This Neagan fellow sounds like a smart man. I, too, fight zombies of a kind.
Admittedly, until recent years, I did not anticipate having people say things to me like, "Life check mister, you're a video game cult leader". However, the New Order is in the business of giving "life checks" to the people who spend their days slaving away in the asteroid belts. Whether or not being the Father of the New Order is cause for reassessing and recouping one's life, I leave for history to judge. As for the bot-aspirant lifestyle, our Agents will judge them.
Some miners are ahead of the curve, and others are what we affectionately call "late bloomers". It can take a very long time to realize that 10 million isk is a small price to pay for legal status. Fortunately the New Order will be around long enough to save each miner.
Granted, a miner like Capt Lynch is likely to burn through a number of permits while he vacillates between the Order and the resistance. His moral arc is long, but it bends toward Code-compliance, I feel.
Kai Onslot is confident that mercenaries will eventually put a stop to the New Order. I wouldn't count on it. I hear some of them are quitting EVE because PLEX is too expensive.
Kitsu Yamida claims to have been ganked by the New Order after purchasing a permit. Because Kitsu feared backlash from rebel miners, Kitsu never put a pledge of loyalty in her bio. Hence, the gank. Two points of note: First, every miner in highsec should be more afraid of New Order gankers than anti-Order gankers. Second, if you're calling us a "cult" and showing disrespect to the Saviour of Highsec in an EVEmail, you probably weren't Code-compliant to begin with.
"I wasn't AFK, I was just [AFK]." It's times like these I regret retiring that Miner Bingo square. To all of you carebears out there, pick better friends. The ones who encourage you to violate the Code are nobody's friends.
I'm not sure why "New Order = Blood & Honur!!!" is included with the rest of Jia Far's klaxon-like bio. We're strongly in favor of honour. Blood? Better than bolts and batteries.
Life check mister, you're "free Kamioeen". Not to be a pessimist, but I don't see a bright future for this one-man resistance movement.
Sounds like we need to organize a debate between rebels like Kato Arcov who think we're ruining the game, and the rebels who claim that the New Order isn't having an impact.
Agent Jer'ith Bodas heard a poet-for-hire was in local, so he paid 10 million isk for a poem about the New Order. It was lovely. Someone's mining permit paid for that!
Although I strongly believe that every man, woman, and child in highsec has what it takes to obey the Code, not everyone is cut out to be a full-fledged Knight of the Order. I don't think Chi Tawate has the right stuff.
Finally, let's close out this edition of the Grab Bag with a hopeful, positive EVEmail:
There you have it, straight from the carebear's mouth: Having your mining barge ganked by the New Order expands your consciousness. And it's legal no matter where you live!
"There you have it, straight from the carebear's mouth: Having your mining barge ganked by the New Order expands your consciousness. And it's legal no matter where you live!"
ReplyDeleteAnd there you have it the ignorance that is james 315.
Even though he claims its not a rant, its a direct statement that you are breaking the game for people.
Yet Eve as it is is completely broken and thus the new order was created....
Being lead by the biggest douche bag of all times... so sad ...
And idea if James is ever going to get into CSM
CCP could use a little different Tactic make +0.7 ungankable but nerf isk making into oblivion
While at it make a "mid"-sec 0.3 to 0.6 With reduced Concord. With slightly improved isk making (as a bonus that if a player doesn't move his ship at least once a minute his damage taken is increased by 100%)
0.3 and below stay the same
Feel free to attack the post like i care
Jimmys running for csm on his scamming alt this time. wont vote for ether just like i wont give him a single isk for a worthles permit. cant believ anyone reads this cite
DeleteYour idea is bad and you should feel bad.
DeleteAlso, legitimate question:
Why is it that specifically carebears seem to exhibit a universal inability to spell or use anything approaching proper grammar?
I know, you're thinking "grammar nazi" or something. I don't care if people have a hiccup here and there, but most of this stuff approaches unintelligible. Its not just here, go to the forums, holds true 99% of the time there too. It is overwhelmingly one sided though, I could understand if like...a random sampling of 50% of the player base were borderline illiterate. It is overwhelmingly the bears though. Is it perhaps due to a demographic issue? Years of bot aspirant behavior destroys brain cells?
More bluntly what i'm saying is that based purely on reading posts alone, and based purely on the ability to convey an coherent or discernible idea, 99% of carebears present themselves as just..massively unintelligent.
tl;dr Pick up a fucking dictionary, or a thesaurus, for the love of christ even blogs have a built in spell check, use it. Any book, just pick up..even any book,figure out which is the front, back, top, and bottom of said book, buy an f'ing hooked on phonics cassette tape, and don't touch another keyboard until you finish it, I seriously pity those poor keyboards.
