These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

High Sec Candidate

First post First post
Author
Erebus 'TheChin' Sundance
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#41 - 2016-02-29 16:57:05 UTC
hmm... I smell a code alt.

I just went through your eve vote match answers, It seems you think high sec missions have too much reward, odd stance for a high sec carebear.

Your regular pvp area is solo and in high sec.

High sec suicide ganking is "fine as it is" but yet you also say it needs work?

For the question How should CCP balance the development of PVP content vs PVE content, your comment was "mining is boring, ganking needs work"

...but most importantly was your comment on the should high sec feel safe... "High sec is worth fighting for"...now that is a familiar moto.
Lorelei Ierendi
Lorelei for C S M
#42 - 2016-02-29 22:57:00 UTC  |  Edited by: Lorelei Ierendi
Erebus 'TheChin' Sundance wrote:

I just went through your eve vote match answers, It seems you think high sec missions have too much reward, odd stance for a high sec carebear.


I am a high sec carebear - but I also remember saying that I am trying to keep all the picture in mind, and not pushing for anything totalitarian... that also has something to do with what the CSM actually is, and does. I don't think finding missions too rewarding an odd stance. I think the whole game needs balance.

Actually that is probably one of the more central themes of my "platform". Not being narrow and trying to just push one position to the expense of all others... and that "central theme" is, pretty much more than anything else, what is (according to the feedback I have) getting me support from people that might vote for me.

Erebus 'TheChin' Sundance wrote:


Your regular pvp area is solo and in high sec.


Yes indeed. Pretty much all the PVP I have been involved in has been solo and in high sec... I tend to mine solo as well, and these things happen.

Erebus 'TheChin' Sundance wrote:

High sec suicide ganking is "fine as it is" but yet you also say it needs work?


I already wrote to the creator of Eve Match, especially about the Suicide Ganking question. Did you read the available answers... none of them fit my personal opinion. That is why I used the "clarification" option to say that. The answers that Eve Vote Match offered me did not give the chance to "balance"... but more or less just represented extremes.

Erebus 'TheChin' Sundance wrote:

For the question How should CCP balance the development of PVP content vs PVE content, your comment was "mining is boring, ganking needs work"


Ganking (PVP) needs work. I seem to recall having said that a few times.
Mining (PVE) is boring. Have you tried it?

Erebus 'TheChin' Sundance wrote:

...but most importantly was your comment on the should high sec feel safe... "High sec is worth fighting for"...now that is a familiar moto.


That motto I also used last year. It was even talked about in my thread - see the thread from last year linked in my first post this year. Yes I have read Bing's threads... and yes I used the catchphrase before I knew about Bing's threads... but then this information has been out there since before the last election... I don't get what you are getting at.

But kudos to you for getting interested! You don't have to vote for me... but please do vote. Participation is key!

P.S. for some reason I keep having problems getting to the forums. Have to keep editing incomplete posts. Sorry to anyone that read a previous version!

http://hisec-carebear.blogspot.de/

Erebus 'TheChin' Sundance
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#43 - 2016-03-01 11:26:07 UTC  |  Edited by: Erebus 'TheChin' Sundance
My previous post was designed to be provocative and accusatory, you are the only candidate with 'High sec care bear'. So thank you for taking the time to answer my concerns. I love this game and I believe in the CSM.

I have voted in the last two CSM's, this will be my third. I joined eve a couple of months before a CSM, despite only playing for almost two years now.

Mr Azariah was not a great highsec rep. Most of the bus mail consists of poor typing, giving ships away to probably alts and trying to get newbro's to join pvp fleets. Most of us where under no illusion that he would make high sec better, but we had hope it wouldn't get worse, and too Mike's credit, It hasn't. However, It is stagnant, and It still feels like the community and CCP don't actually want us in the game that much. I personally believe this is the root cause for the high sec apathy of which you speak.

When I saw your post on the candidate forums I though, hoorah a high sec dude, a beacon to hold back the swelling ocean of "your not playing eve right' voices, of which there are many. You don't need to represent null/sov/low or wh's, the game is dripping with players eager to represent these areas. If your stating you represent the high sec care bear, yes balance is key, but at the end of the day, you need to represent us, the highsec care bears.

