Assembly Hall

Right but the bear tears are coming in from "AFK cloaking." If it's all hot drops it's content and pvp, no afking. I prefer that myself.

Auto-Logoff? Stay away with that please. I am so frelling glad, that Eve doesn't do this s***t.
Imagine you are sitting in your POS, floating somewhere in hisec space or cloaked in some safespot. You go chat on Jabber with your coalition, or are heavily discussing something on Mumble, or EFTing, or checking some forums, ... Then you tab back and you notice you have to restart the client and login. You will have no idea if and what was written in all the open chat channels (unless you start scrambling through the logs). You will also have to wait for eWarp to finish doing its thing.
"Just dock up when you go afk / tab out" is not an alternative, sorry.
And not everyone sitting still and watching/waiting is an afk cloaker in nullsec. Please don't force me to do silly moves all time in order to stay logged.

They introduced Auto-Logoff in a game I used to play since 2003, it's there for some years now and it still drives me mad even tho, or maybe especially because I don't actively play it much but just log in to hang around a bit.

all good points, well mostly

(1) against passive game play.
So using the same arguments against passive game play, they why are we nerfing drone assist?
let me digress, I am for the changes that are coming I think it will make combat more interesting. Reading the thread on it however.
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=319278
"We feel that drone assist, at a large scale, leads to passive gameplay that most players do not enjoy. Assist places too much control in the hands of a single person and leaves the majority of the fleet with little to do."

(2) whining about cloaky campers go someplace eles ect.
I want to interact with the long term cloaky camper, I would rather he be active so I can give chase, that is fun. sitting in station or moving operations more often then not leads to logging off. This is not in my case but with many who I talk with.

(3) killing defenseless ships or looking for easy kills.
The other point made several times in this thread, the discussion is not the occasional cloaky camper looking for easy kills, or is doing disruptive camping, this is about the cloaky camper who logs in right after downtime and says claoked in the system does not do anything but be present except stay cloaked until the next down time. then does this for weeks on end.

Not whining about my system being camped.
I do want to interact with a mechanic that currently does not allow it but does allow a perceived threat.
personally if Eve became a theme park version I would not play it.
Seraph to be honest I expected better arguments from you.
I have always respected your point of view, even when I did not agree with it.
The auto log off idea was not mine however I did see a little merit in it. with further discussion I do see a bigger downfall to it.
I am still looking for good discussion on this, like it how it is, please leave a response with the merits explained, and show why this is such a valuable mechanic and should not be messed with.

I have supported this numerous times in this thread.
I have also supported the need for other means of intel should local be reduced to showing only those who "speak" in it.
I also do not mind killing defenceless ships but I prefer they shoot back, I like a challenge
and it is not a problem solved.

AFK gameplay... so that would means that "anchoring" mechanic is bad and need change to.

I am going to have to answer no, for myself.
This is focusing on a symptom, not the primary issue.

Please consider the following:

Cloaked campers are an issue, because the 'defenders' wish to maintain a persistent presence of ships which are at best poor at PvP. The primary tactic these ships use is evasion, for this reason.
The campers are cloaked, because ships of superior fighting ability to them can be brought in, just not until they are aware of a need. This problem exists partly because these ships are not a normal presence.

The real issue, is we are playing not simply a PvP game, but one featuring space combat.
The ships exist in three tiers, in this regard to ability in space combat.

On top, are dedicated PvP ships. They are not good at much more than PvP, so when other needs exist they have difficulty meeting them. Obviously, they have superiority in space combat.

In the middle, we have stealthy ships. They are mediocre at PvP, having compromised potential for the purpose of balancing their 'stealth' capacity. They are mediocre at space combat, being less effective than the pure dedicated ships.

On the bottom, are the dedicated ISK generation vessels, mining ships being an often cited example.
These are the least effective at space combat, relying on avoiding conflict whenever possible.

Each level is capable of preying on those below it, and fighting against those on their own level.

Your suggestion ignores the disparity in fighting ability, and treats the symptom by simply limiting access to the middle group.

If we want to see more fights, (AKA interaction in the minds of many players), we need to dispel the perception of disparity between the levels that players can make plans around.
Give the lowest level the fighting ability to confront the mid level, and this resolves itself.

Noone expects the dedicated PvP ships to stand a post, and it would be absurd to coerce them for such.

Why does anything need to be put in its place?

So you want pvp to happen in the pvp arena while you can theme park in your corner of the universe.

You want to plow the fields in full plate armor? Doesn't work that way chief.

Please demonstrate the incentive that PvP players have, to pay for an EVE account so that they may stare at miners persistently cycle mining lasers.
Note: The option to go on roams and seek PvP may be perfectly understood, yet still be rejected so this dynamic can be preserved.

Also, please note the ships most often cited as being capable of actually threatening PvE assets in null, are also demonstrated to be unwilling to engage in an obvious losing engagement.
The PvP ships, by virtue of their known presence, would act as a deterrent. Sadly, this would result in virtually ensuring that they see no PvP while filling this necessary function of guardianship.

A cat sits until it is done sitting, and then gets up, stretches, and walks away.
A PvP player stays until they lose interest, then looks up other opportunities to find play and warps away.

It is simply in their nature, and to deny this is folly.