Bears also seem the most likely to make homoerotic/phobic comments about people and generally wish horrible things upon them.
DeleteNew Order doesn't ruin the game for anyone playing the game. New Order is great.
DeleteSo sayeth the spider.
"carebears" are the largest player group, with the largest number of new players, with the highest turnover. This group is constantly losing the most intelligent among them as these move forward in the game. Simultaneously the game's least intelligent players are retained.
DeleteA player named James sees this group and decides he doesn't like them or the way they play, so he rallies hundreds of veteran players and directs them to extort, attack, and harass thousands of these incompetent and/or new players, the most vulnerable group in the game, and bully them into playing the game the way, according to his personal opinion, it should be played.
That is messed up.
You are all very lame, and should be ashamed of yourselves.
I think you don't get that a lot of the "new players" you're referring to are actually from 2009 or so, most often they are shown here in these blog posts, sometimes they have years of being in the game under their belts, does that sound like a "new player" to you?
DeletePlus, anyone that is a legit new player will actually be reimbursed, especially if they respond positively by say asking how the gank was pulled off or how to do it themselves. Anything that gets a response of adapting rather than trying to whine to CCP to reimburse them or hold their hand is a good thing.
---Friendly Neighborhood Scoundrel
"A player named James sees this group and decides he doesn't like them or the way they play, so he rallies hundreds of veteran players and directs them to extort, attack, and harass thousands of these incompetent and/or new players"
DeleteI can't keep it straight. Are we noobs who can't do anything else, or veteran players picking on all the noobs? Is Bing James' alt or is James Bing's alt? Does Erotica 1 secretly control miniluv? Find out the answers on next weeks episode of Carebears In Space.
also.. fyi.. I started ganking with NO my 3rd month in game.
Point well made, Malcom. The same dual, yet mutually exclusive stereotype of NO members often appear in the very same rant. This is much like many conspiracy theories that claim a huge, global conspiracy afoot invoking everything from mind control to alien cover ups- yet is discovered and 'outed' by some lone crank with a You Tube acct. Which is it then?
DeleteIn the end, whether they be low skill newbs or alts of 100mil SP players, every New Order member is FAR more interesting than care bears.
Here we see the difference between professional and amateurish approach. Professional thinks the consequences through and have the whole system in mind, while amateur "fixes" shallow things.
ReplyDeletethe Code is the professional approach to the game's deficiencies whereas "move your ship once a minute or else" is a light-headed solution. I leave it as a reader's exercise to see the deficiencies of this so-called remedy.
"The maximum amount of skill points that can be lost is 2,048,000." - https://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Pod_Death
ReplyDeleteSo I guess by 5 million, Kitsu meant not 5 million.
If her clone was up to date she'd have lost nothing anyway, except a bit of isk to re-update it.
DeleteHomophobic remarks, "I just want relax," "leave us alone," inability to spell, for some reason a remark about gay marriage, "repent and be saved." Guys, I think I found a carebear.
ReplyDeleteWell, Jia Far can't be shooting to be THAT proficient at mining...I mean, she doesn't even have a permit! Clearly the only way to mine proficiently in High Sec is obtain a permit and follow the Code.
ReplyDeleteNo, not really, I mine fairly well in High Sec and I do not have any permits nor do I follow that senseless drivel you call the code...
DeleteAh, so you're a bot-aspirant? I don't know that I would be proud of that friend, you might as well be telling me you only play Eve so that you can watch TV. You aren't playing Eve if you're not code-compliant. We're helping you, miner. Even if you don't appreciate it, it's still help. I hope that one day you'll welcome our help and embrace the code.
DeleteLanaya, you can lead a horse to water, but can't make him drink.
DeleteThis is why the New Order will succeed- we bring anti-matter rounds instead of water....but we do offer free delivery service of each and every round, directly to the hull of your ship!
Miners really should support the NO gameplay. They don't need to be at their keyboards to get blown up any more than they do to mine. Dying is perfectly compatible with being AFK
It's like all NO agents have a string connected to their back. Whenever they approach a keyboard, the string is pulled and they spew forth the same old nonsensical effluent time and time again.
ReplyDeleteThe notion of individual thought to NO agents must be a truly scary one for them. Lemmings in more sense than one.
