Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Issler Dainze
Minmatar Tadakastu-Obata Corporation The Honda Accord
|
Posted - 2009.03.21 03:43:00 -
[1]
When I first ran for the CSM I had a certain segment in mind that I hoped to represent. This is the peaceful industrial or PvE player that often times are dismissed as a "care bear". Many of the more vocal posters on the Eve forums would have you believe that these players have no place in the 'verse and are not a part of Eve CCP ever intended to create.
I think a large number of us know that simply isn't true.
There are those of us that choose to live our lives in space believing that Eve does not have to be zero sum game. That we deserve to enjoy the experience on our terms and not those dictated by a vocal minority that believe Eve can only be chaos and not harmony. These are the pilots of Eve who's views I have attempted to represent.
Please note I do not advocate forcing my preferred experience on the rest of the 'verse. My record has shown I have never advocated that the fundamental elements of risk verses reward the exist today be changed. I believe CCP understands this balance and my direct interactions with the CCP reinforced my confidence that they know the value of we "care bears".
That said I think it is key that the voice of the "bears" continue to be represented in the CSM.
So to that end for this election I would like to call for the creation of a formal political party that can become the holders of this torch. I ask that any pilots that support these basic ideals show your support in this thread and that you offer possible "planks" for the core party values.
If you are a candidate and this idea resonates with you please indicate your interest in joining this party and gaining its endorsement.
So let us all join together and find our voice,
Issler Dainze Founder of the "Voice of Reason" Party
(note: the first thing we could all do is find a better name!)
|
Herschel Yamamoto
Bloodmoney Incorporated
|
Posted - 2009.03.21 05:08:00 -
[2]
I agree with the point you're making, but I think that you're overstating it pretty severely. Yes, there are people who mock the carebears and consider them beneath Eve's dignity. We call these people "idiots", and there's not really that many of them. There's a lot more who want to fly with lean PvP-centric corps and want people putting their SP into shooting things, but most of that crowd I've talked to have plenty of respect for the industrialists, they just don't want them dropping their combat efficiency. A pirate's ship comes from Jita in the same way a person's food comes from the supermarket, and they know that.
I guess I'm just not sure what your party is really pushing for here. Industry-centric improvements don't really need any attempt to form a broad-based movement, and the electoral structure of the CSM doesn't allow for a conventional party to work as a tool for getting its members elected - in fact, it'll likely make it harder to get your people elected if you try to put too many on. Creating a manifesto as a litmus test for candidate support might make sense, but I'm not really sure what statements it might contain that would really be useful in telling industrialists who to support and who not to. It's not like "The people who make all the ships in the game are important to the continued functioning of the game economy" is really a controversial statement, and there's no real hot-button issues affecting industry right now. I understand where you're coming from, but I'm not really sure what this will ultimately accomplish, aside from getting a list of people willing to sign their names to a statement that ultimately amounts to saying "I am generically in favour of industry".
If you have any good ideas here, I'd love to see them - I'm interested in what sort of structure we can get on CSM voting, and how candidates can better reach voters and help them understand the vast number of positions taken. But without a concrete direction for this, I'm not sure you'll achieve that. ----- Bloodmoney Incorporated is recruiting! |
Issler Dainze
Minmatar Tadakastu-Obata Corporation The Honda Accord
|
Posted - 2009.03.21 07:04:00 -
[3]
I think what I'm saying is that there needs to be a voice in the CSM for a particular groups of players often derided as being carebears. I am trying to form some political "center of gravity" around that group of pilots in Eve so that their voice is clearly part of the CSM process.
That's pretty much it,
Issler
|
LaVista Vista
Conservative Shenanigans Party
|
Posted - 2009.03.21 08:27:00 -
[4]
Crap. I click on an Issler thread, expecting it to be about her Nonni's policies.
I'm disappointed
|
Issler Dainze
Minmatar Tadakastu-Obata Corporation The Honda Accord
|
Posted - 2009.03.21 09:05:00 -
[5]
I hope the party will embrace Nonni's and the range of deserts including pie necessary for an optimal Eve experience.
Issler
|
Sleazy Cabbie
|
Posted - 2009.03.21 09:54:00 -
[6]
A carebear party?
One would think average IQ's are high enough that one wouldn't be needed.
Where do pirates think ships come from, the stork?
You know I just came to a sad realization. Missions are almost the only fun thing to do in Eve besides PvP. And by fun I don't mean "take your clothes off" fun I mean "I was able to click the mouse around for a bit and avoid falling asleep" fun.
