These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at

Jita Park Speakers Corner

  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
123Next pageLast page

Fon Revedhort for CSM 8 - PvP for PvPers and those with a clue

First post First post First post
Fon Revedhort
Monks of War
#1 - 2013-03-19 19:36:03 UTC  |  Edited by: ISD Suvetar
Checking out my vote-match profile first might be useful.

Target audience consists of those who:
- PvP themselves;
- don't PvP, but would like to try;
- used to, but no longer PvP due to some reasons (probably covered here);
- are not interested in PvP yet remain fully aware of its significance for the game.

That's me.

Sadly, I've got none of these fancy references from ex- or current CSM members to proudly put here, so maybe this short video will help, as it summarizes the way of interaction I've preferred so far for dealing with those of them who actually undock.

In case of limited attention span and desire to see the platform, please proceed to massive Part II and randomly pick few items, which should be enough to answer the "what" question. Part I addresses the ones of "who" and "why"; it is premised by few quotes (from various forums), which are not necessarily true, but at least made me smile.

"Our fleet had a whopping 66% Amarr racial purity factor –
Fon Revedhort-approved! – and thus we felt confident
that we could achieve victory over the heathens"

"For a guy I've never heard of you make a lot of good points"

"I think Fon has shown that he isn't capable of having a discussion
about fitting ships without bringing up racist ideology"

"That was absolutely fantastic!
It was like a parade of several ships I've EFT'd but never had the isk to fly haha"

"I normally wouldn't care that much,
but he has a habit of accusing people who fly drakes
of needing to compensate for their racial inferiority by flying "OP" ships"

Part I - Introduction

Given the number of fruitless demagogues and obvious insiders, my refusal of attempting to exert curative influence on CCP would become a betrayal of the community, which would - yet again - face the necessity of making a choice between candidates whose mutual differences and ingame weight remind chess pawns taken from the very same set. And if it is really believed that "my honour is loyalty", then I surely cannot leave people to the mercy of ignorance of the "highest instance", which seems to be swiftly overcoming last obstacles in the way of the final degradation.

Unlike some unscrupulous rivals, I'm interested in the cause itself rather than personalities; thus I won't discuss even the most absurd statements (game-related, btw) made by utterly blobtastic CSM delegates and would rather touch upon a pretty generic issue often encountered at elections.

Quite often candidates introduce themselves like that they hardly have anything specific to say right now, but since they can do things like "listening" and "talking" (like fine secretary girls) they surely will conduct much "communication" once elected. It's hard to say whether intellectual sterility, hidden self-humiliation or plain hypocrisy prevails in these speeches, but one thing is pretty clear: no one really gives a crap on opinion expressed by individual anonymous posters, unless of course something like a sample of moronic and obviously unfinished UI hits TQ, causing forums to unite in a rage of negation for which ironically they need no CSM whatsoever.

And every sane person having succumbed to shameful election demagogy has to ask himself: how often has CSM asked players on anything specific? Hardly ever! The players are either asked to approve pre-made decisions, hardly changeable unless met with really sharp criticism; or invited to throw in "ideas" and no commitment comes next. CSM is not asking every John and his dog about what and how they think CCP should change. Nope.

Basically, the entire system of elected representatives there and everywhere always implies few speaking on behalf of the many. But why keep talking about self-styled unique communication capabilities then? The answer is short: suffering the lack of game achievements and being unable to come up with solid views on pressing issues, these people have nothing else to set as their virtues.

I've got no need to conduct such a poor rhetoric. Just the reverse, I'm quite honestly saying that one's inability to pick sides combined with "making-EVE-a-better-place" mumbling can be considered as great wisdom only by exemplary sons of the degenerative XXI century. By definition, to these I've got nothing to offer.