I PI, Mine/research/copy/invent/make, and run lvl4's, that can no way be described as having to much reward, the loot is pants, the bounty's, unless doing missions like worlds collide or the extravaganzas are often only 2 - 5 million, and the LP/Isk/standing from the agent (with all relevant social skills at lvl5) is offensively low for the time it takes to complete most of them.
My father always said "only boring people get bored" mining is a excellent time to read or even work, I often have eve running while I work, just sitting in a barge mining, and popping into a WH for a bit of the good stuff is certainly not boring. The mention of moving asteroids/comets is a outstanding idea, or harder rats that come and say hello from time to time.

This year there is a poor choice/representation for high sec, esp with candidates like Annexe and Gorski Car getting better % on the vote match for some of the high sec concerns. Both have clearly stated pve needs more work, high sec should feel safe (to a point, no one sensible wants 100% safety) and ganking should not always profit the ganker. When cold hard killers and scammers take this position it shows clearly that true pvpers are not that interested in high sec or killing noobs there, it's a relatively small group of people with one specific ideal, and nothing we can't or don't already deal with.

So...

I would like to hear your opinions on NPC corps building POS's, https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=247402

Allowing player owned corps with citadels the ability to let NPC corps have access to station amenity's like the market or ship fitting areas.

For those of us in excellent NPC starter corps like CAS, how do you feel about allowing players to leave the starter corp but rejoin should the player corp experience not satisfy their play style, Or be full of arss hats? To not have to join the holding corps? I think it would be interesting to see how many players in player corps rejoin their starter corp, and how many would leave to try out a particular corp as they know if its not right they can just return to the starter corp they were happy in.

And lastly, what do you think about letting dreads/carriers and lvl5 missions into highsec?

Thanks again for your time.



-edit, after a couple of coffee's I re-read this, and I didn't want to sound too harsh on Mike (sorry mike), considering the drama in the last CSM, mike did admirably well.
Lorelei Ierendi
Lorelei for C S M
#44 - 2016-03-01 18:28:53 UTC
Erebus 'TheChin' Sundance wrote:
My previous post was designed to be provocative and accusatory, you are the only candidate with 'High sec care bear'.


So what again were you hoping to achieve by provoking and accusing me?

Erebus 'TheChin' Sundance wrote:
So thank you for taking the time to answer my concerns. I love this game and I believe in the CSM.


Good for you! Then vote, make an informed choice of candidate (there are enough possibilities and blogs out there) and motivate your friends to vote.

Erebus 'TheChin' Sundance wrote:
This year there is a poor choice/representation for high sec


There you go again... provoking.

Erebus 'TheChin' Sundance wrote:

So...

I would like to hear your opinions on(...)


Work just got temporarily busy because of unplanned illnesses... if I get the chance I will try and get back to this for more detail later...


NPC corps building POS's -> Not a big fan of NPCs building Player Owned Structures. Not without such changes to wardecs and so on.

...let NPC corps have access to station amenity's -> I mentioned in my thread, my last year's thread and I think on my blog what I think about having options for social corporation-like structures. iirc leaving NPC corps has been proven to aid player retention...

how do you feel about allowing players to leave the starter corp but rejoin should the player corp experience not satisfy their play style -> I always wanted to join "MineDrill". Maybe opening up the variability of NPC corps might help avoid those hats you mention... but I think we should be looking at ways to incentivise player created and controlled organisations...

And lastly, what do you think about letting dreads/carriers and lvl5 missions into highsec? -> Dreads no, not really. Carriers also not really. lvl5 Missions... well I would like to see more variety in the missions, but somewhere the line has to be drawn between High and other sec... if we make lvl5 Missions in high sec... then we have to introduce higher lvl missions elsewhere... which will inevitably bring us back to where we are now. Kind of like a circle.

Thanks again for your time. -> If I wasn't being provoked and accused I might have taken more time on the coffee break to answer things more in depth. o7

Erebus 'TheChin' Sundance wrote:
-edit, after a couple of coffee's I re-read this, and I didn't want to sound too harsh on Mike (sorry mike), considering the drama in the last CSM, mike did admirably well.


Don't knock Mike. But well I don't really know what you were getting at in your post anyway... the bus mails did not directly have anything to do with representing on the CSM...

http://hisec-carebear.blogspot.de/

Lorelei Ierendi
Lorelei for C S M
#45 - 2016-03-01 23:40:16 UTC  |  Edited by: Lorelei Ierendi
Just thought I would share a mail (with permission of the original author) that is fairly typical of the message I am getting from High Sec people that might support me. This is (one of) the reasons why I took so long this year before announcing my candidacy. Any "High Sec" orientated platform, irrespective of how reasonable it tries to be, has to deal with the apathy of the high sec residents, compared to the massive null-blocs.
Every voter or supporter that stops, because of disillusionment with the process or the institution, damages the Highsec candidates more than their Null-brethren.

