These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Assembly Hall

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

The Voice of highsec

Author
Rico Minali
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#21 - 2012-06-12 13:22:28 UTC
Im a nullsec player. I have 3 accounts, 3 characters are in nullsec, the rest are support characters in Hisec. of my 9 playable toons, 6 are in hisec, that is 66% of my pilots.

80% of pilots in hisec are in fact not hisec players.. Many of them are merely nullsec players miners, haulers, incursion runners FW mission runners and other stuff. These people will consider themselves nullsec players. not to mention the amount that are nullsec peoples hisec ganking alts.

80% of characters may be in hisec. That doesnt equate to 80% of people being hisec players.

Trust me, I almost know what I'm doing.

Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#22 - 2012-06-12 13:43:23 UTC
Gevlon Goblin wrote:
Highsec hold 80% of the players.

I just noticed this. I have 3 accounts, 2 of my characters are in nullsec, the rest are in hisec doing various things.

80% of the accounts may stay in hisec, it's not 80% of the players though.

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

RIP Vile Rat

FloppieTheBanjoClown
Arcana Imperii Ltd.
#23 - 2012-06-12 14:33:43 UTC
It's kind of cute how frequently people try to play William Wallace.

Quote:
I shall unite the disparate clans of high sec! No more shall we toil under the yoke of the nullbears! We shall end their monopolistic reign of terror and put a stop to their gankings! Never before has there been one such as me, willing to stand up to these oppressors! Who's with me? FREEDOOOOOOOOOOM!!!

Umm...hello? Hellooooooo!? Anybody?

...

Freedom?

Founding member of the Belligerent Undesirables movement.

sabre906
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#24 - 2012-06-12 15:14:04 UTC  |  Edited by: sabre906
Lord Zim wrote:
Gevlon Goblin wrote:
Highsec hold 80% of the players.

I just noticed this. I have 3 accounts, 2 of my characters are in nullsec, the rest are in hisec doing various things.

80% of the accounts may stay in hisec, it's not 80% of the players though.


Confirming that all my disposable scout/cyno alts are in highsec, doing... what exactly?Roll

Non-playing disposable alts are placed where your actual characters don't want to be - that would be lowsec, not highsec or null.
Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#25 - 2012-06-12 18:47:11 UTC
sabre906 wrote:
Confirming that all my disposable scout/cyno alts are in highsec, doing... what exactly?Roll

Non-playing disposable alts are placed where your actual characters don't want to be - that would be lowsec, not highsec or null.

I don't know about you, but I do considerable business in hisec when I'm not in a fleet in null. This includes watching prices in a lot of market hubs etc.

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

RIP Vile Rat

Wolodymyr
Breaking Ambitions
#26 - 2012-06-13 05:51:09 UTC  |  Edited by: Wolodymyr
Gevlon Goblin wrote:
Highsec hold 80% of the players. We have 80% of the votes.

I live in lowsec, and I have a cyno alt (that is now repurposed into a hauling alt). I have 2 extra character slots each on both my cyno account and main account. That's 4 random characters that are sitting in market hubs for quick price checks. I consider myself a lowsec player even though 83.5% of my actual characters are parked in highsec right now.

Gevlon Goblin wrote:
If you are supporting the ideas of The voice of highsec, you should join the corp to show it to the CSM

I am also starting up a corp that has 90% taxes for people who think kittens are cute. Join up unless you are anti kitten! Also the kittens demand that you farm incursions non stop.

Gevlon Goblin wrote:
* less griefing

If you want highsec to have less risk then it needs less rewards. Kill highsec incursions. Only have veldspar and scordite in the belts, move level 4 missions to lowsec. Do that and then you can have your invincible hulks.

Or we could give highsec more risk and more reward. Then not only would it be a place worth living in, but if people wanted to transition to low, null, w-space then they'd have to get used to fewer new risks. Basically a safer highsec creates a bigger barrier to try any other type of space.

Gevlon Goblin wrote:
* more highsec/PvE content

Some more interesting missions would be nice, and improving the new player experience would really help. The one thing eve needs is something to do when you are alone. All the group content is great, but sometimes everyone you know is signed off or just doing something else.

