These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Tackling the problem of null-sec ratting bots.

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
La Nariz
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#181 - 2014-05-17 16:28:25 UTC
Xavier Higdon wrote:
La Nariz wrote:
Xavier Higdon wrote:


I never mentioned blue doughnut except in response to your assertion that blue doughnut was a code word for anti-goon. If you'll just look back, you'll see it was Doc Fury making a joke about the blue doughnut that seems to be one of the reasons you went on your "leave null sec alone cuz it's worse in high sec" crusade.

And why wouldn't I mention that a certain alliance accounts for 21% of all bots? That's not some made up number like your 85%, that comes straight from CCP's presentation. Go ahead, I'll give you a moment to check these things.


You jumped on the goonspiracy bandwagon and got angry over being labeled a crazy. Compare that "certain alliance" to the NPC alliances and let us all know how that works.


I can't compare that certain alliance to anything, since CCP didn't release the name of the alliance. I'm not sure why you feel it's the goons that are responsible for 21% of all bots, but I haven't made that assertion and I'll advise you of the same thing that I advised Kaarous: accusing an alliance of being infested with bots(over 3,000 in the past 16 months) is a very serious thing and you should have proof before you go doing so. Also, you shouldn't be making these accusations in GD, but instead you should be getting in touch with CCP directly and providing them with the proof that you have so that they may deal with it. It's against the forum rules to rumour monger.

Edit: And it's strange that you're accusing your own alliance of such heinous actions. Shouldn't you be leaving in protest?


You're the one asserting its us and got called out for goonspiracy then labeled a crazy; being angry about it makes no difference. I have an idea of which alliance it is but, no proof so unlike some people I'm not going to spout wild unsupported theories about it. The fact still remains botting is more prevalent in highsec and the most efficient use of limited resources is to focus most of them on highsec.

This post was loving crafted by a member of the Official GoonWaffe recruitment team. Improve the forums, support this idea: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&find=unread&t=345133
kes88
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#182 - 2014-05-17 16:42:23 UTC  |  Edited by: kes88
Higgs Foton wrote:
I also fail to see where there are ratting bots. In ye'olde days the ratting drake/raven/tengu bot was fairly common (but not even as much as the mining bots in high sec ice belts), but i haven't seen them in about a year now. Also the people in the region where i live seem very alive and aware behind their accounts, because they talk in local when spoken to, and i think the ishtar/dominix thingy is not really a bottable ship to bot, but maybe i am wrong regarding this.

With the changes in interceptors this way of botting has become very dangerous as well. If you don't vigilantly watch intel channels and have a scout in pipe systems you gonna lose ships.


I am completely ignoring the latter part of thread in order to pick up on the earlier part of the thread. The most bot-fested activity in New Eden is ratting - according to the security chaps in their presentation at fanfest. See the video by CPP from Fanfest 2014 called "From Evidence to Bans". In terms of the problem overall, it isn't relevant where it takes place, the point is that when people think of botting they think of miner bots, and they aren't the biggest problem. I don't know about you guys, but we can all have an impact on this - we can help CCP out.

ALLbots are a problem, not just ratting bots, and not just ratting bots in null.

**Edit for crappy spelling
Xavier Higdon
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#183 - 2014-05-17 16:45:33 UTC
La Nariz wrote:
Xavier Higdon wrote:
La Nariz wrote:
Xavier Higdon wrote:


I never mentioned blue doughnut except in response to your assertion that blue doughnut was a code word for anti-goon. If you'll just look back, you'll see it was Doc Fury making a joke about the blue doughnut that seems to be one of the reasons you went on your "leave null sec alone cuz it's worse in high sec" crusade.

And why wouldn't I mention that a certain alliance accounts for 21% of all bots? That's not some made up number like your 85%, that comes straight from CCP's presentation. Go ahead, I'll give you a moment to check these things.


You jumped on the goonspiracy bandwagon and got angry over being labeled a crazy. Compare that "certain alliance" to the NPC alliances and let us all know how that works.


