These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

CSM Campaigns

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Conflict. Opportunity. Destruction. Excitement.... Sabriz for CSM10

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Tengu Grib
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#381 - 2015-02-24 20:57:47 UTC
Sabriz Adoudel wrote:
Lucas Kell wrote:
Sabriz Adoudel wrote:
I didn't play at the time and have only anecdotal evidence for it. But I've heard it from quite a number of people.

Also thanks for your harsh but (from your position) fair comments on your blog.
No problem.

Any idea where people you heard it from heard it? It's one of those things I've heard a few times too and just assumed to be true, but now that I'm trying to source it, can't seem to find it anywhere. In fact I've found a couple of GMs stating the exact opposite, and now am beginning to wonder if it's just one of those things someone said once that just took hold.


James 315, Psychotic Monk and a few others but those are the two I can name.

Whilst the highsec predator community are often dishonest to outsiders, we aren't dishonest to each other (and Monk in particular took that as an absolute principle).


It's true, Monk will stab you in the back if he gets the chance, but he won't lie to you.

Rabble Rabble Rabble

Praise James, Supreme Protector of High Sec.
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#382 - 2015-02-24 21:33:23 UTC
Tengu Grib wrote:
Sabriz Adoudel wrote:
Lucas Kell wrote:
Sabriz Adoudel wrote:
I didn't play at the time and have only anecdotal evidence for it. But I've heard it from quite a number of people.

Also thanks for your harsh but (from your position) fair comments on your blog.
No problem.

Any idea where people you heard it from heard it? It's one of those things I've heard a few times too and just assumed to be true, but now that I'm trying to source it, can't seem to find it anywhere. In fact I've found a couple of GMs stating the exact opposite, and now am beginning to wonder if it's just one of those things someone said once that just took hold.


James 315, Psychotic Monk and a few others but those are the two I can name.

Whilst the highsec predator community are often dishonest to outsiders, we aren't dishonest to each other (and Monk in particular took that as an absolute principle).
It's true, Monk will stab you in the back if he gets the chance, but he won't lie to you.
That may be the case, but that doesn't mean someone else didn't come up with it and it spread though them. All evidence I can find points to it having never been an exploit at any point.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Bethan Le Troix
Krusual Investigation Agency
#383 - 2015-02-25 12:31:24 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Tim Timpson wrote:
This is arguable. It's only interesting to you because of conflict. Some players are quite happy without it.


If I buy Call of Duty, and then go on their forums and complain that other people are allowed to shoot me, I would probably be banned for trolling, and rightfully so.

EVE Online is no less a PvP game. Whether you partake of that or not, you should still recognize and accept it.

Quote:

There are all types in this game and everyone should get a say, not just your guys.


If your say consists of "what other people like about the game should be deleted!", then no you really shouldn't.

See the Call of Duty example above. You don't get to have a say when it comprises complete opposition to the spirit of the game. If you hate it that much, why are you playing it in the first place?


Quote:
If you can't understand that there should be a balance between the two, there's no talking to you.


Read the FAQ. It says, in no uncertain terms "EVE Online is a PvP game". If you can't understand that, then you can't be redeemed as a player.


Just looking through some previous replies while waiting for the server. Smile

CoD obviously isn't the same as EVE Online and you make yourself look like an idiot to say so. In EVE you can do many activities that are not directly a combat situation although they could arguably in a way be construed as being PvP. Whereas CoD is all about fighting and PvP and there is little else to do there.
Bethan Le Troix
Krusual Investigation Agency
#384 - 2015-02-25 12:36:41 UTC
Sabriz Adoudel wrote:
I don't get where these people claiming that CCP are changing AWOXing to protect newbies.

I do not advocate this, but if you wanted to make a change to PVP to protect newbies, you would prevent lowsec gatecamping. THAT is where newbies lose ships to mistakes all the time, particularly in lowsec systems that sell skillbooks.

Removing AWOXing is nothing but a change to protect career highsec players and to reward recklessness. Competently led corporations were seldom infiltrated, and if a disloyal member got in, they seldom did damage with blue on blue highsec attacks - the disloyal member might land tackle, but other loyal members would arrive on grid before anyone was killed.


Personally I feel the new AWOX settings are potentially hazardous because if we accidentally shoot a corpie then CONCORD will come and kill us. So I will be leaving it as 'unsafe' as before. Big smile

And before someone points it out I know I'm the only girl in my corporation. I'm speaking theoretically. Big smile
Bethan Le Troix
Krusual Investigation Agency
#385 - 2015-02-25 12:55:34 UTC
'We' were considering giving you are votes for the CSM candidacy as we like some of your ideas such as renovating the wardec system to increase the costs if a large force wishes to attack a small or tiny force. We also liked your idea of giving small percentage increases eg to mining yield for pilots who stay in the same player-run corporations for say three months or more. I think you also gave support to, I think it was Steve Ronukens idea Question, to bring some kind of sovereignty aspect or control of systems to high sec. That idea interests me but it would have to be tightly controlled and well thought out. Otherwise it would end up like the situation with high sec POCOs which to my mind isn't healthy.

