These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

CSM 9 Results

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
La Nariz
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#441 - 2014-05-10 01:56:17 UTC
Cygnet Lythanea wrote:
Ok, I put La Nertz on ignore. Let me know when he sobers up.


I rest my case this highsec pubbie lost the argument, has no coping skills and no idea about anything related to the game.

This post was loving crafted by a member of the Official GoonWaffe recruitment team. Improve the forums, support this idea: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&find=unread&t=345133
Cygnet Lythanea
World Welfare Works Association
#442 - 2014-05-10 02:01:40 UTC  |  Edited by: Cygnet Lythanea
Rhes wrote:
Cygnet Lythanea wrote:
Ok, I put La Nertz on ignore. Let me know when he sobers up.

So you admit he was right.


No, but I can see attempting to talk to him at the moment is pointless. No matter what I'd say, and even if I had Fozzie or another dev come in and point out that I was right and La Nanu was wrong, he'd sit there and try to argue that it really meant the opposite.


I have better things to do with my time than entertain drunks. And he must be, because this is way below his usual level of effort trying to troll. Did someone hit him over the head?
Benny Ohu
Chaotic Tranquility
#443 - 2014-05-10 02:26:05 UTC
Cygnet Lythanea wrote:
No, but I can see attempting to talk to him at the moment is pointless. No matter what I'd say, and even if I had Fozzie or another dev come in and point out that I was right and La Nanu was wrong, he'd sit there and try to argue that it really meant the opposite.

ah. like insisting that ccp ytterbium's confirmation that capitals won't enter highsec doesn't mean capitals won't be able to enter highsec.

oh. that was you.
Benny Ohu
Chaotic Tranquility
#444 - 2014-05-10 02:29:07 UTC
Cygnet Lythanea wrote:
Not really, the numbers show the average age of the voter increased from last time, meaning there were fewer noobs/alts voting. Combined with lower concurrency numbers, this suggests that there were simply fewer new accounts.

CCP did not release, this time, the number of votes placed compared to the number of eligible voters, suggesting that subs are, as Dinsdale suggests, down.

no it doesn't. and no it doesn't. christ.
Cygnet Lythanea
World Welfare Works Association
#445 - 2014-05-10 03:02:01 UTC
Benny Ohu wrote:

oh. that was you.


So, you gonna stay in game long enough to dock at the 10 year vet station?

Oh, wait.

No, I don't take what CCP says as gospel truth until they at the very least provide some sort of detail. Preferably Patch Notes. So, yes, CCP ytterbiums 'No, because reasons' I did not accept, but CCP Fozzies 'No, and here's why and what steps we're taking' was acceptable. I'll believe it when I see it in patch notes, but I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt when they actually provide details beyond 'because reasons'.
Benny Ohu
Chaotic Tranquility
#446 - 2014-05-10 03:11:35 UTC
Cygnet Lythanea wrote:
No, I don't take what CCP says as gospel truth until they at the very least provide some sort of detail. Preferably Patch Notes.

so you wouldn't read 'we'll allow rigs on freighters' as 'CCP ARE ALLOWING CAPITALS IN HIGHSEC AND THEY'RE GOING TO BLOW UP ALL THE NPC STATIONS'?

hahaha no wait that did happen
Benny Ohu
Chaotic Tranquility
#447 - 2014-05-10 03:17:22 UTC
my point is that you're drawing conclusions from nothing again and it needs to stop
Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
#448 - 2014-05-10 03:30:40 UTC
I'd give up Benny, Cygnet Lythanea is unlikely to acknowledge that she may be wrong, she's also confident that her 10 years of playing Eve makes her the foremost authority on how things work, despite evidence to the contrary.

Judging by posts in another thread she also believes that 90% of Eve players are scum, because our ingame personas are a reflection of our true selvesRoll

In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded.

New Player FAQ

Feyd's Survival Pack
Cygnet Lythanea
World Welfare Works Association
#449 - 2014-05-10 04:22:21 UTC  |  Edited by: Cygnet Lythanea
Jonah Gravenstein wrote:
I'd give up Benny, Cygnet Lythanea is unlikely to acknowledge that she may be wrong, she's also confident that her 10 years of playing Eve makes her the foremost authority on how things work, despite evidence to the contrary.