I can't compare that certain alliance to anything, since CCP didn't release the name of the alliance. I'm not sure why you feel it's the goons that are responsible for 21% of all bots, but I haven't made that assertion and I'll advise you of the same thing that I advised Kaarous: accusing an alliance of being infested with bots(over 3,000 in the past 16 months) is a very serious thing and you should have proof before you go doing so. Also, you shouldn't be making these accusations in GD, but instead you should be getting in touch with CCP directly and providing them with the proof that you have so that they may deal with it. It's against the forum rules to rumour monger.

Edit: And it's strange that you're accusing your own alliance of such heinous actions. Shouldn't you be leaving in protest?


You're the one asserting its us and got called out for goonspiracy then labeled a crazy; being angry about it makes no difference. I have an idea of which alliance it is but, no proof so unlike some people I'm not going to spout wild unsupported theories about it. The fact still remains botting is more prevalent in highsec and the most efficient use of limited resources is to focus most of them on highsec.


What do you mean I made an assertion that it was goons? I made sure not to imply it was anybody, since that'd be unfair to them as nobody knows who it is except CCP and the members of the alliance. And the fact still remains that focusing resources on any one part of space leaves all other parts of space vulnerable to botting activity. Falsely stating that I asserted it was goons doing 21% of all the botting, when I made sure I wasn't falsely accusing anybody of botting, doesn't somehow change the fact that if CCP were to responsibly focus their attention on any one aspect of EvE in regards to botting, it would be in the best interests of the playerbase as a whole to focus their attention on those alliances guilty of promoting botting and harboring botters.I, however, don't think they should do that at all. Instead they should be focusing their limited resources on botting in general, where ever it might occur, who ever might be doing it. You, Kaarous and Prince Kobol are the most vocal people arguing that CCP should be splitting their attention unevenly across New Eden, and you're all in favor of a method of enforcement that would ensure bots in low, null and wh would have an easier time escaping punishment than bots in high sec. I'm still not sure why you support a system that would make botting in null sec easier to get away with, or why you keep assuming that goons are guilty of 21% of all botting, but that's your prerogative.
Dave Stark
#184 - 2014-05-17 16:46:14 UTC  |  Edited by: Dave Stark
Xavier Higdon wrote:
La Nariz wrote:

Why doesn't targeting the area with the most botting make sense? 85% of botting in highsec.


I still can't find where that number comes from, please provide a link so we can clear this up.


son, do you even fanfest?
every year team security bring out lovely graphs about who's botting[although, alliance names aren't shown for reasons, but they still bring out the good ol' pie chart], where they're botting, and what types of bots they're running.
Prince Kobol
#185 - 2014-05-17 16:48:50 UTC
kes88 wrote:
Higgs Foton wrote:
I also fail to see where there are ratting bots. In ye'olde days the ratting drake/raven/tengu bot was fairly common (but not even as much as the mining bots in high sec ice belts), but i haven't seen them in about a year now. Also the people in the region where i live seem very alive and aware behind their accounts, because they talk in local when spoken to, and i think the ishtar/dominix thingy is not really a bottable ship to bot, but maybe i am wrong regarding this.

With the changes in interceptors this way of botting has become very dangerous as well. If you don't vigilantly watch intel channels and have a scout in pipe systems you gonna lose ships.


I am completely ignoribng the latter part of thread in order to pick up on the earlier part of the thread. The most bot-fested activity in New Eden is ratting - according to the security chaps in their presentation at fanfest. See the video by CPP from Fanfest 2014 called "From Evidence to Bans". In terms of the problem overall, it isn't relevant where it takes place, the point is that when people think of botting they think of miner bots, and they aren't the biggest problem. I don't know about you guys, but we can all have an impact on this - we can help CCP out.

ALLbots are a problem, not just ratting bots, and not just ratting bots in null.


kind off.

You see whilst people leave their characters in NPC corps, they are pretty much free to use their mission bots and us as players can hold our collective dicks in our hands whilst we watch because that is all we can do.

We can gank and bump mining bots but that doesn't really have that much of an impact.

Yeah sure we can use the report bot function but I can think I can safely that most people think that its a load rubbish, rightly or wrongly.

If CCP really want to give us players the tools, then make changes to what you can and can do in NPC Corps. Stop people from being able to mission whilst being NPC corps and we as players can help.

