These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

EVE General Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Vote Yes on "Removing Local from 0.0"

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Nicolo da'Vicenza
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#61 - 2012-06-01 09:02:44 UTC  |  Edited by: Nicolo da'Vicenza
Frying Doom wrote:
Just 27 more likes to go and the No local for 0.0 thread could run for the CSM.

Please press like at
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=110995&find=unread

wrong forum, do not pass go, do not collect $200
Frying Doom
#62 - 2012-06-01 09:05:48 UTC
Nicolo da'Vicenza wrote:
Frying Doom wrote:
Just 27 more likes to go and the No local for 0.0 thread could run for the CSM.

Please press like at
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=110995&find=unread

wrong forum, do not pass go, do not collect $200

Strange I click on the link and it takes me to the forum titled "Grow some extremely durable genitalia."

Were does your send you? Null bear land.

Any spelling, grammatical and punctuation errors are because frankly, I don't care!!
Nicolo da'Vicenza
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#63 - 2012-06-01 09:08:15 UTC
Not the Assembly Hall.
Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#64 - 2012-06-01 09:09:29 UTC
The thread where you're arguing for no local while showing, quite unequivocally, that you don't even know how nullsec works in any way, shape or form? And the thread where caliph shows, quite unequivocally, that the only reason he wants that change (and he wants it in all parts of EVE, whereas you're just jealous of nullsec) is so he can gank more easily?

That thread?

Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home.

RIP Vile Rat
Nicolo da'Vicenza
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#65 - 2012-06-01 09:14:36 UTC
Yeah, the one that's in General Discussion and not Assembly Hall (which is where proposals with enough likes are eligible for CSM consideration, not GD). Meaning this whole thread was a dumb misinformed waste of time. Which it would have been anyway GD or no-GD.
Frying Doom
#66 - 2012-06-01 09:16:32 UTC
Nicolo da'Vicenza wrote:
Yeah, the one that's in General Discussion and not Assembly Hall (which is where proposals with enough likes are eligible for CSM consideration, not GD). Meaning this whole thread was a dumb misinformed waste of time. Which it would have been anyway GD or no-GD.

Oh except the CSM just discussed this in the last couple of days and the system may or may not be valid anymore, no one but the CSM and CCP knows.

Read more type less.

Any spelling, grammatical and punctuation errors are because frankly, I don't care!!
Nicolo da'Vicenza
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#67 - 2012-06-01 09:21:21 UTC  |  Edited by: Nicolo da'Vicenza
Frying Doom wrote:
Nicolo da'Vicenza wrote:
Yeah, the one that's in General Discussion and not Assembly Hall (which is where proposals with enough likes are eligible for CSM consideration, not GD). Meaning this whole thread was a dumb misinformed waste of time. Which it would have been anyway GD or no-GD.

Oh except the CSM just discussed this in the last couple of days and the system may or may not be valid anymore, no one but the CSM and CCP knows.

Read more type less.

So not only is it in the wrong forum, but dependent on a process no longer continued by the CSM.
Brilliant move, Frying Doom.
Kitfox Mikakka
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#68 - 2012-06-01 09:22:03 UTC
Frying Doom wrote:
Nicolo da'Vicenza wrote:
Yeah, the one that's in General Discussion and not Assembly Hall (which is where proposals with enough likes are eligible for CSM consideration, not GD). Meaning this whole thread was a dumb misinformed waste of time. Which it would have been anyway GD or no-GD.

Oh except the CSM just discussed this in the last couple of days and the system may or may not be valid anymore, no one but the CSM and CCP knows.

Read more type less.


Well if the system won't be valid (IE, it doesn't need to be in Assembly Hall), what the hell makes you think it'd still use the same rules regarding numbers of likes and whatnot? Come on dude.
Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#69 - 2012-06-01 09:22:27 UTC
Frying Doom wrote:
Nicolo da'Vicenza wrote:
Frying Doom wrote:
Just 27 more likes to go and the No local for 0.0 thread could run for the CSM.

Please press like at
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=110995&find=unread

wrong forum, do not pass go, do not collect $200

Strange I click on the link and it takes me to the forum titled "Grow some extremely durable genitalia."

Were does your send you? Null bear land.

Let me help you. The link sends me to a thread (not a forum) in the following path:
Home » EVE Forums » EVE Communication Center » EVE General Discussion » Grow some extremely durable genitalia

Notice the bolded bits.

Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home.

RIP Vile Rat
Nicolo da'Vicenza
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#70 - 2012-06-01 09:23:22 UTC
Kitfox Mikakka wrote:
Well if the system won't be valid (IE, it doesn't need to be in Assembly Hall), what the hell makes you think it'd still use the same rules regarding numbers of likes and whatnot?

Power of wishful thinking, I'm guessing.
Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#71 - 2012-06-01 09:27:37 UTC
Nicolo da'Vicenza wrote:
Kitfox Mikakka wrote:
Well if the system won't be valid (IE, it doesn't need to be in Assembly Hall), what the hell makes you think it'd still use the same rules regarding numbers of likes and whatnot?

Power of wishful thinking, I'm guessing.

Or just as good grasp of how rules work on the forum/with the CSM as in-game.

Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home.

RIP Vile Rat
Klown Walk
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#72 - 2012-06-01 09:29:03 UTC
No, it will make solo/small gang pvp even harder.
CCP Spitfire
C C P
C C P Alliance
#73 - 2012-06-01 09:36:40 UTC
Please do not create multiple topics on the same subject.

Thread locked.

CCP Spitfire | Marketing & Sales Team @ccp_spitfire
Frying Doom
#74 - 2012-06-01 09:36:41 UTC
Kitfox Mikakka wrote:
Frying Doom wrote:
Nicolo da'Vicenza wrote:
Yeah, the one that's in General Discussion and not Assembly Hall (which is where proposals with enough likes are eligible for CSM consideration, not GD). Meaning this whole thread was a dumb misinformed waste of time. Which it would have been anyway GD or no-GD.

Oh except the CSM just discussed this in the last couple of days and the system may or may not be valid anymore, no one but the CSM and CCP knows.

Read more type less.


Well if the system won't be valid (IE, it doesn't need to be in Assembly Hall), what the hell makes you think it'd still use the same rules regarding numbers of likes and whatnot? Come on dude.

Do you people ever read anything?

I said "Just 27 more likes to go and the No local for 0.0 thread could run for the CSM."

Implying that because the number of likes in the last CSM election required to appear on the ballot was 100'.

On the opening post I said "If we get enough likes maybe we could have it elected to next years CSM Lol,
Just send a cardboard cutout to Iceland with a speech bubble on it that says "Remove Local in Null".
It would probably do a better job of fixing EvE than some of the members of past CSM's."

I think we now have come to the root of the problem. The people that are continuously arguing against the implementation of "No local in Null", NEVER read anything. They just type letters and hit the POST button with never a thought passing between their ears.

Any spelling, grammatical and punctuation errors are because frankly, I don't care!!