| Author |
Topic |
Taralesk Inshani
Gallente
Dreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore |
Posted - 2006.10.17 16:00:00 - [ 151]
 Originally by: DANGEROUS
OMFG - we are -10 to ISS - -
I AM COMING BACK TO THE GAME TONIGHT
YEA YEA YEA
Woot! Dangerous!  |
Snodgey2004
Minmatar
Fortune.
|
Posted - 2006.10.17 16:00:00 - [ 152]
Never liked ISS myself , so more people shooting them is cool ...KILL EM' ALL !!! |
BenjaminBarker
Caldari
Sesquipedalianites Incorporated
|
Posted - 2006.10.17 16:17:00 - [ 153]
Originally by: Audrea
Ok lets take a hypothetic case:
I am in alliance X, which is in war with LV, but respects the ISS neutrality and what they try to do in eve.
Now I go to tenerifis to shoot any LV; ISS tells me to leave its restricted space, I dont leave, but I dont aggro ISS either.
Now they will (according to that agreement and what you said), fire at me to protect LV. So much for the neutrality.
The issue of how many corps allowed, does not matter! what matters is their actions.
Take a look at the area in question... it's like 8 systems on a dead end chain. There isn't a single LV pilot or LV asset (save the outpost that's under ISS control). It isn't LV sovereignty (ISS claims sovereignty to reduce POS fuel costs). The ONLY reason for a non-iss pilot to enter that area is to attack ISS. Neutrality IS NOT Pacifism, do you really expect ISS to eject and let you pod them instead of protecting their assets? If you want to ***** about a neutral alliance paying your enemy for use of their space, you're an idiot. How about selling ships or modules to your enemy on an open market, is that not neutral? What about buying from them in empire, is that a breach of neutrality? Are you going to go wardec empire corps that mine ice that ends up in your enemies POS's? Just because your LV is smart enough to make the most out of their space doesn't mean ISS is not neutral. You want to make billions off of ISS as well - then offer them a secure portion of profitable space and charge them for it's use. I doubt they'll pass on the offer. If they did, then you can question their neutrality. A post back a ways sums it up nicely - something along the lines of 'D2 doesn't need to justify their reasons'. And they're right - they can go to war for any reason they want, but the moment they try to claim that ISS isn't neutral they better back that up. So far all I've seen is unsupported claims of ISS reporting D2 movements to their enemies, and a smacktard who got his ass kicked, after asking for it mind you, and then complaining to his betters. You're just a bunch of pirates looking for more blinky - and not surprisingly you're using their same arguments. Neutrality != Pacifism |
Beringe
Caldari
Mercurialis Inc.
Wildly Inappropriate. |
Posted - 2006.10.17 16:19:00 - [ 154]
Will the diplomats step in, allready?
I wouldn't normally comment on this sort of pond scum thread, but as I recall, ISS actually has some fairly intelligent people running things. |
d4ve
Minmatar
Macabre Votum
Morsus Mihi |
Posted - 2006.10.17 16:29:00 - [ 155]
Originally by: BenjaminBarker
...but the moment they try to claim that ISS isn't neutral they better back that up. So far all I've seen is unsupported claims of ISS reporting D2 movements to their enemies
actually.. lots of pilots not connected to D2 in any other way than a mutual -10 standing on alliance level is backing this up. |
Buxaroo
Gallente
The Army of The Ori
IMPERIAL LEGI0N |
Posted - 2006.10.17 16:31:00 - [ 156]
Originally by: Sorja
I hate to say it, but IMHO there's only one coherent alliance in the game, and it's BoB.
Agreed. Alliances should all pitch in and stop being so damn selfish and fight and die as one the way it should be. Just look at military history: wars and battles are won not by numbers, but by cohesion and a common goal. |
Torshin
Gallente
Fairlight Corp
Rooks and Kings |
Posted - 2006.10.17 16:35:00 - [ 157]
ISS is not trying to deny that reports were made on D2 fleet movements. This thread wasn't even started by ISS crying it was started by a player who enjoyed ISS 0.0 access and then D2 decided to flame it.
