These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

One EVE, One Vote, One Chairman: Why You Should Vote For The Mittani For CSM

First post
Author
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#201 - 2012-02-21 09:47:05 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
lilol' me wrote:
This still remains a fact not fallacy.
What makes it a fallacy is that you're trying to deflect a question about the effects of representation by appealing to some irrelevant, unconnected, and blatantly false assertion of association. You can't answer the question, so you try to deflect it by bringing up some supposed attribute of the person (e.g. some assumed connection to the goons) — classic ad hominem fallacy, which only ever manages to give the impression that the person being attacked has brought up a particularly salient issue…

What makes it a not-actually-a-fact-at-all is that… well, it's not actually a fact at all — it's something you just made up and can't prove.

Quote:
I mean for god sake you have even admitted your love for goons over and over again on the forums.
Excellent. Prove it.

Quote:
Every post against them, up pops Tippia The Troll running to their defense.
No. Every post against them using unsound reasoning and “facts” pulled from some poster's nether region, up pops me asking what those claims are based on and how on earth the argument actually holds together. It has very little to do with the Goons and quite a lot to do with my disliking apparent lack of proper argumentation.

…why it is that this kind of argumentation pops up so often in relation to the Goons is an interesting, but slightly different question.
Grumpy Owly
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#202 - 2012-02-21 09:49:40 UTC
Tallian Saotome wrote:
Can someone point to me where in the CSM charter it says the are supposed to be neutral?

Can you point to ANY official document stating that CCP expect the CSM to be neutral?


Full document: http://www.eveonline.com/download/devblog/CSM.pdf

with specific quote:

"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 facein this implementation.

... and ...

CCP is unable to accommodate any issue considered detrimental to the collective interests of EVE , particularly if the issue(s) touch upon meta-level concerns."
Tallian Saotome
Nuclear Arms Exchange Inc.
#203 - 2012-02-21 09:49:53 UTC
Tippia, God of making people actually back up their BS claims Bear

Do not even argue til you have numbers and figures ready to prove your point, you will lose.

Inappropriate signature removed, CCP Phantom.

seany1212
Covert Syndicate
#204 - 2012-02-21 09:50:55 UTC
Vote mittens, he'll suck ya ****!

Two-stepforCSM
lilol' me
Comply Or Die
Fidelas Constans
#205 - 2012-02-21 09:53:24 UTC
Tippia wrote:
lilol' me wrote:
This still remains a fact not fallacy.
What makes it a fallacy is that you're trying to deflect a question about the effects of representation by appealing to some irrelevant, unconnected, assumed, and blatantly false assertion of association.

What makes it a not-actually-a-fact-at-all is that… well, it's not actually a fact at all — it's something you just made up and can't prove.

Quote:
I mean for god sake you have even admitted your love for goons over and over again on the forums.
Excellent. Prove it.

Quote:
Every post against them, up pops Tippia The Troll running to their defense.
No. Every post against them using unsound reasoning and “facts” pulled from some poster's nether region, up pops me asking what those claims are based on and how on earth the argument actually holds together. It has very little to do with the Goons and quite a lot to do with my disliking apparent lack of proper argumentation.

…why it is that this kind of argumentation pops up so often in relation to the Goons is an interesting, but slightly different question.



You know what fine, I will, I am going to be happy linking every post.... seriously you are going to look really stupid... are you sure you want me to do this? Because you do realise when I do, that your whole reputation (whatever that is) will be in tatters?
I really hope you admit it.. for your own sake..
Jaroslav Unwanted
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#206 - 2012-02-21 09:54:11 UTC  |  Edited by: Jaroslav Unwanted
Tallian Saotome wrote:
Tippia, God of making people actually back up their BS claims Bear

Do not even argue til you have numbers and figures ready to prove your point, you will lose.


Depend.. "Some" counter argument of Tipia are based around "you prove your claim"...
With some "strange" logic about I dont have to prove you are wrong, because you have not proved you are right.

But i am more interested in theory Why

"why it is that this kind of argumentation pops up so often in relation to the Goons is an interesting, but slightly different question."

@ Lilol

Empty threats are empty.. Do it.. then we will see other Tippia posts which will put some context in it.. And then nobody will be suprised about the winner in that competition.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#207 - 2012-02-21 09:55:43 UTC
lilol' me wrote:
You know what fine, I will, I am going to be happy linking every post.
Excellent. Get cracking.
Be particularly detailed in how it's me being a fanboi, rather than me laughing at a horrible attempt at arguing.
Destru Kaneda
Arzad Police Department
#208 - 2012-02-21 09:57:03 UTC  |  Edited by: Destru Kaneda
@seany1212 Did you just call me a ****, *******?
Tallian Saotome
Nuclear Arms Exchange Inc.
#209 - 2012-02-21 09:59:43 UTC
Grumpy Owly wrote:
Tallian Saotome wrote:
Can someone point to me where in the CSM charter it says the are supposed to be neutral?