Any facts supporting your allegation? Oh, sorry. You're so free-minded, so progressive-thinking person you don't need any facts.
DeleteThe fact that NO agents swallow every word that James speaks as a truth that must be obeyed backs up anything I said.
DeleteThat fact that agents all repeat the same old mantra about the code over and over again (sort of bot like you might say) also shows how unfamiliar they are with original thought.
It's not difficult to find facts to support my "allegations" as you put it Mr Anonymous. All you need is an open mind and ability to think logically and rationally.
Unfortunately, you provide nothing specific, only saying it isn't difficult. This leads me to believe that you have in fact, NOT found any support for your arguments.
DeleteAnd besides, that is the point of any organization, having a singular mode of thought or skill that brings players/people together, so that's really a point in the NO's favor as it means there is more unification of our numbers.
However, I believe you'll find there are those among us that have differing opinions, we're just more willing to discuss these differences rather than let it tear us apart.
And original thought you say? It is always up to the specific Agent's interpretation and judgment on a per case basis of what to do when enforcing the Code. Some of us don't suicide gank, relying only on bumps to get the job done. Some use industry to fuel the NO with Catalysts and other gank ships. Agents are given a very significant amount of freedom in what they do to enforce the Code. So what's wrong with that?
In short, your argument is null and void. You wouldn't happen to know/be Gorila Vengaza would you, I think you'll find his opinions are very similar to yours.
So they aren't facts because I said it isn't difficult to find them (which errr makes it not a fact in your view?). But then you say they are because this is the common thing that brings agents together (that is something we can agree on)... But then you say all NO agents conforming to James' wish and suicide ganking easy targets in a bot like fashion (or bot-aspirant fashion) is showing original thought...
DeleteUmmmm yeah. OK. You've made an outstanding contribution here Mr Drake.
I may have to refine my "original thought" statement to "coherent original thought". You response was certainly original, but in the same way that my 3yr old daughter is an original painter. Unfortunately for you, your response was self conflicting and nonsensical. In that respect, you're certainly conforming to the lemmings in NO and following the herd. Keep it up.
William, you repeating same mantra over and over doesn't make you more convincing. So far agents of New Order shown much higher creativity, intelligence and overall style than their opponents.
DeleteI'm trying to say that if these facts are easy to find, why don't you provide some, it would certainly further your case. Since you haven't done this yet your argument loses any sort of power it had in the first place.
DeletePlus, I think you are under the impression that the "elite" PVP only happens between two combat-oriented ships. This is not so good sir. In fact, it is a good strategic move, if not elite by many definitions, to go after the ships that cannot fight back and disrupt your opponent's supply chains.
If you don't mind me going on a little side trip here, this attitude, especially among members of the anti-NO resistance, of PVP should only happen between combat ships or during wartime, I find it to be utterly ridiculous.
Side note done, this is the attitude I believe you have by comparing Agents to bots/bot-aspirants in the way you did. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong though. With examples please, thank you.
The onus is on you to provide examples and facts Mr Drake, as you are the one making outlandish claims about me. I'm waiting...
DeleteWilliam, you've tried to compare us to bots at least twice now. I ask you, where is the botting in our work? Show us where our righteous stand against bot-aspirancy is in fact bot-aspirancy. You claim that there is no individual thought in the Code. I claim that there is no higher aspiration of individual thought than the Code. We ask only that you unleash yourselves from your space rocks and play Eve with us. Is it so much to ask you to not AFK and enjoy the game you play? Is it truly so hard to enjoy Eve that you must AFK? How about you give me your definition of bot-aspirancy, William. I want to see how you're somehow confusing our justice for the greed and gluttony of the AFK bot-aspirants.
DeleteOh my, what a chidlish strategy.
DeleteIt's up to the clowns troupe to define "bot-aspirancy" not to the oponents. oh you don't? no surprise!
So if BA is spending time not on the actual EvE play:
You guys are sitting in local chat for hours. since you dont kill of the time, which would be visible, your guys yust sit there.
AFKing BA-ing in its finest!
if no one else wants to play with you, why should the newby-miners?
Remember: seniour miners laugh at your feeble attempts.
:)
@WIlliam
DeleteI make no such claims about you Mr. McStrider, in fact I invited you to correct the ones I did make in terms of PVP definitions. It was you who made claims in your original comment.
We are all waiting for that evidence to back up that bot-aspirancy assertion, which you have still stalled on providing meaningful evidence of any kind.
Do you want us to believe that you cannot find any evidence to support your original argument? Or do you want to find evidence to prove us wrong?
