Friday, June 26, 2015

Don't Tase Me, Bro

It's almost impossible to comprehend the sheer scale of the New Order's recent victories in Uedama. Hundreds of freighters and hundreds of billions of carebear isk have been destroyed. It's really been quite a spectacle. But when we look at statistics like these, it's easy to lose sight of the individual players involved. Today, the story of one freighter pilot who was ganked in Uedama.


It's a tale as old as time: A fail-fit freighter came lumbering into Uedama, completely oblivious to one of the biggest highsec events ever. Despite carrying no cargo, the freighter had two anti-tank cargo expanders fit, along with a nanofiber for some reason. As any bot-aspirant will tell you, every freighter needs a good mix of cargo expanders and nanofibers.

Fourteen Catalysts and loyalanon's Moa later, the freighter gave up the ghost.


The freighter pilot was Tase Ahashion. He, too, lived by a code. But unlike our Code, which is pure and true, Tase's code was just a series of weird, random "I'm a good guy" bullet points in his bio. For a good guy, he sure didn't have a problem violating the Code, did he?


Tase was also the director of a smallish highsec carebear corp. Its goal: "to have FUN". Its members accomplished this by hauling and mining, though they also dabbled in missions--adding a little spice to their EVE experience.

The day after this freighter was ganked, loyalanon received an invitation to join Tase in a private convo. Had Tase finally decided to offer a "gf" to our heroes?


Things got serious immediately. Tase sent CCP a strong (tech II?) petition regarding his freighter loss. While the petition was pending, Tase also wanted money. Better to get the isk out of loyalanon before he got banned.


Legendary bumper Siegfried Cohenberg joined the convo. He, too, was put on notice.


Naturally, Agent Siegfried asked which rules he was being accused of breaking. Tase declined to answer. How could Siegfried not know? Actually, this was a pretty good response from Tase. From now on, when a carebear asks an Agent to clarify which provision of the Code was broken, the Agent can answer, "If you don't know then we have a real problem." Nice!


loyalanon turned the tables. Unlike Tase, he was prepared to cite authority in the form of a landmark MinerBumping post from last year.


Unresolved issues remained. Tase accepted an invitation to join CODE.'s TeamSpeak server to have a heart-to-heart with the Agents who'd killed him. When told that the conversation would be recorded, Tase decided to making a recording, too.


Over the course of 18 minutes, a frank discussion took place. Tase asserted that it's against the rules to kill freighters in highsec, which he believes is a no-PvP zone. A debate ensued. Tase lost the debate. He quit.


A few hours later, Tase expressed his opinion that it was unfair for multiple Agents to be present during the TeamSpeak conversation. However, it was his own fault for not bringing additional carebears to represent his highsec PvE corp.


Although loyalanon was busy wrecking carebears and coordinating a fleet of New Order Agents, he managed to carry on a conversation. Tase didn't say so, but he was probably impressed.


As in the TeamSpeak discussion, Tase was challenged to produce any proof that the New Order doesn't keep its word.


As before, Tase lost the argument. He'd rather beg CCP to ban people for ganking freighters than simply pay the 10 million isk he owed. Greed is one deadly vice.

73 comments:

  1. Great story. Poor carebear flies through a warzone in a untanked ship, loses his ship in 100% normal PVP mechanics, and thinks that somehow some "rule" was violated.

    Adorable.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "And the next thing I know... we're being attacked! ... But wait a minute, where's this attack coming from? ... And the next thing I know, my ship is gone!!!"

      Delete
    2. "We are in Highsec. You can't do PvP in Highsec."

      *gasps*

      Delete
    3. "Your Providence was confiscated for mining illegally."
      "No, no, no, you blew it up!"
      "Oh okay. It was blown up for mining illegally."

      LOL

      Delete
    4. "there was a vote" what a load of bollocks !!

      Delete
    5. couldn't get all the way through the soundcloud.....your a bunch off asshats, you sound like a bunch of spiteful children pulling the legs of a spider and snickering.

      Delete
    6. Anonymous miners, we are really going to need you to calm down.

      Delete
    7. @chocolatemooses

      like anyone is going to listen to a goon....you have even less chance than code.

      Delete
  2. Replies
    1. He sounds like an old man telling a story, lol!

      "Back in my day.. they didn't use to have telephones! Why; we had to walk miles and miles to the nearest telegraph office.. *Hack* *Wheeze*... Which reminds me of a time back when......."

      Delete
    2. Back in my day, we didn't have PvP in Highsec

      Delete
    3. Back in my day, we had to mine the minerals to build the catalyst and blasters, just to gank the barge we were mining in

      Then we did it all over again

      Delete
  3. I have to point out here that I am the lone survivor of a long forgotten race of star children and my soul is linked to that of all of my ancestors through a device that is so sophisticated that to petty humans like yourself it is basically magic. I have travelled over 200,000,000,000 light years just to come to Earth and get some Taco Bell because for me it’s not a big deal at all to do that sort of thing. Time isn’t meaningful to me, so I’ve been here for many of your human lifetimes, but I typically go back to 2007 every few years so that I can watch the last moments of the Bush regime. Did I mention that I can travel through time? Because I can. And oh yeah, before you go thinking that I’m just some sort of loony toon, how’s this for a prediction: tomorrow morning there will be an event that is so insane that nobody will be able to believe that it has happened. News organizations won’t even cover it because it’s so unbelievable. Do you believe in God? I sure hope so, because it turns out that he is real, and he is a 9000 ton magnetic robot that really doesn’t coexist well with WiFi. I hope you’ve got Wikipedia downloaded, kid, because your internet connection is about to get all sorts of fucked up.

