These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Trebor Daehdoow for CSM8 - The Proven Performer - http://bit.ly/vote-trebor

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#201 - 2013-03-07 06:58:26 UTC  |  Edited by: Malcanis
Wescro2 wrote:
I disagree. I don't see the CSM as "pick your favorite workaholic." The CSM itself does very little as it is not a legislative or executive body


Who, in a large company is a "legislative or executive body"? I'm not in y RL job, that's for sure; I operate under all kinds of constraints in which I have little or, more usually, no say in determining. However, within those constraints I am constantly making decisions, the results of which to add a great deal of value to the process, and I spend a lot of time doing so.

Saying that the "CSM does very little" because it's not the God-Emperor of CCP is simply naive. All the outgoing CSMs agree that there's a hell of a lot that the CSM does, that there's a lot of work, and that they add value. CCP have increasingly supported that assertion, especially Unifex.

EDIT: You can be very sure that I woudn't bother wasting my time on all this if I didn't think the above was true. Indeed, if I am proved wrong and it turns out that the CSM is a worthless talking shop, I'll be the first to say so, loudly and clearly and right here where you can all read it.

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Wescro
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#202 - 2013-03-07 07:29:00 UTC  |  Edited by: Wescro
Malcanis wrote:
Who, in a large company is a "legislative or executive body"?


The board of directors. The CEO.

Malcanis wrote:
Saying that the "CSM does very little" because it's not the God-Emperor of CCP is simply naive. All the outgoing CSMs agree that there's a hell of a lot that the CSM does, that there's a lot of work, and that they add value. CCP have increasingly supported that assertion, especially Unifex.


That's decidedly vague language. "Adds value" "does a lot." Those are great to put on a motivational poster and pat yourself on the back over on Casual Fridays, but when it comes to passing your vision in to the game, CSM can do diddly squat. Several CSM, in fact, ones I bitterly disagree with, agree that the CSMs are not junior game developers. Ex-CSM Chairman Mittani explained eloquently at Fanfest 2012 how the CSMs power comes from access and it is basically an advocacy panel. As such the CSM are just a group of players the rest of us decide that get to be privy to super secret information.

So the CSM members get to advocate for their ideas just like all of us, but unlike us they have a little bit more information. I'll concede it's my own opinion that that constitutes "very little" power.

Malcanis wrote:
EDIT: You can be very sure that I woudn't bother wasting my time on all this if I didn't think the above was true. Indeed, if I am proved wrong and it turns out that the CSM is a worthless talking shop, I'll be the first to say so, loudly and clearly and right here where you can all read it.


But by all means, prove me wrong and make CCP implement your vision if you can. I'm certainly no fan of this pansy CSM talkfest. Make things happen, get stuff done. But the way CCP has set CSM up, it is designed in way that they retain all the power while handing over an illusion of representative democracy.


EDIT:

Malcanis wrote:
All the outgoing CSMs agree that there's a hell of a lot that the CSM does, that there's a lot of work, and that they add value.

The outgoing CSM gave the outgoing CSM credit for working hard and adding value? Now that changes everything. Roll

http://crossingzebras.com/2013/02/17/csm8ripardteg/
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#203 - 2013-03-07 07:50:19 UTC
So in your eyes unless the CSM literally has more power than the CEO of EVE, it's a talking shop?

You have an odd idea of how things work.

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Wescro
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#204 - 2013-03-07 08:13:08 UTC
Malcanis wrote:
So in your eyes unless the CSM literally has more power than the CEO of EVE, it's a talking shop?


I don't know that there is any CEO of EVE, I suppose you mean the CEO of CCP. In either case, the CEOs power over the development process is near absolute, that's quite an extreme from the humble analogy of junior game designer which I echoed.

It's a talking shop because it has no executive or legislative power at any level of the development process. Even a junior game designer (far from the CEO) gets to have some control over the actual design, while the best CSM can do is urge and plead, which they do sincerely, diligently, yada yada.

Whatever influence the CSM is able to wield is limited by how inclined CCP is to hear their advocacy, which is the same for any one of us not on CSM. Our influence too is limited by how inclined CCP is to listen to us, on the forums or the blogs, etc.

