These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Official Protest - Mittani should be removed from CSM - *** UPDATED RESPONSE POSTED ***

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Goddess Ishtar
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#281 - 2011-10-17 06:24:44 UTC
The Apostle wrote:
What if, just what if, the CSM were highly represented by highseccers? You think the rules on ganking would remain the same?

Haha you think the CSM makes the rules
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#282 - 2011-10-17 06:28:54 UTC
The Apostle wrote:
Malcanis wrote:
The Apostle wrote:
Poetic Stanziel wrote:
The Apostle wrote:
What if I say let's make suicide ganking outlawed in highsec. Make it bannable even. Would it get support? Nope. "This is Eve man, It's a sandbox"....
Were you being facetious? Or do you actually support banning/eliminating suicide ganking from highsec?

What does it matter? Until either CCP realises what's happening or a highseccer can get into the CSM, it's a "non-issue" accordingly.

But, there a few rumours about making Concord AI smarter. Can only be one reason for that..... Way overdue. There, I said it Shocked

And I'm not even a carebear... I just like seeing small guys get a fair crack of the whip.


You make it sound like this is anything to do with the CSM. The CSM has had nothing to do with the ice campaign.

Let's assume that the CSM had 3 "hi-sec" representatives; what would be different about the ice campaign?

What if, just what if, the CSM were highly represented by highseccers? You think the rules on ganking would remain the same?

Really?

Half the justification for highsec ganking is idealogical BS.... Take out cheap targets and half the wannabe warriors would have to actually fight to get a kill. Can't have that 'ey?

Cowards all.


So what, specifically, do you think would be different?

To throw in a little example, even with "0.0" CSMs, there is a vast list of desperately desired changes to 0.0 that we haven't even seen a 'Soon™' for. What hope would a minority group of delegates have of forcing through such an obviously self-interested change when CCP could just ask

"OK so one group of EVE players is fighting another group of EVE players, why should we see this as a problem?"

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

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
The Apostle
Doomheim
#283 - 2011-10-17 06:29:05 UTC  |  Edited by: The Apostle
Chopper Rollins wrote:
"What if I say let's make suicide ganking outlawed in highsec. Make it bannable even."

High sec will be such a yawnfest that all this would do is make the jump to low sec or 0.0 look even more horrifying to those without a corp backing / training them. Seriously, there are 4 yr old mission runners in high sec that think lowsec gates make your ship asplode.

And what of it? There are thousands of targets in low/wh and 0.0 for all the PvP ever wanted.

Quote:

Quote:
"I just like seeing small guys get a fair crack of the whip."

That's an Australian idea derived from the British idea of fair play. Both lovely ideas from places where 'kick the weak' is the reality. Good real-life values would suck all the adventure out of eve.

Not really mate. My $15 a month is as good as your $15 a month. All I'm saying is give Lil' Jack Horner a corner and let the rest of Eve have the whole universe.

If Jack wants to get greedy and leave his corner for extra custard, that's his problem then.

Make low and 0.0 more attractive, make high safe (but with less isk potential) and people will leave in droves to get rich ELSEWHERE.

Even Ned Kelly didn't live in Melbourne. Smile

[i]Take an aspirin. If pain persists consult your local priest. WTB: An Austrian kangaroo![/i]
Akirei Scytale
Okami Syndicate
#284 - 2011-10-17 06:30:10 UTC
Chopper Rollins wrote:

Quoted for perfectly cromulent use of the word tenacious.


I was thinking tenebroso and my brain went fzzt translating.
tenebroso is spanish for dark, hazy, unclear, etc.
The Apostle
Doomheim
#285 - 2011-10-17 06:31:22 UTC
Goddess Ishtar wrote:
The Apostle wrote:
What if, just what if, the CSM were highly represented by highseccers? You think the rules on ganking would remain the same?

Haha you think the CSM makes the rules

lol. Funnily enough, nope. But there is such a thing as lobbying.

Let's not forget though G%%n, the CSM sure rushed in to take the credit when the "the rules" got changed.

How soon we forget.

[i]Take an aspirin. If pain persists consult your local priest. WTB: An Austrian kangaroo![/i]
The Apostle
Doomheim
#286 - 2011-10-17 06:32:58 UTC
Goddess Ishtar wrote:
The Apostle wrote:
Every topic comes back to the same conclusions. G&&ns are ******* the game, in whatever method, and people have had enough.

There are way more people cheering us on than there are calling for us to be banned. We do it for the fans.

Actually I think you'll find there's far more people who dgaf.

That can be changed. You guys just make it easier.

