Thursday, September 26, 2019

Parental Advisory, Part 3

Previously, on MinerBumping... Highsec miner Richard The-Crusader came under heavy scrutiny when he lost a mining ship and blamed it on his son, who was allegedly at the controls when it was ganked. Our Agents urged Richard to man up and buy a permit, but he was determined to resist the Code.


Richard claimed to be a lawyer IRL. Now he would bring all of his legal training to bear against the New Order.


Interestingly, Richard's first instinct was to look up "extortion" in the dictionary, which is something we've seen miners do hundreds of times over the years. Highsec asteroid belts are basically law school, I guess.


The self-proclaimed terrestrial lawyer attempted to prove that highsec's law was itself illegal. He failed.


Seeking a decisive battle, our Agents focused on the heart of the matter: Was Richard's son really to blame? Did the miner even have a son? Richard knew that this was an important moment in the debate. He needed to speak about his son's existence in a convincing manner.


...Naturally, he took the opportunity to throw his son under the bus.


Richard's story got a mixed reception from our Agents. At best, the miner had confessed that the gank was necessary to teach the miner's son to listen to his parents.


Once again, Richard became sensitive at the suggestion that he wasn't father of the year. However, our Agents were under no obligation to pussyfoot around the miner's particular sensitivities. So they called it like they saw it, as Agents of the New Order do.


Incredibly, Richard declared that buying a permit didn't merely fund future ganks; it was the same as selling his son into slavery. This is what's known as digging in one's heels.


Under these conditions, selling a permit wouldn't be easy. Our Agents would need to radically transform Richard's worldview.


For starters, our heroes needed to convince Richard that they were only acting in his son's best interests.


Then the miner fell silent. This often happens in a conversation when one of our Agents makes an especially powerful argument. Then the miner will either do something really smart, like buy a permit...


...Or he'll do the other thing.

To be continued...

8 comments:

  1. If my kid was caught illegal mining, that'd be bad enough. However, if he then fled from the computer, running two miles away to cower and hide in fear, I would lock the doors and tell him that he can't return until he brings me 10 million isk.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Another victim of CHODE. brainwashing

      Delete
    2. Talk about pot calling the kettle black.

      You come to the comments section like a jew visits the wailing wall to pray.

      Just accept James 315 as your saviour chodeanon and you will be reborn.

      Why would anybody want to live life as a miserable shitter like you?

      Delete
    3. Karma Balancer look in the mirror and you will see the biggest shitter of all. How many years have you shat away in CODE? For anyone else that would be a waste but in your case you've found your natural home.

      Delete
    4. Nonsense. Agent Karma Balancer is steeped in the metagame and constructively contributes to the betterment of New Eden. His conduct is above reproach and he knows it, which is why he is not ashamed to use his in-game name.

      ChodeAnon, on the other hand, is always gloomy and acrimonious. He offers no solutions and is a caricature of a narrow-minded, sneering pessimist. He knows his words ring hollow and his conduct is unseemly, so he shuns accountability.

      Delete
    5. Karma Balancer doesn't even log in, and he still manages to gank miners by inspiring the rest of us through his comments. Now that is some elite PvP right there.

      Delete
  2. Oh noes, not the "rookie griefing" petition!!

    EVE would be better off with less of his kind.

    ReplyDelete
  3. His child goes out for a two mile run? Sounds more like a teenager with a helicopter parent.

    Letting one's alleged-rookie of an alleged-son use one's 18-month-old account does not constitute a violation of the rookie griefing policy. Rookies are defined as 30 days old or less. It does, however, violate EULA section 2B, "account sharing". This miner is good at digging holes for himself.

    ReplyDelete

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