The Big Lie: The Fallacies of Demonisation

Avatar
Do not really want to necro this, but I returned to EVE just the other day after a couple of years hiatus, began reading up and landed here.It was a beautiful read, from the perspective of EVE, MMO's, and life.Thank you is in order, and credits are due as I might have learned something today, or at the very least been reminded of something.
Avatar
What in the great unholy name of fuck is this?? A well thought out, well written, constructive article that accurately and honestly describes this majestic tapestry of human interaction that we are all in thrall of? In my EVE?? Get dafuq out of here.
Avatar
But .. miners really are human bots.
Avatar
Amazing article, absolutely spot on. Malcanis clearly and concisely outlines why there exists such a large amount of unnecessary animosity among EVE players, and further to just pointing out the problem, also includes suggestions on how to fix it. The article should serve as a forum posting sticky, a manifesto for all to read so that we may all benefit from reduced amounts of badposters from the community as a whole. Bravo. This is excellence in writing.
Avatar
+1, a good article that i fully agree on.
Avatar
great piece, malc!
Avatar
You misspelled Endlösung which is btw. a noun.
Avatar
so if you troll , troll so hard that people wont figure that you trolled them . BRILIANT
Avatar
What is this? EvE is not real LOL! Nazis? GTFO!
Avatar
Last time I was mining i was mining ice in highsec while watching a movie ... *yawn* bot .. no, but mining is not fun
Avatar
I agree with OP. Well written and spot on
Avatar
So point not taken.... Now get out, you [add insulting adjective] [add appropriate sec-level] [add condescending description of an occupation appropriate for the sec-level]!!!1111!!!
Avatar
Great read. Incredible how much you can mirror this onto the demise of America. Liberal, conservative, independent or green. Black, white or brown. America is the greatest melting pot of them all which made it what some people foolishly think it still is, which was great. All this division in the recent decade and we have forgotten how much we all need each other to make it work. With so much diversity your gonna have different views coming from all corners of the country (true around our world and new eden). There are bound to be conflicting dreams, practices and beliefs which no one can or should force on someone. As with eve and my dear struggling nation the we need to recognize the complexity of the community that made their game (nation) great. This is my grandparents saying "remember when" and the bitter vet in eve saying the "glory days of null". Unsurprising those are the individual's view as the article talks about, and it doesn't make one right or more true than any other view. I wasn't there when eve kicked off but I'm guessing their wasn't carebears and pirates on day one. Like any community we have developed and as humans we tend to associate ourselves with others that share our common goals and beliefs. The fun I may be having in null, while not the same activity, can be equal to someone's level of fun and stimulation they get from level 4s in high sec though. Things change with time...we've created our social divide in our game and in our lives. How we respond to it will determine the future. We can fight to banish or change an equal group that at the core are no different from you or I..or we can reestablish ourselves around the communal roots that birthed this wonderful game we fill our free time with.
Avatar
My old hi-sec corp found mining to be a blast if you have enough people in fleet, on comms, drinking enough adult beverages...
Avatar
If Eve keeps training it's user base with leadership and diplomacy.. we're going to end up running a multinational organization that runs the planet... .....
Avatar
Avatar
Never try to start a discussion if you KNOW you won't accept that you could be wrong. Just keep that in mind.
Avatar
Simply put, great article
Avatar
I was about to dismiss this on grounds of Godwins law after the third word was Goering, But I read it anyway.. and I distinctly remember saying this in the thread about the Letter from the CSM to CCP, where some Highseccer was butt frustrated that it was "all about 0.0" and I pointed out that A.) Mining is not done just in 0.0 and a big part of it was about mining, and B.) He should not be mad about 0.0 changes for the same reason I shouldn't be mad about High Sec changes because to put it succinctly: Both Groups are codependent on each other.Glad to see I'm not the only one who thinks so.
Avatar
This is very interesting. You've written a giant troll piece, in which you lump together reasonable and mathematical arguments about hisec vs null sec rewards and industry capabilities, together with arguments so extremely ridiculous that not even 1% of 1% of the game's population would support them: "Delete Hi-sec! CONCORD all those with neg sec!". You support this insane conflation with, get this, Godwin's Law. Huge sections of your piece are very reasonable, advice not to overgeneralize and assume other's irrationality. Then, every so often, you'll refer to some specific issue, and you yourself violate your own advice and overgeneralize and oversimplify: "Moving all level 4 missions out of hi-sec will not fill the belts of null. It just won't. " It just won't? Really? So because some proportion of people are using a form of argument that you've called "the big lie", which has always been true, is true, and will always be true...we should throw up our hands and resort to "it just won't". Nay, my good sir, not for all the Nazi's in the world.
