Jita Park Speakers Corner

Um, what? UI, tediousness, what are you talking about? Whoever wrote that Urban Dictionary definition probably never played UO (go figure) as is clear from the thumbs up:down ratio on that entry.

Vaju is clearly talking about the introduction of the second world, Trammel, in Ultima Online: Renaissance that removed non-consensual PvP from the ruleset.



In some secret channel for Dirt Nap Squad members, perhaps Trebor has assured you that he is pro-non-consensual PvP. In public he has at times

1. Refused to take a position ("I will make whatever decision the evidence supports at the time")
2. Decided "mutual" aka consensual PvP should be accomodated for CCPs bottom line.

Of course those positions are contradictory. He claims to not take sides while taking sides. not to mention, taking the wrong side. He has clearly taken a position and refuses to admit that his position is not favorable towards non-consensual PvP.

To actually attempt to "debunk" this "propaganda", I have asked in this thread for Trebor to pledge he won't advocate for more Trammelization. And surprise surprise, he refuses to make that pledge. The player base he wishes to advocate for deserve no assurances that Trebor will not Trammelize their cold harsh sandbox, or so Trebor believes.

Ultimately. I think Trebor is running on a "trust me, I'll do the right thing" pitch as opposed "I will advocate X, Y and Z." For this kind of candidate, it's no surprise his friends from Dirt Nap Squad and his colleagues from CSM7 find it easy to recommend him, they know him on a personal level, "they trust him to do the right thing." The rest of us don't, and the lack of a clear, honest platform is not helping.



Actually, no. He simply states the assertions of others about him are false. It's as if James 315 had said he didn't want to nerf high sec or if Mynnna said he isn't the goonswarm candidate; demonstrably false and contradictory statements in a hopeless attempt to save face.

Is that why you Blops gank? So players don't see the whole 4 inches coming to kill them, and instead die laughing before the gank?

As well as the whole get rid of frustrations through ganking, this game is trying to keep in cement.

Yea I was actually writing up a response when I notice Tcar posted and he's said pretty much everything I would have only better.

Especially the bit about False Dilemma since it's perfect for the situation. You are asking Trebor to pick between two extreme positions and pretending no middle ground can or ever will exist. He must either swear never to support nerfing high-sec pvp or he wants to destroy High-sec pvp. No middle ground. Well, that's not how reality works.

Also, when I do get my invite to the secret DNS Channels?

I don't think anyone is claiming Trebor wants to "nerf PvP." That's too extreme even for him. The understood implication of Trebors statement is that he will probably advocate for nerfing non-consensual PvP in high sec. Trebor has the option to dispel any such misrepresentations by coming out and saying he will not advocate for such a platform. Instead, he attempts to insinuate he doesn't have a platform. That's neither trolling nor a misrepresentation.



The various troubling statements by Trebor can be found in the CSM Minutes from the Winter Summit. I'll spare you quote-dropping, as it's been done before, but the summary of Trebors statements there are as such:

1. Mutual (read: consensual) PvP should be promoted.
2. The current system (read: non-consensual war-decs) are a "cursed system."
3. War-decs against weaker corps (read: non-consesual PvP) are for mostly for griefing (read: not allowed by EULA).

Any of those statements would be fine for devils advocacy, but in his interview with Xander, he started presenting further justifications for nerfs to non-consensual PvP, framed in terms of CCPs revenue and resources.

You really have to wonder when if ever Trebor takes off his devils advocate cap and argues his actual opinion, or can we expect him to devils advocate through the entirety of CSM8 and claim that's not his real opinion.



Yes, I do support James 315 candidacy, as you support Trebor. Between you and me, though it's clear which one engages more candidates on Jita Park.

A pledge would certainly hold Trebor accountable to his word, and I have no reason to assume he is a dishonest man.




Hm, there's no reason to defend Trebors integrity, no one has any reason to question it. This is simply about his advocacy for terrible game ideas, which does not represent the EVE player bases wishes well.

For all those who don't wine and dine with Trebor, or have family picnics together or whatever, we have to vote solely based on his ideas about the game. He's not cutting it there.



WIth STV, there is no reason I couldn't support both Trebor and any other candidate. Your logic here seems a little off if you think any candidate I support is vying for the same vote Trebor is, in fact it should be obvious that they are fighting for votes from polar opposite parts of the electorate.

I oppose Trebor because I don't like his ideas for the game. If you think that makes it "agitprop" then so be it.

This is fine, and playing devil's advocate has value. However, if Hilmar can come out and pledge that CCP will not introduce "gold ammo", then Trebor can come out and pledge that he will not advocate for the nerfing or removal of non-consensual PvP during his term on the CSM.

If he's not willing to do that, that's fine too - there are many multiboxing bot-aspirants who will vote for such a candidate with each of their accounts.

This is fine. We're not asking Trebor to commit to CCP not nerfing non-consensual PvP. We're asking him to commit to him personally not supporting such a move. We're asking for a definite commitment on his personal position, not on how CCP will act.



This is like a presidential candidate saying "I cannot confirm or deny whether I will take measures to fix national infrastructure". It doesn't mean he won't, but it doesn't reflect well on the candidate, especially when it's a touchy subject like highsec.



We aren't asking for a pledge on CCP's actions, and the side effects of them. We are asking Trebor to say, once and for all, whether he does or does not support the Trammelisation of highsec.



We're asking to see if we can agree with Trebor on an issue which is pretty central to our votes. If he is unwilling to show that he agrees with us, then that's fine - as I said, there are plenty of bot-aspirants with hundreds of votes to give, he does not need ours.

Pledges are necessarily narrow and strict. What would the opposite be, a broad and lenient pledge? That just seems like a vague mission statement of sorts.

It really shouldn't be so hard for Trebor. If he is claiming that his positions are being misrepresented, and that he does not want to nerf non-consensual PvP (which is what he'd be pledging to), why not take the pledge? He has clearly weighed in on the issues, it's a little too late to say he has no opinion one way or the other. The CSMs primary job is player advocacy, not devils advocacy. Playing devils advocate when your primary role is to be a genuine advocate is risky business, you best be able to keep your angels and devils apart. A pledge in that regard would be one tool to help Trebor establish his genuine opinions as separate from his "pretend" opinions when he is advocating for people he doesn't necessarily agree with.

Consider the following exchange.

Candidate: (devils advocating)
Hey what if we did X?

Player: (mistaking devils advocacy for genuine advocacy)
Wait what? You support X?

Candidate: (clarifying)
You are mistaken, that was me merely arguing the opposite viewpoint.

Player : (asking for assurance)
Ok, so you don't support X? Because it sounded like you did...

From here we branch into two of the many possible continuations, Candidate A, what you would expect from the previous conversation, and Candidate B, what Trebor has delivered.

Candidate A: (confirming)
I do not support X.

Player: (appreciating)
Thank you.

or

Candidate B: (being uncommitted)
Well, now I never said that, either.

Player: (pressing on the issue)
Do you or do you not support X? Can you say explicitly that you do not support X?

Candidate B: (digging a hole)
I will not make any pledges. Trust me to "use my best judgment, explain my reasoning, and change my mind" if necessary. (Actual Trebor quote)

To paraphrase Robertson and Robertson – what is right, what is wrong and what could be done differently. You cannot have a solution before you understand a problem.

Candidate A is clearly sitting pretty inside a house of cards, he is beyond the point of being able to react, completely backed into a corner.

Candidate B is not, he is rubbing shoulders with the cornerstones of knowledge and wisdom.
Trebor takes an approach championed by all of academia; any educated person will recognise it and know why it is so effective.

Your advocacy is for the dark ages, a long period of time where not a lot happened.

Your point being?

This is Eve where the motto is HTFU

I was part of a small alliance in null and to be brutally honest we had no right being there, we were completely dependant on other people if our space was ever attacked.

Also it depends on what you class as a small alliance.

We have seen in the last 6 month a number of alliances that people might describe as large alliance completely failscade and it was largely part in due to them being completely terrible and only existing because their overlord was protecting them, not because they have worked hard and deserved to be there.

I completely expect that the likes the Goons, TEST, Solar and all the other large alliances that control vasts amounts of space but most of it unused and empty to hate this idea.

With no timers it would mean that any alliance would only control that it can defend, which in turns means more room for other alliances.

It would also lead to a hell of a lot more conflict as you are much more susceptible to multiple attacks. It also mean that if another null sec entity is attacking your space, then they are leaving themselves more open to attack.

I would much prefer to see an Eve where you have a multitude of smaller alliances fighting and competing over space then the Eve we have now.

If you are unable to defend your space then tough.. I call it survival of the fittest.