Assembly Hall

No leniency. No way, no how.

Yes to education. Have the Devs cook up a new tutorial session where person is given a ship by Concord and instructed to do something Darwinian .. throw in a bunch of text to explain what happened and why.
- Zero chance of exploitation (you know it will happen sooner or later) and the NPE guys gets something new to get their nerd on.

PS: Have Devs trawl the code to make sure there are not some modules/actions that are somehow evading the warning-popup.

Okay, problems I see with this scenario:

1) What ship are you flying that you can't track heavy drones, yet are at risk of being ganked by them before Concord supplies you with a free flight of heavy drones to scoop?

2) What ship is the ganker flying that can point you at 40 km, preventing you from escaping?

3) Why are you trying to target and shoot a full flight of drones rather than simply aligning so you can warp out as soon as the drones fire a shot and concord is triggered?

If you EVER die to a ganker from 40 km away and they didn't alpha you, it's because you are TERRIBLE at Eve.

You get told to your face that if you trip an offensive module against a player or you're trying to assist an aggressed player.

YOU

WILL

AGGRESS/GET CONCORDOKKEN'D

Uninstall EVE if you can't read warnings

Follow up:

1. (concerning lack of a popup): filed a petition and got a response - CCP "can't verify" that I did or did not get a popup so they won't act. (annoying but I won't loose any sleep over this - it just reflects badly on CCPs willingness to work toward an equitable game)

2. (concerning how aggression is handled in hi sec): CCP (support) says "your disagreement with the 'one-size-fits-all punishment' is something you'll need to take to the CSM or Dev's as we merely explain the rules, we don't make them."


So a final comment on the EVE universe for this CSM proposal:

Games have to be fun to be profitable - both for the Devs and the players - obviously players can choose not to play and no one wants to play a dying MMPOG. Game choices either encourage players or discourage them - the goal (actually requirement) is that more things must encourage than discourage players to keep subscriptions rising or keep them steady and active. As an example the permanent-loss-of-ships paradigm in EVE is perhaps the biggest and most controversial Dev choice - quoted by many as an encouragement (it is realistic) and yet it is dramatically expensive and puts many players off. Yet ship loss is a defining characteristic of EVE and overall attracts a significant number of game players who dislike the shallowness of many other MMPOGs.

The extent of this proposal however is small in respect, thus the issue it challenges has been generally ignored. And yet, with deference to the random sociopath (sociopathic features include: grandiose sense of self, callousness, lack of empathy, "rarely in difficulty with the law, but seek out situations where their tyrannical behavior will be tolerated, condoned, or admired" [1]), in game "law enforcement" over reaction to game violations will have no encouraging effect and thus will only decrease player numbers if it has any effect at all. *** There is absolutely no rational reason to NOT temper CONCORDs reaction to first time offenders *** and in fact attention to details like these will only improve the encouragement players receive regardless of their level of experience.

What it comes down to is what type of and how many active players do you want in the game? Respect people and more will follow. No tutorial. Make the game fun.

This is a general attitude that should be maintained throughout the game's design, and although it was spurred by a relatively insignificant event, many other issues will fall under this proposal.

[1] http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_do_you_know_if_someone_is_a_sociopath#ixzz1hIUHRDdt

TL,DR:

Most ways to get concords attention come with warnings. Those warnings are there to allow you reconsider your choice, which frankly I think is very nice of CCP since they don't have to and really shouldn't have to.

Seriously, if I was at walmart and reached for a magazine and a warning box popped up that said, "If you attempt to read this magazine your head will explode", I would put the magazine back on the rack not flip to page three.

It's really difficult to tank your sec status when you first start out. Hitting -0.01 isn't going to deny you access (or, more accurately, free passage) to any part of space. It's not a big deal.