Gevlon Goblin wrote:
* no power item shop

I am guessing you are talking about the LP store. The LP store is a good thing. First if solves a lot of isk faucet problems (because LP is essentially just gear waiting to exist). Also rather than just making it rain isk it means the market value of your LP stuff is based on how many people are running any given site. If the Sisters of Eve only gave out LP that could be spent on Sisters probes and launchers then their price would be dependent on how many people were farming Sisters Of Eve missions. The demand for probes stays the same but the supply changes based on how many people are running the missions.

I honestly think PoCo based sov is a good idea https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1417544

Arsala
Minmatar Mining and Manufacturing.
#27 - 2012-06-13 19:13:16 UTC  |  Edited by: Arsala
EVE Online TERMS OF SERVICE

As an Eve Online subscriber, you must observe and abide by the rules of conduct and policies outlined below, as well as the End User License Agreement. Failure to comply with these regulations can result in the immediate termination of your account and you will forfeit all unused access time to the game. No refunds will be given.

You may not abuse, harass or threaten another player or authorized representative of CCP, including customer service personnel and volunteers. This includes, but is not limited to: petitioning with false information in an attempt to gain from it or have someone else suffer from it; sending excessive e-mails, EVE-mails or petitions; obstructing CCP Employees from doing their jobs; refusal to follow the instructions of a CCP Employee; or implying favoritism by a CCP Employee.

You may not use any abusive, defamatory, ethnically or racially offensive, harassing, harmful, hateful, obscene, offensive, sexually explicit, threatening or vulgar language. (Alternate spelling or partial masking of such words will be reprimanded in the same manner as the actual use of such words.)

You may not organize nor be a member of any corporation or group within EVE Online that is based on or advocates any anti-ethnic, anti-gay, anti-religious, racist, sexist or other hate-mongering philosophies

You may not use “role-playing” as an excuse to violate these rules. While EVE Online is a persistent world, fantasy role-playing game, the claim of role-playing is not an acceptable defense for anti-social behavior. Role-playing is encouraged, but not at the expense of other player. You may not create or participate in a corporation or group that habitually violates this policy.
Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#28 - 2012-06-13 21:49:56 UTC
I'm sure there's supposed to be a point there, somewhere, in that post.

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

RIP Vile Rat

Rer Eirikr
The Scope
#29 - 2012-06-15 19:48:33 UTC
God I hope you take the time to come to Kugu and talk about this. We'd be very honored.
Lady Katherine Devonshire
Royal Ammatar Engineering Corps
#30 - 2012-06-16 10:13:50 UTC  |  Edited by: Lady Katherine Devonshire
While I agree that most of these, ahem "demands" are pretty silly, I also agree that there really is no voice for hisec players. I remember the last CSM election and not seeing any candidate who wasn't ultimately just a lobbyist for one nullsec alliance or another.

I've seen this problem in other games. For example, back before WW2OL was merely circling the drain and not diving headlong into it, they had a player run "High Command" system composed of players who acted as major domos and ran the campaigns. The problem, though, is that all of these "HC" were little more than front men for their own respective "squads" (clan, guild, alliance - same thing, different names). The result was that instead of actually running the campaign (i.e. their jobs) they just prattled around like a bunch of courtiers to get more of their own "squaddies" into the program & whine for the developers to change things to they way they, themselves, wanted it and to hell with everyone else.

Sound familiar?

The problem, I believe, is a similar lack of requirements for what a player must do to be a CSM. Right now it's pretty much "Do you own a passport Y/N?" There is no actual rule against a current council member from buying their kid brother/sister a subscription & a passport, then telling everyone in their alliance to vote for that twerp the very next day. Considering the size of some alliances, this is not as improbable as it seems.

Frankly, I'd like to see the CSM positions be less about administrative garbage and more about various aspects of the game. There are nine CSM positions, last I checked. Why can't one of them be dedicated solely to voicing the concerns of hisec players? You could have a nullsec rep, a lowsec rep, and a hisec rep and still have six seats open to shuffle Powerpoint slides & pretend to be important while getting drunk in Iceland for two weeks a year.

Would that be unfair to ask for?
Ribikoka
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#31 - 2012-06-16 10:17:32 UTC
Lady Katherine Devonshire wrote:
While I agree that most of these, ahem "demands" are pretty silly, I also agree that there really is no voice for hisec players. I remember the last CSM election and not seeing any candidate who wasn't ultimately just a lobbyist for one nullsec alliance or another.