I'd put more stock into what benny writes if he bothered to read entire my entire posts instead of filling in the parts he wants to hear.

Example:

'We're seeing general negative indicators that suggest subscriptions are down, but at this time have no conclusive proof.'

becomes

'ZOMG EVE IS DYING!!!!1111oneone'

As I said before, I'll wait till the June Financial releases before I say that Eve is actually suffering from subscription loss, though I expect that we'll see that it has.

Benny seemed deeply offended when I implied that CCP might deny changes that people would find objectionable until the release, thus avoiding a negative impact on it's half year earning statement.

Benny Ohu wrote:

so you wouldn't read 'we'll allow rigs on freighters' as 'CCP ARE ALLOWING CAPITALS IN HIGHSEC AND THEY'RE GOING TO BLOW UP ALL THE NPC STATIONS'?


Benny, I know your tiny brain struggles with subtle concepts like me stating 'I don't see this happening, but...' and then saying that if NPC stations are really going to be destructible, it makes sense that cap ships would be allowed in highsec because NPC stations have HP high enough that it would take 32,000 Typhoons to kill one. Rather bluntly, if your goal is to make all things build-able ('all' would include stations in high sec) and all build-able things destructible, then, yes, that's something you would have to do.

I'll also add that when I posted that originally, all we had in hand was the keynote speech, and several devs talking about how they were looking at making everything in the game destructible. Forcing people wanting a cap in high sec to haul all their cap ships by freighter rather than changing the cyno and gate rules still seems like a good way to keep it from getting too out of control. It would also open up the high sec market for cap ships while exposing them to the risk of loss by suicide gankers.
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#450 - 2014-05-10 05:12:14 UTC
Ace? Is that you?

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
#451 - 2014-05-10 05:32:33 UTC  |  Edited by: Jonah Gravenstein
^^ Nah, there's a distinct lack of elephants in the room and multiple comparisons to WoW. So unlikely. P

In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded.

New Player FAQ

Feyd's Survival Pack
Benny Ohu
Chaotic Tranquility
#452 - 2014-05-10 06:32:29 UTC
Cygnet Lythanea wrote:
I'd put more stock into what benny writes if he bothered to read entire my entire posts instead of filling in the parts he wants to hear.

Example:

'We're seeing general negative indicators that suggest subscriptions are down, but at this time have no conclusive proof.'

becomes

'ZOMG EVE IS DYING!!!!1111oneone'

Benny Ohu wrote:
Cygnet Lythanea wrote:
Not really, the numbers show the average age of the voter increased from last time, meaning there were fewer noobs/alts voting. Combined with lower concurrency numbers, this suggests that there were simply fewer new accounts.

CCP did not release, this time, the number of votes placed compared to the number of eligible voters, suggesting that subs are, as Dinsdale suggests, down.

no it doesn't. and no it doesn't. christ.

please do not tell lies about me.

Benny Ohu wrote:
Benny, I know your tiny brain struggles with subtle concepts like me stating 'I don't see this happening, but...' and then saying that if NPC stations are really going to be destructible,

i don't see this happening, but i'm going to perpetuate a ridiculous, alarmist rumour, present wild speculation and assumptions as if they were supported by evidence, even after that speculation is denied by an authoritative source. i'm then going to present more baseless conspiracy theories in an attempt to validate the rumours. i don't believe it myself, though.

Cygnet Lythanea wrote:
Benny seemed deeply offended when I implied that CCP might deny changes that people would find objectionable until the release, thus avoiding a negative impact on it's half year earning statement.

the conspiracy theories won't stop from happening Shocked
Andski
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#453 - 2014-05-10 07:39:57 UTC
Cygnet Lythanea wrote:
Ok, La Bar mitsvah, let me ask you a question, which is more economically sensible, to buy two highly trained toons and put them on your main account as alts, or set up two alt accounts to keep your super caps on? Because if you're tooling around in a supercap you're probably not swinging solo. I know there are guys that do, but most are in alliances.

Or are you actually suggesting that goonswarm really is just five guys multiboxing?

You're also implying that your killmails about bagging super caps when blowing up POS are a lie, btw.