Can you point to ANY official document stating that CCP expect the CSM to be neutral?


Full document: http://www.eveonline.com/download/devblog/CSM.pdf

with specific quote:

"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 facein this implementation.

... and ...

CCP is unable to accommodate any issue considered detrimental to the collective interests of EVE , particularly if the issue(s) touch upon meta-level concerns."

That doesn't mean neutral. It simply means that they can't try to use their CSM position to gain tactical advantage. CSM5(you know, the one driven mainly by highsec reps) can't have claimed neutrality when they destroyed the ability to make a survivable amount of isk in nullsec.

Consider that fact that the current nullsec voting bloc all agree that alliance level income(in particular Tech) needs to be nerfed.

In Game actions, such as providing content, should not EVER be considered. And remember, ice interdiction, hulkageddon, scams, that is all defined as content, and are the behaviors that make eve stand out from every other crappy MMO.

Oh, and to those who believe that his constituency is goons and goons alone, yeah, no. There are alot more than just them. I voted for Mittens last year before I was a member of the CFC, simply because I felt that his platform was(and still is) the best for the game as a whole. I know people who play exclusively in highsec who support him, and I know members of the CFC who will vote against him because they don't want to see moongoo rebalanced.

PS. I also voted for a highsec rep that year(one who made it in on a platform of supporting highsec interests) because I wanted to make sure there was a balance of members, and BEHOLD! we do.

Not my fault the platform I voted for there decided he represented all of eve instead of focusing on the platform he ran on. In this case, it was for the best. Just means I am moving my non-nullsec vote to another candidate.

Inappropriate signature removed, CCP Phantom.

Grumpy Owly
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#210 - 2012-02-21 10:16:21 UTC  |  Edited by: Grumpy Owly
Tallian Saotome wrote:
Grumpy Owly wrote:
Tallian Saotome wrote:
Can someone point to me where in the CSM charter it says the are supposed to be neutral?

Can you point to ANY official document stating that CCP expect the CSM to be neutral?


Full document: http://www.eveonline.com/download/devblog/CSM.pdf

with specific quote:

"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 facein this implementation.

... and ...

CCP is unable to accommodate any issue considered detrimental to the collective interests of EVE , particularly if the issue(s) touch upon meta-level concerns."

That doesn't mean neutral. It simply means that they can't try to use their CSM position to gain tactical advantage. CSM5(you know, the one driven mainly by highsec reps) can't have claimed neutrality when they destroyed the ability to make a survivable amount of isk in nullsec.

Consider that fact that the current nullsec voting bloc all agree that alliance level income(in particular Tech) needs to be nerfed.

In Game actions, such as providing content, should not EVER be considered. And remember, ice interdiction, hulkageddon, scams, that is all defined as content, and are the behaviors that make eve stand out from every other crappy MMO.

Oh, and to those who believe that his constituency is goons and goons alone, yeah, no. There are alot more than just them. I voted for Mittens last year before I was a member of the CFC, simply because I felt that his platform was(and still is) the best for the game as a whole. I know people who play exclusively in highsec who support him, and I know members of the CFC who will vote against him because they don't want to see moongoo rebalanced.

PS. I also voted for a highsec rep that year(one who made it in on a platform of supporting highsec interests) because I wanted to make sure there was a balance of members, and BEHOLD! we do.

Not my fault the platform I voted for there decided he represented all of eve instead of focusing on the platform he ran on. In this case, it was for the best. Just means I am moving my non-nullsec vote to another candidate.


I think its a perfect demonstration of an emphasis of "neutral" or impartial needs for CSM behaviour. Its a "KEY" question they have to reconcile.

Also pointless blurring IG points with the advocacy position of CSM. Few will argue tha valid IG choices should have no real bearing on candidacy as the CSM are in fact allowed to play the game how they like as "players".

By virtue of representing interests you can see how emphasis of time in the CSM minutes is devoted to interests. Null sec even has its own chapter. The only other area of nterest to note in the last minutes where WH space and that was to make it easier to take capitals into them to destory industrial platforms. Read the minutes in detail, you'll see the bias.

As such since the CSM controls to some extent what is presented at the CSM meetings it is relatively easy for them to neglect proposals not of interest to them. They have the power to vito and decide what is taken to iceland. Such that if an emphasis on one area of the game is biased, it is neglecting others. So by ommision they can favour the game under the illusion of presented interest.

