Friday, December 21, 2012

Receiving Ganks Gracefully, Part 1

I was enjoying a relaxing afternoon flying with some Knights of the Order and killing Code violators. Suddenly, I received a convo from one of the miners we'd killed.

I was pleased by the invitation, assuming a miner had wised up and was going to join the New Order. Perhaps she would even congratulate us on our successful gank, as is required by the Code.

I was disappointed to learn of the possibility that we had killed a compliant miner in error.

alphaliam had indeed purchased a mining permit for 10 million isk. Yet I couldn't help but get the sense that something wasn't right. She had refused to put a pledge of loyalty in her bio, and something just seemed... off.

Out of nowhere, alphaliam demanded 270 million isk from me. It's not unprecedented for Agents to reimburse miners when a genuine mistake occurs--but it's not exactly required by the Code, either. alphaliam's pushy attitude surprised me. I am used to that sort of thing coming from a rebel, but never from a Code-compliant miner. I reminded her that had she put a pledge of loyalty in her bio, this never would have occurred.

Astounding! A highsec miner lecturing the Father of the New Order himself about the Code?

alphaliam displayed a warped perception of the laws and dynamics of highsec. I did my best to help.

She was not interested at all in hearing about proper gankee etiquette.

The gank fleet I was participating in needed to destroy another Code violator, so I politely excused myself and attended to the kill.

Refreshed, I returned to the convo optimistically. Maybe she just needed time to cool off. Now she would be ready to see reason.

That didn't appear to be the case.

It was as I feared. alphaliam was unmasked as a Code violator. A violator who, once upon a time, had given 10 million isk to an Agent, but a violator all the same. Insulting the Supreme Protector is every bit as inconsistent with the Code as is failing to transfer isk to an Agent. The odds of her getting 270 million isk out of me were declining rapidly.

However, she remained as confident as a space lawyer. For some reason, she assumed that she could boss me around, even though the Code clearly states that miners should know their place. She claimed to have an EVEmail that released her from any need to read MinerBumping or put a pledge in her bio.

Upon further inspection, it was not the smoking gun she remembered it to be.

To be continued...


  1. im gonna put this out here right now
    OWAIT: wheres my proof?
    [ 2012.12.17 22:42:18 ] Spiritualhawk > i'm not that hubris filled.
    [ 2012.12.17 22:42:33 ] Aria Stane > Couldn't prove 100% you're not, so the possibility exists.
    [ 2012.12.17 22:42:38 ] Spiritualhawk > not that his isn't warranted or even required.
    [ 2012.12.17 22:42:48 ] Spiritualhawk > no i'm sure i couldn't
    [ 2012.12.17 22:43:10 ] Spiritualhawk > OH
    [ 2012.12.17 22:43:13 ] Spiritualhawk > here's a tip
    [ 2012.12.17 22:43:16 ] Spiritualhawk > OSMON.
    [ 2012.12.17 22:43:20 ] Spiritualhawk > plenty of afk miners there
    [ 2012.12.17 22:43:24 ] Spiritualhawk > you're welcome :P
    [ 2012.12.17 22:43:26 ] Aria Stane > OSMON?
    [ 2012.12.17 22:43:28 ] Spiritualhawk > osmon.
    [ 2012.12.17 22:43:29 ] Aria Stane > System?
    [ 2012.12.17 22:43:32 ] Spiritualhawk > yep.

    1. Dude, that's great. Even if it's true (your 'proof' is hardly conclusive), it's not exactly extremely important that you thought of Osmon first.

  2. alphaliam was one of the first miners that I ever bumped, hence the rather primative evemail notification I sent her. It pains me to see that she has violated the Code again.

  3. I do not like alphaliam's attitude. But on the other hand, I do think that us ganking paid-up miners is a very bad idea. It is bad for our image. It is true that the New Order is not a business -- if we were, ice mining fees would be perhaps 100 times what they are. (Miners should thank the Code every day that it was discovered before anyone thought up the idea to dominate miners as a business). But still, a promise is a promise and promises should be kept. That promises should be kept is a bedrock principle of civilization itself. So I am rather torn about what we ought to do in this case (and more generally). Hard cases make bad law, and this is one. Our defendant here is not very sympathetic.

    It is not clear what we promised alphaliam or indeed what we promise any dues-paying miner. I believe we should clarify that. It is also unclear what the Code has to say in this case. But this is why we have a sovereign; the Code in its wisdom knows that there can be no complete written law: "it's not possible to fully enumerate all of the rules". Law -- all law -- must always be enforced by actual human beings. Good law is not millions of pages of law, attempting to delineate all possibilities. Rather the trick to good law is to find a good man and make him sovereign. This is why all of highsec unamimously elected James to be Lord Protector.

    James needs to think hard about the real issues presented here. On the pro-loyalty pledge side, many miners are willing to comply with the bumper sticker suggestion, and this by far the easiest way for our gank fleets to know not to target a miner. Having no loyalty pledge is a risk to the miner. It is also good advertising for the New Order. And perhaps most importantly, the loyalty pledge shows the proper humility of the subject before the sovereign. All must bow before the Code. Miners, Knights, even James 315 are but means to an end, and that end is the Code.

    On the other hand, we must recognize two things. First, the Code is an artifact of its time, and it is largely silent on the matter of suicide gankers. Second, many miners are for one reason or another reluctant to advertise compliance. There are many bad reasons for this desire, but there is at least one colorable one. The New Order cannot protect miners from rebel violence, and I know it has been threatened against some of our miners. (I am not aware of any miner actually being ganked or even attacked by rebels, though. I wish that any N.O. miner that has been attacked and/or killed by rebels would say so in this thread.) This kind of reluctance may or may not be based on any real threat now, but in the abstract, we can imagine rebels organizing enough that it may be. We should be aware of it, at least.

    Personally, my feeling is that all paid-up miners in highsec should display the loyalty oath or face gank, and this should be recognized as part of the Code. Perhaps we might have a "green pen list" or something, which is a special set of exceptions, based on actually proven need and/or spy status. (I am aware of no such need on the part of alphaliam.) But I am just a humble knight; I was not elected by the people as their Lord Protector. It is upon his broad shoulders that this decision must fall.

    1. I'm inclined to agree. It's natural to be a bit upset when you've been wrongfully ganked. In her defense, she did lose some valuables, anyone would be mad/upset, especially if they've already paid up. As she stated, she was not told to put the bumper sticker in her bio, so she's not the only one to blame. I think James needs to re-think this one.

    2. The next update on this story has not released, but there are already strong opinions on the subject.

      Personally, I am of the belief that if a truly Code-compliant miner was wrongfully ganked (as has happened in the past), they will be courteous to the Agents and will state their case without demanding a refund (as they have done). Respect for Agents is key here, and if alphaliam were truly on the side of the New Order, she would not have been so abrupt and rash about reimbursement.

      James, would a shareholder vote be appro-po for this?

    3. The status of the miner's complaint will be made clear in Part 2. In this case, a shareholder vote won't be necessary.

    4. As a long-time and outspoken New Order permit holding miner and stockholder, I've faced the oxymoronic anti-bumper-bumpers, who bump mining ships to express their unnatural opposition to bumping mining ships, on a few occasions. Did I remove my loyalty pledge? No, I joined a corporation containing the name "New Order", to further advertise my loyalty. Anti-bumper-bumpers are engaging with the Code, in a strange and painful manner, but it's still progress. I welcome the opportunity to help them sort out their inner confusion--if I valued the ISK of that time more than I valued that experience, I wouldn't really be code-compliant in the first place.

      I don't know the specifics that will soon be released in part 2 of this article--but I will say, that Code-compliant miners have an intrinsic responsibility to either: A. Fly a well-tanked mining ship, or B. expect their mining ship to be lost, and not complain when it is lost, no matter the reason. Buying a permit and displaying a loyalty oath is like crossing a street in a crosswalk, instead of jaywalking through a busy and prudent, but not meaning that you shouldn't still look both ways before crossing. Flying an untanked mining ship, permit or not, is like sleeping in the middle of the street on a dark rainy night, instead of your cozy warm house. Sleeping in a crosswalk doesn't make that a better choice, it just makes it funnier.

  4. Replies
    1. She is being disrespectful and taking on a "customer is always right" mentality which is wrong, since being "paid up" is more of a being left alone thing, which in effect she is right. So its a contradictory situation.

      And also, at the time of permit purchase, that was in regards to being NOT BUMPED. I'm assuming she wasn't bumped, but in fact was ganked (which at the time of contract her permit did not protect her from).

      That's how I see the space lawyering as a defensive standpoint anyhow.

  5. I for one congratulate Galaxy Pig on podding this space lawyer. It's clear that alphaliam has not accepted The Code. Hours of mining space rocks has hardened her heart and caused her to reject what she once accepted. I anticipate reading more in this saga. Hopefully she'll repent, lay down her mining laser and pick up a Catalyst so she too can be baptized by CONCORD and bask in the glory of the New Order.

  6. See, that's exactly why many believe that James is actually the drug addict mittan, the goon leader. What is amazing is that none, but NONE wanna stand up and do something about. It's same as real life where all the good sense people just hide behind the fences when a nigga comes around and stole the bike.

    I'm a new player and I started to play EVE only because the evefest when this drug addict fuker started to bully on weak people. Since then I try to gather some hardcore pvp peps around me but.. I failed miserably. And I have to give up.. just because I cant force weak fukers to defend themself if they dont need it. They better prefer to whine, cry all over the forums &shit than do something about.

    So what can I say.. these days being a motherfuker is the right sticker. Being a normal guy and having good sense is obsolete. Game or no game, we deserve .. James/mittan... go ahead. Sniff ur drugs, abuse people, be a motherfuker, actually hell is the new heaven.

    1. I think it is pretty obvious who has the drug problem here. :/


      Garrison Woods
      Knight of the New Order.

  7. wut, wot? m8

    Speak english or die :/ (©Anthrax)

  8. I think of myself as a normal guy. I believe in a fair deal, and i believe in James 315, Savior of HighSec

  9. I don't know the rest of the story, but I'd expect it's only a matter of time before permit holding miners are ganked as more and more miners pay up. Eventually miners going to dock up, move to different systems, quit mining all together or pay up and as gank targets disappear, the only thing left will be the permit holders. Guess what ... gankers gank.

    1. In this elysian vision of the near future, expansion of the permit system to new profession prone to bot-aspirant behavior is a much more rational prediction. Just like when I finish my lunch, and then get hungry, I move on to dinner, instead of eating my pets and children. I am glad that you are attempting to think about the situation, although frightened by the prospect of your incipient cannibalism.

  10. if she got podded then she was afk.


Note: If you are unable to post a comment, try enabling the "allow third-party cookies" option on your browser.