These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

EVE General Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Don't be an apathetic highsec moron!

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Akatenshi Xi
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#61 - 2012-02-04 20:47:02 UTC
Confirming the OP' hood is not scary. It is indeed a cry for help because he is in fact a moron wanting some attention, such as his original post.

Release the trolls...
Ai Shun
#62 - 2012-02-04 20:49:12 UTC
The Apostle wrote:
What YOU call YOUR PLACE is totally your call and I do NOT seek to change that much about the CSM selection process except to make it about THE PERSON IN THE PLACE - not THE PERSON WHEREVER.


What does CONCORD security status have to do with players and the CSM?

Let's be honest.

Security Status defines the speed of CONCORD response to aggression. It does not define how safe you are. You may be safter in 0.0 than in some areas of 0.9.

The activities in-game, such as mining, hauling, industrial production, scouting, combat fleets, planetary interaction and so forth are spread across all of New Eden.

The CSM selection process should focus on game areas; not on how fast CONCORD will respond.
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#63 - 2012-02-04 20:53:19 UTC
Ai Shun wrote:

The CSM selection process should focus on game areas; not on how fast CONCORD will respond.


I argue that it should focus on whatever metric the voters chose, as represented by their votes.

If you want to be a HS Candidate, RUN AS ONE

If you want to be a Mining Candidate, RUN AS ONE

If you want to be a.....

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon
The Apostle
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#64 - 2012-02-04 20:56:39 UTC
Ai Shun wrote:
The Apostle wrote:
What YOU call YOUR PLACE is totally your call and I do NOT seek to change that much about the CSM selection process except to make it about THE PERSON IN THE PLACE - not THE PERSON WHEREVER.


What does CONCORD security status have to do with players and the CSM?

Let's be honest.

Security Status defines the speed of CONCORD response to aggression. It does not define how safe you are. You may be safter in 0.0 than in some areas of 0.9.

The activities in-game, such as mining, hauling, industrial production, scouting, combat fleets, planetary interaction and so forth are spread across all of New Eden.

The CSM selection process should focus on game areas; not on how fast CONCORD will respond.

Oh get a grip - of the 7 seats proposed (not my preferred numbers) - only 2 have Concord. If we had my preferred seats it would be 2 out of 9.

But what of it, last I heard, Concord wasn't intending to field a candidate and they weren't going to vote either.

Nullsec democracy is an oxymoron. Bloc voting for alliance candidates is Democracy for Morons 101. Let them perish in their self-interest.

Bring back Eve. OUR Eve.
Ai Shun
#65 - 2012-02-04 21:03:27 UTC
RubyPorto wrote:
I argue that it should focus on whatever metric the voters chose, as represented by their votes.


That sounds better; thanks Ruby.

The Apostle wrote:
Oh get a grip - of the 7 seats proposed (not my preferred numbers) - only 2 have Concord. If we had my preferred seats it would be 2 out of 9.

But what of it, last I heard, Concord wasn't intending to field a candidate and they weren't going to vote either.


What of it? You are the one trying to mandate voting along CONCORD response times Lol I think that is foolish. As Ruby suggested above - better have candidates stand and be voted in for what they want.
The Apostle
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#66 - 2012-02-04 21:07:30 UTC
Ai Shun wrote:

...You are the one trying to mandate voting along CONCORD response times...

I see what you did there.

Nullsec democracy is an oxymoron. Bloc voting for alliance candidates is Democracy for Morons 101. Let them perish in their self-interest.

Bring back Eve. OUR Eve.
CATPAIN KIRK
State War Academy
Caldari State
#67 - 2012-02-04 21:10:06 UTC
Heh - it's the sily austrian agian!
Ai Shun
#68 - 2012-02-04 21:16:24 UTC
The Apostle wrote:
Ai Shun wrote:

...You are the one trying to mandate voting along CONCORD response times...

I see what you did there.


Well, you want a set of High-Security candidates, a set of Low-Security candidates and a set of Null-Security candidates. What is that other than mandating voting along CONCORD response times?

You do realise people mine in high-sec, low-sec and null-sec? And that a candidate running for, for example, mining improvements will be able to impact on all of them? The same with Incursions, Production, well ... just about all aspects of EVE. Very few activities in EVE are restricted to a single security status.

So what would a "high-sec" candidate DO? Work on faster CONCORD response times? Lol
The Apostle
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#69 - 2012-02-04 21:49:31 UTC
Ai Shun wrote:
The Apostle wrote:
Ai Shun wrote:

...You are the one trying to mandate voting along CONCORD response times...

I see what you did there.


Well, you want a set of High-Security candidates, a set of Low-Security candidates and a set of Null-Security candidates. What is that other than mandating voting along CONCORD response times?

You do realise people mine in high-sec, low-sec and null-sec? And that a candidate running for, for example, mining improvements will be able to impact on all of them? The same with Incursions, Production, well ... just about all aspects of EVE. Very few activities in EVE are restricted to a single security status.

So what would a "high-sec" candidate DO? Work on faster CONCORD response times? Lol


One of my KEY points on this idea emphasised where multiple sectors have the SAME issue then CCP need to take it as a given. So mining, using your example, with it's inherent faults WOULD be represented properly across all sectors.

But you want HS examples. How about L4 missions. Many are just plain tedious, there have been no new ones added since I can't remember and it is NOT a nullsec/lowsec issue. So a highsec candidate can push for that to get changed/modified. If BOTH highsec candidates agree then it's clearly an issue and must be dicussed by the CSM.

If nullsec/lowsec candidates disagree with making any changes, which they might, and they can, they'd still need to show at least a modicum of reasoning behind any veto.

You see, this guarantees that topics will be at least HEARD from the perspective of the sector and debated AS A WHOLE. Even if the CSM has a weak moment and concedes to a change that is bad for the game then CCP will roflstomp it.

All this BS about democracy/vote diffusion etc. is just blowing smoke. The CSM is nothing more than a committee to represent the views of ALL players and my idea is a way to guarantee that ALL sectors are heard and "alliance politics" and "us and them" - is actually taken out of the equation...

Nullsec democracy is an oxymoron. Bloc voting for alliance candidates is Democracy for Morons 101. Let them perish in their self-interest.

Bring back Eve. OUR Eve.
Corina Jarr
en Welle Shipping Inc.
#70 - 2012-02-05 01:20:47 UTC
Wow, just spent the whole thread liking every post by the Apostle... without bothering to read them.Lol
The Apostle
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#71 - 2012-02-05 01:24:15 UTC
Corina Jarr wrote:
Wow, just spent the whole thread liking every post by the Apostle... without bothering to read them.Lol

Wow. I've now got forum cred without doing anything?

I love the way this "like" business works. Such truism, such reality.....

Nullsec democracy is an oxymoron. Bloc voting for alliance candidates is Democracy for Morons 101. Let them perish in their self-interest.

Bring back Eve. OUR Eve.
Honnete Du Decimer
#72 - 2012-02-05 01:33:27 UTC
Ai Shun wrote:
The Apostle wrote:
4) CCP does listen to money. 67.6% of players are in highsec. Less than 5% are Goons.


Completely wrong, unfortunately.

The official CCP numbers says that 66% of CHARACTERS are in high-sec. You know as well as I do that people plant trade alts in the market hubs; there are high-sec mining alts for low / null sec players as with high-sec hauler alts, trade alts, etc. Which means you cannot directly skew and say PLAYERS.

So no, not 67% of PLAYERS. It is a meaningless number and trying to quote it as players is about as stupid as suggesting we need to separate the game into groups for CONCORD security status.


Alt swing both way. Null spy, null LP farm alt, low sec gank alt and so on.

PMS [:p]
Destru Kaneda
Arzad Police Department
#73 - 2012-02-05 01:41:05 UTC
Brisco County
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#74 - 2012-02-05 05:42:35 UTC
Since so many high-sec folks have multiple accounts, I believe it is only fair that their votes only count as 3/5 of a person.
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#75 - 2012-02-05 05:57:04 UTC
Brisco County wrote:
Since so many high-sec folks have multiple accounts, I believe it is only fair that their votes only count as 3/5 of a person.


TOBY
Mr. Willis teaches 8th grade social studies, and Mr. Willis knows very well what the article says. It says which shall be determined by adding the whole number of free persons. And three fifths of all other persons. Three fifths of all other persons. They meant you Mr. Willis. Didn't they?

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon
Ai Shun
#76 - 2012-02-05 07:27:41 UTC
The Apostle wrote:
One of my KEY points on this idea emphasised where multiple sectors have the SAME issue then CCP need to take it as a given. So mining, using your example, with it's inherent faults WOULD be represented properly across all sectors.

But you want HS examples. How about L4 missions. Many are just plain tedious, there have been no new ones added since I can't remember and it is NOT a nullsec/lowsec issue. So a highsec candidate can push for that to get changed/modified. If BOTH highsec candidates agree then it's clearly an issue and must be dicussed by the CSM.

If nullsec/lowsec candidates disagree with making any changes, which they might, and they can, they'd still need to show at least a modicum of reasoning behind any veto.

You see, this guarantees that topics will be at least HEARD from the perspective of the sector and debated AS A WHOLE. Even if the CSM has a weak moment and concedes to a change that is bad for the game then CCP will roflstomp it.

All this BS about democracy/vote diffusion etc. is just blowing smoke. The CSM is nothing more than a committee to represent the views of ALL players and my idea is a way to guarantee that ALL sectors are heard and "alliance politics" and "us and them" - is actually taken out of the equation...


A few thoughts.

1. Level 4 missions are not a HS issue. They are a Mission Runner issue and probably focused on the type of mission (Courier, Security, etc.) They are spread across 0.1 and 1.0 in terms of security status with the better rewards towards the lower security status systems. So, try again on that count, please.

2. If you have a proposal for Missions, why have you not created a thread in the Assembly Hall, promoted it in GD and seen if you can get sufficient support for it so the CSM is forced to discuss it?

Sorry, but your whole idea is still pretty much bullshit.
Poetic Stanziel
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#77 - 2012-02-05 07:31:32 UTC
The Apostle wrote:

.
.
.
.
Now if only we knew who they were.........
.
.
.
.
Why do you misuse dots?
Dowla Daupor
Deltole Deltole Deltole
#78 - 2012-02-05 07:35:10 UTC
We should elect The Apostle to grief CCP and the other CSMs