quote:

There is not any risk in actually buying stock. It's quite simple. You choose, you give money, you get the stock. That's a cost.

The risk, is if you want to invest in stock for the purpose of getting a return (short term OR long term) or you want to use stock as some sort of leveraging tool for a company... all those methods have inherent risks associated with them.

The act of purchasing the stock does not have risk.

I have 0 risk if I buy my dad Guinness stock as a gift because he is a big fan of Guinness. He isn't going to turn around and sell it, and I do not expect anything else. But to be semantic and technical I would be risking NOT getting a smile from him by choosing a poor present.

But that has nothing to do with buying the stock in the first place. I can still see it costs $X money, and I would still get a certificate for my purchase. I wouldn't be risking it at all since I bought it with the sole intention of not keeping it.

Even if I set fire to it or shredded it, the outcome would be I still bought it, and I ended up not having it anymore.

There's no chance or probability associated with it, only cost.


Buying stock is basically buying a very expensive piece of paper. If you chose to use it as toilet paper then I guess for you, it is a cost and your entire argument makes sense. But most people buy that piece of paper because of the actual value it represents, short or long term, and the value may very well go to zero like Enron or it may make a return, which is what everyone hopes for. For everyone except you buying stock involves risk, because most people buy it with the intent or hope to make a profit. Keep that in mind when you think of a suicide ganker putting together a catalyst.

You make a valid point, good Sir or Madam. 
Krixtal Icefluxor
INLAND EMPIRE Galactic
#704 - 2013-08-24 16:31:08 UTC
Dave Stark wrote:
Krixtal Icefluxor wrote:
Risk: a situation involving exposure to danger (only definition I find in every dictionary.

Gamble : take a chanced action in the hope of a desired result


you mean, like the danger of being a flashy red pod with nothing to show for it?



That's a different ship in a completely different set of circumstances at that point.

I bet 100 M ISK you are a Flat-Earther as well. Arguing with the visible cosmos to the very bitter end.

"He has mounted his hind-legs, and blown crass vapidities through the bowel of his neck."  - Ambrose Bierce on Oscar Wilde's Lecture in San Francisco 1882
Krixtal Icefluxor
INLAND EMPIRE Galactic
#705 - 2013-08-24 16:32:12 UTC
Dave Stark wrote:

there wasn't much else in there to reply to, to be fair. i had to do something to pass the time until you posted something i could actually reply to.


But you did reply anyway so your very posting that statement is a self-contradiction. Smile

"He has mounted his hind-legs, and blown crass vapidities through the bowel of his neck."  - Ambrose Bierce on Oscar Wilde's Lecture in San Francisco 1882
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#706 - 2013-08-24 16:32:57 UTC
Dave Stark wrote:
Krixtal Icefluxor wrote:
Risk: a situation involving exposure to danger (only definition I find in every dictionary.

Gamble : take a chanced action in the hope of a desired result


you mean, like the danger of being a flashy red pod with nothing to show for it?



Projected consequence of action is not risk. You know there is no way to avoid becoming a red flashy pod if you continue with your action, it's not a risk.

You might risk not making a profit, but that's something entirely different.

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.
Dave Stark
#707 - 2013-08-24 16:33:53 UTC
Krixtal Icefluxor wrote:
Dave Stark wrote:
Krixtal Icefluxor wrote:
Risk: a situation involving exposure to danger (only definition I find in every dictionary.

Gamble : take a chanced action in the hope of a desired result


you mean, like the danger of being a flashy red pod with nothing to show for it?



That's a different ship in a completely different set of circumstances at that point.

I bet 100 M ISK you are a Flat-Earther as well. Arguing with the visible cosmos to the very bitter end.


you can't just pick and choose which parts of suicide ganking you want to apply things to.

you apply it to suicide ganking, or you don't. unless you actually want to discuss the whole topic, stop posting.
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#708 - 2013-08-24 16:34:47 UTC
Kijo Rikki wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:

Quote:

It doesn't matter what it really is, what matters is I am demonstrating the risk involved, regardless of the acknowledgement of the loss of an initial investment. And if I may be so bold, stock traders do, in fact, do exactly what you propose. Short selling and market manipulation are not new concepts.



It very much matters. If you are saying 2 things are synonymous, and you know they aren't... that's being disingenuous.


You don't receive sarcasm or mockery very well. Parody is usually disengenuous by your standards, but most intelligent people will see it for what it is, a demonstration of how silly a particular argument really is.




Only if you're intelligent enough to pull it off.

