Simply, no. Almost no teamkills are ever negligence on the part of the one shooting. Nearly 100% of teamkills are either A) deliberately killing a teammate, or B) the idiot on your team was negligent and ran in front of your line of fire.

I can't wait for FF, because when I'm shooting someone and you run right in front of me so I'm shooting you and not the enemy I want you to die from my bullets. Team mate or not, it'll force people to pay attention.

I was refuting the argument of punishment for negligence. Punishment for completely intentional actions is antithetical to the EVE universe. Highsec has some consequences, but the victim is NEVER rewarded for being a victim, under ANY circumstances.

How dare he be so stupid to run in front of me cutting off my line of site.

Even MAG didnt have this just a simple 5 and your out rule

If ppl run in front tough **** im not gonna stop firing because of morons

Morons deserve to die like the enemy so im fine with killing them

But as soon as you implement forced reimbursement from player funds, you introduce it as a grief mechanic in itself.

The whole point is that griefing's only DIRECT effects are INDEPENDENT of the parties involved. Insurance is paid by NPCs (and the player pays NPCs to receive more than the default 50% mineral value; all insurance has always been calculated from mineral value -- hence t2 always paying less proportionally compared to t1 -- ithe only change being switching from a fixed value to a market-related value). Concord punishes without any benefit to the person their "victim" aggressed. It's always been about consequence, but not making either side of the dispute be a beneficiary OF those consequences.

I'm fine with insurance being implemented in some form (though I must say again, I see a grief point system being more appropriate; in EVE, a team kill is either deliberate or negligence via criminally incorrect overview settings / failing to follow orders -- in a fleet op, you shouldn't ever shoot anything you aren't explicitly ordered to, with very few exceptions that almost only apply to tacklers -- in Dust, an FPS, team kills can happen due to OTHER PEOPLE being negligent, or pure, legitimate accident), it must NEVER be charged to the aggressor.

One of the core reasons the EVE system works is that you CAN choose to **** over someone else, if you're willing to accept the consequences. More than anything else, though, making the aggressors penalty actively help the victim massively discourages the action, more than it should.

The reason for this is that I can eat the loss, you might get some insurance, but my actions do not profit you at my expense. It's partially psychological, and partially the mechanic as implemented, but the psychological aspect IS important, in any game (an example of this I use is day 1 DLC, where new copies come with a code to get it free, but when people buy used, they have to pay for the DLC, versus online pass where new players play online for free but used have to pay; it's the difference between getting a free extra in the first example versus the used guy being actively denied something and having to buy it separate).

An example directly from EVE would be the bounty system on players. I can put a bounty on someone, and I may as well just have clicked "give money" rather than adding the bounty; if I make a verbal contract with a person or corp to kill the target and bring me the corpse, unless they're an alt or friend of the target or their allies, I actually get what I wanted. I pay the same in the end (in theory), but it FEELS better, because I know it gets something done and the intended victim gains nothing from it. If you make the penalty beneficially affect the victim, it's the same as using the actual bounty system: your action directly benefits the victim, thus defeating one of the main points.

I'm a bit drunk, so I'm sorry if I didn't develop or explain that further. I hope you understand the point I'm trying for. Please comment in that regard, letting me know what you think my meaning was, if it wasn't totally clear.