These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Jita Park Speakers Corner

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Re-elect Elise Randolph for CSM 7 - There is no subsitute for activity!

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Jade Dragoness
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#161 - 2012-03-07 19:13:40 UTC
+1 for Elise
Elise Randolph
Habitual Euthanasia
Pandemic Legion
#162 - 2012-03-09 19:56:01 UTC
If you're voting solely based on PvP skills, just gonna leave this right here:
https://www.pandemic-legion.com/killboard/view_kill.php?id=490480

~
Weaselior
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#163 - 2012-03-13 18:17:04 UTC
elise, what is your opinion on the new titan changes

Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Pubbie Management and Exploitation Division.
omgdutch2005
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#164 - 2012-03-13 19:13:36 UTC
+5 votes for elise! go go go! Bear
Elise Randolph
Habitual Euthanasia
Pandemic Legion
#165 - 2012-03-13 19:24:50 UTC  |  Edited by: Elise Randolph
I think the new Titan changes are both a step in the wrong direction and incredibly short-sighted. The changes to Titans were based more on sensationalized rhetoric than actual knowledge and thought. If you look historically at powerblocs that boasted the largest supercapital fleet, you'll notice that their supercaps never actually saved them: BoB, Atlas, The NC, IT, DRF, Team Tech, et al. Simply put: the changes were rushed.

Titans represent that last venue for significant loss in Eve; rich alliances can lose entire BS fleets or entire T3 fleets and not blink. If an alliance were to lose an entire super-capital fleet, however, it would be a loss like no other. Marginalizing the role of Titans with no clear groundwork for a role rebalance cheapens large-scale PvP in Eve. I have been very clear in my sentiment that Eve should not be Titan online. But it should not be blob online, either.

The topic of Titans was a big one throughout this entire CSM term, and I have posted many words about them. The first set of changes represented a good first step, with ample discourse and consideration. This set of changes, however, took a step backwards. There was no conversation, merely a "hi we're doing this" statement.

If re-elected I will continue to push for a pragmatic role-revamp for Titans instead of a knee-jerk reaction to rhetoric.

~
D'yanoi
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#166 - 2012-03-13 19:28:05 UTC
Typical PL response.

Adapt or die.
Salpun
Global Telstar Federation Offices
Masters of Flying Objects
#167 - 2012-03-13 19:31:35 UTC
This is droping before fan Fest as a topic for which feed back is wantedTwisted
Hope we have more of these quick forum posts so Fan Fest can be focused on even bigger issues.

If i dont know something about EVE. I check https://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/ISK_The_Guide

See you around the universe.
Andski
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#168 - 2012-03-13 19:32:55 UTC
Elise Randolph wrote:
I think the new Titan changes are both a step in the wrong direction and incredibly short-sighted. The changes to Titans were based more on sensationalized rhetoric than actual knowledge and thought. If you look historically at powerblocs that boasted the largest supercapital fleet, you'll notice that their supercaps never actually saved them: BoB, Atlas, The NC, IT, DRF, Team Tech, et al. Simply put: the changes were rushed.

Titans represent that last venue for significant loss in Eve; rich alliances can lose entire BS fleets or entire T3 fleets and not blink. If an alliance were to lose an entire super-capital fleet, however, it would be a loss like no other. Marginalizing the role of Titans with no clear groundwork for a role rebalance cheapens large-scale PvP in Eve. I have been very clear in my sentiment that Eve should not be Titan online. But it should not be blob online, either.

The topic of Titans was a big one throughout this entire CSM term, and I have posted many words about them. The first set of changes represented a good first step, with ample discourse and consideration. This set of changes, however, took a step backwards. There was no conversation, merely a "hi we're doing this" statement.

If re-elected I will continue to push for a pragmatic role-revamp for Titans instead of a knee-jerk reaction to rhetoric.


How do you feel about this being a stop-gap measure while proper role balancing is worked on?

