These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Jita Park Speakers Corner

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Nathan Jameson for CSM8 - Communication, Diversity, and Wormholes

First post
Author
Nathan Jameson
Grumpy Bastards
#61 - 2013-02-07 23:14:13 UTC
And if that wasn't enough, you can now harass me and send me death threats in a fresh, new, innovative way!

https://twitter.com/TalocanUnited

Perfect for those little thoughts or questions that don't even deserve a full forum post. Or love notes. I'm not picky.

http://www.wormholes.info

Nathan Jameson
Grumpy Bastards
#62 - 2013-02-09 00:00:11 UTC
New article up!

Shaking up the Snowglobe

Or, "Why Preventing Self Destructs Inside Force Fields May Actually Not Be in Your Favor."

http://www.wormholes.info

Candente
Navy Veteran Club
#63 - 2013-02-09 00:44:33 UTC
Nice articles Nathan, keep it up :D
Nathan Jameson
Grumpy Bastards
#64 - 2013-02-10 15:47:45 UTC
I've just completed an interview with podcast Crossing Zebras. Xander is an excellent interviewer, and it was my pleasure to work with him.

http://www.wormholes.info

Beaver Retriever
Reality Sequence
#65 - 2013-02-10 17:56:51 UTC
Nathan Jameson wrote:
Singular Snowflake wrote:

Could you answer Kainotomiu's question about the two specific blog entries he provided?


Lol, that horizontal line made me think that question was in his signature. I thought it was rather odd. Will update with response shortly.

EDIT: All right, I don't like either of the blog posts. They're both greatly generalizing and make statements that are accepted as truth without solid evidence. A few examples:

Ripard Teg : "To me, the interesting thing about the argument that un-docking serves as consent to PvP is that the people who make this argument invariably make it from a position of enormous strength."
This is incorrect. The element of EVE that first attracted me to it, and in fact got my paid subscription in the first 48 hours, was that I WAS vulnerable to everyone out there. You actually had to PLAY this game, not simply coast along with a set of pre-defined heuristics. There are plenty of players (and my friends) who also state that what drew them to the game were the stories of treachery, backstabbing, and cutthroat behavior sanctioned by a major game company, as you could find this in no other game. It is its uniqueness. (What percentage of new players think as I did is unknown, but you can't simply wave your hand and say none.)

James 315: "Despite the fact that wardecs have been repeatedly nerfed to make highsec safer..."
Actually, the most effective nerf to wardecing was a player-created initiative called DecShield that forced the Devs to actually rewrite how wardecs worked.

"The substance of Ripard's argument is that in the same way women shouldn't need to alter their clothing to avoid sexual assault, a miner shouldn't need to fit a tank to avoid being ganked."
Again, this is ignoring the final words that Ripard put out, which was simply: "This sort of thing happens every single day in EVE and most of us have just come to accept it -- and the cost it wreaks in player unsubs -- as part of the game. The question that started the philosophical debate: should we? I still don't know." Ripard sought to ask a question, not make a conclusion. At least not in that post.

If I had to decide on writing styles and flow of logic, then, I would go with Ripard, as I think James is missing the point. However, as I believe you're asking more if I agree or disagree with James' response to Ripard, I will have to say I agree a lot with James' mindset. When I first moved into my own wormhole, I set up a small tower with as many defenses as it could afford, and spent the time imagining fleets of battleship behind every moon. I loaded the system with scan alts, did what I could to make sure I harvested gas in peace (in my ignorance, simply not opening connections), and used my diplomacy skills to build relationships with like-minded or more powerful groups. I did not cry any time I was blown up, whether by ill fortune or my own stupidity. And now I'm at the lead of a well-established wormhole alliance. I like to tell myself there's a connection.

It ultimately comes down to precedent and how CCP intends for their game to be defined. If it IS truly as an open-ended sandbox, one that promotes both villainy and heroism (or at least common sense), then we need to put in enablers for both types of people. Recent boosts to Destroyers allowed griefers to hit harder with cheaper ships. The recent suspect flags and kill rights, in turn, allowed those griefers to be hunted then or later, perhaps by other people. I am not going to address if the present power struggle is perfectly balanced, just that CCP is attempting to address both sides. As they should.

TL;DR: +1 Ripard for use of logic and writing ability, +1 James for similarity with personal opinions.

So if I vote for you, on the basis of providing a voice for wormhole space and POS revamp/modular POS, I will not have to worry that you are secretly in favor of carebear creep?

What I'm talking about, is this blog post here: http://www.minerbumping.com/2013/01/good-csm-bad-csm.html

People voted for these representatives for entirely different reasons than getting them to speak for the crying carebear, yet here they are, doing just that. Trebor actually doesn't understand that a PVE-only hisec would break the market and break the game as we know it.

Basically, I want to give you at least one of my votes but I don't want to get a turd like that in my lap if I do.
Nathan Jameson
Grumpy Bastards
#66 - 2013-02-10 18:01:54 UTC
Beaver Retriever wrote:
So if I vote for you, on the basis of providing a voice for wormhole space and POS revamp/modular POS, I will not have to worry that you are secretly in favor of carebear creep?


Can you rephrase the question in such a way that it does not have such an obvious yes/no response? Blink

http://www.wormholes.info

Beaver Retriever
Reality Sequence
#67 - 2013-02-10 18:42:30 UTC
Nathan Jameson wrote:
Beaver Retriever wrote:
So if I vote for you, on the basis of providing a voice for wormhole space and POS revamp/modular POS, I will not have to worry that you are secretly in favor of carebear creep?


Can you rephrase the question in such a way that it does not have such an obvious yes/no response? Blink

Well, the reason I posed the question that way is I wanted a very simple yes/no response, instead of letting you dance around the issue like Ripard Teg (who is not getting my vote(s)) does.

I guess a question you might like better is what is your stance on lowering risk and/or limiting non-consensual PVP in hisec space?
Nathan Jameson
Grumpy Bastards
#68 - 2013-02-10 19:16:47 UTC
Beaver Retriever wrote:
I guess a question you might like better is what is your stance on lowering risk and/or limiting non-consensual PVP in hisec space?


Ah, I like that question. I'll devote more time to a well-worded reply after I've been to bed and composed my thoughts (it's 3:15 AM local).

http://www.wormholes.info

Nathan Jameson
Grumpy Bastards
#69 - 2013-02-12 01:34:04 UTC
I was hoping to make a blog post of my thoughts on the matter of consensual PVP in high sec, but my personal history is limited to industry, freighting, marketeering, and generally keeping out of the way of wardecs (my PVP is in -1.0 space). Since I'm not sure I have enough experience to make a list of generalities, I'll post this here first.

For one, Beaver, I hope that you are not forming your opinion of the CSM and of the issues being discussed primarily via James's blog. He's good at getting attention, but not so much at objectivity. I'm glad he's able to listen to responses from the CSM members in his comments, but he uses very loaded language and quickly jumps to conclusions about peoples' motives. For example, his treatment of Solomon is (in my opinion) rather unfair. Quoting page 68 of the minutes, Solomon clearly states he is "stimulating conversation" when discussing how to conceptualize wardecs. All his thoughts are phrased in questions of definition, where he discusses both sides of the issue. ("If we're going to balance the system, you need to understand what the primary goal is that you're trying to satisfy.") Yet he is demonized by James, who is convinced that promoting more groups battling on equal grounds automatically equals the removal of griefing tactics. (It does not, unless one tries to also include that.)

However, this post primarily is in response to your question, not my personal views of another candidate's blog. To answer your question, "what is your stance on lowering risk and/or limiting non-consensual PVP in hisec space?" I would say that two elements must be kept in mind:

1) The flavor of the mechanics and environment of high sec.
2) Options given to both sides of a conflict.

