Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Kindly point out where the trolling and fallacies are and I'll do my best to remedy them, or, if you honestly believe I'm trolling, maybe you should forward my post to an ISD.

Maybe you should consider the possibility that facts, dynamics, and reason are "derailing" your thread because your proposal is unreasonable. To me, the only point that has been illuminated by your response to my posts is that you are apt to label anything that doesn't support your argument as "trolling" and anyone who disagrees with you as a "troll".

"6. If the EULA said you had to jump off a bridge, would you do it?"

I will clarify this, in the unlikely scenario that you honestly mistook it for a troll.

The point I was making is that although the EULA may (or may not) literally say that we only have the right to log into the server, and nothing else, that's not a reasonable stipulation in the context of CCP's business model. There is a larger context for us to take into consideration. If I were to assume that CCP was operating in good faith (which I do assume), then I don't proceed to participate in EVE Online under the presumption that all I can do is log in, and nothing else. Similarly, if the EULA told me to jump off a bridge, I would have to presume that CCP was NOT requiring me to actually throw myself from a bridge, but that there was some larger context in which the stipulation was made that would modify it to the point where it actually made sense and was reasonable and practically enforceable.

So are you implying that they are better than other people and we should make exceptions for them or design the game around them? That's what it sounds like; we're still getting rid of 99% of the garbage and unfortunately losing 1% of the gold. I've already listed a tonne of positives in the OP and addressed potential negatives. This isn't a new point either just the magnification of an old one.

If by other people you mean trolls, then yes, I feel they should not be treated as trolls because they are not. Likewise, anyone who is not a troll, regardless of their corp ticker, should not be treated as a troll. In actuality, you are the one asserting that some characters are inherently better on the forums than others regardless of the content of their posts, which really should be the ONLY measure by which someone should be excluded.

Regarding the OP, you've created contradictions and other issues:
- Creating responsibility contradicts the use of alt posting corps
- Compressing forums NPC and low number PC corps can use degrades the forums for new players as it deprives them of a dedicated location to look for assistance
- Leaving character transfer unaffected isn't a benefit
- Joining smaller player corps would actually be worse than it is now
- Creating troll corps becomes desirable, and negative sentiment towards the new rules from disenfranchised players could create a new dedicated troll, since the incentive for doing so is much higher than CAOD exclusion alone could provide
- How does a solo player easily circumvent a 10+ character count minimum?

Furthermore your address to the negatives has only been that you believe it's an acceptable loss. This isn't in any way a means of addressing it so much as an acknowledgement that there are workarounds which derail one of the primary points presented in favor of the change.

This kind of post and your attempt to bait me into reporting you in hope of a thread lock are exactly why I suggested this suggestion. Instead of attacking the suggestion you decided to rely upon goonspiracy and fallacy. You, and people behaving like you, being unable to post in all aside from the exceptions noted in the OP would be an improvement in forum quality.

Alright, I will break from my no responding here again for one time. I have an excellent idea! You sir, are the most trolling person in this thread. By your logic, let's ban every character that had any goonswarm federation corporation in their history. We get rid of 99% **** and 1% gold, right? And there will be less trolling. It's a win win!

You in particular are a great example of why restrictions like those proposed in this thread are a good idea.

You weren't around for when it was a toilet so I can see why you don't think much of it. It used to be worse than kugu.

Cant comment either way on the level of improvement but I'm still wondering which forums its currently better than.

Are you implying we should anchor fences around "goons" borders with a board "don't feed the trolls "?

An Egalitarian stance would seem to suggest to me that being in a player corp with 10+ members would be of equal worth to being alone in an NPC corp. Furthermore it seems counterintuitive to suggest such a stance would be considered parallel with the idea of the exclusion of those with lesser numbers from forum participation.

Readdressing the list:
1) What tangible asset? The throw away alt has no value, nor does a trash corp created for posting. Both are easily replaced which leaves no greater redress that current for ISD/CCP under otherwise unchanged policies.

2) The search function does nothing to vet conversation out of the New citizens forum that rightfully shouldn't be there but would have to fall there due to a lack of other non-dedicated purpose forums which those affected would have access to. This is primarily an issue for those seeking to ANSWER questions as it lowers the likelihood of legitimate new player questions from being seen, thus lowering the utility for new players.

3) Existing features working as is is not a benefit of a change, it can be an acknowledgement of a problem not being created, but in the case of other suggestions there is no reason special casing can't be applied much like what is still needed here to preserve functionality there. There is nothing unique to your suggestion that makes excluding a subforum specifically advantageous to it, but rather it's an acknowledgement that it suffers the same limits as other suggestions in that respect with a workaround that equally could probably apply to them all.

4) I thought it self evident. We had already established that there are disadvantages to player corps as is. You are adding another disadvantage to player corps consisting of less than 9 players. They gain nothing and lose access to the majority of the forums. That is objectively a worse situation for those corps and adds no incentive to join of have them.

5) That packaging is only as effective as the value of the corps identity. Seeing as such corps would only exist for their function, and that function can be accomplished by any corp with 10+ members, their identity is worthless and thus holding it hostage is ineffective.

6) So basically the answer to solo representation is simply to not be solo? If someone has placed themselves in a situation to minimize risk that person will not seek to undo that for posting privileges, they will create an alt and have that alt join a corp to post, which again leads to the abuses in points 1 and 5.

It's in no way permissive. It involves workarounds that aren't logically beneficial for the responsible posters affected and as such promotes the same tactics of creating actual disposable alts that you claim is the cause of the current forum condition. It creates no accountability or control because it renders everything that could be used as leverage worthless and replaceable. You are penalizing legitimate players and posters and telling them that the only way they can post is to separate consequence from posting, not add to it. This all hinges around the idea that people should be fine with not being able to post, current trolls, future trolls and legit posters alike, which I have trouble believing you actually consider the truth.

Regarding CAOD, that likely works because it's just CAOD, and even then leaves much to be desired. The reat of the forums are incomparable in both desirability and likelihood of effort.