EVE Search - So who are you voting for?

Search EVE-Online forums for:

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

So who are you voting for?

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 :: one page

Author	Topic
Verone Veto Corp	Posted - 2008.04.13 19:12:00 - [91] Originally by: nemississ If im not mistaken Jade constantine is confirmed GH-SC so definatly not voting for her rofl. >>> THE LIFE OF AN OUTLAW - EVE FICTION <<<
Omber Zombie Gallente Frontier Technologies	Posted - 2008.04.13 19:29:00 - [92] Originally by: Sakura Nihil Second, Omber Zombie. This guy has a plethora of experience in EVE from his long time playing it, something that I think is very valuable when you're electing people that will work in a variety of issues if they're on the council. On top of that, he seems like a cool guy - reading his website, the only thing I'm a bit on the fence about is the clause describing how suicide ganking doesn't provide enough of a risk for the ganker. That being said, its a small problem, one that likely won't prevent me from voting for him. Thanks Sak for the vote of confidence . My position is more that under it's current structure, suicide ganking is more profitable than not doing it. Yes, there is the security status hit, but other than that, there is no penalty for it. I think it may have been Crovan that mentioned the idea of possibly having standings changed rather than just security status so eventually you are unable to enter certain areas of the various empires due to crimes committed within their borders. On the other hand you may get a bit of a security boost for doing said acts within certain areas too. i.e gank someone in Gallente space and you get a 1 point standing decrease to the Gallente navy (or any other associated corps), but at the same time you get a 0.05 point boost to the Caldari navy. It would be a nice tie in to faction warfare and mean that while you can't just flit around the empires endlessly ganking people, you're helping 'service' some of the opposing empire's goals and getting a bit of a reward to offset the major penalty. Then again, I also think the insurance system as a whole needs to be looked at as currently it's pointless insuring a t2 ship and the blanket insurance everyone gets needs some tinkering. Another tie in to factional warfare may be to make insurance based on the way your ship dies - i.e. you're Gallente and died fighting 60%+ Caldari enemies in empire, you get 110% insurance payout, but the cost to insure your ship within Caldari space goes up 10%. Or another idea may be to have insurance bought in empire only covers empire space, dying in 0.0 means no insurance. But then you cold have the conquerable stations have insurance agents that only insure ships for 0.0 space. Or then again we could have the modular insurance systems where players can become insurance agents through the contract system - there's a new profession for eve, insurance salesman All of those are ideas, I'm not going to push them personally, but they are out there for people to look at and say: "omg Oz is a newb, that wouldn't work for x,y,z reasons" or, "yeah, that's cool, but what if we did this instead?" anyway, i think my point is, all the CSM members have their own ideas about multiple facets of the game (at least I hope they do) but pushing their own agenda shouldn't be the priority. Half of the priority of the council is to present the issues the playerbase has to CCP, the other half is to take those initial ideas and work with the playerbase to come up with a solution that won't be thrown out of discussion as soon as CCP sees it due to a lack of content, lack of explanation, gamebreaking or going entirely against the spirit of eve. woah, that was a lot more typing than I thought, apologies for the wall of text/rambling. ---------------------- CSM 08 Blog \| 1st Campaign Vid