Make all Industry related activities expensive whilst being NPC's corps, hell make it impossible to have 100% refining whilst being in a NPC corp and watch people move to player run corps and again, we as players can help the war against bots.
La Nariz
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#186 - 2014-05-17 16:50:08 UTC
Xavier Higdon wrote:
La Nariz wrote:
Xavier Higdon wrote:
La Nariz wrote:
Xavier Higdon wrote:


I never mentioned blue doughnut except in response to your assertion that blue doughnut was a code word for anti-goon. If you'll just look back, you'll see it was Doc Fury making a joke about the blue doughnut that seems to be one of the reasons you went on your "leave null sec alone cuz it's worse in high sec" crusade.

And why wouldn't I mention that a certain alliance accounts for 21% of all bots? That's not some made up number like your 85%, that comes straight from CCP's presentation. Go ahead, I'll give you a moment to check these things.


You jumped on the goonspiracy bandwagon and got angry over being labeled a crazy. Compare that "certain alliance" to the NPC alliances and let us all know how that works.


I can't compare that certain alliance to anything, since CCP didn't release the name of the alliance. I'm not sure why you feel it's the goons that are responsible for 21% of all bots, but I haven't made that assertion and I'll advise you of the same thing that I advised Kaarous: accusing an alliance of being infested with bots(over 3,000 in the past 16 months) is a very serious thing and you should have proof before you go doing so. Also, you shouldn't be making these accusations in GD, but instead you should be getting in touch with CCP directly and providing them with the proof that you have so that they may deal with it. It's against the forum rules to rumour monger.

Edit: And it's strange that you're accusing your own alliance of such heinous actions. Shouldn't you be leaving in protest?


You're the one asserting its us and got called out for goonspiracy then labeled a crazy; being angry about it makes no difference. I have an idea of which alliance it is but, no proof so unlike some people I'm not going to spout wild unsupported theories about it. The fact still remains botting is more prevalent in highsec and the most efficient use of limited resources is to focus most of them on highsec.


What do you mean I made an assertion that it was goons? I made sure not to imply it was anybody, since that'd be unfair to them as nobody knows who it is except CCP and the members of the alliance. And the fact still remains that focusing resources on any one part of space leaves all other parts of space vulnerable to botting activity. Falsely stating that I asserted it was goons doing 21% of all the botting, when I made sure I wasn't falsely accusing anybody of botting, doesn't somehow change the fact that if CCP were to responsibly focus their attention on any one aspect of EvE in regards to botting, it would be in the best interests of the playerbase as a whole to focus their attention on those alliances guilty of promoting botting and harboring botters.I, however, don't think they should do that at all. Instead they should be focusing their limited resources on botting in general, where ever it might occur, who ever might be doing it. You, Kaarous and Prince Kobol are the most vocal people arguing that CCP should be splitting their attention unevenly across New Eden, and you're all in favor of a method of enforcement that would ensure bots in low, null and wh would have an easier time escaping punishment than bots in high sec. I'm still not sure why you support a system that would make botting in null sec easier to get away with, or why you keep assuming that goons are guilty of 21% of all botting, but that's your prerogative.


What part of paragraphs did you not understand? Fix this and I'll reply to it.

This post was loving crafted by a member of the Official GoonWaffe recruitment team. Improve the forums, support this idea: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&find=unread&t=345133
Xavier Higdon
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#187 - 2014-05-17 16:50:15 UTC
Dave Stark wrote:
Xavier Higdon wrote:
La Nariz wrote:

Why doesn't targeting the area with the most botting make sense? 85% of botting in highsec.


I still can't find where that number comes from, please provide a link so we can clear this up.


son, do you even fanfest?
every year team security bring out lovely graphs about who's botting[although, alliance names aren't shown for reasons, but they still bring out the good ol' pie chart], where they're botting and what types of bots they're running.


I couldn't find a pie chart, or any chart for that matter, that showed the percentage of bots present or active in high sec compared to other sec statuses. Can you let me know at about what time the pie chart appears in the fanfest video? I've looked a bunch of times and I must be missing it some how. I did find a pie chart talking about alliance percentages regarding bots, and I found a heat map of botting activity, but since heat maps cannot be translated into a percentage without knowing the numbers used to generate said heat map I, nor anyone else here, can make an assumption based upon the heat map that would be reliable and unbiased.
Xavier Higdon
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#188 - 2014-05-17 16:54:03 UTC  |  Edited by: Xavier Higdon
La Nariz wrote:

What part of paragraphs did you not understand? Fix this and I'll reply to it.