On the other hand, similarities always meet; it's hardly a coincidence that previous elections featured me supported by Garmon, who had been considered as PvPer #1 for quite a while. I created a movie of uncommon might; given how certain marasmus-affected CSM delegates performed "alternative" ways of addressing the broader audience, Garmon couldn't help responding in somewhat overstating yet frank manner:

"The sad thing is that Fon Revedhort has been working on a pvp video for the past 20 months, he released it around 36 hours ago for his CSM campaign, and it is the single best pvp movie that has ever been made, only 1k people has seen it. It's unfathomable how something that required so much effort + innovation, and is quite frankly, fantastic, has been ignored by the general eve public, but an evening of spamming has resulted in you reaching out to 200k+ characters?

If you remember, when the CSM minutes were released, there was a big outcry with the community with how the CSM candidates didn't seem to be in touch with the game, and were generally, incompetent - not my words, just the general feedback the majority gave, I would say that this video demonstrates that he doesn't have those qualities. I'm sure a lot of people would agree that an important quality that a CSM candidate should have is their ability to pvp, and understand mechanics, apart from the video being very enjoyable, it addresses those concerns too."

"Being supporters of free speech and free and open [CSM] elections... we removed Fon Revedhort from eligibility". CCP, April 2013.

Fon Revedhort
Monks of War
#2 - 2013-03-19 19:36:16 UTC  |  Edited by: Fon Revedhort
Finally, scandalmongering and backstage steps of blob apologists were thoroughly in line with their game views. They were smart enough to see a threat coming to their interests. If anything, it would have been really surprising to see plush villains missing an opportunity to clamour against real-life "evil", which "surely" saves one a hassle of having a discussion on the matter itself. These people can only praise someone utterly toothless who won't cause much trouble - a yesterday's newbie with little to none success beyond mere frigs will fit perfectly, the more so if his most significant "threat" posed to blobs is defined as "nerf gang-links". And while that kind of players might be of some use for CSM in case small-scale gaming style is well-represented, the latter one is something CSM has always lacked; and thus we'd better remain pragmatic and particularly think of the ship classes to be rebalanced soon, and in turn recollect who exactly within the playerbase has got enough combat experience in that field.

All in all, it's clear enough that evaluating candidates by their bombastic speeches and references made by their fundamental opponents should be skipped in favor of one's true achievements, experience and views.

My ingame achievements are well-known and have motivated dozens of players to take part in complex and creative PvP, so let's dwell on the views.

Part II - The Principles

"Always tell the truth and only the truth, just not the whole truth", Moltke taught. That's exactly what I'm going to do here, omitting complicated stuff and rather focusing on something easy both to explain and understand. Some points might even be considered as totally obvious, but still they are to be put here.

Sure thing, it would be really stupid to believe that I'm somehow laying claims of being able to reshape EVE by myself. But the truth is, with this text at his disposal a regular voter may accurately predict my reaction to CCP initiatives.

  • PvP is the backbone of EVE as it creates a steady demand for both industrial goods and PvE loot through constant destruction of assets and items. At the end of the day it's PvP that sells manufactured hulls or NPC-looted high-end gear. This is something PvE players should never forget, more so if they live in high-sec space and tend to believe they're out of any events - this view is wrong simply due to them using the market, which ultimately is the connecting link between them as PvErs and many others who PvP. The reversed idea - of PvP being impossible without industry and PvE - is just a poor attempt at demagogy, since it's pretty obvious that these things will always exist at the very least due to PvPers themselves, who evidently have never pulled their isk out of the thin air and at any given moment tend to participate in most profitable (demanded) activities; on the other hand, "pacifists" alone will never cause a warfare intensive enough to make the economy work. This explains why I'm so focused on improving and expanding PvP. Meanwhile, it's simply not true that this somehow translates into me advocating for high-sec level 4 missions getting moved into low-sec etc.