Verone Veto Corp	Posted - 2008.04.13 20:04:00 - [93] Originally by: Omber Zombie Originally by: Sakura Nihil Second, Omber Zombie. This guy has a plethora of experience in EVE from his long time playing it, something that I think is very valuable when you're electing people that will work in a variety of issues if they're on the council. On top of that, he seems like a cool guy - reading his website, the only thing I'm a bit on the fence about is the clause describing how suicide ganking doesn't provide enough of a risk for the ganker. That being said, its a small problem, one that likely won't prevent me from voting for him. Thanks Sak for the vote of confidence . My position is more that under it's current structure, suicide ganking is more profitable than not doing it. Yes, there is the security status hit, but other than that, there is no penalty for it. I think it may have been Crovan that mentioned the idea of possibly having standings changed rather than just security status so eventually you are unable to enter certain areas of the various empires due to crimes committed within their borders. On the other hand you may get a bit of a security boost for doing said acts within certain areas too. i.e gank someone in Gallente space and you get a 1 point standing decrease to the Gallente navy (or any other associated corps), but at the same time you get a 0.05 point boost to the Caldari navy. It would be a nice tie in to faction warfare and mean that while you can't just flit around the empires endlessly ganking people, you're helping 'service' some of the opposing empire's goals and getting a bit of a reward to offset the major penalty. Then again, I also think the insurance system as a whole needs to be looked at as currently it's pointless insuring a t2 ship and the blanket insurance everyone gets needs some tinkering. Another tie in to factional warfare may be to make insurance based on the way your ship dies - i.e. you're Gallente and died fighting 60%+ Caldari enemies in empire, you get 110% insurance payout, but the cost to insure your ship within Caldari space goes up 10%. Or another idea may be to have insurance bought in empire only covers empire space, dying in 0.0 means no insurance. But then you cold have the conquerable stations have insurance agents that only insure ships for 0.0 space. Or then again we could have the modular insurance systems where players can become insurance agents through the contract system - there's a new profession for eve, insurance salesman All of those are ideas, I'm not going to push them personally, but they are out there for people to look at and say: "omg Oz is a newb, that wouldn't work for x,y,z reasons" or, "yeah, that's cool, but what if we did this instead?" anyway, i think my point is, all the CSM members have their own ideas about multiple facets of the game (at least I hope they do) but pushing their own agenda shouldn't be the priority. Half of the priority of the council is to present the issues the playerbase has to CCP, the other half is to take those initial ideas and work with the playerbase to come up with a solution that won't be thrown out of discussion as soon as CCP sees it due to a lack of content, lack of explanation, gamebreaking or going entirely against the spirit of eve. woah, that was a lot more typing than I thought, apologies for the wall of text/rambling. Also this man. It shall be a difficult choice.
Ankhesentapemkah Gallente	Posted - 2008.04.13 20:45:00 - [94] Originally by: Verone Other people have put across all these cool ideas of THEIR OWN. The CSM isn't an opportunity for representitives to push their own manifesto and agenda. Representitives should be there to listen to the community and put the wider view of the playerbase accross to the development team, not their own. Which is exactly what I have been doing with my Take Care platform. As you can see on my website, we've been gathering a lot of input from the players, and I have appointed advisors to give me their view of matters before I take up any issues. We've also been very active in game, talking actively to the players and listening to their concerns. There is a lot floating around in game that isn't said on the forums. A lot of people do not post on the forums at all due to the attitude of people here, but they are good players and deserve to be represented.
Wu Jiun State War Academy	Posted - 2008.04.13 21:03:00 - [95] dunno yet really. candidates of interest for me atm: goumindong, torn soul and maybe hardin Maybe i'll vote one, all or none of them. really depends on the final list of candidates, the ongoing election campaigns. i'd like to see people that have an agenda. some people think of the csm as kind of a impartial filter that suggests ideas of the community to ccp. for me i see it rather like a represantative democracy. the candidates have their lobby which votes for them. the solid represantation of those groups in csm will then hopefully allow for constructive work and a bit more than just forwarding what people say in the forum.