It is an uphill struggle.


Re: CSM XI
From: A Supporter
Sent: 2016.01.14 22:34
To: Lorelei Ierendi, List of other supporters

Hi Lorelei,

I'm not sure if there will be a CSM endorsement list for/from COMMUNITY this year. I did it the last two years with the feedback from some others but by now I'm convinced that the CSM as a whole does more harm than good - especially long term. While I'm certain that there are a few individuals who really have the wellbeing of the game at heart and who do good and constructive work on the CSM, many others try to use it to drive the agenda of their respective nullsec bloc, profit from it personally or worse: are sockpuppets for their bloc leaders.

Unfortunately CCP doesn't include an option to abstain from voting in order to differentiate people like me from people who have never heard of the CSM or that there is a vote for it (and there are many), so not voting at all is the only choice CCP gives me and that is what I intend to do.

So unless somebody else steps up in order to dive into the numerous threads in the CSM forum and other sources and put together a list of good candidates, there won't be a CSM list from COMMUNITY this year.

However: Feel free to drop into the channel at any time to present and discuss your ideas with the residents.
Also: please be aware that this is my personal opinion, not that of the COMMUNITY moderation team as a whole.

Cheers,

A Supporter


Having an option to "actively" abstain from voting is one of the things I would advocate... a way to tell the difference between apathy and disillusionment.

http://hisec-carebear.blogspot.de/

Bukka Bazooka
#46 - 2016-03-02 09:40:59 UTC
You get my vote!!!

The best ship in EVE....is friendship =)

Jenshae Chiroptera
#47 - 2016-03-02 15:19:11 UTC  |  Edited by: Jenshae Chiroptera
A few things, I would like to see carried forward:

Tech 3 should be about utility, not power.

Power creep is bad for MMOs. More utility, more skill required. So newbies can still work as a team with more skill and beat a veteran in a high utility ship, rather than be tanked and killed even if they have it scrambled and webbed.

The longer it will take a new player to be significant and useful the less likely they are to stay in a game.

EVE is a sandbox.

Provide more tools to fight, to defend, to take actions against other players. The current direction of High Sec where the mechanics try to protect players is not healthy for EVE. That is very WoWish.
Example: Recognising coalitions in the mechanics or fleets for a purpose or sub-set groups taking on a role, would be a few options for Null Sec to fly out and kick war dec corps in the soft spots.

Empower players, EVE will die if it becomes WoW in space or Progress Quest EVE edition.

Make EVE deeper and wider

Create different ways to play EVE.
Since Incarna we have had iterations upon what already existed. Let us walk through the door and into a Dust social area.
Let us make ship interiors for CCP moderation and implementation.
Allow us to assemble ships with different balance templates in station. (Like a projectile Cyclone)

Emergent play does not come from things like Fozzie SOV where you mine a structure with a laser. That is less complex but very shallow mechanics.

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.

Lorelei Ierendi
Lorelei for C S M
#48 - 2016-03-02 19:57:33 UTC
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:
A few things, I would like to see carried forward:


Thanks for stopping by!
Like I said yesterday... the rest of the week looks to be catastrophically busy at work, so I'll save an in depth response for when I have time to formulate it properly!

But, have you raised these issues with the candidate that you support? As I said, time is pressing and I don't want to spend the valuable bits surfing through other people's campaign-threadnaughts... so if you could send me a link of his answers that would be valuable!

http://hisec-carebear.blogspot.de/

Praal
Bearded BattleBears
#49 - 2016-03-03 06:01:00 UTC
Lorelei Ierendi wrote:
Local chat could also be changed to provide less free "intel" to people. No need to announce to everyone who is in local... just the number of pilots.


Why do you feel the "free intel" doesn't hinder gankers more than it helps them? Miners or haulers will usually be at predictable places (ice anom, ore anom, belts, transiting gates). On the other hand a gank fleet can hide out at any spot off-grid, but is easily seen in local.
Lorelei Ierendi
Lorelei for C S M
#50 - 2016-03-03 16:31:41 UTC  |  Edited by: Lorelei Ierendi
Praal wrote:
Why do you feel the "free intel" doesn't hinder gankers more than it helps them? Miners or haulers will usually be at predictable places (ice anom, ore anom, belts, transiting gates). On the other hand a gank fleet can hide out at any spot off-grid, but is easily seen in local.


Good question.

An answer is:

Gank fleets will usually have members that have a negative sec status and will therefore be at predictable places (eg docked up to avoid faction police...) and only undocking to gank. Then they will undock and attack. There are many systems where there are more anomalies and belts than stations.

http://hisec-carebear.blogspot.de/

Lorelei Ierendi
Lorelei for C S M
#51 - 2016-03-04 17:52:17 UTC
Time for me to reproduce another mail from a supporter, as a counter-point to the one I posted earlier. Naturally reproduced with the permission of the author:


From: A SUPPORTER
Sent: 2016.03.03 07:22
To: Lorelei Ierendi

Hello, Ms. Ierendi.

I apologize for the unsolicited email regarding your campaign for CSM.

I am an independent industrialist (CEO of CORPORATION) focusing on Planetary Commodities, as well as (eventually) venturing into the production of T2 Frigates (specializing in exploration vessels).

My corporation is based out of EMPIRE space, and tends to stay in systems over .6, due to the CONCORD presence.
I have been overwhelmed with spam regarding the CSM elections, and have (until now) voiced that I would abstain from voting. Let's be honest, most of the candidates are there to push their agendas to shape EVE's development around their null-sec feuds. Very few players care what happens in high sec, and (more often than not) when I get involved in these discussions, I hear the opinion "If you want it safer, play WoW. EVE's not the game for you". I disagree, and I feel that I can enjoy the environment as much as any null-sec player.

On a whim, I went to the CSM Campaign forums, and found your thread. I have to say, I was inspired. I have decided to get involved, and to cast my vote for you. There's a problem, though; I am a relatively new player, and I have no idea how/where to cast my vote.

Is there a resource you can direct me to, so that I can learn how to vote for you?
Thank you for taking the time to read my email, and I hope to hear from you soon.

Regards,
A SUPPORTER
CORPORATION


So never give up, never surrender!

http://hisec-carebear.blogspot.de/

Lorelei Ierendi
Lorelei for C S M
#52 - 2016-03-05 21:20:37 UTC
http://www.eve-nt.uk/2016/02/28/csm-xi-profiles-lorelei-ierendi/

I answered these questions this year... Just posting the link, in case there is anything there you guys do not already know!!
(And so that I can find it again...)

Oh... and whilst vanity-googling myself (again *cough*) I found one of my favorite interview-things from last year.

http://justforcrits.com/csmx-lorelei-ierendi/

seems like I am the same person still...

http://hisec-carebear.blogspot.de/

Lorelei Ierendi
Lorelei for C S M
#53 - 2016-03-08 17:43:21 UTC
CAPTA1N OBVIOUS wrote:
Obviously, your corp name is highly disingenuous and should be changed. Reported.


I only actually changed to this Corporation to stop my main corporation from getting wardecced and harassed whilst I am running for the CSM. As soon as the danger is over, this corporation will be dissolved, and I will go back to my main corporation again! (see blogs for details).

One of the things that I do not like is the frivolous use of reporting to harass people by getting their corporation names or player names changed. Up until now, my corporation name has not been changed.

http://hisec-carebear.blogspot.de/

Lorelei Ierendi
Lorelei for C S M
#54 - 2016-03-10 17:41:01 UTC
This is actually a mail I wrote in response to someone who asked me if it was "on your agenda to limit (not abolish) the wardecs in high sec?"

---

Hi! Thanks for being interested.

If you look at my campaign thread from last year (I got lazy this year and did not post everything again) you will see that the "broken" war-dec mechanic (as well as the "broken" bounty mechanic) is something that should concern all High Sec Denizens.

But please do not confuse the CSM with anything that has any kind of "power". Elected members do not have the ability to force CCP to change things... it works best (although not entirely accurate) to think of the CSM as a kind of player-elected focus group... that are elected by players to give feedback to the Devs... elected by their players to represent a point of view.

Coming back to wardecs... I do not myself have any great ideas about how the problems could be fixed, whilst still allowing there to be war (after all.. pewpew is at the core of the game). One of my ideas that might allow people not interested in war to still have some fun in the game was:

http://hisec-carebear.blogspot.de/2015/08/player-corporations.html

Not a totally original idea, but I believe I also mentioned it in my campaign last year (and maybe even on the capstable interview last year... can't remember...) just to illustrate the point that it is something that I have been worrying about for a while.

Whoever you vote for, you should vote. You should get your friends and corpsmates to vote. Your enemies and all the guys in local. If High Sec does not sit up and try and do something, then CCP will only end up listening to the 14 people chosen by the nullsec power blocks. Whoever High Sec votes for, we as a collective also need to show the devs that we are interested in the route the game is taking.

Anything else I can help you with?

http://hisec-carebear.blogspot.de/

Tarojan
Tarojan Corporation
#55 - 2016-03-14 19:27:38 UTC
I think your going down the wrong track with buffs to concord as concord is part of the problem carebears face.

Look I can't drive down to london with a gun in my glove box. If the police stop me I will be arrested. If I am attacked at a service station or a layby I can't use the gun or display it to make my attackers back away or I will be arrested. I can't hire someone else to sit in my passenger seat with a gun to drive away any attackers either or they will be arrested. So I can't have a bodyguard. All I have is an assurance that if I'm attacked beaten raped and left for dead at the side of the road, the police will endeavour to bring my attacker to justice.

This is the current concord mechanic.

Problem is highsec isn't England! its the wild west! We need the same self defense rules as in Dallas not London. That means we should be able to fight back or flee effectively.

I would suggest the following buffs to carebears:

  • ecm doesn't provoke concord response. miners and haulers are free to blast away with it. Either with the non targeted aoe or preemptively jamming potential hostiles who target them. Apply this to all E war even. possible counters for the ganker include ECCM and passive targeting modules so its not imbalanced.
  • bumping allows the option for the bumped to open a limited engagement with the bumper and shoot it legally
  • freighters get armed. Seriously armed. Like "did that obliesk just launch 10 geckos?" armed.
  • smaller haulers get either more ehp fitting options or more speed options. By all means let people continue to haul antitanked, but if I want to fit for safety either with a "your gonna need more then 5 people" tank or a "gj catching this" tank this should be doable.

  • Its supposed to be a conflict driven sandbox right? So let us fight back and bring some risk back to ganking that isn't just I got my math on my calculator wrong.

    What are your thoughts?

    Will gank for food

    Lorelei Ierendi
    Lorelei for C S M
    #56 - 2016-03-14 20:12:26 UTC  |  Edited by: Lorelei Ierendi
    Thanks for stopping by!

    Tarojan wrote:
    I think your going down the wrong track with buffs to concord as concord is part of the problem carebears face.


    Actually I did not think of what I was suggesting just as "buffs" to Concord in order to address the problems we face. I was actually hoping generally to bring more common sense to the mechanic. At the moment it is more like if three policemen are there whilst you are getting beaten up by a gang... they will stop one of them and let the rest get on with it until help arrives!

    Tarojan wrote:
    I would suggest the following buffs to carebears:

  • ecm doesn't provoke concord response. miners and haulers are free to blast away with it.


  • If ECM did not provoke concord response then griefers could fly around jamming miners to their hearts content. Most gankers are already negative sec... and can be shot whenever. Or ECMed... I just have to fit an ECM to my Covetor, and notice them warping in... the expanded grids that we have give me more time to prepare to react.
    Just have to fit sensor boosters to get my locking times up...

    Tarojan wrote:

  • bumping allows the option for the bumped to open a limited engagement with the bumper and shoot it legally


  • I am sure that Jita pirates sitting on the trade hub undock would like that... if a collision sparks an engagement timer.
    Or how would one differentiate between accidental collision and deliberate bumping?

    Tarojan wrote:

  • freighters get armed. Seriously armed. Like "did that obliesk just launch 10 geckos?" armed.
  • smaller haulers get either more ehp fitting options or more speed options. By all means let people continue to haul antitanked, but if I want to fit for safety either with a "your gonna need more then 5 people" tank or a "gj catching this" tank this should be doable.


  • I love trucking, and we just got a Hull buff and the DC change (which is better than a buff to auto-piloters). I think it would be a shame to fit freighters with weapons... it would destroy my "space truckers" feel... but then it also took me a long time to get used to having slots at all... and actually I find the fitting options for smaller freighters also ok. It is already possible to fit some of the transports so the gate-watching-thrasher can't Alpha you whilst auto-piloting. This game is a conflict driven sandbox, as you say. I am not asking for a "safe" button. Things like my proposed concord changes would also bring a bit of randomness into ganking (maybe the police are at the donut shop), the Self Destruct Device will let us rob potential gankers of all loot/gains... if we are prepared to press the button... stuff like that.

    Those are my thoughts at the moment...

    PS it is hard taking "buffs for carebears" ideas seriously from someone with "Will gank for food" as a signature...

    http://hisec-carebear.blogspot.de/

    Tarojan
    Tarojan Corporation
    #57 - 2016-03-14 22:20:44 UTC  |  Edited by: Tarojan
    Good points especially about the bumping. I'll have to think more about it.

    Will gank for food

    Noragen Neirfallas
    Emotional Net Loss
    #58 - 2016-03-15 03:31:35 UTC
    Tarojan wrote:
    I think your going down the wrong track with buffs to concord as concord is part of the problem carebears face.

    Look I can't drive down to london with a gun in my glove box. If the police stop me I will be arrested. If I am attacked at a service station or a layby I can't use the gun or display it to make my attackers back away or I will be arrested. I can't hire someone else to sit in my passenger seat with a gun to drive away any attackers either or they will be arrested. So I can't have a bodyguard. All I have is an assurance that if I'm attacked beaten raped and left for dead at the side of the road, the police will endeavour to bring my attacker to justice.

    This is the current concord mechanic.

    Problem is highsec isn't England! its the wild west! We need the same self defense rules as in Dallas not London. That means we should be able to fight back or flee effectively.

    I would suggest the following buffs to carebears:

  • ecm doesn't provoke concord response. miners and haulers are free to blast away with it. Either with the non targeted aoe or preemptively jamming potential hostiles who target them. Apply this to all E war even. possible counters for the ganker include ECCM and passive targeting modules so its not imbalanced.
  • bumping allows the option for the bumped to open a limited engagement with the bumper and shoot it legally
  • freighters get armed. Seriously armed. Like "did that obliesk just launch 10 geckos?" armed.
  • smaller haulers get either more ehp fitting options or more speed options. By all means let people continue to haul antitanked, but if I want to fit for safety either with a "your gonna need more then 5 people" tank or a "gj catching this" tank this should be doable.

  • Its supposed to be a conflict driven sandbox right? So let us fight back and bring some risk back to ganking that isn't just I got my math on my calculator wrong.

    What are your thoughts?

    I endorse ecm not provoking Concord. Do you have any idea how I would abuse utilize this in wars. Or gankers in preemptively jamming jammers and logi. This would be amazing to kill assist incursion runners

    Member and Judge of the Court of Crime and Punishment

    Noragens basically the Chribba of C&P - Zimmy Zeta

    Confirming that we all play in Noragen's eve. - BeBopAReBop

    ISD Buldath favorite ISD

    '"****station games" - Sun Tzu' - Ralph King Griffin

    Lorelei Ierendi
    Lorelei for C S M
    #59 - 2016-03-15 19:43:17 UTC
    Tarojan wrote:
    Good points especially about the bumping. I'll have to think more about it.


    You might consider reading the sticky thread about this in the C&P forums...

    https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=199310

    And I would like it if my campaign thread... even as the elections are drawing to a close... would not get hijacked talking about ideas that are not mine, and that I have said that I do not necessarily agree with! Thank you!

    http://hisec-carebear.blogspot.de/

    Noragen Neirfallas
    Emotional Net Loss
    #60 - 2016-03-15 21:27:05 UTC
    Lorelei Ierendi wrote:
    Tarojan wrote:
    Good points especially about the bumping. I'll have to think more about it.


    You might consider reading the sticky thread about this in the C&P forums...

    https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=199310

    And I would like it if my campaign thread... even as the elections are drawing to a close... would not get hijacked talking about ideas that are not mine, and that I have said that I do not necessarily agree with! Thank you!

    Sorry I actually didn't realise this was a csm thread. Some ass hat linked that post in like 4 different spots

    Member and Judge of the Court of Crime and Punishment

    Noragens basically the Chribba of C&P - Zimmy Zeta

    Confirming that we all play in Noragen's eve. - BeBopAReBop

    ISD Buldath favorite ISD

    '"****station games" - Sun Tzu' - Ralph King Griffin