Since you need PvE to grind cash for PvP, I'd say PvE needs a major boost of fun.
Or better yet find a way to turn PvP into a profession, so one isn't forced to do PvE at all. Maybe a bounty on all player ships or something. Or maybe make Faction Warfare pay a salary. Some kind of "veterans pension."
I don't know. All I know is that if there were some way to do PvP %100 of the time, Eve would be a better game.
And yes, there's absolutely nothing wrong with not participating in PvP if it doesn't "float your boat." If you want to be a %100 miner full time, far be it from me to criticise you.
The Eve theme is Freedom.
|
Ankhesentapemkah
Gallente Aliastra
|
Posted - 2009.03.21 10:10:00 -
[7]
Edited by: Ankhesentapemkah on 21/03/2009 10:12:01
I suppose you never heard of the Take Care party that I set up in response to the CSM, when there was a call for a voice that would represent the silent majority.
Erik Finnegan is the new representative of the individualists, small corporations, and industrial stuff on behalf of the Take Care party and will continue what I have started back in 2008. It's not like Take Care will die when I can no longer run for CSM, it's a long term project that I'm glad to have started and glad to hand over to it's next protagonist. ---
|
Vuk Lau
4S Corporation Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2009.03.21 10:34:00 -
[8]
Arent politicians bad people? I think someone said that :D
Anyway GL both Issler and Ankh
|
Serenity Steele
Dynamic Data Distribution Ministry of Information
|
Posted - 2009.03.21 15:16:00 -
[9]
I read this thread while watching an episode of south park, and quite frankly it could have been a script for the next episode.
≡v≡ Strategic Maps in Eve-Online Store | eve-maps.com |
Drake Draconis
Minmatar Shadow Cadre Worlds End Consortium
|
Posted - 2009.03.21 15:29:00 -
[10]
I have major issues with people who entertain stupid arguments (like the one sitting over there where your fellow posters are griping about goons attacking your alliance)
Especially ones that come up with crackpot ideas like this.
No thanks... I'll pass. =============== CEO of Clan Shadow Cadre www.shadowcadre.com ===============
|
|
Issler Dainze
Minmatar Tadakastu-Obata Corporation The Honda Accord
|
Posted - 2009.03.21 16:03:00 -
[11]
Originally by: Drake Draconis I have major issues with people who entertain stupid arguments (like the one sitting over there where your fellow posters are griping about goons attacking your alliance)
Especially ones that come up with crackpot ideas like this.
No thanks... I'll pass.
Since you aren't who this party intends to represent your absence would have been expected.
Issler
|
Doctor Penguin
Amarr Shadow Command Tenth Legion
|
Posted - 2009.03.21 18:33:00 -
[12]
I would personally propose the creation of a Liberal party, dedicated to keeping EVE as much of a free-for-all sandbox as humanly possible.
Wouldn't a Carebear party be naturally conservative? ________________________________________________
http://eve.drome.nl/CaodCleaner/ Help make CAOD readable. |
Issler Dainze
Minmatar Tadakastu-Obata Corporation The Honda Accord
|
Posted - 2009.03.23 00:47:00 -
[13]
Edited by: Issler Dainze on 23/03/2009 00:47:42
Originally by: Doctor Penguin I would personally propose the creation of a Liberal party, dedicated to keeping EVE as much of a free-for-all sandbox as humanly possible.
Wouldn't a Carebear party be naturally conservative?
That is a good question. I don't think it has to be. I think the party could make its goal to maintain the freedom to enjoy Eve with the widest variety of styles of play. Change can be good as long as it doesn't interfere with that goal.
Issler
|
Herschel Yamamoto
Bloodmoney Incorporated
|
Posted - 2009.03.23 03:14:00 -
[14]
Originally by: Issler Dainze Edited by: Issler Dainze on 23/03/2009 00:47:42
Originally by: Doctor Penguin I would personally propose the creation of a Liberal party, dedicated to keeping EVE as much of a free-for-all sandbox as humanly possible.
Wouldn't a Carebear party be naturally conservative?
That is a good question. I don't think it has to be. I think the party could make its goal to maintain the freedom to enjoy Eve with the widest variety of styles of play. Change can be good as long as it doesn't interfere with that goal.
