These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Yeep
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#221 - 2013-03-08 13:20:23 UTC
Trebor Daehdoow wrote:

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.


Why does the justification for a wardec need to be "deliver fights"? If your local highsec system is getting stripmined by a corp leaving you no rocks, hiring mercs to wardec them will give you what you want (stopping your competition from mining) even if there are no "goodfights" (ignoring the fact everyone will just jump ship to an npc corp).
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#222 - 2013-03-08 13:34:05 UTC
Well they can just suicide gank inste...


oh wait Sad

"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
#223 - 2013-03-08 14:57:15 UTC
rodyas wrote:
Do you think that the players have a good concept of CCP and game design? ... But you are the players spokesperson, so what exciting and innovative part of the game would you sacrifice to make null sec more exciting and innovative.

I think there are many people in the community with a decent understanding of CCP and game design in general. However, like the "Kremlin Watchers" of the Cold War, they only have a fragmentary picture of the constraints CCP is working under. CSM delegates have a better, but far from complete perspective -- which is one reason I've consistently urged CCP to provide CSM with as much information as possible, even at the risk of burying us in infodumps.

As to your second question, that seems to me to be a classic false choice. The question is not one of cutting stuff out to make room for new stuff, but the prioritization of new stuff and its impact (both intended and unintentional) on existing game features.

Wescro2 wrote:
However, I have absolutely no reason to believe that any of the other candidates with much better platforms won't work just as hard.

Well, you have candidates whom you have reason to believe will be hard workers, and you have me, who has a 3-year track record of being a hard worker, and who knows how the CSM works institutionally. Under the old election system, you would be facing a tough choice.

Fortunately, under the new election system, you can just put all the hard-working candidates on your ballot, in the order of your preference.

Wescro wrote:
Several CSM, in fact, ones I bitterly disagree with, agree that the CSMs are not junior game developers. ... 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.

Suggesting specific game-mechanic fixes isn't the focus of CSM activities; advocating that resources be spent implementing (or fixing) features, and then giving early feedback on proposed features most certainly is. If your argument is that CSM should have more opportunities to influence CCP, then you will be happy to know that the trend is in that direction. CSM 7 will probably have more Skype conference calls this month with CCP than during the entire of CSM 6.

Wescro wrote:
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.

While CSM is a democratically elected body, it never has been, nor was it ever intended to be, a representative democracy. Perhaps this misunderstanding is the source of your frustration.

Private Citizen • CSM in recovery
High Sec Dan
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#224 - 2013-03-08 19:13:01 UTC  |  Edited by: High Sec Dan
Trebor Daehdoow wrote:
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.


Being a highly a public figure, your controversial and unpopular opinions are well known, regardless of how many layers of plausible deniability you wrap them in. While it's true that you have cleverly avoided spelling outright what you want, no one will be surprised when you do. Back-pedaling from the inevitable implication of your statements, ie the removal of non-consensual wardecs, neither wins over your detractors nor cements you in the eyes of your supporters.


Let's look at an example of this political double-speak:

Trebor Daehdoow wrote:
...the discussion had touched on making it easier for groups who wanted to engage in mutual war...


An astute observer will immediately note that "making it easier to engage in mutual war" is the euphemistic way of saying "make it harder to engage in a non-mutual war."

Face it Trebor, your platform is warmly receptive of the idea of dialing back the harsh player-driven environment of EVE in favor of mechanics-driven, unearned safety for players who choose to remain weak, disorganized and lazy. If EVE was KFC, you would be the vegetarian candidate.
Trebor Daehdoow
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#225 - 2013-03-08 22:31:28 UTC
Poetic Stanziel wrote:
What is your stance on AFK skill training?

The continuous skill training mechanic is probably the single most overlooked reason why EVE is about to celebrate its 10th anniversary. As a constant indicator of progress, it helps foster the social connection to the game that essential for maintaining a long-term community, while at the same time it eliminates a grind factor.

That said, I'm not a big fan of just adding new skills to train unless they relate to new game mechanics, or there are really good reasons why adding skills are the lesser evil.

Private Citizen • CSM in recovery
Syds Sinclair
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#226 - 2013-03-08 23:47:24 UTC
..I, and many, like Eve because it is not a theme park like WoW and the clones.

What will you do as CSM to prevent Eve from turning into a theme park MMO?

♠ Sinclair Consulting ♠
Anistazana
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#227 - 2013-03-09 00:58:08 UTC  |  Edited by: Anistazana
High Sec Dan wrote:

Being a highly a public figure. . . , you would be the vegetarian candidate.


From one obvious alt to another, obvious alt is obvious.

I am not sure how former merc and current member of a rather well know black ops corp is considered a vegetarian but hey, whatever.

It's your story, you tell it.
Moxie Monique
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#228 - 2013-03-09 01:18:31 UTC
High Sec Dan wrote:


Face it Trebor, your platform is warmly receptive of the idea of dialing back the harsh player-driven environment of EVE in favor of mechanics-driven, unearned safety for players who choose to remain weak, disorganized and lazy. If EVE was KFC, you would be the vegetarian candidate.


We're all sure glad your here to inform Trebor of what his own opinions are. I think your onto something here, insisting you know what someone's opinions are better than they do is WAY easier then actually listening to them and having to think critically.

Here let me try: Face it Trebor, your favorite color is yellow, your a huge fan of Lynyrd Skynyrd, and your power animal is the Dolphin.
High Sec Dan
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#229 - 2013-03-09 02:20:03 UTC
Anistazana wrote:
I am not sure how former merc and current member of a rather well know black ops corp is considered a vegetarian but hey, whatever.
It's your story, you tell it.


And I'm a peaceful high sec citizen advocating for a more interesting, cutthroat and violent EVE. It takes all kinds.

Moxie Monique wrote:
We're all sure glad your here to inform Trebor of what his own opinions are. I think your onto something here, insisting you know what someone's opinions are better than they do is WAY easier then actually listening to them and having to think critically.


He is in denial.
mynnna
State War Academy
Caldari State
#230 - 2013-03-09 03:24:13 UTC
High Sec Dan wrote:
And I'm a peaceful high sec citizen advocating for a more interesting, cutthroat and violent EVE. It takes all kinds.

Transparent attempt at grassroots counter-movement is... well... transparent.

Member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal
High Sec Dan
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#231 - 2013-03-09 03:41:05 UTC
I'm as transparent as the clear blue water of the Drina on a bright spring morning.
Trebor Daehdoow
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#232 - 2013-03-09 11:31:31 UTC
High Sec Dan wrote:
An astute observer will immediately note that "making it easier to engage in mutual war" is the euphemistic way of saying "make it harder to engage in a non-mutual war."

An astute reader of the minutes will immediately note that you are leaping to conclusions.

The most relevant paragraph is:

Two step asked the team if they felt they’d accomplished all that they had set out to accomplish in overhauling the wardec system, as it appeared to him there appeared to be just as much random wardeccing and grief wardeccing as there was before the overhaul. Solomon joked that it would be so much easier to just remove the wardec system completely, to much laughter of the CSM. Then, more seriously, Solomon explained that the designers had been back and forth discussing this question, and that the general idea has always been to develop a toolset where two entities could participate in mutual combat even in highsec space.

I really encourage people to read that session in the minutes (starts at page 63), it gives a rare perspective on the internal debates that CCP devs engage in. In fact, I can't offhand recall another summit session where devs debated each other so vigorously.

Private Citizen • CSM in recovery
Roime
Mea Culpa.
Shadow Cartel
#233 - 2013-03-09 12:05:42 UTC
I hope you don't get re-elected.

Have a nice day o/

.
Trebor Daehdoow
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#234 - 2013-03-09 23:43:56 UTC
I just updated a post on page 1 of the thread in which I list some of the candidates that seem to be campaigning well. Go check them out and ask them some tough questions.

Private Citizen • CSM in recovery
Frying Doom
#235 - 2013-03-10 03:56:45 UTC  |  Edited by: Frying Doom
Ok so Ignoring the destruction of the CSM as the voice of the players and the removal of Non-consetual War decs.

I must as, you call your campaign "Trebor Daehdoow for CSM8 - The Proven Performer"

Now it is the "The Proven Performer" part I must query

In CSM 6 you were the secretary.

One of the secretaries jobs is the updating of the page "What is the CSM"
http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/What_is_the_CSM
(as stated by CCP exhagen in the election reform thread)

So now my question is, how can you call yourself "The Proven Performer" when as secretary you did not preform your duties and update that page?

Any spelling, grammatical and punctuation errors are because frankly, I don't care!!
Tcar
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#236 - 2013-03-10 10:13:49 UTC
Completely unabashed thread bump.
Trebor Daehdoow
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#237 - 2013-03-10 12:03:59 UTC
Frying Doom wrote:
In CSM 6 you were the secretary. One of the secretaries jobs is the updating of the page "What is the CSM"
http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/What_is_the_CSM (as stated by CCP exhagen in the election reform thread) So now my question is, how can you call yourself "The Proven Performer" when as secretary you did not preform (sic) your duties and update that page?

Anyone who looks at the history of that page will see that I edited it during my CSM 6 term, and in fact made almost 250 edits during my stint as secretary, and about 750 during my 3 terms on CSM.

In fact, I have edited the wiki roughly as many times as all of the other secretaries (Ankhesentapemkah, Omber Zombie, Meissa Anunthiel, TeaDaze, and Two step) combined.

Far from proving that I don't perform, all you have done is demonstrate that you "preform" your conclusions and don't let the facts get in your way.

Private Citizen • CSM in recovery
Frying Doom
#238 - 2013-03-10 12:34:15 UTC
Trebor Daehdoow wrote:
Frying Doom wrote:
In CSM 6 you were the secretary. One of the secretaries jobs is the updating of the page "What is the CSM"
http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/What_is_the_CSM (as stated by CCP exhagen in the election reform thread) So now my question is, how can you call yourself "The Proven Performer" when as secretary you did not preform (sic) your duties and update that page?

Anyone who looks at the history of that page will see that I edited it during my CSM 6 term, and in fact made almost 250 edits during my stint as secretary, and about 750 during my 3 terms on CSM.

In fact, I have edited the wiki roughly as many times as all of the other secretaries (Ankhesentapemkah, Omber Zombie, Meissa Anunthiel, TeaDaze, and Two step) combined.

So you edited it in your 250 alterations as secretary.

Well that is a shame that it still showed the wrong number of elected representatives and the fact it still lists alternative delegates.

What is the CSM wrote:

The Election Process

When an election is officially announced, candidates have two full weeks to campaign for player votes using any means at their disposal, provided that they comply with the EULA and TOS.

A player may cast one vote for each personal account with a current “active” status and having been active at least thirty consecutive days in the past. This includes reactivated accounts. All votes are strictly anonymous.

After the polls have closed, an automated system will count the votes and provide a list of the fourteen candidates with the greatest total number of votes received. The nine highest tallies of this group will be elected as Representatives, while the next five highest tallies will be elected as Alternates. Candidate tally placement does not grant any special privileges, as all Representatives — and Alternates when serving in the place of Representatives — have equal power on the CSM.

So you must be right "Far from proving that I don't perform, all you have done is demonstrate that you "preform" your conclusions and don't let the facts get in your way."

The fact isn't you did not alter it but that you were incompetent in your role.

And here was me thinking you just didn't do it.....But the facts don't lie.

Yes as to the spelling error, well I am not the CSM secretary so I don't need to get that right but nice to see you picking on my tablets alterations to prove your point. Seriously I think the fact you needed to pick on a spelling error to draw attention away from your ability to do your job kind of sums it up.

Trebor Daehdoow for CSM8 - The Proven Incompetent.

Any spelling, grammatical and punctuation errors are because frankly, I don't care!!
Two step
Aperture Harmonics
#239 - 2013-03-10 13:33:06 UTC
Frying Doom wrote:

So you edited it in your 250 alterations as secretary.

Well that is a shame that it still showed the wrong number of elected representatives and the fact it still lists alternative delegates.

What is the CSM wrote:

The Election Process

When an election is officially announced, candidates have two full weeks to campaign for player votes using any means at their disposal, provided that they comply with the EULA and TOS.

A player may cast one vote for each personal account with a current “active” status and having been active at least thirty consecutive days in the past. This includes reactivated accounts. All votes are strictly anonymous.

After the polls have closed, an automated system will count the votes and provide a list of the fourteen candidates with the greatest total number of votes received. The nine highest tallies of this group will be elected as Representatives, while the next five highest tallies will be elected as Alternates. Candidate tally placement does not grant any special privileges, as all Representatives — and Alternates when serving in the place of Representatives — have equal power on the CSM.

So you must be right "Far from proving that I don't perform, all you have done is demonstrate that you "preform" your conclusions and don't let the facts get in your way."

The fact isn't you did not alter it but that you were incompetent in your role.

And here was me thinking you just didn't do it.....But the facts don't lie.

Yes as to the spelling error, well I am not the CSM secretary so I don't need to get that right but nice to see you picking on my tablets alterations to prove your point. Seriously I think the fact you needed to pick on a spelling error to draw attention away from your ability to do your job kind of sums it up.

Trebor Daehdoow for CSM8 - The Proven Incompetent.


Uh, alternates weren't eliminated until CSM 7, when I was the secretary, not Trebor. So it sounds like your beef is with me, and I will freely admit to not caring about updating the wiki.

CSM 7 Secretary CSM 6 Alternate Delegate @two_step_eve on Twitter My Blog
Trebor Daehdoow
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#240 - 2013-03-10 13:38:33 UTC
Frying Doom wrote:
Well that is a shame that it still showed the wrong number of elected representatives and the fact it still lists alternative delegates.

Alternates were part of the formal CSM structure until the revision to the white paper a few weeks ago, although in practice the distinction was increasingly ignored starting with CSM 5 (a change I have always pushed). The current page has a mistake on it due to an oversight by CCP Xhagen when he updated the page last month.

If you are going to FanFest, and wish to chastise him for his obvious incompetence, please let me know so that I can be there to watch.

Private Citizen • CSM in recovery