I'm not the kind of person who gets disgruntled when non-militia talk about Faction War game mechanics. Just because someone's main focus might be in wormhole space or nullsec doesn't necessarily mean that they can't have valuable input and detailed knowledge and ideas about something else.
However, sometimes the things people say make me scratch my head and wonder if we're even talking about the same game.
A recent article was posted on Crossing Zebras from an author named 'Niden.' While I don't disagree with everything Niden says, much of what he says discredited him quite a bit in my eyes, as it clearly showed a very clear misunderstanding about Faction War, and the people who consider themselves 'militia.' In fact, some of his statements are so far from the truth, I almost have to believe he is trying to troll people.
First, he claims that "players seldom feel the need to step out of [Faction War] to get action and it essentially becomes their world. Like Americans who think Europe is a country and don’t have a clue where Belgium is on a map."
Faction War is actually a melting pot of different kinds of players, backgrounds, and etc. Not only do the players themselves have alts (or are alts themselves) but you have plays coming and going toward all walks of EVE life.
You have market traders, industrialists, and players who spend weekends running incursions. And, you have a lot of militia who don't just identify with FW, but are also general low-sec players engaging in piracy, or some sort of anti-piracy.
Saying that militia are inside some sort of box, and don't really see outside of Faction Warfare is about as silly as saying that a nullsec pilot has no concept of anything else in the game simply because he lives in null security space.
Secondly, he claims that "Factional Warfare is a fabricated and fixed narrative..."
Actually, Faction War is rich with player defined narrative. Playing under the overarching 'theme' of a war between two made-up factions is not much different than a wormhole player playing under the theme of Sleepers and cut-off space, or a nullsec pilot playing under a theme of large sovereignty wars.
Faction War is thick with politics, spawning revolutions, civil wars, betrayal, and shifting loyalties. On top of that, you have player motivations that are far more complicated than a bunch of mindless militia playing out the storyline that CCP has given them. You have people taking or campaigning over systems due to personal grudges, and non-militia stepping in to honor old loyalties.
Niden goes on to make a large number of rather amusing comments, which seem to be intended to point out something negative about Faction War players, but really just describe eve players, or people, in general.
For example, he claims that FW pilots are impatient and want more instant gratification. Actually, EVE players in general are becoming more impatient and want more instant gratification. And for many, not just instant gratification, but they want someone to fight them in a very specific way that is conducive to their personal gameplay.
He points out that players tend to join the winning side because of ISK benefits. Which is mostly a part of human nature. People like to be on the winning side, especially if winning has perks. This doesn't mean that you should incentivize losing, or somehow diminish the benefits of winning.
This is EVE. If you're expecting some sort of 'honorable mention' ribbon when you lose, you're probably playing the wrong game.
Faction War does have its problems, but I'm not sure they're the problems Niden is pointing out here.