preka

This is wrong/outdated. The Eve PvP logoff timer is trigged by both incoming and outgoing aggression. It also refreshes if the pilot in question is fired upon while logged off.

But it was YOUR argument! So you're saying your argument doesn't matter? And if your argument doesn't matter, you should simply be ignored, then, yes? If it doesn't matter, why did you say it in the first place? Can we not just as easily say that nothing you have said matters? Why would it? You haven't made a particularly strong case that any of your whinging is important. Very little of it seems to be about the good of the game as a whole - it mostly revolves around your *personal* wants.

yeah.. except my argument DOES agree with itself sooo.... again.. you have pointed out 1 stupid' date=' nitpicky bullshit semantic argument that has nothing to do with the REAL point at hand. and have focused SOLELY on that topic because you have NOTHING ELSE to argue. That usually means.. you lose. [/quote'] You don't seem to actually understand what "semantics" means. It refers specifically to the words you chose to use. I'm referring, here, to the actual substance of the two conflicting positions which you still have yet to actually resolve. You cite realism when it suits you, and ignore it when it does not, because you are not interested in logic - you are only interested in getting your way. Explain how, in real life, it is KNOWN that someone killed someone for their beans. This is not a matter of semantics. This is a matter of logical consistency. You made this claim. I assert that, absent witnesses or evidence, nobody would know that this is the case. Defend your statement.

You have not once explained a single 'flaw' in my presented idea except 'BRO YOU SAID YOU DON'T CARE ABOUT REALISM HERE BUT SAID YOU DO CARE ABOUT REALISM HERE.' Solid argument. Solid. An argument that doesn't agree with itself is generally considered to be pretty flawed - at least when the rules of logic (which you allegedly subscribe to) are in play. Of course, if you're just making it up as you go in an effort to have your way no matter what, internal consistency becomes less important. :D

What are you talking about? It doesn't require any "digging". It's probably readily apparent to anyone who has read your posts in series. Maybe you should stop making so many excuses and divert some of that name-calling effort toward composing an argument that isn't demonstrably flawed?

REAL value? Like calling anyone who disagrees with you a fucking idiot? :D Well. I'm generally opposed, but I think I can scrounge some of that up. You claimed you were presenting an argument from logic. I pointed out an internal inconsistency in your position that, by definition, cannot be present in a logical argument. As an aside, you're also not a moderator on this particular forum, so why not save yourself the embarrassment of impotently commanding other forum users to obey your will? You've no power of enforcement, so it's as futile as it is childish. Edit: Whoops - I forgot to add the value. *Ahem* "Fucking idiot." There we go.

This is you, citing "realism", on this very subject. When asked how, realistically, those others would know what you had done, you revert to, "Whatever, it's a game, allowances must be made for gameplay!" get off the realism bandwagon man. its a stupid argument. But you didn't think it was a stupid argument when *you* were presenting it. I'm not arguing realism. I'm pointing out that you can't seem to string together a coherent argument that doesn't blatantly disagree with itself. This is because you are not a logical, rational thinker. You are simply another selfish person who is trying to get his way at any and all costs - thus, when *you* throw down the "realism" argument, you feel it is a valid and logical position. When someone else does it - even in response to your very own realism argument - it's a "stupid argument". QED. I now return you to your regularly scheduled infantile tantrum.

This is you, citing "realism", on this very subject. When asked how, realistically, those others would know what you had done, you revert to, "Whatever, it's a game, allowances must be made for gameplay!"

I've responded plenty of times in this thread without name calling. Do me a favor and tally the times I have been name called, compared to how many times I have called someone names. Go ahead. Just don't be embarrassed at how ridiculous this comment was when you do. "Well... THEY STARTED IT!" You're right. How could I have believed for a moment that I was dealing with anything other than a supremely rational being? :D

But wait a minute... you said, back on page one: So you seem willing to cite "reality" when you imagine doing so favors your argument, but you ignore it, "because it's a video game, duuuuude" when it does not favor your argument. So, your position does not appear to have any internal consistency, and, thus, we can conclude that your argument has very little to do with logic and reason, and everything to do with your personal preference.

Why would you know, at a glance, what some random stranger has been up to? For someone who purports to be arguing from a position of logic and reason, you seem to spend a lot of time presenting "magic" as the only possible solution to the (perceived) problem.

The bandit skin was exceedingly lame. You killed some folks? Okay, well, you look different now because... because... because MAGIC! Yeah!

Er... what? How would they know? There's no communications infrastructure. 50 people is a fairly populous server. The play area is about 225 KM^2, so on average there is one person per 5 square kilometers. It's unlikely that there would be any witnesses to a murder, and even if there were, how would they get the word out? So, why would anyone know, and why should there be any consequence, and how should that consequence be implemented so as not to be some remarkably lame deus ex machina style you-are-magically-punished-for-being-bad-even-though-nobody-knows-you-were-bad nonsense?