EVE General Discussion

Confirming that whoring in on a CONCORDOKKEN constitutes Anti-ganking.




Anti-ganking would be ganking the ganker BEFORE they ganked..but that would make the anti-ganker a ganker themselves... therefore the only reasonable course of action for an aspiring anti-ganker is to undock and self destruct.

This actually happens, but the topic itself is, according to other members, moderated.




loledit i did not mean the self destructing part.

Solecist we have something in common, my ganking character was kicked out of MB chat by the same "anon" person that we wont mention.To be fair though I was kicked for commiting a cardinal MB sin. I accused one of their members of carebearism.
Whether or not said member was guilty of the infraction didnt seem to make any difference to those with moderator status.

Jennifer en Marland: 'Yes, thats fair enough. People often say 'miner lived' after posting ECM kills, or they're posted by people who I know wouldn't do so if the miner wasn't saved, in which case it's a victory. But I have seen people post kills where they got like 3% damage on a ganker using drones and clearly didn't really make a contribution - I certainly don't agree with celebrating those kills (I might sometimes say 'gj' to be polite!) And yes, there may well be cases where people post ECM kills and 'forget' to mention that the miner still died.'

Au contraire! Three per cent damage on a ganker is significant, because it has a negative effect on the ganker's killboard. Unlike a pure Concord kill, that 3% counts as a loss, which some people find to be painful. Also, for some 'anti-gankers', the point is not to save any one particular miner, but to provide a certain heightened security to all miners. This is accomplished by introducing greater uncertainty to the ganking system: gankers call in reinforcements, or refuse to belt- or gate-gank whilst the 'anti-ganker' is in the system. Furthermore, the miners who die are usually the ones in a 0.5 system in a Retriever or Covetor, asleep at the helm, and are really not worth saving at an individual level. They die because they are greedy and lazy and careless.


solecist project: Instead, we should make sure that we socially shun those who want to shine
through fake achievements and dwarf them with what we can actually come up with!


We all do as we think best. In any social system--and I use that term quite broadly here--there are attempts at establishing a hierarchy, with certain groups and individuals striving for elite status. Nevertheless, since there is no large anti-ganking organisation, shunning, defaming, dwarfing are rather meaningless. From my point of view, saving one miner is a 'fake' (dubious) achievement, whereas working to improve the lot of all miners is far more worthy of one's time and energy.

People want to believe it matters, but it doesn't.

*The target still dies, which is all that matters in the end.*


To you, perhaps. Personal observation indicates quite clearly the contrary.


'Which is something completely imaginary and only made up.'

Hardly. When the gankers leave the system to avoid killboard losses, all the miners in the system benefit.

Solecist Project wrote:

Yes, but you are overestimating your impact.

Again, hardly.

Solecist Project wrote:

Yes, but most of you do not actually share a common goal,
even if it superficially seems that way.

A common goal is not a prerequisite to action.

Solecist Project wrote:

Ineffective and look at things that do not actually matter in the big picture.
Ignoring the reality that all that matters is that the targets die.

What is the big picture? To you, nothing may matter but that the targets die. For me, what matters is that the ganker does not remain unscathed and that system may be a wee bit safer.

Solecist Project wrote:

Taking your post, it isn't about protecting miners, but about the attempt to give back "pain",
while actually ignoring the reality that for 99% of the gankers it does not matter, because ...


... the target still dies.

I have not polled 99% of the gankers, so you may be right. And if I provide 'pain' whilst protecting miners, I am not averse to that.

You're welcome, Project! I am sorry to see that you had to resort to insults, but you know what they say about that.

And maybe you are right. Maybe my efforts are useless, but I am enjoying myself.


Anyhow....all things considered, I shall not trouble you any longer, here, or in any other thread. If I may offer a bit of advice, be more open-minded and less---how shall we say?-- full of yourself.

This is, without a doubt, the most incoherent post I've ever read. Congratumalations.

I didn't actually mean to insult you, sorry for that.
I also think though, that you are partly projecting.

While *I* agree, I'm sure hetero females and homosexual men would disagree. xD

Thank you for your post!
Always nice to hace CODE members contribute,
as you represent a part of the whole "other side".


I'm not sure the RP thing is a good idea. It would most possibly lead to the ****** up
situation you are in with James, although you probably don't recognize it as such.

What it definitely supports is attracting individuals that will use peolle for their own gains,
like Erotica. No idea if you people ever figured that her "contribution" only served herself.

That you want "rebels" mirrors your stance regarding the power and authority of the New Order.
Imaginary. It's not there. It's you who are the "rebels".

People like Erotica with her sick interest for power
might have had an influence on this perception, though.
It wouldn't wonder me the slightest.

Anyhow, to not come across the wrong way...

It's much harder for the AG to unite, compared to the NO.
The biggest reason is the fact that James massively profitted from the
lowest-hanging-fruit factor, which made it easy to attract people who simply love to
attack the lowest hanging fruits.

He presented an opportunity to annoy people without suffering from CONCORD.

The AG does not have such an option.* The only lowest-hanging-fruit people they possibly could have
are those who believe that they somehow hurt gankeds by not actually achieving anything besides
imaginary inflicted pain on the ego of the ganker.

I can't tell if I can bring my point across properly. I don't mean to offend you, btw. You do know yourself
that there are many who are happy with picking on somebody, but AGs as a theme lack a way of
properly attracting and utilizing these. For now.

Please understand that there is no insult behind this.


* actually there is but it's not related to miner ganking. Personally, I'd wish people
would stop behaving as if it was the only thing that happens. I think that's the least
important part of the ganking scene.