Issler
So if industry is thriving and well-supported, but pirates are getting the shaft from CCP, this party would be fighting for their play style to get more love instead of your own? Somehow that seems unlikely - even if that was how you wanted to do things, you couldn't sanely call that an industrialist party. It's always tempting to state your goals broadly, to make yourself sound unassailably virtuous and pluralistic, but it's really not accurate to do so. You're not forming an industrialist party to make sure that the widest variety of careers work, you're forming it to help industrial careers work. There's nothing wrong with that, but it's not the same as what you're saying here.
As for Pengin's question, I see no need for a bear party to be conservative - for example, removing item drops from NPCs is a thoroughly radical proposal, and yet a lot of the industrial players seem to favour it strongly. Similarly, many bears were thoroughly opposed to the status quo on suicide ganks several months ago, and lobbied hard(and successfully) to get it changed. There's no real reason why a party with a goal that is not the status quo needs to embody the cautious approach towards change that constitutes a conservative mindset. ----- Bloodmoney Incorporated is recruiting! |
Bunyip
Gallente Center for Advanced Studies
|
Posted - 2009.03.23 03:26:00 -
[15]
Let me say this first, I'm a carebear and proud of it. However, I think a carebear party (if you will) is illogical. There will be some representation from carebears in any council, so long as the industrial sector actually gives enough attention to vote. If not, the pirate party will win the election easily.
That being said, there are some 'hot button' issues for the industrialists - most notably the T1 manufacturing sector (removing T1 meta 0 loot from NPCs - still waiting on feedback from CCP), and the mining overhaul (making it interesting and not an AFK-easy activity). I've supported these issues and worked tirelessly on ways to implement them, but we're waiting on CCP's feedback in order to progress any further.
"May all your hits be crits." - Knights of the Dinner Table. |
Issler Dainze
Minmatar Tadakastu-Obata Corporation The Honda Accord
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 03:38:00 -
[16]
Originally by: Herschel Yamamoto So if industry is thriving and well-supported, but pirates are getting the shaft from CCP, this party would be fighting for their play style to get more love instead of your own? Somehow that seems unlikely - even if that was how you wanted to do things, you couldn't sanely call that an industrialist party. It's always tempting to state your goals broadly, to make yourself sound unassailably virtuous and pluralistic, but it's really not accurate to do so. You're not forming an industrialist party to make sure that the widest variety of careers work, you're forming it to help industrial careers work. There's nothing wrong with that, but it's not the same as what you're saying here.
As for Pengin's question, I see no need for a bear party to be conservative - for example, removing item drops from NPCs is a thoroughly radical proposal, and yet a lot of the industrial players seem to favour it strongly. Similarly, many bears were thoroughly opposed to the status quo on suicide ganks several months ago, and lobbied hard(and successfully) to get it changed. There's no real reason why a party with a goal that is not the status quo needs to embody the cautious approach towards change that constitutes a conservative mindset.[/quote
No, this party would be focused on protecting their desired experience. That goes without saying. Just as every faction and special interest would be driving their own agendas.
The reason I started this thread was to determine the degree of interest and support the segment I sought to represent had in the idea of a formal party to be their voice. Given what so far looks like a record amount of apathy towards the CSM III elections in general and the idea of a party I may have gotten my answer.
Issler
|
Rodj Blake
Amarr PIE Inc.
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 11:17:00 -
[17]
Originally by: Issler Dainze
Founder of the "Voice of Reason" Party
(note: the first thing we could all do is find a better name!)
Not a bad name, actually, as it gives you a psychological monopoly on reason and allows you to effortlessly paint your opponents as unreasonable by default.
Dulce et decorum est pro imperium mori.
|
Abrazzar
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 12:44:00 -
[18]
Considering how the CSM has zero political power, creating a political party makes equally zero sense.
It's an *advisory* council. It's not that you can influence the game design in such a way that would give those you claim for yourself to represent any advantage or greater consideration.
This thread here proves once again how much egomania the CSM is made up of and how little actual reason is behind it. -------- Ideas for: Mining
|
Cipher7
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 12:58:00 -
[19]
What Eve needs is an anti-metagaming party. ---
|
Cipher7
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 13:00:00 -
[20]
Originally by: Abrazzar Considering how the CSM has zero political power
I don't think that's a fair statement, these folks get to meet CCP face to face and voice their opinions, some of it is bound to sink in even if the devs are actively trying to ignore them.
There's no way to sit down and have a beer with someone and have absolutely zero impact. ---
|
|
Dorian Tats
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 13:47:00 -
[21]
Except that, a party makes for a stronger route to communicate important issues the reps and being able to ascertain actual interest in the issue and ultimately be able to quantify that interest in terms of numbers of individuals who are aligned with that party.
