Jita Park Speakers Corner

if you mean promote motivations, then there sheer fact of having people in 0.0 actually out in space doing day to day stuff seems like the biggest small gang buff I can imagine.

If we make it so that alliances rely on "trickle up" income, rather than tapping moongoo, then they'll have a much greater incentive to defend the activities of the member base. If they don't defend their miners, ratters, shipbuilders, etc etc, then they don't have any ISK I want to get away from the paradigm where the strength of an alliance relies on lifeless POS, rather than it's members.

the only damage the bad guys could cause in this case is the damage they deal to those who don't pay attention and to those who "can not" create an income because there is someone in system or very close

i would much rather see reasons for those hiding under the pos shield or in station to leave their safe haven because something really bad happens (can happen) if they don't. like loosing stuff from a running reaction, a BPC from a lab, minerals from a refinery (they should not be instant), ...

this should not be limited to moon harvesting, but to all kinds of industrial activity

This is a cheeky one, because the the effects from the input that CSM x has are usually seen during the term of CMS x+1. So if I say I want pink huntlegruffs to be available as LP store reward pets, they're not likely to actually be introduced until after my term is over. When pink huntlegruffs do get introduced, everyone points at me and asks why, if I'm such a huntlegruff lover, didn't I get them introduced in my CSM term?

That said, I'm more interested in results than credit, or even re-election. So I'll nail my theses to the door.

In descending order:

-The long awaited, desperately needed rework of sov 0.0. Sov 0.0 has seen no improvement since Revelations 1 (Dominion made things worse). The result is now seen: most of 0.0 is a sterile wasteland, because any activity other than mining moons and building supercaps, and producing ratting ammo and cap boosters is uneconomic to pursue there for anything except RP reasons.

The most pressing issue as far as I'm concerned is to bring the boys back home. Make it worthwhile for 0.0 players to repatriate their hi-sec alts. It's literally an insult that even after an alliance has claimed space, secured it from hostiles, installed stations, paid the swingeing sov bills and put in such infrastructure like jump bridges as is available, that it's still far more effective to do their production in hi-sec and JF it up. In fact it's not even possible to produce enough to support themselves.

-Per my hi-sec manifesto: a fresh look at what hi-sec is supposed to be for.

-To raise the profile and perceived value of the CSM amongst the playerbase as a whole. I'm under no illusions that this is any easy task, but I think it's vital to start now. I know for a fact that CSM 7 have worked hard and produced good results for us, but to far too great an extent, they've done it behind closed doors. Anyone who's had a job knows that it's what your manager sees you doing that counts when it comes to pay rise time. I want to make sure that the CSM gets the credit for the work it does (and ofc mistakes it makes), and I want to make sure that every potential voter is aware the CSM exists next term. I'm not shooting for 100% participation; as long as there's a statistically significant increase, I'll consider my efforts well rewarded.

Ultimately, the CSM derives its legitimacy from the support of the players. The importance to the players of engaging with the CSM process is now greater than ever, because the CSM has greater access, greater influence and greater importance in the development process than ever before. CSM 5 & 6 walked through fire to get this for us. CSM 7 used it get results for us. CSM 8 needs to make sure that everyone knows the value of the pot we're playing for.

I'm not saying that these 3 are the only areas which could stand to see sme work, but they're my big issues.

Also: dat typo "CMS"

I have always followed your conversations, your posts and replies. I cannot recall where you have being insulting or otherwise unresponsive. I asked you last year if you would be running as my choice was you or Hans. You had stated at the time that you would not be running for CSM7, so I voted for Hans (Good job, Hans!)

Malcanis, you Sir, have my vote for CSM8.

Considering that I am a member of an Alliance who in turn is a member of a collection of NRDS Alliances, would you consider requesting CCP increase the number of Standings slots, especially at Alliance level ? I find it very limited in it's current capacity. Yes I know, why so many 'REDS' ? NRDS is probably one of the most difficult RoE's to maintain, hundreds of Standings slots are required to maintain proper standings.

I know NBSI is a lot easier, but that is not the only RoE in this game.

Just a thought, a request.

Good luck on the upcoming CSM election o7

(if you were for any reason to stand-down, I would re-vote Hans if he runs again).

I think this is generally true and I've read many of your posts on Kugu. However it's not true of the original post here.

You start reasonably enough establishing your credentials and The Initiative is a solid alliance. But when you come on to talk about your manifesto your post falls apart.

A good manifesto would be concise clear and preferably bullet pointed. Eg 1) Ponies in low sec plexes 2) bigger roids in high sec etc etc. So we can see what you stand for.

Instead you do some very lazy linkage. Your link to your high sec policies for instance goes to a 2 year old post where what you want urgently is for different high sec security statuses to matter (done - by Miniluv); reform of the bounty hunter system (done - by CCP) and high risk high reward high sec gameplay (done - by Incursions). Rolling out this antique is simply insulting.


I didn't even bother checking the Mittani links. If you can't be bothered to give us a clear picture of what you stand for that is relevant to 2013 I'm sure there will be plenty of other candidates who will.

Definitely supporting. In the last few years of reading these forums, whenever Malcanis posts I can be assured of a well reasoned thought out post with logical and sound conclusions. A quality that is sadly missing in a lot of peoples brains.


+1 Vote to you good sir!

Rich vs poor.

As per the article I wrote on the subject, which perhaps you might like to familiarise yourself with after all, there's no reasonable way to adjust the balance between "rich" and "poor" that can't be joyously exploited by the rich, short of CCP confiscating everyone's stuff and evenly redistributing it. And even if they did that, I'd be prepared to bet you my share of the take that within a month, we'd have players with at least 3 orders of magnitude of net worth than others.

We just need to accept that just as some are better at combat PvP, others are better at market PvP. I'm not even sure why this is a problem. 10 poor guys can easily take on 1 rich guy with 10x their combined NAV in any enterprise except getting richer, and if they cared about being rich, they wouldn't be poor (EVE is an Objectivist dream in many ways).

As for old players vs new players, which is an entirely seperate question... I'll deal with that tomorrow when I'm less tired. It's a large, complex and touchy subject. The tl;dr of my thoughts is that the framing is fallacious: it doesn't need to be "old vs new"; we need to look at it from the perspective of "this group of old, new and intermediate players vs that group of old, new and intermediate players" and to make sure that new (sub-90 day) players have viable roles in those groups across a wide range of activities.

T2 vs tiercided T1.

There definitely needs to be a reason to fly a T2 ship; they're 20x the price and they take a lot more skills. Although cost alone isn't balance, it's a factor in balancing.

Any T2 ship should be able to do at least one role (and a proper role that's actually any use, not bullshit like the Eagle's "scratch your name in their paintwork at 200km" role) much better than the T1 equivalent. The balancing team's job is to identify those roles in the combat metagame, assign them to T2 ships, and then balance them to fill those roles superlatively - and with specific respect to HACs I don't envy them the job! All I can say is I suspect that we're going to see some T2 ships looking very different to what we've come to expect, and that's for the good: ships doing new and unexpected things is what keeps EVE fresh.

This is a good example of an unspoken assumption being articulated. Thanks Mynnna.

You are running, right?