These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Jita Park Speakers Corner

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Kelduum Revaan - Running for CSM7

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Lyris Nairn
Perkone
Caldari State
#81 - 2012-02-10 18:36:48 UTC
Kelduum Revaan wrote:
Lyris Nairn wrote:
Kelduum Revaan,

I would like to direct your attention to this thread, where I invite you to engage me in debate.
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=67950&find=unread
Thank you in advance!


Challenge accepted!


On the subject of potential moderation, there's a possibility that some questions may have been 'mislaid' in the cleanups, so I'll check eve-search for them and address them later today, but keeping discussions on topic may be a good idea.

Also, I was starting to think that Poetic here had been banned from the forums for a while as the thread went a few hours without a post from him...

See you on the battlefield! o7 meight

Sky Captain of Your Heart

Reddit: lyris_nairn Skype: lyris.nairn Twitter: @lyris_nairn
Vordel
Perkone
Caldari State
#82 - 2012-02-10 20:03:38 UTC
Poetic Stanziel wrote:
Stay on topic

In his own campaign thread, Kelduum no longer responds. He's given that task to the University heirarchy.

What a candidate!

[b]Kreul Intentions



A good leader knows how to delegate responsibilities.
Kelduum Revaan
The Ebon Hawk
#83 - 2012-02-11 02:26:31 UTC
Here's a big collection of answers to questions previously asked. If I missed any, then please post them again or use the formspring account on the first post.

What's your position on NPC corp posting on EVE-O and CSM Forums?
I'm not massively keen as it tends to get abused by a few, however banning then would just mean forum alts in hundreds of random corps.

What changes would you propose for NPC corps if any?
This all depends just how much CCP want people to work together, but I see them as a necessary evil really. There isn't really a way to remove them, as you can't force people into a corp together, only provide them incentives to do so, such as lower tax, more fleet content and co-operative content.

What is your position on a 'dislike' button, so terrible gimmick posters may be negrepped into oblivion?
Nice idea, but it would be abused horribly. Possibly something like the Karma system that Slashdot uses, but again that would still be open to some level of abuse, and require a horrible amount of work by the web-dev team who have better things to do.

Do you want to see more development time for WiS or is CCP right to abandon it?
Whether people like it or not, its here now, and will end up getting used for World of Darkness in one way or another. Obviously I'd like to see any WoD improvements (such as performance and the ability to move faster) feeding back directly into Walking in Stations, and although it does seem to have attracted a few new players, it's not been the massive draw CCP obviously thought it would be. At the moment, I'm happy with it being optional (there’s no point in removing it now), but would like to see a small but steady release of the other completed content, and maybe a handful of new clothes every few patches, but no massive development commitment in the near future.

Do you want to abolish non-consentual pvp?
No, not at all (if I wanted to do that, I would be playing EVE on Sisi), despite what one specific person would like you to think. EVE is all about the non-consensual PvP, be it the obvious stuff (hisec wars, losec, ganks, griefing, and so on) or the less obvious (scams, market, mining someone else's 'roids, etc).

What are the major areas you want to see developer-time dedicated to?
Personally, I would like CCP to rewrite the corp interface, but there is so much that it touches on, including things like POS mechanics, the market and so on, that it would be a huge undertaking, and likely has a number of prerequsites. Apart from that, the aggression/flagging system needs some work, so I'm glad to see CCP reportedly working on that, as it should be one of the things which should help them make changes to increase the popularity and draw of losec.

Do you support CCP in fighting against scammers?
I'm not sure what this question is referring to. CCP doesn’t fight scammers, at least in game mechanics terms, unless you mean things like bots and RMT spammers, in which case I absolutely support the fight against RMT.

Will you defend the rights of griefers and scammers?
Believe it or not, I entirely support the 'gameplay choice' of griefing and scamming as an income source or entertainment, as long as it doesn't become unbalanced and an easy way to make massive amount of ISK, so with a bit of common sense and caution there should always be a way to avoid it. EVE is what it is because of the interaction between its players, which leads to the incredible stories, and draws more people into its dysfunctional (I think you all know what I mean by that) community.