  • Nerfs and boosts are always interconnected. For instance, introduction of Jump Freighters in their current state might be considered as a boost to logistics, but for pirates earning their living through pillaging trade routes these ships have surely become a catastrophe. This is something a lot of people reject because of their little interest in seeing things outside of their own nutshell. Addition of a covert-ops cloak to Tech2 transports in Quantum Rise has been the same: a boost for some, a huge nerf for the others. Another example: boosting one particular combat ship is always an indirect nerf to its counterparts simply because they all exist in the same environment and share the same pool of targets. Same applies to space in general - if a new area offers something really lucrative, then it attracts people from all over the space and subsequently makes other areas less populated. All in all, even though both boosts and nerfs are inevitable, it makes no sense to think of boosts as of "improvements" and consider nerfs as "spoilers". The primary goal is creating a balanced environment with demand for all the stuff - professions, ships, regions etc. Thus any new content is only welcome in case present things are enriched with new alternatives rather than just rendered obsolete.

  • Ships of the same class are to be of more or less the same value for players. It's absolutely wrong to have such a design where, say, one race gets an overpowered HAC, another one - an OP interceptor and the third one - an OP recon. And mistaken are those standing up against any attempt of fixing these ships on mere grounds of "their race having nothing else to fly". There surely is nothing, given how remaining roles are already occupied by ships of other races - how can anyone keep missing that?

  • Abundance of combat modules and rigs should encourage different tactics and fittings instead of calling up associations with a brothel run by oddballs, where few popular strumpets are kept along with a bunch of nearly decomposed beings, used out of pity and at Greek calends only. And the variety we are looking for can only be achieved via rational stats and penalties - this is something CCP seems to ignore occasionally, otherwise they would have never rejected promising rig changes in spring 2012 with such a poor reasoning. If dogmas and doctrines were really Alpha and Omega of EVE design, then such things as Sansha Mk.2 (of lasers and shields) would have never appeared.

"Being supporters of free speech and free and open [CSM] elections... we removed Fon Revedhort from eligibility". CCP, April 2013.

Fon Revedhort
Monks of War
#3 - 2013-03-19 19:36:22 UTC  |  Edited by: Fon Revedhort

  • The key factor of how populated an area is has always been its profitability and general convenience for economy activities. This is true for MMORPGs just like for real-life. Another factor might arise if location is well-placed strategically (see Rancer). Thus refusal to consider these things as starting points make any attempts to re-vitalize low-sec simply futile right from the beginning. It's now clear how much laughter occurs when it's suggested to "improve" low-sec by increasing (or decreasing) strength of mere sentry-guns instead of simply addressing the only question worth a discussion: "why low-sec space exists in the first place and what content does it provide for the entire economy?"

  • In the vast majority of combat scenarios velocity is much more important than signature radius. Rarely these 2 things can be considered as of close significance and hardly ever they truly are of equal worth. The game balance should reflect this difference much more accurately.

  • "Life is motion": PvP occurs only in case players perform some activities at which not only they may catch targets but also - that's extremely important - get caught themselves. Thus the game has to be designed in a way that encourages exactly activities and prolonged stay in a vulnerable position for both sides, rather than cloaking and mutual POS-hugging combined with escorting one of the cyno-equipped "roaming" ships, which has been adopted as an ultimate PvP-of-a-dream. While ideal logistics is now understood as instantaneous and risk-free jump-drive navigation. Basically, we have sort of "instances" here, as players are effectively removed from the gaming field and interact with others only when (and if) they so please. It needs no further proving that existence of any "instances" contradicts EVE basics and is much more appropriate in games like Hello Kitty Online.

  • Any ship of increased durability has to be slower than its less durable counterpart - and that's something to be strictly true not only for ships of different classes, but also for different setups of any given ship. This fundamental principle has been working wonders for lots of other games and there are no signs whatsoever that this can be somehow detrimental for EVE.