Okay, so when you have the ISK for a supercap "which is more economically viable" is probably not a question you're terribly concerned about

Twitter: @EVEAndski

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths."    - Abrazzar
Aivo Dresden
State War Academy
Caldari State
#454 - 2014-05-10 09:16:44 UTC
All 3 of my votes are in there. Good stuff.
Prince Kobol
#455 - 2014-05-10 10:02:29 UTC
Malcanis wrote:
Prince Kobol wrote:
Malcanis wrote:


I know what the voter figures are this year, and it's a large enough number to make meaningful choices between a decent sized candidate pool. If only a fraction of EVE players want to make the effort and take responsibility for informing themselves sufficiently to make a meaningful vote, then tbh, I'm kind of OK with that as long as the voter pool is big enough. And I think that it is.

But let's be honest with ourselves here: most people don't vote because they simply don't care enough and so can't be bothered. Most of the shallow cynicism and hostility towards the CSM is basically a tissue-thin wrapper around this obvious turd.




I have voted each year expect this year because from what I saw the pool to choose from was well.. awful.

I believed that it did not matter who was voted in as they are all cut from the same cloth and many of the candidates are people who failed to get into previous CSM's. On top of this none of them particularly did a good job of selling themselves. .

That is not CCP fault and it is not the concept of the CSM at fault.

If not enough worth while candidates are running for CSM then you have to ask the question why?

Is it because they believe no matter how good their campaign might be, they would never be able to over come the block vote?

Is it because they do not believe that the CSM have any real power to guide CCP and if so why do they believe that?

As for not caring, why do players not care? What is it that makes the majority of players not give a rats ass about the CSM.

I have never seen anybody from CCP really try and get a handle on this.

Why have CCP never sent out a questionnaire to all subscribers asking them their thoughts on the CSM I do not know. There are things CCP could do to try and find out why the players are not interested if they really do care about the credibility of the CSM and being months late with the meeting minutes does not help.

I actually believe that CSM8 was the best CSM we have ever had and had the best chance ever to really show the player base how effective a CSM can be, however CCP once again let them down and that appears to be a recurring theme with the entire CSM concept.


Well 5 of CSM8 have been re-elected; CSM9 can't be that bad.


Just not as good as CSM 8 :)

That kind of also goes back to my point on why maybe people are just not interested in the CSM, its the same people over and over again.

If the majority of the player base view the CSM as a waste of time and they are showing this by not voting, then having the same people each year either on or involved in the CSM is not going to help.

Also could you guys take your playground arguments about supers else where.. this was a fairly good thread until you guys shitted it up...

Benny Ohu
Chaotic Tranquility
#456 - 2014-05-10 10:19:47 UTC
Prince Kobol wrote:
Malcanis wrote:
Well 5 of CSM8 have been re-elected; CSM9 can't be that bad.


Just not as good as CSM 8 :)

That kind of also goes back to my point on why maybe people are just not interested in the CSM, its the same people over and over again.

If the majority of the player base view the CSM as a waste of time and they are showing this by not voting, then having the same people each year either on or involved in the CSM is not going to help.

members of csm9 who have served more than one term:
Prince Kobol
#457 - 2014-05-10 10:50:35 UTC
Benny Ohu wrote:
Prince Kobol wrote:
Malcanis wrote:
Well 5 of CSM8 have been re-elected; CSM9 can't be that bad.


Just not as good as CSM 8 :)

That kind of also goes back to my point on why maybe people are just not interested in the CSM, its the same people over and over again.

If the majority of the player base view the CSM as a waste of time and they are showing this by not voting, then having the same people each year either on or involved in the CSM is not going to help.

members of csm9 who have served more than one term:


Mangala Solaris - CSM 8

Ali Aras - CSM 8

Mynnna - CSM 8

Progodlegend - CSM 8

Now go back and see how many of this years candidates have unsuccessfully run for CSM over the years and I bet a few of the names appear again and again.

If people do not have any belief that the CSM are effective then having the same people run again and again will not help.

For me CSM 8 was the best we have in every respect and yet the voter turn out is lower by a third.

So the question has to be asked, how after the best CSM we have ever had has voter turn out dropped by a third.

What has happened to make the player base so despondent that even by having the best CSM to date, people are voting less.

For me the blame is solely on CCP for this.

I do not see anything more the CSM 8 member could do.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#458 - 2014-05-10 11:22:20 UTC
Voter turn out is lower because people won't stop crying.