I will leave answering that up to you...
Childish? I ask only for his definition of bot-aspirancy so that I may ascertain from where his confusion stems. I fail to see what's childish in this simple request...I also fail to see a reason to call William and the carebears a "clown troupe." We mustn't stoop to name-calling.
Delete"Bot-aspirancy is when a player attempts to become as much like a bot as possible, without necessarily breaking any rules. A bot-aspirant would likely use botting to automate their gameplay, if it were allowed. Being AFK while playing EVE often goes hand-in-hand with bot-aspirancy, but not always. For example, it is perfectly fine to be AFK while docked in a station." - James 315
We here at the New Order understand bot-aspirancy perfectly, Anon 8:35. It is, after all, our code-given duty to defend from the poisons of bot-aspirancy. We do understand, however, that this may be confusing to the poor miners upon which this poison preys and we are always willing to help you on your way to following the Code. Allow me to direct you to an earlier post in which the Saviour of Highsec answers some questions about the Code. Perhaps it will help you to understand as well, Anon.
Took a moment to find it, Anon. I hope you weren't too worried when I was unable to immediately supply it. I would never do that to you, it's very important that you understand the intricacies of the code so that you might sooner break away from the poisons of bot-aspirancy.
Deletehttp://www.minerbumping.com/2014/02/if-youve-got-questions-weve-got-answers.html
"Bot-aspirancy is when a player attempts to become as much like a bot as possible, without necessarily breaking any rules. A bot-aspirant would likely use botting to automate their gameplay, if it were allowed. Bot-aspirants often act just the same as all of their fellow bot-aspirants. They say the same things, use the same terms and all fail at any sort of human original thought. They partake in the same in-game activities and always snap at people who point out their shortcomings."
DeleteThere you go. NO are bot-aspirants. I have provided proof. You will no doubt deny it because you are all bot-aspirants and as we all know, that's what bot-aspirants do.
I will ask you where you found that quote instead, so I may take a look for myself if you don't mind. And don't forget to put the url.
DeletePlus, I think you'd find bots would have the very same tell-tale marks of writing style. I don't know much about botting (would never dream of doing that myself) but I would think that one could pretty much put two examples of bot writing and they would be identical to a tee.
Same terms also is not conclusive. And plus, if there was one of us who thought we could improve upon the Code and its provisions, don't you think someone would have done so by now? And EVE Online players all over New Eden also use similar to almost identical terms, do "NBSI" and "carebear" sound familiar?
On that same note, if we applied that definition over all of EVE, then I think you'd be surprised how many that self-identify as PVPers, industrialists, miners, mission runners, etc. would be defined by that as bot-aspirants through that definition.
Partaking in the same activities is pretty much the same thing, I bet you wouldn't say the same thing of a mission-running or mining fleet. Feel free to prove me wrong on this specifically if you wish.
It seems to me, William, that your main reasons for believing that the New Order are bot-aspirants is a fundamental misunderstanding of what a bot-aspirant is.
DeleteA bot-aspirant, at its root, is a player who "attempts to become as much like a bot as possible." This is further expanded on with the knowledge that a bot-aspirant would "likely use botting to automate their gameplay, if it were allowed."
This, at the heart of it, is what defines a bot-aspirant player. The tendencies and mannerisms of a bot-aspirant player do not MAKE the bot-aspirant. It is the actions of the bot-aspirant which are most telling. AFK mining and other automation attempts (autopiloters and AFK missioners, for example) are the most telling aspects of bot-aspirancy. We do not, for example, condemn miners to New Order ganks because they sound the same. Were that the case, highsec would be a literal graveyard of mining ships.
I think you'll find that the New Order is plenty diverse and full of differing opinions, William. Just the fact that we, as a group, share a belief in the Code and the poisons of bot-aspirancy does not make us bot-aspirants. My own opinions and my way of handling things, I'm sure, you would find differ very much from say...Spine Ripper or Bing Bangboom. Just as, say, the thoughts and opinions of a group of church-goers may differ. Sharing a belief does not homogenize us, William.
If you have further questions, concerns or misunderstandings I would happy to clarify them for you.
@ Alistair Drake
Delete"I don't know much about botting (would never dream of doing that myself)"
That's what all bot-aspirants say.
"if there was one of us who thought we could improve upon the Code and its provisions, don't you think someone would have done so by now?"
Well, you are all bot-aspirants who lack any sort of original thought, so of course you wouldn't!
@ Lanaya Lennelluc
"a bot-aspirant would likely use botting to automate their gameplay, if it were allowed."
Exactly! You guys would clearly love to automate your ganking. It's not like it's challenging. Undock, warp, target, F1. Actually, that's EXACTLY what bot-aspirant miners do!
"This, at the heart of it, is what defines a bot-aspirant player. The tendencies and mannerisms of a bot-aspirant player do not MAKE the bot-aspirant."
I agree with you! The fact that you guys also display the same mannerisms too is just more evidence showing you to be bot-aspirants.
"If you have further questions, concerns or misunderstandings I would happy to clarify them for you."
Perfectly clear now thanks. You've confirmed what we all knew all along... You are a bot-aspirant!
Automate ganking? Where would be the fun in that? I don't gank for profit, William. You'll find that the majority of us find our profits elsewhere. We do this for the betterment of highsec, not for our wallets. I assure you, it's much more difficult than you make it sound. Are you a ganker, William? Do you know first hand the issues and difficulties that come with it? The hits we take for it?
DeleteI'll think you'll find that you actually don't agree with me, William. Did you have a bot do your reading for you as well, William? If you actually read what I wrote, you'd see that I explicitly stated that mannerisms and tendencies do NOT make for bot-aspirants. Rather, it's the actions of a pilot that makes them a bot-aspirant.
I will always be happy to answer your questions...should you, in fact, be asking questions. It seems to me that you're not so much looking for a civilized discussion as to poorly attempt to twist our words in slanderous ways.
Curious that you now think calling someone (with evidence) a bot-aspirant is slanderous. But then bot-aspirants will try to squirm and wriggle their way out of anything.
Delete"We do this for the betterment of highsec, not for our wallets."
Ah yes, that phrase that is repeated continually, almost bot like by NO aficionados. I do believe you are very close to becoming a fully fledged bot.
"Are you a ganker, William?"
Not anymore. I stopped because I found nothing to challenge me. It's simple: Scan fit with alt, calculate required deeps, get required deeps, warp, gank. I get that you may find this challenging, but it wasn't to me. It's something so repetitive that a bot could do it!
The more this goes on, the more you repeat yourself, spitting out the same thing with not even the slightest indication of awareness that I have already addressed this issue. By your own logic, it's very "bot-like" behavior. With the way you've been repeating yourself I would almost believe you were a bot too, but I've noticed a subtle uptick in anger with each response.
DeleteAnd yes, William, bot-aspirancy is a slanderous accusation considering that bot-aspirancy is but one of the many poisons that the New Order is fighting. That you would suggest that the New Order itself is poisoned with it is preposterous. Especially considering your "evidence" is based upon the false premise that repetition = bot-aspirancy. This is a premise both I and Alistair have both addressed but you've done everything you can to avoid answering it. Could it be because you know in your heart that you are wrong? Do you need saving from bot-aspirancy, William?
You again fail to address the issue: why would we want to automate ganking when we have the joys of enforcing the Code personally? The thought that we, the New Order, would turn to bot-aspirancy to fight bot-aspirancy is ridiculous. You do everything that you can to distract from the questions, I'm assuming because you don't like the answers. I don't much care that you find ganking repetitive, William, because I know that behind each ship we gank is a different miner struggling with the poisons of bot-aspirancy and that each gank brings them a bit closer to the light of the Code. We don't find it repetitive and we don't want or need bots to help with this cleansing.
Maybe someday, you'll join us. Till then, I'll assume that you are wallowing somewhere in the belief that you are a bot-aspirant because you're repetitive. Don't worry, William. The New Order is always ready to help you too.
"Especially considering your "evidence" is based upon the false premise that repetition = bot-aspirancy."
DeleteIt's a part of it. But the overriding evidence is that you clearly want to automate the menial task of ganking. Afterall, only a fool would find that challenging and I assume you're not going to admit to being a fool. It's a task that all normal people (i.e. not fools) would instantly want to automate. Given how you lack the original thought that is required to move away from this idea, it stands to reason that you are unequivocally a bot-aspirant.
Your next reply may well be automated in denying this and trying to worm your way out of it, but it's too late. You are hereby declared and judged by your own rules, to be a bot-aspirant.
You're very persistent in both your repetition and your inability to read. I'll lay it out clearly, William, one last time for you. I'll even number them so you can't miss it.
Delete1. You claim the evidence of our bot-aspirancy is that we clearly want to automate ganking. I challenge you to pull even ONE post of a New Order ganker who has stated that they would bot to gank if it were allowed. Your only "evidence" so far is that normal people would want to. That's your evidence? "Normal people?" We're to take OPINION as evidence of our bot-aspirancy?
2. Moving away from a point generally happens after you've touched down on a point. Something you never did. I asked you, several times, for proof of New Order Agents wishing for automated ganking. Instead, you provide opinion to distract from your lack of real evidence.
3. The New Order definition of bot-aspirancy, no matter how you try to twist it, does not declare me a bot-aspirant.
William, this tap-dancing is getting you nowhere. I'm sorry that you weren't able to provide your evidence...had you actual proof of New Order bot-aspirancy I'm sure we would have dealt with those Agents accordingly. As it so happens, the poison is not in the New Order but within yourself. Clearly you wish to automate everything in Eve as nothing is challenging enough for you. The bot-aspirancy is deep in you, but the Code can still save you.
I provide conclusive proof that by your own rules, you are a bot-aspirant or a fool. You are denying that you are a bot-aspirant, so logically, you are declaring yourself a fool.
DeleteUnfortunately, this still does not preclude you from being a bot-aspirant, just an immensely foolish one (is there any other kind?).
Until you even provide even the slightest piece of evidence to the contrary, all of your postulating merely shows how poor you are at trying to hide your bot-aspirancy.
What's it to be, produce evidence or forever hang your head in shame for being a bot-aspirant? I'm betting it's the latter.
Wow, so many words to say "I don't like those people, so I will make broad generalizations about them because it reinforces my the conclusion I've already decided on.
DeleteAt the risk of breaking the 4th wall here, we join the NO for the same reason people join any group dedicated to a specific thing in Eve. This blog is basically no different than a recruitment ad on Eve-O. Except there you will get deleted and banned for posting negative things like complaining in a pirate corp recruitment thread that pirates are terrible people. Not so here, so we must suffer their mewlings.
William can try to come off as smarter than the average care bear, but is immediately exposed as all air by committing the most basic of logical fallacies in any debate- the one making the claim carries the onus to substantiate it. It is not on the accused to prove every idiotic accusation wrong. William began making sweeping generalizations and flat out incorrect statement given as 'fact'. When challenged on this he fell back to the cowardly tactic of passing the buck of providing 'proof'.
Our agents asked for very specific evidence that will be incontrovertible such as a URL. William seems to equate 'having heard it somewhere' with evidence. Spectral Evidence, perhaps. But that went the way of the Salem Witch Trials.
Wall of text only to utterly fail straight out of the gate.
Well said, SollyLama.
DeleteI'm not sure what more I could say, William, except that your allegation has clearly fallen flat and is going nowhere. Your whole argument is based off an unclear understanding of the definition of bot-aspirancy and sweeping generalizations. It is well known that in any situation it is for the accuser to bear the burden of evidence. For me to have to provide evidence for you is frankly ridiculous. That's akin to asking a criminal to prove he ISN'T a criminal without any knowledge of why anyone is questioning whether or not he is a criminal in the first place.
Honestly, the longer the conversation has gone on the more I'm inclined to believe you delirious or, perhaps, talking to yourself. You've made barely a mention of anything I've said and you for sure have not comprehended any of it. Each accusation of your own is actually countered by a previous statement from me. I have literally been pre-emptively answering your questions. I've done everything I can for you, William. I've provided every opportunity. I even numbered the points for you, William, so that there was no way for you to miss them.
So, it's come down to this. In the end William, you've shown yourself more a rabid dog than a civilized conversationalist. It's sad, really. As an aspiring Agent of the New Order, I did my best to help you with your confusion to further your understanding of the Code. I was, as I ever try to be, as courteous as could be. Should you ever be willing to confess to me the sins of your non-compliance William, I'll be ready to listen and help you further embrace the Code. Shoot me an eve-mail if you're really inclined to learn. I hope for your sake that you are.
I've logically and factually made a flawless case that proves you are a bot-aspirant. You choose to ignore this and pretend it didn't happen. Simply repeating that you are not a bot-aspirant over & over & over just makes it sound like you are some sort of automated machine.
DeleteNow unfortunately you are, yet again, doing things that you accuse other people of. I've let this slide a for too long and it's time to challenge you on your unfounded baseless and slanderous accusations. When you make accusations, you need to provide evidence and reasoned logic to support them. Clearly you believe only others must do this and you are exempt.
You are wrong. So now is the time for you to provide accurate and factual evidence to back up your slanderous accusations. You've shown that you have a penchant for trying to distort factual & logical reasoning, but this time I'm not going to let you get away with it.
Just because you're a bot-aspirant does not mean you get to make slanderous accusations without providing evidence.
So your best argument is "You are wrong."?
DeleteThe onus is on you to back up your arguments with evidence aside from your argument itself. The "biggest" argument you've said is that the overriding evidence is that we clearly want to automate it as any "normal" person doesn't find it challenging and would automate it anyway. Which is in and of itself a generalization based only on your personal experience, which does not make a representative sample of all ganking.
At other times you are going about and trying to twist words:
""I don't know much about botting (would never dream of doing that myself)"
That's what all bot-aspirants say."
You clearly know nothing about me and what I do, yet you say I am one because I make a reference to botting. Swing at every ball, eh?
And you say again we lack original thought when we've found something that resonates with us, the Code. And I don't think you get that highsec is going down the toilet, especially because of bots, that's what the Code is fighting.
You may give what you say is evidence, but you don't explain HOW in any sort of detail, we are not mind-readers nor ominiscient, we will need an explanation of how it is evidence against us in detail before we can provide evidence of our own to counter it.
We are picking apart your argument finding that it has no foundation in any given evidence. You have said it is easy to find evidence of this bot-aspirancy in the NO, I say if it was easy to find then you should not have to rely on generalizing because your evidence is right there and waiting to be used.
Oh dear Alistair
Delete"You clearly know nothing about me and what I do, yet you say I am one because I make a reference to botting."
I said you said something that a bot-aspirant would say. You appear to be incredibly sensitive and tetchy about this. Maybe you need to calm down, take a deep breath and understand what is written.
I do wonder though, why you aren't asking Lanaya Lennelluc to provide evidence of her slanderous* accusations toward me? Having double standards is such a nasty and hypocritical trait, don't you think?
* I should say libelous and not slanderous, but Lanaya doesn't appear to know the difference and I don't want to confuse her even more by correcting her.
"I said you said something that a bot-aspirant would say. You appear to be incredibly sensitive and tetchy about this. Maybe you need to calm down, take a deep breath and understand what is written."
DeleteI might be, I might. The same could be said of you as by your given definition, you fill out two criteria in saying the same thing in a reptitive manner.
However, you don't address any other pieces of the argument.
"I do wonder though, why you aren't asking Lanaya Lennelluc to provide evidence of her slanderous* accusations toward me? Having double standards is such a nasty and hypocritical trait, don't you think?"
It is interesting though that you would try to turn us against each other while still stalling on that decisive evidence you say you have.
So you do have double standards and believe that certain things should not apply to NO, given your refusal to apply your moral code evenly across the board. Sounds like your double standards extends to bot-aspirancy. That is of no surprise to me.
DeleteI think you forgot that Lanaya asked you to point out those within NO that are bot-aspirants with examples so that they can be expunged.
DeleteAgain you are not providing evidence/examples.
@Lanaya and SollyLama
I think we have ourselves a troll, best we just ignore him.
Your diversion tactics are atrocious. Your (and Lanaya's) double standards are so loud and bright that you trying to divert attention away from it is failing abysmally.
DeleteApart from having some particularly revolting double standards, you also appear to have missed the proof many posts ago that logically proved Lanaya to be a bot-aspirant.
Well maybe you read it, but your double standards mean that you won't accept it but will accept Lanaya's outrageous and unsubstantiated libelous claims. (that's slanderous claims in your world Lanaya)
Yes, Alistair, I believe so as well. After some digging, I think he's saying that I need to provide evidence of HIS bot-aspirancy, which is funny because I never call him a bot-aspirant. I make mentions that he may be suffering from it and I state, maybe a few times at most, that under his definition of bot-aspirancy he IS a bot-aspirant. However, I also told him why that definition was flawed. If his definition is flawed then, logically, he couldn't be a bot-aspirant under that definition. Why, I had figured it was such a simple deduction that I didn't need to explain it. It seems that I was mistaken and for that I apologize.
DeleteI'm unsure of what you think I need evidence for, William. There's a reason I never outright called you a bot-aspirant and that's because, under my definition, I cannot determine bot-aspirancy without seeing the actions of a pilot. IE, in-game evidence. I'm unsure of what your "flawless case" is, especially considering you claim to use facts. I've responded in kind to everything you've asked me very clearly. The only one in this discussion who has NOT is you, William.
PS. Really? I know what both libel and slander are. The difference between the two is so minuscule it's ridiculous that you would attempt a dig at my word choice of all things.
"I'm unsure of what you think I need evidence for, William."