Will you support decissions that are good for EvE but bad for you Corp?
If the vast majority of EVE players and the community as a whole will benefit from them, then yes. I will quote the CSM whitepaper:
CSM White Paper, page 18 wrote:
The key question that council members must consider before casting their vote is whether or not the issue at hand has the potential to improve or otherwise benefit the entire EVE society, and not just a select group within the community that was successful in bringing attention to their unique case. Seeing the big picture—in this case, the needs of a society with over 300.000 individuals—is the primary responsibility of a CSM Representative, and reconciling that view with the interests that won them the election is the greatest challenge they will face in this implementation.
Will you lobby for stuff that mainly benefits you and your corp, like special status for training corps?
If someone was to put together a well thought out and well documented proposal, which benefits all training corps without providing some kind of imbalance, then yes. The problem is that any 'special status' would have to be very carefully considered if it removed the training corporation from any aspect of gameplay, so the only way I could think of this being workable would be some kind of official CCP training corp 'accreditation' that would help new players identify good corporations, which would come at a significant cost and have steep requirements.
Kelduum Revaan
The Ebon Hawk
#84 - 2012-02-11 02:28:46 UTC  |  Edited by: Kelduum Revaan
Why should people vote for you and not one of the other Highsec candidates like Lyrs or Hans that have stances on the issues?
Because I have the experience in managing complex and disparate personalities, game mechanic and programming experience so understand EVE on a code level, and a proven background in working for the community over my own personal gains. Also, while E-UNI has alumni all over EVE, and members active in all classes of space, we are primarily in hisec, unlike Lyris or Hans. Finally if elected to chairman, I promise to tell The Mittani to be quiet as needed. Smile

When did you stop abusing EvE-U for personal gain?
Somewhat confrontational, but I will still answer this one. I don't take any money or payment from EVE University for myself, and neither do any of our directors or managers, so I'm not aware of any of the members ever abusing the Uni for any personal gain. What belongs to the corp belongs to the corp, and is for the usage of the students. I can provide API keys and access to the Uni's financial database to a trusted third party if this is a concern.

Why does the EvE-U still have a direct connection to Goons/CFC through the Graduates? Are you a 0.0 shill?
We probably have connections of some kind with pretty much every large corporation or alliance in EVE simply because EVE University doesn't have any intention to keep its members longer than they want to stay, so they are free to move on and do what they want, where they want, while also being free to use our educational resources (classes, forums, wiki, etc). E-UNI is founded on neutrality, which means staying out of conflicts which don't directly concern us, so potential recruitment options are not closed for alumni when they move on. This also means we have many corporations with alumni recruiting from us, and often see groups of members forming corporations between themselves, The Graduates being just one of them.

Why should we vote for you when even your own people (poetic) don't like you?
I certainly wouldn't call Poetic 'one of my people'. He was removed from the Uni back in August for being a huge attention 'seeker', and has publicly stated he is more interested in hyperbole rather than facts, so is now the official EVE University stalker.

Why do you suggest structureshoots in highsec? Isn't the good thing about highsec you dont have to grind structure? How would it help small corps that get deced? Isn't it a mechanic tailored to your needs only?
A few questions here, and they're probably better off in the other thread but in brief, the core idea was to come up with a solution which leaves some control over the conflict in the hands of the defender, along with an incentive for the attacker to actually fight or end the war rather than just turtle up if things are not going well. The structure-bash may not be the best solution, but the alternatives such as counter-bribes to CONCORD to end a war (I don't believe that ISK on its own is a solution, as the economy will change over time) or kill-value quotas (promotes turtling of the defender, and would be incredibly database intensive to calculate values) aren't really workable solutions either. The side effect is that the 'SNA' structure would allow more people to get involved in wars than the two sides directly involved in the conflict, opening up possibilities for gameplay.

Would you support an Wardec mechanic that makes wars less expensive if you fight a bigger foe and more expensive if you fight a smaller (relative to your own size)?
I would need more detail to be able to decide, but I don't think so, no. The problem with a mechanic similar to that is that it favors small corps, so there is no incentive for players to have more people in their corp. However, the problem is that characters in a corporation are no real indication of actual players in a corp. Balancing things with numbers like that would be incredibly difficult.