Like I said it's a matter of opinion. To some simply being able to advocate to CCP directly with inside information amounts to earth shattering influence and responsibility. To my knowledge all that we've ever gotten in-game out of such advocacy are implants on pod killmails. If there are any massive achievements that are protected under the NDA, I apologize.

http://crossingzebras.com/2013/02/17/csm8ripardteg/
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#205 - 2013-03-07 10:16:01 UTC
Wescro wrote:
[quote=Malcanis]

Whatever influence the CSM is able to wield is limited by how inclined CCP is to hear their advocacy.


This is entirely true. Would you say that CCP are on an level, increasing or decreasing trend of willingness to hear the CSM's advocacy?

Incidentally, you just described my job quite well. I have to reconcile competing interests to achieve efficient results that also satisfy our corporate customers - none of whom I have any authority over, all of whom I can only "advocate" to. My working day is spent basically persuading these people to modify their requests, or relax their restrictions, or do something over and above the minimum they're required to do, in order to hit my targets. The CSM being "limited by how inclined CCP is to hear their advocacy" is, in short, a working situation to which I am wholly accustomed.




"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Trebor Daehdoow
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#206 - 2013-03-07 11:43:47 UTC
Poetic Stanziel wrote:
You know ... in four years you've 246 killmails ... and you've spent a good deal of that time in PvP corporations.

I note with interest the fact that you focus on killmails. If that is the sole metric by which you measure the value of an EVE player, then I rather think you miss the point of EVE entirely. However, given the effort you put into your blog, you clearly understand that this is not the case -- which makes this particular attack so transparently hypocritical.

Both in-game, and on CSM, I gravitate to what CCP Seagull refers to as "enabler" roles. I get a great deal of satisfaction from helping other people, both on a small scale in my corps, and on a large scale by helping to build CSM into an effective tool for representing the community -- and helping individual CSMs make the best arguments possible. And I believe that if you talk to those who have worked with me in-game, or served with me on CSM, the vast majority will tell you that I am quite competent in those roles.

Anistazana wrote:
Trebor, How much time would you (spend) on a day to day (or week to week perhaps) level on CSM related matters?

I would say it varies from 10-15+ hours a week, with peaks that get close to full-time during summits and minutes-writing. I am fortunate in that my life and work situation makes it easy for me to be flexible and put in the hours when required.

Private Citizen • CSM in recovery
TheGunslinger42
All Web Investigations
#207 - 2013-03-07 14:07:48 UTC
LMAO at "proven performer". The only thing I've seen proved is a massive disconnect with what EVE is about.
Poetic Stanziel
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#208 - 2013-03-07 21:22:51 UTC
What is your stance on AFK skill training?
Tcar
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#209 - 2013-03-07 22:10:39 UTC  |  Edited by: Tcar
Trebor Daehdoow wrote:

Both in-game, and on CSM, I gravitate to what CCP Seagull refers to as "enabler" roles. I get a great deal of satisfaction from helping other people, both on a small scale in my corps, and on a large scale by helping to build CSM into an effective tool for representing the community -- and helping individual CSMs make the best arguments possible. And I believe that if you talk to those who have worked with me in-game, or served with me on CSM, the vast majority will tell you that I am quite competent in those roles.


As an almost neighbor IRL, a long time corp mate who speaks with him on a weekly if not daily basis, and has hot dropped "ratting Drakes with a fleet of 37 bombers and twice as many falcons" along side him, I'd just like to point out that Trebor is entirely devoted to improving the experience of the EVE player base.

The strawman argument that Trebor represents some sort of faction that wants to see Internet Spaceships turn into the next themepark MMO is absurd. His preferred play style, when he's not doing a part time job of lobbyist for free on the part of the EVE player base, is black ops/cov ops ganks. Seriously, take off the tinfoil and think about it. No Trebor does not have a nicely padded killboard, heaps of ISK to roll around in like Scrooge McDuck, or controll of a major 0.0 alliance/coalition. Instead of all these things he's spent the last three years begging whining and pleading with CCP and forging personal relationships with the people who make our game.