Delete"Should you ever be willing to confess to me the sins of your non-compliance William,"
"I think he's saying that I need to provide evidence of HIS bot-aspirancy, which is funny because I never call him a bot-aspirant"
Oh dear me Lanaya. You do not even know the code do you? You really are a bot-aspirant!
That's grasping at straws, William.
DeleteThat's not even an accusation. It's an open invitation for discussion should you be discussing with me sins of non-compliance. Which, admittedly, I already have proof of. I may not have proof of your bot-aspirancy, but you have broken the Code numerous times throughout this discussion. Breaking the code is, of course, non-compliance.
"Prejudice toward minorities is not permitted. For the sake of clarity, this cannot apply to all groups claiming minority status, but only discrete and insular minorities, which are defined as suicide gankers, Goons, and others who oppose highsec mining."
The Code covers far more than bot-aspirancy, William, and I am willing to discuss every bit of it. I'm sorry that you somehow mistook an invitation for such discussion as an attack.
"Should you ever be willing to confess to me the sins of your non-compliance William,"
Delete"It's an open invitation for discussion should you be discussing with me sins of non-compliance"
So you're now a dishonest bot-aspirant & purveyor of double standards. I don't know if you could even stoop any lower Lanaya.
But then you did by saying you have evidence but, naturally for a bot-aspirant NO agent, do not provide any.
Is there really no end to your bot-aspirancy? You only need to embrace the code. Just the teeniest bit of honesty from you would be quite nice too.
"Should you ever be willing to confess to me the sins of your non-compliance William,"
DeleteI don't know, William, sounds like an open invitation for discussion to me. Focusing so heavily on the "your" part is baffling. And I did provide evidence of your non-compliance in my last post. Honestly, I really don't know what more you want considering I have, near prophetically, answered everything that you attempt to address me with in EVERY post just before you ask it. I don't know if that's a sign of my awesomeness or a sign of your predictability.
Oh Lanaya Lennelluc, what is happening to you?
DeleteDenying something that you clearly wrote is so very silly. And dishonest.
Then pretending that you provided evidence...
My dearest Lanaya, I feel you must be overcome with stress. You don't appear to have a rational bone left in your body and your mind is wracked with dishonesty.
Is this what happens when NO agents turn to bot-aspirancy?
Stress? Not hardly. I, for one, take great pleasure in civilized debate. I must admit that this discussion is about as far from civilized debate as one can get, but that is through no fault of my own. And I can hardly blame you for failing to engage in honest discussion as it's quite apparent that an honest discussion would be very unfair for you without a leg to stand on.
DeleteNow, William, this will be the last time I reply as it's clear to me that this debate is unfair to you. I mean, without the ability to read or comprehend it's amazing that you've persevered this much. I did provide my evidence, evidence you clearly failed to understand or failed to read. Your inability to comprehend the evidence does not make it false or any less of what it is. It only sheds further light on your ineptitude. I implore you, if you can read this, to ask a friend to read my posts to you.
Perhaps, if you do that, you'll finally come to embrace the Code. If not, it's no big loss. We have all the time in the world to show you the virtues of the Code.
"Now, William, this will be the last time I reply"
DeleteI understand Lanaya. Being proven to be a NO agent that has fell into bot-aspirancy is clearly taking its toll on you.
Dishonesty, double standards, inability to produce evidence for your libelous accusations, confusing your words etc. etc. All clear indications that you need to take a long break. Maybe when you come back you can take up the code again and get rid of your bot-aspirancy.
I wish you make a speedy recovery back to code compliance.
Rack Kashuken actually started Tengoo Uninstallation Service's last war against Les Gardiens when he urged us to fight, at which point his entire corp dropped membership and avoided us at all costs.
ReplyDeleteI think this was all covered in the last grab bag though. The Kamio rebels are all pretty ineffective.
JAMES 315, QUICK DO SOMETHING!!!!!
ReplyDeleteRipard Teg over at Jester's Trek has been bashing your bum buddy Erotica 1 and everyone in the comments are being nasty (well, truthful) about him/her. Erotica needs your help now!
JAMES WHERE ARE YOU!!! Erotica is being raked over the coals. It's even on massively now!
DeleteThey really aren't the same guy. I've heard them both on comms (james from some old videos he did and xander phoena interview), and ero in the bonus room. The Supreme Protector is a deep baritone, as befitting the Lord of Hisec. Ero has a much higher pitched timbre to his voice.
Delete"just leave the miners alone."
ReplyDeleteNo.