Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 [11] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 .. 26 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
MinutemanKirk
Quantum Cats Syndicate Villore Accords
4
|
Posted - 2012.02.12 07:49:00 -
[301] - Quote
Quote:Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:Regarding orca swapping, I am firmly of the belief that assisting a flashy pilot in high security space through an orca swap should render the orca the same flashy status, plain and simple. Orcas should NOT be Brutix delivery services, they should not be a means to assist bait tactics, and they should vulnerable if the pilot they are allowing to swap ships is vulnerable. If a pilot commits to assisting a PvP player in any practical fashion, he is part of the PvP action and should be treated the same as the one engaged in PvP. This is also a very bad idea. The reason that PlayerName and friends were able to destroy DOZENS OF BILLIONS OF ISK in a few short days in incursions is that tricking people into assisting you in a "fight" is very easy. this were to go through, people will develop a more and more paranoid atmosphere as more and more ganks occur. It's easy to swap out at someone's Orca without asking, it's easy to get into a fight while you're getting boosts from someone's leadership alt, and these would be some AMAZINGLY open choices for getting ganks. I know, because that's what I'd do. DO NOT DO THIS. I find it terribly amusing that a self proclaimed "griefer" thinks it's a bad idea to make it (supposedly) easier to get ganks. :)
I don't think that he is talking about a neutral orca offering services to random nubs (or the reverse), I think he is talking more in line with a grief or PvP corp using said orca to base ships out of/repair/protect and use in their attack/gank/grief and be able to do so without penalty. You should know.... Quote:"...because that's what I'd do."
You don't want a "paranoid atmosphere" because (I am assuming) that you think it will hurt gameplay? Get real, you need to find a different game then because from market and isk scams to "hey warp to me for a cool kill" tricks, if someone ISN'T paranoid to some extent in Eve they will lose something sooner or later. Maybe even enough to give them Quote:"a farce of grief that drive people out of the game." Seems awfully hypocritical to be so "concerned" that grief might drive them out when you make your occupation by giving others grief. |
frankk1
Autocannons Anonymous Late Night Alliance
0
|
Posted - 2012.02.12 08:01:00 -
[302] - Quote
good luck |
Iam Widdershins
Project Nemesis Moar Tears
569
|
Posted - 2012.02.12 08:42:00 -
[303] - Quote
MinutemanKirk wrote:I don't think that he is talking about a neutral orca offering services to random nubs (or the reverse), I think he is talking more in line with a grief or PvP corp using said orca to base ships out of/repair/protect and use in their attack/gank/grief and be able to do so without penalty. You should know.... Quote:"...because that's what I'd do." And you should know that those two things are one and the same. I'm not sure how you don't see it.
MinutemanKirk wrote:I find it terribly amusing that a self proclaimed "griefer" thinks it's a bad idea to make it (supposedly) easier to get ganks. :) Maybe you should find it more telling than amusing. If you stopped for a minute to think about what was being discussed you might have an understanding.
If you read anything that I wrote, you'd know that it is not my goal to kill as many things as possible without having to try too hard, but to make the game better. If you actually do think it is suspicious that I would want to fix broken mechanics that allow people to die with no warning, then I have no idea what the hell you're doing here.
MinutemanKirk wrote:Seems awfully hypocritical to be so "concerned" that grief might drive them out when you make your occupation by giving others grief. If you stop for ten seconds to give it some actual thought, you may note that if nobody else plays the game any more, I don't have a game to come back to either. Representing experience and reason in CSM 7 |
Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc. Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
13
|
Posted - 2012.02.12 09:23:00 -
[304] - Quote
Iam Widdershins wrote:If you want to pay your way out of a war, you should talk to the people you're fighting against.... In other words: "Protection rackets". Pay your way out of aggression from people with no interest beyond your wallet .. wonder if that could be incorporated into a revision of the high-sec wardec system where desired goals are stated up front (think contracts, killrights, bounties). The people negatively affected have little/no interest in the politics or finer points of Eve (ie. casuals) and declarations against them will inevitably be construed as griefing .. allow for protection arrangements through use of in-game 'paperwork' and the griefer corps get to wage wars among themselves for access/control of the more lucrative systems (gang/turf wars).
