Jita Park Speakers Corner

Depends on if I'm assaulting or defending.

Heh heh heh.

In all seriousness, though, I'm also of the mind that disallowing self-destructing inside POS shields would be good for the wormhole environment. For one, if I was invading, I'd like to see some sort of concrete result on the killboard, instead of screenshots and cool-story-bro's. Also, if I was defending, I'd prefer to go down in GLORIOUS COMBAT, even if it destroyed my killboard for that month, simply because at least it showed I never gave up. I think my favorite story of a null-sec eviction from wormhole space (-A-?) involved the defenders dropping their shields, locking each other up with remote rep, and fighting to the bitter end. That takes balls, and those are the sorts of people we want in wormhole space.

It would definitely shake things up. I can see two direct repercussions of this change.

First, there would be a few months of upheaval, where the larger groups would go around and kick over a lot of the smaller groups, just to see what fell out of the POS shields. The larger groups would probably also poke each other a bit, but not before the isk farmers and loot pinatas. Would this be good for the game? I'm unsure; it may create paying subscriptions, it may drive them away. It would, at least, be a large-scale conflict enabler that many in wormhole space are asking for.

Second, and this is less certain, there might be a stronger coalescing of "power blocs" as null sec groups or other farmers gain friends to help them defend their assets. No longer would simple self-destruction be enough of a deterrent to most invasion, and we may find that unless a pilot is in a large group or has big friends, he's better off in high sec. I don't know how likely this sort of reaction is, but this change may be more harmful than helpful to wormhole space if it turns it into a modified null sec.

At the end of the day, however, I prefer to shake things up and see where the pieces fall, instead of maintaining the status quo. I also like prompting people to be competent and take precautions, instead of coasting through the game on an assumed safety net.

Yes, this has occurred to me as well. One of the biggest benefits of wormhole space is that smaller corporations can get a foothold and thrive. We don't want to create a greater vacuum between the very powerful and the single-pilot corporations.

Wow thats really nice blog. The stakes are high!!

+1 for Nathan and free-da-hat movement :D

now where are those black carribean pirate ones...

Oh lord. So your "platform" is that you represent everyone? You cannot represent two contradictory views at the same time when it comes down to making hard decisions and taking a stand.

I'll leave you with a quote from a person far wiser than me, I feel it represents your candidacy in this thread perfectly:

@Singular Snowflake

Perhaps you're misinterpreting the message in my writings so far, or they were poorly worded. If elected as as a member of CSM based on a "wormhole vote," it is my JOB to represent everyone within wormhole space. I will not pretend otherwise.

At the same time, I do have clearly formed ideas, positions, and goals if I'm elected to the CSM. My focus will be on the smaller, lower-tier corporations in the C1s to C4s, as I stated in my blog. Repeating in full the paragraph you selectively quoted:


On one hand, I am assuring the C5-C6 corporations that I will not be representing the "little guys" at the expenses of their own unique needs and desires (and indeed, the majority of my own alliances lives in C5s). But I do have a specific voter demographic in mind.

I hope this helps clear up your concerns. And best wishes in your own personal search for the best high-sec representative.

What is your opinion on hiring small corps to attack your own corps to teach them how to PVP better?

What is your opinion on putting spies in alliance corps to keep an eye and take over the towers and force the CEO out if a bad word is said about the management style?

What is your opinion on talking to a corporations directors to undermine the CEO's of corporations?

What is your opinion on asking the corporations of an alliance to chip in real cash to buy the Alliance leader a computer?

What is your opinion of an alliance leader that is never on comms?

What is your opinion of an alliance that has to work with another large alliance to blob with a 100 pilots against an 8 man active corp.?

How many more small corps in C1's to C4's are going to be evicted? (considering your track record) and how long will the continuos undermining to anyone who will listen go on?

I was on the Talocan United board and worked closely with you and your leadership and I will not be voting for you.

If the rest of the WH community wants this kind of representation where two faces are the norm then just let me say you have been warned.

Am I hurt? No
But I am still mad. Bewhaaaaa

Can't be influential without making a few enemies.

We've already thrown-down in game, so I have no need to start another war on the forums. Thanks for your input, Rover. I noticed you are getting more eloquent and diplomatic in your posts lately. Honest compliment.

Get yourself interviewed:

http://crossingzebras.com/post/40699271518/electioninterviews

I am quite happy to say that Nate is usually on comms if he is at his computer. His door is open for anyone that has an issue or concern and he will do whatever it takes to see that the issue is resolved in a manner that appeals to everyone. Nathan works very hard to make sure that his alliance is always running smoothly.