Jita Park Speakers Corner

Good answer I think. I like the possibility catalyzing/promoting player corps formation. This could also play well into ideas that were floated in the past such as player run customs enforcement etc.**

Now, how would you sell this to CCP as worth time ans resources, both of which are finite within CCP.


**Just randomly brainstorming here:

I for one would love to see a mechanic to scan down contraband in other players ships to confiscate the materials and fine them. They can submit to the fine and loose their contraband (boosters etc?) or try and fight the PC "internet space po-po" thus opening some sort of limited engagement window. Sort of a FW type thing but cops and robbers, or perhaps more appropriately Space ship Narcs and spaceship Dope Dealers.

Well done. Arguments that address ACR (Acquisition/Conversion/Retention) are always going to have a leg up, and if you can craft a proposal that addresses all three, you increase your odds. You've already made the conversion argument, and making an Acquisition argument might be a little tough (it's not really a headline expansion feature), but can you adjust/expand your proposal to hook into Retention?

Saying something idiotic over and over again doesn't make it true or any less idiotic.

Seriously, where do you people come up with this stuff and do you really believe it? If it's because someone said it in a blog I have a bridge for sale or maybe a Titan or two that you may be interested in.

So, let's get a pledge from Trebor in this thread that if he gets on the CSM again, he will not advocate to restrict non-consenual PvP in high sec any more than it already is. We both know Trebor isn't the candidate to make that pledge. Why do we know this? Because his platform has strong implications against non-consensual PvP, which he has all but admitted, and denying it now is just making him look uncommitted to his ideas.

Friggz,

To me, what you just described represents a wild card candidate. You really don't know what you're voting for if a candidate were to say, "heh, we'll see what I think on a given day." Perhaps you have good reason for putting this much faith in Trebors judgement and wisdom. I on the other hand would like to see candidates who have enough exposure to the topic at hand, and have acquired information to take a reasonably concrete stand before being elected.

If you follow American politics at all, Herman Cain, the Republican hopeful for President, would answer every question with "When I am President, I'll consult with people who are around and come up with the best decision." Of course, that is a total non-answer, as no one knows what that implies.

The funny thing is, Trebor has taken a side, but doesn't want to wander too far from the fence on his chosen side.

On some issues, especially broader, philosophical issues, you should expect more consistency. It's not like Trebor is being asked to pick his favorite ship. And also, we can assume Trebor already has most of the information to make a decision one way or the other. The "we'll see how it goes" approach is more suited to issues with relatively little information available/presented.

If you personally know Trebor, as I'm sure you do, you could be far more inclined to vote for Trebor to make whatever decisions he deems right. I certainly have many friends I could vouch for. For the rest of us, we have to vote for the platform he presents.

I'll concede that reasonable people can disagree on how much ideological commitment is desirable in a candidate.

It sounds like we can respectfully agree to disagree on this.

It is true I know Trebor personally, but I know a lot of people personally. I don't believe they'd all make good CSM Delegates. No one is twisting my arm to force me to support Trebor, I'm choosing to do that because I honestly believe he'd make the CSM better.



I just want to preface this by saying I don't speak for Trebor. This is just how I see things based on reading and listening to his interviews and posts.

This is a misconception that has repeatedly been thrown around, so I don't blame Tcar for being a bit sick of it right now. The truth is Trebor asked CCP to look into if fixing war-decs is worth what it would cost in terms of resources, and if those resources could be better spent elsewhere.

He was playing devil's advocate. By challenging those who want to keep non-consensual war-decs to give him reasons why, it forces them to not only refine their arguments but to think about why we need them. Therefore any proposed changes to war-decs are only going to be better as a result of being asked those tough questions.

For example, if the answer is "To deny the enemy the ability to operate in certain areas of space." then going forward you remember that any proposed change to the system you want to make must meet that goal. It's a way to filter out the expectations and get down to the nitty gritty of what you really want something to do and why.

I've never heard Trebor mention CCP's revenue as an end goal for any proposal. He has mentioned considering the allocation of resources, but that's just being realistic. CCP does not have unlimited resources so time spent fixing one thing is time not spent fixing another.

I don't think it's unreasonable to ask "Where exactly in the hierarchy of things CCP needs to do does fixing War-decs fall?" 0.0 is so broken we have the most powerful alliances in EvE having to organize war games in order to create their own rules and mechanics to play because the ones in the game are so bad. I think you can make a reasonable argument fixing null is more important than fixing war-decs.

The truth, much like EvE itself, is complicated. If you want to take a very extreme view of what he said I suppose you could see it the way you do, but most of us don't feel that's an accurate way of looking at things. Unfortunately, the truth of the situation is complex and takes me several paragraphs to explain, where-as "Trebor wants to kill High-sec Pvp!" is short and concise, regardless of not being true. Unfortunately lies repeated tend to be accepted as truth, and this is why it tends to come up so much, regardless of there not being much truth behind it.

I can certainly see your point of view, though. We all want to do what we can to make EvE a better place, but I honestly think that even if you disagree completely with Trebor even suggesting removal of high-sec wardecs, you still want Trebor on your ballot. He will continue to make the entire CSM better, and that's really more important than one opinion on one issue.

Maybe he is claiming that the December CSM minutes is actually a communist plot to discredit Trebor? Or martians maybe?

Wrong. According to my wife, I'm a Subway Big Philly Cheesesteak... unfortunately, I can't claim to be a foot-long.

I don't think the man can better describe his platform or sum up what he has for the last three years in one pithy cogent sentence.

If you want honesty, reason, and the the ability to question "facts" as they stand and reassess ones ideas then put Trebor on your ballot this spring. If you don't value these qualities in a CSM member, go ahead and vote for who ever trolls the loudest on EVE-O forums. I am sure they will be just as effective as Trebor has in the last three years in advancing the game we love.