Friday, July 4, 2014

Highsec Toad Trotter, Part 1

The New Order governs highsec like a well-oiled machine. Our Agents are elite PvP warriors, but don't assume that we can't administer territories just as skillfully as we conquer them.
Notice of Enforcement Action
From: Jack Van Impe
Sent: 2014.06.29 20:59
To: toad trotter

Attention Highsec Miner,

During a routine patrol of New Order territorry, one of our agents detected the following prohibited behaviour:

[ X ] Mining without a valid permit in contravention of The New Halaima Code of Conduct.
[ X ] Failing to dock up while AFK (away from the keyboard).
[ X ] Botting, displaying the characteristics of a bot, or other bot-aspirant behaviour.
[ X ] Excessive mining.
[ ] Rude or vulgar speech (i.e. "smack talk") in local chat.
[ ] Failure to show proper deference to the Supreme Protector of High-sec, our saviour James 315, and/or his lawfully appointed agents of the New Order.

As a result this/these infractions our agents deemed it necessary to take punative action against you as detailed below:

Kill: toad trotter (Hulk)
After destroying an illegal miner's Hulk, Agent Jack Van Impe sent the Code violator the above notification, along with more detailed info/links about the Code. Such EVEmails are a toolkit. Every gank "victim" is provided with the equipment they need to upgrade themselves for service in our glorious highsec.

As you could probably guess from her sullen, thousand-yard stare, toad trotter has spent the entirety of her one year in EVE mining in highsec. She was a typical rebel miner. Or was she? In fact, toad trotter was about to make history--setting the record for the longest tearmail ever written in response to a gank.

Before sending the tearmail, toad trotter did her homework. She read at least part of the Code and located the names of the Saviour of Highsec and two of the New Order's top diplomats. Now she was ready to rant and rave to the proper authorities.

toad trotter warned everyone of the dire consequences of killing a year-old carebear. So far, nothing special. She would need to dig deep if she wanted her tears to ascend from a mere blub in a Highsec Miner Grab Bag--to be worthy of their own post.

Since toad trotter wasn't one of my contacts, she had to pay the 315 isk CSPA charge. She concluded her EVEmail, which was not the longest tearmail in history. After a few hours with no response from the New Order, she composed another one.

Beginning a fresh EVEmail, toad trotter got her second wind. In the first couple paragraphs, she dropped a few Miner Bingo quotes. But she was only getting warmed up.

Like other angry miners, she insisted she wasn't angry. As much as she might deny it, something was keeping her going. Something inside toad trotter would propel her into MinerBumping history.

toad trotter indulged in some low-grade denialism, claiming the New Order isn't famous and is but one of many organizations claiming to own highsec.

Exhausted, toad trotter finished her second EVEmail. Combined, she had already written far more words in response to a gank than anyone could have anticipated. But this wasn't the longest tearmail, either.

The next day, toad trotter got down to business. She had new threats and new excuses to give the New Order.

toad trotter fumed that her Hulk was the only ship in her fleet that wasn't mining AFK. She accused our Agents of targeting the Hulk only because it was the most expensive one. (As if that's a bad thing.) The essay continued. Because this time, toad trotter was writing the longest tearmail in history. And she was only getting started.

To be continued...


  1. After reading that and listening to JTClone, I'm wondering why the EVE steep learning curve didn't work and make those two run back to WOW?

    1. Confirmed: Learning curve too flat.

    2. Because they want to turn EvE into WoW.

    3. Ahahahaha. New Order remix best remix.

      But for real, I cringe when I hear one of JT's "speeches". Is he oblivious to how ridiculous he sounds?

  2. Awesome, simply awesome....

    - Guybertini

  3. Am I missing something? The date on her bio says 2014.6.4. Isn't that like a month ago, not a year?

    1. "Am I missing something?"


      "The date on her bio says 2014.6.4."

      A. It doesn't show her bio at all, it shows a portion of her employment history. "bio" generally refers to the tab labeled as "description", which in the screenshot is not selected.
      B. Her employment history does not have "the date", it has multiple dates, none of which are "the date" without further specification. That screenshot clearly shows only a portion of her employment history, as it does not include any of the known starter corps.

      " Isn't that like a month ago, not a year?"

      Yes, that is like a month ago, and therefore is not like a year ago.

    2. @Bio Tutor

      If you are going to provide a tutorial on the bio, you should at least understand the difference between the Bio tab and the Description tab.

      The Description is not the Bio. It exists for all characters based on race and bloodline. It is not editable by players.

      The Bio tab only exists if a player has entered something into it.

    3. No longer a bio tutorJuly 8, 2014 at 12:01 AM

      Oops, my bad.

  4. Replies
    1. The tl;dr is :

  5. the idiocracy that is minerbumping continues, Lets harras player to play the way we want them too...... Such an american idea ....

    Killing bots = good idea
    Killing AFK = good idea
    Killing noobs = okay ... its a pvp based game
    Forcing people to move low/null sec because that where the game is supposed to be about? = ARE YOU RETARTED? you are bieng laughed at in null sec

    but above else keep up the good work, and please provide better material instead of look i got another tearmail, you can do allot better than that.

    Urs sincerly Manchurian

    1. You've missed the point entirely. NO isn't here to force people into Low/Null/WH, we encourage it and if someone who once was a HS carebear moves to a region other than HS, we are happy for them and would offer advise to help them out.

      We are simply here to destroy carebears who feel too entitled to actually play the game. Whether by AFK mining, AP, or missioning. We are here to rebalance the imbalance that is Highsec.

      I'm assuming you haven't had very many "tearmails." Which, of course, leads me to believe you're a carebear and have no idea what you're really talking about. Most tears are short and sweet. A "fuck you", or "you piece of shit", or "I hope you get cancer" could all be considered "tears" most of the time and especially if the person in particular lost an in-game item, like a ship.