    A short story by George

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. TLDR fail troll failing at trolling

      Delete
    2. No trolling - only 1000 years of winning.

      Get over it.

      Delete
    3. Hi FJ! Did you impregnate Bristol Palin by chance?

      Please send the isk ASAP!

      Miss you big buddy.

      Delete
  4. "though they also dabbled in missions--adding a little spice to their EVE experience"

    - comedy gold!!!

    ReplyDelete
  5. Tech II petitions for the win. :D

    ReplyDelete
  6. "However, it was his own fault for not bringing additional carebears to represent his highsec PvE corp."

    I Lold!!!!

    The Code is Non-stop winning DAILY!!!!!!!!

    ReplyDelete
  7. 27k per day........
    His pride blinds him to the truth.

    Guilty

    ReplyDelete
  8. Concord is a perfect police force, worthy of praise. As i've mentioned before Concord needs to be given the power to return the ISK destroyed from these ganks, The mechanic would simply allow the freighter pilot to start a conversation with the Concord and have the ISK deposited in your account. alternately Concord LP could be awarded. I'd also like to see concord raise the sec lvl to 1.0 after these ganks.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hrm, while i find veers, or at least the veers above akin to a loon, his last comment from above reminds me of something i have been thinking on for years. Simply put, how come the security level of systems in eve, don't from time to time change? Oh im not suggesting that a 0.0 system become a 1.0 system, or vice versa where a 1.0 system becomes a 0.0 system overnight, but why don't they ever change? From the way i see it, a 0.0 system is a system of total lack of security, working up to more and more security as the security level rises to the eventual (and supposed) total security at 1.0
      Much like in real life, conflict should gradually lower the security level of a system, while lack of conflicts should slowly raise a systems security level. A good level of change could be say a change of plus or minus 0.01 per day. At best it would take just over 3 months real time to change a systems security up or down by one level. In just over a year of time, a system could go from a 0.6 up to a 1.0, or decline from say a 0.8 down to a 0.4 (high sec to low sec). Imagine the changes players 'could' do to the system maps?
      I know code will most likely disagree with this, but think of this. Most of code say they hate high sec space, or more correctly, they hate high sec mining. Well with a system like i said, you could take away high sec from miners, given of course continued conflict in systems.
      Oh, keep in mind, i as a player do not dislike code, however, even with all code does do, code has not changed the maps by changing who is listed as owning a system in the top left corner of the screen, not that im saying code does not own high sec. Ownership to me, is based on who can field the most ships and do the most damage, which code does do.

      Delete
    2. While I don't fully disagree with you anon 9:12, lets not encourage CCP to break something which literally happens everytime they make a major change to the game.

      Delete
    3. @Anon 9:12 - In my humble opinion there are two issues with this proposed change:

      1) Many 0.0 systems don't experience any fights for very long periods of time. If no conflict lead to the rise of the security level, a large part of nullspace would become highsec space while many highsec systems lowered their sec status below 0.5 quite fast - for example look at Uedema! There would have to be some regulations / rules - you can't change the systems sec without changing that of the adjacent systems for example, you can't change the sec status of owned systems and so on.

      2) Powerfull alliances could abuse the mechanic by blowing up their own ships, to change the sec status of some systems (for whatever reason) and it would be difficult to interfere with this (what are you gonna do? Blow up the ships they blow up themselves?).

      But all in all, it would be a fun new mechanic with many unforeseen consequences!

      Delete
  9. Ugh.. If I hear "Attacking freighters in high sec is against the rules" one more time I'm literally going to loose my mind. Don't people at least half-ass read about the game they are playing and the mechanics of the game....

    * Face Desk*

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Attacking freighters in high sec is against the rules

      Just kidding, you know someone had to say it after what you said.

      Delete
    2. Best get use to a constant head ache then Asia, because the stupid is strong with some of these bears.

      ~The Colonel

      Delete
    3. Suck it up butternuts...the arrogance is equarlly strong with the code teddys...

      Delete
    4. Anon @12:01

      Miner, calm down

      Delete
    5. The truth hurts that bad,eh, asia?

      Delete
  10. Freighter pilots might not have anything to do with mining. As such, I believe that mining permits need to be renamed to avoid the implication that they are unnecessary for non-miners.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. http://www.minerbumping.com/2014/06/yes-all-freighters-need-mining-permits.html

      Delete
    2. Alternatively, we could consider an expanded (or more generalized) definition of 'mining' to include the act of trucking space junk around.

      Fwiw I consider posbashing to be a form of mining... And since that's all I do these days, I'm effectively just a miner. Albeit a Code-compliant one.