For the first, each area of space has its own unique flavor that should be remembered when tweaking anything in it. High sec is home to the heart of the NPC empires, and (naturally) there should be rules set in place for how hostilities are conducted. Things are looser in low sec, where a quick pirate who knows his way around guns and gates can pretty much get away with what he wants; and in null sec, anything goes (except when going through stargates, those silly things). Wormholes are like null sec in that regard, except you can't see the thug(s) creeping up behind you. Or the thugs behind them.

Open hostilities should be possible in high sec, but there should be a few more hoops to jump through than simply turning off your weapon safeties. Whether it is through a formalized note of aggression (currently a "wardec"), or losing your ship and sec status to drive home a point, consequences should be higher. But non-consensual PVP should always be possible.

And honestly, when you think about it, you don't even need a wardec to attack an entire corp. -10 pirates can still dock up in high sec, reship, and grief a favorite enemy until their entire corp pisses their pants and folds.

---

The second is, in my opinion, the more important. This link was one of the first things I learned when I began in high sec, so many moons ago, and it was invaluable. Not because I used anything in it in my first month (on the contrary, I moved to wormhole space to get my footing). Instead, it taught me that there are always options for fighting back, even if it's making the conflict so much of a headache that the opposition simply leaves.

The current wardec system is far from perfect, but the creators had the right idea. Allowing defenders to call on friends (or allow PVP lovers to offer their services for a fee or free) puts tools in the hands of both sides, giving more options than simply docking up for an industrialist corp. Agreed, the current iteration needs a massive retooling, but the intentions were solid. And this is what we need to always keep in mind when adjusting aggression in high sec. Not simply removing it, or trying to perfectly balance a single mechanic, but instead making sure that both sides have plenty of options. (In my opinion, the current bounty system, suspect flags, and adjusted timers have done much to promote PVP in empire space, even prompting me to pod people "cause I could." Then figure out what sec status grinding was.)

At the summit, CCP and the CSM were looking for ways to promote balanced warfare--war that actually "meant something." This is good; we could always use more big fights. Doomsayers, however, will equate this to the removal of unbalanced aggression, but that's like saying because I love apple pie, I will not rest until I see mince meat pie removed from every menu. (Even if it IS of the devil.)

In closing, I'd like to point out something that perhaps everyone has forgotten. PVP cannot be forced on the unwilling, no matter how many carrots or sticks or sticks made of carrots you use. I've had plenty of pilots and corps in my alliance that simply will not play the game that way. They are not paying for their subscription for that experience and see no reason to start. One can attempt to force PVP upon them; but the harder you push, the farther into they withdraw into their burrows. Those who love to pew, pew. Those who do not, will not. And those who are on the fence will go the way of their friends.

Which is, honestly, the best way to promote PVP in high sec. I've had more than one CEO in my alliance turn a former carebear into a stone-cold assassin simply by taking them out on a single roam through null sec. Even I will lay down my spreadsheets for a few hours if I hear JohnnyTazer has a new fleet up and is looking for action. Nothing like staring down a Moros solo while in an Abaddon--those are the sorts of experiences I love to remember.

CCP can do their part to give us the tools. It's up to us to make sure we use them.

...

Well, shoot. Maybe I have enough for a blog entry after all.

http://www.wormholes.info

GallowsCalibrator
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#70 - 2013-02-12 21:03:34 UTC  |  Edited by: GallowsCalibrator
Let's put this vaunted communication and diversity platform you've got going to the test.

You know the question that's coming up - let's talk stew.

(Seriouspost: You've picked up a bit on actually asking and answering questions since your OP, which you should probably be updating a bit more as you commit to specific platforms)
Nathan Jameson
Grumpy Bastards
#71 - 2013-02-12 21:13:34 UTC
GallowsCalibrator wrote:
Let's put this vaunted communication and diversity platform you've got going to the test.

You know the question that's coming up - let's talk stew.



Here in Taiwan, it is very difficult to find an actual stew. They eat more hot pots and curry (which I also rather enjoy).

