Jita Park Speakers Corner

I will be the devil's advocate here: I thought we all also wanted more accessible PvP that is not auto-win for those with pockets deep enough to afford a boosting alt, Falcon alt, a supercap ready to hotdrop, a million implants, and boosters? METH-NAUGHTS would be a step in the wrong direction from that aspect, by making boosters common enough that they become yet another thing you "need" in order to be competitive in PvP.

How is either party "slightly incorrect"? Mittens is claiming Darius breached the NDA. He didn't. That's false. 100% false. Not slightly false. That he may or may not have mentioned the goings-on of your super-sekrit non-NDA covered chan is irrelevant.

Mittens is claiming Darius breached the NDA. He did not breach the NDA as confirmed by CCP in my original post. This is not "slighty" wrong. It is not wrong at all. It is a 100% correct assessment of a spaceships gamze politician slinging mud. As in lying.

Now I "get" that deception is part of the game of Eve. Trust me, I really do. But I feel it is relevant to the discussion of who should be CSM that a major candidate and veteran CSM is smearing other candidates with blatant lies as part of his campaign. I find it particularly amusing that he calls him a liar in the same sentence that he lies about him. To that end, I say to hell with Mittens as a CSM candidate. We have enough lying, backstabbing, mud-slinging politicians in our reality to need one in our game.

Counterpoint: I'm forwarding this post to your mother. Expect to be disowned by morning.

I'd love to think the world is as black and white as you say

I'd love to think the world wasn't so used to being spun by politicians that people could still recognize the existence of a fact. Instead, flat-out lies are accepted as "slightly incorrect" (read: mostly factual) because they're spoken by people you support. If CCP isn't the recognized authority concerning the FACT that THEIR NDA was not breached, then exactly who is? Mittens? A bunch of no-life gamers elected to the CSM?

CCP says their NDA was not breached. Therefore, it was not breached.

Mittens says that CCP's NDA was breached, in contradiction to CCP's own official decision on the matter. Therefore, mittens is full of ****. I'm not sure if I can state it in a simpler manner, so if you're still lost, it's a case of hear-no-evil, speak-no-evil monkey business.

Also irrelevant. The NDA is an agreement between CCP and the individual CSMs. It's not broken until CCP says it's broken.

But hey, if you don't wanna listen to someone you label a "pubbie", and you don't wanna listen to the NDA's author CCP, listen to one of your own, and a CSM to boot:



And verified by another CSM, quoting Vile rat:



Ah but I bet I'll still hear protests. Have fun matching your world-view to the facts. Earplugs go a long way to keeping the sand out of your ear canals. Goggles will help for your eyes.

Your argument presuposes that there is such a thing as an objective reality. Secondly you presuppose that someone has the full an total ability to determine the thruth. Your argument is that CCP says they have not seen proof of an NDA violation, there has therefore not been one. By the same argument; CCP holds no proof that player A has ever violated the EULA, therefore he has not done so. Or, taking an out of game example; I have never been found guilty in a court of law of having driven above the speed limit, therefore I have never done so. Reality and proven facts are not the same.

Vile is pointing out another point. That the CSM members were informed by CCP that the channel was covered by the NDA. Thus they had every reason to expect that information in there was covered by the NDA. Information from that channel was leaked. The person leaking said information therefore had every reason to expect that he was leaking NDA protected information. However, in the aftermath, CCP found that piece of information to have been not covered by the NDA. That is CCP detemining what they want to pursue and not, the person behind the leak had no reason to think that he was not leaking priviliged information.

okay, so the alleged NDA breach aside, what about the fact that he did not do anything at all

Hey! he posted 80 posts on the csm forums! that counts.....right?

I'm not taking a stance on whether the NDA was breached or not. I'm trying to say that your argument is faulty. You are confusing the relation between what has been determined as a fact in the eyes of the law and what is a "fact". When someone is convicted of a crime it is correct to say that they in the eyes of the law is guilty. That does not mean they committed the crime. Miscarrige of justice happens.

For your argument (accepting CCP as supreme judge of the question) to hold true they'd have to say that ther has been no violation. All I've seen them say is that they lack proof. Those are different things. I'm not saying by this that there was a violation (Vile says there wasn't) I'm just trying to say that you are claiming something to logically follow that does not.

As for Vile he is not saying what you think. It is not for CCP to determine whether the NDA was breached. Whether a contract has been violated or not is a question of law, and as such is for the courts to determine. Barring clauses to something different in the agreement that will be recognised as binding by the courts. (Typically clauses that keep legal determinations out of courts are met with some opposition. I haven't seen the NDA, so I don't know what it says on the matter.) All Vile is saying in the quote is that its a legal determination.

As for the relevance of it for the voters I think Vile is wrong. It's an election. If you want to vote for Xenophile because he wears a hat I support your right to do so. I don't think it should matter and I'll argue against its relevance. But if somebody wants to be carefull of voting for a candidate that knowingly leaked information from a channel that was said to be under NDA protection and which the person therefore had no rightful expectation to think would not be considered a violation of said NDA, I think they're allowed to do so.