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.
Dave Stark
#709 - 2013-08-24 16:36:34 UTC  |  Edited by: Dave Stark
Murk Paradox wrote:
Dave Stark wrote:
Krixtal Icefluxor wrote:
Risk: a situation involving exposure to danger (only definition I find in every dictionary.

Gamble : take a chanced action in the hope of a desired result


you mean, like the danger of being a flashy red pod with nothing to show for it?



Projected consequence of action is not risk. You know there is no way to avoid becoming a red flashy pod if you continue with your action, it's not a risk.

You might risk not making a profit, but that's something entirely different.


the fact you can't avoid it is the exact reason why it's a risk.... if you could avoid it, then it wouldn't be a risk.
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#710 - 2013-08-24 16:40:15 UTC
Kijo Rikki wrote:


Buying stock is basically buying a very expensive piece of paper. If you chose to use it as toilet paper then I guess for you, it is a cost and your entire argument makes sense. But most people buy that piece of paper because of the actual value it represents, short or long term, and the value may very well go to zero like Enron or it may make a return, which is what everyone hopes for. For everyone except you buying stock involves risk, because most people buy it with the intent or hope to make a profit. Keep that in mind when you think of a suicide ganker putting together a catalyst.


See that's where the standard falls short. "Most" people. When you set a standard and define a term, it's an absolute. "MOST" doesn't cut it.

It's a tool for a job. What you use it for defines at that time what it is. Think of using a hammer as a screwdriver.

The person putting together the catalyst is, by definition, putting a fit together. What defines that ship is the use.

When you buy that stock for toilet paper, it's not an investment is it? Even though stocks can be used as such (and usually are). you can change it's entire definition by what you bought it for. In this case, you bought expensive toilet paper (or cheap depending on the price eh?).

When you start speaking for "everyone" when you know there's a chance it isn't 100%.... that's where "error" comes from. So when you try to speak volumes with 1 simple line, you better be sure as hell you are accurate in what you're saying.

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.
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#711 - 2013-08-24 16:44:59 UTC  |  Edited by: Murk Paradox
Dave Stark wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:
Dave Stark wrote:
Krixtal Icefluxor wrote:
Risk: a situation involving exposure to danger (only definition I find in every dictionary.

Gamble : take a chanced action in the hope of a desired result


you mean, like the danger of being a flashy red pod with nothing to show for it?



Projected consequence of action is not risk. You know there is no way to avoid becoming a red flashy pod if you continue with your action, it's not a risk.

You might risk not making a profit, but that's something entirely different.


the fact you can't avoid it is the exact reason why it's a risk.... if you could avoid it, then it wouldn't be a risk.



That's not true. If you CAN avoid something but choose to do it anyways, that's where risk comes from.

You know it's illegal to go over the speed limit in a car. You choose to anyways. You risk getting caught and getting a speeding ticket.

But you don't risk (Edit, "speeding" is a poor choice of words) going fast. (you chose to).

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.
Dave Stark
#712 - 2013-08-24 16:49:16 UTC  |  Edited by: Dave Stark
remind me again, how do you avoid the criminal flag when shooting some one in high security space that you aren't at war with, or in the same corp with?

also if you could actually make a point, that'd be great.
Kijo Rikki
Killboard Padding Services
#713 - 2013-08-24 16:50:37 UTC
Murk Paradox wrote:

See that's where the standard falls short. "Most" people. When you set a standard and define a term, it's an absolute. "MOST" doesn't cut it.

It's a tool for a job. What you use it for defines at that time what it is. Think of using a hammer as a screwdriver.

The person putting together the catalyst is, by definition, putting a fit together. What defines that ship is the use.

When you buy that stock for toilet paper, it's not an investment is it? Even though stocks can be used as such (and usually are). you can change it's entire definition by what you bought it for. In this case, you bought expensive toilet paper (or cheap depending on the price eh?).

When you start speaking for "everyone" when you know there's a chance it isn't 100%.... that's where "error" comes from. So when you try to speak volumes with 1 simple line, you better be sure as hell you are accurate in what you're saying.


Oh, but we're talking about a very specific subset of people in this argument, by which the very definition of this subset guarantees a 100% chance that the tool in question is used as an investment. So we're not talking about people who buy stocks to wipe their bums with or give them to their dads as sentimental gifts, we're talking about people who buy them to make a profit (which is the vast majority of stockholders). While I am at it, almost every ship you purchase in some way was purchased with the intent to make a profit, being mining, transportation of goods, missioning, ratting, or suicide ganking.