SAS did report on Razors fleet movements against ASCN and their corp was kicked instantly. Any other reports of these acts that have been made clear to Count have been dealt with in a similar manor. D2 did have reason to break the NAP, but it isn't like ISS hasn't also had reason to break the nap. D2 pilots have on several occasions killed ISS pilots while the NAP was in effect and they remain in the alliance. I don't feel that D2 should be so hypocritcal about something like this. |
Taralesk Inshani
Gallente
Dreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore |
Posted - 2006.10.17 16:38:00 - [ 158]
Edited by: Taralesk Inshani on 17/10/2006 16:41:04 Originally by: BenjaminBarker
A post back a ways sums it up nicely - something along the lines of 'D2 doesn't need to justify their reasons'.... You're just a bunch of pirates looking for more blinky - and not surprisingly you're using their same arguments....
Yarrrrr  Also, you're going to get modded if you don't show corp. |
BenjaminBarker
Caldari
Sesquipedalianites Incorporated
|
Posted - 2006.10.17 16:42:00 - [ 159]
Originally by: d4ve
Originally by: BenjaminBarker
...but the moment they try to claim that ISS isn't neutral they better back that up. So far all I've seen is unsupported claims of ISS reporting D2 movements to their enemies
actually.. lots of pilots not connected to D2 in any other way than a mutual -10 standing on alliance level is backing this up.
The shared desire to shoot a neutral, industrial alliance doesn't change the fact that the alliance is neutral, it makes everyone shooting them pirates. Thing is, a neutral alliance can help your enemy and still be neutral (buying/sell on an open market, etc). If those other corps don't like it, they can offer ISS a similar deal, or they can attack ISS to reduce LV profits. Obviously they're attacking ISS, but they're using lame excuses and claiming ISS isn't neutral instead of the truth: They've got every reason to attack ISS - ISS is providing LV with a lot of ISK, but that doesn't change their neutrality. What they're asking for is for ISS to sit in empire and not interact with anyone - no buying, no selling, no deals, no working with friendly pilots, no nothing... that's not neutrality, that's going AFK. If ISS is really neutral, they'll offer the same deal up to anyone who wants it, and I've seen no one say that they were rejected by ISS because ISS didn't like them. |
eXtas
Gallente
NibbleTek
Pandemic Legion |
Posted - 2006.10.17 16:44:00 - [ 160]
ohh this topic is really funny :) I really understand d2/iron... neutrals giving intel to enemys :(
wish I could join the fun.. oh wait we arent + to iss :) |
d4ve
Minmatar
Macabre Votum
Morsus Mihi |
Posted - 2006.10.17 16:49:00 - [ 161]
Originally by: BenjaminBarker
What they're asking for is for ISS to sit in empire and not interact with anyone - no buying, no selling, no deals, no working with friendly pilots, no nothing...
hahah.. no they/we are not. we just dont want them helping entitys hostile to us in a combat situation. Originally by: BenjaminBarker
Thing is, a neutral alliance can help your enemy and still be neutral
nope.. they cant. at least not as directly as iss has been caught doing like half a dozen times down south lately. |
Audrea
Gallente
Evolution
IT Alliance |
Posted - 2006.10.17 16:49:00 - [ 162]
Originally by: BenjaminBarker
Originally by: Audrea
Ok lets take a hypothetic case:
I am in alliance X, which is in war with LV, but respects the ISS neutrality and what they try to do in eve.
Now I go to tenerifis to shoot any LV; ISS tells me to leave its restricted space, I dont leave, but I dont aggro ISS either.
Now they will (according to that agreement and what you said), fire at me to protect LV. So much for the neutrality.
The issue of how many corps allowed, does not matter! what matters is their actions.
Take a look at the area in question... it's like 8 systems on a dead end chain. There isn't a single LV pilot or LV asset (save the outpost that's under ISS control). It isn't LV sovereignty (ISS claims sovereignty to reduce POS fuel costs). The ONLY reason for a non-iss pilot to enter that area is to attack ISS. Neutrality IS NOT Pacifism, do you really expect ISS to eject and let you pod them instead of protecting their assets?
If you want to ***** about a neutral alliance paying your enemy for use of their space, you're an idiot. How about selling ships or modules to your enemy on an open market, is that not neutral? What about buying from them in empire, is that a breach of neutrality? Are you going to go wardec empire corps that mine ice that ends up in your enemies POS's? Just because your LV is smart enough to make the most out of their space doesn't mean ISS is not neutral.