Avatar
Godwin right out the bat. This is why I like you, Malcanis. Never change.(good article too)
Avatar
See you had a somewhat good counter point their until you made the Nazi reference. Little hint when saying a point, unless the convo is directly related, don't go pulling a Glen Beck. It is a weak form of argument to throw in anything related to Hitler or the Nazi Party.
Avatar
People just like to have stereotypes instead of discussing over / researching fo the "truth", even it's only a statistical truth.Btw: Opening an article with Göring is pretty much "WHAT?" for our German fellows... ;)
Avatar
Interesting article, a lot of good points, agreed slinging insults helps no one.When you say "We need each other" you are basing this on the assumption that industry should be in High and PVP in null.Why? There's a large movement asking for Null industry to be buffed so you can live there without needing to go to High Sec at all, maybe only occasionally to trade.I agree industrialists and PVPers need each other, and so why can't they live and play together outside the umbrella of concord?I, personally, think Null industry should be buffed and High Sec industry should be nerfed to restore High to the newbie training area + free trade zone it should be. Not the bloated monstrosity it is where many players want to half play the game.But then that's just slinging insults so maybe I didn't listen to you as much as I thought.
Avatar
"See you had a somewhat good counter point their until you made the Nazi reference. Little hint when saying a point, unless the convo is directly related, don't go pulling a Glen Beck. It is a weak form of argument to throw in anything related to Hitler or the Nazi Party. "Yes...that was EXACTLY my point, the article shouldn't haven't thrown in all those references to the Nazis. How did you miss that the article made many Nazi references? "Nuremberg, Goering, volk, Final Solution, untermensch"?"
Avatar
Use paragraph breaks if you want anyone to read that derailed train of thought.
Avatar
So; distracted, drugged with a widely available sedative, with only just enough of their remaining faculties available to continue dragging the ore to a can? It's fun being a bot.That said, the fun of the most fun games is in the company of the most compassionate friends.
Avatar
Best article on this site so far. Now to smugly spectate the "who made the Big Lie first" fingerpointing.REAL EDIT: the Godwin heuristic isn't relevant here as the Nazi references are an impartial and historically cogent "mention" rather than "use".
Avatar
While all of what Malcanis said is currently true, the reason this has become an important topic is because CCP devs, fueled by the forums (or nostalgia), have been fanning the flames. When CCP developers talk about nerfs to JFs, decreasing carrier jump range, killing "mineral compression" and other such things in the name of a better game, the counter argument is that the activities of null cannot be sustained without these. Spaceship-truckers is not a game that people are clamoring to play. It is something people do so they are able to do the fun things in Eve.
Avatar
I think you meant Endlösung. Doh well, always nice to have civil articles
Avatar
Good article.I've always seen the two sides of Eve like the Morlocks and the Eloi. Both races rely on the other and couldn't survive without them despite how they see each other.
Avatar
I think a lot of this article is a little idealistic, commendable but idealistic. General points:"(1) Big generalisations are a danger sign."Yes as a rule of thumb. Saying "most people I've seen" etc is not a generalisation, anyone saying "all high/null seccers..." is a worry."(2) Beware of the zero-sum. When someone says that we need to nerf A in order to boost B, the first question you should ask is if there's a way to boost B without nerfing A."You're using the phrase "0 sum" wrong. Ultimately 0 sum means one side "wins" and the other side "loses". However if a nerf to high sec was needed to prevent EVE from going under (not saying this is the case, it's an example) then a nerf to high sec would, arguably, also be a win for high sec.Nerfing High doesn't mean High Sec players neccessarily lose. Also nerfing is better then buffing, constant buffing for tweaks leads to a sort of power creep within a game (e.g. MTG, Warhammer) resulting in everything being both ridiculous and somehow balanced.You could make null more attractive for example by buffing null or nerfing high sec. Since in either case high sec will be _comparatively_ worse off you then have to think whether if you're doing something just to make it look good or because it's the good long term decision."(3) Look for higher order consequences. It's very easy to make simple-sounding proposals that will have massive unintended secondary and tertiary consequences when we're talking about a highly complex and inter-connected game like EVE."Totally agree. Everyone is intertwined."