These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Black Pedro
Mine.
#401 - 2015-03-03 09:07:21 UTC
GetSirrus wrote:
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.

Wow, so much bitter.

I'm not sure why you are implying an in-game effort to create content has any relevance to the purpose and daily activities of the CSM. Of all the roles it has grown to fill, running in-game contests isn't really something the CSM is for.

Sabriz, I have cast my multiple ballots for you. You have had an uphill battle for a seat with all the competition this year, but I am optimistic that your campaign has reached many and you have a shot at one of the last seats. Your thread has the most likes of any, and only Tora's has more views.

People, if you haven't voted and you want an engaging New Eden full of excitement, conflict, and energy; a New Eden where a proper risk and reward balance drives players towards evermore hilarious destruction; putting Sabriz as your #1 is a really good idea.


Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
#402 - 2015-03-03 13:10:17 UTC
Black Pedro wrote:
I'm not sure why you are implying an in-game effort to create content has any relevance to the purpose and daily activities of the CSM. Of all the roles it has grown to fill, running in-game contests isn't really something the CSM is for.
I imagine it's because a CSM candidate (where candidates are expected to have enough time to essentially have the CSM as a second full-time job) claiming to be a content creator (purely because all gankers seem to feel they create more content than any one else) while simultaneously failing to create content because of out of game commitments is falling down on both the content creation and the ability to free up time for the CSM.

Black Pedro wrote:
People, if you haven't voted and you want an engaging New Eden full of excitement, conflict, and energy; a New Eden where a proper risk and reward balance drives players towards evermore hilarious destruction; putting Sabriz as your #1 is a really good idea.
Except that's not how it's going to happen. I mean first of all Sabriz only wants content for one group of players - people who want PvP from the comfort of highsec and want to force people who have no chance of beating them to have to fight back. Secondly, even if he makes it to the CSM, he won't have control over the direction of the game. It's more likely he'll be seen as overly negative, be involved less in CSM processes and ultimately be a wasted vote.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

admiral root
Red Galaxy
#403 - 2015-03-03 17:52:30 UTC
GetSirrus wrote:
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".


Running on a platform of content creation in no way requires him to run events. Also, RL happens. Of course, to an NPC with a blank killboard, none of this will make much sense as you're just here to troll. Thanks for keeping the thread bumped though. Big smile

No, your rights end in optimal+2*falloff

Tengu Grib
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#404 - 2015-03-03 22:31:36 UTC
Sabriz Adoudel wrote:
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.


Vote Sabriz!

Rabble Rabble Rabble

Praise James, Supreme Protector of High Sec.

Tengu Grib
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#405 - 2015-03-03 22:33:01 UTC
GetSirrus wrote:
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.


lol don't have to get hissy I was just making fun of the typo. We all make them. I apologize if I don't check the forum often enough on weekends for your liking. I typically only check it while I'm at work.

Rabble Rabble Rabble

Praise James, Supreme Protector of High Sec.

GetSirrus
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#406 - 2015-03-03 22:37:24 UTC
admiral root wrote:
Running on a platform of content creation in no way requires him to run events. Also, RL happens. Of course, to an NPC with a blank killboard, none of this will make much sense as you're just here to troll. Thanks for keeping the thread bumped though. Big smile



You should know that being bumped is not always the best position to be in.

Some time past it was discovered that Devs are prohibited from suicide ganking. The almost immediate acusation from various elements including James315 was that "you are not playing our game". So here we have a candidate representing a play style - "but is not playing that game".

the ad hominem card cannot be played at this time. troll hits your post for 3 points, lose a turn. (that what you wanted?)
Sabriz Adoudel
Move along there is nothing here
#407 - 2015-03-03 23:07:48 UTC  |  Edited by: Sabriz Adoudel
Still digesting the Sov devblog. Posted only minor thoughts in that thread so far.


My post there:

Need to think much more before giving feedback as to the overall direction.

However, three small points.

1) Mining and ratting should be able to substitute for each other. This system makes doing both extremely important to holding sov. Let players do the one they prefer rather than providing mechanical advantages to splitting your effort 50/50 between the two.

2) Entosis links will be frequently destroyed and so should drive an enormous amount of industrial production. Crius (for all of its successes) had one enormous failure in that it reduced the gamewide demand for production line hours and science line hours.

