For me, all this is simple and doesn't really warrant such an 'explanation.' But if you want to point the finger at supposed hypocrites, I'd suggest pointing it at those who say they're the best, who say they have integrity and are game players, etc., but yet exploit the game, lock their districts, talk about how small corps 'have to' lock them (even though they are in the top three largest corps in the game), claim not to be elitists, yet for whatever reason think having more isk is a good thing... I mean doesn't it determine who are the better players? I'd point it at those who criticize other corps for not having the best players and yet who ring an ENTIRE TEAM of another corp in order to win their battles.

Let me just say that those to whom I'm referring here are not intended to be wholly not identifiable.

The way I see it is: ringing is fine; there is an upside and downside to ringing - - that is, getting players who may be /are individually better than your corp's members, but who are generally not as familiar with your corp's team strategies. I respect Cubs and others (even Regnyum). I think they're damn good players and do nothing wrong when it comes to 'playing the game.'

District locking, on the other hand, is an in-game exploit. While ML may not have been the first district lockers (I'm not familiar with Dust 'history'), they did district lock at a time when it was implemented as a way to avoid attacks and to accumulate Isk. That is, they exploited the system to make personal profits without risk. (I would contrast this with RA, who have now locked their districts to encourage CCP to fix (i.e., remove) this exploit of PC from the game.)

While I wish ringers did not ring for corps who district lock - - especially for the defense (when the corp has more than three times the number of clones as the attacker), I at the same time don't blame ringers for going where the Isk is. That is only natural in a game with mercenaries.

As for why CA left PD, I don't know the 'official' reason, since I'm not in CA's 'management'. However, I do know a personal reason for me to encourage CA's 'managemnt' to leave and have nothing to do with PD or its members was that during the 'war' with RA, a war which CA neither initiated nor formally endorsed (since neither ML nor STB asked CA what we thought about the groundds for the war...), there was a point in time when CA had several PC battles with NS,. Now, two of these took place at the same time. So, as you might expect, CA needed some people to help. Logically (I think logically...), we asked who we thought were at the time our 'allies' to help. Now, not only did almost no one help (two of Dethdealers' and two Poison Roses' members did help), but almost no one responded. That is, STB, ML, Thid Day, Rising Suns said absolutely nothing in alliance chat in response to our request to help with the battle. They didn't say 'hey, we're not helping because X.' So CA sent 8 people into a battle against 16 NS...

From my perspective, it seemed that someone in the alliance told everyone except CA not to help CA. This follows from the fact that CA refused to help STB when they were in a PC against AE. The reason for this was that CA's CEO (Shepherd) was not present at the time STB asked for help. Before that, Shepherd had told us not to ring against AE. Indeed, AE had been a supportful friend of CA in this game for several months. So to help fight them because of something going on with STB - - something which, I should note, STB felt was not for CA to know - - this appeared silly. But either way, no member of CA was willing to contradict what our CEO told us. And since no one from STB or ML had discussed the 'war' with Shepherd, he never had a chance to reconsider his position about AE (a point which is not to imply he would have changed his mind). So, as we told STB, we could not ring against AE. And, because of this, it seems, STB (and ML) did not want to help CA with NS.

But I'm not upset by the fact that almost no one in our past alliance helped. Chances are we would've lost either way. (I mean, really, how much help could a corp/alliance who needs a non-alliance corp to do all their work for them be.) Rather, I'm upset that no one said they wouldn't help and why. I think it's silly to play a game with a group of people who don't have enough common courtesy to simply explain when they will or will not help with what some might consider was at one time the most competitive aspect of the game.

So, for me, leaving STB was about being independent to discover who in this game actually is respectful enough to play the game fairly (i.e., not lock districts to profit wihout risk), tell us when they can and cannot help, and show some general respect for us as other players of this game. RA was an obvious choice. And I'm glad we applied and that they've accepted us.

For me, all this is simple and doesn't really warrant such an 'explanation.' But if you want to point the finger at supposed hypocrites, I'd suggest pointing it at those who say they're the best, who say they have integrity and are game players, etc., but yet exploit the game, lock their districts, talk about how small corps 'have to' lock them (even though they are in the top three largest corps in the game), claim not to be elitists, yet for whatever reason think having more isk is a good thing... I mean doesn't it determine who are the better players? I'd point it at those who criticize other corps for not having the best players and yet who ring an ENTIRE TEAM of another corp in order to win their battles.

Let me just say that those to whom I'm referring here are not intended to be wholly not identifiable.