(4) Remember that other people are rational. If you find yourself confused why other players would do something in this way or that way or even at all, the answer is unlikely to be "because they're stupid"."Incorrect. About 80% of decisions made by humans are done so based on emotion, not rational thinking. I could list loads of experiments but the one springs to mind where they showed two groups of political supporters contradicting statements by their party leaders, some fabricated and some real, and asked them to rate how hypocritical their leader and the opposition leader was. About 80-90% of the people rated their own leaders as less hypocritical than the opposition by a large margin, despite all phrases being hypocritical.Fact is if someone is a high sec player, only about 2 in 10 of them will be convinced that industry is too strong in high sec. If someone is a null sec player only 2 out of 10 of them will be convinced that an aspect of null needs to be completed.Humans aren't rational, they are emotional."(5) You won't change people's ideas by making them feel bad"Should have stopped after ideas imo.The only people worth convincing are CCP as they are more likely to have emotional ties to making the game good as a whole, not pandering to one section.
Avatar
The distance from a loanword on a gaming news site to archaic high german is so great I think we can at least lose the capitalisation, if not the umlaut.
Avatar
By making bist and spod yield loads of trit/pyer/mex/iso, and no zyd/mega, you buff null industry without nerfing empire industry. No need to nerf just to nerf, apart from ice being to afk friendly.
Avatar
Interesting, the quotes were copy-pasted from your article, while I was reading some other article? Sounds like magic, which explains why you're too frightened to actually address any of my points. Magic is scary.
Avatar
The way I was taught it was that, economically at least, rational meant acting in your own interest based on the information you had. This does not consider the accuracy of information, how the information was gathered or how it was interpreted. Rational and stupid are not mutually exclusive, so the author is in error here. A person can make a rational choice and still be stupid (hence why homeopathy is a billion dollar industry).
Avatar
Yes, hardly claims other than those above, except for:"Who can count the threads detailing the moral vacuity and hive-mind conformism of the 0.0 Bolsheviks and their barbaric interference with the godly folk of Empire? Delete Hi-sec! CONCORD all those with neg sec! Move level 4s out of high! Ban scams! PvP is griefing! Miners are human bots!"Including "move level 4's out of high!" on this list together with "Delete Hisec", is baffling. One is a reasonable suggestion, one is not. If you're grouping those together, than one would assume you'd group any other suggestion about changing either null or hisec in the same category, whether it's changing wardecs in high, or adding industry to null. Is that not true?"Wrong. Burning hi-sec to the ground won't do a single thing to help null. In fact wrecking hi-sec would strangle null within a few months at best - we've already seen that nerfing hi-sec incursions did not, mysteriously, revitalise 0.0. Making it impossible to build T2 ships in Empire would be just as effective. Moving all level 4 missions out of hi-sec will not fill the belts of null. It just won't. I know many of you think it should; perhaps in a just world it would. But it won't. You can't force people to play a game they don't feel that they want to play."This is 5 or 6 claims about hisec and null. I'm sorry, I know you don't think it is. But it just is. You can't force people to not see claims that are there. 'See what I did there?'It's true that this is only 10% of your article...and the other 90% is rather well done. But without this 10%, your article isn't really so much about EVE online any more, but about immutable truths about people that are expressed in every MMO, that have been public knowledge for the past...90 years, as the Nazis' work in this area was anticipated in the 20's by American sociologists. So, if you fail at translating this directly to EVE online, and in a particularly inflammatory way, then you've fallen short of what you are clearly capable of.
Avatar
comparing the EVE-O forums to Nazi propaganda techniques is Godwin's Law. Whether or not you think "it's fine" is quite another matter altogether, and completely unrelated. The EVE-O forums aren't substantially different from the forums of most MMO's, and those propaganda techniques were developed and written about in the 1920's by Americans, making the Nazi reference unnecessary and in fact somewhat misleading, as normally the first published work would be mentioned.
Avatar
Awesome article, not much more to say
Avatar
Those aren't claims about highsec or nullsec though. They're also not Malcanis "ironically committing many of the same hasty generalisations". Those are Malcanis pointing out and addressing examples of the hasty generalisations that have been made.
Avatar
By definition that could never be a discussion anyway.
Avatar