Reading is hard, I know. So let me break it down for you.

You keep saying I'm the one asserting that goons are guilty of 21% of all botting.

I did not actually say this.

I was careful not to imply which alliance it might be.

You and Kaarous are the ones that think it's goons doing 21% of all botting.

You want CCP to focus on high sec for botting, even though you thinks goons are doing nearly 1/4th of all botting.

This means botting in other areas of space would be easier since CCP wouldn't be paying attention, which means the 21% of botting you think goons are guilty of would be less likely to be discovered.

I don't know why you want botting to be easier in null sec.

I don't know why you think it's goons that are guilty of 21% of all botting.

I don't know why you're in an alliance that you think is responsible for 21% of all botting.

Edit: And, just so you know, a paragraph is split when the subject matter changes. Since the subject matter of my paragraph never changed, it would make no sense to double space it like I had to do here. Are you reading this on a half inch screen or something? Maybe try increasing the size of the text? I'm not sure what to tell you if you're struggling so much.
La Nariz
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#189 - 2014-05-17 17:02:37 UTC
Xavier Higdon wrote:
La Nariz wrote:

What part of paragraphs did you not understand? Fix this and I'll reply to it.


Reading is hard, I know. So let me break it down for you.

You keep saying I'm the one asserting that goons are guilty of 21% of all botting.

I did not actually say this.

I was careful not to imply which alliance it might be.

You and Kaarous are the ones that think it's goons doing 21% of all botting.

You want CCP to focus on high sec for botting, even though you thinks goons are doing nearly 1/4th of all botting.

This means botting in other areas of space would be easier since CCP wouldn't be paying attention, which means the 21% of botting you think goons are guilty of would be less likely to be discovered.

I don't know why you want botting to be easier in null sec.

I don't know why you think it's goons that are guilty of 21% of all botting.

I don't know why you're in an alliance that you think is responsible for 21% of all botting.

Edit: And, just so you know, a paragraph is split when the subject matter changes. Since the subject matter of my paragraph never changed, it would make no sense to double space it like I had to do here. Are you reading this on a half inch screen or something? Maybe try increasing the size of the text? I'm not sure what to tell you if you're struggling so much.


There you go was that so hard? I see you're still angry over being called out for goonspiracy. Using resources efficiently =! making botting easier in one area. I'm not insinuating its anyone I'm not even mentioning who I think the 21% is unlike some goonspiracy theorists.

Fake Edit: A paragraph is not a solid block of text, that's what's referred to as a wall-of-text which usually includes a TL;DR. Be pedantic all you want it still makes you a goonspiracist and lazy poster.

This post was loving crafted by a member of the Official GoonWaffe recruitment team. Improve the forums, support this idea: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&find=unread&t=345133
Dave Stark
#190 - 2014-05-17 17:07:36 UTC
Xavier Higdon wrote:
Can you let me know at about what time the pie chart appears in the fanfest video?

no, you're the one that wants to know.
Xavier Higdon
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#191 - 2014-05-17 17:13:58 UTC  |  Edited by: Xavier Higdon
La Nariz wrote:


There you go was that so hard? I see you're still angry over being called out for goonspiracy. Using resources efficiently =! making botting easier in one area. I'm not insinuating its anyone I'm not even mentioning who I think the 21% is unlike some goonspiracy theorists.

Fake Edit: A paragraph is not a solid block of text, that's what's referred to as a wall-of-text which usually includes a TL;DR. Be pedantic all you want it still makes you a goonspiracist and lazy poster.


You keep calling me a goonspiracist. What is it about not wanting null sec botting to go unpunished that is conspiratorial against goons? How do you get to goons from me quoting CCP about a single alliance being guilty of 21% of all botting? This is utterly baffling to me. Is there something you might want to admit to us? Maybe a bit of guilt, where you hear that number, 21%, of a pang of remorse goes through your gut? You keep bringing up goons every time I talk about CCP's revelation that 21% of all bots came from one alliance, and I just don't know why.