However, I'm sure CCP will say that its a democratic process and if interests needs to be presented and supported accordingly then candidacy needs to be present to support the interest. So yes happy to concede its a democratic choice, not happy to simply agree that there isn't a manipulation of what the CSM is supposed to achieve as set out in the paper. However, regardless of wether those "guidlines" are being carried out as per CCP's intentions, it's clear to see that you need to vote a candidate onto the CSM to support your interests as applicable.
Akrasjel Lanate
Lanate Industries
#211 - 2012-02-21 10:21:31 UTC
goon propaganda
umadbro
say no to goon domination

CEO of Lanate Industries

Citizen of Solitude

Sasori michi
The Dirty Thukkers
#212 - 2012-02-21 10:34:31 UTC
Goons trying to Phuck yet another game . Any remember DarkFall ?.
Goons had their way with that too and DF is dead.
Im just gona get the popcorn and watch them do the same to EVE .Roll

and OP is a...Old British slang word for Cigarette.
He must really love his Bukkake.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#213 - 2012-02-21 11:04:43 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Grumpy Owly wrote:
By virtue of representing interests you can see how emphasis of time in the CSM minutes is devoted to interests. Null sec even has its own chapter.
…because it has its own unique set of rules and gameplay issues, most of which are in need of review. If anything, this “own chapter” rather shows that the issue is given quite little focus compared to some other areas — under one heading, they've mashed together a whole slew of mechanics and issues that each could have their own heading, much like how Incursions and NPE have their own sections.

Quote:
The only other area of nterest to note in the last minutes where WH space and that was to make it easier to take capitals into them to destory industrial platforms. Read the minutes in detail, you'll see the bias.
What I see are issues that are spread all over space, rather than being easily contained within a heading that denotes a specific geographic area. As for making it easier to take capitals in there, you'll also note that the CSM also objected to the idea of making it easier. So again, the bias rather seems to be in people think that “the CSM” is some monolithic entity that holds one und precisely von opinion that is always going in one direction with one agenda.
March rabbit
Mosquito Squadron
The-Culture
#214 - 2012-02-21 11:19:14 UTC
thanks for funny thread.

however: nope. My vote won't come to Mittani.
Reason: i don't like his ingame image. That's all.

The Mittani: "the inappropriate drunked joke"

Reilly Duvolle
Hydra Squadron
#215 - 2012-02-21 11:44:49 UTC
Just for the fun of it, I took the liberty of collecting selected Andski quotes from this thread alone. Its quite a collection.

Andski wrote:
moron

some bullshit tinfoil theory

we get it, the mean goonies touched you in a bad place and you're bitter about it

you look dumb

you have absolutely no clue what you're talking about

you are a bleating moron

Again, you're only bleating. baaaaaaa, baaaaaaa

baaaaaaaaa, baaaaaaaa

let me try to reduce that to a syllable count suitable for your reading level

again, baaaaaa, baaaaaa

owning bleating pubbies erryday

let me explain why you're an idiot...

pubbies are hilarious


Yeah... Its quite the sewer. You must be the pride of Goonswarm Andski.

But I am curious though. Does you mum know you play internet tough guy?
Meryl SinGarda
Belligerent Underpaid Tactical Team
#216 - 2012-02-21 11:49:03 UTC
No.
ISD Grossvogel
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
#217 - 2012-02-21 12:00:03 UTC
Please restrict the CSM-related discussions to the confines of the Jita Park Speakers Corner, which was specifically built to handle the excessive amount of acidic byproducts generated during pre-election debates. Thank you.

ISD Grossvogel (ISD Гроссфогель) Captain, Community Communication Liaisons (CCL) Волонтёр группы по взаимодействию с игроками Interstellar Services Department

Cipher Jones
The Thomas Edwards Taco Tuesday All Stars
#218 - 2012-02-21 16:21:04 UTC
Quote:
That doesn't mean neutral. It simply means that they can't try to use their CSM position to gain tactical advantage.


That's the very ******* definition of neutral.

internet spaceships

are serious business sir.

and don't forget it

Atrum Veneficus
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#219 - 2012-02-21 16:49:49 UTC
As Goonswarm Federation's resident big game hunter and current reigning Dread Pirate

http://eve-kill.net/?a=pilot_detail&plt_id=368430

I support anything that allows me to repeatedly ram my thorax into the soft vulnerable (fuzzy?) crevasses of your mining ships.

One Eve, One Vote, One Chairman!!
Andski
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#220 - 2012-02-21 17:15:33 UTC  |  Edited by: Andski
Reilly Duvolle wrote:
Yeah... Its quite the sewer. You must be the pride of Goonswarm Andski.

But I am curious though. Does you mum know you play internet tough guy?


keep deflecting because we all know you've been hazed

i mean you literally came at us with several totally unsubstantiated assertions, expected us to disprove them without having any of your own evidence and you got thoroughly owned

now, i'm asserting that you beat your wife, disprove it

good day!

Twitter: @EVEAndski

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths."    - Abrazzar