As for the bazillion ISK destroyed by tricking random people in incursions .. PUG's (Pick Up Groups/Gangs) have been utter crap in all games, across all genres .. I would have been genuinely surprised if PUG's in Eve was any different.
The reason why I personally abhor the Orca-swap is that it goes against the design philosophy of Eve by providing rewards with no risk .. that sort of thing simply has no place in Eve if you ask me.
PS: Wasn't the Orca-swap patched out and/or declared an exploit some time ago or did CCP chicken out?
|
Joyitii
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
2
|
Posted - 2012.02.12 10:06:00 -
[305] - Quote
Iam Widdershins wrote:Joyitii wrote:I would just like to point out his last sentence in the paragraph that you quoted. Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:I did not intend to suggest it as the sole solution to high sec war decs. Yes, but he did suggest it as PART of a solution for hisec wardecs, when it would in fact only serve to exacerbate a problem that already concerns a lot of people. If you want to pay your way out of a war, you should talk to the people you're fighting against. For further explanation, I would like to point out some sentences of my own, if you are up for reading them this time: Iam Widdershins wrote:...larger corporations that would actually be able to defend themselves effectively if they tried can more easily afford to pay out of the problem -- meaning that only corporations who end up having wars of a length worth speaking of are the ones that are unable to defend themselves, turning wars in hisec into a farce of grief that drive people out of the game. So much venom in every single one of your posts. I'm not going to definitively say anything for him but what it seems like is that he supports this idea of people having another way to protect themselves against a wardec. He is using it as an example for something that he would support. He literally says that it is conceptually something that he supports, not necessarily that specific idea. The worst thing that I can see out of his example is less war targets for mercs/privateers to prey on. Mind you this is only in highsec you're still free to roam in low/nul and pew to your hearts content. |
Indahmawar Fazmarai
The I and F Taxation Trust
247
|
Posted - 2012.02.12 10:38:00 -
[306] - Quote
Scalar Angulargf wrote:Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote:Addenda: WTF is "GCC"? ALWAYS DEFINE JARGON!! If GCC is still jargon to you after a year and a half in the game it is sad. You shouldn't be voting.
Interestingly enough, I always thought it was called the Global Criminal Flag & never had a reason to seriously care about it.
Also, it never hurts to define TLAs (Three Letter Acronyms) when they aren't standard... just in case. EVE residents: 5% Wormholes; 8% Lowsec; 20% Nullsec; 67% Highsec. CSM 6: 100% Nullsec residents.
EVE demographics vs CSM demographics, nothing to worry about...-á |
Cesc Fabrigas
Autocannons Anonymous Late Night Alliance
0
|
Posted - 2012.02.12 12:07:00 -
[307] - Quote
Nice ballanced view with a mind for all areas of Eve community ....you get my vote Hans
Cesc |
Kaver Linkovir
Autocannons Anonymous Late Night Alliance
33
|
Posted - 2012.02.12 12:15:00 -
[308] - Quote
Iam Widdershins wrote: If you stop for ten seconds to give it some actual thought, you may note that if nobody else plays the game any more, I don't have a game to come back to either.
I am glad you brought this up. After noticing a pattern in highsec declaration of war I started a little mapping project. As far as I have been able to track it a marginal number of EVE players (500 to 1000 players) are responcible for over 90% of "griefer" declarations of war. Your Project Nemesis among them.
You and players advocating targeted "griefing" and "tear extraction" cost EVE players that might have flourished without your pressure. This is primairily tied to the targeted nature of a declaration of war. Anybody can shrug off a gank that results in concord retaliation, most can appreciate the skill in the assasination of a blinged out mission ship but the targeted and continued prosecution caused by griefers piling on the wardecs put a huge strain on all but the best managed corporations.