Trying to argue like this is silly. It's like saying cars aren't used for transportation because not all people buy automobiles with the intent to drive them.

You make a valid point, good Sir or Madam. 
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#714 - 2013-08-24 16:50:57 UTC
Dave Stark wrote:
remind me again, how do you avoid the criminal flag when shooting some one in high security space that you aren't at war with, or in the same corp with?



You don't shoot. Because you don't want the criminal flag.

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.
Dave Stark
#715 - 2013-08-24 16:53:17 UTC
Murk Paradox wrote:
Dave Stark wrote:
remind me again, how do you avoid the criminal flag when shooting some one in high security space that you aren't at war with, or in the same corp with?



You don't shoot. Because you don't want the criminal flag.


suicide ganking, not a risk if you don't shoot people.


well. ****. really? **** me, captain obvious is in the house tonight guys!
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#716 - 2013-08-24 16:59:31 UTC
Kijo Rikki wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:

See that's where the standard falls short. "Most" people. When you set a standard and define a term, it's an absolute. "MOST" doesn't cut it.

It's a tool for a job. What you use it for defines at that time what it is. Think of using a hammer as a screwdriver.

The person putting together the catalyst is, by definition, putting a fit together. What defines that ship is the use.

When you buy that stock for toilet paper, it's not an investment is it? Even though stocks can be used as such (and usually are). you can change it's entire definition by what you bought it for. In this case, you bought expensive toilet paper (or cheap depending on the price eh?).

When you start speaking for "everyone" when you know there's a chance it isn't 100%.... that's where "error" comes from. So when you try to speak volumes with 1 simple line, you better be sure as hell you are accurate in what you're saying.


Oh, but we're talking about a very specific subset of people in this argument, by which the very definition of this subset guarantees a 100% chance that the tool in question is used as an investment. So we're not talking about people who buy stocks to wipe their bums with or give them to their dads as sentimental gifts, we're talking about people who buy them to make a profit (which is the vast majority of stockholders). While I am at it, almost every ship you purchase in some way was purchased with the intent to make a profit, being mining, transportation of goods, missioning, ratting, or suicide ganking.

Trying to argue like this is silly. It's like saying cars aren't used for transportation because not all people buy automobiles with the intent to drive them.




Fair enough. Let me ask you a question, for posterity... Is something defined by the greater percentage, or the smaller percentage?


If you want to discount "subsets" then I have a counter for that, but I'll need your answer first.

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.
Sentamon
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#717 - 2013-08-24 17:01:15 UTC
Hey I heard scrubs are attempting to kill minersAttention

Which system should I be mining inQuestion

~ Professional Forum Alt  ~
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#718 - 2013-08-24 17:01:47 UTC
Dave Stark wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:
Dave Stark wrote:
remind me again, how do you avoid the criminal flag when shooting some one in high security space that you aren't at war with, or in the same corp with?



You don't shoot. Because you don't want the criminal flag.


suicide ganking, not a risk if you don't shoot people.


well. ****. really? **** me, captain obvious is in the house tonight guys!



But you're talking about getting flagged, not suicide ganking. If you want to be captain obvious, you're going to have to reread your question.

Because that has nothing to do with getting blown up, only aggression mechanics.

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.
Daimon Kaiera
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#719 - 2013-08-24 17:02:12 UTC
Sentamon wrote:
Hey I heard scrubs are attempting to kill minersAttention

Which system should I be mining inQuestion


Low sec systems outside of faction warfare. No one goes there.

.... . .-.. .--. / .. / .... .- ...- . / ..-. .- .-.. .-.. . -. / .- -. -.. / .. / -.-. .- -. -. --- - / --. . - / ..- .--. / ... - --- .--. - .... .. ... / ... .. --. -. .- - ..- .-. . / .. -.. . .- / .. ... / -. --- - / ... - --- .-.. . -. / ... - --- .--.
Dave Stark
#720 - 2013-08-24 17:02:50 UTC
Murk Paradox wrote:
Dave Stark wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:
Dave Stark wrote:
remind me again, how do you avoid the criminal flag when shooting some one in high security space that you aren't at war with, or in the same corp with?



You don't shoot. Because you don't want the criminal flag.


suicide ganking, not a risk if you don't shoot people.


well. ****. really? **** me, captain obvious is in the house tonight guys!



But you're talking about getting flagged, not suicide ganking. If you want to be captain obvious, you're going to have to reread your question.

Because that has nothing to do with getting blown up, only aggression mechanics.


and now you see the issue with cherry picking mechanics to talk about and calling it "suicide ganking". which, is exactly what people keep doing.