You want to make billions off of ISS as well - then offer them a secure portion of profitable space and charge them for it's use. I doubt they'll pass on the offer. If they did, then you can question their neutrality.
A post back a ways sums it up nicely - something along the lines of 'D2 doesn't need to justify their reasons'. And they're right - they can go to war for any reason they want, but the moment they try to claim that ISS isn't neutral they better back that up. So far all I've seen is unsupported claims of ISS reporting D2 movements to their enemies, and a smacktard who got his ass kicked, after asking for it mind you, and then complaining to his betters. You're just a bunch of pirates looking for more blinky - and not surprisingly you're using their same arguments.
Neutrality != Pacifism
The problem is not teh fact they are living in LV space, and lets ignore for a moment that indeed paying rent for high end ore systems is unavoidable.. and they jsut chose the best deal they got. Now, if my alliance X comes to one of those 8 systems on a dead end chain, which is comfortable capital jump point to attack LV, and erect large deathstar in that system. What will ISS do? if they stand back and do nothing all is good, but if they do as much as give intel to LV, here lies the problem. And according to that contract, they must. |
Taralesk Inshani
Gallente
Dreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore |
Posted - 2006.10.17 16:53:00 - [ 163]
Edited by: Taralesk Inshani on 17/10/2006 16:56:49 Originally by: BenjaminBarker
The shared desire to shoot a neutral, industrial alliance doesn't change the fact that the alliance is neutral, it makes everyone shooting them pirates.
Nothing in Eve is neutral, safe, or otherwise not considered as a target. This should be obvious by now. This isn't a tinfoil hat party. Most of us don't care. Red = shoot. PVP is fun. Since you apparently consider NBSI policy piracy, I guess we're all just ebil pirate scum. This changes what? So we're all pirates according to you, so what? You're fun. I miss alts. |
copicus
Caldari
The Order of Odin
|
Posted - 2006.10.17 17:04:00 - [ 164]
ISS want to review the 'deals' they do to get access to 0.0 That deal stated above totally revokes all neutrality.You are standing up and saying that you are LV's allies. In a nutshell..... thats my opinion only and not that of my corp or alliance ..... etc,etc,etc. P.S. have a nice day ISS  |
DeadDuck
Amarr
Cutting Edge Incorporated
RAZOR Alliance |
Posted - 2006.10.17 17:06:00 - [ 165]
Originally by: Audrea
And according to that contract, they must.
Well there are good contracts and bad contracts .... seems to me that this was a good contract for LV and a bad one to ISS. What keeps ISS alive is the neutrality status. By the looks this ISS situation down south is very similar to the FIX situation in Querious, the region is under BOB control and they let FIX live there and protect the area for them... is FIX neutral ? Make some jumps there and they will offer you a nice "bath of neutrality" with a pod express ticket For a few more isks you have put in danger your neutrality status ... nice move  |
Yodaron Ballsithor
Gallente
Black Avatar
Firmus Ixion |
Posted - 2006.10.17 17:11:00 - [ 166]
Originally by: Serapis Aote
Originally by: James Lyrus
Quote:
One final note: I am not sure how ISS justify providing intel to one set of hostiles over another. In other words, if ASCN is hostile to D2, and assuming that ISS is providing intel to ASCN of D2 ship movements, then is ISS "taking sides" in the conflict between the parties, thereby showing "preference" (i.e., non-neutrality) towards one customer over another?
It doesn't. A corp has been kicked from ISS quite recently for doing exactly this.
ISS passes info about fleet movements in intel channels all the time in catch and providence. Just check the channels and you will see ISS reporting fleet movements of more then just pirates.
I assume this is a correct statement, although I wonder which of the alliances fleet movements are reported and which alliances fleet movements are not. Back on point though, ISS provided intel to both HF and ASCN in Q space (i.e., A2 pipe), not Catch or Providence. Heck, ISS pilots used to camp the A2 gate on occasion as well, although this is an area far from ISS space. Further, given that ISS has no interests in the lower part of Catch, why would ISS also pass info to HF and ASCN there back when HF was in control of FAT, V2, etc.? This occurred also. It is these situations, together with rental agreements, etc., that compromise your neutrality. |
Derran
Minmatar
Fusion Enterprises Ltd
Morsus Mihi |
Posted - 2006.10.17 17:27:00 - [ 167]
Originally by: Taralesk Inshani
Ok, so I'm an evil pirate, so what?