Twitter: @EVEAndski

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths."    - Abrazzar
Weaselior
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#169 - 2012-03-13 21:59:03 UTC
how will you reassure your support base that you are not limp-wristed and ineffective given that you got steamrolled on your signature issue

Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Pubbie Management and Exploitation Division.
riverini
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#170 - 2012-03-13 22:51:13 UTC
Elise Randolph wrote:
I think the new Titan changes are both a step in the wrong direction and incredibly short-sighted. The changes to Titans were based more on sensationalized rhetoric than actual knowledge and thought. If you look historically at powerblocs that boasted the largest supercapital fleet, you'll notice that their supercaps never actually saved them: BoB, Atlas, The NC, IT, DRF, Team Tech, et al. Simply put: the changes were rushed.

Titans represent that last venue for significant loss in Eve; rich alliances can lose entire BS fleets or entire T3 fleets and not blink. If an alliance were to lose an entire super-capital fleet, however, it would be a loss like no other. Marginalizing the role of Titans with no clear groundwork for a role rebalance cheapens large-scale PvP in Eve. I have been very clear in my sentiment that Eve should not be Titan online. But it should not be blob online, either.

The topic of Titans was a big one throughout this entire CSM term, and I have posted many words about them. The first set of changes represented a good first step, with ample discourse and consideration. This set of changes, however, took a step backwards. There was no conversation, merely a "hi we're doing this" statement.

If re-elected I will continue to push for a pragmatic role-revamp for Titans instead of a knee-jerk reaction to rhetoric.


The CSM6 has been there almost a year, we got three super-capital nerf. Given your "predictable" stance towards supers, should I declare you an ineffective CSM in pointing out your voters-base needs?

RIVERINI / EVENEWS24 @evenews24
David Magnus
#171 - 2012-03-14 07:02:40 UTC
If you had bothered to read Elise's campaign information, you'd see that he didn't come to the CSM table with a specific agenda, but instead to offer his advice as the most active and well versed member of the CSM. If CCP decides not to take advice from the one person on the council who actually knows EVE better than they do, that's their choice.

If anyone has yet to choose a CSM candidate, please listen to this totally objective and helpful song before making your decision:

http://soundcloud.com/davidkmagnus/elect-elise

http://soundcloud.com/davidkmagnus/fight-us-maybe

http://soundcloud.com/davidkmagnus/winterupdate

http://soundcloud.com/davidkmagnus/supercaps

http://soundcloud.com/davidkmagnus/pandemiclegion
IntegralHellsing
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#172 - 2012-03-14 07:35:09 UTC
riverini wrote:
The CSM6 has been there almost a year, we got three super-capital nerf. Given your "predictable" stance towards supers, should I declare you an ineffective CSM in pointing out your voters-base needs?
Someone's desperate.
Anna Finster
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#173 - 2012-03-14 17:33:54 UTC  |  Edited by: Anna Finster
D'yanoi wrote:
Typical PL response.

Adapt or die.


Typical ~goon/blob/newb/mittens/brainwashed~ answer. Why don't you adapt to titans? Oh wait... they just got nerfed, no need trolol.

//edit oh and +7 Elise :)
Nicolo da'Vicenza
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#174 - 2012-03-14 18:02:52 UTC
lol how can this guy say with a straight face that current titans are an 'anti-blob' weapon
for a guy who claims to play eve a lot he doesn't seem to remember the past two years where titans were used as an anti-frig, anti-cruiser, anti-hac, anti-bc, hotdropping, gatecamping weapon
Elise Randolph
Habitual Euthanasia
Pandemic Legion
#175 - 2012-03-14 18:15:21 UTC  |  Edited by: Elise Randolph
Weaselior wrote:
how will you reassure your support base that you are not limp-wristed and ineffective given that you got steamrolled on your signature issue

If I wanted to play the political game I'd just remind everybody that titans were supposed to be nerfed 4 months ago and I alone fended off the mongrel hordes of nerf titans.With a higher position on the CSM, perhaps I would have had more clout~

But in reality, of course, a successful CSM should not pigeon-hole his beliefs into what he wants as a player, but instead be open-minded, pragmatic, and advocate changes that are good for the game. Something that many CSM candidates lack.


riverini wrote:
Elise Randolph wrote:
I think the new Titan changes are both a step in the wrong direction and incredibly short-sighted. The changes to Titans were based more on sensationalized rhetoric than actual knowledge and thought. If you look historically at powerblocs that boasted the largest supercapital fleet, you'll notice that their supercaps never actually saved them: BoB, Atlas, The NC, IT, DRF, Team Tech, et al. Simply put: the changes were rushed.

Titans represent that last venue for significant loss in Eve; rich alliances can lose entire BS fleets or entire T3 fleets and not blink. If an alliance were to lose an entire super-capital fleet, however, it would be a loss like no other. Marginalizing the role of Titans with no clear groundwork for a role rebalance cheapens large-scale PvP in Eve. I have been very clear in my sentiment that Eve should not be Titan online. But it should not be blob online, either.

The topic of Titans was a big one throughout this entire CSM term, and I have posted many words about them. The first set of changes represented a good first step, with ample discourse and consideration. This set of changes, however, took a step backwards. There was no conversation, merely a "hi we're doing this" statement.

If re-elected I will continue to push for a pragmatic role-revamp for Titans instead of a knee-jerk reaction to rhetoric.


The CSM6 has been there almost a year, we got three super-capital nerf. Given your "predictable" stance towards supers, should I declare you an ineffective CSM in pointing out your voters-base needs?


Heh. For the first set of changes, not only did I agree with them but I had a heavy hand in their design. There was a lot of discourse around the changes, and we spoke about them daily for three weeks before a decision was made. When the decision was made, everyone on the CSM was in agreement. It was as the process should be: CCP has an idea, the CSM buffs the edges a bit and adds its two cents. This change was nowhere near that. It was merely presented to the CSM, we gave feedback (my feedback mirrors much of the criticism from the 90-page thread, because hey I actually play), and the feedback was promptly ignored. Instead of throwing a conniption about it and fake-resigning, as CSM members in the past have done (and CSM7 hopefuls this term), I will continue to articulate my points and keep the conversation alive.

Being able to effectively articulate a point is an imperative CSM skill, something that I believe is your downfall.

~
Dez Affinity
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#176 - 2012-03-14 23:24:55 UTC
riverini wrote:


The CSM6 has been there almost a year, we got three super-capital nerf. Given your "predictable" stance towards supers, should I declare you an ineffective CSM in pointing out your voters-base needs?


You should stick to being a Fox News-esque Space Journalist because even for that job you are horrendously unqualified. You have a pis s poor understanding of the game mechanics, you are horrible at PvP, you have a huge bias and a huge boner for anything PL.

You have a very limited knowledge of spaceships and combat (I mean you've literally flown 3 ships in the last year, a heavy neut curse, a sniper talos and a nemesis).

So let's be honest, Elise could sit in the corner of the room and jerk off and still be a more effective CSM than you.

More so you seem to think that being a part of a COUNCIL somehow makes it so you can decide SOLELY what happens in the game, is that what you're judging 'being effective' as? Maybe you should have read up on what the CSM entails before you applied you slack jawed ****.
Pidgie
Nightshade Enterprises
#177 - 2012-03-15 11:28:57 UTC
Elise Randolph - you have my votes and vouch.

Booooooooosh!
Anna Finster
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#178 - 2012-03-17 13:30:34 UTC
Today is a good day to vote!
Alx Warlord
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#179 - 2012-03-18 03:12:06 UTC
I really hope you get Re-Elected!

Best regards!

Please read these!

New POS system New SOV system
Elise Randolph
Habitual Euthanasia
Pandemic Legion
#180 - 2012-03-19 20:09:52 UTC
The last push is here, will continue my nerd activity and be open to any and all questions either in here or in game.

~