To the people who insist on thinking of the CSM as some sort of governing body or wish it was: No, the CSM has had no direct power in the decision making process. It has had greater and greater degrees of influence as time has gone on however. The last three years Trebor has worked tirelessly to utilize that influence to get CCP to see the utility and worth of the CSM as a body and to turn that influence into some sort of authority, ie true "Stakeholder status." Only in the last year have we seen the dividends paid on this investment of time and effort made by Trebor and all of the working members of the last three CSMs.

I personally see very few people in the crop of CSM candidates, especially out of the "blog pack," with Trebor's level of acumen, work ethic, or proven ability to intercede with CCP devs both formally and more importantly, informally.

I for one, selfishly speaking, would like to see more of my friend on coms and in fleet instead of busy with CSM matters that he can't tell us about. Be this as it may, I fully support Trebor and encourage anyone who truly cares about "the sandbox" that we play in to give their vote for Trebor.



Poetic Stanziel wrote:
What is your stance on AFK skill training?


Sudden subject change?
High Sec Dan
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#210 - 2013-03-07 23:09:00 UTC  |  Edited by: High Sec Dan
Tcar wrote:
The strawman argument that Trebor represents some sort of faction that wants to see Internet Spaceships turn into the next themepark MMO is absurd.


He had the chance in his interview with Xander Phoena to roll back his suggestion that all wardecs be consensual, and instead he doubled down. The justification he presented was CCPs revenues. Mutually consented war agreements are a far cry from the cold harsh universe of EVE. They are rightfully categorized as "Theme Park" proposals.

You're doing your IRL friend no favors by apologizing for his platform.
rodyas
Tie Fighters Inc
#211 - 2013-03-08 00:20:31 UTC  |  Edited by: rodyas
Poetic Stanziel wrote:
What is your stance on AFK skill training?


You gonna make a separate thread on this after feedback? I am kind of interested in this topic or just SP in general.

I only think the AFK part gets too carried away is just if a player creates Titan and capital alts for sale and how easy that is to do in a way due to it being AFK all the way there. But it would take a long time to make one though.

For lower lvls CCP is trying to specialize the trees so you don't need so many skills so in a way less AFK from it. I don't like the specialized route, but CCP has to make money, so not much to be done I suppose.

Of course, lower training times in general would mean less AFK as well too. Easy way.

CCP is already going the money route with the way SP works, so it will be hard to get much changed from it. But I wonder what they do think about the sales of alts I suppose. (The specialized route, as well as making the ships and modules more balanced, so you don't have to retrain out of a gimped ship all the time. As well as a limited imagination, so people can feel apart of the game at an earlier date as well equals money route.)

(Also sorry for posting this reply in Trebor's thread. But there was no where else to go.)

Signature removed for inappropriate language - CCP Eterne
Frying Doom
#212 - 2013-03-08 03:28:26 UTC
Tcar wrote:

To the people who insist on thinking of the CSM as some sort of governing body or wish it was: No, the CSM has had no direct power in the decision making process.

The CSM is not a governing body.

It is the voice of the players

and when you actively assist or for that matter fail stand up to be counted when CCP starts taking away from that voice.
The players vote in the CSM so therefore we are accepting the player and their views to be our voice to CCP, to be honest I saw no where, other than the CSM minutes where any player suggested that CCP should select 5 of the 7 people that act as our voice in Iceland. So that was not our voice acting in our interests, that was our voice acting in CCPs interests.

You can hardly expect players to want you continue to be their voice, if you don't believe that voice is important.

Any spelling, grammatical and punctuation errors are because frankly, I don't care!!
Friggz
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#213 - 2013-03-08 04:28:22 UTC  |  Edited by: Friggz
High Sec Dan wrote:


He had the chance in his interview with Xander Phoena to roll back his suggestion that all wardecs be consensual, and instead he doubled down. The justification he presented was CCPs revenues. Mutually consented war agreements are a far cry from the cold harsh universe of EVE. They are rightfully categorized as "Theme Park" proposals.


I'm glad you brought up that interview. I think everyone should go and listen to what he actually said, because you are either not remembering what he said correctly, or attempting to intentionally deceive.

The question posed to Trebor was:

Quote:


"Do you think High Sec should be safer?"