Are you really complaining about being shot in low sec / 0.0 by us?
To explain what he was refering to, and to feed the need for paranoia and conspiracy theorists, D2 seemed to be trying to put a stranglehold on trade/manufacturing activities on the southern route leading to ISS Fabrica already by doing a near 24/7 camp on the 0.0 side of the Kari gate in Providence long before that chat log made. D2 simply jump to high sec space when things get too hot from other Providence locals who try to stop them and then D2 goes back to ganking people when things cool down. ISSN has not put up a resistance to that gate camping due to the blue standings. Originally by: Taralesk Inshani
NBSI, ever heard of it?
I have. It is the acronym used by 0.0 alliances to justify ganking helpless pilots and so their pilots can be jackasses and bullies. |
Acwron
Minmatar
Anormalii S.A.
Vera Cruz Alliance |
Posted - 2006.10.17 17:30:00 - [ 168]
Originally by: Lunamariea Hawke
[...]
This Thread should be closed anyway. It's started by an obvious alt who according to his posting history has continously posted flamebaits against D². Somebody who is posting blatent lies and spreads false information should at least have to use a main to do it. |
Butter Dog
Gallente
The Monocled Elite
|
Posted - 2006.10.17 17:32:00 - [ 169]
Originally by: FireFoxx80
I feel that ISS is not providing the security in Pure Blind that it offers to alliances in the south. We have such terrorists as D00M, YNC, and other running riot in the systems surrounding both ISS outposts; yet they do nothing to ensure the safety of pilots trying to reach their stations. I hear that the ISS Navy cannot even remove a D00M POS that is anchored by one of the moons in EC-P8R.
I'm sorry, at what point did ISS state they would police Pure Blind for you? |
Butter Dog
Gallente
The Monocled Elite
|
Posted - 2006.10.17 17:37:00 - [ 170]
|
Yodaron Ballsithor
Gallente
Black Avatar
Firmus Ixion |
Posted - 2006.10.17 17:40:00 - [ 171]
|
NATMav
Caldari
F.R.E.E. Explorer
The Initiative. |
Posted - 2006.10.17 17:41:00 - [ 172]
Edited by: NATMav on 17/10/2006 17:42:00 Originally by: Lunamariea Hawke
D2 are very skilled at some things it is a pity that diplomacy is not one of them, it would be nice for once if they tried to solve this through diplomatic channels. Being probably the second most looked to Alliance in the game you would have thought that they would be good at this. Without being a fangirl BOB are very good, more people hate them than D2, however they have respect as they use diplomacy and fighting to solve problems. D2 so far have mostly resorted to treachery whereas if BoB say something thats what they mean.
I do seem to remember 3 weeks ago D2 ganked 2 ISS pilots in x70 for no reason, this caused a local outcry at the time and preceeds all of this.How soon people forget. D2 play the injured party very well but thats normally how they set people up for a stab in the back.
It is nice to see from some postings above that some guys are coming back to the game now that D2 have set ISS to -10, these must be very special pvpers indeed to want such a challenge....
If you think all of this is over a few destroyed ships, you are sadly mistaken. |
NATMav
Caldari
F.R.E.E. Explorer
The Initiative. |
Posted - 2006.10.17 17:44:00 - [ 173]
|
Butter Dog
Gallente
The Monocled Elite
|
Posted - 2006.10.17 17:45:00 - [ 174]
Originally by: Scrofalitic One
Originally by: Serapis Aote
If someone that ISS is +10 to wants to scout out the space of their enemy...then ISS should let them. That is neutrality.
Exactly. In the case in point the ISS chappy should have ignored the passing of the D2 chap, as equally if he had been travelling through (for instance) Deklein and had seen a LV pod floating by he should ignore that.
To be neutral they must not engage in combat, spy on or otherwise compromise ANY activity that the other alliance is up to.
Is that possible? Probably not, and therein lies the problem.