Sure, it's darwinism, but this is also a game people play for enjoyment. A minority prolongedly crushing enjoyment that might have been had by a majority warrents attention and thought.
In my opinion you and yours have cost CCP an enormous amount of subscriptions and have cost EVE a huge amount of players that might have furtherd EVE were they not smothered in their cribs. I would love data on the actual rate of increased subscription loss tied to prolonged and repeated "griefer" declarations of war.
I would hope that the "griefer" vote goes to more deserving and more well rounded candidates that don't advocate and champion an erosion of the EVE playerbase we all depend on.
On a side note: loved the Gallente ice interdiction.
|
May Ava
Perkone Caldari State
1
|
Posted - 2012.02.12 12:30:00 -
[309] - Quote
Nice post matey
Not really been into all this stuff about voting and stuff as it all seems like ego stuff. Hopwever you make some good points and i like the fact you are looking out for other guys and girls who just dont want to or cant afford the time to mess about in 0.0
We need people to look after the other interest groups like Faction Warfare and missioneers so I think i might just get up off my arse and vote for you .....if i find out when and how
Good luke matey
|
Joyitii
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
3
|
Posted - 2012.02.12 14:17:00 -
[310] - Quote
May Ava wrote:Nice post matey
Not really been into all this stuff about voting and stuff as it all seems like ego stuff. Hopwever you make some good points and i like the fact you are looking out for other guys and girls who just dont want to or cant afford the time to mess about in 0.0
We need people to look after the other interest groups like Faction Warfare and missioneers so I think i might just get up off my arse and vote for you .....if i find out when and how
Good luke matey
CCP was talking of making it easier to vote in elections. People have wanted an in game voting system put in place. |
|
Joyitii
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
3
|
Posted - 2012.02.12 14:19:00 -
[311] - Quote
Kaver Linkovir wrote:Iam Widdershins wrote: If you stop for ten seconds to give it some actual thought, you may note that if nobody else plays the game any more, I don't have a game to come back to either. I am glad you brought this up. After noticing a pattern in highsec declaration of war I started a little mapping project. As far as I have been able to track it a marginal number of EVE players (500 to 1000 players) are responcible for over 90% of "griefer" declarations of war. Your Project Nemesis among them. You and players advocating targeted "griefing" and "tear extraction" cost EVE players that might have flourished without your pressure. This is primairily tied to the targeted nature of a declaration of war. Anybody can shrug off a gank that results in concord retaliation, most can appreciate the skill in the assasination of a blinged out mission ship but the targeted and continued prosecution caused by griefers piling on the wardecs put a huge strain on all but the best managed corporations. Sure, it's darwinism, but this is also a game people play for enjoyment. A minority prolongedly crushing enjoyment that might have been had by a majority warrents attention and thought. In my opinion you and yours have cost CCP an enormous amount of subscriptions and have cost EVE a huge amount of players that might have furtherd EVE were they not smothered in their cribs. I would love data on the actual rate of increased subscription loss tied to prolonged and repeated "griefer" declarations of war. I would hope that the "griefer" vote goes to more deserving and more well rounded candidates that don't advocate and champion an erosion of the EVE playerbase we all depend on. On a side note: loved the Gallente ice interdiction. I lost my first Retriever because of the interdiction. Funniest thing ever considering I had the freaking post open and was just about to read that they had expanded to the Caldari systems as well. I didn't have a chance at that point. xD |
Cheezy Armpit
Amok. Goonswarm Federation
3
|
Posted - 2012.02.12 15:35:00 -
[312] - Quote
Kaver Linkovir wrote: [Moar werds were ere]
You and players advocating targeted "griefing" and "tear extraction" cost EVE players that might have flourished without your pressure. This is primairily tied to the targeted nature of a declaration of war. Anybody can shrug off a gank that results in concord retaliation, most can appreciate the skill in the assasination of a blinged out mission ship but the targeted and continued prosecution caused by griefers piling on the wardecs put a huge strain on all but the best managed corporations.
