Jita Park Speakers Corner

They are there to give input about how the game is to be developed. They are there to talk with the developers. They are not there to talk with HR about the ccp employee handbook. They are not there to talk to the CEO about whether ccp should relocate to Atlanta. They are there to discuss how the game should be developed.

So yes their entire purpose is pretty much to give input about the development of the game. That is why it is silly when people run and say vote for me because I am your alliance leader and don't say what they actually want to see happen with the game. But that is how it is done.

Actually what was funny is if you read what mittani wrote you would think the csm was some sort of managment position. He was saying how he was going to reorganize ccp and what not. No one cares about csms managment ideas. They are elected because they play a computer game and ccp wants input on how the game should be developed. They don't care if someone on csm likes their team based management system.

Of course people like mittani and other alliance leaders often do not have very good ideas on how eve should be developed but they still like the spotlight and trip to iceland - so they tell people like you they are not going to tell you anything about their ideas for the game because they are not devs. People in big alliances vote for them anyway because they are used to doing what they are told.

Like I said the only one I saw who really ran on a campaign where he actually said what he wanted ccp to do with this game was Hans.

1) No backpedalling to stop. I have always taken the position that csm should explain what changes they want in the game.

2) The evidence is there you may want to read mittanis original post when he ran for csm 6. What you are reading is the csm 7 post where he trys to take credit for ccp returning to spaceships with crucible. It was laughable for anyone who followed what was happening back then.

3) I read it. You should too. Like I said look at his post for csm 6.

4) You are linking were everyone on csm is trying to take credit for the crucible changes despite the fact that csm 6 did not push for spaceship changes until it was overwhelmingly clear that ccp was going to have to return to it. By the time csm 6 finally started talking about in space ccp likely already had plans to cut 20% of their staff and start working on the core of the game. CSM6 just jumped in late to take credit.

Alphea
That is what a campaign should do. That campaign gives several specifics and general ideas of where he wants the game to go. When you look at several other campaign threads that say they want "more content" or "improve null sec" you should be able to see that they are so vague as to be meaningless.

I would also point out that after a csm candidate puts out a solid platform, like Hans did, the csm member should not be judged based on whether ccp actually does what they ask. (thats not in their control) They should only be judged based on how hard they pushed for what they put forward in the campaign.

Obviously all candidates should be very clear whether they belong to the horde of evil and corrupt nullsec zealots who want to destroy all of hisec or if they are a brave hero who will champion the rights of all hisec players to shoot red crosses and grind spacerocks unmolested by psychopaths.

Anyone who doesn't announce their position in this fundamental dichotomy should be assumed to be a shadow member of the former group.

Or perhaps candidates should just tell people what they want to happen to the game, and then let people vote for them, or not, based on that. That would be better than just voting how their alliance leader tells them. But for many null sec sheep that is too much to ask.

The same is said for most of HS, then, only they have no lion to follow ...
No, the problem isn't "null sec sheep", although they may exist, but your pre-determined perception.

Now, please show ANY SHRED OF EVIDENCE for your claims.
This far, they're pretty easy to dismiss.

"You're talking out of your buttom."
There, that's a rebuttal of your argument.

Lol well go ahead and vote for someone who wants to turn the game into something you don't want to play then. I don't care.

No, I didn't, both because I can't care enough to support your argument to find it, and because if your best example is The Mittanis candidacy back in 2011 then I really can't see how it supports your drivel.


I did, back during the election, and I voted for him for a reason.
It is not the only one that contains anything close to a concrete vision for the game.

Now will you at some point engage in an actual attempt to get to "the truth", or will you continue to stand in the corner and shout silly names at us, and then claim we're sheep because we don't allow you to play along?

I tell you that null sec sheep will vote for whoever they are told even if that person doesn't tell them what they want to happen with the game. I say mittani did this as a case in point.

You say I have no proof.

I say read what he wrote when he ran for the evidence.

You refuse and just say my claim is drivel. I can't force you to read the evidence if you are intent on being a drooling zombie supporing your brave leader, but that doesn't mean there is no evidence.





Why should I attempt to get to the truth with someone who refuses to look at evidence?

I'd throw support to a candidate that adds this to their platform.

Issler