Trebor's responce in regards to war-decs was:

Quote:

One of the things that happened at the summit back at December was we had this big discussion about war-decs and I finally just threw out there: Why not just get rid of them?

It was important to ask that question because if non-consensual war-decs are costing CCP a lot of subscriptions then that is resources that could be used to hire more devs, to fix other areas of the game. So maybe it would be worth slaying that sacred cow and looking at the numbers and figuring out are non-consentual war decs doing what we like? Are they effective in achieving the conflict goals that we want? If not, what can we do to fix them? Is it worth fixing them?"


Now you are right, he definitely could have back pedaled away from the fact that he asked an unpopular question, but you know what? Sometimes someone has to ask the unpopular question. Trebor is willing to do that, and then stick to his guns when challenged instead of trying to find the most popular opinions to spout to get votes.

Now, when I listened to it, what I took away from it was that he felt there as value in looking into the cost/benefit ratio of war-decs. That's it. You are also off the mark when you say his motivations were CCP's revenue, instead he clearly said his motivations are freeing up CCP's resources to fix other areas of the game. That sounds reasonable to me, CCP can't do everything at once.

It's unfortunate that some have decided to put their personal ambitions ahead of the game to try to distort Trebor's words and misrepresent Trebor's platform. If Trebor somehow doesn't make it to the CSM because of that, the CSM as a whole is going to suffer.
High Sec Dan
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#214 - 2013-03-08 08:19:04 UTC  |  Edited by: High Sec Dan
Quoting Trebors exact answer does not change its implications or its content. In his own words, Trebor faults EVEs harsh player-created environment for costing CCP subscription revenue. He then comes out of left field and implies that this lost revenue is constraining development work on other features, and not for insistence, finer brands of Icelandic caviar for Hilmar Peterson. Do I have to spell out Incarna for you? Greed is not good. Trying to appeal to a broader audience with "theme park" features and focusing excessively on CCPs bottomline is to the detriment of the EVE players experience.
Frying Doom
#215 - 2013-03-08 08:44:11 UTC
High Sec Dan wrote:
Quoting Trebors exact answer does not change its implications or its content. In his own words, Trebor faults EVEs harsh player-created environment for costing CCP subscription revenue. He then comes out of left field and implies that this lost revenue is constraining development work on other features, and not for insistence, finer brands of Icelandic caviar for Hilmar Peterson. Do I have to spell out Incarna for you? Greed is not good. Trying to appeal to a broader audience with "theme park" features and focusing excessively on CCPs bottomline is to the detriment of the EVE players experience.

CSM Minutes December 2012 wrote:

Trebor: There is the important word you just said – mutual conflict. Just as you can have a mutual engagement between two players, you should be able to have a mutual engagement between two groups. But the current system, it’s a cursed mechanic, because most of the people who get involved want absolutely nothing to do with it.

Solomon noted that they were looking specifically into cases where one corp wardecced another corp, and no losses occurred. Usually this means that a larger more powerful entity has wardecced a smaller entity that wants nothing to do with the conflict and therefore does everything in its power to avoid being caught or killed. Solomon wagered that this was the case in 70-80% of wars.
............................................................................................
Kelduum agreed with Meissa, saying that everyone once in a while, a group will wardec EVE Uni that actually wants to fight, but once the EVE Uni fleet wipes them out, they just want to stay docked up, and it’s no fun for either party.
Alek: But why do you care? You won! Why does it matter that they couldn’t beat you, they fought, you kicked their ass, and that’s EVE for you.

Trebor pointed out that this was a great example of a truly mutual war, where both parties wanted to fight and both parties actually participated in a fight.

Trebor: But as you said, 78% of wars are a bunch of people who basically want to grief a corp, a lot of times industrial corps, or corps that may be PvP corps, but they're not PvP corps in high-sec. They just use highsec for their logistics. Okay, so they get wardecced, and what happens. It just interrupts their regular game play, it’s a griefing mechanic.

Alek: God forbid you actually defend your high-sec logistics. Wow. That’s soooo crazy.

........................................................................................................................................
SoniClover: The key thing here is that there is a legitimate reason to have a wardec system and that is to allow people to engage in a lethal fight in highsec. And that is important because it should be that the higher economic impact that you are having, the higher the chance that other people will be interacting with what you are doing. You should never be able to have a huge economic impact on the game and become completely immune by the game mechanics, to be completely safe from others.

Trebor: But you're not immune.

Meissa: You can always be out marketed, you can always be suicide ganked…

Alek: Meissa and Trebor – are you guys really saying that you would like to see suicide ganking as the only form of PvP in high-sec?
.......................................................................................................................................
Alek pointed out that the conversation should be about giving players more reasons to undock to begin with. Two step suggested that a collateral-based reward system for wars might give smaller groups an incentive to fight back.

Trebor: Realistically, in the context of the game, that **** just does not happen. 90% of the time, the corp that gets wardecced just turtles up because they have absolutely no choice. They're outgunned and outmatched. Look at the wardec system, with all of the exceptions, and the rules for adding allies, and timers, and all that crap. What does that remind you of? What system that everybody agreed was awful did you just rip out of the game and radically simplify?

Tallest : What if instead of declaring war on you, they just didn’t tell you and started suicide ganking you.

Trebor: At least then they lose their ships. In the case of a suicide gank, they lose their ships and they lose sec-status. There is a cost to them. If they declare war on you, and except for the ISK cost, they don't lose their ships and they don't lose their sec-status. There's no risk.

Alek: There’s no risk except for the risk that they could engage in PvP. A risk that they could lose that fight.

Trebor: But they don't fight.

Alek: Why do you think 90% of the time the defender always loses?

Trebor: Because they're very good at picking on the weak, and they do.

Seleene: I understand where Trebor is coming from, but I don't want to run the risk of over-legislating this.

SoniClover: And it seems that some are clamoring a lot for the game system to protect them. And we're trying to minimize that as much as possible. EVE is never going to give you complete game system security. And we're never going to go that route.

Meissa: You're talking about being able to own POS's as one of the advantages to being in a player corp. How many of these corps that are decced have POS's. If its 10%, I'll buy you lots of things. But it’s not that. The vast majority of the groups are small. They're poor.

Seleene: Well then maybe they need to get more friends and they need to learn to defend themselves better in a PvP game.
And with that, CCP Xhagen declared the session closed.


I will not say anything myself just leave these here.

Any spelling, grammatical and punctuation errors are because frankly, I don't care!!
Jensaro Koraka
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#216 - 2013-03-08 09:19:05 UTC  |  Edited by: Jensaro Koraka
Proven carebear more like. He wants to remove non-consensual war decs. Go back to WoW Trebor. We don't have PvE servers in sandbox games.

"Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats." -H.L. Mencken
Trebor Daehdoow
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#217 - 2013-03-08 12:12:19 UTC
High Sec Dan wrote:
He had the chance in his interview with Xander Phoena to roll back his suggestion that all wardecs be consensual, and instead he doubled down.

Oh please. Why would I roll back a suggestion I never made in the first place? I would suggest that you read the December Meeting Minutes. Frying Doom did a nice job selectively quoting them to obfuscate the context, but you should always go to the primary source.

If you do, you will learn that it was a CCP dev who brought up the issue of problems with the wardec mechanic (starting at the top of page 67) and specifically encouraged and extended the discussion several times. Prior to that (bottom of page 66), the discussion had touched on making it easier for groups who wanted to engage in mutual war to do so -- an extension of limited engagements.

I summed up my point thus:

Trebor: Realistically, in the context of the game, that **** ("good wars" where the defender fights back) just does not happen. 90% of the time, the corp that gets wardecced just turtles up because they have absolutely no choice. They're outgunned and outmatched. Look at the wardec system, with all of the exceptions, and the rules for adding allies, and timers, and all that crap. What does that remind you of? What system that everybody agreed was awful did you just rip out of the game and radically simplify?

(I was talking about CrimeWatch in case you don't get the reference)

My preference is for some sort of highsec conflict mechanic that actually delivers fights, instead of the current one that almost always delivers nothing but aggravation (to the target) and an occasional gank (to the aggressor). If the current mechanic can't do that, then attempts to make it do that will just waste resources, in which case CCP should just bite the bullet, rip it out, and replace it with something that works.

Indeed, I am not the only person who thinks there is a problem with Wardecs.

Quite frankly, if you have a problem with me for pointing out the essence of the problem with the current wardec mechanic that prevents it from doing what CCP wants it to do -- in response to a direct question from a dev -- then I fear there is little I can say or do that will satisfy you.

Private Citizen • CSM in recovery
Frying Doom
#218 - 2013-03-08 12:32:59 UTC  |  Edited by: Frying Doom
Actually it wasn't really selective quoting it was trying to fit it in one post.

If you believe this is a problem, you should bring this up with CCP as you are currently a csm member.

As to what you quoted actually it was in the middle of the text and I must admit I took it as more of the dribble that was in there. You may also complain to CCP that I was unable to include all but one of the came comments that were negative to yours.

As I have said previously, some of your ideas especially on null have been good but some of your ideas like this one and the mechanism involving the csm were horrible.

As to the war dec mechanic the best fix is to compare the two alliance/corps members kill stats and adjust the cost from that.

So it costs less to go after corps/alliance that are better killers and more to go after victims

Or more accurately kills divided by active members so you get the average but the loop hole to doing that is large corps with PvP wings.

Any spelling, grammatical and punctuation errors are because frankly, I don't care!!
Trebor Daehdoow
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#219 - 2013-03-08 12:56:23 UTC
Frying Doom wrote:
Actually it wasn't really selective quoting it was trying to fit it in one post.

You will get no argument from me that some of the restrictions on posts are annoying.

Frying Doom wrote:
As I have said previously, some of your ideas especially on null have been good but some of your ideas like this one and the mechanism involving the csm were horrible.

I am a skeptic, so if you present good evidence (as opposed to opinion) that one of my positions is significantly incorrect, I will adjust my position. And in any case, if any particular idea I have is horrible, then it will get ignored.

Look at it this way: A dev raised a question, I articulated a position that some in the community hold, other CSMs made different arguments, and there was a vigorous debate.

One of the consequences of that debate is that we now have several candidates who are running for CSM to represent the merc/ganker community, one of whom may well appear on my ballot when I cast my vote. The irony is that the CSM election mechanic changes you think are so horrible make it much more likely that this constituency will be represented both on the CSM, and at a summit in Iceland. Which is, by the way, why I like it so much.

Private Citizen • CSM in recovery
Frying Doom
#220 - 2013-03-08 13:08:15 UTC
Trebor Daehdoow wrote:
Frying Doom wrote:
Actually it wasn't really selective quoting it was trying to fit it in one post.

You will get no argument from me that some of the restrictions on posts are annoying.

Frying Doom wrote:
As I have said previously, some of your ideas especially on null have been good but some of your ideas like this one and the mechanism involving the csm were horrible.

I am a skeptic, so if you present good evidence (as opposed to opinion) that one of my positions is significantly incorrect, I will adjust my position. And in any case, if any particular idea I have is horrible, then it will get ignored.

Look at it this way: A dev raised a question, I articulated a position that some in the community hold, other CSMs made different arguments, and there was a vigorous debate.

One of the consequences of that debate is that we now have several candidates who are running for CSM to represent the merc/ganker community, one of whom may well appear on my ballot when I cast my vote. The irony is that the CSM election mechanic changes you think are so horrible make it much more likely that this constituency will be represented both on the CSM, and at a summit in Iceland. Which is, by the way, why I like it so much.

OK well just on in the mechanic to start with it is more complex so less people are likely to vote, it is designed on the basis of compulsory voting to get a representative upper house.

The other part of that which in honesty I really would have been happier if the CSM had done a walk out was the CCP selecting 5 that go to Iceland.

But you have claimed before that the trip is irelivant, subsequently with the idea of CCP inter firing with the csm. Well the other ideathat should have gone on the table if the trips are irelivant would be to just say fine we ddon't need them rather than allowing CCP that kind of control over the voice of the players

But as to the end result we do not have long to wait to see who was right.

Any spelling, grammatical and punctuation errors are because frankly, I don't care!!