Sure, it's darwinism, but this is also a game people play for enjoyment. A minority prolongedly crushing enjoyment that might have been had by a majority warrents attention and thought.
In my opinion you and yours have cost CCP an enormous amount of subscriptions and have cost EVE a huge amount of players that might have furtherd EVE were they not smothered in their cribs. I would love data on the actual rate of increased subscription loss tied to prolonged and repeated "griefer" declarations of war.
I would hope that the "griefer" vote goes to more deserving and more well rounded candidates that don't advocate and champion an erosion of the EVE playerbase we all depend on.
That's a dangerous way to put accross your idiotic point of view. Make the game safer for idiots for commercial reasons. |
Doctor Eezee
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
17
|
Posted - 2012.02.12 15:44:00 -
[313] - Quote
Joyitii wrote:May Ava wrote:Nice post matey
Not really been into all this stuff about voting and stuff as it all seems like ego stuff. Hopwever you make some good points and i like the fact you are looking out for other guys and girls who just dont want to or cant afford the time to mess about in 0.0
We need people to look after the other interest groups like Faction Warfare and missioneers so I think i might just get up off my arse and vote for you .....if i find out when and how
Good luke matey
CCP was talking of making it easier to vote in elections. People have wanted an in game voting system put in place.
How is that a good idea? That would just lead to idiots voting randomly instead of making an informed decision. I'm all for more advertising of the voting process, but don't let people vote that won't even go to the forums to read about the candidates. |
Joyitii
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
3
|
Posted - 2012.02.12 16:08:00 -
[314] - Quote
Doctor Eezee wrote:Joyitii wrote:May Ava wrote:Nice post matey
Not really been into all this stuff about voting and stuff as it all seems like ego stuff. Hopwever you make some good points and i like the fact you are looking out for other guys and girls who just dont want to or cant afford the time to mess about in 0.0
We need people to look after the other interest groups like Faction Warfare and missioneers so I think i might just get up off my arse and vote for you .....if i find out when and how
Good luke matey
CCP was talking of making it easier to vote in elections. People have wanted an in game voting system put in place. How is that a good idea? That would just lead to idiots voting randomly instead of making an informed decision. I'm all for more advertising of the voting process, but don't let people vote that won't even go to the forums to read about the candidates. Be that as it may there have been a fair amount of people complaining on the forums about how confusing it is to figure out where to vote for someone. I never said it was a good idea however if everything was more localized in the game then there would end up being more voters overall. Not sure how that's a bad thing. |
testobjekt
Creative Accounting Institute
38
|
Posted - 2012.02.12 16:23:00 -
[315] - Quote
Do most posts equal most votes? if so haaaaaans has a seat secure :D |
doombreed52
Enlightened Industries Test Alliance Please Ignore
15
|
Posted - 2012.02.12 16:53:00 -
[316] - Quote
you say that you are outnumbered..... erm you do know that 60% of players live in highsec right? |
Kaver Linkovir
Autocannons Anonymous Late Night Alliance
36
|
Posted - 2012.02.12 20:06:00 -
[317] - Quote
Cheezy Armpit wrote: That's a dangerous way to put accross your idiotic point of view. Make the game safer for idiots for commercial reasons.
I was not talking about making the game safer for idiots. I do however adore idiots since they make excelent marks.
I am saying that the "griefing" Iam Widdershins would like to expand on is detrimental to the growth of the EVE playerbase. He represents a really small minority of highsec wardeccing corps that pile wardec after wardec on singular corporations in a co+¦rdinated fashion. The target corporations are thus faced with near continual wardecs, especially if they show the balls to fight, and either come out too hard to wardec again or wither away under this forced style of play (causing subscription loss among their members).