I've seen this problem in other games. For example, back before WW2OL was merely circling the drain and not diving headlong into it, they had a player run "High Command" system composed of players who acted as major domos and ran the campaigns. The problem, though, is that all of these "HC" were little more than front men for their own respective "squads" (clan, guild, alliance - same thing, different names). The result was that instead of actually running the campaign (i.e. their jobs) they just prattled around like a bunch of courtiers to get more of their own "squaddies" into the program & whine for the developers to change things to they way they, themselves, wanted it and to hell with everyone else.

Sound familiar?

The problem, I believe, is a similar lack of requirements for what a player must do to be a CSM. Right now it's pretty much "Do you own a passport Y/N?" There is no actual rule against a current council member from buying their kid brother/sister a subscription & a passport, then telling everyone in their alliance to vote for that twerp the very next day. Considering the size of some alliances, this is not as improbable as it seems.

Frankly, I'd like to see the CSM positions be less about administrative garbage and more about various aspects of the game. There are nine CSM positions, last I checked. Why can't one of them be dedicated solely to voicing the concerns of hisec players? You could have a nullsec rep, a lowsec rep, and a hisec rep and still have six seats open to shuffle Powerpoint slides & pretend to be important while getting drunk in Iceland for two weeks a year.

Would that be unfair to ask for?


+1
Lady Flute
Ilmarinen Group
#32 - 2012-06-16 11:10:36 UTC
The thread on Hulkageddon showed the sharp division in the community.

At a blunt level, Highsec needs CSM votes. Not just getting the attention of the null sec crowd who don't really care, but its own voice on the CSM itself. But to those who ridicule highsec players, know only this: CCP wants more players. They are not going to get them without increasing Highsec player retention, so guess what, changes are going to happen whether you like it or not.
Xorv
Questionable Acquisitions
#33 - 2012-06-16 20:14:21 UTC
Lady Flute wrote:
The thread on Hulkageddon showed the sharp division in the community.

At a blunt level, Highsec needs CSM votes.


WTF do you mean "Highsec needs CSM votes"?

Highsec has more representation than any other part of space since I believe every CSM member is likely to have at least one character in Highsec. In addition to that the CSM has at least three members who's interests and campaign focus is on Highsec; Kelduum Revaan, Alekseyev Karrde, and Issler Dainze. What more do you want?
Ji'kahr
1st Kameiras Brigade
#34 - 2012-06-20 06:24:28 UTC
Gevlon Goblin wrote:
The Voice of Highsec has three program points:
* less griefing
* more highsec/PvE content
* no power item shop
The details will be worked out. You can of course take part of that discussion too, but if you agree with the main points, you shall join! If we just whine, they keep ignoring us. If we present thousands of votes, they will start to care.

See the details on http://greedygoblin.blogspot.com/p/voice-of-highsec.html


I don't really understand why you need a corporation to promote these objectives, nor am I certain they are desirable objectives.

1) Less griefing: How do you define griefing? Griefing is already considered a bannable offence. A pirate in high sec ganking my industrial full of plex is NOT griefing, it's an opportunistic and skillful heist. A pirate corp declaring war on my corp and blowing up my ships is NOT griefing either, nor is ganking the Hulk of a high sec miner. All of these mechanisms have been placed in the game to insure an atmosphere of combat, danger and intrigue.

What IS griefing? If that same pirate or pirate corp comes after me (specifically) again and again and again, attacks me in the forums, harasses me through eve mails, sends letters to all my corp mates warning them that I am a 'so and so', and generally stalks me beyond a week long corporate war declaration, then THAT would be considered griefing, and THAT is a bannable offence.

2) No power item shop: Do you mean Loyalty points shops? I don't understand how removing them would be an improvement. They are a reward for running missions for a corporation anywhere, from high sec to null. These items can be used or sold for ISK.

3) More highsec/ PvE content: Aren't there a ton of missions you could do? Research & Development missions can make you pretty good passive ISK since Research agents turn out datacores 24/ 7. You can sell those datacores, or use them for invention.

There's also incursions to run, and high sec exploration sites, as well as station trading which can make a ton of ISK.