Danton Marcellus Nebula Rasa Holdings	Posted - 2008.04.13 21:43:00 - [96] Originally by: Verone Originally by: LaVista Vista But what makes you different? Would nobody else be able to do the same? Because surely CSM can't be a failure, if just a few of the people are like you. What makes me different doesn't matter, since I'm no longer running. I also don't doubt that people would be able to do the same, that's never been my issue. Whether the CSM is a success or a failure will depend entirely on whether people will vote with the views of the community in mind, or whether they'll vote with whomever can put forward enough of their own ideas that they'd like to see implemented/repaired. I disagree, the CSM need strong wills and novel approaches to things or those will be long unproductive meetings where people exchange long and winded curtious phrases. Jade more and more looks like my candidate, not only for the endless monologue capabilities but for me believing she'll be the one candidate pushing an own agenda. Yes own agenda which I do think will be for the betterment of the game overall mind you, not everyone agenda is worthy of following through on and I do think people need to balls up and put forth their agendas and not just ride the fence saying they'll be listening to everyone. You're supposed to be the illuminati, act superior damnit or step off! Half in jest. Should/would/could have, HAVE you chav! Also Known As
Juwi Kotch Gallente VIRTUAL LIFE VANGUARD Carpe Universitas	Posted - 2008.04.13 22:02:00 - [97] Danton, maybe you haven't read everything, what I would totally understand, since things are piling up here, but it has been said frequently already: There cannot be a CSM candidate's agenda. And if one has one, it would be just as good as John Doe's agenda in Usi Pator Tech School station. The CSM members are not to pursue their own agenda. They get their agenda set via an elaborate proposing and voting system monitored and moderated by CCP - after they have been elected. It is more important to understand the general mindset of a candidate, his/her set of values and goals for the EVE universe. That might coincidate with your topics, then you have found your candidate. And if that mindset is found in what Jade has described among all her ideas, then she might be your candidate. But agenda or not, is irrelevant. Juwi Kotch Discussion Board
Danton Marcellus Nebula Rasa Holdings	Posted - 2008.04.13 22:10:00 - [98] Elaborate and monitored, what's this, an re-enactment of 1984? If this is just another spoonfed focusgroup I'd be sorely dissapointed. Should/would/could have, HAVE you chav! Also Known As
Juwi Kotch Gallente VIRTUAL LIFE VANGUARD Carpe Universitas	Posted - 2008.04.13 22:17:00 - [99] Focusgroup, yes. Spoonfed, no. Juwi Kotch Discussion Board
Doonoo Boonoo Amarr Hedion University	Posted - 2008.04.13 22:31:00 - [100] Edited by: Doonoo Boonoo on 13/04/2008 22:31:42 Not sure if there is a CSM candidate that shares my views so I'm still undecided. I absolutely detest PVP to such an extent that I refuse to fire back and defend myself if attacked and think that all griefers should be detained and rehabilitated IRL because they are obviously psychopaths with no feelings for their fellow man.Inflicting damage on other players is just as immoral as trashing your neighbors property for fun. I'll never understand that. Surely people have some kind of concience, and some empathy and compassion towards other people? Maybe they just forget that there's a real person behind those ships. Maybe they don't care. Maybe they're ruthless psychopatich sadists. I still hope that CCP takes responsibility some day and stops encouraging strife and 'evil' behaviour and instead encourage peaceful cooperative play instead of being so competetive.I don't think it is fun to win at anything,what is the point of winning? Even though the game does not require people to take other players into account, I'm very surprised that almost noone does it due to conscience and morality issues. I mean, you have a nice simulated world with almost endless possibilities, why turn it into a hell when it can be heaven?I think it's cool to have huge fleets flying around that do not even engage in combat. Being a solo player I don't have any corpmates, I play this game all by myself. I guess I'm the typical player that sees Eve as a singleplayer game with a nice integrated chat (and I hardly even use that thing).Watching digits on screen grow bigger is exactly what Eve is to me. I think casual play is, and should continue to be, a valid playstyle for Eve. Eve is a game, and people play games to relax. People play in highsec because they do not want a frantic rat-race, they want to sit back and play without Eve demanding their undivided attention. For this reason, I disagree when people say "keep watching local till you got eyestrain, and keep your hand on the mouse at all times so your ship remains perfectly aligned with the station so you can twitch it back to safety for when those punks show up!" Try mining for a day with the game having your undivided attention, I don't think you can manage that without your brain protesting. Now try mining while watching a movie or browsing the net. I think the latter is perfectly acceptable and shouldn't be punished by suicide gankings. If this game needs anything, it's more people like me. I just hope I can find the right candidate.