Because there are some deluded people who actually listen to the doomsayers, and who get this gigantic circlejerk going where they pat each other on the backs saying "there there, our vote wouldn't have mattered anyway" while bemoaning that anyone from outside of highsec is allowed to vote at all.

Meanwhile, lowsec makes THE strongest showing that it ever has. Because getting out the vote actually works.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.
Benny Ohu
Chaotic Tranquility
#459 - 2014-05-10 11:29:27 UTC
Prince Kobol wrote:
Benny Ohu wrote:
Prince Kobol wrote:
Malcanis wrote:
Well 5 of CSM8 have been re-elected; CSM9 can't be that bad.


Just not as good as CSM 8 :)

That kind of also goes back to my point on why maybe people are just not interested in the CSM, its the same people over and over again.

If the majority of the player base view the CSM as a waste of time and they are showing this by not voting, then having the same people each year either on or involved in the CSM is not going to help.

members of csm9 who have served more than one term:


Mangala Solaris - CSM 8

Ali Aras - CSM 8

Mynnna - CSM 8

Progodlegend - CSM 8

none of those members have served more than one term.


Quote:
Now go back and see how many of this years candidates have unsuccessfully run for CSM over the years and I bet a few of the names appear again and again.

no. you do it.
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#460 - 2014-05-10 11:30:50 UTC  |  Edited by: Malcanis
Prince Kobol wrote:
Malcanis wrote:
Prince Kobol wrote:
Malcanis wrote:


I know what the voter figures are this year, and it's a large enough number to make meaningful choices between a decent sized candidate pool. If only a fraction of EVE players want to make the effort and take responsibility for informing themselves sufficiently to make a meaningful vote, then tbh, I'm kind of OK with that as long as the voter pool is big enough. And I think that it is.

But let's be honest with ourselves here: most people don't vote because they simply don't care enough and so can't be bothered. Most of the shallow cynicism and hostility towards the CSM is basically a tissue-thin wrapper around this obvious turd.




I have voted each year expect this year because from what I saw the pool to choose from was well.. awful.

I believed that it did not matter who was voted in as they are all cut from the same cloth and many of the candidates are people who failed to get into previous CSM's. On top of this none of them particularly did a good job of selling themselves. .

That is not CCP fault and it is not the concept of the CSM at fault.

If not enough worth while candidates are running for CSM then you have to ask the question why?

Is it because they believe no matter how good their campaign might be, they would never be able to over come the block vote?

Is it because they do not believe that the CSM have any real power to guide CCP and if so why do they believe that?

As for not caring, why do players not care? What is it that makes the majority of players not give a rats ass about the CSM.

I have never seen anybody from CCP really try and get a handle on this.

Why have CCP never sent out a questionnaire to all subscribers asking them their thoughts on the CSM I do not know. There are things CCP could do to try and find out why the players are not interested if they really do care about the credibility of the CSM and being months late with the meeting minutes does not help.

I actually believe that CSM8 was the best CSM we have ever had and had the best chance ever to really show the player base how effective a CSM can be, however CCP once again let them down and that appears to be a recurring theme with the entire CSM concept.


Well 5 of CSM8 have been re-elected; CSM9 can't be that bad.


Just not as good as CSM 8 :)

That kind of also goes back to my point on why maybe people are just not interested in the CSM, its the same people over and over again.

If the majority of the player base view the CSM as a waste of time and they are showing this by not voting, then having the same people each year either on or involved in the CSM is not going to help.


Well what do you even want? First you complain that CSM8 was the bestest awesomeest and that CSM9 can't possibly be as good, and then when it's shown that 5/19 of CSM8 are still serving, you complain about it being the same old faces.

And it's the same with just about all the other bitching about the CSM. People want CCP to give them more information, but they complain about how much information they have to read already. People say they want the CSM to have more publicity but they don't want to read devblogs or forums or receive evemails about it. People want the CSM to have more hi-sec/lo-sec/pony-sec members but they won't actually god damb vote for hi/lo/pony candidates.

Mostly people who complain about the CSM seem to just want "free candy": 14 people who 100% agree with them to put in an infinite amount of free work on their behalf without ever asking them to make any effort to inform themselves or make choices.

God forbid that they listen to anyone who tries to be honest with them about the reality of the situation or lift a goddamb finger to get what they say they want.

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016