Jita Park Speakers Corner

After it being suggested for some years now, I've finally decided to run for CSM7.



For those who don’t know me, I am Kelduum Revaan, CEO of EVE University for the past two years, and director for more than three years before that. For those not familiar with E-UNI, we are the most successful training corp in EVE and one of the few truly altruistic groups. We provide an assortment of resources to the EVE community, including education and training on various subjects as well as the UniWiki. We are funded primarily from donations from the community, both in time (none of our staff are paid) and other more tangible resources, and our members may stay as long as they want before they move on to other corporations while remaining a part of our community.

During my time with the Uni, I have seen the corp go from a handful of players to over 2,000 active members, and have seen tens of thousands of characters pass through our doors - going on to be everything from alliance leaders to fleet commanders, wormhole dwellers, pirates and industrialists, as well as more than a few well known members of the EVE community.

Personally, I of course started out as a regular newbie, and soon moved to Director of Diplomacy for E-UNI, dealing with more than a few interesting situations; then to Director of Operations, where I took over the leadership reins of the Uni, helping it grow and dealing with many issues at every imaginable level; and finally to CEO, where I continue to lead the Uni to new strengths.

Outside of EVE I work as a ‘problem solver’ for a small internet provider in the UK, and use my significant experience in both programing and reverse engineering to resolve complex issues, which coupled with many years gaming experience, gives me further insight into how various mechanics interact within EVE.



This is obviously the popular question. I believe the CSM needs an experienced yet neutral voice to help ensure balance and prevent control of the council from moving to push the agendas of any one player group to the detriment of the rest of the player base.

As it stands, CCPs recent refocusing on ‘Flying In Space’ and solving long older problems is a massive improvement over how things were this time last year, but it is important to ensure they continue on this path in a way that is even and balanced, maintaining and improving on existing systems in a way that benefits all players of all play-styles.

What makes EVE special is its community, which makes the universe both harsh and unforgiving, where the far side of every gate could see you in a new clone; whilst also being a catalyst for events like FanFest and other player meet-ups where bitter enemies can swap stories over a drink. However this community has a fragile balance which risks being disrupted if the CSM is populated by single-focus candidates.

With my experience and knowledge of the underlying mechanics of EVE, years of practice dealing with vastly differing viewpoints and a commitment to hear all sides before making any decisions, technical background, not to mention the thousands of alumni throughout the community who stay in contact with us, I feel I have the experience to be a valuable member of the CSM and serve the greater EVE community.

• I represent a neutral and balanced power, with nothing for myself or my corporation to gain from shifting the balance in EVE.
• I have a proven track record of dispute resolution with hostile parties, collating all available information before making a decision.
• I understand existing game systems very well, including the lesser understood and more complex ones such as corporation mechanics.
• You think that overall EVE is not terminally ‘broken’ barring a few areas, and feel that CCP should continue iterating on existing mechanics and improving them, rather than diversifying into different systems which spread their focus.

If you have any other questions, please feel free to post them here and I will answer them, or alternatively you can use my Formspring account to ask anonymously and I will post them here.

I support Kelduum's move from Shadow CSM to CSM.

I thought you were representing everyone.

http://poeticstanziel.blogspot.com/2012/02/csm7-i-represent-eve-university.html

I don't represent EVE University. Obviously. Kelduum, as part of his CSM7 platform, has stated he represents everybody. I called bullshit on that earlier.

I'd like to point out a few of his public comments concerning his platform which give way to the lie that he represents anybody other than EVE University. He wants to see changes implemented that benefit his organization (hard to fault him for that, I'm sure The Mittani wants to benefit Goonswarm).

We'll start off with some of his comments made on the EVE Online forums, specifically where I ask him a few questions.
The answer seems fine on the surface. It is curious he didn't outright say "No," but qualified his answer with a "very likely". I wonder what offer might be made that would change a "very likely no" into a "yes."

Specifically on war declaration mechanics:
Here's where we start getting into the suggestions that benefit nobody in highsec except for EVE University. He suggests a structure that can be destroyed. Destroy it before the normal timed ending to a war, the war ends early. Exactly who does this benefit except a corporation that can quickly field a fleet of 50-200 ships to smash the structure in record time? It certainly wouldn't benefit small corporations and alliances. But a corporation well-known for its blob warfare, they could end wars within hours of them beginning. This is a suggestion meant to benefit any corporation or alliance that can bring massive numbers to bear quickly. No thought is given at all to small and medium alliances. Certainly not a component of a platform of someone aiming to represent everyone.

Now let's grab something he wrote over on the EVE University forums, a head-ups on his CSM agenda to his prime constituency.
The important aspect of this comment is the part where he wants to "encourage PvP against groups who can/will fight." Basically, he wants to encourage a war declaration system that will not include corporations and alliances not interested in non-consensual PvP. In other words, he's looking for a war declaration system that encourages consensual PvP. EVE University is the biggest detractor of the current war declaration system (before CCP started allowing exploits to be used), and has never enjoyed going to war unless it was a) mutual, and b) arranged. It should be little surprise that Kelduum aims to champion a system that will keep EVE University free of conflict that is not of its choosing.