[i]Take an aspirin. If pain persists consult your local priest. WTB: An Austrian kangaroo![/i]
Poetic Stanziel
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#287 - 2011-10-17 06:33:22 UTC
Thorn Galen wrote:
Look at what this chaos is causing :

  • It has raised awereness among players regarding the dangers in Eve. This in turn is slowly (perhaps too slowly) creating a backlash by Highsec players in the form of plans to counteract the suicide ganking.

  • It has made what should be a difficult to obtain resource a bit more dangerous to harvest. This has forced some miners to hire help. This in itself is a very good stimulation of game dynamics.

  • People who would otherwise not post in these forums are suddenly becoming more aware of the events taking place ingame and they too are becoming more active in these forums. Another good thing to happen to Eve.

  • The question of ship insurance and the way it currently works has been aired once again. I'm confident that CCP will do something to fix this, although I would be against any changes to Concord itself. I am for the concept of suicide gank = no ship insurance. It will not prevent suicide ganking, but it will cause such players to pause briefly and think a little harder on what loses they can sustain.

  • It has made many players much more aware (me included), of the politics and the dynamic forces in this game. There are the obvious camps of "I like" and "I do not like" and the glaring hatred by some of Goonswarm. How can this not be a good thing ? It has certainly made me more alert to my surroundings.

  • There is a constant effort by the same group of people to trash-talk the members of the CSM, The Mittani in particular. Can you not look beyond your personal beliefs and feelings and look at the facts ? Eve would be a poorer place if The Mittani and the rest of the CSM did not protest to CCP the recent Incarna fiasco. Consider they are bound by the NDA and are (and where) chomping at the bit to get information out of CCP in a timeous fashion.
Excellent summation. I just wrote "chaos is good" somewhere ... but this actually spells out all the reasons why chaos is good for EVE.
Just Another Toon
Doomheim
#288 - 2011-10-17 06:38:04 UTC
Poetic Stanziel wrote:
Thorn Galen wrote:
Look at what this chaos is causing :

  • It has raised awereness among players regarding the dangers in Eve. This in turn is slowly (perhaps too slowly) creating a backlash by Highsec players in the form of plans to counteract the suicide ganking.

  • It has made what should be a difficult to obtain resource a bit more dangerous to harvest. This has forced some miners to hire help. This in itself is a very good stimulation of game dynamics.

  • People who would otherwise not post in these forums are suddenly becoming more aware of the events taking place ingame and they too are becoming more active in these forums. Another good thing to happen to Eve.

  • The question of ship insurance and the way it currently works has been aired once again. I'm confident that CCP will do something to fix this, although I would be against any changes to Concord itself. I am for the concept of suicide gank = no ship insurance. It will not prevent suicide ganking, but it will cause such players to pause briefly and think a little harder on what loses they can sustain.

  • It has made many players much more aware (me included), of the politics and the dynamic forces in this game. There are the obvious camps of "I like" and "I do not like" and the glaring hatred by some of Goonswarm. How can this not be a good thing ? It has certainly made me more alert to my surroundings.

  • There is a constant effort by the same group of people to trash-talk the members of the CSM, The Mittani in particular. Can you not look beyond your personal beliefs and feelings and look at the facts ? Eve would be a poorer place if The Mittani and the rest of the CSM did not protest to CCP the recent Incarna fiasco. Consider they are bound by the NDA and are (and where) chomping at the bit to get information out of CCP in a timeous fashion.
Excellent summation. I just wrote "chaos is good" somewhere ... but this actually spells out all the reasons why chaos is good for EVE.



That is a terrible excuse. I guess thats what all the dictators, who have poured misery amongst its own people say....its was to help you....yeah right...
Masamune Dekoro
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#289 - 2011-10-17 06:38:47 UTC  |  Edited by: Masamune Dekoro
.
The Apostle
Doomheim
#290 - 2011-10-17 06:40:01 UTC
Malcanis wrote:

"OK so one group of EVE players is fighting another group of EVE players, why should we see this as a problem?"

Fight? Where?

Oh... Sorry. You mean the massive highly funded 0.0 alliances bashing individual players senseless and using "bots" and "economics" as justification?

Sorry. Yes. That "fight". My bad.

[i]Take an aspirin. If pain persists consult your local priest. WTB: An Austrian kangaroo![/i]
Renan Ruivo
Forcas armadas
Brave Collective
#291 - 2011-10-17 06:40:24 UTC
I was just sucking on a stainless steel nail and i nearly swallowed it by accident.

So don't suck on stainless steel ails.

The world is a community of idiots doing a series of things until it explodes and we all die.
Steelshine
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#292 - 2011-10-17 06:42:52 UTC
The first mistake was assuming politicians are honor bound to be trustworthy.
The Apostle
Doomheim
#293 - 2011-10-17 06:44:29 UTC
Masamune Dekoro wrote:
The Apostle wrote:


Even Ned Kelly didn't live in Melbourne. Smile


As a proud Australia, I must humbly ask WTF does this even mean.