My favorite stews, however, include a hearty amount of mutilated animal flesh (preferably prepubescent), tender and fragile roots wrenched callously from the soil, with only a touch of eukaryotic seasonings, bred in dark and fetid pastures.

Or, when in a pinch...

Basically, anything that satisfies my dark hunger for the meat of the innocent.

http://www.wormholes.info

Nathan Jameson
Grumpy Bastards
#72 - 2013-02-12 23:14:33 UTC
A new blog post is up!

A Horse to PVP

I've taken my reply to Beaver and expanded upon it, adding some more thoughts I had in the process. Some of it you'll recognize; other stuff is new.

Also, I will be going back to my OP and updating it with links to all the new material, for newcomers.

http://www.wormholes.info

Keilateau Shakor
Shakor Freight and Mining Service
#73 - 2013-02-13 13:32:30 UTC
Nathan Jameson wrote:
..
My favorite stews, however, include a hearty amount of mutilated animal flesh (preferably prepubescent), tender and fragile roots wrenched callously from the soil, with only a touch of eukaryotic seasonings, bred in dark and fetid pastures.
...


Ok, I'm sold!
Nathan Jameson
Grumpy Bastards
#74 - 2013-02-13 20:30:16 UTC
I am now easily contactable outside-of-game on my new Skype account: "TalocanUnited". Feel free to pop on and shoot me some questions, or just say hello!

http://www.wormholes.info

chris elliot
Hateful Intent
Hostile Intervention
#75 - 2013-02-14 20:27:39 UTC
SojournerRover wrote:


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




Confirming that enjoy hopping into nathans ts channel and shouting really loud at him before quickly leaving the channel.
Singular Snowflake
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#76 - 2013-02-14 23:21:10 UTC
Nathan Jameson wrote:
Open hostilities should be possible in high sec, but there should be a few more hoops to jump through than simply turning off your weapon safeties. Whether it is through a formalized note of aggression (currently a "wardec"), or losing your ship and sec status to drive home a point, consequences should be higher.

Can you elaborate on that? Are the current consequences high enough? Do you feel they should be lowered or raised?
Nathan Jameson
Grumpy Bastards
#77 - 2013-02-16 00:20:24 UTC
New blog post up, in which I answer questions about my wormhole résumé.

@ Singular Snowflake: I'm personally comfortable with the current level of risk/consequences in high sec, assuming wardecs can be made more functional. The presence of NPC corps means that high-sec citizens always have an option to avoid griefing above simple ganking, and that if they really want to make their own corp, there's more thought involved than simply registering at CONCORD.

http://www.wormholes.info

Nathan Jameson
Grumpy Bastards
#78 - 2013-02-18 04:24:42 UTC
The long-awaited CSM 8 Wormhole Debates on the "Down the Pipe" podcast are here!

I discuss a number of topics with the other candidates running to represent wormhole space: Cipreh, Chitsa Jason, James Arget, and Ayeson.

It's three hours long, so consider yourself forewarned.

All feedback is welcome and appreciated!

http://www.wormholes.info

Zuju
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#79 - 2013-02-20 09:12:15 UTC
As someone who has worked with Nate extensively in the past I can confirm he is a sane and trustworthy individual.

Nate: good luck with your campaign, I'm looking forward to seeing you succeed.

On another note, Kaji and Blazier still have those Tengus and fly them often. (It was intarrnational talk like a pirate day after all)
Nathan Jameson
Grumpy Bastards
#80 - 2013-02-20 11:42:33 UTC
Zuju wrote:
As someone who has worked with Nate extensively in the past I can confirm he is a sane and trustworthy individual.

Nate: good luck with your campaign, I'm looking forward to seeing you succeed.

On another note, Kaji and Blazier still have those Tengus and fly them often. (It was intarrnational talk like a pirate day after all)


Hey, Zuju, long time no see. Hope things are going well in null sec, and thanks for your support. Blink

P.S. You can tell lovable old Kaji and Blazier that they're still KOS to the alliance. P

http://www.wormholes.info