This final bit, from his official announcement for candidacy is a lol.

Problem is Poetic Stanza's main points are based around manipulating the scemantics with supposition of her interpretations as opposed to any real concrete evidence.



Case and point, the idea that a person is capable of representing more than in his own turf on the CSM is the very premise of his campaign as he has stated. Other CSM candidates have stated their limited interests.

Also just because other elements of the CSM have demonstrated selfish interests, which PS seems to also want to confirm, doesn't mean you can equally judge someone else by the same standard or use it as a rule of thumb for other candidates. That's just engineering the truth for all candidates yet to demonstrate their stance.

So just because a candidate wishes to exercise philanthrophy and sees this as a sufficiently fair stance to adopt that is mutually beneficial to all thereby including his own constituents. I actually see it as very refreshing that a canidate is actually looking at CCPs original intentions for the CSM in the way it was intended.





This is again seen in the interpretation of the point about war decs.



Of which PS wishes to make people see this as a move to introduce a consensual system.

And yet the very definition of a loophole is "an ambiguity in a system, such as a law or security, which can be used to circumvent or otherwise avoid the intent, implied or explicitly stated, of the system." So if he is trying to eliminate these rules that prevent PvP, why would he push for consensual PvP as desirable."

Whereas if you look at the derivation of why PS makes this ill founded conclusion its due to the "can/will" in the encouragement of PvP part. Could be easily interpretable as "I dont wish to prescribe how people choose their tactics to fight, but if loopholes are removed, it will encourage fighting for those who wish to undock and engage". I'll let Kelduum confirm of course, but just shows how it can be "sensibly" interpreted. Which when you look at the "complete" point made as opposed to just the sub focussed text provided for the argument in context it makes a lot more sense:



Key part being that he doesn't want to be exempt from the war dec system, ergo, not a consensual preference.



I have to admit however that the "Bubble" mechanic likley needs some work for Guerilla tactics to be represented. But the balance of power relating to small organisations war deccing larger ones isn't really going to be favourable for them anyway. Or shouldn't in theory. To be honest my personal view of any "capture the flag" type mechanics shouldn't really be the enforcement to offical hostilities and needs to be less geographically orientated or requireing a "placed" or "fixed" presence. Of course SoV capturing is a little different to high sec mechanics with specific objects in space needeing to be overcome and owned as a result so it could be something to introduce alongside those for null sec wars. It would be interesting to see the point in full context as it may have been a topic relating to SoV warfare.


So PS other than you "dont believe" it all, what real evidence is there? Nothing, its just pure conjecture, but actually, your only really making yourself look like an idiot as a "straw man" as a result.

Nobody will be exempt from any war declaration system, but the sorts of mechanics he'll fight for, it will be exceptionally hard to pull certain corporations and alliances into an extended war.

For instance, using Kelduum's Capture the Flag idea. Sure, you can wardec the Uni under that system (i.e., they are not exempt), but they can crush the structure hours into any war. So, yeah, under Kelduum;s proposed plan, one can wardec the University for hours at a time. Sounds to me that, for all practical purposes, they would be exempt from war.

For what it's worth, i like Kelduum at least he seems like he cares enough to at least take a look at the problems of people other than himself or his own corporation.

Edit: Off topic posts removed, CCP Phantom.

Hell no.

Eve Uni is JUST ANOTHER CORP/ALLIANCE

Their direction is about teaching noobs. That is fine. Other corps focus on pvp or living in a wormhole. Other focus on incursions or missions. Some ever mine. A person signs up to a corp because it offers them something they wish to share in.

At the end of the day though, what makes Eve unique and therefore "EvE" is that everyone has to play by the same set of rules. The uni can field low sec roam blobs like few else can due to their size. They should be able to steamrole by weight of numbers. However that requires ORGANISATION and leadership, the same as any other corp requires to survive a PvP engagement in Eve.

Will they lose the odd ship to 2 man war deccers? Yes. But so what - it will teach the noob far more then living in a bubble ever will.

A University in the real world does not protect their students. They challenge them, force them to to excel and most importantly, how to think and learn for themselves. That is what the Uni should be doing.

Flay, that is truly an awesome eagle. +1 Internets for you.

For those of you wondering abut the DecShield, it only makes wars more expensive, and doesn't prevent them as all in aim noted at the end of last year.

Despite the DecShield, Mangala Solaris of Red vs Blue contacted us and we recently had a load of fun with them over the weekend, and much explosions were had by all, and if anyone else wants to arrange something similar, let us know.

Not to mention of course that if you had the resources and knowledge to dissuade people from making silly mistakes, would you not use them?

Arranged, consensual wars and/or 1B ISK war declarations ... this is the FUTURE Kelduum Revaan promises for EVE Online players.

Exactly, but this is the false projection "you" are wanting to convey against the reality that EvE Uni are only paying to make things diffcult, hence why expressed it as such.

Twist meaning much? Oh wait, we already established that.