Who would you like to take the other 13 seats on the CSM?
I can't really comment on that at the moment, as at the time of writing there are only ten candidates confirmed, so I would say I would look forward to working with them for now.
Poetic Stanziel
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#85 - 2012-02-11 05:12:22 UTC
Kelduum Revaan wrote:
I certainly wouldn't call Poetic 'one of my people'. He was removed from the Uni back in August for being a huge attention 'seeker', and has publicly stated he is more interested in hyperbole rather than facts, so is now the official EVE University stalker.

No offense at your English failure, Kelduum ... but hyperbole isn't a thing on its own. There aren't facts and then hyperbole. Hyperbole is an exaggeration. An exaggeration of SOMETHING. In the case of my attacks on your message, the times when I do utilize hperbole (and I don't always do so), I am hyperbolizing your message.

I hyperbolize truths (you say something, I then quote you, and then supply my commentary and analysis of what you've said.) Lots of organizations do that. It can be called marketing and/or advertising and/or campaigning. I don't just throw fake words into your mouth. I use what you say, and I use them to feed into my message.
Joha M'raadu
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#86 - 2012-02-11 05:24:37 UTC  |  Edited by: Joha M'raadu
I fully support Kelduum here.

However I do wonder how Poetic Stanziel just keeps on going with his regular nonsense and his general anti E-UNI attitude.

EDIT: + he is an obvious trolling journalist wannabe

"Throw the rules out the window, odds are you'll go that way too."
Poetic Stanziel
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#87 - 2012-02-11 05:33:37 UTC
Joha M'raadu wrote:
I fully support Kelduum here.

Of course you do ... the only experience you have in this game is the Uni.
testobjekt
Goonswarm Federation Human Resources
#88 - 2012-02-11 06:09:38 UTC  |  Edited by: testobjekt
Why should we believe you when you say your are for non consensual PVP and still use a 19 Corp strong dec-shield-ally to protect yourself from pesky people who want to noncon-pvp with you? arent you preaching one thing and doing another?


Also doesnt your proposal for a structure gind directly benefit one of the largest (memberwise) highsec alliances? Why do you want to introduce nullsec elements into highsec? Should a allianc who doesnt like to get wardeced just go into low/null and provide their own security?
Juicy Chanlin
Doomheim
#89 - 2012-02-11 07:02:03 UTC
Joha M'raadu wrote:
I fully support Kelduum here.

However I do wonder how Poetic Stanziel just keeps on going with his regular nonsense and his general anti E-UNI attitude.

EDIT: + he is an obvious trolling journalist wannabe



Best way to deal with it is to just ignore his posts completely.
Vae Abeo
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#90 - 2012-02-11 07:19:30 UTC
Joha M'raadu wrote:
I fully support Kelduum here.

However I do wonder how Poetic Stanziel just keeps on going with his regular nonsense and his general anti E-UNI attitude.

EDIT: + he is an obvious trolling journalist wannabe


I also fully support Kelduum. Like the Uni or not I've never met a person who has had a negative experience interacting with the Uni. Furthermore, almost all corps I've seen direct newer players to the Uni to help with the learning curve the game. Sure you could possibly learn the skills elsewhere but I truthfully feel the Uni has saved tons of subscriptions (mine included), so having a CSM with experience on integrating "newer" players into Eve with direction on how to help keep them subscribing would be a valuable and much needed asset.
Juicy Chanlin
Doomheim
#91 - 2012-02-11 07:29:08 UTC
testobjekt wrote:
Why should we believe you when you say your are for non consensual PVP and still use a 19 Corp strong dec-shield-ally to protect yourself from pesky people who want to noncon-pvp with you? arent you preaching one thing and doing another?


Also doesnt your proposal for a structure gind directly benefit one of the largest (memberwise) highsec alliances? Why do you want to introduce nullsec elements into highsec? Should a allianc who doesnt like to get wardeced just go into low/null and provide their own security?



The Dec shield is a perfectly legitimate use of the games mechanics. You have to understand also, that unlike other corporations, the uni has strict rules for wartime conduct. For example. Uni doesn't use out of corp reppers, which, before the changes made them shootable, were basically untouchable, and many corporations that decked the uni were using those. Along with playing docking games and a lot of the other BS that goes on during "war". Such as decing the uni and then hiding in a station the full war halfway accross the stars. All the decshield really does, is make sure that you don't get the disgruntled people just wardeccing for shiz and giggles. The idea is that if you're willing to fork out the iskies for the wardec, then you'll be willing to actually show up and fight.
Hybrid Zulu
Doomheim
#92 - 2012-02-11 08:54:29 UTC
Har Harrison wrote:
Shazzam Vokanavom wrote:
Poetic Stanziel wrote:
Shazzam Vokanavom wrote:
Of which PS wishes to make people see this as a move to introduce a consensual system.
There is Kelduum's history to back up my interpretations. All you have is wishful thinking.

For instance, on the day that CCP allowed corps to set-up multi-corp decshields (E-Uni's is 19 corporations strong), Kelduum let out a cheer on the forums. Kelduum has NEVER liked non-consensual PvP, he feels it is disruptive to the University. Every wardec suggestion he puts forth is to limit the ability of others to force the University into fights it just doesn't want to be part of.

The Uni will only be part of PvP on its own terms. That is the mission statement of Kelduum, and that is the unspoken promise he makes to EVE University members. They know he's going to go into the CSM and fight hard for a very particular type of war declaration mechanic, one that keeps the University at peace for exceptionally long periods of time.


Big difference between making things difficult for others to war dec EvE-Uni and a view of wanting sensible consensual war dec mechanics.

As i understand it, EvE Uni have set up a large number of their own alliance corporation members to war dec the Uni on an ongoing basis to make it expensive for anyone external to do so.

This is due to the fact that the majority of new players who are interested in learning the game should be afforded a sensible umbrella and not be exploited by numerous other organisations. Or do others simply want to prey on easy targets less than a week old into their EvE experience? As given what EvE Uni represents it is the "recognised" sensible first step for new players, easpecially when alternative larger corps are mostly inaccesable due to SP requirements.

As such EvE Uni is paying significant sums to afford this umbrella, so hats off to them in doing so. But it is in no way preventative of anyone war deccing them if they really wanted to. Nor does it advocate a consensual PvP model as a result, its simply paying for a significant defence stratergy that seems helpfull for the Uni's purposes.

Its not like they are using a dec shield to simply shirk off wars, or droping members or corp hoping as others do to avoid conflict like most griefers. And personally I think its only griefers who want a lazy time in war deccing new players straight out of boot camp in large numbers that is the problem here. Perhaps this is the real agenda?

"that is the unspoken promise he makes to EVE University members" - or your consistant view of what you want to believe it more like and twist things around because you have a personal beef that a large alliance pays for protection to new players from lazy griefer types like yourself.

To be honest if CCP said to EvE - UNI do you want the status where you can neither start a war or be war decced in return, I'd personally be happy for them to have it as at least it affords a reasonable start for newer players to get used to things in a social environment and at least get some understanding and at least a few skill points under their belt before being exposed to certain harsh realities. The only stipulation would be that members who don't hold an offical office position would require to leave or be placed after a certain period of time, SP points or graduation. (This is "MY" personal take on things however and should not be manipulated as EvE Uni views, before you start)

So in short I think your manipulation of certain views here is reallu unjustified, as I believe them to be in conflict with your need for lazy kill board padding etc. (Moreso relevant when you look at your failure of a KB which unsuprisingly has a history of losses to EvE Uni players, maybe some personal motivation due to failure as a pilot here?).

Needless to say, your points are still speculative. You appear to potentially have an alteria personal motive that might be clouding judgement. I still have to call "straw man" simply based on the kinds of claims you are consistantly fabricating.

Hell no.

Eve Uni is JUST ANOTHER CORP/ALLIANCE

Their direction is about teaching noobs. That is fine. Other corps focus on pvp or living in a wormhole. Other focus on incursions or missions. Some ever mine. A person signs up to a corp because it offers them something they wish to share in.

At the end of the day though, what makes Eve unique and therefore "EvE" is that everyone has to play by the same set of rules. The uni can field low sec roam blobs like few else can due to their size. They should be able to steamrole by weight of numbers. However that requires ORGANISATION and leadership, the same as any other corp requires to survive a PvP engagement in Eve.

Will they lose the odd ship to 2 man war deccers? Yes. But so what - it will teach the noob far more then living in a bubble ever will.

A University in the real world does not protect their students. They challenge them, force them to to excel and most importantly, how to think and learn for themselves. That is what the Uni should be doing.

'

OK
Lets go make babies you and me!
Like right NOW!

Anyone told u how sexy you sound


KELDUUM FOR PRESI
erm CSM DUDE!!!!!!!!
Shazzam Vokanavom
Doomheim
#93 - 2012-02-11 09:53:26 UTC
Poetic Stanziel wrote:
Kelduum Revaan wrote:
I certainly wouldn't call Poetic 'one of my people'. He was removed from the Uni back in August for being a huge attention 'seeker', and has publicly stated he is more interested in hyperbole rather than facts, so is now the official EVE University stalker.

No offense at your English failure, Kelduum ... but hyperbole isn't a thing on its own. There aren't facts and then hyperbole. Hyperbole is an exaggeration. An exaggeration of SOMETHING. In the case of my attacks on your message, the times when I do utilize hperbole (and I don't always do so), I am hyperbolizing your message.

I hyperbolize truths (you say something, I then quote you, and then supply my commentary and analysis of what you've said.) Lots of organizations do that. It can be called marketing and/or advertising and/or campaigning. I don't just throw fake words into your mouth. I use what you say, and I use them to feed into my message.


In the spirit of EvE Uni and the advancement of education the following video is not a lecture endorsed by EvE Uni but seeks to give an understanding to the fanatical calumnies being brought from "straw man" ideals.

Unfortunatley to endorse objective freedom of expression I have to sympathise with Kelduum for having to tolerate certain influences being an attempt at unfounded villification.

I do however applaud this stance as an exercise of patience where others would simply be abhorrently dismissive. Not that I'm advocating a need to "suffer fools gladly" of course.
Caldari Citizen 786478786
#94 - 2012-02-11 13:00:04 UTC  |  Edited by: Caldari Citizen 786478786
Shazzam Vokanavom wrote:
In the spirit of EvE Uni and the advancement of education the following video is not a lecture endorsed by EvE Uni but seeks to give an understanding to the fanatical calumnies being brought from "straw man" ideals.

Unfortunatley to endorse objective freedom of expression I have to sympathise with Kelduum for having to tolerate certain influences being an attempt at unfounded villification.

I do however applaud this stance as an exercise of patience where others would simply be abhorrently dismissive. Not that I'm advocating a need to "suffer fools gladly" of course.


Your attempt to school Poetic is commendable, to say the least. However, it's clear from his incessant stalking, his Eve University fanboyism and his repeated lies (including his well-documented use of sock-puppets on these and the Eve-U forums) that he has no intent to cease his hugging of Eve University's collective nuts.

His stalking got old around the time he was forcibly removed from Eve University and permanently banned from their forums for what most reasonable individuals would describe as an unhealthy obsession with grandstanding and whining in public. It's one thing to have an opinion about how a CEO should run his Corporation, but it's an entirely different thing to publicly and repeatedly call that person out for not implementing your ideas.
Geertruida Zelle
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#95 - 2012-02-11 15:06:32 UTC
Dear Mr Revaan

I find the difference between this thread and that of the King of Space very interesting.

Does it vex you that people are actually asking you questions and debating rather than engaging in blatant sycophancy? I suppose it shows that the cult of personality never works for nice people.