I propose that you make Entosis Links take a considerable amount of time to produce (of the order 4 production hours for a T1, 36 science hours and 16 production hours for a T2 assuming skills all at 4, station services and no decryptor being used) to help address this.

This will help address some of the economic issues caused by Crius's increased production throughput.

Some numbers that would achieve this ballpark:

Base production time: 6 hours Entosis Link 1, 24 hours EL 2
Base invention %: 30
Base copy time: 6 hours EL 1
Invention time: 6 hours EL 1
Base BPC max runs: 720 (EL1), 1 (EL2)


Finally, EL2s should be produced with something that marks them out as 'different' to other production, and that favors building them in nullsec. I propose a Megacyte-heavy basket of minerals for EL1s, and an EL1 plus 250 of each racial Processor for EL2s.

(Edit: 250, not 2500. You have a math degree IRL Sabriz, don't be an idiot)


3) Entosis trollfits (fitted for absurd speed) are going to be a hell of a nuisance. A 10MN MWD Confessor orbiting a structure with an EL2 will be a horrendous thing to catch. Please add a hard cap on the speed players can go with an EL active - I propose 3000m/s for EL1 and 3600m/s for EL2.

I support the New Order and CODE. alliance. www.minerbumping.com

Jenshae Chiroptera
#408 - 2015-03-04 02:02:43 UTC  |  Edited by: ISD Ezwal
Lucas Kell wrote:
.... Secondly, even if he makes it to the CSM, he won't have control over the direction of the game. It's more likely he'll be seen as overly negative, be involved less in CSM processes and ultimately be a wasted vote.
*Puts cynical hat on*
"I think anyone that cares about the game rather than being a breathing advertisement for their group will probably be a frustrated person and waste of a vote."

They have managed to keep this going for 21 pages with some help from the CODE Fanatics, despite a lot of open hostility, so there is determination at least.
*Snip* Please refrain from personal attacks. ISD Ezwal.

CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids

Not even once

EVE is becoming shallow and puerile; it will satisfy neither the veteran nor the "WoW" type crowd in the transition.

Sabriz Adoudel
Move along there is nothing here
#409 - 2015-03-04 02:45:31 UTC
For RL reasons I will not disclose the precise reasons I dropped out of EVE for most of the period of that event I had planned, other than to say it was a low-level personal emergency. Details are a private matter.

Had I been on CSM at the time, I'd have gone inactive for those weeks too.

I wouldn't fault a CSM member that went inactive for those reasons. Real life comes first.

I support the New Order and CODE. alliance. www.minerbumping.com

Sabriz Adoudel
Move along there is nothing here
#410 - 2015-03-04 03:03:44 UTC
A few more thoughts on the sov devblog, as it's kinda a big deal. Direct copy/paste.


OK, a few more thoughts.

Firstly I need to think more about the primetime issue but my gut thought is that it will lead to a lot of stalemates, where a weak-but-viable AU TZ alliance has one constellation, a stronger EU TZ alliance has the adjacent two, and neither can dislodge the other. Stalemates could lead to boredom, or could lead to a system of (fun) permanent war. Existing coalitions will probably splinter into groups based upon their timezone and this is probably bad.

Secondly, the defensive bonuses for ratting and mining (but not for exploration?) need to be more interchangable. The idea of the overhaul is that you want people using space. If you own one system, mining in it, ratting in it, running non-combat exploration sites in it and killing hostile players in both your system and adjacent systems should all contribute to your defensive bonuses and should all be interchangeable.

To a mining-oriented nullsec sov holder, the present system says "We don't care that you'd rather be mining. You need to drop that and rat." This isn't good. Let players choose *how* they use their space and reward them for using it, don't tell them they have to focus on 50% ratting 50% mining.

Thirdly, if the present system goes ahead unchanged, there will be a massive flood of additional nullsec mining. A small change here would be a good thing as more mining fleets means more fleets to ambush, and more fighting over null belts means more fights that might escalate. But the economic effect will be a drastic devaluation of null minerals, and the game impact will be a dramatic increase in the number of bots mining in null. I will go as far as to predict that these changes will lead to a 20% (or larger) increase in the number of trial accounts running mining bots in ventures in nullsec, and nullsec wars will be won (in part) by having enough of these bots running to keep your defensive indexes maxxed out.