An entity comprised of about 500 to a 1000 individual toons that corp hop continually (to escape any meaningfull revenge) raining wardecs on all fledgeling corporations that have the balls to fight and call getting blueballed a win is not something I see as contructive for EVE. But that is the way Iam Widdershins operates.
His advocated agenda would mean less targets for you since the potential future targets get smuthered in their first three cruisers. |
Aedin Dallocort
Colonic Hyperbole
1
|
Posted - 2012.02.12 21:22:00 -
[318] - Quote
Nice to see The Mittani's endorsement here, though honestly I think his support is irrelevant. Take his chair, Hans! Good luck with your campaign.
Oh ... I almost forgot....Do you have any insights about the Incursion community? You mentioned them briefly in your manifesto, but I think there are a lot of folks in the Incursion channels who would be interested in what you have to say on the topic.
Shameless blog endorsement: obfuscatedreality.blogspot.com |
Miso Souped
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2012.02.12 21:27:00 -
[319] - Quote
doombreed52 wrote:you say that you are outnumbered..... erm you do know that 60% of players live in highsec right?
Surely you had the attention span to read past the first sentence??
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote: The perennial question surfaces every CSM election GÇô how will the interests of those outside of the nullsec power blocs remain protected, when we are always outnumbered?
The answer is simple. We aren't outnumbered. The reality is that despite the overwhelming vote count that enabled The Mittani to seize the chairman seat in 2011, that figure is vastly exceeded by the majority of EvE players who have different values, different reasons for playing the game, and different ways we feel it should be played.
So yeah, i'd say he's pretty keenly aware of the election situation. Reading helps with that. |
Iam Widdershins
Project Nemesis Moar Tears
576
|
Posted - 2012.02.12 22:38:00 -
[320] - Quote
Kaver Linkovir wrote:I am glad you brought this up. After noticing a pattern in highsec declaration of war I started a little mapping project. As far as I have been able to track it a marginal number of EVE players (500 to 1000 players) are responcible (sic) for over 90% of "griefer" declarations of war. Your Project Nemesis among them.
You and players advocating targeted "griefing" and "tear extraction" cost EVE players that might have flourished without your pressure. This is primairily (sic) tied to the targeted nature of a declaration of war. Anybody can shrug off a gank that results in concord retaliation, most can appreciate the skill in the assasination of a blinged out mission ship but the targeted and continued prosecution caused by griefers piling on the wardecs put a huge strain on all but the best managed corporations.
Sure, it's darwinism, but this is also a game people play for enjoyment. A minority prolongedly crushing enjoyment that might have been had by a majority warrents attention and thought.
In my opinion you and yours have cost CCP an enormous amount of subscriptions and have cost EVE a huge amount of players that might have furtherd (sic) EVE were they not smothered in their cribs. I would love data on the actual rate of increased subscription loss tied to prolonged and repeated "griefer" declarations of war.
For one: Being a 'grief' PVPer, I have had over five times as many people thank me than I've seen people actually quit the game. And yes, I've checked back on people, a lot. The people who actually quit the game, to a man, were mind-blowingly incompetent to begin with, and they were blaming all their problems on us and not their own carelessness the way you seem to want to.
You are making unsubstantiated and untrue claims that the people who create hardship in the game are driving people out of it. You are also misrepresenting the state and the common usage patterns of war declarations, which are a valid and intended game mechanic. It is cumbersome, ineffective, and generally a huge waste of time to grief someone out of the game even if you want to. If someone actually bothers to target you with continued wardecs, it's because you're actively making it worth their while with your endless wellspring of terribleness.
You say that it might be darwinism, but that people want to enjoy the game too. Well, people play EVE because the enjoyment comes from succeeding at a game which is hard. For a pretty significant subset of its players, we are the people that make that game hard, and if you took that away it's just mining and missions. Very few people would actually want that, despite what they say.
Kaver Linkovir wrote:I would hope that the "griefer" vote goes to more deserving and more well rounded candidates that don't advocate and champion an erosion of the EVE playerbase we all depend on.