  • Smaller forces should receive an inborn advantage, something that naturally comes from the game mechanics itself - like reduced visibility at global map or scanner etc. Just anything! EVE has never imposed any limitations on fleet size neither by rules (in a manner of ally tournaments) nor by mechanics. The first thing is good, the second one is exactly what causes the problem. Neither in real life nor in any half-intelligent game driving together 50 divisions to operate at a 5 km width front is sane, and attempts of actually trying that may easily lead to Thermopylae or even Suomussalmi. While EVE makes covering a mere stargate by 50 ships sitting on top of each other not only possible but also really beneficial. AoE-damage is pretty rare and the following things are non-existent: line of fire, increased accuracy of enemy fire due to high density, landscape defiles. These are exactly the things naturally limiting any blob, but EVE has none of it and is also unlikely to adopt anything of that sort in the foreseeable future. This in turn makes us to look for a replacement. The experience tells us that sometimes huge numbers in the local chat provide a cover by the scrolling bar, since moving it up and down is apparently hard for some inhabitants. We are really thankful for that, but still that's hardly enough.

  • Active tanking shield and armor ships of the same class (price etc.) should result in receiving comparable tanking values. Denying that on mere grounds of armour buffer being (allegedly) superior to shield is like rejecting Eagle improvement "because Drake is already very good". In other words, things are to be balanced separately and on their own. And while different weaponry has got really close DPS values, no one accuses Torpedoes of being the same with Blaster Cannons. As such, there are no reasons to insist on active shield tanking remain plain superior to the armour one. Incidentally, a somewhat unrelated issue might get fixed: lineups of Centus/Corpus armor modules are basically the same; ability to pick between peak tank and cap efficiency (Pith/Gist) makes much more sense.

  • Rejecting active tank (traditional, not the so-called "ancillary" one) for small-scale PvP should result in getting as gimped setup as bringing an active-tanked ship into a fleet fight. But current buffer tank is so strong that can be successfully used even in one-on-one fights, let alone small-scale ones.

"Being supporters of free speech and free and open [CSM] elections... we removed Fon Revedhort from eligibility". CCP, April 2013.

Fon Revedhort
Monks of War
#4 - 2013-03-19 19:36:29 UTC  |  Edited by: Fon Revedhort

  • Subcapital ships of equal class should be able to kill each other in a reasonable timeframe, unless fitted for tank alone and thus being really penalized in all other areas. As such, increasing tanking values across the board is wrong in its core and ultimately just increases the smallest scale at which PvP may ever occur; what's the point in doing PvP when scoring a kill is hardly possible? That's right, there's none - and that's one of the reasons why solo PvP is so unpopular beyond frigates. On the other hand, tier 3 battlecruisers, these so-called "thin" ships, are successfully used at medium- and large-scale PvP and clearly prove how excessive EHP of most ships currently is. In this regard Kil2 & Kovorix podcast #15 is worth quoting; their talk on "ancillary" shield boosters shows how high-profile PvP players retain common sense even if the consciousness is temporally blacked-out:
  • - I think ultimately if everyone of the small-scale started fitting this way it would make small-scale PvP a real pain in the arse.
    - Yeah. Ha-ha-ha.
    - Honestly, cause if it's really hard to kill something... every time for 45 seconds, 50 seconds, it makes PvP really difficult, but... I don't know...

    And while these "ancillary" modules were later brought down to a more realistic level, it would be really delusional to think CCP has no problems in comprehending the basics - see CCP buffing HP bonus on tech2 plates along with hypocritical weeping on poor active tank.

  • Ship scanners and sophisticated in-game intelligence should have an absolute advantage over primitive means such as killboards. In this regard it's really embarrassing to encounter maniacally persistent attempts at supplying killmails with information that by any stretch of imagination cannot be obtained without forensic evaluation and scientific studies (see current pod KMs).

  • Any ship affecting the battlefield should be committed and share the risk of getting destroyed. Carriers used to deploy fighters right from the POS field - happily, this was fixed. A lot is being said about pseudo-invulnerable gang-links, but at the same time it's totally missed how titans and black-ops can deploy other ships from another system and evade any risk at all. Obviously, creating a portal should result in the ship being compulsory moved to a destination beacon. Any arguments may only be conducted on how exactly this is to be designed.

