Every time a TGFT member is found to be participating (willinglly or unwittingly) in CTC they get a talking to. You are acting like TGFT is secretly waging CTC war behind everybody's back while saying the opposite up front. That's just disingenuous and you should get that large chip on your shoulder checked out by a doctor. it's just one-off newbs who don't know any better or don't care, dude. Nobody cares about CTC scores or neut3 access.

Those emails though!

Nobody cares about CTC scores or neut3 access.

If that's true, sup with all of those people here making a big fuss about those things? Obviously, someone does care about those. You DO NOT speak for them.

I cannot define what neutrality is, that is a big hard road to climb up though, and I can tell you now it does not start by siding with one of the warring factions. Faction standings do play a small role imho, but actions obviously speak louder than higher numbers.

I can point out a few things that are not neutral, people might say "oh stfu yoda, that happened years ago, get over it!" but you asked the question and here is my answer! Back before I went to the darkside and embraced piracy I used to be part of a Serco nationalistic guild called SAF/SoR, which used to care a lot about things like CtC and border patrol. Some of the time we even had UiT pilots helping us fight the good fight! But anyway, a few of our pilots were very trigger happy when it came to the CtC escorts and yes, a few TGFT members got shot because their intentions were not clear and they were in close quarters to a transport (to be fair to Spider, the TGFT's when asked were usually hostile and said things like "what is it to do with you"). This obviously upset a few and their reaction to it was a classic-none-neutral-thingy!

At that time there was no ITAN, there were a couple of Itani guilds called IA and the IDF. TGFT decided in all their wisdom that because the Serco guild of the day seemed hostile, they would join forces with the IA and help wipe out the SAF menace (I happen to know they got shot by IDF pilots too, but they were nicer about it or something). Regardless of why this happened, this was not a very neutral thing to do. For months after this happened in fact, TGFT were present more at CtC attack time than either of the (then) current Itani guilds. This caused a lot of shouty angry Serco to call out TGFT and demand they cease these actions or be destroyed on sight - to which TGFT quite rightly answered "bring it!" and thus the Serco v TGFT war was started. Because the Serco numbers were not as many as the Itani (heck, they had 2 guilds to our 1 already) SAF (maybe the worst mistake ever) took to hiring mercs from the pirate guilds of the day in the hope of restoring some balance (and this is actually when I started to *hang* with the darkside). This actually worked out quite well, as whist BLAK were off chasing the TGFT and IA's around SAF were again free to dominate the CtC.

The TGFT's stance was "no we dont do that! we are neutral!", especially when you caught one trading. See when they were trading they were neutral, but when they were exploiting the then broken faction system to capture cargo inside Serco space where Serco could not shoot them, well, I think that is when the term "we will use any game advantage as we like" actually came about (and the main reason for the faction change you all hate, yeah, thats on TGFT too). Even though it was obvious we needed the help, some of the Serco leaders were not happy that we were relying on pirates for aid - so they went their separate ways - and SAF/SoR died. Anyway the TGFT/IA/IDF alliance lasted quite a while. In fact it lasted long enough to become the TGFT/ITAN/PA alliance and even outlived the black lance guild. So there you have it.

Sure, this is history and some might even say that this is not the TGFT of yesteryear and things have changed. Well actions speak louder than (false)words, and actions are saying otherwise. Trust me, if TGFT had to make a choice tomorrow about siding with ITAN or siding with ONE, which one do you think they would choose? Their old ITAN buddies? Or the Serco who they hate? That is NOT neutrality. Things HAVE NOT changed, and their leadership is still telling the same old lies! Heck, they even created a Serco guild to try hide this fact! Why the subterfuge?

Do you really expect me to believe tresknor does not know that only transport kills/cargo captures put you on the CtC list and they are in fact not hostile nor do they "build up"? Nevermind the fact that every single time I find a bot build up in C5 it is due to a TGFT pilot AFK (or one of the aboves station bombing bots)? Nevermind the fact that there are no shops operating out of Bractus C5 or Sedina L2 as the new leader claims. Also, thank you for making me hang around with Pirates Screwball! Being a dick is way more fun than being some solider who is bossed about by girls!

[edit for wally]

TGFT now have quite a lengthy application procedure that involves telling new recruits about the rules before they join, I know, I have been through it a few times, so please do not try and play the "it is just innocent newbs" card, ecka played that hand to death already - if there was no ill intent then why all the lies? It is the lies that get my back up the most, and nothing you have said or can say will change that, because after all, you are full of it too.

P.S. I hated TGFT before it was cool.

Oh look, another exploiter! Hows the ping pando?

P.S. I hated TGFT when Bojan liked them.

Oh I enjoyed Yoda's story.

I have a similar one about the TGFT/Itan/ONE alliance, the Red Eternal Dominion and there's FAMY and a few other people in there too. Mecha takes his underpants off, all good times.

It will have to be re-told another day, but the bottom line is TGFT has never been neutral. The only people who claim they are neutral are quite clearly doing so for their own advantage. There are no informed and honest independent assessments of TGFT which actually confirm their neutrality in almost any way.

See the problem is, and always has been that TGFT will not take responsibility for their own members actions. Instead of going "oh yeah, we are wrong we will sort that out!", they go "oh, well we only did that because!" or "oh you cannot hold us all responsible for the actions of our leaders!" and then wally jumps in to defend them! They tell a few lies, hoping that most of the community know yoda is a d*ck anyway so will believe them, and when they are called out on it they go "we will use any exploit we see fit, we are TGFT and can do as we like!"

This will never change. I now sign off of this thread with this last thought:

If a trade guild needs a member of a pirate guild to fight its battles, what does this say about the trade guilds leadership?

If a trade guild needs a member of a pirate guild to fight its battles, what does this say about the trade guilds leadership

You are confusing my independent pursuit of dialog here with a made up "need". TGFT doesn't really give a shit what all you haters think. I simply enjoy pointing out your logical failings.

@ pandorum -- that gif is perfect

Yodaofborg wins.

Flawless victory

Kill Everyone Now.

You all seem to have much bent up anger. Maybe joining Duel Wars would give you all a chance to let off some steam?

*pent-up

Oh, so you have pent-up anger? This will definitely help with that man!

Nihilus, I am rarely offended by anything, least of all intelligent debate.

You say standing is largely irrelevant, and that actions are what matters. Let me ask this: Is it possible to get admired standing with a faction without taking action that assists that faction? As far as I see it, the mutual exclusivity between Serco and Itani standings more accurately represents true neutrality. Help one side, and the other side likes you less. Help that other side, and the first side like you less. I am opposed to the max standing for non-natives, but thats a different issue.

It's not about making "sacrifices of fun", it's about RP. We have 6 character slots per account so no-one has to sacrifice fun. We just need to choose which characters we do what with. EMS is a great example of the kind of sacrifice I am referring to. To be a member of EMS means you sacrifice all pvp, even consensual duelling. EMS insist on this, or you are not permitted to remain in EMS. Another example is a pirate guild that requires "Tri-KoS" before they will accept you as a member. Again, this is RP based sacrifice, demonstrating ones dedication to that guilds ideals. I can claim to be anything (even an Empress), but unless I back up those claims, its just words, and words are wind. I could claim to be, say, an Itani nationalist, but without admired/PoS standing with Itani to back that up, I'd be talking crap. Same goes for claims of neutrality.

If TRI, TGFT, or any other guild claiming neutrality wish to "show their neutrality with their actions", then those actions should not include actions that assist one of a pair of warring nations, to the exclusion of the other, as a players standings represent. If you take action that assists one of these nations, it needs to be balanced by equivalent action to assist the other one. Again, standing represents this.

One could make the argument that one member assisting Serco (i.e, displaying high serco standing) while another member assists Itani in the same way demonstrates over-all guild neutrality, and others might agree. I do not. A guild should be accuratly represented by any single member of that guild, as we most often see only individuals in space. Take piracy for example. If a guild accepts a pirates as members, it is a pirate guild. If a guild accepts non-neutral members, it is a non-neutral guild.

Imagine EMS saying "We do not allow any form of pvp... except for our members that do pvp, because we don't expect our members to uphold our ideals in order to be in our guild".

With regards to the player based economy, I am all for it, but it's not an exeption to how neutrality works. Buying or selling to players has no bearing on how a nation regards those players.

You also said "I respect your discipline greatly, and I also personally do maintain neutral standing with warring nations, but to this end I do not expect all [TRI] pilots to reach. That is just not practical."

~ What is impractical about a neutral standing for a neutral guild? How can you claim neutrality, while also claiming neutral standings are impractical? ~

"If there were more actual meaning behind it, I would agree. But currently, as the faction standing system sits we'll be ignoring it."

What more meaning to standings would you require before you would acknowledge them? If there is a lack of meaning to them, surely a neutral standing would not be impractical? These arguments appear to come from inconvenience, rather than any flaw with the standing sytem itself.

Lastly, you said "Now, if anyone sees a [TRI] pilot killing Itani or Serco bots in order to increase faction standing, this is entirely different, as there are many other ways of increasing faction standing. If this was the only way, then of course I would be forced to agree with you. But alas, it is not. There are many peaceful ways to go about increasing your standing."

Based on this, it seems to me that when you say "neutral", what you mean is "non-aggresive" (excluding hive-hunting, as hive are not nation-affiliated)? Your arguments make much more sense to me in that context.
How one goes about raising (or lowering) standing is irrelevant with regards to whether one is neutral or not. It is what raising or lowering standing represents that matters, not how it's achieved. Supplying goods or protecting its convoys is just as benificial to a nation as killing bots. However, if one is "non-aggresive", then the manner of raising or lowering standing becomes significant.

Faille your "standings matter" essay is forgetting a couple crucial aspects of current gameplay:

1) Standings are not affected by pvp in unmonitored space. Actions taken against others in those areas have no consequence on standings.

2) Standings do not prevent espionage. I have a Serco character named Avataros who is (was) used to specifically spy, track, and destroy Sercos.

Thus I maintain that player behavior and guild association are the most important indicators of what people "are" -- standing is merely a tool to to assist in access to various content.

In order for this neutrality to exist, nationalists must exist to be neutral from. We're long passed both and you're just not admitting it yet.

There is no nationalism and there is no neutrality. Just tribes.

sort yourselves out

I agree with both Greenwall and Dirty. To say that nationalism is alive and well would be delusional. Since I started there was no real big nationalist scene, it was just warring factions of people. I wouldn't even call it guild wars. It is more along the lines, as Dirty put it, of tribal wars. This would make sense though, as there can different types of conflict other than nation on nation. And inevitably, some people will get along well and others will not. So the community starts to create pockets of competing factions. It happens in all communities. So, eventually most Serco/Itani conflict will evolve into something a little more dynamic.

I see absolutely nothing wrong with this. Because as Greenwall stated, nations/standings are only tools for people to use to do what they want in the verse. There's no real make or break importance to them because VO is an RPG. This means you create your destiny and reputation among the community with your actions and decisions. And really, arguing that standing is important is very similar to arguing that nation is important, which mostly everyone rejects. Obviously there will always be some who think it is important.

I don't feel there is any need to take away nations either. That would be like taking a kid's red and blue blocks and saying, "Well the red and blue blocks didn't have any real purpose, you can only play with the yellow ones since those are the only ones that make sense."

And what I have always maintained is that [TRI] will always stay out of the tribal wars that take place. That is what being neutral has always meant to us. We have friends in every single guild in the game. Legitimate friends, not just business associates. That's just how we choose to fly. And to be honest, some of our friends from other guilds don't like how open we are to everyone of all nations/standings/licenses. But our actions have always outweighed our nation/standing/licenses issues.

Looks like we've got things sorted out, Dirty? I've explained this to you several times, so you'll probably still just stick your fingers in your ears and scream "lalalalalalala I'm not hearing you lalalalalalala". It's ok, you're still my friend, bud.

The problem doesn't lie with your ability to sit on a fence in B8 Darth. You're a product of the failures of the developers and you're not alone. This isn't really about you though (hard to believe I know).

New players join the game thinking nationalist RP matters only to find out the hard way that it doesn't. Subsequently, 100 is filled with toxic accusations and vitriol about nationalism, neutrality, pirating, trading etc. in a game with unlimited alts.

Time for a new backstory if you ask me.