Good luck in your campaign, I was truly torn between voting for you, my esteemed ex-ceo, but as every girl knows, a hard man is good to find. Blink



GZ

PS. Miss Stanzi, have you reached puberty yet? You certainly are a late developer.
Shedemei Silfar
Miskatonic Mercantile
#96 - 2012-02-11 15:16:29 UTC
Quote:
No offense at your English failure, Kelduum ... but hyperbole isn't a thing on its own. There aren't facts and then hyperbole. Hyperbole is an exaggeration. An exaggeration of SOMETHING. In the case of my attacks on your message, the times when I do utilize hperbole (and I don't always do so), I am hyperbolizing your message.


ahhh how typical... when all other means of trolling fails, break out the grammar correction. I'm guessing the real reason you're upset is that rabid mouth-foaming trolls are not tolerated in the Uni. Please keep posting, so that people are truly clear on just how desperate you are. and by the way, you mispelled hyperbole Evil

I think Kelduum has been very forthcoming about exactly what his positions are and what he will bring to the table. I value honesty and integrity highly in any representative position, and his track record with the Uni speaks for itself.
testobjekt
Goonswarm Federation Human Resources
#97 - 2012-02-11 15:55:14 UTC
Juicy Chanlin wrote:
testobjekt wrote:
Why should we believe you when you say your are for non consensual PVP and still use a 19 Corp strong dec-shield-ally to protect yourself from pesky people who want to noncon-pvp with you? arent you preaching one thing and doing another?


Also doesnt your proposal for a structure gind directly benefit one of the largest (memberwise) highsec alliances? Why do you want to introduce nullsec elements into highsec? Should a allianc who doesnt like to get wardeced just go into low/null and provide their own security?



The Dec shield is a perfectly legitimate use of the games mechanics. You have to understand also, that unlike other corporations, the uni has strict rules for wartime conduct. For example. Uni doesn't use out of corp reppers, which, before the changes made them shootable, were basically untouchable, and many corporations that decked the uni were using those. Along with playing docking games and a lot of the other BS that goes on during "war". Such as decing the uni and then hiding in a station the full war halfway accross the stars. All the decshield really does, is make sure that you don't get the disgruntled people just wardeccing for **** and giggles. The idea is that if you're willing to fork out the iskies for the wardec, then you'll be willing to actually show up and fight.


So you are just saying "you have to pay a prohibitiv amout of isk to wardec us" and if one wardecs you, you just turtle up to let them bleed isk? Sounds like creative use of game mechanics to dodge wardecs to me.

And you did not adress the 2nd part of my question
Shazzam Vokanavom
Doomheim
#98 - 2012-02-11 16:04:45 UTC
testobjekt wrote:
So you are just saying "you have to pay a prohibitiv amout of isk to wardec us" and if one wardecs you, you just turtle up to let them bleed isk? Sounds like creative use of game mechanics to dodge wardecs to me.


What part of "sandbox" in this valid use of a war mechnic upsets you? Or is it that if something is hard as a result you simply wish to nerf it for your own convenience?
Asuri Kinnes
Perkone
Caldari State
#99 - 2012-02-11 16:10:19 UTC
testobjekt wrote:
So you are just saying "you have to pay a prohibitiv amout of isk to wardec us" and if one wardecs you, you just turtle up to let them bleed isk? Sounds like creative use of game mechanics to dodge wardecs to me.

And you did not adress the 2nd part of my question

Prohibitive amount of isk to who, exactly? I could literally war-dec the Uni myself for 13 weeks straight, just on the isk i have on various accounts. Why is 1 Billion isk alot, especially for a multi-player corporation? (I.E. - not a single player and a bunch of alts).

Besides, (from my time in the Uni, and hearing from others more recently) most people war-dec the uni, then don't show up, or show up then turtle up the first time they see a uni fleet.

Well wtf dumbasses?!?

You dec a large corp, expect a large number of people flying at you (that is so stupid/obvious it brain hurts me when people complain about how the Uni prosecutes wars).

As for the 2nd part of your question, it was answered earlier in the thread - if Keld wanted the Uni to be "immune" - everyone would stay in NPC corps, and the uni would exist as soley chat channels, wiki's, and lessons, without all the bother of being a corp (i.e. - dec'able) at all. So, immunity is demonstrably *NOT* the goal - but you know that, don't you?

Bob is the god of Wormholes.

That's all you need to know.
Asuri Kinnes
Perkone
Caldari State
#100 - 2012-02-11 16:14:21 UTC  |  Edited by: Asuri Kinnes
I've stayed out of this since the beginning just to see where it went - Eve-Search is a godsend (but I'm not going to drag up any of the deleted posts. Big smile

(this should have been posted first - but mr. (dense) objekt needed a rebuttal).

Poetic Stanziel wrote:
My purpose is twofold. First, for everyone to see what terrible ideas Kelduum would bring with him to the CSM. Mittani has pointed one of them out in this thread. Kelduum has created a thread for his terrible ideas over on the Features forum.

Second, to point out that he doesn't represent EVERYBODY, but rather the interests of only EVE University. It's fine if he wants to represent the E-Uni, but he should be honest about it. Stop pretending that he represents anybody at all, except for his corporation.


A) - Like all the major players on the CSM don't work to advance their corp/alliance/self-interests (Mittens even posted earlier in another thread that *he* doesn't rep all the players, just those who voted for him, in spite of the CCP mandate for the CSM - and he has *NOT* done a bad job).

B) - Yeah, a guy who runs an organization that teaches exposure to all aspects of the game, isn't going to have interests in all aspects of the game (i.e. - everybody).


Poetic Stanziel wrote:
Joha M'raadu wrote:
I fully support Kelduum here.

Of course you do ... the only experience you have in this game is the Uni.

I fully support Keld here as well (with one of my votes).

I was in the Uni then moved to Adhocracy Inc. (low-sec, then Wormhole daytrippers, then moved into a Wormholes full time).
Then The Bastards - Greatest group of pirates in Eve!, Then to Agony Unleashed - "for something completly different"! ,then back to ADHC.

Gonna tell me my only experience is in the Uni? Roll


I've heard E-U described in a lot of ways, but the one that stuck with me the best is:

"Eve is a game dedicated to "azzhats", congregating with other "AH's" to make larger groups of "AH's", to fight other large groups of "AH's", to see who can be the biggest "AH's" in Eve. And Eve-Uni is running a charity" - or words to that effect.

People stay in Eve who would have otherwise left (for whatever reason) [including me] except for the one thing that E-U provides that very few other corps/alliances (with a few notable exceptions) provide; a community to belong to. Coming from other games, and not being associated with any other established "groups" (SA / REDDIT - for example) - the fact that you find yourself "under the colors" with a bunch of people who are (relatively) as new to the game as you, allows for the building of relationships that keep people playing for years.

E-U has alumni all over New Eden, from 0.0, to low-sec, to hi-sec to (the most important area of space) Wormholes. If *all* E-U taught was "zomg - run away/dock" then I doubt that diaspora would have taken people as far away as it has... Then again, as in everything in Eve, it's the players who make the game, so it's almost inconceivable that spread of players wouldn't happen.


To put it another way; it really doesn't matter what the uni's rules are, or how they teach pvp - whats more important is the friendships / bonds that are made there, that carry on to all the other parts of Eve, i.e. - the players who make eve what it is.


testobjekt wrote:
Why should we believe you when you say your are for non consensual PVP and still use a 19 Corp strong dec-shield-ally to protect yourself from pesky people who want to noncon-pvp with you? arent you preaching one thing and doing another?


Also doesnt your proposal for a structure gind directly benefit one of the largest (memberwise) highsec alliances? Why do you want to introduce nullsec elements into highsec? Should a allianc who doesnt like to get wardeced just go into low/null and provide their own security?

See Kelds answer below, and my reply in the post above.
Kelduum Revaan wrote:
Do you want to abolish non-consentual pvp?
No, not at all (if I wanted to do that, I would be playing EVE on Sisi), despite what one specific person would like you to think. EVE is all about the non-consensual PvP, be it the obvious stuff (hisec wars, losec, ganks, griefing, and so on) or the less obvious (scams, market, mining someone else's 'roids, etc).


Keld will (probably) do a good job on the CSM, and can't do any worse than the people who got elected, then faded away.

Bob is the god of Wormholes.

That's all you need to know.