  • The impact of any particular support ship should have a defined limit. For instance, a logistic ship may counter several thousand DPS being dealt to one friendly ship, but should it cover several ships at once, the repairing effect inevitably drops in value. The same takes place while boosting sensor strength, tracking and so on - the effect is split over the ships covered. Only gang-link effects are stretched to "conveniently" envelop any blob and suffer no reduction in efficiency whatsoever, not even a slightest one. This non-scalable game concept is absolutely skewed towards blobs (dedicating one ship surely becomes much easier when your group gets bigger and bigger) and makes no sense logic-wise. Besides, it also channels attention to totally unrelated points - some poor souls even believe they can "fix" links just by reducing their range. Short-sightedness in its worse! Instead, CCP should come up with such a concept, that makes presence (and number) of gang-boosting ships less of an obvious choice, just like its unobvious to set up a fleet of damage dealers, EW, logistics, tacklers etc.

  • Pilot identity should not be disclosed at least till the visual in-grid contact is established. In all other cases (such as local chat) only a presence of potentially dangerous subjects should be displayed, unless the latter ones have set positive standings towards the viewer from their (!) side. Bank may be brought as analogy: clients are doing just fine with their faces open, but robbers prefer masks. The logic behind this is very simple: if I'm friendly, then I don't hide; but if my intentions are hostile, why would I expose myself?

  • Self-destruction is a legitimate tactical tool, and its feasibility is based on the following simple facts: ease of creating one-sided fights and excessive EHP of ships. Truly interesting high-paced fights with mutual chances hardy ever feature any attempts of self-destructing - it's just neither possible nor reasonable. These are exactly the things to consider; instead, removing self-destruction from the game shows a poor attempt to put the blame on community and evade responsibility.

  • Expenditures on fitting a typical combat ship should be tweaked to increase the worth of potential loot. Veteran players undoubtedly recall old pre-invention days with joy. And Ultima Online players must be really embarrassed of our PvP, since all the gain from victory often results in a bit of mere text being posted at several sites somewhere in the Internet.

  • In contradistinction to a popular belief, price is a balancing tool. But the thing is, price alone should never justify plain overpowered items. CCP has completed rebalancing most of the smaller ships and it's now safe to assume that CCP only wants isk to buy a marginal advantage. Our job is now to make sure that this principle is adopted throughout the entire ship/module tree, a special emphasis is to be made on ships of the greatest impact.

  • Covert cloak is a really powerful module, thus one's ability (or inability) of using it should result in important stats getting reduced (in case the cloak is there) or increased (no cloak). It's pretty obvious that different ship classes have different key stats - combat ones are valued for their firepower, EW ones for their capabilities in electronic warfare and so on. Thus, considering lowered DPS of a cloaky EW ship as a serious drawback is as stupid as believing that tanking bonuses are of great value for transports.

"Being supporters of free speech and free and open [CSM] elections... we removed Fon Revedhort from eligibility". CCP, April 2013.

Fon Revedhort
Monks of War
#5 - 2013-03-19 19:36:53 UTC  |  Edited by: Fon Revedhort

  • Ship (module etc.) balance is to be maintained in order regardless of whether any particular item is popular or not. It's worth mentioning Titan class in this aspect, as its main armament was altered many times in a period of 5-6 years. At first it was a grid-affecting doomsday firing through a remote cyno (as an option), then it was redesigned into a plain grid-affecting doomsday, then turned into a death-ray killing any given ship after a short spool-up, and finally doomsday became an anti-capital weapon. Both moronity and lack of any solid game mechanics in these concepts are plain obvious, and all CCP has been doing is just making DD less overpowered over time as proliferation of Titans increased - it's like suffering a flood cause of a ruptured pipe and then limiting yourself to setting up bigger and better water pumps instead of just getting the issue itself addressed. Such a way of doing the balancing work inspires the morally degraded players with illusions and needlessly forces developers to get back to broken stuff time and time again rather than just work on something else.