And yes, focusing resources on high sec would mean botting would be easier in other areas of space. After all, if less Team Security members are watching null sec, and less automated programs are monitoring activity in null sec, and less time is spent looking for bots in null sec, and less effort is put into finding bots in null sec, and less energy is expended on monitoring botting activity in null sec... guess what happens? It's easier to bot in null sec.

Now, please tell me what it is about botting and goons that makes it a conspiracy to not want botting in null sec to be less important than botting in high sec? Why is it so important to you that CCP focus most of their attention on high sec and only focus a tiny fraction of their attention on null sec? Why wouldn't CCP just target botting as a whole, instead of splitting up their resources, losing efficiency and risk missing the activities of a number of bots due to their inattentiveness on some parts of space?

Dave Stark wrote:
Xavier Higdon wrote:
Can you let me know at about what time the pie chart appears in the fanfest video?

no, you're the one that wants to know.


It was a rhetorical question, I've looked, it isn't there.
Sarcasim
HOW to PEG SAFETY
#192 - 2014-05-17 17:19:49 UTC
Xavier Higdon wrote:
La Nariz wrote:

Why doesn't targeting the area with the most botting make sense? 85% of botting in highsec.


I still can't find where that number comes from, please provide a link so we can clear this up.

LOL there is no link. To find that number he would have to drop pants and grab his ankles at which time you would have to reach up into his lower cavity and pull that number out because this is the same place he got it from....his AZZ
Sarcasim
HOW to PEG SAFETY
#193 - 2014-05-17 17:22:24 UTC
Mara Rinn wrote:
La Nariz wrote:
You're pretty much vindicating my resource allocation spread for my thought experiment 70:10:10:10 (high/low/null/wh).


You're pretty much only seeing what you want to see. Nothing I wrote supports your argument.

This is one thing he is expert at.
Xavier Higdon
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#194 - 2014-05-17 17:24:31 UTC
Sarcasim wrote:
Mara Rinn wrote:
La Nariz wrote:
You're pretty much vindicating my resource allocation spread for my thought experiment 70:10:10:10 (high/low/null/wh).


You're pretty much only seeing what you want to see. Nothing I wrote supports your argument.

This is one thing he is expert at.


I love your name, it's very appropriate for this thread.
La Nariz
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#195 - 2014-05-17 17:27:28 UTC
Xavier Higdon wrote:

You keep calling me a goonspiracist. What is it about not wanting null sec botting to go unpunished that is conspiratorial against goons? How do you get to goons from me quoting CCP about a single alliance being guilty of 21% of all botting? This is utterly baffling to me. Is there something you might want to admit to us? Maybe a bit of guilt, where you hear that number, 21%, of a pang of remorse goes through your gut? You keep bringing up goons every time I talk about CCP's revelation that 21% of all bots came from one alliance, and I just don't know why.

And yes, focusing resources on high sec would mean botting would be easier in other areas of space. After all, if less Team Security members are watching null sec, and less automated programs are monitoring activity in null sec, and less time is spent looking for bots in null sec, and less effort is put into finding bots in null sec, and less energy is expended on monitoring botting activity in null sec... guess what happens? It's easier to bot in null sec.

Now, please tell me what it is about botting and goons that makes it a conspiracy to not want botting in null sec to be less important than botting in high sec? Why is it so important to you that CCP focus most of their attention on high sec and only focus a tiny fraction of their attention on null sec? Why wouldn't CCP just target botting as a whole, instead of splitting up their resources, losing efficiency and risk missing the activities of a number of bots due to their inattentiveness on some parts of space?

It was a rhetorical question, I've looked, it isn't there.


Its because that's what you are you might try to be in denial now but, denial is the first step so that's an okay thing. You seem to think that advocating for using resources efficiently = supporting nullsec botting and that is not the case. The bit of goonspiracy you spewed basically ruins all credibility you have of being objectively against botting. Using your own logic you are pro-making it easier to bot in highsec. The area that has the most bots and remember this isn't an asteroid belt the resources CCP used to handle bots don't magically respawn at downtime so they have to use them efficiently.

Everyone in this thread agrees that bots are bad.

The answers to literally all of your questions are one of three things, your own goonspiratic bias, limited resources, and/or maximum efficiency.