Ned Kelly. An Australian "hero" by history but an outlaw in life.

He didn't go to the capital of Victoria to get his thrills (analogy highsec).

He did it in "the badlands" of the goldfields (analogy 0.0).

A real fighter... Not some dimwit standing on the street shooting his mouth off with 100 mates to back him up (analogy G&&ns).

Did that help Aussie?

[i]Take an aspirin. If pain persists consult your local priest. WTB: An Austrian kangaroo![/i]
Poetic Stanziel
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#294 - 2011-10-17 06:44:52 UTC
Just Another Toon wrote:
That is a terrible excuse. I guess thats what all the dictators, who have poured misery amongst its own people say....its was to help you....yeah right...

WHAT?!? Are you quoting from the Book of Crazy, again?
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#295 - 2011-10-17 06:45:05 UTC
The Apostle wrote:
Malcanis wrote:

"OK so one group of EVE players is fighting another group of EVE players, why should we see this as a problem?"

Fight? Where?

Oh... Sorry. You mean the massive highly funded 0.0 alliances bashing individual players senseless and using "bots" and "economics" as justification?

Sorry. Yes. That "fight". My bad.




Yeah, sounds pretty much like the majority of 0.0 campaigns, tbh.

So again where's the problem. You're in a boat, I want to violence it; I stay within the rules of the game and you make no effectual response. Where do the CSM come into this gap between my competence and your lack of it?

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

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Goddess Ishtar
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#296 - 2011-10-17 06:47:39 UTC
The Apostle wrote:
Malcanis wrote:

"OK so one group of EVE players is fighting another group of EVE players, why should we see this as a problem?"

Fight? Where?

Oh... Sorry. You mean the massive highly funded 0.0 alliances bashing individual players senseless and using "bots" and "economics" as justification?

Sorry. Yes. That "fight". My bad.


Other than posting about it (often and badly) what are you doing to protect the poor indy players?
Just Another Toon
Doomheim
#297 - 2011-10-17 06:49:04 UTC
Malcanis wrote:
The Apostle wrote:
Malcanis wrote:

"OK so one group of EVE players is fighting another group of EVE players, why should we see this as a problem?"

Fight? Where?

Oh... Sorry. You mean the massive highly funded 0.0 alliances bashing individual players senseless and using "bots" and "economics" as justification?

Sorry. Yes. That "fight". My bad.




Yeah, sounds pretty much like the majority of 0.0 campaigns, tbh.

So again where's the problem. You're in a boat, I want to violence it; I stay within the rules of the game and you make no effectual response. Where do the CSM come into this gap between my competence and your lack of it?


You seem to be completely missing the point..As always Malcanis.. The issue isnt wth the scamming or attacking whatever, its about players seeing these people as people they can trust! But they use this position of trust to abuse the game, such as scamming.
If a person contacts a CSM about anything in game, most players would expect to be treat with honesty.

Then they get scammed, how can that be good for the game, and what the CSM represents? Seriously
Goddess Ishtar
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#298 - 2011-10-17 06:51:01 UTC
Just Another Toon wrote:

Then they get scammed, how can that be good for the game, and what the CSM represents? Seriously

Did you hear back on your petition yet or are the GMs still passing it around and laughing at you?
KrakizBad
Section 8.
#299 - 2011-10-17 06:52:16 UTC
Just Another Toon wrote:
Malcanis wrote:
The Apostle wrote:
Malcanis wrote:

"OK so one group of EVE players is fighting another group of EVE players, why should we see this as a problem?"

Fight? Where?

Oh... Sorry. You mean the massive highly funded 0.0 alliances bashing individual players senseless and using "bots" and "economics" as justification?

Sorry. Yes. That "fight". My bad.




Yeah, sounds pretty much like the majority of 0.0 campaigns, tbh.

So again where's the problem. You're in a boat, I want to violence it; I stay within the rules of the game and you make no effectual response. Where do the CSM come into this gap between my competence and your lack of it?


You seem to be completely missing the point..As always Malcanis.. The issue isnt wth the scamming or attacking whatever, its about players seeing these people as people they can trust! But they use this position of trust to abuse the game, such as scamming.
If a person contacts a CSM about anything in game, most players would expect to be treat with honesty.

Then they get scammed, how can that be good for the game, and what the CSM represents? Seriously


Well they'd seriously get the point of EVE I think. Not to mention, last time I checked, scamming wasn't 'abusing the game' at all. In related news, I can remove him from the CSM for the low, low fee of 500M. Please send ISK with reason "remove ebil goon".
EI Digin
irc.zulusquad.org
#300 - 2011-10-17 06:54:59 UTC
goon