  • Small forces should have at their disposal a real and fair way (as opposed to crap like cynoes, login traps etc.) of affecting sov space infrastructure. Ideally, one's inability to fight back right here and right now should result in a massive disruption - and the bigger the alliance is, the bigger the disruption. If one has got a bunch people and docks up seeing a mere fraction of their numbers incoming, then this entity is not fit to claim 0.0 space. It's really that simple. If adopted properly, this principle can provide a massive boost to small-scale PvP which at the moment is struggling evident lack of targets. And as mentioned above, PvP goes hand in hand with demand for industry and PvE. Meanwhile, only plain incompetent players can accuse us of "asking for more ganks". I've got enough experience in small-scale PvP to state in all seriousness that a great number of good fights of mutual chances and fun are initiated by tackling a miner, an industry guy or a farmer in a well-populated system. Those in doubt may watch my 2009 movie - Tiltyards for Cyborgs.

Let's call it finished. It's crucial to realize that a mere computer game, unlimited by strict physical laws of the real world, usually allows several ways of solving any particular issue.

Part III - Conclusion

Any cooperation is only feasible if two parties are sharing the same views. A brief overview of the last year clearly shows that CCP acknowledged a number of issues mentioned in my CSM 7 campaign: they proposed promising rig changes with penalizing mobility for passive/buffer tanking; necessity of reducing instantaneous risk-free traveling was spoken of; tech3 cruisers are now considered overpowered; heavy missiles were nerfed etc.

What does that mean in general? Firstly, there is only one truth. Secondly, the truth ultimately prevails. Unfortunately, "ultimately" does not mean "soon enough", while balance in EVE is such a thing that requires constant progress even if we just want to keep things in order - actual improvement requires even faster progress.

It's now clear why CCP, lacking high-ranked players, has hard time reacting on new challenges and allows things to gradually degenerate till the necessity of radical changes becomes obvious. It's also clear that getting in touch with devs directly makes resolving any issues much faster and better. Thus I'm urging those reading this message to show will and sense and use their votes in such a way that won't make us recall Einstein's famous definition.

Insanity: electing the same people over and over again and expecting different results.

"Being supporters of free speech and free and open [CSM] elections... we removed Fon Revedhort from eligibility". CCP, April 2013.

Succendus Tegimens
Hey Fatty With Your Thick Face
#6 - 2013-03-19 22:50:27 UTC
You sure put a lot of words to paper in your effort to not actually say anything.
Fon Revedhort
Monks of War
#7 - 2013-03-20 22:43:47 UTC
Dierdra Vaal is doing a great job keeping his vote-match project alive and I gladly used that opportunity to come up with some soft of a TL;DR version of what I'm saying here.

So feel free to check it out here.

"Being supporters of free speech and free and open [CSM] elections... we removed Fon Revedhort from eligibility". CCP, April 2013.

Fon Revedhort
Monks of War
#8 - 2013-03-25 20:41:11 UTC
Hey, let's keep it civil and avoid bringing in personalities, especially non-factor ones Cool

"Being supporters of free speech and free and open [CSM] elections... we removed Fon Revedhort from eligibility". CCP, April 2013.

Junko Sideswipe
Love Squad
Confederation of xXPIZZAXx
#9 - 2013-03-26 17:03:11 UTC
PIZZACO officially supports Fon Revedhort as its CSM8 candidate. Cool


Onyx Nyx
State War Academy
Caldari State
#10 - 2013-03-26 18:49:31 UTC
You given up your white supremacist views?

I kill kittens, and puppies and bunnies. I maim toddlers and teens and then more.

  • Richard (
Sparkle Motion.
#11 - 2013-03-27 20:42:57 UTC
I was trying to remember if you were that neo-Nazi scumbag, but you handily posted your neo-Nazi music and quoted Helmuth von Moltke in your OP, so good job.