      Some of these tears are "better" than others. This is of course open to interpretation, but most of the time players will agree that length and presentation of the player (how the player is acting) are two main factors. This happens to be one of those occasions as this person literally wrote a short novel while appearing to be upset over losing a Hulk.

      I don't know what Nullsec you're referring to, but from where I am the people I know from various Nullsec regions are laughing at the carebears and enjoy what NO is doing. Perhaps you have Nullsec and Highsec confused?

  6. Well thought out rebuttal Anonymous 11:49, my hats off to you.


    - Amerille

  8. Consistency is not your strong point, is it?

    "[ X ] Failing to dock up while AFK (away from the keyboard)."
    Given as a reason for killing someone. Not "mining while AFK". Just "being AFK".

    And then we have this, from your own post of whenever it was:

    "First of all, we can note that nowhere in the Code does it say anything about AFK cloaking--or any other AFK activity other than AFK mining. Once again, this makes perfect sense. We would not, for example, threaten to bump someone who was AFK while docked in a station. Nor is it bot-aspirant behavior to be AFK while docked. Mining in highsec is the only situation in which being AFK is problematic."

    Let's just read that again. "Mining in highsec is the only situation in which being AFK is problematic." Not "mining, autopiloting, owning a freighter, owning a ship that we think would make a shiny killmail" Just "mining in highsec".

    Minerbumping is, frankly, amusing. Randomly ganking people? Not especially amusing, but perhaps you enjoy it. Just admit that's what you're doing, There's nothing wrong with ganking people, it's part of the game, but really, stop being both condescending and hypocritical, it makes the whole blog so much less amusing. Hell, even freighter bumping so they can't align and warp would be funny.

    1. More in sorrow than in angerJuly 8, 2014 at 12:27 AM

      "And then we have this, from your own post of whenever it was"

      That post was August 10, 2012.

      23 months that time, the game has changed, and people's thoughts about the game have changed. Consistency is usually thought of as a good thing; but how so? When consistency means "acting with fairness and rationality, only changing the law of highsec fairly and with notice", then yes, that is a good thing, and with this definition, consistency is indeed one of the Savior's many strong points. If consistency means "never changing one's actions at all, obeying a strict set of rules unfailingly", then you are describing a bot, not a human. Your accusation of inconsistency on the part of the Savior unsurprisingly accomplishes nothing but to prove your own bot-aspirancy and lack of true understanding.

      I would advise strictly following the code for now; perhaps after a few more years of careful adherence to the code you'll have gained enough understanding of EVE to return to this subject and have a useful discussion. For now, it's simply over your head.

    2. To use the vernacular - bullshit. Consistency will never mean what you defined it as, because despite your pretensions of grandeur, you're playing a game and word definitions in english won't change to suit your game play. Consistency is "steadfast adherence to the same principles, course, form, etc." The important part of that definition here is the word principles. Minerbumping has changed principles from bumping to ganking. It's not consistent.

      You can attempt to make assumptions about my gameplay, but you're only making a fool of yourself. Nothing I do in game falls under your ever-broadening definitions of bot-aspirancy, so my accusation of inconsistency proves nothing of the sort. You'd pretty much have to redefine both the words "proof" and "understanding" for your sentence to have any relation to reality. Since the "code" changes randomly as you people pull new ways to annoy people out of the air, even if I ever played in high sec I couldn't follow it, even if I was so inclined.

      Trust me, there's nothing you can say or discuss that is over my head. I simply call your bullshit and disagree with you. That doesn't make me lackinjg in understanding, I understand your point of view, I simply disagree with you.

      I reiterate my previous point, when it was about bumping people, that was amusing. Now it's just an excuse for ganking, and since ganking is part of the game I am not objecting to the ganking part itself, just your lame attempts to justify it somehow. It doesn't need justification. Do it or don't do it, but it isn't in the same league as bumping people and posting their responses in chat for amusement value.

    3. More in sorrow than in angerJuly 8, 2014 at 9:34 PM

      Ganking and bumping aren't principles; they are methods, means to an end. This lack of understanding is extremely fundamental, a failure in logic at the most elementary level.

      "You can attempt to make assumptions about my gameplay"

      Nothing I said made any assumptions about your gameplay; your bot-aspirancy is philosophical in nature. I have no idea what you do in EVE, nor am I concerned with it.

      "Now it's just an excuse for ganking, and since ganking is part of the game I am not objecting to the ganking part itself, just your lame attempts to justify it somehow."

      Again, this is a deeply fundamental mistake. Ganking does not need justification; any gank in EVE constitutes proper play; and the Code makes that extremely clear. This argument stands no chance of making any headway when the facts and logic at issue go so far over your head.

    4. More in sorrow than in angerJuly 8, 2014 at 9:41 PM

      p.s. : You claim that the New Order has "changed principles" from bumping to ganking. I call attention to the fact that the link you post above is from August 10, 2012, 23 months ago. I now call attention to the original forum thread in which the Code was posted first : This is 25 months ago, predating the post you linked earlier; and this forum post clearly states, at least 5 distinct times, that ganking is a Code-approved action. So, not only are you incorrect in your understanding of principle versus action, but you are also wrong in point of fact, in that ganking has been an integral part of the Code since its inception.


  9. فني صحي محترف سباك فني صحي
    فني صحي فني صحي الكويت
    سباك الكويت سباك صحي بالكويت

    شركة تنظيف في الكويت شركة تنظيف بالكويت
    فني صحي فني صحي في الكويت
    سباك الكويت سباك بالكويت

    شركة تنظيف كنب الكويت تنظيف كنبات الكويت


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