This post was loving crafted by a member of the Official GoonWaffe recruitment team. Improve the forums, support this idea: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&find=unread&t=345133
La Nariz
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#196 - 2014-05-17 17:28:47 UTC
Sarcasim wrote:
Mara Rinn wrote:
La Nariz wrote:
You're pretty much vindicating my resource allocation spread for my thought experiment 70:10:10:10 (high/low/null/wh).


You're pretty much only seeing what you want to see. Nothing I wrote supports your argument.

This is one thing he is expert at.


Folks lets take care of this detritus show support:

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&find=unread&t=345133

This post was loving crafted by a member of the Official GoonWaffe recruitment team. Improve the forums, support this idea: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&find=unread&t=345133
admiral root
Red Galaxy
#197 - 2014-05-17 17:29:23 UTC
Sarcasim wrote:
Mara Rinn wrote:
La Nariz wrote:
You're pretty much vindicating my resource allocation spread for my thought experiment 70:10:10:10 (high/low/null/wh).


You're pretty much only seeing what you want to see. Nothing I wrote supports your argument.

This is one thing he is expert at.


You're confusing his butt with a CCP presentation.

No, your rights end in optimal+2*falloff
Sarcasim
HOW to PEG SAFETY
#198 - 2014-05-17 17:29:41 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
21%, while a "large chunk", is nowhere close to the 85%+ of all botting that highsec bears responsibility for.

Sorry to dissuade you from whatever "Grr Goons" you were getting warmed up, but the magnifying glass belongs on highsec, and it should stay there.

Caldari space in particular.

So are you guys really that stupid and or short sighted to believe that these bots are ONLY being ran by people that only live in hi-sec?

Really?? You dont think that these bots could be owned and operated by people who reside in null-sec/low-sec??

You forum trolls NEVER cease to amaze with how dumb you think the rest of the community is or with how stupid you make yourselves sound.
admiral root
Red Galaxy
#199 - 2014-05-17 17:34:53 UTC  |  Edited by: admiral root
Sarcasim wrote:
Really?? You dont think that these bots could be owned and operated by people who reside in null-sec/low-sec??


They could be owned and operated by unicorns, too.

No, your rights end in optimal+2*falloff
Xavier Higdon
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#200 - 2014-05-17 17:36:58 UTC
La Nariz wrote:

Its because that's what you are you might try to be in denial now but, denial is the first step so that's an okay thing. You seem to think that advocating for using resources efficiently = supporting nullsec botting and that is not the case. The bit of goonspiracy you spewed basically ruins all credibility you have of being objectively against botting. Using your own logic you are pro-making it easier to bot in highsec. The area that has the most bots and remember this isn't an asteroid belt the resources CCP used to handle bots don't magically respawn at downtime so they have to use them efficiently.

Everyone in this thread agrees that bots are bad.

The answers to literally all of your questions are one of three things, your own goonspiratic bias, limited resources, and/or maximum efficiency.


You're still not saying where you see a goonspiracy in my belief that botting should be targeted everywhere. Why should CCP target most of the bots in high sec, some of the bots in low sec, a few of the bots in null sec and a couple of the bots in wormholes instead of targeting all of the bots in New Eden? That is neither efficient, nor sensible since it would promote botting in the areas of least enforcement. If they're getting caught in high sec, they're not going to stay in high sec. And actually, their resources might be limited but they aren't necessarily finite. CCP doesn't only have 12 GB of bandwidth to dedicate to finding bots, nor do they have only 5 minutes to spend finding them. Every day, the team members can wake up, go to work, and their work day has "respawned" just like an asteroid belt. With your method, their resources would be even more limited, since the moment a botter moves from high sec to null sec you want them to stop chasing them and refocus their attention on another bot in high sec if they've already spent 10% of the day working on a bot in null.

What happens if it would take 20% of their day to prove someone is botting in null? Should they only half punish them? Or should they just forgive them and punish a random high sec player instead? It's worse in high sec after all.

Now please, quote my goonspiracies so I can be discredited. Stop just claiming that I'm a part of some goonspiracy and prove it. Or is my participation in the goonspiracy some kind of highsecspiracy that you're spouting?