These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

EVE General Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

CSM 9 Results

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
IDGAD
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#141 - 2014-05-05 04:37:01 UTC
So who are all these people?
Super spikinator
Hegemonous Conscripts
#142 - 2014-05-05 04:45:47 UTC
Proletariat Tingtango wrote:
Bloc vote success.


Dirty bloc voters are the reason why National, labour, the greens and NZ first party candidates keep getting in.

On a more related note, congrats to the new CSM. Hope you guys build up on what CSM 8 has laid the ground work on. looks like another good mix.
Cygnet Lythanea
World Welfare Works Association
#143 - 2014-05-05 04:51:15 UTC
Andski wrote:

hiseccers just come to the forums and cry because the possibility exists that they might someday lose a ship


After all these years, If i lose a ship it's my own damn fault, unless CCP decided to do something like revisit the active tank bug that kicked you out of the game when you turned on an active tanking module. Boy did I feel smart using passive resists that day.

The flip side of the argument is that lowsec and null players demand that noob ships be delivered directly to their gank point on undocking, because most of them are lazy, and nothing makes you want something like being told you can't have it.
Josef Djugashvilis
#144 - 2014-05-05 05:00:50 UTC
Andski wrote:
Dalloway Jones wrote:
So the people who claim that high sec should be wiped out are the same people who come to the forums and cry when a cloaked ship is sitting in a system all day, right?


hiseccers just come to the forums and cry because the possibility exists that they might someday lose a ship


Andski, even by your admittedly low standards of forum posting, this is nonsense, even more so because you know it is nonsense.

This is not a signature.
Herzog Wolfhammer
Sigma Special Tactics Group
#145 - 2014-05-05 05:12:33 UTC
Josef Djugashvilis wrote:
Andski wrote:
Dalloway Jones wrote:
So the people who claim that high sec should be wiped out are the same people who come to the forums and cry when a cloaked ship is sitting in a system all day, right?


hiseccers just come to the forums and cry because the possibility exists that they might someday lose a ship


Andski, even by your admittedly low standards of forum posting, this is nonsense, even more so because you know it is nonsense.



He's been like this all day. I think he needs a hug or something.

Bring back DEEEEP Space!
Dalloway Jones
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#146 - 2014-05-05 05:16:51 UTC
Get rid of local in null. That will really make him cranky.
Andski
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#147 - 2014-05-05 05:22:57 UTC
Dalloway Jones wrote:
Get rid of local in null. That will really make him cranky.


Sure, get rid of CONCORD in hisec and we'll happily give up local. After all, local makes 0.0 safer than hisec, right?

Twitter: @EVEAndski

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths."    - Abrazzar
Andski
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#148 - 2014-05-05 05:26:45 UTC
Josef Djugashvilis wrote:
Andski, even by your admittedly low standards of forum posting, this is nonsense, even more so because you know it is nonsense.


it's a shame that i'm right because if you visit F&I or GD on any given day, you'll see at least three threads asking for wardecs to be nerfed to the point where they only exist in name, asking for concord buffs or for some other nerfs to hisec aggression

Twitter: @EVEAndski

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths."    - Abrazzar
Josef Djugashvilis
#149 - 2014-05-05 06:21:03 UTC  |  Edited by: Josef Djugashvilis
Andski wrote:
Josef Djugashvilis wrote:
Andski, even by your admittedly low standards of forum posting, this is nonsense, even more so because you know it is nonsense.


it's a shame that i'm right because if you visit F&I or GD on any given day, you'll see at least three threads asking for wardecs to be nerfed to the point where they only exist in name, asking for concord buffs or for some other nerfs to hisec aggression


Okay, I'll go with your figures for the sake of argument.

21 threads a week wanting - demanding - whinging, hi-sec to be 'safer' etc.

The majority of Eve players play in hi-sec, so I can live with 21 of them a week starting threads wanting a safer hi-sec.

This 21, are a tiny minority, some of whom will be brand spanking new players who will soon come to their senses, some of them will be pixel hard-men alts setting up hi-sec to take a hit and some of them are playing the wrong game.

I can live with that, so can CCP Smile

Market forces and all that my dear chap, if hi-sec is so bad for the game, why does it have most of the players?

This is not a signature.
March rabbit
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#150 - 2014-05-05 06:53:00 UTC
Skurja Volpar wrote:
Thought it might be Psychotic Monk's year this time though.

looked at him.... removed from my list after question about E1...

The Mittani: "the inappropriate drunked joke"
Dinsdale Pirannha
Pirannha Corp
#151 - 2014-05-05 07:11:00 UTC
Frying Doom wrote:
Still no actual official announcement on the forums.

Or the voting statistics.

It has always been put up just after the fan fest announcement every year. Why the delay?


I think the dev blog last year was a couple days behind the actual CSM results were released, if my memory serves.
But yeah, if they results are not up by Tuesday / Wednesday it would be safe to assume that there subscription numbers in there that they don't want having a whole lot of light shone on.

I have asked it before, and have been met with stony silence.
Does the Chinese server have its own CSM, or none?

When CCP releases the subs, will they factor in the Chinese server numbers as well?
admiral root
Red Galaxy
#152 - 2014-05-05 07:42:39 UTC
Sabriz Adoudel wrote:
I really hope Dinsdale runs for CSM sometime.


My guess is he can't run because he doesn't meet the age requirement set by CCP. Then there's the fact that he's guaranteed to lose because the three guys who agree with his nonsense won't provide enough votes. Of course, those mysterious nullsec cartels could always get him voted on for their own sinister and nefarious purposes. That would be hilarious, though maybe not for Dinny. Twisted

Rhes wrote:
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:
I can't discuss on these forums the next logical step in this discussion, but there is clearly a supply / demand issue that becomes a big problem if high sec is completely removed from the game.

Please start a blog.


Oh god, if only. And none of that heavy-handed moderation of valid dissenting comments like some power tripping bloggers enjoy, please.

No, your rights end in optimal+2*falloff
Cygnet Lythanea
World Welfare Works Association
#153 - 2014-05-05 07:47:05 UTC
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:

When CCP releases the subs, will they factor in the Chinese server numbers as well?


Considering they trumpeted that subs had increased when the Chinese server opened, I'll do with yes.
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#154 - 2014-05-05 07:56:58 UTC
I'll say this for Dinsdale: at least he doesn't run around bleating that "The CSM are useless".

His faith in our effectiveness was often inspiring.

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

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Josef Djugashvilis
#155 - 2014-05-05 08:13:05 UTC
Malcanis wrote:
I'll say this for Dinsdale: at least he doesn't run around bleating that "The CSM are useless".

His faith in our effectiveness was often inspiring.


If there is indeed a cartel operating to get CCP to kill hi-sec, it is, to put it mildly, a failure.

This is not a signature.
Jaxon Grylls
Institute of Archaeology
#156 - 2014-05-05 08:30:12 UTC
There's a question that's been puzzling me.

If, as is claimed, Goons are "winning" EVE and that their superior organising powers have ensured that they dominate the CSM.

Why are they so defensive?

Any criticism or difference of opinion is met with scorn, insult and plain old fashioned disrespect.

Is it insecurity, hubris or immaturity?

I've no idea but suspect that it may be a combination of all three.

Or could it be that like the farm-yard cockerel, they just enjoy crowing from their little dung-hill?

All things must pass and that includes the Goons and EVE itself, but until such times, please be a bit more respectful of others, stop the gratuitous insults and for God's sake grow up.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#157 - 2014-05-05 08:55:42 UTC
Jaxon Grylls wrote:
There's a question that's been puzzling me.

If, as is claimed, Goons are "winning" EVE and that their superior organising powers have ensured that they dominate the CSM.

Why are they so defensive?

Any criticism or difference of opinion is met with scorn, insult and plain old fashioned disrespect.

Is it insecurity, hubris or immaturity?

I've no idea but suspect that it may be a combination of all three.

Or could it be that like the farm-yard cockerel, they just enjoy crowing from their little dung-hill?

All things must pass and that includes the Goons and EVE itself, but until such times, please be a bit more respectful of others, stop the gratuitous insults and for God's sake grow up.


We talk to people the same way they talk to us.
Jaxon Grylls
Institute of Archaeology
#158 - 2014-05-05 10:34:03 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
We talk to people the same way they talk to us.

Then claim the moral high ground and refuse to indulge in such activities.

Or could it be that you really enjoy all the angst and dislike?

Just like Millwall football club supporters.

They have a chant "Everybody hates us, we don't care."

I suspect that deep down they do care. Same with you.
Riot Girl
You'll Cowards Don't Even Smoke Crack
#159 - 2014-05-05 11:52:56 UTC
Didn't vote, don't care. Eagerly awaiting the next witch hunt for more forum hijinx.

Oh god.
Myriad Blaze
Common Sense Ltd
Nulli Secunda
#160 - 2014-05-05 11:59:00 UTC
Cygnet Lythanea wrote:

I really wish voting was monitored by a third party. I do vote, everyone I know votes, all our alts vote, and not one of them voted for a single goon. Granted, that's hardly proof, and frankly I'm eternally suspicious of CCP since they regularly manipulate the sandbox, then claim necessity or pretend it was an accident, and alternatively admit/deny their association with major alliances, who typically directly benefit from CCP actions and/or foreknowledge of CCP plans that the rest of us are not privy to.

CSM minutes? Sure, once everything in them are long over. New pirate ships? Yes, available everywhere, but cheaper for Goonswarm! Elections? All goon votes count double. and their serfs better vote their way if they know what's good for them!

I'm neither a goon nor a "goon serf". And yet I did vote (on all of my accounts) for some candidates who are in Goonswarm Federation (among others) - despite the fact that they would likely try to pod me in space (and vice versa) if the opportunity arises.

When I voted for the CSM I voted for people who I believe can work together to help make EVE a better game, people who know their stuff and who I think are capable of seeing the broader picture. Mynna is a very good example and has proven several times why he - at least imho - should be included in the CSM.

The CSM is not about N3/PL or the CFC or about null sec, or low or high sec, it's about EVE. And null sec, low sec, high sec, N3/PL and the CFC are all a part of EVE (and no small parts either).