I support the New Order and CODE. alliance. www.minerbumping.com

admiral root
Red Galaxy
#411 - 2015-03-04 04:16:24 UTC
GetSirrus wrote:
You should know that being bumped is not always the best position to be in.


Well played, NPC. Big smile

No, your rights end in optimal+2*falloff

Black Pedro
Mine.
#412 - 2015-03-04 07:12:27 UTC
GetSirrus wrote:
You should know that being bumped is not always the best position to be in.

Ain't that the truth!

I honestly can't tell if you are being ironic or not, I think probably not, but you get a like anyway.

GetSirrus wrote:
Some time past it was discovered that Devs are prohibited from suicide ganking. The almost immediate acusation from various elements including James315 was that "you are not playing our game". So here we have a candidate representing a play style - "but is not playing that game".

These same devs have on multiple and repeated occasions made it explicitly clear that suicide ganking is an intended mechanic in the game. It's pretty strange to claim that something the developers put in on the game on purpose isn't part of the game.

But really, if you read Sabriz's campaign statements or look at her vote match answers you can see that she isn't running on a "pro-suicide ganking" platform. I think most reasonable people agree (just go read all the candidates vote match answer to the question) that suicide ganking is important for the game and doesn't need any major changes including Sabriz.

I voted for Sabriz because of his ideas and experiences in highsec war and corporation mechanics, and his understanding of industry and production, not to mention that he is clearly an intelligent person that cares about this game. I think he would make an excellent representative of a playstyle that has not only been under-represented on the CSM, but as you point out, one that the developers may not have as much experience with because of CCP rules.

If you think otherwise, don't vote for him. That is how the system is suppose to work.
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
#413 - 2015-03-04 08:16:24 UTC
Sabriz Adoudel wrote:
For RL reasons I will not disclose the precise reasons I dropped out of EVE for most of the period of that event I had planned, other than to say it was a low-level personal emergency. Details are a private matter.

Had I been on CSM at the time, I'd have gone inactive for those weeks too.

I wouldn't fault a CSM member that went inactive for those reasons. Real life comes first.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IFLu8_rEQL0
:D

I wouldn't fault a CSM member for it either, but surely you can see why someone would see it as a bad sign that someone who's going for a platform of content creation and aiming to take on a second full time job might be scrutinised if during just the campaign they've already had their real life commitments collide with their scheduled activities. Whether there's good reason or not is irrelevant, people want a CSM member who will be active. If someone were prone to illness and often had to go away for weeks at a time for example, while they would not be faulted, they also wouldn't be a good choice for CSM.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

Sabriz Adoudel
Move along there is nothing here
#414 - 2015-03-04 08:19:59 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
Sabriz Adoudel wrote:
For RL reasons I will not disclose the precise reasons I dropped out of EVE for most of the period of that event I had planned, other than to say it was a low-level personal emergency. Details are a private matter.

Had I been on CSM at the time, I'd have gone inactive for those weeks too.

I wouldn't fault a CSM member that went inactive for those reasons. Real life comes first.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IFLu8_rEQL0
:D

I wouldn't fault a CSM member for it either, but surely you can see why someone would see it as a bad sign that someone who's going for a platform of content creation and aiming to take on a second full time job might be scrutinised if during just the campaign they've already had their real life commitments collide with their scheduled activities. Whether there's good reason or not is irrelevant, people want a CSM member who will be active. If someone were prone to illness and often had to go away for weeks at a time for example, while they would not be faulted, they also wouldn't be a good choice for CSM.



I do not expect the circumstances involved to repeat, but a family member having serious health issues can happen to anyone.

I support the New Order and CODE. alliance. www.minerbumping.com

Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
#415 - 2015-03-04 08:50:23 UTC
Sabriz Adoudel wrote:
I do not expect the circumstances involved to repeat, but a family member having serious health issues can happen to anyone.
Indeed they can and I'm not disputing that, but surely you can understand why someone would take it as a bad sign when we're not even past the campaigning stage, right?

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#416 - 2015-03-04 13:26:37 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
Sabriz Adoudel wrote:
I do not expect the circumstances involved to repeat, but a family member having serious health issues can happen to anyone.
Indeed they can and I'm not disputing that, but surely you can understand why someone would take it as a bad sign when we're not even past the campaigning stage, right?


I can't. In fact, I am wondering if you sprained your arm reaching so far.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.

Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
#417 - 2015-03-04 17:55:35 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Lucas Kell wrote:
Sabriz Adoudel wrote:
I do not expect the circumstances involved to repeat, but a family member having serious health issues can happen to anyone.
Indeed they can and I'm not disputing that, but surely you can understand why someone would take it as a bad sign when we're not even past the campaigning stage, right?


I can't. In fact, I am wondering if you sprained your arm reaching so far.
Of course you can't, but then from a CODE member who quite publicly has some kind of personal problem with me trying to push for a CODE candidate, I hardly expect you to be objective. Didn't you block me already?

At the end of the day, people can take it how they want. Clearly that guy takes it as a bad sign, and while I may not entirely agree, I can understand why he sees it that way. Personally I think the problem with Sabriz isn't the level of work he'd put in, it's that he'd actively refuse to consider opposing styles of play to his own as even valid, let alone deserving of any positive changes.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

Tengu Grib
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#418 - 2015-03-04 18:15:00 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Lucas Kell wrote:
Sabriz Adoudel wrote:
I do not expect the circumstances involved to repeat, but a family member having serious health issues can happen to anyone.
Indeed they can and I'm not disputing that, but surely you can understand why someone would take it as a bad sign when we're not even past the campaigning stage, right?


I can't. In fact, I am wondering if you sprained your arm reaching so far.
Of course you can't, but then from a CODE member who quite publicly has some kind of personal problem with me trying to push for a CODE candidate, I hardly expect you to be objective. Didn't you block me already?

At the end of the day, people can take it how they want. Clearly that guy takes it as a bad sign, and while I may not entirely agree, I can understand why he sees it that way. Personally I think the problem with Sabriz isn't the level of work he'd put in, it's that he'd actively refuse to consider opposing styles of play to his own as even valid, let alone deserving of any positive changes.


From my personal discussions on comms with Sabriz, I can assure you that is not the case. He is open to opposing views and argues the merit of them, he does not discount them out of hand unless they are blatantly bad for the game or fallacious in nature. Even if he were biased towards PVP content rather than ballanced as I consider him to be, what is one advocate for content creation out of 14? The CSM are the voice of the players, and historically NO CSM member has represented the play style while EVERY other play style has been represented. That is why I voted for Sabriz, encouraged all my friends too, and sincerely hope that he does in fact get elected.

Rabble Rabble Rabble

Praise James, Supreme Protector of High Sec.

Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
#419 - 2015-03-05 08:32:31 UTC
Tengu Grib wrote:
From my personal discussions on comms with Sabriz, I can assure you that is not the case. He is open to opposing views and argues the merit of them, he does not discount them out of hand unless they are blatantly bad for the game or fallacious in nature. Even if he were biased towards PVP content rather than ballanced as I consider him to be, what is one advocate for content creation out of 14? The CSM are the voice of the players, and historically NO CSM member has represented the play style while EVERY other play style has been represented. That is why I voted for Sabriz, encouraged all my friends too, and sincerely hope that he does in fact get elected.
Perhaps he should state that then. From his ideas and listening to his interviews, he believe that miners should be forced to engage in PvP with guns, a playstyle they are both terrible at and dislike. He states this will add more conflict - by which he means with guns - even though he also states that conflict come in multiple forms.

Please stop referring to it as content creation as if all other playstyles are not. Content is created in a multitude of ways. I don't think any of the CSM member could be considered anti-content. honestly I think what CODE does is damaging to many other playstyles. Effectively you are happy to have your content while roflstomping over everyone else's playstyles in highsec, and you want to be able to do that with even greater ease. It's for that exact reason that sov is being changed to make my own group less effective too. While no, other CSMs don't necessarily represent all playstyles, they certainly are more balanced in their views than Sabriz. Obviously you guys will vote for him because he's pro your playstyle, but outside of that people shouldn't even consider it. Nobody should vote for someone who would quite happily erase whole playtyles and force people to play in ways they don't want to. It's for that exact reason I'd not advocate voting for one of the CSMS who want ganking to just be deleted either.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

ISD Ezwal
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
#420 - 2015-03-05 11:21:31 UTC
I have removed a rule breaking post.

The Rules:
4. Personal attacks are prohibited.

Commonly known as flaming, personal attacks are posts that are designed to personally berate or insult another forum user. Posts of this nature are not beneficial to the community spirit that CCP promote and as such they will not be tolerated.

ISD Ezwal Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs)