These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
Previous page12
 

Borat Guereen for CSM XII

First post First post
Author
Borat Guereen
ARRAKIS Ltd.
#21 - 2017-01-20 11:07:59 UTC
Meryl SinGarda wrote:
Now here's a candidate I can get behind


Thanks, help spread the word!.

The most difficult issue non-bloc/independent candidates face is to reach non-bloc players to let them know there are candidates that truly care about play-styles diversity in Eve online.

Candidate for CSM XII

Tetsel
House Amamake
#22 - 2017-01-25 02:27:27 UTC
You will get my vote because: Siphon

Loyal servent to Mother Amamake. @EVE_Tetsel

Another Bittervet Please Ignore

Puikko
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#23 - 2017-01-25 20:19:59 UTC
Eve API devs were so preoccupied with whether or not they could that they didn't stop to think whether they should.

While I'm not too fond of the fairly typical (and banal) "grrr goons/Panfam/whatever" posting you seem to quite like, I agree that the amount of free intel from the API as well as other sources needs to be looked at. Siphons were just the peak of the iceberg.

Third party apps have gone much further than just improving convenience and quality of life things; the free intel they provide has completely transformed the way a "good" player plays Eve. Eve has always been quite metagamey, and it's all fine and good to a certain degree, but there's such a thing as going too far.
Lugh Crow-Slave
#24 - 2017-01-29 10:01:04 UTC
if anyone wants to see some of his bright ideas to "help against large groups" her you go
Scipio Artelius
The Vendunari
End of Life
#25 - 2017-01-29 10:39:37 UTC  |  Edited by: Scipio Artelius
You claim to be against the big guys and for the little guys, yet you argue for proposals that have significant negative impacts on solo/small groups and don't address any of the concerns at all, here:

Suggestion for CSM inspired requirement to post on the forum

Cynos - it's time to talk about it

Valid points have been ignored in favour of entering into bickering debate and disregard for staying on topic.

Why should we have any belief that you will be able to interact maturely with other CSM members and with CCP staff if you can't even address issues in the forum?
Borat Guereen
ARRAKIS Ltd.
#26 - 2017-01-29 11:04:12 UTC
Scipio Artelius wrote:
You claim to be against the big guys and for the little guys, yet you argue for proposals that have significant negative impacts on solo/small groups and don't address any of the concerns at all, here:

Suggestion for CSM inspired requirement to post on the forum

Cynos - it's time to talk about it

Valid points have been ignored in favour of entering into bickering debate and complete disregard for the staying on topic.

Why should we have any belief that you will be able to interact maturely with other CSM members and with CCP staff if you can't even address issues in the forum?


There will always be valid points brought up by all sides of a discussion, and this is exactly the side I am coming from that I am defending. Unless CCP tells otherwise in the updated white papers soon to be released, I see the CSM as an elected lobbyists group. This means differentiated view points, coming from different experiences and play-styles, from which CCP can decide of the best course of action.

I do not ignore valid points, I disagree with the validity of *your* points.
I would not have put the idea of jumping bridging ship at the end of a bridge if I did not believe it served a valid purpose to clearly indicate to voters where I stand on these kind of issues. I also welcome the new rule for CSM candidate and wish it would apply on forums posters in the same way too.

Now, you not liking my stance simply indicates that you are not going to vote for me.
This is fine, I do not believe older players and members of larger groups see the issues the way I see them, not being that old in the game myself and mostly playing solo.

Candidate for CSM XII

Scipio Artelius
The Vendunari
End of Life
#27 - 2017-01-29 11:27:00 UTC  |  Edited by: Scipio Artelius
Borat Guereen wrote:
I do not ignore valid points, I disagree with the validity of *your* points.

Funnily, you also seem to disagree with the validity of all other posts that raise concerns with the proposals.

There's not a single concern raised by anyone in those threads that has been acknowledged and accepted as a valid reason to change the proposals to a different position.

Go figure. It seems, based on the forum posts in those threads, that anyone who has a different view or idea is just not valid.

Not what we need in the CSM for sure.
Lugh Crow-Slave
#28 - 2017-01-29 11:55:43 UTC
Borat Guereen wrote:
The rapid regeneration of entosis nodes even in systems the owners do not actively occupy is an example of such corruption that previous CSMs have brought to new rules.



just wanted to bring attention to this.


imminently after the introduction of fozzi sov me and ~10 friends decided we would see if the claims were true and if it meant small groups could take sov. This was one of the changes we imminently supported as with only a handful of guys going around entosising nodes after every troll attempted was burning us out. once we no longer had to worry about them unless there was some one actively trying to take them we were able to go back to enjoying the game.




you will see this in a lot of his other posts he seems to have little to no understanding what small groups actually have to deal with and sees everything that may help a large group as some Illuminati conspiracy to keep the elite in power.
Lugh Crow-Slave
#29 - 2017-01-29 12:00:10 UTC  |  Edited by: Lugh Crow-Slave
Borat Guereen wrote:
Make it more diffcult for large alliances to maintain control of vast territories where they are not active directly

Players empires should not be able to defend the systems at their fringes of their domain as easily as they defend their core. Fro example, the current uniform regeneration of node timers allows vast swat of territories to be under the control of power players that are not even active in all the systems they claim, and thus limit the expansion of smaller groups. With a longer window of active nodes, the competition for farther system would become more difficult for the larger alliances, leading to more fragmented soveriegnty, which is a good thing for the game and the interactions between players. Rental empires should be dismantled via changes of the game rules. The NEw sov system has made great strides in that direction, but did not go far enough yet.




to counter balance my last post i will try and be helpful



you want to fix sov and do exactly what you are trying to here?




remove sov

put 'system upgrades' into new structures independent from an Ihub (if you really want to make it hard to hold more systems then you are using make it fuel based and not bill based)


and that's all you have to do. You own space simply because you say you do and because you live there and support the infrastructure of the system



ps also go with ccps idea that moon mining becomes spawned belts from the drill platform and players need to actively mine it
Rosewalker
Khumaak Flying Circus
#30 - 2017-01-29 20:06:26 UTC
I just have a few questions I wonder if you wouldn't mind answering.

1. You state that we have no idea about the history of the player behind the alt, yet you are running on an alt. How do we know that all the things you are telling us about yourself are true?

2. You want to give incentives to players to automatically link accounts. What type of incentives would you propose, given the ability to create an alpha account to link to an omega account to get the benefit?

3. You want to have some sort of mission simulator so new players can practice missions. What do you find lacking in Inception (aka the New New Player Experience) that warrants taking such an approach?

4. You favor limiting API access. What types of information would you allow the API to access?

5. Players elected to the CSM are expected to support changes that would improve the game, even if the change hurts their particular playstyle. You seem pretty set in your hatred of groups like Goonswarm and Pandemic Legion. Would you support changes to the game even if they helped major alliances at the expense of solo players?

Thank you

The Nosy Gamer - CCP Random: "hehe, falls under the category: nice try, but no. ;)"

Borat Guereen
ARRAKIS Ltd.
#31 - 2017-01-29 21:27:11 UTC  |  Edited by: Borat Guereen
Rosewalker wrote:
I just have a few questions I wonder if you wouldn't mind answering.

1. You state that we have no idea about the history of the player behind the alt, yet you are running on an alt. How do we know that all the things you are telling us about yourself are true?


I believe the ability to scam, steal, cloaky camp, gank or spy in the game is an activity that is no risks and all rewards, unlike other regular activities, because the other pilots of the player undertaking these otherwise valid options do not suffer any risk to their main ISK making assets. For me it breaks the concept of risk vs rewards that Eve is all about and that any miner, hauler, trader, missioner or PvPer have to face.

I started running under an alt to separate my assets at the time from the risk of backlash in-game from opinions that I would carry that I know are not popular among power players, because my campaign is all about curtailing the influence they have on the game, and look at features more from the little guy perspective, solo players or micro-corps.
Power players do not want change that can trheaten their own assets, like the siphons.

At the time, there was no reason for me to not use the means in the game to hide your alts that all other players benefited from, and I had to protect my assets.

CCP has put a new requirement that I welcome. I am not the target, those power players that create fake decoy candidate alts to spread out the independent votes for the CSM are. My best known alt is Borat, and none of my other alts are well known to the community. Like I said before, I am a little guy mostly playing solo.

As a matter of facts, for those that were curious enough to follow my game blog, I have started to communicate about my alts there. For those that did not pick up on that already, here is a reference link that will tell you more about my main and other alts.
http://chao3.net/news/minarchist-space
http://chao3.net/news/tribal-vanguard-in-the-vale-part-1
[/url
[url=http://chao3.net/news/the-defense-of-matars-oasis-in-r-p7kl]http://chao3.net/news/the-defense-of-matars-oasis-in-r-p7kl


Rosewalker wrote:

2. You want to give incentives to players to automatically link accounts. What type of incentives would you propose, given the ability to create an alpha account to link to an omega account to get the benefit?

One possibility to discuss is create an incentive similar to bulk-buying discounts. For each Omega account where all the pilots are publicly linked together by the player, each subscription time increases by one extra day.

Rosewalker wrote:

3. You want to have some sort of mission simulator so new players can practice missions. What do you find lacking in Inception (aka the New New Player Experience) that warrants taking such an approach?

I have been advocating this since my first campaign, before Inception.

The new ship fitting simulator is already a great step in that direction. I come from the place that any pilot, new to the game or older, should have a chance to train and simulate for the ships they just got the skills for, much like RL pilots train in simulator with no risks before slying a real plane.

Undocking a ship you are not familiar with is a risk to your asset in New Eden. If you were able to run a simulated mission without risks of other players interference, this would be better for everyone, except for those players taking advantages of the lack of experience of new pilots with their ships.
Sisi in some ways already fills that role, but clunkily and not entirely. Running a simulated mission perfectly suited for the chosen ship would be best, I believe.

Rosewalker wrote:

4. You favor limiting API access. What types of information would you allow the API to access?

As a general rule of thumb, I do not like the exploitation of game data outside of the game.

I appreciate the efforts of the community with third-party tools, like Dotlan who only reads already public data in-game but when third party tools can be used to serve power players more than anything else, I stop being neutral to their purpose.
Take siggy for example, crowdsourcing WH travel data helps PL more than it helps anyone else.
I do not use myself any third-party tools that requires feeding in-game information.

Like I mentioned in my campaign opening post, I support giving the option for a player to have their pilot's kills and losses recorded for their corp/alliance by showing under a common anonymous name for each corp. or not showing destroyed modules for those with this option on
I already explained this before, instant intel not gained in-game on other pilots is bad.
API provides out-of-game details from pilots you have never met before, favoring older players and those with technology skills to make the most of API data.

Rosewalker wrote:

5. Players elected to the CSM are expected to support changes that would improve the game, even if the change hurts their particular playstyle. You seem pretty set in your hatred of groups like Goonswarm and Pandemic Legion. Would you support changes to the game even if they helped major alliances at the expense of solo players?


Depends on the changes, I did not support the way Siphons have been released. I do not support the way ESS can be placed in anomalies. I do not support rapid regenration of entosis nodes, even if I support the concept of regeneration.
As I said, I believe CCP needs a diversified CSM, with a variety of view points from different play-styles.

If elected, I will always look at the features from the solo or micro-corps perspective as well as from the perspective of a player that did not start playing this game in its first years.

Candidate for CSM XII

Lugh Crow-Slave
#32 - 2017-01-30 03:04:38 UTC
i'm sorry did you say things like scams are no risk and all reward? how many scams have you taken part in? i don't even mean high end ones where you invest more than a year of your life. even just the small ones that may involve days of sitting around in jita local.

remember isk you are not making is isk you are losing. any scam you partake in risks all the isk you could be making in the time it is taking you to pull off the scam
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine
Astral Alliance
#33 - 2017-02-02 07:44:00 UTC  |  Edited by: Dracvlad
This account linking suggestion is something that will improve this game immensely and break the hold of the big entities, it is something that I have wanted for a long time as I have seen too many examples of spy alts destroying interesting new groups with dynamic leaders by easy to do theft and intel that enables major groups to take or destroy their major assets.

In effect there are two ways to push account linking, the first would be to enable any character combination on the linked accounts, the second would be a discounted rate as compared to separate un-linked accounts, be it reduced price for paid subscription or more game time with plex.

As an overall point of view the small more independent minded players have been penalised continuously in this game and it would be good to see their views get listened too instead of the big blocks.

Quote:
I believe the ability to scam, steal, cloaky camp, gank or spy in the game is an activity that is no risks and all rewards, unlike other regular activities, because the other pilots of the player undertaking these otherwise valid options do not suffer any risk to their main ISK making assets. For me it breaks the concept of risk vs rewards that Eve is all about and that any miner, hauler, trader, missioner or PvPer have to face.


The issue here is quite clear, if big wig in PL/Goon uses an alt to scam someone how can his actions ever have consequences if you have no idea who did it as he used a throw away account, I have the capability to go off after someones main if I really want to, but hiding behind unlinked accounts makes for stale gameplay, this also applies to AFK cloaky camping, as I know who is doing it I can go after them too. It is a truly annoying part of the game that there are no consequences.

When the going gets tough the Gankers get their CSM rep to change mechanics in their favour.

Blocked: Teckos Pech, Sonya Corvinus, baltec1, Shae Tadaruwa, Wander Prian, Daichi Yamato, Jonah Gravenstein, Merin Ryskin, Linus Gorp

Borat Guereen
ARRAKIS Ltd.
#34 - 2017-02-03 21:26:50 UTC  |  Edited by: Borat Guereen
Today CCP has published updates about the CSM.

Reducing the number of representatives from 14 to 10 is one aspect, that will make it even more difficult for independent candidates to make it through the STV-based vote process.

But the main change is a change of philosophy. The white paper stated

"CCP’s vision

... The Council is included in the development process to ensure that feedback and opinions from EVE Online players are brought to the attention of the development team and that viewpoints from members of the EVE community across all demographics of play style are represented and heard."

I entered the CSM arena two years ago because I felt my play-style was not represented, features were nerfed to favor other play-styles, and the interests of the power players were always trumping those with alternative play-styles. The game is supposed to be a sandbox after all, so campaigning to lobby for the play-style I favor the most seemed logicial when reading CCP's vision about the CSM at the time. I proudly stepped up to defend mine, hoping that I was not be the only player that was engaging with the game this way.

Today, the CSM vision statement has been reduced to
"The CSM brings focused, structured feedback from the community to CCP and represents its views and interests." (*)

Up until now, I was advocating that CSM should represent the largest possible breadth of differenciated play-styles. This update clearly state that this is not anymore what CCP needs. The CSM members are there to focus and structure the feedback from the community at large, the greater good for the greater player base.

As such I have decided, as a player, to retire from this campaign. In the same way that I know none of the previous CSM has really represented me, I do not know how to represent the community in general rather than the play-style I am familiar with the most. I am not a bullshit politician, and I am not after free Omega account and free trip to Iceland.
Of course, I want to thanks all those that supported my fight.

This toon has been specifically created to be a public figure. As such I am going to put this toon for sale in the character bazaar between now and Feb 15th, in case anyone more suited than me to "brings focused, structured feedback from the community to CCP and represents its views and interests" would be interested to pick up this campaign and register to run with him.


(*) as a note, the same URL also stated at some point
"The purpose of the CSM is to represent society interests to CCP. This requires active engagement with the player community to master EVE issue awareness, understanding, and evaluation in the context of the greatest good for the greater player base."

Candidate for CSM XII

Borat Guereen
ARRAKIS Ltd.
#35 - 2017-02-17 06:10:38 UTC
Still running for CSM XII to defend solo players and their fun in this game.

Freedom fighters, we need to have a voice inside CSM, don't let the biggest enforce their rules to you...

Sleepers must awaken !

Candidate for CSM XII

Aram Kachaturian
Aram Pleasure Hub Holding
#36 - 2017-02-17 10:15:14 UTC
Character sold.

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=6828531#post6828531

What's going on here?

Servant of the Secret League, Wielder of the Monocle Clubhouse Flame.

ISD Fractal
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
#37 - 2017-02-17 13:58:59 UTC
Thread temporarily closed pending review.

ISD Fractal

Lieutenant

Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs)

Interstellar Services Department

Previous page12