Jita Park Speakers Corner

He was, but the Crucifier, Sentinel, Vigil, Hyena, Maulus and Keres could all use a looksee too.

Are the contents of the minutes in that meeting under NDA. You know this answer. The answer is yes. Back to you, Bob.

Did the trivial statements come from a meeting that was under NDA. Yes or no.

If the statements that were "leaked" came from a meeting that was covered by the NDA between CCP and the CSM, then evidence of the leaks (which we all acknowledge exist) would have been evidence of a breach of the NDA. As CCP has clearly stated, they have seen no evidence of a breach of the NDA, therefore, the meeting was not covered under the NDA.

The issue is they did come from such meeting, but it wasn't super privileged info that was worth making a mess over, so CCP simply called it a non-issue. Mittens still thought it was an issue, presumably because he did not want the info shared, and keeps calling D3 a NDA-breaker.

Wow. Okay, to clarify for the literalists:

If the statements that were "leaked" came from a meeting that was covered by the NDA between CCP and the CSM, then evidence of the leaks (which we all acknowledge exist) would have been evidence of a breach of the NDA. As CCP has clearly stated, they have seen no evidence of a breach of the NDA, therefore, NO the meeting was not covered under the NDA.

Proof:

My goodness. If you cut out all of the condescending parts, you're not even left with something funny, just kinda sad.

Again, you're failing to differentiate between a determination of law, which the question of breach clearly is, and a determination of fact. I am not questioning whether someone's leg was peed upon, nor whether information from a chat was leaked. The first I'm sure is true in some context, and the second I can stipulate to. The question is whether Darius III breached his NDA with CCP. That's a legal question, and as CCP has stated they have seen no evidence of a breach, it's safe to assume there was no breach. If there was no breach, which again is a legal question, then Mittani's statement that there was a breach is mud slinging.

You seem stuck on this word "assessment". Relabeling a legal determination made by a non-party does not make it any more valid. It could be my "assessment" that my neighbor trespassed on another neighbor's property. However, when I make the statement "He trespassed", that does not make a legal truth of it. That would be a legal determination. If my neighbor is not alleging trespass, and a court has not found this to be the case, then I can "assess" this all I want. I could have witnessed one neighbor walking on another neighbor's land. But that doesn't mean there was a trespass. Perhaps there was an easement I don't know about.

Your main argument seems to be that The Mittani was not lying, only being ignorant. Either way, politically motivated ignorance is still mud slinging.

Also, when being condescending, please make a better effort to keep your writings clear of obvious errors. Trying to look down on me when you are adding extra Ls to until, Es to victim, Is to privilege, dropping the C in decisive, etc. does little to prove your condescension is valid.

I would argue that if the meeting was so clearly covered under the NDA, then Darius would not have "leaked" information from it. That answer seems far more likely than Darius being a billionaire or any of your other theories. Also, I would argue that if it was clearly covered under the NDA, then evidence of the leak would be evidence of a breach of the NDA, and CCP would not have stated that they have seen no evidence of a breach.

Then after he basically told his friend, "Hey they called you an ******* in that meeting" or whatever the "leak" was, CCP clarified that those meetings were indeed covered under the NDA...probably under one of the more sweeping clauses and not specified precisely, and life went on.

My point is that Mittani has turned this into a personal slanderous attack, implying a serious breach of trust that should preclude him from being a CSM. This is clearly false, and clearly mud-slinging.

As for my alleged "half quote", I quoted the half that addressed the point of the NDA. The part I dropped addressed the point of inactivity. I'm not arguing about inactivity, I'm arguing about the NDA breach. I quoted every bit of what was said concerning the alleged breach and dropped the irrelevant part. Talk that up all you wish, and rail about the etiquette involved until your face is blue. I'd do it the same way again. Insisting that everything in a post be dragged in, just because it was there, relevant or not, is what is ludicrous.

Also, I'm not here to save you trouble nor to save you from your obvious homophobic issues. But I'd look into that with some self-reflection if I were you.

So, that's it, we're done here? Good. It was just starting to grow wearisome.

With that I proclaim that The Mittani has engaged in mud-slinging and political slanders and will not get my vote unless he removes his unfair characterization of Darius III as a CSM who breached CCP's NDA. Not only is this untrue, but CCP has taken the trouble of pointing out that they have not even so much as seen evidence of it. All arguments to the contrary have been neatly put to bed and it's time that The Mittani come out of the shadows and admit to his slanderous back-biting dirty politics, or expect to lose the vote of all Eve players who are sick of such strategies.

If The Mittani is willing to lie about this, what else is he willing to lie to you about?

Would you vote for me, then?

If as you say you are not likely to vote at all, then I would be so bold as to propose that your opinion is of minimal significance to any of the candidates running in the election. I am further given evidence that you are in fact a Goon spy within your organisation, serving no purpose but to undermine the Pubby Proletariat by keeping The Mittani's thread bumped to the top of Page 1.