Komaito AFK	Posted - 2008.04.13 22:39:00 - [101] Not sure yet, but I'll probably vote for the only candidate I know a bit. What worries me about these hustings, I don't get the feeling there is an important election campaign going on ingame. There should a campaign going on in the world of eve and the pilots should be in the midst of it. Suggestions: - Candidates put adverts in billboards - Candidates get blinky ships with colors and a custom logo and a slogan on it - Candidate's ship is equipped with the "brochure smartbomb", charged with brochures: If activated, all target in a radius of 30 km get a brochure of the candidate in the cargo bay - 2 times everyday, candidates can activate the "letter doomsday" in their ship: After activation, everyone in local gets a mail of the candidate in his mailbox - Candidates can place "ballpen containers" close to the exit points of up to 4 stations: Every ship exiting gets a ballpen with the logo of the candidate in it's cargo hold Any more ideas that the election campaign feels more "real"?
Vyktor Abyss The Abyss Corporation Abyss Alliance	Posted - 2008.04.13 23:49:00 - [102] Internet spaceships elections.... Serious business.
Snarker Caldari Dragon's Rage Intrepid Crossing	Posted - 2008.04.14 00:13:00 - [103] I am definitely voting for Jade Constantine. He has the right vision of what Eve should be, and is working towards it. ----------------------------------------
techzer0 IDLE GUNS	Posted - 2008.04.14 00:38:00 - [104] Originally by: Doonoo Boonoo Edited by: Doonoo Boonoo on 13/04/2008 23:01:45 Edited by: Doonoo Boonoo on 13/04/2008 22:31:42 Not sure if there is a CSM candidate that shares my views so I'm still undecided. Being a solo player I don't have any corpmates, I play this game all by myself. I guess I'm the typical player that sees Eve as a singleplayer game with a nice integrated chat (and I hardly even use that thing).Watching digits on screen grow bigger is exactly what Eve is to me. I absolutely detest PVP to such an extent that I refuse to fire back and defend myself if attacked and think that all griefers should be detained and rehabilitated IRL because they are obviously psychopaths with no feelings for their fellow man.Inflicting damage on other players is just as immoral as trashing your neighbors property for fun. I'll never understand that. Surely people have some kind of concience, and some empathy and compassion towards other people? Maybe they just forget that there's a real person behind those ships. Maybe they don't care. Maybe they're ruthless psychopatich sadists. I still hope that CCP takes responsibility some day and stops encouraging strife and 'evil' behaviour and instead encourage peaceful cooperative play instead of being so competetive.I don't think it is fun to win at anything,what is the point of winning? Even though the game does not require people to take other players into account, I'm very surprised that almost noone does it due to conscience and morality issues. I mean, you have a nice simulated world with almost endless possibilities, why turn it into a hell when it can be heaven?I think it's cool to have huge fleets flying around that do not even engage in combat. I think casual play is, and should continue to be, a valid playstyle for Eve. Eve is a game, and people play games to relax. People play in highsec because they do not want a frantic rat-race, they want to sit back and play without Eve demanding their undivided attention. For this reason, I disagree when people say "keep watching local till you got eyestrain, and keep your hand on the mouse at all times so your ship remains perfectly aligned with the station so you can twitch it back to safety for when those punks show up!" Try mining for a day with the game having your undivided attention, I don't think you can manage that without your brain protesting. Now try mining while watching a movie or browsing the net. I think the latter is perfectly acceptable and shouldn't be punished by suicide gankings. If this game needs anything, it's more people like me. I just hope I can find the right candidate. I play casually as a pirate... So yes I PVP and I love it. Casual play does not only entail research, manufacturing, production, trading, missioning or mining. Any play style can be casual by definition if you find it enjoyable and not time consuming to do. I find that managing market orders, hauling materials, or mission running and other industry or typical "carebear activities" is boring and time consuming, and not what I'd like to do in eve unless it is only part time to augment my main profession. On the other hand, you could just be a very well written troll and if that is the case... you got me ------------ Originally by: CCP Mitnal It's great being a puppetmaster
Vlomini Drayk Caldari	Posted - 2008.04.14 01:48:00 - [105] The only 3 I have ever heard of before the CSM or seen posting regularly are Guomindong, Hardin and Jade Constantine. Hardin seems like an intelligent, RP'er whose done a lot in this game and seems to be quite fair. Jade is the same but I'd prefer not having the devs die of old age before he/she gets the point across. Guomindong seems to have the most balanced and knowledgeable approach to the game out of the ones I have seen.
libertarian cole	Posted - 2008.04.14 04:37:00 - [106] Just out of curiosity will "None of the Above" be an option?
LaVista Vista Conservative Shenanigans Party	Posted - 2008.04.14 05:30:00 - [107] Originally by: libertarian cole Just out of curiosity will "None of the Above" be an option? I have yet to hear about this being the case on ballots in real life. So i assume that if you don't want anyone of the candidates, you just don't vote. Because, really, a "None of the above" option won't make a difference to the end result compared to people just not voting.
Dirk Magnum Spearhead Endeavors	Posted - 2008.04.14 05:33:00 - [108] Originally by: LaVista Vista Originally by: libertarian cole Just out of curiosity will "None of the Above" be an option? I have yet to hear about this being the case on ballots in real life. So i assume that if you don't want anyone of the candidates, you just don't vote. Because, really, a "None of the above" option won't make a difference to the end result compared to people just not voting. Maybe a "none of the above" option could be used like an indictment of the candidates as all being unqualified in the mind of that particular voter.
LaVista Vista Conservative Shenanigans Party	Posted - 2008.04.14 05:44:00 - [109] Originally by: Dirk Magnum Maybe a "none of the above" option could be used like an indictment of the candidates as all being unqualified in the mind of that particular voter. Well, i would love to see it implemented for sake for statistics. But i see no other purpose for it than that. We already have plenty people whining about how none of the candidates are any good, yet none of them actually is running for candidate themselves. So really, i can't REALLY justify it. Also, i think that we have plenty qualified people, running for candidate. People like Verone(Who sadly pulled out), Serenity Steele, Jade etc. are all very smart people, with very distinct backgrounds. So really, i don't have faith in people who say that there's no good candidates. It seems to me like hypocracy to some degree. People would vote "None of the above" in order to just be rebel and go against the system. Sure, a few of them makes some good points. But i think the outcome of CSM1 will largely depend on the community as a whole. If people were faced with the scenario of having to vote for the person who should rather save their lifes, i think it will be quite different.
Kaaze Meriivaas	Posted - 2008.04.14 06:07:00 - [110] Originally by: Rawr Cristina CSM is just a forum warrior/EFT rambo popularity contest anyway. I'm kind of stumped that CCP thought it was a good idea. eh, someone told the new york times they were doing this in response to the T20 thing, so they have to ... though what they're doing is not really what they proposed in the times article (I'm pretty sure the original "board of players" idea included auditing of possible dev misconduct, this version of the CSM sounds like a meet-and-greet with lapdances and keychains). I'll vote for whoever promises to go after dev throat with really sharp, pointy questions.

Kuolematon Space Perverts and Forum Warriors United	Posted - 2008.04.14 06:17:00 - [111] Person who's 1st gen aka. BETA gen. No point voting others because they don't know ** about this game. "The Amarr are the tanking and ganking floating rods of ~~gold~~crap"**
Juwi Kotch Gallente VIRTUAL LIFE VANGUARD Carpe Universitas	Posted - 2008.04.14 08:12:00 - [112] Originally by: libertarian cole Just out of curiosity will "None of the Above" be an option? Yes, there will be this option: Originally by: CCP Xhagen Originally by: Chribba Will there be a "none of the above" option for the voting - like in RL voting, or will this be a "only X pilots voted so we blame it on lack of participation" rather than people being unhappy with it all? IIRC Zapateros post of the EON awards, there was less pilots voting in total than pilots flying with the Goons. Which in that case made it pretty easy to blame lack of participation rather than maybe people being unhappy with the choices? There will be an 'abstain' option. Juwi Kotch Discussion Board
LaVista Vista Conservative Shenanigans Party	Posted - 2008.04.14 08:14:00 - [113] Originally by: Juwi Kotch Yes, there will be this option: Ah excellent, thanks for the clarification. I hope CCP will release the statistics for the vote, so that we can see how many heretics there will be to make see the light for next time!
Tzar'rim Reckless Corsairs	Posted - 2008.04.14 08:32:00 - [114] Edited by: Tzar''rim on 14/04/2008 08:32:37 Originally by: Verone Originally by: Sqalevon My vote atm would go to Jade, I like all his ideas. Leandro would also be intresting if he would write more about how he wants to solve fleet battles. And I really respect Hardin, but I haven't seen any concrete sollutions from him yet, just that he wants to make the game better. Exactly the reason I'll probably be voting for Hardin, he seems to be one of few who's very open minded. Other people have put across all these cool ideas of THEIR OWN. The CSM isn't an opportunity for representitives to push their own manifesto and agenda. Representitives should be there to listen to the community and put the wider view of the playerbase accross to the development team, not their own. It's one of the reasons I'm not voting, right now most candidates already put their focus and bias in and make this into some sort of political election... Which it isn't. The ones that treat it like that clearly have not understood what the CSM's job will/should be and thus, by default, lost my vote.
Rodj Blake Amarr PIE Inc. Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris	Posted - 2008.04.14 08:36:00 - [115] I'm voting for Hardin - he's the right man for the job Dulce et decorum est pro imperium mori.
Wild Rho Amarr GoonFleet	Posted - 2008.04.14 08:46:00 - [116] Voting for Oz because he's Oz
Cipher7 Sebiestor tribe	Posted - 2008.04.14 09:33:00 - [117] Originally by: Malcanis Originally by: Cipher7 Edited by: Cipher7 on 13/04/2008 11:29:21 Either Jade, Hardin or Serenity. While Guomindong has some good ideas, I don't think its healthy to have any of the big alliances represented, all they ever talk about is POS crap which alot of us don't care about. Anke is...a little too carebear for me. While yes there is alot of griefing in Eve, almost all of it can be avoided. The root of griefing is actually meta-gaming, everybody has so many alts which makes any kind of retribution or justice impossible. Imagine if : GTC trade was gone, everybody pays $15 a month. Skill training times are cut to 1/3 across the board. Mining ships all come with vastly improved cargo capacity. Suddenly you will see most people have 1 char 1 acct, no more 3 hulk 1 hauler mining veld, no more 5 R&D agent alts, no more using moon mining to fund an army of Freighter pilots in Empire, less lag, real retribution against real people. This idea would lose me almost 40M SP, which I paid for with real money (I have never bought or sold a GTC), and two characters which I use for non-griefing purposes (mining, trade, exploration, leadership, hauling). How do you propose I be compensated? Can I combine all the skills I have paid to train on my alts into my main? Wasn't exactly a proposal. It was a John Lennon style "imagine" What if. Aint never gonna happen tho.
Seetesh Caldari Pixels Docks	Posted - 2008.04.14 10:04:00 - [118] Goumindong because hes more thoughtout
Robacz Essence Trade Essence Enterprises	Posted - 2008.04.14 10:07:00 - [119] Are there any rules against buying/selling votes? I mean, free trip to Iceland could be worth of few billions spent on "donations" to corporations, in exchange for member votes. WTS 6 votes.
LaVista Vista Conservative Shenanigans Party	Posted - 2008.04.14 10:20:00 - [120] Originally by: Robacz Are there any rules against buying/selling votes? I mean, free trip to Iceland could be worth of few billions spent on "donations" to corporations, in exchange for member votes. WTS 6 votes. 1mill/vote

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.