Jita Park Speakers Corner

after giving 1 vote to you i have 3 left. who do you think i should vote for ? there is only one vote per person from me so you cant have the other 3 ;)

My votes are with you. Keep up the good work.

+1 Meissa. Keep up the great work.

+1 from me.

It is my considered that Meissa is the best CSM delegate in the history of the office. At the summit I attended, we had a lot of hard questions for CCP. They gave us a lot of flim-flam answers, and after they finished with the BS-Meissa was right there with statements along the lines of "What you said is very nice-but you failed to answer our question, your answer failed to address points A, B and C-thats what we wanted to know"

Meissa knows how the process works and uses that knowledge to press the agenda. He is one of the three candidates that IMO are vital to ensuring that the CSM's voice is heard in an ocean of CCP crap. I hope to see you at future summits. Your voice and your ideas are a benefit to players in every profession, throughout New Eden.

You have my votes.

Meissa Anunthiel for chair!

So what do you plan to do to help incursions as part of CSM7?

Do you plan to push hard for implementation of the modular Corp and POS system so that smaller corps can isolate potential spiez without shutting them out of everything if they are indeed legit?

Could we count of CSM7 to SERIOUSLY push the botting and RMT issue? I am sick of tired of hearing people say "Nothing CCP can do bout it" And even alliances having rules against reporting Blue Bots.

Longest serving CSM for a reason - +1

This is a tricky question. I see the current situation where 0.0 is a place for large alliances almost exclusively to be a bad one. On the other hand, it makes a lot of sense that a group of 1000 players should have an easy time beating a group of 200 in combat. I'm also opposed to placing arbitrary limits (can't hold more than X moons) as it goes against the sandbox style of game that produces such wonderful emergent behaviour.

Now, I want to find ways by which smaller alliances or corporations can take part meaningfully to 0.0 without being always at the mercy of the large alliances. As pointed out above, it makes sense that they should have issues against larger groups, but steps can be made to make large groups look kindly upon smaller ones, as opposed to perceiving them as nuisances. Treaties "enforcing" vassality/rent/blue/... could go a long way. This would allow the smaller ones to have a place to call home without having to join the larger alliance. Improvements to mechanics (through treaties or otherwise) that would allow bridges and other structures to be benefited by friends in as painless a way could also go a long way.
An emergent aspect that would also be favourable to a mixed population scenario would be a revitalization of industry in 0.0. Industrialists tend to be smaller groups (comparatively), and it could/should be beneficial for a large warring empire to have a number of friendly close industrialists to provide services. How to reach that objective is tricky but the joint proposal by many members present and past labelled as "farms and fields" would be great.

As far as R64 moons are concerned, I strongly favour a rebalancing of "alliance earning" mechanics. As it is, alliance income comes from such resources as R64s, while personal income derives from activities such as ratting, plexing and, for the 3 people who do it, PI. I have been working with CCP to try and make alliance income more aligned with personal income. At the same time, R64 serve currently as focus points where conflict happens (and that's much needed, PvP is the fuel needed for industry to be meaningful, it's also very fun). So, these are the paths I would pursue rather than placing hard limits on number of R64s held by a single entity.