Jeran wrote:Otherwise good ideas combined with personal attacks, no wonder your ideas aren't getting much attention or traction! I bet that would be quite frustrating.
You come into our forums, forums that host people who fly 5, 10, 20, even 40 accounts, and you attempt to tell us that these are good changes, while not providing any proof or evidence, and you expect us to not think you're trollbait and react accordingly?
Also, read some of the anti-ISBoxer posts on the GD thread. You know, the ones that say "everyone who does something different than I do is cheating" and "I didn't read the OP, all ISBoxer is banned". Read some of the insane arguments they make that, with zero effort required, can be used to justify banning massive station trading, indy, and 3rd party programs like EVEMon and EFT. Please forgive me if I'm sick and tired of defending what I do from someone who should by all rights know better.
Jeran wrote:Which I haven't even brought up, but ok, this whole conversation does make a lot more sense when I realize you're conflating me with and then arguing with a person or people that are not me.
No, but people who argue against ISBoxer tend to use arguments that can be used to argue against massive station trading or industrial activities, namely, the so-called "scaleability" and the "ease of use".
Jeran wrote:There are, however, quite a few people who run 5+ carriers/dreads/supers, and I think that even on that level it's problematic. Because of the number of mods and the complexity of things like refitting, lacking mouse and key broadcasting makes multiboxing more than a couple capitals much harder. Which, again, I think is a good thing. I don't need to extend it to 90 ship multiboxing for this argument to have merit.
I'll agree that you can't easily multibox caps refitting off each other using broadcasting all the time, however again we run into the problem of, where do we limit people at? 6? 7? Why those arbitrary numbers?
Jeran wrote:Don't disagree, but as I pointed out previously, being able to come up with a better solution doesn't make the current solution the worst solution.
No, but at the same time it doesn't excuse CCP amputating the limb because of minor, easily repairable, nerve damage in the hand. If CCP had told us that the ban was a temporary measure while they looked at it in depth, you can rest assured I'd be the first person to tell other boxers to calm down and let CCP work this out.
Jeran wrote:Quite the persecution complex. Also, this is another classic "citation needed" on your part. Maybe you're just paying too much attention to loudmouths on forums and/or the voices in your head?
You're correct, I should have posted "in my observation/experience of conversations in-game and on the forums". And if I have a persecution complex, maybe it's because I've seen the kinds of things people post in local when I'm moving systems.
Jeran wrote:Reasonable is a weasel word? What other ones have I used? I'd like to start a list because your theory of language is both hilarious and enlightening.
Straight from Merriam-Webster:
weasel word (noun): a word used in order to avoid being clear or direct.
"Reasonable" is a weasel word because it relies on an unclear definition of what is considered "Kosher" by players, and can be changed at any time. It is open to interpretation by all sides of the discussion, and what may be reasonable for me may not be reasonable for, say, Wheniaminspace, or TheWis. As an example, I wouldn't mind if CCP told us we're limited to 10 accounts online and "doing stuff" at a time, however, for someone like TheWis, he'd find it unreasonable to have to sell or deal with all his accounts.
Also, the timeframe given to us was kinda meh, but I must give CCP credit for telling their accountants to reimburse or otherwise transfer the time on recently paid accounts.
I'm an EVE bro with extended knowledge of incursions. Feel free to contact me here.