      Delete
    3. Code. HS business charter for mining, running missions or hauling

      Delete
    4. @Edward10:46

      Your proposal has been considered and it has been rejected.

      'Miner' is a derogatory term that is used to describe someone who is motivated and enslaved by money, willing to do the most boring activities in order to get it. The term is transferable to anyone who fits the definition. People who fly the most boring ships in the game for profit? They are correctly termed "miners." People who run Level 4 missions in highsec over and over? Miners.

      This is why they they are required to have a New Order mining permit. Because they should be treated no differently than miners.

      Delete
    5. So, since you code monkeys seem to have shifted to mostly freighter ganking in the trade lane choke point because you make more Isk there, you should now be known as code miners, and since you are now miners, you should be displaying your mining permits in your bios...

      Delete
    6. I have to agree with ming, i just want to add in another example of a 'miner'. One who stays docked up all the time and does nothing but posting on miner bumping, is by definition a miner. A perfect example is Ming Tso. Where is your mining permit ming?

      Delete
    7. For Agents of the Code; the Code itself is our permit. We are daily blessed by James 315 as we spread love throughout Hisec.

      Meanwhile the anonbears spread hate and tearful posts of failure.

      Delete
    8. Where is the hate and tears, I am just point out the flaws that have exposed the new order for the liars and criminals that they are...

      Delete
    9. @Anon2:46 & 3:04

      To clarify, "Mining Activity" can be defined as: "Any activity in which a player attempts to exclude player interaction for the purposes of generating profit."

      Delete
    10. So, what you are really saying, nitetime, is that there is a double standard in the code...that prove it is not the law, the law cannot have a double standard...and, ming, nice attempt to redefine miner now that code can be classified as miners, based on the previous definition...the truth hurts, doesn't it code miners...

      Delete
    11. Mining Permit(TM) is a brand name these days, rather than a description of what it does. No need to change the name.

      Delete
  11. What you talkin bout....new order permits are unnecessary for anything, the code being the law in Highsec is a lie...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That's what they all say...

      So I throw the question back at you... What have you done to dispute that claim? I'm listening.... * Crickets * Yup, that's what I thought :D

      Delete
    2. Simply refuse to follow the code, operate as the 4 main Empires allow, without your worthless permit, and shooting any one of you that comes around to bother me or my friends...

      Delete
    3. Says the anonymous carebear...

      Delete
    4. Can't handle the wisdom, eh...

      Delete
    5. More like "Anonymous miners are wise to not reveal their names because those that do get found, tracked, ganked, and featured on Minerbumping"

      Delete
  12. Knock, knock...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Welcome, sir! Are you here to review our selection of Mining Permits?

      May I suggest our Yearly permit for 10 million ISK? It is a particularly fine vintage with a hint of compliance that I believe that you will find most satisfactory.

      Delete
    2. Anybody notice that as soon as "meh seems made up" stopped posting "Knock, knock..." started posting?

      Delete
    3. meh, seems made up...

      Delete
  13. Antiganking failed to save his freighter

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Again? wth?
      So why do they even call themselves 'anti ganking' ?

      Delete
    2. It sounds better than "gank spectators".

      Delete
    3. They should rebrand themselves as - Audience of Gankers as all they do is watch me dunk freighters all the time

      Delete
    4. You should start charging for tickets to Uedama Thunderdome. All proceeds go towards a charitable cause - more ganking.

      Delete
    5. Team AG are the New Order's most loyal fans - they're always around to show their support.

      Delete
    6. You would think after how long they have been trying they would have actually accomplished something by now, even by just dumb luck.

      Delete
    7. In nearly a thousand ganks, most of them solo ... I think the AG dudes have delayed me five or six times, and saved the target once or twice. Just not very effective :(

      Delete
    8. When AG gets lucky whenever I calculate dps incorrectly for a gank, the target still dies 15 minutes later XD XD

      AG failing non-stop daily

      Delete
    9. John: Who, me? https://zkillboard.com/character/95118267/kills/

      Delete
  14. er. except when they don't

    ReplyDelete
  15. Knock, knock...

    ReplyDelete
  16. Be careful if you blindly follow the masses of code, the M is silent.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Uncomfortable listening. Sounds like a bunch of young guys messing with an old dude. Not cool man.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Miner, it might be more comfortable if you calm down first.

      Would you like to buy a mining permit?

      Delete
  18. you don't really follow the code, you merely hide behind it so you can gank shit and generally cause mayhem (which is great fun by the way) and long may it continue, even if you hate code go find an autopiloting dumbass and ruin his day !!!! it's hysterical honest.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No, we really do follow the Code.

      The Code is a mantra against the bot-aspirant PvE lifestyle, if we had to sum it up in only a few words. We who follow the Code are sworn to make "risk-free" PvE activity as damaging as possible to those who think they are entitled to it, and forcibly break them of this habit, to better understand that PvP, while scary, is most certainly a more fulfilling alternative.

      We are the guiding lifeforce of EVE in a world where PvE is seen an an "acceptable" reason to play video games, leading to the virtual enslavement of large sections of humanity- sections of humanity which we intend to free by making PvE more or less impossible to do, without our consent.

      Delete

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