Likewise you've ceased bringing anything productive to the table, except to make the same empty claims over and over and over again. But let me humour you.
Pot to kettle. I'm going to largely ignore the disruptive (and erroneous) labelling you've sprinkled throughout your response.
The mechanics to counter it existed at the time of Jacques and had been advertised
Some hints of using meta-alloys existed, yes. I'm uncertain if Galnet had started listing 'stations in need of repair' at that point. It remains a fact that Fdev's solution to the widespread exploitation of probe-bombing did not come until much later, as per the date of the thread I linked in my prior response to you.
Let me reiterate. I'll happily explain my reasoning, if you leave all your baseless prejudices at the door. My actions weren't altruistic or ill-willed.
Pot to kettle, again; I imagine if you got your own prejudices out of the way, your explanation would have long been put forth, avoiding much of this hubris.
Sweeping dismissiveness. I'm not trying to enforce my rules on anyone. I'm just playing by the rules FD all but endorsed. You however, are making it very clear i've breached some sort of "code of conduct" that is not resemblant of anything I signed up to when I bought this game.
Sweeping dismissiveness? Those were your own words. Your excuse is exactly the same used to justify griefing, every time that it has come up over the years: "I'm just playing by the rules that FD have permitted". And you are being willfully deceptive when you claim it's "all but endorsed", given FD have time and again made very strong statements about not supporting griefing and taking action to combat it. Not that they've yet landed on a ruleset that properly tackles the problem and makes everyone happy, but I digress.
I am...mystified that you find the "code of conduct" of common decency to be such an alien concept. It's not something you 'sign up to'.
I said I made contributions.
You made the claim it was 'a bad DM making bad choices' and so 'not your fault'. Hence, I am emphasizing that it is in fact
your responsibility for your own decisions and actions.
Obsidian Orbital was UA bombed, and it was clearly reported that Meta Alloys alleviated the issues. Jacques was UA bombed too. Meta Alloys would have fixed it.
Obsidian orbital was also the result of someone intentionally trying to grief, by the way. Yes, Fdev responded to that situation by offering SOME way of responding mechanically to the situation, after Obisidian's services were kept offline for significant periods of time. It was hardly sufficient in the face of dedicated UA bombing taking place, particularly as meta alloys were not anywhere near being widely available at this point of time. And this still fails to consider the ability of the players to
detect and
prevent it from taking place, as opposed to having to
respond, in the middle of an active and limited-time-period community goal.
That people were patently ignorant of the ways to resolve this is no justification to call UA bombing an exploit.
The thread I linked you has hard evidence that UA bombing is viewed as an exploit. And you can find more evidence throughout reddit,
including this one regarding Obsidian Orbital. You do realize griefers also claim "player ignorance" as justification for their actions ganking newer players, right? What makes you think that argument contains any validity? Do you really think you are a special case that makes that argument any different?
I can only guess by your use of the term "paradoxical" that you think "wanting jacques to get to beagle point" == good, but "UA bombing" == "bad"... both of which are gross over-simplifications and ignorant of many other goings-on in the game at the time.
I was clearly referring to your actions and rather antagonistic commentary here, regarding the term "paradoxical". You want to claim innocence, that Fdev is responsible and you are not, that your actions were not ill-intended or meant to disrupt anyone else's gameplay, that your motivations were reasonable and agreeable in nature, and that anybody affected by you is just ignorant. I don't see any reason to believe one iota of those claims, despite you having had every opportunity to convince me otherwise.
That is a bad DM. Once again, this was entirely FD's fault, as UAs had never been tied to causing misjumps at this stage.
Are you justifying the narrative, or not? Your prior response to this was "Says Jacques has the fuel. It doesn't say that it was going to make it." Your position is inconsistent.
The return of Halsey, the first and most notorious misjump at the time, which had players scrambling to find out what happened, was prescient to what was coming down the pipe.
That misjump had nothing to do with player actions or community goals. It was pure narrative (which, not to mention, had months and months and months of Galnet narrative setup.) That is not remotely, by any stretch of the imagination, "environmental context" for being able to sabotage ongoing community goals.
That's a very narrow definition of retcon. Subsequent reporting of Jacques misjump at the time was directly correlated to UA interference. Any reference since then has been to mere "mechanical difficulties" like mentioned in that post, which I'm pretty sure is a quote from <that reporter who does the history summaries in galnet>. The root cause being UAs has been summarily ignored since the original occurrence.
Just because it's on the record, doesn't mean for the narrative purposes of the game and it's author that it's forever set in stone.
"Retcon" has a clear and specific definition, where things 'on the record' are revoked and or changed from what they were originally. Using the term incorrectly to refer to 'ignoring' a narrative object, doesn't make it narrow. Certainly, since the point of time where Frontier ended UA-bombing exploitation, references to it dropped.
I do understand where you're coming from, because I've met plenty of people in games expressing your attitudes before; they get their nose out of joint and feel personally attacked because someone else played a game in a way all but endorsed by the game devs and the terms and conditions, instead of following some hidden set of rules being applied without any consent. I frankly have little tolerance for that flavour of toxic behaviour.
You contradict yourself right from the start here. If you understood where I come from, you would not see fit to sweepingly dismiss and slander my view (or that of anyone else who disagrees with breaking Wheaton's Law). If you had little tolerance for toxic behavior, you would be checking your own first and foremost.
They had complete control over the outcome caused by those player actions. Jacques didn't just magically misjump through nothing but player activity. FD made that happen, and no player could have predicted that.
That is not what you claimed prior. You explicitly have made the claim that Fdev, acting as a 'bad DM', is responsible for your actions taking place. (And I've already made an admission for not being able to predict that outcome.) You are appearing to me to be obstinately denying culpability for your actions relating to Jaques, which is making your entire narrative surrounding the nature of your actions highly suspect.
You realise that, and yet here you are, calling someone who simply played the game a troll.
Yes. You could say I have extensive experience recognizing when trolling is taking place. I gave you multiple opportunities to prove me wrong, and thus far, you've wilfully denied them. What does that say about how you played the game?
You have no idea what my aims were.
Yes, I do, in spite of your repeated insistence on not explaining your aims from your own perspective. Much can be gleaned from the nature of your actions, and your continued attitude about it in this thread, in the absence of an earnest explanation.
Oh I'm well aware of that. I don't think you're as acutely aware of that as you think you are though.
No, you are not. You would not be mystified by the principle of 'common decency', and how it applies to you (and everyone else) regardless of any signing up to 'terms and agreements', were that the case.
Wrong. Again, I'll happily give you the full story if you leave the prejudice at the door.
So, the truth comes out. You explicitly believe that you carry none of the weight of responsibility for your actions; and furthermore, that all the weight of those actions lies entirely on Fdev or even those affected by your actions, due to their ignorance. Those are the statements you have made so far.
So what? Yes, I did that. That doesn't make it trolling in the slightest.
Oh, but wait, we finally have an admission! Only with a tacit refusal to acknowledge any other perspective than your own upon the actions in question. We got so close to some kind of progress.
I'm going to skip ahead of repetitions of things you've already said and that I've now responded to.
I only hold it close to my chest because I feel based on your attitude right now it's wasted effort to actually explain. Prove me wrong.
The burden of proof is solely in your court in this situation. I have not hidden anything about my actions, motivations, or perspective at any point in this discussion. Whether you want to finally discuss your motivations in earnest or not is ultimately up to you and you alone.
Poor analogy. We know what pipebombs do. UAs had many more features and functions than mere UA bombing, many of which were still being explored.
Hubris. The specific action of UA-bombing stations was known to be a disruptive act that shut down station services and functions, as was proven through the events taking place at Obsidian Orbital before Jaques.
Sure. But nobody knew it would cause misjumps.
Oh, another rare admission - only to follow it up with claiming that ignorance of the misjump narrative means the other disruptive effects had no relevance. Which is observably false.
Nothing honourable about my intentions in the slightest.
And yet you have emphasized putting on an air about your intentions as though it makes all the world in the difference, despite refusing to speak in earnest about what said intentions are this whole time. Clearly you view your own intentions in some sort of manner more closely aligned with 'honorable' than 'trolling', given you have multiple times expressed indignation at the term 'trolling'. So again, your position is appearing to be inconsistent.
I'm not here to say "Nobody who UA bombed was ever a troll", in just the same way that while I think ganking and seal-clubbing (outside the starter systems) is perfectly reasonable, but that there will be plenty of people doing it who were outright griefing.
Well, the part I put in bold explains a lot of your mindset. This begs the question of how exactly you separate "outright griefing" from "ganking and seal-clubbing" (which by more widely supported definitions of forum users in general relating to this game over many years of threads and posting, very much falls under the "griefing" category), but I frankly don't care. I am still curious what your supposed motivations were, because you've used up so much time and space in emphasizing their importance - without giving any explanation as to what they actually were, but I could care less about splitting hairs over what is and is not disruptive to other players' gameplay experience. That definition is clear-cut, easily observable, and well-defined.
But once again, I reiterate my original response to you dismissing my comment about UA deliveries to Jacques.
^^ This would've easily replaced the rest of this post, basically.
Ironically, you aren't wrong. Repeating what I said at towards start of this post, if you would get your prejudices and hubris out of the way and simply explain what your views and reasons for your actions were, a point of understanding could be established entirely avoiding the rest of this forum spat.