It sounds like you would also like to remove high sec from the game which I don't really agree with. Can you explain your thoughts again on this policy ?
Tear Jar
New Order Logistics
CODE.
#386 - 2015-02-25 15:55:12 UTC
Just want to throw my support behind Sabriz. He is articulate, reasonable and has good ideas, which are all important traits for a CSM member.
Tengu Grib
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#387 - 2015-02-25 18:15:53 UTC
Bethan Le Troix wrote:
Sabriz Adoudel wrote:
I don't get where these people claiming that CCP are changing AWOXing to protect newbies.

I do not advocate this, but if you wanted to make a change to PVP to protect newbies, you would prevent lowsec gatecamping. THAT is where newbies lose ships to mistakes all the time, particularly in lowsec systems that sell skillbooks.

Removing AWOXing is nothing but a change to protect career highsec players and to reward recklessness. Competently led corporations were seldom infiltrated, and if a disloyal member got in, they seldom did damage with blue on blue highsec attacks - the disloyal member might land tackle, but other loyal members would arrive on grid before anyone was killed.


Personally I feel the new AWOX settings are potentially hazardous because if we accidentally shoot a corpie then CONCORD will come and kill us. So I will be leaving it as 'unsafe' as before. Big smile

And before someone points it out I know I'm the only girl in my corporation. I'm speaking theoretically. Big smile


With the safe option turned on you would only be able to shoot a corp mate with safeties set to red, otherwise your safeties would prevent you from shooting. That being said I leave my corp on 'unsafe' as well.

Rabble Rabble Rabble

Praise James, Supreme Protector of High Sec.
Sabriz Adoudel
Move along there is nothing here
#388 - 2015-02-25 20:47:54 UTC  |  Edited by: Sabriz Adoudel
Bethan Le Troix wrote:
'We' were considering giving you are votes for the CSM candidacy as we like some of your ideas such as renovating the wardec system to increase the costs if a large force wishes to attack a small or tiny force. We also liked your idea of giving small percentage increases eg to mining yield for pilots who stay in the same player-run corporations for say three months or more. I think you also gave support to, I think it was Steve Ronukens idea Question, to bring some kind of sovereignty aspect or control of systems to high sec. That idea interests me but it would have to be tightly controlled and well thought out. Otherwise it would end up like the situation with high sec POCOs which to my mind isn't healthy.

It sounds like you would also like to remove high sec from the game which I don't really agree with. Can you explain your thoughts again on this policy ?



I do not want to remove highsec. EVE should be balanced on a sliding scale of risk vs reward, with wormhole space and nullsec offering the highest rewards alongside the highest risk, rookie systems offering almost no reward and almost no risk, and highsec and lowsec somewhere in the middle of those two.

Highsec's two defining traits are the presence of large quantities of neutrals among whom a minority of predators may be hiding, and the fact that the defender has significant but not overwhelming advantages in any conflict (CONCORD in ganks, ability to call in allies in wardecs, ability to have armed neutral assistance when you shoot a suspect, etc).

The game can and should have areas like this.

I support the New Order and CODE. alliance. www.minerbumping.com
Sabriz Adoudel
Move along there is nothing here
#389 - 2015-02-25 23:11:25 UTC
My suggested voting platform:

1: Sabriz Adoudel
2: Tora Bushido
3: Steve Ronuken
4-14: Fill all of these out with candidates of your choice that are not Mike Azariah. If you do not have enough candidates you care about, pick ones at random.

The reasoning:

Ideally I'd like to get voted up on my own rights. However, if I am not elected, under STV a 1 Sabriz 2 Tora vote is (almost) equivalent to a 1 Tora vote. I feel Tora is the second best highsec predator candidate and would be a huge asset to the CSM whether I am elected or not, and my voters might help put Tora over the line.

Steve R probably doesn't need help getting over the line but I don't think this should be left to chance. The CSM needs someone with his unique skillset.

Mike Azariah was instrumental in providing feedback that led to incursion changes. While he presented these changes as 'quality of life' changes, they have been major balance changes that have further damaged the (already seriously bad) risk to reward imbalance present in highsec incursion farming. EVE was made actively worse by these changes. Regardless of any positive qualities Mike may have as a person or organizer, EVE would be better if his feedback on game balance issues is marginalized or ignored.

It may seem that his feedback is irrelevant if you do not participate in incursions yourself, but the enormous amounts of liquid ISK poured into the economy by incursions transforms the game economy considerably. This is true of nullsec ratters as well, but null ratters do at least drive small gang fights and occasionally larger conflicts.

Under STV, it is an optimal voting strategy to fill your ballot with candidates that have a fringe chance of being elected if you wish to reduce one particular candidate's chance of getting elected.