I agree with this completely. They should have left that D2 pod alone. When I was in ISS I argued that we should leave people in northern Tenerifis alone unless they were actually -10 to us. I'm sure this event will cause them to think about the details of their agreement with LV, and I'm even more certain that ISS management will come up with a solution which works for all parties. They are good like that. |
Ather Ialeas
Amarr
Viziam
|
Posted - 2006.10.17 17:45:00 - [ 175]
Originally by: Audrea
Originally by: Kira
Belts are allocated to corps. This list is published on this forum. There will be 1 belt per 10 members (rounded down) in the outpost system. Additional allocations will be made as necessary, however it is likely these will be in systems around C3-0YD. Claim jumping may result in a fine, and for repeated offenses additional action may be take. Each corp is entitled to manage 'their' belts how they wish.
LOL at that belt allocation!! funniest thing I ever saw so far!
First; mods please note that I'm not an alt. I'm member of Karjala Inc/Freelancer alliance. I am posting this just because I've been under the Tenerifis contract and want to clarify a few things for this person. I was a member of ISS a few months ago, in fact I was under the Tenerifis contract. While it had a few points I didn't like (for example 15M/week/person rent  ) the thing was that the constellation that is/was under the contract was actually very well managed. The fact that we actually divided all the available resources -like asteroid belts allocated by corp member amount- gave us all a rare opportunity to really gain ISK in a fast and steady pace. With some management we managed to have very high income just by having three belts and one system reserved to us. Heck, I even know a guy who made 300M just from ratting each week in there. The whole Tenerifis contract is a pioneer project of ISS but the problem which is also shown in this thread is that such project can't be seen as neutral from any point of view. By renting space from LV for such a specific project it is clearly a siding move with an alliance ISS sees as "good guys" and while the actual system works, it just doesn't fit to what ISS represents. This is of course just my own personal opinion.Okay, that's all. Now I shall never post here again... |
Butter Dog
Gallente
The Monocled Elite
|
Posted - 2006.10.17 17:46:00 - [ 176]
Originally by: Yodaron Ballsithor
Butter, you really have no clue or you are simply ignoring the point. It is not the fact that two (2) alliances are making profit in a mutual way. It is the fact that ISS is obligated to report movements of hostiles to LV when ISS is supposedly neutral. Comprehension for the win!
Yes, sorry, I'm not ignoring the issue... I just forgot to cover it. That part of the agreement needs removing in my opinion. |
Skeltek
Caldari
Asgard Schiffswerften
Ev0ke |
Posted - 2006.10.17 17:49:00 - [ 177]
I hope ISS does kick the responsible person for dealing out the LV contract.
I hope ISS does not kick a corporation because they just did what ISS management contracted out.
Ohh, yeah, too late, the few "loose canons/troublemakers" were kicked already?
One day,I will found a neutral alliance myself, operating out of branch and building the industrial arm of D2. BoB should be prohibited to attack them, they are neutral, have nothing to do with us and just give us intel once in a while while shooting our enemies =D
We don´t care wether or not ISS gives fees for using their own outpost in a deadend arm of LV space or if they sell stuff to LV too,
the only thing which matters is that ISS management dealed out a contract and gives military intel to our enemies(not only in LV space).
->We decide the logical consequence to prevent damage to ourselves and are threatened by ISS that our reputation will get flamed if we do not proove the facts.
->The only possibility of "proving" "fact" would be to post chatloggs.
->If we post various chatloggs every single one gets reduced to "exceptions or troublemakers".
->If we show that ISS management has contracted an official deal to pass on military intel, the involved corps get kicked(which only did what was demanded by the leader´s contract).
kind regards, Skel
ps: about D2 being incompetent in terms of diplomacy:
Diplomacy is usualy being made ingame and in voicecoms between usualy the leaders of the alliances. Decisions are made and the reasons told to the opposite parties.
There is no reason to discuss every BS on the official forums. The fact you do not see any diplomatic discussions or agreements on the forums does not mean there are none.
G and in the beginning also D2 were one of the very few trying to not practise NBSI-policy(not blue, shoot it). Time has proven that enemy altchars, spy-alts and enemy industrial alts cannot be distinguished(there are simply too many corps in EVE), thus it is neccessary to shoot neutrals in most cases.