Well written? I think not! Malcanis quite clearly omitted the umlaut in "über."
Avatar
A good article in my opinion. EVE is great because of the oft imbalance. On a note ( I'm putting my credentials on this...masters in mental health counseling) humans never support dissonance they resolve it. The context is the same just the words are wrong
Avatar
-A- might be shit, but this isn't a circlejerk site :\
Avatar
complaining about people complaining. lol
Avatar
Never not preemptively Godwin.
Avatar
A good summary.
Avatar
Really good article m8 m8 m8
Avatar
Thanks Jeff ohSeven
Avatar
I agree, a little adaption is quite allright. But still, the letters themselves should stay in correct order.
Avatar
faggot gankscums never support any rational idea. They are to shitheaded
Avatar
accurate generalisations
Avatar
I know you. You're that guy. You know that other stuff you're mad about that has nothing to do with this article? Guess what, it is not about the article.
Avatar
You're doing this Reductio ad Hitlerum thing all wrong...
Avatar
+1!
Avatar
I don't think Godwin's Law means what you seem to think it means.
Avatar
*slinks away in shame
Avatar
Not sure how anyonea) could get seriously mad about internet spaceships (i mean a state of mad that hasnt passed in 24 hours)b) not come to the same conclusion when thinking about it for oneself. its easy to jump on the hatewagon in corp/alliance chat/the forums but seeeeriously? the people that actually BELIEVE FOR THEMSELVES that the highsec population is in any shape or form 1) homogenous and 2) on average, any less intelligent than the 0.0 population (which also has A LOT of F1 pushers in them), are probably among the bottom 10% of IRL human beings when it comes to social intelligence (and by some extent, you can even strike the 'social').so i guess the tl;dr is that if you hadnt realized the point of the article by now, the article wont change anything.
Avatar
Geek philosphy at its best.
Avatar
This reminds me of the titan nerf for some reason.
Avatar
HEYHEYIT'S A LITTLE SOON TO BE MAKING ROMNEY JOKES
Avatar
I would pick the leaders of my alliance over the leaders of my country any day.
Avatar
Very Hunter S Thompson'ish, brought a tear to my eye. Thank you for putting things into the perspective all Eve players need to share. Sometimes in our vidictiveness we forget we are not the kings of our own castles.
Avatar
Also,Its "endlosung", not "endsolung" But otherwise excellent read.
Avatar
It has never been, nor will it ever be too soon to be making Romney jokes.
Avatar
Godwins Law: "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1." So...well the law does not apply here because 1. This is an article and no "online discussion". and 2. The law states a probability change and NOTHING about how the reference is used or even judging it. So If he uses Nazi references in his article you might say "he invoked Godwins Law" but you'd be wrong. Secondly, even if the law was applyable in this case it still wouldn't apply because just quoting a concept as a POINT of the discussion rather than to insult or flatly crush an opponents reasoning. [example: Your opinion is similar to zu Nazi's opinion on X!]. So RTFM before spouting around phrases you don't know. BTW: Great Article
Avatar
Well...we germans are the hidden masters of joking about Hitler. We just try to hide it because if we didn't all the other germans would try to call us names because we should feel ashamed of our past instead of joking about it. Well you still see the russians celebrate Stalin as a hero and americans the "war heroes" of fights agaisnt Indians well...I doN#t see much of a difference but most of us germans are even afraid to be proud of german accomplishments. Happens ;)
Avatar
It wasn't a joke. The people on his campaign have been pretty open about the mistake that they made in believing their own bullshit.
Avatar
Only just stumbled onto the article so minor necro reply, but (and I'm not even sure if you're stating your own opinion or paraphrasing summarised forum replies)..."nerfs to JFs, decreasing carrier jump range, killing 'mineral compression' .... the counter argument is that the activities of null cannot be sustained without these."Null got on just fine for a long time without a lot of what's being targetted now. I'd go so far as to say it was even better without Jump Freighters; convoys lead to some truly amazing fleet actions at times.
Avatar
Null got along fine without these... with a tenth of its current population. I remember freighter convoys. They were a similar mechanic to structure shoots, in that an alliance could accomplish things only by getting a big group of people together for an extended period of time. The difference is that unlike structure shoots, where the goal was to take space, the goal of freighter runs was to survive. My fear is that, with the current state of Eve, it would only serve to further promote coalitions and kill off everything else (can you imagine how many hot drops on freighters it would take before an alliance died). The end result of that being a lot less targets for me to shoot and a lot more spaceship truckers, which is not a game I would log in to play day after day.
Avatar
So what you're saying is...everyone is literally hitler?

At Nuremberg, Goering famously explained the principle of The Big Lie: in short, if you're going to tell a lie, make it such a huge one that no one would ever believe that you'd dare to lie about it. Of course, there are all sorts of refinements to The Big Lie - smaller, subsidiary lies, bolstering it with the truth (or facets of the truth) whenever possible, and most importantly of all, playing to what the Volk want to believe.

Ideally, when you're telling a Big Lie, you tell a lie that fulfills three important criteria

  • i: That the listener's problems are not his fault. They're caused by a malicious and irredeemable Other. And they're going to keep on getting worse.
  • ii: That if this Other weren't up to those shenanigans, the listener would be recognised and rewarded for being the superior person that he is
  • iii: The implicit, but unspoken solution is to do the thing that the Big Liar wants to happen. And just in case, make the solution explicit and speak it loudly.

Do these criteria, dear reader, remind you of anything you regularly read on the EVE-O forums? How many times have you read forum posts advocating a Final Solution to the pollution of hi-sec untermensch? Who can count the threads detailing the moral vacuity and hive-mind conformism of the 0.0 Bolsheviks and their barbaric interference with the godly folk of Empire? Delete Hi-sec! CONCORD all those with neg sec! Move level 4s out of high! Ban scams! PvP is griefing! Miners are human bots!

EVE’S BIG LIE

What we have seen the forum narrative evolve into is a particularly interesting form of the Big Lie, because it's evolved into a self-sustaining lie about both sides. I've taken an interest in watching this narrative evolve, but as a first step to discussing it, we need to cast off the habit of long years of Big Lying and remind ourselves of something: Low-seccers and 0.0ers aren't all sociopathic murder-slaves in mindless hive-thrall to their Dark Lords (well, admittedly IRC are, but the rest of us aren't). Hi-sec players aren't all ignorant, pale, soft grub-like cowards hiding from all challenge and risk. Those are just stories we made up, a narrative to support our cognitive dissonance about the choices we've made and now feel locked into. It's okay to create a narrative in order to support a campaign, but it's more important to remember that it's just a narrative we made up or we'll end up like Team Romney, shocked and stunned to find out that the polls were just data all along.  And even more importantly we need to remind ourselves that the subtext of The Big Lie is also a lie: what's good for hi-sec isn't ipso facto bad for 0.0, and what's good for 0.0 likewise need not be bad for hi-sec.

So many of us have for so long been locked into the narrative of this Lie that it can feel shocking to have it revealed to us. Why, simple logic tells us that if hi-sec is "better" than 0.0, then people won't live in 0.0. If I dearly love 0.0 then logically I want hi-sec nerfed to save null. Right?

Right?

Wrong. Burning hi-sec to the ground won't do a single thing to help null. In fact wrecking hi-sec would strangle null within a few months at best - we've already seen that nerfing hi-sec incursions did not, mysteriously, revitalise 0.0. Making it impossible to build T2 ships in Empire would be just as effective. Moving all level 4 missions out of hi-sec will not fill the belts of null. It just won't. I know many of you think it should; perhaps in a just world it would. But it won't. You can't force people to play a game they don't feel that they want to play.

Equally misguided are the narrowly focused vocal hi-sec uber alles types who just wish that all the drama-llama nullsecers and Jack Sparrows in lo-sec would just go away. They want CCP to endsolung the problem with a server split or, failing that, PvP-flag hi-sec. They believe that, no longer trammeled by the demands of PvPers, EVE could be happily balanced into an eternal mission running nirvana. Leaving aside the inexplicable reluctance of CCP to try and emulate the incredible commercial success of Star Trek Online, these people forget that Goons were able to successfully and gloriously grief even in STO and that even now, PvE-focused games aren't happy wonderlands of mature, constructive dialogue and RP. In short, their aim will fail because they're playing a multiplayer game and there will always be a way to be a dick to someone, especially when you have a pre-existing playerbase with a decade of intensive study into the theory and practice of dickery.

A TRULY INCONVENIENT TRUTH

Here is the unfortunate, inconvenient truth: We need each other. The industries of hi-sec need the consumers of null. The producers of 0.0 need the demand of hi-sec. The manufactories of hi-sec need the primary resources of null. The groups of 0.0 need the new player spawning grounds of empire. Alliances which have failed it in null need a place for their members to retreat to and rebuild from. The war machines of null are equipped with the products of hi-sec. And so on. Any argument, any proposal, any whine or Features & Ideas post, however passionate, which does not take this simple truth into account is doomed to be a Lie.

Even worse, I'm sorry to tell you that your choice of security space does not make you a better, morally superior person, nor does it make you a better player. It just means you've chosen to play a fabulously complex, diverse and involved game from a different perspective. Each player makes decisions which are rational from his own perspective, not out of some sec-based moral degeneracy. Whenever you feel tempted to make sweeping judgments about players who focus on "hi-sec" or "lo-sec" or "null-sec" remember that these are actual people with individual lives, jobs, families, personal history, personalities, preferences, tastes, phobias and perspectives of their own. You will not, in short, be able to make accurate generalisations about them and apply them to any individual. Add in the well-known capacity of text-based internet media to cause emotional miscommunication and you have a fertile broth of nutrients for Big Lies to grow and breed in.

Who cares and so what?

Well first and foremost, The Big Lie is a huge hindrance to any attempt to discuss the development and balance of the game. Any attempt to modify conditions in EVE instantly devolve into a furious "hi sec vs 0.0" forum fight, based on the fallacies and untruths I have mentioned above. Mechanisms which are blatantly unbalanced are defended by people who are intelligent enough to know better, purely because they perceive the rebalance as a loss of ground by "their" part of EVE. Fabulously unlikely conspiracies are blamed, 100-page threadnaughts abound, and in the middle... is the game we all play. And of course the poor devs, who are unable to do anything nice for player A without being accused of being sellout whores by player B.

Now that you've been alerted to The Big Lie, you may be sincerely interested in making EVE better, but at the same time, you may not be sure of what to do. How do you equip yourself to fight The Big Lie? What can you do to promote constructive change? How can you save null, protect hi-sec, and reform lowsec without feeding the Lie? Here are some tools you can use:

(1) Big generalisations are a danger sign. Whenever you are tempted by an argument that relies on characterising "all hi-seccers" or "nullbears" or "ganktards" or whatever, treat that argument with extreme skepticism. Proposals which rely on emotional appeal, labeling and Othering are always highly unbalanced and self-serving, or at best superficial. Even if they might be seductively unbalanced and self-serving in your favour, you should reject them because (i) CCP tend to ignore them and (ii) they'll generally backfire. 

(2) Beware of the zero-sum. When someone says that we need to nerf A in order to boost B, the first question you should ask is if there's a way to boost B without nerfing A. If B is unattractive, then nerfing A won't make it any better, it will only reduce the overall attractiveness of the game. That's not balancing the game; that's just spitefulness. Look for alternatives to attain your stated goals that won't nerf other people's activities. If nerfing is inherent, look for ways to mitigate or evade the effects on other players. No one is playing EVE to be your bitch. If someone wants to nerf your A to boost their B, then you have an even better reason to look for alternatives to that nerf. Simply treating their proposal as yet another insidious attack on your play style only makes you look self-interested and parochial.

(3) Look for higher order consequences. It's very easy to make simple-sounding proposals that will have massive unintended secondary and tertiary consequences when we're talking about a highly complex and inter-connected game like EVE. Make sure that you know what you're talking about when you suggest or criticise ideas; make sure that you've traced out the likely consequences beyond what's immediately desired. To use a common example: if you want to remove insurance because of inflation or you think "risk free" PvP is bad for whatever reason, then be aware that you've radically altered the cost:benefit balance between T1 and T2 hulls, and thus you've made having the skill to fly T2 much more valuable, thus effectively nerfing low-skilled new players. Furthermore you've significantly increased the demand for T2 components and thus given a large relative advantage to the holders of those moons. As a result, you've increased the incumbent advantages of current sov holders as well as reduced the relative income from mining... and so on.

(4) Remember that other people are rational. If you find yourself confused why other players would do something in this way or that way or even at all, the answer is unlikely to be "because they're stupid". It's far more likely that they know something about what they're doing that you don't. It's also possible that they genuinely don't know something you do. That doesn't make them stupid or hateful, it just means they're unaware of some aspect of the game that they've not considered.  Further, make sure ideas that you're proposing or objections that you're making don't rely on people being irrational and acting against their interests.

(5) You won't change people's ideas by making them feel bad. You won't understand their ideas by assuming that they're bad. If you want people to buy into your idea, then you need to show them why it's in their interest, or at the very least, that it's not against their interest. That means tracing out those consequences and making an effort to understand their rational motivations. This may mean doing a little research. Calling them "faggot carebears" or "cowardly ganktards" is extremely unlikely to persuade them to support your cause and will also discredit you amongst those who have had The Lie explained to them. Likewise, when you see a proposal that initially horrifies you, then try and see where they're coming from. That Bad Idea might make sense from their perspective and you'll be far more persuasive in promoting your perspective if you explain it before resorting to hostilities - see (4). Even if an idea is truly bad, try and attack the idea, not the guy that had it. Remember that really bad ideas won't get adopted anyway; being a little nicer than you are inclined to be will help you keep that noob away from the tarpit of The Big Lie.

There are other tools that one can use, but these are the most important ones, I think. The important thing is to be clear in your mind about whether you want to use those tools to try and build a constructive debate, or whether you're just amusing yourself with a Saturday Night Forum Fight. I will willingly admit that in my early days I bought wholeheartedly into The Big Lie (my posting history is there for all to see), and I have only my ideological consistency to console my shame at the shockingly poor rhetoric I employed. Since rejecting The Lie, I have found - amazingly! - that I have been far more successful in getting what I wanted. If you care about improving EVE and you want to have a say in directing its evolution, try the truth.

[name_1]