High sec is already far too crowded. The objective is to get more people out of high-sec, and into low-sec and Null-sec where (ideally) they face more danger, but can also make more ISK and have more fun. This is what many people object to when they complain about 'carebears'. It's not that people can mine, manufacture, and run missions in high-sec, it's that these people want to be able to do so with some sort of guarantee that they will never be attacked ever.

This is not what EVE is about. It's not supposed to be a game of 'making lots of ISK' in complete safety.

My understanding of high-sec is that it is a high-tech authoritarian police state that most people would want to leave.

-The government of Amarr is a theocratic hierarchical fiefdom. It's ruled over by an Empress and the Aristocratic holders. They practice slavery and torture, and would probably arrest someone whose views on the scriptures were different from the official views of the Theoretical council.

-The government of the Caldari state is a Corporate oligarchy. Everything within that society is dictated by a dozen or so powerful mega-corporations, which own and control everything. Caldari citizens are born into their corporations, are raised and educated by their corporations, and are essentially citizens of their corporations. Benito Mussolini said that "Fascism should be called corporatism, since it is the merging of state and corporate powers." So really, the political system of the Caldari state would be closer to Fascism than anything else.

-Minmatar society would be fractional, a loose band of different cultures and tribes. They have joined together for a single purpose, but with no external threat would likely wage war on each other. Maybe the Minmatar people would have more freedom than the Amarrians or Caldari but I imagine there would still be checkpoints, body scans, cargo scans, as well as an internal security force to weed out spies and so forth.

-Gallente society is apparently the most free and democratic. I'm not sure, but I assume that their democracy would be a representative democracy similar to North America and Europe. Each planet probably has a President, and those Presidents would sit together on a 'Council of worlds' to decide the policy of the Gallente state.

There is nothing in game to suggest that you could form an 'international' convention of 'high sec residents'. The four factions are at constant war with each other. There is no trust, no dialogue between the high-sec nations. This is the way that most EVE players like it. Constant conflict.

Take a look at the market place. All of the items there are weapons and/or defensive modules. Everything in EVE revolves around war and combat. The reason miners are able to sell their minerals, manufacturers are able to sell ships and modules, is because ships keep blowing each other up. Remove that element from EVE and the incentive grinds to a halt.
Ji'kahr
1st Kameiras Brigade
#35 - 2012-06-20 06:30:25 UTC  |  Edited by: Ji'kahr
Ji'kahr wrote:
[quote=Gevlon Goblin]The Voice of Highsec has three program points:
* less griefing
* more highsec/PvE content
* no power item shop
The details will be worked out. You can of course take part of that discussion too, but if you agree with the main points, you shall join! If we just whine, they keep ignoring us. If we present thousands of votes, they will start to care.

See the details on http://greedygoblin.blogspot.com/p/voice-of-highsec.html


I don't really understand why you need a corporation to promote these objectives, nor am I certain they are desirable objectives.

1) Less griefing: How do you define griefing? Griefing is already considered a bannable offence. A pirate in high sec ganking my industrial full of plex is NOT griefing, it's an opportunistic and skillful heist. A pirate corp declaring war on my corp and blowing up my ships is NOT griefing either, nor is ganking the Hulk of a high sec miner. All of these mechanisms have been placed in the game by CCP to insure an atmosphere of combat, danger and intrigue. That's what makes it a game. Don't expect them to remove these things.

What is griefing? If that same pirate or pirate corp comes after me (specifically) again and again and again, repeatedly attacks me in the forums, harasses me through eve mails, sends letters to all my corp mates warning them that I am a 'so and so', and generally stalks me beyond a week long corporate war declaration, then THAT would be considered griefing, and THAT is a bannable offence.

2) No power item shop: Do you mean Loyalty points shops? I don't understand how removing them would be an improvement. They are a reward for running missions for a corporation anywhere, from high sec to null. These items can be used or sold for ISK.

3) More highsec/ PvE content: Aren't there a ton of high-sec missions you could do? Research & Development missions can make you pretty good passive ISK since Research agents turn out datacores 24/ 7. You can sell those datacores, or use them for invention.

There's also incursions to run, and high sec exploration sites, as well as station trading which can make a ton of ISK.

High sec is already far too crowded. The objective is to get more people out of high-sec, and into low-sec and Null-sec where (ideally) they face more danger, but can also make more ISK and have more fun. This is what many people object to when they complain about 'carebears'. It's not that people can mine, manufacture, and run missions in high-sec, it's that these people want to be able to do so with some sort of guarantee that they will never be attacked ever.

This is not what EVE is about. It's not supposed to be a game of 'making lots of ISK' in complete safety.

My understanding of high-sec is that it is a high-tech authoritarian police state that most people would love to leave.

-The government of Amarr is a theocratic hierarchical fiefdom. It's ruled over by an Empress and the Aristocratic holders. They practice slavery and torture, and would probably arrest someone whose views on the scriptures were different from the official views of the Theoretical council.

-The government of the Caldari state is a Corporate oligarchy. Everything within that society is dictated by a dozen or so powerful mega-corporations, which own and control everything. Caldari citizens are born into their corporations, are raised and educated by their corporations, and are essentially citizens of their corporations. Benito Mussolini said that "Fascism should be called corporatism, since it is the merging of state and corporate powers." So really, the political system of the Caldari state would be closer to Fascism than anything else.

-Minmatar and Gallente society would be more free, perhaps...but there would be zero cooperation with Caldari and Amarr. Gallente is the only democracy in EVE.

There is nothing in game to suggest that you should form an 'international' convention of 'high sec residents'. The four factions are at constant war with each other. There is no trust, no dialogue between the high-sec nations. This is the way that most EVE players like it. Constant conflict.

Take a look at the market place. All of the items there are weapons and/or defensive modules. Everything in EVE revolves around war and combat. The reason miners are able to sell their minerals, manufacturers are able to sell ships and modules, is because ships keep blowing each other up. Remove that element from EVE and the incentive grinds to a halt.

AFIAK, any Amarrian or Caldari citizen that suggests some sort of 'democracy' would be under investigation for being a Gallente collaborator. So really, by suggesting the creation of a 'democratic' society to unite all of high-sec the Caldari state should toss you into low-sec as a subversive element.
Sen Vipiro
#36 - 2012-06-20 09:18:36 UTC
It's over folks he rage quit the project, it lasted only eight days. read his reasons for yourself. Just remember, "it was perfect in every possible way"Roll

http://greedygoblin.blogspot.com/2012/06/you-cant-help-m.html
Ribikoka
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#37 - 2012-06-20 09:36:03 UTC  |  Edited by: Ribikoka
Gevlon Goblin wrote:
You might not satisfied with the attitude of the CSM towards the dwellers of High Security Empire space which was summarized by Alekseyev Karrde: "You have to deal with it... or stay docked... or play another game."

Instead of whining, let me introduce The Voice of highsec!

It is a lobby organization. We have no politicians (CSM candidates), but try to influence all of them by offering them the votes of our members if the politician supports the views of the organization. We do nothing in-game (maybe a Jita-march before the election). Our sole purpose is to influence the CSM election to get a CSM8 that supports our ideas. How will we do it? We'll have a big enough voter-block that is too juicy to be ignored. Highsec hold 80% of the players. We have 80% of the votes. We can own CSM if we start voting instead of crying on the forums to CCP that does nothing until the CSM speaks up. CCP listens to CSM. However most of the CSM members came from nullsec, representing those who gank us. They are ignoring us, but we deserve that as we are ignoring the election.

To make differece, we need votes. If you are supporting the ideas of The voice of highsec, you should join the corp to show it to the CSM. Of course you shouldn't do it on an active char. The corp will do nothing and probably will be wardecced in the second this post goes up. Join only with station trader or manufacturer alts, the ones who barely ever leave stations. Or simply start a new alt on an empty slot and join. If you have multiple accounts, you have multiple votes, so join in multiple instances. Join as soon as you can, as characters must not be on trial accounts or younger than 30 days to vote. Everyone would assume younger pilots to be trial alts created for the purpose of looking bigger. If you make an alt for this purpose now, make it Caldari so I don't have to learn Ethnic Relations 5. Also, spread the word in your real corp and friend list, ask them to join too.

The Voice of Highsec has three program points:
* less griefing
* more highsec/PvE content
* no power item shop
The details will be worked out. You can of course take part of that discussion too, but if you agree with the main points, you shall join! If we just whine, they keep ignoring us. If we present thousands of votes, they will start to care.

See the details on http://greedygoblin.blogspot.com/p/voice-of-highsec.html


The problem is the alliance mandatory vote systems.
Big 0.0 alliances easily can put their m8s to CSM member positions, and the splitted high sec community can't do this. But not much can be done about it.
The 3-3-3 seat postions ( to 0.0,low,high) maybe a better solution for a more balanced representatives, but it is very difficult to achieve against the 0.0 players.
Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#38 - 2012-06-20 10:11:46 UTC
Ribikoka wrote:
Big 0.0 alliances easily can put their m8s to CSM member positions, and the splitted high sec community can't do this. But not much can be done about it.

Not much can be done except stopping being so defeatist and not being so bad at organizing yourselves. You people keep claiming that 75% of all characters live in hisec, it really shouldn't be all that hard to find even just one candidate (which isn't xenuria-level weirdola), and push him forth to "hisec saviour fame".

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

RIP Vile Rat

Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#39 - 2012-06-20 11:32:47 UTC
Ribikoka wrote:
Gevlon Goblin wrote:
You might not satisfied with the attitude of the CSM towards the dwellers of High Security Empire space which was summarized by Alekseyev Karrde: "You have to deal with it... or stay docked... or play another game."

Instead of whining, let me introduce The Voice of highsec!

It is a lobby organization. We have no politicians (CSM candidates), but try to influence all of them by offering them the votes of our members if the politician supports the views of the organization. We do nothing in-game (maybe a Jita-march before the election). Our sole purpose is to influence the CSM election to get a CSM8 that supports our ideas. How will we do it? We'll have a big enough voter-block that is too juicy to be ignored. Highsec hold 80% of the players. We have 80% of the votes. We can own CSM if we start voting instead of crying on the forums to CCP that does nothing until the CSM speaks up. CCP listens to CSM. However most of the CSM members came from nullsec, representing those who gank us. They are ignoring us, but we deserve that as we are ignoring the election.

To make differece, we need votes. If you are supporting the ideas of The voice of highsec, you should join the corp to show it to the CSM. Of course you shouldn't do it on an active char. The corp will do nothing and probably will be wardecced in the second this post goes up. Join only with station trader or manufacturer alts, the ones who barely ever leave stations. Or simply start a new alt on an empty slot and join. If you have multiple accounts, you have multiple votes, so join in multiple instances. Join as soon as you can, as characters must not be on trial accounts or younger than 30 days to vote. Everyone would assume younger pilots to be trial alts created for the purpose of looking bigger. If you make an alt for this purpose now, make it Caldari so I don't have to learn Ethnic Relations 5. Also, spread the word in your real corp and friend list, ask them to join too.

The Voice of Highsec has three program points:
* less griefing
* more highsec/PvE content
* no power item shop
The details will be worked out. You can of course take part of that discussion too, but if you agree with the main points, you shall join! If we just whine, they keep ignoring us. If we present thousands of votes, they will start to care.

See the details on http://greedygoblin.blogspot.com/p/voice-of-highsec.html


The problem is the alliance mandatory vote systems.
Big 0.0 alliances easily can put their m8s to CSM member positions, and the splitted high sec community can't do this. But not much can be done about it.
The 3-3-3 seat postions ( to 0.0,low,high) maybe a better solution for a more balanced representatives, but it is very difficult to achieve against the 0.0 players.


Literally the only advantages that the 0.0 have in the CSM is that they're organised and motivated.

Complaining that organised, motivated campaigns have an electoral advantage is like complaining that people who can run fast have an advantage in footraces.

Get organised, get motivated. As it is, "hisec" got 2, arguably 3 CSM candidates this year. And, as has been repeated ad infinitum et ad nauseam, all the CSM have extensive hi-sec experience.

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

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016

Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#40 - 2012-06-20 11:38:36 UTC
Lady Katherine Devonshire wrote:
While I agree that most of these, ahem "demands" are pretty silly, I also agree that there really is no voice for hisec players. I remember the last CSM election and not seeing any candidate who wasn't ultimately just a lobbyist for one nullsec alliance or another.



Which nullsec alliance was Issler Dainze mouthpiecing for?

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

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016