If you ask for standings with the major corporations, you should never have a problem with getting shot. Of course, the number of standing slots is limited, so it might happen that not every 5-man corp will get a standing set towards them. |
Taralesk Inshani
Gallente
Dreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore |
Posted - 2006.10.17 17:54:00 - [ 178]
Originally by: Derran
I have. It is the acronym used by 0.0 alliances to justify ganking helpless pilots and so their pilots can be jackasses and bullies.
It's a pvp game, people get shot. I need no justification to fly around and shoot people. If a person doesn't want PVP, they should avoid situations where it may occur. No one is helpless unless they choose to be. |
NATMav
Caldari
F.R.E.E. Explorer
The Initiative. |
Posted - 2006.10.17 17:54:00 - [ 179]
neu‧tral /ˈnutrəl, ˈnyu-/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[noo-truhl, nyoo-] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–adjective 1. not taking part or giving assistance in a dispute or war between others: a neutral nation during World War II.
2. not aligned with or supporting any side or position in a controversy: The arbitrator was absolutely neutral.
3. of or belonging to a neutral state or party: neutral territory.
4. of no particular kind, characteristics, etc.; indefinite: a neutral personality that made no impression whatever; a sex-neutral job title.
5. (of a color or shade) a. gray; without hue; of zero chroma; achromatic.
b. matching well with many or most other colors or shades, as white or beige.
6. Botany, Zoology. neuter.
7. not causing or reflecting a change in something: It is believed that the new tax law will be revenue neutral.
8. Chemistry. exhibiting neither acid nor alkaline qualities: neutral salts.
9. Physics. a. (of a particle) having no charge.
b. (of an atom, molecule, collection of particles, fluid, or solid) having no net charge; electroneutral; not electrified.
c. not magnetized.
10. Phonetics. (of a vowel) pronounced with the tongue relaxed in a central position, as the a in alive; reduced.
–noun 11. a person or a nation that remains neutral, as in a controversy or war.
12. a citizen of a neutral nation during a war.
13. Machinery, Automotive. the position or state of disengaged gears or other interconnecting parts: in neutral.
14. a neutral color.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Origin: 1400–50; late ME < L neutrālis grammatically neuter. See neuter, -al1]
—Related forms
neu‧tral‧ly, adverb
—Synonyms 2. impartial, disinterested, dispassionate, uninvolved, unbiased.
|
Rei Toai
Amarr
untilted.
|
Posted - 2006.10.17 17:57:00 - [ 180]
Edited by: Rei Toai on 17/10/2006 17:58:11 Originally by: Lunamariea Hawke
D2 play the injured party very well but thats normally how they set people up for a stab in the back.
uhm .. if i'm not mistaken YOU made the initial post regarding this topic so your ranting on the forums *might* caused the actual situation - you know ... during diplomatic talks it's always bad to see something on the E-O happening in a dubious thread. Originally by: Torshin
ISS is not trying to deny that reports were made on D2 fleet movements. This thread wasn't even started by ISS crying it was started by a player who enjoyed ISS 0.0 access and then D2 decided to flame it.
SAS did report on Razors fleet movements against ASCN and their corp was kicked instantly. Any other reports of these acts that have been made clear to Count have been dealt with in a similar manor. D2 did have reason to break the NAP, but it isn't like ISS hasn't also had reason to break the nap. D2 pilots have on several occasions killed ISS pilots while the NAP was in effect and they remain in the alliance. I don't feel that D2 should be so hypocritcal about something like this.
i think it's two different situations - ISS HAS to please the surrounding entities to stay convenient and safe in 0.0 - D² doesn't have to do this to defend their space ... so don't complain about hypocrisy - you'd better complain about your leadership, the actual concept of ISS diplomatics ... even if you don't want to hear it: ISS HAS NO POWER - while others have. and it has nothing to do with the neighbours beeing pirates, tyrans and so on - it has only to do with flaws in the concept of ISS. Originally by: BenjaminBarker
The shared desire to shoot a neutral, industrial alliance doesn't change the fact that the alliance is neutral, it makes everyone shooting them pirates. Thing is, a neutral alliance can help your enemy and still be neutral (buying/sell on an open market, etc).
i thought this topic was allready cleared with the EC-P event  |
All Channels
Corporation, Alliance and Organization Discussions