Well then, you're in luck. One of my most iterated points in my argument is that the game should not allow people to be repeatedly griefed with nothing for them to do about it. If a game mechanic allows a loophole for people to do this, it needs to be closed. Forcing people out of the game is a bad plan for all its players and for CCP, and I do not endorse it in any way. If you happen to be the one that kills someone and it's the final straw for them to quit, 999 times out of a thousand that person was already on their way out. People will blame their quitting on anything as an alternative to admitting that they were stupidly betting their entire fortune on one weak and undefended ship.
Kaver Linkovir wrote:On a side note: loved the Gallente ice interdiction.
You keep using this "hypocrisy" word. I don't think it means what you think it means. Representing experience and reason in CSM 7 |
|
Hans Jagerblitzen
Autocannons Anonymous Late Night Alliance
1513
|
Posted - 2012.02.12 23:24:00 -
[321] - Quote
Iam Widdershins wrote: For a pretty significant subset of its players, we are the people that make that game hard, and if you took that away it's just mining and missions. Very few people would actually want that, despite what they say.
I hope you are not seriously taking away from my writings and commentary that you think I have some hidden agenda to wipe high-sec war from the map. I thought I've been quite clear that I think the war dec shield is a silly practice, and that players should make a choice about whether war is something they are prepared for, and consider that choice when deciding whether to leave an NPC corp. I've offered suggestions regarding ways to protect smaller corps from prolonged "griefing" type wars, some with more merit than others. I've also said from the beginning that the potential for harm should always be considered with any change, and you have brought up some valid concerns regarding a couple of the proposals I have discussed.
While I've explicitly said these things before, I realize at this point we are talking dozens of pages of manifestos and threads for readers to get through, and that's a bit unfair. I have had a large amount of questions regarding high security space, not just from yourself but from many others.
To help clarify my vision for high sec I have begun work on my next blog post, which will focus specifically on providing a stand-alone summary of where I stand on the various high sec-specific issues that have been brought up so far. I want the voters to have a clear idea of the activities I believe should thrive in high sec, the nature of how safety should be provided, and the type of war that should and should not be encouraged by the mechanics. I appreciate your patience with this, look forward to its publish in the next few days.
Here is the link to my blog where you all can follow and keep in touch. |
Iam Widdershins
Project Nemesis Moar Tears
577
|
Posted - 2012.02.12 23:39:00 -
[322] - Quote
Kaver Linkovir wrote:An entity comprised of about 500 to a 1000 individual toons that corp hop continually (to escape any meaningfull revenge) raining wardecs on all fledgeling corporations that have the balls to fight and call getting blueballed a win is not something I see as contructive for EVE. But that is the way Iam Widdershins operates. This is, in a word, bull+++t. Through and through.
Since I began PVPing, the only organization I have been a part of that had more than 100 members at any given time was The 0rphanage, and they were terrible. Moar Tears currently has less than 100 members, most of whom have roles preventing them from leaving corp -- and everyone freaks the hell out when someone leaves for a couple days to help out a friend. There is no shadow-clan of hundreds of members who are constantly moving and constantly oppressing your pilots; if there were, and that's what I did, I'm sure I could get a seat on the CSM with very little effort.
PVP in these alliances gets boring pretty fast, and I encourage my own pilots (currently PRONS has only about a dozen active pilots) to get some small and interesting wars of their own going. They are free to move about as they wish, but I do not know of ANYONE who "corp hops continually to escape any meaningful revenge." If I saw someone doing that, I would boot them immediately. Meaningful revenge is what we're seeking out more than anything else. We want fights, wherever we can get them.
Getting blueballed is a win for nobody; that is the reason why we will move about often. There are a number of fights we are involved in at any given time, and we are looking to help out our own members. I am looking to eliminate corp hopping entirely, and if you claim otherwise in any way you are very poorly read. Please take your tinfoil conspiracies elsewhere and never return. Representing experience and reason in CSM 7 |
None ofthe Above
47
|
Posted - 2012.02.12 23:46:00 -
[323] - Quote
Doctor Eezee wrote:Joyitii wrote:May Ava wrote:Nice post matey
Not really been into all this stuff about voting and stuff as it all seems like ego stuff. Hopwever you make some good points and i like the fact you are looking out for other guys and girls who just dont want to or cant afford the time to mess about in 0.0
We need people to look after the other interest groups like Faction Warfare and missioneers so I think i might just get up off my arse and vote for you .....if i find out when and how
Good luke matey
CCP was talking of making it easier to vote in elections. People have wanted an in game voting system put in place. How is that a good idea? That would just lead to idiots voting randomly instead of making an informed decision. I'm all for more advertising of the voting process, but don't let people vote that won't even go to the forums to read about the candidates.
Platforms could be made available in game as well. Many folk have a quite reasonable aversion to these forums. Hopefully forum bugs will get fixed.
I agree that forcing people to vote randomly for some one before they can play is a bad idea. Ability to put off till later (up till the election is over anyway) or to abstain, is a better move. IMHO.
Or of course they could vote None ofthe Above!
Tired of the current CSM? Vote for me, I am None ofthe Above! https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=795254
|
Rutherford B Hazed
Hedion University Amarr Empire
0
|
Posted - 2012.02.13 01:16:00 -
[324] - Quote
Hanz
What is your position on the $99.00 dollar charge CCP want to charge 3rd party developers? Goodluck im watching your's . ELise and Seleene's campaign with great interest. |
Wayne Xiro
Autocannons Anonymous Late Night Alliance
0
|
Posted - 2012.02.13 02:13:00 -
[325] - Quote
B-Team Approves. GO HANS |
Poetic Stanziel
Major Kong Freight
739
|
Posted - 2012.02.13 06:18:00 -
[326] - Quote
I was excited about your campaign, Hans. Then I learned that you have yet to submit the candidate application to CCP. Until you do, I have no choice but to consider this entire thread a complete waste of time.
Please get your application in. You have my two votes if you're on the ballot. The STAIN Travel Bookmark Collection - 451 Bookmarks |
Hans Jagerblitzen
Autocannons Anonymous Late Night Alliance
1549
|
Posted - 2012.02.13 08:13:00 -
[327] - Quote
Poetic Stanziel wrote:I was excited about your campaign, Hans. Then I learned that you have yet to submit the candidate application to CCP. Until you do, I have no choice but to consider this entire thread a complete waste of time.
Please get your application in. You have my two votes if you're on the ballot.
Fear not! I was simply awaiting confirmation from the passport office. I submitted my paperwork Saturday morning, it should be processed first thing tomorrow. Expect to see me on the list as soon as Turbefield gets to the office and sits down with the next batch of applications.
I assure you, I take this campaign quite seriously . But by all means, wait till I'm official before pledging support. I completely understand. |
Iam Widdershins
Project Nemesis Moar Tears
588
|
Posted - 2012.02.13 12:26:00 -
[328] - Quote
Surprise! I haven't forgotten. Time for some answers man, if they're ever coming. You had all weekend. Otherwise, I've just gotta assume. Representing experience and reason in CSM 7 |
Joyitii
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
3
|
Posted - 2012.02.13 12:50:00 -
[329] - Quote
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:To help clarify my vision for high sec I have begun work on my next blog post, which will focus specifically on providing a stand-alone summary of where I stand on the various high sec-specific issues that have been brought up so far. I want the voters to have a clear idea of the activities I believe should thrive in high sec, the nature of how safety should be provided, and the type of war that should and should not be encouraged by the mechanics. I appreciate your patience with this, look forward to its publish in the next few days. Here is the link to my blog where you all can follow and keep in touch.
|
Yttrius Beryll
The Scope Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2012.02.13 14:23:00 -
[330] - Quote
+1 |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 [11] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 .. 26 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |