Hello to TTI. I recently have gone through the application process with your HR Director, and am currently waiting on a response back. I was reading some posts on your forum, and ran across a response by one of your Directors to someone who claimed to be ganked by TTI/CA:
"You should know the rules Calladen, if you anywhere out side of Empire or even is some "safe places" in empire these days, you're going to get shot. If a fact of life in Eve. I'm sure you also know that CA shoot at, and get shots, at just about everyone. It's just part of doing business in 0.0, if you don't strick first, you are the first to get struck. Does that make us pirats or gankers? No, I don't think it does but that's my opion. "
I garner from the comments made that it is perfectly acceptable to pre-empt a strike against an unidentified player. I want to first of all get the opinions of those in TTI and determine if indeed this is the way of business for TTI.
Secondly, I would like to commend on "anywhere outside of Empire or even in some "safe places" in empire these days, you're going to get shot. If a fact of life in Eve".
How do we as a populace determine what is a pirate and what is not a pirate? Let's take a look at the action in difference perspectives:
1. Pilot of TTI kills a known criminal.
2. Pilot of TTI responds to being fired on by an unknown pilot.
3. Pilot of TTI pre-emptively strikes and kills an unknown pilot.
The problem I have is that I don't get that feeling from the post above that there is ANYTHING different between #1, #2 and #3. I can see the reasoning behind #1 and #2, but not #3. I guess I can understand the viewpoint of "That's how it is, that's how it's always going to be", but is it really right?
Where do we draw the line on violence? And do we as a society or Corporation at it would be in Eve, allow ourselves to be drawn into such a situation that we begin to condone senseless violence against others? Do we allow ourselves and the society to be pulled into a "kill or be killed" philosophy that escalates into all-out anarchy?
I read a post from your CEO which stated the great morals that he ran the organization on. He made a promise to another alliance not to fire on them, and even though they broke their promise, he refused to break his word. I see the great moral fiber that your leader is made of, and yet this fine organization does not stand up for the rights of others in the game? I can't see how TTI can be born of high moral standing without the inclusion of justice and good will towards others...
This dilemma bothers me. Maybe I don't have what it takes to be a member of TTI afterall.
To tell you the truth, I believe in our land of freedom, and I gladly give my life to protect not just my rights, but the rights of others. And this also extends into my gaming. If you are an innocent trader, being attacked by pirates. I gladly give my life to protect you, even if it means my death and the loss of my ship. That fact about me will never change, and I need to be a part of an organization that has strong moral character. I had hoped TTI would be that organization. Maybe this post was not representative, but I want to hear it from others in TTI.
Prothion
"In the end, are we part of the solution or part of the problem"
New Applicant and a question
TTI was an active member of the Curse alliance at the time. Our CEO MarkA explaned it well in Calladen's thread:
There is no room in TTI for griefers, and none of us are pirates.
TTI is not a pirate corporation. We have been members of 0.0 regional alliances whcih carry some responsibilities, in return for access to the riches of the region and the excitement of the wilds. Foremost among those reponsibilities is defending the region against all who would enter illegally. Animosity between corporations and between alliances has led to war, usually in the form of military operations invading the other alliance's regions - which does spill over into Empire - even when it is not a declared war. TTI pilots have participated valiantly in many such military operations and in the defense of our alliance's regions in 0.0 space.As a rule anyone in Curse space that's not CA is KOS, and we're at war with most of the other alliances so they are all KOS anywhere anytime also. However ganking neutral corps in neutral space shouldn't happen...
There is no room in TTI for griefers, and none of us are pirates.
Alumina
-
DagnyTaggart
- Posts: 340
- Joined: Sun Dec 19, 2004 11:06 pm
think of a 0.0 alliance like the pre industrial japan. very isolationist and very self sufficient. imagine what would happen to am american who just happened to plop down in japan without any warships at his back. dead.
in eve, 0.0 and what is in it is worth guarding supposedly. alts are created merely to try and get in to see. nobody cares if an alt dies, but the chance at information is very valuble.
third analogy. imagine if some janitor happened to be cleaning hank rearden's office and decided to have a looksee into his files....
0.0 is claimed, it is considered owned by alliances or corps. entering it is considered trespassing. the penalty for this violation is up to the corp or alliance in control of that region. usually KOS.
imo, its a completely different story in .1 to .4 not much is worthy there
in eve, 0.0 and what is in it is worth guarding supposedly. alts are created merely to try and get in to see. nobody cares if an alt dies, but the chance at information is very valuble.
third analogy. imagine if some janitor happened to be cleaning hank rearden's office and decided to have a looksee into his files....
0.0 is claimed, it is considered owned by alliances or corps. entering it is considered trespassing. the penalty for this violation is up to the corp or alliance in control of that region. usually KOS.
imo, its a completely different story in .1 to .4 not much is worthy there
We'll since I provided you with the quote I might as well explaine myself.
First, like Alumina at the time TTI was part of the the CA and was shooting and being shot at by just about every other allaince or corp. At the time the cold hard facts where that if the ship wasn't friendly (ie green or what ever the color was) then there is a good chance that they would shoot you first. Under those condition that we faced at the time, a pre-emptive strike against an unidentified player in 0.0 sapce was acceptable. (keep in mind that you'd be hard pressed to find a region in 0.0 space that isn't claimed by some allaince).
I also worded my statement the way I did because Calladen Nimitz is a very expranced player. He was a very high ranking member in TTI, he even help found one of the allainces in eve, if i remember correctly, when he left TTI. He's allaince lived in 0.0 space and he know's the rules out their. He has also been out spoken about TTI on a number of times since he has left. He is entitle to his view of TTI and can say what he likes about us where he wants. However I viewed his post, as a flame and trolling. He didn't offer facts or talk to anyone else in the corp about the matter that I was aware of. He simply stated that we must be gankers and pirates now because one of our members shot him, in 0.0 space.
I think that the common ground between numbers 1-3 is that they can be viewed a defensive actions if you are in 0.0 space. You will not find a member of TTI in empire space ganking or holding people up for isk, or droping into a mining op in a 0.1-0.4 system and wipeing everyone out, to tanking a sentry gate to kill people. It does not, and has not happened. If it did and their was proof, odds are that the player would no longer be a member of TTI.
Now if you fly into 0.0 space, that's part of the game. As a corp we have responsablites, part of that requires "ganking" people who enter into our claimed space or flying in systems that are controled by those hostial to us. CA was a war with just about everyone. That really is "how it was". If you are not allied or friends of someone in 0.0 space you will get shot at. And if someone shows up on your screen as unfriendly or netural then you have to assume that their gunning for you. Even people in npc corps have to viewed as hostal because they often are alt who are used as spies.
First, like Alumina at the time TTI was part of the the CA and was shooting and being shot at by just about every other allaince or corp. At the time the cold hard facts where that if the ship wasn't friendly (ie green or what ever the color was) then there is a good chance that they would shoot you first. Under those condition that we faced at the time, a pre-emptive strike against an unidentified player in 0.0 sapce was acceptable. (keep in mind that you'd be hard pressed to find a region in 0.0 space that isn't claimed by some allaince).
I also worded my statement the way I did because Calladen Nimitz is a very expranced player. He was a very high ranking member in TTI, he even help found one of the allainces in eve, if i remember correctly, when he left TTI. He's allaince lived in 0.0 space and he know's the rules out their. He has also been out spoken about TTI on a number of times since he has left. He is entitle to his view of TTI and can say what he likes about us where he wants. However I viewed his post, as a flame and trolling. He didn't offer facts or talk to anyone else in the corp about the matter that I was aware of. He simply stated that we must be gankers and pirates now because one of our members shot him, in 0.0 space.
Each diffenition is going to change depending on who you ask. Their are 2 terms here a) pirateing and b) ganking/griefers. Both can be intermixed, however pirating ussaly implies (to me at lest) that the killer is doing for a profit or loot. A ganker/griefers can also do it for profit or loot, but ussaly implies that their not just doing it for isk Their doing it for the simple pleasure of killing someone and bring grief to the target.How do we as a populace determine what is a pirate and what is not a pirate? Let's take a look at the action in difference perspectives:
1. Pilot of TTI kills a known criminal.
2. Pilot of TTI responds to being fired on by an unknown pilot.
3. Pilot of TTI pre-emptively strikes and kills an unknown pilot.
I think that the common ground between numbers 1-3 is that they can be viewed a defensive actions if you are in 0.0 space. You will not find a member of TTI in empire space ganking or holding people up for isk, or droping into a mining op in a 0.1-0.4 system and wipeing everyone out, to tanking a sentry gate to kill people. It does not, and has not happened. If it did and their was proof, odds are that the player would no longer be a member of TTI.
Now if you fly into 0.0 space, that's part of the game. As a corp we have responsablites, part of that requires "ganking" people who enter into our claimed space or flying in systems that are controled by those hostial to us. CA was a war with just about everyone. That really is "how it was". If you are not allied or friends of someone in 0.0 space you will get shot at. And if someone shows up on your screen as unfriendly or netural then you have to assume that their gunning for you. Even people in npc corps have to viewed as hostal because they often are alt who are used as spies.
"All the World's a stage and all the men and women merely players,
they have their exits and their entrances and one man in his life plays
many parts, his act being seven stages... " - William Shakespeare
-
Elithiomel
- Posts: 915
- Joined: Tue Oct 07, 2003 6:29 am
I'll also add to this, but basically it will be the same as DM and Alumina stated.
At the time TTi was in CA and at the time there were a large number of corps/alliances that were openly hostile to CA.
Part of the order of business for CA combat pilots in CA space was, "if it is not green, blue or purple, then consider it hostile".
Outside of CA space this was not qite so hard and fast a rule, but at the time CA was preparing to defend against a possibly large incursion into CA space.
In such situations, killing non-friendly (ie, neutrals or hostiles) further away from CA space and in or near known travel routes is also considered defense of territory.
The bottom line though, is that TTi does not condone pirating or griefing perpetrated by TTi members. TTi has, in the past, been associated with corps that do these things, but that can be said of nearly every corp in EVE. Unfortunately when these associations happen, it is very difficult to change the public perception of TTi after those associations, whether accidental, necessary, forced, deliberate etc, are over.
At the time TTi was in CA and at the time there were a large number of corps/alliances that were openly hostile to CA.
Part of the order of business for CA combat pilots in CA space was, "if it is not green, blue or purple, then consider it hostile".
Outside of CA space this was not qite so hard and fast a rule, but at the time CA was preparing to defend against a possibly large incursion into CA space.
In such situations, killing non-friendly (ie, neutrals or hostiles) further away from CA space and in or near known travel routes is also considered defense of territory.
The bottom line though, is that TTi does not condone pirating or griefing perpetrated by TTi members. TTi has, in the past, been associated with corps that do these things, but that can be said of nearly every corp in EVE. Unfortunately when these associations happen, it is very difficult to change the public perception of TTi after those associations, whether accidental, necessary, forced, deliberate etc, are over.
Engineers Motto: If it doesn't fit, force it.
If it breaks, it needed replacing anyway.
If it breaks, it needed replacing anyway.
-
The Snowman
- Posts: 4
- Joined: Thu Jan 13, 2005 11:15 pm
Another thing to remember I think, is that when you join a Corporation, you agree to serve a "master". The Corporation will ocassionally do things you would rather not. Likewise, when a Corporation joins an alliance, it makes similar concessions to its new "master". When we first joined the alliance, I often rode with the PvP Corps. patrollling/defending CA space. We were encouraged, when nothing formal was going on, to invade enemy space and "bring the war to them". A number of people revelled in this. I imagine some of them even TTI. But I was not one of them. I have since hardened my stance somewhat.
The important thing to remember is that 0.0 is, by default, a war zone. If you choose to do business in a war zone you have to be prepared to defend yourself. Whether that defense takes the form of fight or flight matters not but if you freeze like a deer caught in the headlights, you're dead. Every rational person who frequents 0.0 knows this. Those who whine on the forums about being "ganked" in a war zone are playing on the ignorance of the uninitiated. There are no innocents in 0.0 space. Nobody lives there by accident of birth. The guy in your sights pleading for the life of himself and his Indy is the same guy who is going to ignore such pleas next week when he and his interceptor swoop down on you. That's the fact, Jack.
The important thing to remember is that 0.0 is, by default, a war zone. If you choose to do business in a war zone you have to be prepared to defend yourself. Whether that defense takes the form of fight or flight matters not but if you freeze like a deer caught in the headlights, you're dead. Every rational person who frequents 0.0 knows this. Those who whine on the forums about being "ganked" in a war zone are playing on the ignorance of the uninitiated. There are no innocents in 0.0 space. Nobody lives there by accident of birth. The guy in your sights pleading for the life of himself and his Indy is the same guy who is going to ignore such pleas next week when he and his interceptor swoop down on you. That's the fact, Jack.
Thanks for the replies
Thank you members of TTI that responded. I wanted to get your opinions. I was glad to hear some things, but not glad to hear others. In the end, it was what was missing within the text of all of them that has made my decision to withdrawal my application from TTI. Rather than going into a long drawn out explanation, I will just use a couple of things from recent times to illustrate what I mean.
1. In the fight for Baghdad, before armor rolled into the town, the Airforce was instructed to destroy mobile artillery and tanks that were present within the city. Our Airforce is more than capable of destroying these vehicles given the massive bombs we have available in our arsenal. But there was a problem. Given the large population center that was in the middle of the "war zone", the common population had to be considered and protected. We had to find an alternative to destroying these vehicles without bringing massive civilian casualties into the mix. How did we do it? They pulled the warheads out of 500lb bombs, and filled them, so you had a gigantic bullet essentially. These massive containers of metal punctured through the armor of the tanks and artillery, damaging most enough to destroy them, and others requiring repair. Now, given the war situation was this the right thing to do if you want to inflict maximum casualty on the enemy? NO, it was not. Some of the crews escaped unscathed and some of the vehicles were not fully destroyed. So, the military could have destroyed 100%, but they settled for 80% to eliminate the need for heavy civilian casualties. This puts the military at MORE harm in the end, but serves a greater good. This is what I didn't hear in any of your posts. I fully understand that it is a WAR ZONE, but what did you do to TRY and protect the innocents who are trying to go about life as normal? Sure there's always the reason that those people shouldn't be in 0.0 zones...why should they travel in known general war space and make GOOD profit like the rest of us? They should stick to the lesser profit zones where they're safer, they asked for it? I don't buy it. Maybe you think I'm wrong, but I think it's a choice I make. Just because YOU make it a war zone, doesn't mean everyone will know it is or understand the implications. Did you try to WEB and WARP disrupt people at the gates, and warn them to turn around or be destroyed? Or did you just blindly shoot them and say "oh gee they should have known we were at war, too bad".
Whatever the reasons, I understand there will be some collateral damage, there always is. What makes the difference is whether or not you make the attempt to minimize the damage inflicting to innocents. I heard an example about Feudel Japan. I'm sorry, but if you're running your organization like a Feudel society, something is wrong. We should all be beyond this. Remember, what brought Japan out of a Feudel society was the emporer slaughtering all of his enemies and forcing the people underneath his ideals and government. Is your goal to slaughter everyone and bring them under your umbrella? That doesn't sound like free society to me. It sounds like Anarchy unleashed.
Thank you for the opportunity to apply to your organization, but I respectfully withdraw my request.
Prothion
1. In the fight for Baghdad, before armor rolled into the town, the Airforce was instructed to destroy mobile artillery and tanks that were present within the city. Our Airforce is more than capable of destroying these vehicles given the massive bombs we have available in our arsenal. But there was a problem. Given the large population center that was in the middle of the "war zone", the common population had to be considered and protected. We had to find an alternative to destroying these vehicles without bringing massive civilian casualties into the mix. How did we do it? They pulled the warheads out of 500lb bombs, and filled them, so you had a gigantic bullet essentially. These massive containers of metal punctured through the armor of the tanks and artillery, damaging most enough to destroy them, and others requiring repair. Now, given the war situation was this the right thing to do if you want to inflict maximum casualty on the enemy? NO, it was not. Some of the crews escaped unscathed and some of the vehicles were not fully destroyed. So, the military could have destroyed 100%, but they settled for 80% to eliminate the need for heavy civilian casualties. This puts the military at MORE harm in the end, but serves a greater good. This is what I didn't hear in any of your posts. I fully understand that it is a WAR ZONE, but what did you do to TRY and protect the innocents who are trying to go about life as normal? Sure there's always the reason that those people shouldn't be in 0.0 zones...why should they travel in known general war space and make GOOD profit like the rest of us? They should stick to the lesser profit zones where they're safer, they asked for it? I don't buy it. Maybe you think I'm wrong, but I think it's a choice I make. Just because YOU make it a war zone, doesn't mean everyone will know it is or understand the implications. Did you try to WEB and WARP disrupt people at the gates, and warn them to turn around or be destroyed? Or did you just blindly shoot them and say "oh gee they should have known we were at war, too bad".
Whatever the reasons, I understand there will be some collateral damage, there always is. What makes the difference is whether or not you make the attempt to minimize the damage inflicting to innocents. I heard an example about Feudel Japan. I'm sorry, but if you're running your organization like a Feudel society, something is wrong. We should all be beyond this. Remember, what brought Japan out of a Feudel society was the emporer slaughtering all of his enemies and forcing the people underneath his ideals and government. Is your goal to slaughter everyone and bring them under your umbrella? That doesn't sound like free society to me. It sounds like Anarchy unleashed.
Thank you for the opportunity to apply to your organization, but I respectfully withdraw my request.
Prothion
Prothion, your post is wrong on so many levels. First of all, you are juxtapositioning a real-life example involving real people and real danger with something that does not.
0.0 is by default dangerous. Whether you include players or not. There are NPC spawns at the gates that will rip you to shreds before you even reach the point where you can jump. This is especially true for industrials. What about them? Does that make it unfair? Does that make it so you shouldn't apply to TTI?
Fact of the matter is all space in 0.0 is unsafe by nature. You go to a belt, you might die before it finishes loading the screen. Yep, that's right. Or, you may be ninjamining and find a 2x 2 million battleship spawn and 15 inties and light support frigs that make short work of your osprey miner.
No, it isn't fair. But that's how EVE works. 0.0 is not solo. It was never meant to be. Good players can solo 70% of it, but you will never reach the comfortness of 1.0 space. That's the whole point.
If you somehow think that not applying to TTI and applying elsewhere will somehow nullify this concept, then you're in for quite a shock. Perhaps when you've played for a long long time like the rest of us you'll see our point
Alliances claim territory _because they can_. No, it's not fair. Yes, you have to live with it. Either that or go into a renegade 0.0 territory like Pure Blind or Syndicate and get your ship blown up and your pod ransomed for cash. Take your pick.
We do, actually, warp and web people at gates.. keeps them from running when we blow them up
Do we ask them what they're doing? No.. Should we... perhaps.. perhaps not.. depends on the alliance. 1 out of 100 people may actually not know it's alliance territory, and might be innociously exploring for the heck of it. The rest claim the same, but are actually bullshitting you. Fact of life.
Withdrawing your application because 0.0 is dangerous is throwing the baby out with the bath water. No amount of applying to _any_ 0.0 corp will ever get you to a safe spot in 0.0. It's the wild wild west, and you gotta learn to live with that, or find your business elsewhere. Like, say, in another game.
0.0 is by default dangerous. Whether you include players or not. There are NPC spawns at the gates that will rip you to shreds before you even reach the point where you can jump. This is especially true for industrials. What about them? Does that make it unfair? Does that make it so you shouldn't apply to TTI?
Fact of the matter is all space in 0.0 is unsafe by nature. You go to a belt, you might die before it finishes loading the screen. Yep, that's right. Or, you may be ninjamining and find a 2x 2 million battleship spawn and 15 inties and light support frigs that make short work of your osprey miner.
No, it isn't fair. But that's how EVE works. 0.0 is not solo. It was never meant to be. Good players can solo 70% of it, but you will never reach the comfortness of 1.0 space. That's the whole point.
If you somehow think that not applying to TTI and applying elsewhere will somehow nullify this concept, then you're in for quite a shock. Perhaps when you've played for a long long time like the rest of us you'll see our point
Alliances claim territory _because they can_. No, it's not fair. Yes, you have to live with it. Either that or go into a renegade 0.0 territory like Pure Blind or Syndicate and get your ship blown up and your pod ransomed for cash. Take your pick.
We do, actually, warp and web people at gates.. keeps them from running when we blow them up
Do we ask them what they're doing? No.. Should we... perhaps.. perhaps not.. depends on the alliance. 1 out of 100 people may actually not know it's alliance territory, and might be innociously exploring for the heck of it. The rest claim the same, but are actually bullshitting you. Fact of life.
Withdrawing your application because 0.0 is dangerous is throwing the baby out with the bath water. No amount of applying to _any_ 0.0 corp will ever get you to a safe spot in 0.0. It's the wild wild west, and you gotta learn to live with that, or find your business elsewhere. Like, say, in another game.
If it moves, shoot it;
If it doesn't move, shoot it anyway - it might move later.
-
DagnyTaggart
- Posts: 340
- Joined: Sun Dec 19, 2004 11:06 pm
"Alliances claim territory _because they can_. No, it's not fair. Yes, you have to live with it."
i would probably disagree and assert that it is fair. territory is a valuble asset and can be claimed by players/corporations/alliances. when i loaded my map in eve and looked at the region names..... i can see a big fat "CURSE" label right next to HLW.
you have the equal and fair opportunity to claim the region for yourself. if you and your friends can hold and defend it..... it is yours. only the weak expect the strong to be nice to the weak. the strong have a right to do as they please with what they have earned. to not defend one's property, to let others have free passage, free access, free use... that would be the injustice.
keep in mind another factor. there is no way to force someone to stop and turn around and have reasonable assurance that is what will happen. a security guard a a gate can tell a homeless guy to turn around and back off the premisis.... but if he doesnt the guard can still shoot him. in eve, one can tell a guy to turn around and go home, but that requires releasing the web and scram.... and then the guy is behind you and you cant do anything except hope someone is behind you to whack him. Reality dictates the standard operating procedures in eve.
.1 and up is claimed by the faction caldari amarr etc. they give you free passage. the same is NOT true of 0.0
i would probably disagree and assert that it is fair. territory is a valuble asset and can be claimed by players/corporations/alliances. when i loaded my map in eve and looked at the region names..... i can see a big fat "CURSE" label right next to HLW.
you have the equal and fair opportunity to claim the region for yourself. if you and your friends can hold and defend it..... it is yours. only the weak expect the strong to be nice to the weak. the strong have a right to do as they please with what they have earned. to not defend one's property, to let others have free passage, free access, free use... that would be the injustice.
keep in mind another factor. there is no way to force someone to stop and turn around and have reasonable assurance that is what will happen. a security guard a a gate can tell a homeless guy to turn around and back off the premisis.... but if he doesnt the guard can still shoot him. in eve, one can tell a guy to turn around and go home, but that requires releasing the web and scram.... and then the guy is behind you and you cant do anything except hope someone is behind you to whack him. Reality dictates the standard operating procedures in eve.
.1 and up is claimed by the faction caldari amarr etc. they give you free passage. the same is NOT true of 0.0
It's obvious people here haven't actually been at a 0.0 gate guarding. You don't have time for 20 questions or anything BUT quickly locking and scram/web. You don't have time to say "Hey, you, dude, you're in our territory. Please leave" -- before you even open up a convo the guy would've warped out.
So you release the scram/web after getting up on your soap box and ranting about how people are invading alliance territory and how he/she is one of them.. then what? Hope he goes back? For a noob who has a lot to lose, perhaps.. for a ganker where it's "just another frig" -- hardly.
Fact of the matter is, if you care enough about EVE to seek out the dangers of DEEP 0.0, then you care enough to know about EVE's politics and how things work. Then again.. if yuo don't know before you get ganked, you sure will after.
So you release the scram/web after getting up on your soap box and ranting about how people are invading alliance territory and how he/she is one of them.. then what? Hope he goes back? For a noob who has a lot to lose, perhaps.. for a ganker where it's "just another frig" -- hardly.
Fact of the matter is, if you care enough about EVE to seek out the dangers of DEEP 0.0, then you care enough to know about EVE's politics and how things work. Then again.. if yuo don't know before you get ganked, you sure will after.
If it moves, shoot it;
If it doesn't move, shoot it anyway - it might move later.
-
Elithiomel
- Posts: 915
- Joined: Tue Oct 07, 2003 6:29 am
Exactly 0.0 is just one gigantic “kill zone”.
Everyone there knows they can be killed just for being in 0.0. We all hope that alliances and non-aggression pacts will provide some level of security, but we are always on edge.
There are always marauding bands of pirates and gate campers. There is great incentive for them to take down targets in 0.0. This is where the high end mineral are. This is where the named modules can be taken.
There really is little social order beyond predators and prey. And anyone who thinks otherwise is simply part of the herd.
Everyone there knows they can be killed just for being in 0.0. We all hope that alliances and non-aggression pacts will provide some level of security, but we are always on edge.
There are always marauding bands of pirates and gate campers. There is great incentive for them to take down targets in 0.0. This is where the high end mineral are. This is where the named modules can be taken.
There really is little social order beyond predators and prey. And anyone who thinks otherwise is simply part of the herd.
Keep your sharpened steel sword, this wooden one will be all I need!
Prothion, I for one, am working toward an unified alliance front against pirates and violence where every regional alliance would enjoy mining peacefully in its own area and not be at war with one another. War between alliances costs an incredible amount of Isk and is a total waste of time. Join me in Taggart and perhaps together we can turn the tide of violence.
Sincerely,
Golda, Taggart Executive
(formerly of the order of the Sisters of EVE)
Sincerely,
Golda, Taggart Executive
(formerly of the order of the Sisters of EVE)
