Crime & Punishment

Did you pay the man or not?

Lots of claims still, and no proof provided.

Please, like I asked Poetic Stanziel (who has also yet to provide the statistics he claimed he had), provide proof of these claims, particularly this forum dump you mention.

I'd be fairly interested to see it, as I cant find the post you are referring to on our forums, and any averages would be heavily skewed by longer members such as Morning Maniac who has been in the corp for over 7 and a half years since he founded it.

PS: Contract is up. You may pay me when ready, and I have a lot of others to provide you.

isnt it even so that also chribba remains neutral? is helping out a neutral entity making you not neutral? hm...

no griefing has happened yet so I motion for the title to be changed to: "Yet another dumb thread that amounts to nothing".

Speak for yourself, this entire thread makes me very sad. There isn't enough trolling. Once these tears go away and I can see the screen again, I'll probably write a blog about how sad I am.

I nominate "Tear-Face Sad-Bear ganking for little fun and tiny profit."

Ell, that was a satisfying read. I think Poetic slacked off a bit on the number of times he tried to link to his blog, however.

You do want high sec PvP removed but only for EVE university and only by manipulating the structure of wardecs and this is a thousand times worse than what PS claimed. The way you are trying to do this is smarter than other carebears and you deserve credit for that: you are looking for changes based on numbers of members, as this is the one thing that no other corp or alliance in high sec can match you with.

I only seriously read about EVE university wanting wardec costs changed so it would cost at least a billion a week to wardec you because of the size of your alliance and the arrogant statements that somehow groups who are not large enough or individual pilots should not have the right to, or even be able to, wardec EVE university.

You want it to be too expensive to dec you and you want small to medium corps to not be able to dec you never mind solo pilots; how many corps or alliances in high sec come close to half your numbers, that was suggested as the minimum size of any entity that should be permitted to wardec you? (How many even come close to a tenth?) This was one of the ideas that was well liked by EVE university members, the other well liked one was making the cost equal to the number of members in EVE University times a million isk, so it will be far more than a billion a week to dec you. The allegations have been that these were the ideas put forward to CCP by you. No one knows if this is true due to the lack of records, lack or scrutiny and, sadly, CCP's lack of integrity in this matter but it will be interesting to see if the new structure of wardecs reflects this.

This type of thinking shows you want an effective end to wars on you and dont give a damn about the effects of this on EVE as a game. Dont confuse this with a desire to change things to benefit you. This is fine. What is not fine is claiming you are doing this to "benefit all of EVE". I liked the quote where EVE University was pushing for wardec reforms to "benefit all of EVE". Such a thing is just not possible but I do like the paternalistic arrogance in thinking you know what is best for EVE.

The constants you see with carebear whines on these forums about wardecs is that wardecs are too cheap and dont have a defined purpose (beyond these peoples incorrect interpretation of griefing); EVE University posts on wardecs follow this rule. Here I am referring to posts like the KR one that PS said was warsong gulch (capture the flag, dominate territory?) which I assumed was some sort of victory condition where EVE University could use its superior numbers to easily succeed in. KR never bothered to post his idea after PS's post.

You say you want "more and better quality PvP in high sec" but how is this to be achieved? The number of recent threads on wardec changes to accomplish this by EVE University on these forums has been a whopping zero. Let us hear what you have to say on this matter. Let your ideas and suggestions be peer reviewed in public and not introduced in back alley deals with CCP.

Regarding the recent wardec exploit removal and how you personally dont like this, it seems obvious that your view is not the prevalent one in EVE university. It is common knowledge that EVE university has a history of using war dec mechanics to cheat your way out of wars. Your cheating to avoid wardecs is not news. You might not like these changes but you sure as hell are using them to yet again cheat your way out of wars and the mail by KR that was posted on these forums telling members to like the wardec exploits removed thread, and your own forums decshield thread, shows EVE university as a whole likes these changes and wants the dec shield to stay.

Did the recent CCP policy changes regarding the removal of exploits have anything to do with you? No one knows for sure. We can only look at the evidence. Ignoring the meetings with CCP where allegedly wardecs were discussed and the push for wardec changes on the crowdsourcing, we still have one critical piece of evidence. You were using the dec shield to protect yourselves for almost five months while it was still an exploit for the rest of EVE and when this was challenged as EVE university using an exploit , by petitions, CCP posted their thread about this no longer being regarded as an exploit.

If CCP truly were neutral in this matter and the exploit was still an exploit before 2011.10.10 then what punishment will be meted out to EVE University for intentionally exploiting game mechanics for five months? That EVE University was intentionally exploiting game mechanics is not in doubt (what is in doubt is if it was an exploit for all of EVE except for them). The 2009 thread on the old forums shows EVE University knew of and accepted this ruling that using a decshield in any form was an exploit. EVE university claims to have been permitted to do this after conversations with a senior GM. The concern for many people is that if a senior GM makes a change that has such a wide ranging effect on EVE but no on knows about it except for one group in the game how can we see this as anything but serious game affecting bias?

So despite being confronted with facts proving almost all of your points wrong you still spout off your same baseless accusations just like Poetic does (assuming your not just one of his alts).

Seriously who cares about the dec shield, you can still dec the uni, you just cant use a uni wardec as cheap entertainment anymore, and remember it costs them just as much to maintain that decshield (which probably costs more than they bring in from corp taxes each week).

ROFL.. And that forum post supposed to be evidence? Dude.. it says it right in there.. E-uni amongst a bunch of other large corps was in that meeting. So your claim about e-uni wanting to do things better for themselves is BS. since it was a BIG corp meeting not a how to help Euni meeting. You mad cause you weren't invited or something?


Wow.. 7.5%? aren't you omitting the whole .1% and 0% tax rates after war decs are over?

Do all high sec griefers QQ this much when they can't get easy kills?