"Do not touch anything unnecessarily. Beware of pretty girls in dance halls and parks who may be spies, as well as bicycles, revolvers, uniforms, arms, dead horses, and men lying on roads -- they are not there accidentally." -Soviet infantry manual,

The Scope
Gallente Federation
#12 - 2013-03-27 21:32:23 UTC
I believe the biggest issue facing EVE is that of the economy. This rampant inflation is a serious issue that must finally be faced. Do you have any solution?
Snow Axe
Goonswarm Federation
#13 - 2013-03-27 21:42:17 UTC
Hey Fon, how good are you at Transport Tycoon? This is important.

"Look any reason why you need to talk like that? I have now reported you. I dont need to listen to your bad tone. If you cant have a grown up conversation then leave the thread["

Father Snuggles
Goonswarm Federation
#14 - 2013-03-27 21:47:03 UTC
I support this candidacy. Regardless of what happens in New Eden over the next 12 years, at least we'll have DIE SPACE AUTOBAHN to enjoy afterwards.
Xander Phoena
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#15 - 2013-03-27 22:13:07 UTC
I interviewed Fon as part of the Crossing Zebras CSM8 Election Interviews process. You can listen to it here

I strongly advise people not to vote for Fon in CSM8 based on what is discussed in this interview.

Thorien Greenwood
Tactical Tea Baggers
#16 - 2013-03-27 22:36:30 UTC
A drunk ******* makes a stupid tasteless joke and gets booted from the CSM almost immediately, yet when a literal space-nazi starts quoting David Duke and other assorted fascists, CCP doesn't say a word?

My hope is that this is just a temporary thing, and that we can expect CCP to slap this space-fascist back down.
Two step
Aperture Harmonics
#17 - 2013-03-27 22:53:17 UTC
After listening to Xander's *excellent* interview, I am even more shocked and dismayed that Fon was allowed to run at all. I went and read his thread on eve-ru, and luckily many members of the Russian community are just as troubled by his views as I am. I hope everyone sends him a message to not bother to run for CSM9 by not giving him enough endorsements to even pass the pre-election.

CSM 7 Secretary CSM 6 Alternate Delegate @two_step_eve on Twitter My Blog

Snow Axe
Goonswarm Federation
#18 - 2013-03-27 22:59:03 UTC
Thorien Greenwood wrote:
A drunk ******* makes a stupid tasteless joke and gets booted from the CSM almost immediately, yet when a literal space-**** starts quoting David Duke and other assorted fascists, CCP doesn't say a word?

My hope is that this is just a temporary thing, and that we can expect CCP to slap this space-fascist back down.

They didn't last election, why would they this time? All they did last year was just edit out anyone else making references to his worldviews.

"Look any reason why you need to talk like that? I have now reported you. I dont need to listen to your bad tone. If you cant have a grown up conversation then leave the thread["

None ofthe Above
#19 - 2013-03-27 22:59:52 UTC
Thorien Greenwood wrote:
A drunk ******* makes a stupid tasteless joke and gets booted from the CSM almost immediately, yet when a literal space-**** starts quoting David Duke and other assorted fascists, CCP doesn't say a word?

My hope is that this is just a temporary thing, and that we can expect CCP to slap this space-fascist back down.

Am pretty sure they are hoping we are smart enough not to elect him and make Fon their issue.

The only end-game content in EVE Online is the crap that makes you rage quit.

None ofthe Above
#20 - 2013-03-27 23:01:04 UTC
Snow Axe wrote:
Thorien Greenwood wrote:
A drunk ******* makes a stupid tasteless joke and gets booted from the CSM almost immediately, yet when a literal space-**** starts quoting David Duke and other assorted fascists, CCP doesn't say a word?

My hope is that this is just a temporary thing, and that we can expect CCP to slap this space-fascist back down.

They didn't last election, why would they this time? All they did last year was just edit out anyone else making references to his worldviews.

Yes that was unfortunate. IMHO, worldviews are relevant... particularly when the candidate makes them so.

The only end-game content in EVE Online is the crap that makes you rage quit.

123Next pageLast page