Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Your standard is entirely disconnected from the game. You speak of the forums mirroring in game consequence for play choices, but clearly and demonstrably that's not what your suggestion does for NPC corp members. If for some reason NPC corps were restricted to noob ships and couldn't manufacture, trade, train non-trial skills, or do much of anything that requires undocking then yes, your proposed forum restrictions would mirror in game consequences for NPC corps.

But that isn't the case. Playing the majority of game doesn't require being in a player corp and any forum section should carry no more restriction than the portion of the game it reflects. The meaning for choices you are trying to relate to doesn't exist.

The spirit of the suggestion is also flawed; I am not a new citizen, nor am I looking to sell this character or be recruited. None of those forums are essential or even useful to me. Your use of collective references is also flawed as there is considerable useful/relevant content coming from those you would exclude. To use your logic would require we all be banned from posting actually since there is likely no range of corp/alliance sizes which has seen none of it's members be disruptive or degrade forum quality.

If the nuke it from orbit approach is the right one, lets at least be consistent about it.

It does though, you are not allowed to use the faceless recyclable ganking alt and you are also not allowed to use the faceless recyclable npc alt forum troll. Keep in mind that under this suggestion NPC corporation members would still be permitted to read and post in essential areas so its not similar in any way to restricting npc corporation members to rookie ships. Keep in mind there are plenty of people that have echoed that idea in this thread and would be happy with the destruction of NPC corporations.

We've already been over this and I still feel doing away with 99% of the garbage but, also losing 1% of the gold is still worth doing. You have to raise a new point or some other angle if you want more than this from me.

This only applies to recyclable alts. If I want to create an NPC alt to gank I am free to do so. There is nothing in the TOS or EULA preventing me from doing so nor is there anything stating that character has any need to move to a player corp. If your suggestion were against the cycling of alts that would be fine, but that is already covered by the game itself. Creating and playing on alts is entirely permissible, thus posting on them should remain permissible.

I'm aware there are people who have echoed your sentiment. I'm also aware that this is a meaningless metric. Group think is in it's entirety a non justification. Also I addressed how the forum areas you designated are in no way essential. They are dedicated purpose, those not in need of that purpose have no use of them.

Regarding the other point, we won't agree, but you haven't evolved the proposal or the counterpoints to actually get around the truth here. One such truth is that if there is room for disagreement that means a large part of your platform is opinion based, yet you keep trying to relay these "facts" as if they were actually that on top of still using collectives in an unsupported manner.

And then he just goes back to auto-conflating npc posting with trolling as if they're exactly the same.

Nariz half this thread is your posts. Is this your personal blog or something?

Half your own posts contain egregious fallacies anyway so I can't see why you get to complain.

Go ahead and point them out and raise your own points then,crazed gesticulation only further supports my argument that npc alts should only be able to post in essential areas.

The ability to recycle alts is my justification for why using the already existent ignore feature is not a solution to the whole problem.

I note that other people wish to be more harsh because we are continually getting more npc alts/ the same people being moronic freaking out and using whatever dogwhistles they want to claim this is the doom of npc corps. Its getting to the point that will go in the OP.

How is F&I, baazar, recruitment, and new citizens not essential? F&I would be the players voice in the direction of the game. The baazar would be buying/selling characters, an entire industry itself. Recruitment for finding other people to play with, which could be argued is essential for the games' continued existence. Finally new citizens is for the confused newbie who wants to ask a question.

I've acknowledged a con to the proposal we're losing 1% of the gold while getting rid of 99% of the garbage.

I didn't put this in my post so I'm going to assume its yours and the forum was acting up when you were finishing the edit:
"Edit: The fact that you stated " you are also not allowed to use the faceless recyclable npc alt forum troll" would suggest your suggestion is unneeded since if only focused at cycled alt, there are already rules in place to deal with them. "

It not focused on the cycled alt only an example of why ignore is not the tool to handle the problem.

How a subscription gets paid does not matter and people who pay with plex end up paying more in $$$ for their sub than those that pay with cash because a cash sub is 15.99 while a plex sub is 19.99. This is true for the US at least I do not know about other countries.

If you want to argue from a fiscal point this suggestion is golden because it does not necessitate the hiring of new employees, all of the coding is already done for it via CAOD, and it reduces employee forum workload allowing them to concentrate on other activities. You can further say that since CCP has acknowledged that people who play with social groups are more likely to remained in the game and continue playing that this suggestion should be enacted to encourage more players to join player run corporations in order to increase the chances of them finding social groups.

That would be pretty hilarious you'd be weaponizing the forums and I guarantee you those of us that came from a forum community are far more adept and would succeed in getting other people banned. That should happen as an April fools week holiday event or something like that.

On a more serious note it pretty much breaks C&P among other things so you'd have to tailor in some exclusions to get it to work.

Cycling alts is a banable offense. There are already more effective means than the block feature for such an offense, reporting the offender via petition. The block function wasn't intended to enforce alt cycling and thus shouldn't have ever been expected to.

If you want to deal with the the ramifications of NPC corps and how you feel they degrade the game, fine, post that and we can have that discussion in its own thread. This discussion relates to the justifications for banning them from the majority of forum participation. It requests that it be done so disproportionally to the level of in game participation restrictions.

Regarding the forum sections, yes, exactly, not essential. Essential for an individual is centered around an individual's gameplay. Now, regarding being essential for the forum as a whole, yes, they all serve their purpose, though in much the same way the other subsections serve theirs. They segregate relevant discussion by topic, thus making F&ID no more globally essential than EVE Information Center, or Ships & Modules.

One thing I'd like to request is your numbers to justify the 1% claim. A number of prolific good posters would be caught up by your proposal, so either you've set an easy to achieve bar on disruption, which would make a number of non excluded posters part of the problem, or your evaluation is largely anecdotal.

Lastly the statement from here in full: "It does though, you are not allowed to use the faceless recyclable ganking alt and you are also not allowed to use the faceless recyclable npc alt forum troll." If cycling is part of the justification, why not use the proper manner for dealing with it rather than call the wrong tool useless?