I support the New Order and CODE. alliance. www.minerbumping.com
GetSirrus
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#390 - 2015-02-27 00:51:56 UTC  |  Edited by: GetSirrus
Sabriz Adoudel wrote:
Mike Azariah was instrumental in providing feedback that led to incursion changes.


And you were instrumental in a dismal failure to organise creative content for players against incursions.

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=366607

This is the extent of your skills? If you cannot convenience villains to be evil then how will you convince CSM or CCP that your view has any merit.?

Its been nice that your friends have assisted answering questions for your campaign, but is that really an viable option at a summit? Maybe you can keep asking for a toilet break to batphone through to James315 for the "real answer".
Sabriz Adoudel
Move along there is nothing here
#391 - 2015-02-27 00:54:26 UTC
GetSirrus wrote:
Sabriz Adoudel wrote:
Mike Azariah was instrumental in providing feedback that led to incursion changes.


And you were instrumental in a dismal failure to organise creative content for players against incursions.

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=366607

This is the extent of your skills? If you cannot convenience villains to be evil then how will you convenience CSM or CCP that your view has any merit.?

Its been nice that your friends have assisted answering questions for your campaign, but is that really an viable option at a summit? Maybe you can keep asking for a toilet break to batphone through to James315 for the "real answer".



If I had known how busy I would be IRL at that time, I would never have initiated that event.

Real life can surprise you at any time.

I support the New Order and CODE. alliance. www.minerbumping.com
Sabriz Adoudel
Move along there is nothing here
#392 - 2015-03-01 09:46:50 UTC
Well, I've now voted.

I support the New Order and CODE. alliance. www.minerbumping.com
Zealous Miner
Doomheim
#393 - 2015-03-02 15:15:46 UTC
All of my ballots have you at the top. I wish you luck in your campaign.Smile

Fedo. Fedo? Fedo!
admiral root
Red Galaxy
#394 - 2015-03-02 16:24:13 UTC
GetSirrus wrote:
And you were instrumental in a dismal failure to organise creative content for players against incursions.


What content have you organised for players?

No, your rights end in optimal+2*falloff
Tengu Grib
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#395 - 2015-03-02 18:50:28 UTC
GetSirrus wrote:
Sabriz Adoudel wrote:
Mike Azariah was instrumental in providing feedback that led to incursion changes.


And you were instrumental in a dismal failure to organise creative content for players against incursions.

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=366607

This is the extent of your skills? If you cannot convenience villains to be evil then how will you convenience CSM or CCP that your view has any merit.?

Its been nice that your friends have assisted answering questions for your campaign, but is that really an viable option at a summit? Maybe you can keep asking for a toilet break to batphone through to James315 for the "real answer".


I don't think you know what the word convenience means.

Rabble Rabble Rabble

Praise James, Supreme Protector of High Sec.
Tengu Grib
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#396 - 2015-03-02 18:51:57 UTC
I've spread the word wide, no less than 30 accounts have you at the top.

Rabble Rabble Rabble

Praise James, Supreme Protector of High Sec.
Sabriz Adoudel
Move along there is nothing here
#397 - 2015-03-03 02:16:35 UTC
Here's an image of a kitten to thank my voters.

http://ashcreekanimalclinic.com/clients/14298/images/kitten10.jpg

That kitten really hopes I get elected.

I support the New Order and CODE. alliance. www.minerbumping.com
Bam Stroker
The Graduates
The Initiative.
#398 - 2015-03-03 04:38:52 UTC  |  Edited by: Bam Stroker
Good luck Sabriz. As an AUTZ candidate I've been mindful to give you equal mention along with myself and Cagali when I've posted or spoken about the CSM in the context of EVE Down Under.

EVE Down Under - a community for players in the AUTZ

In-game channel: evedownunder // Twitter: @evedownunder

https://www.facebook.com/evedownunder
GetSirrus
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#399 - 2015-03-03 07:50:56 UTC
admiral root wrote:
GetSirrus wrote:
And you were instrumental in a dismal failure to organise creative content for players against incursions.


What content have you organised for players?


I am not the one running for CSM with a platform of "content creation". Neither are you - but by all means keep answering for Sabriz. Confirmation of the point I made.

The aim here is Player Driven Content, you get this right?! So if Incursions are "risk free" then the blame lies with those fail to bring that risk. It is obviously important to someone. Now Sabriz cites RL - totally fine, I trust everything is in hand going forward. But no one else takes up the torch, including you. This clearly demonstrates that is not important enough.
GetSirrus
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#400 - 2015-03-03 07:55:28 UTC
Tengu Grib wrote:
I don't think you know what the word convenience means.


Well Sabriz did understand what I was asking and the answer I received was satisfactory. But since you did not, I have since edited it for clarity. Note especially for you, it was typed slowly, you don't read very fast if you takes days to notice.