IMO, might actually foster better ideas coming out of here. You let whatever party (ya know---whichever interest) privately debate/discuss/refine their ideas/issues before they bring it to the attention of the whole of the community.
Aside: A party might have the creativity and incentive to actually foster involvement, which I think everybody can agree is a good thing.
I get that an idea like this might not work. But it certainly wouldn't cause any damage if it didn't.
Originally by: Abrazzar Considering how the CSM has zero political power, creating a political party makes equally zero sense.
It's an *advisory* council. It's not that you can influence the game design in such a way that would give those you claim for yourself to represent any advantage or greater consideration.
This thread here proves once again how much egomania the CSM is made up of and how little actual reason is behind it.
|
Dorian Tats
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 15:10:00 -
[22]
*** I should qualify that:
As long as there is some self-control exercised on the part of a leadership structure in this theoretical party, no harm comes of this.
If it becomes some sort of lame vehicle for court packing, it would be the suck.
|
Doctor Penguin
Amarr Shadow Command Tenth Legion
|
Posted - 2009.03.26 08:50:00 -
[23]
And political parties make CSM politics much more interesting, let's not forget.
I'm still concerned that by having a Carebear Party you'll end up with innately restrictive practices being forced on the CSM to give to CCP - "Remove Meta 0 loot from missions/rats" would harm the ISK supply of independent mission-runners at the expense of T1 manufacturers, for example, and therefore make private enterprise that much harder.
Again, I am all for a party that campaigns for private enterprise, sandbox gameplay and other liberal values. ________________________________________________
http://eve.drome.nl/CaodCleaner/ Help make CAOD readable. |
LaVista Vista
Conservative Shenanigans Party
|
Posted - 2009.03.26 09:01:00 -
[24]
Originally by: Doctor Penguin And political parties make CSM politics much more interesting, let's not forget.
I'm still concerned that by having a Carebear Party you'll end up with innately restrictive practices being forced on the CSM to give to CCP - "Remove Meta 0 loot from missions/rats" would harm the ISK supply of independent mission-runners at the expense of T1 manufacturers, for example, and therefore make private enterprise that much harder.
Again, I am all for a party that campaigns for private enterprise, sandbox gameplay and other liberal values.
Due all respect, I think that important aspects to the issue in question is being ignored in your argument.
There's many aspects which has to be considered when we discuss that very issue. 1. Do mission-runners make enough ISK? 2. Should they make less?
The whole idea is that T1 manufacturing is not worth it, because of the abundance that comes from loot.
If the carebear party is made up by smart people like Issler, then I'm certain that it won't end up with innately restrictive practices.
|
Herschel Yamamoto
Bloodmoney Incorporated
|
Posted - 2009.03.26 15:31:00 -
[25]
Originally by: Issler Dainze No, this party would be focused on protecting their desired experience. That goes without saying. Just as every faction and special interest would be driving their own agendas.
The reason I started this thread was to determine the degree of interest and support the segment I sought to represent had in the idea of a formal party to be their voice. Given what so far looks like a record amount of apathy towards the CSM III elections in general and the idea of a party I may have gotten my answer.
Issler
This is my point. I have nothing against advocacy groups, but when you say things like "I think the party could make its goal to maintain the freedom to enjoy Eve with the widest variety of styles of play", you're obviously misrepresenting the truth of the situation. Your goal is not to defend a variety of styles of play, it's to represent one style of play. There's nothing wrong with that, but please be honest with yourself.
Also, the reason nobody cares yet is that we still have a week before nominations even close. We have more serious, declared candidates in the race now than we did at this point last time.
Originally by: Abrazzar Considering how the CSM has zero political power, creating a political party makes equally zero sense.
It's an *advisory* council. It's not that you can influence the game design in such a way that would give those you claim for yourself to represent any advantage or greater consideration.
This thread here proves once again how much egomania the CSM is made up of and how little actual reason is behind it.
My understanding of the reasoning for this party is improved voter relations, not improved CCP lobbying. It doesn't require the CSM to have a huge amount of power for it to be effective in that role. ----- Bloodmoney Incorporated is recruiting! |
Dorian Tats
|
Posted - 2009.03.26 16:23:00 -
[26]
Doc,
All due respect, but attempting to defeat a fundamentally good idea (such as reliable representation for at least a moderately sized portion of the player base) by putting an idea into their mouths and then playing kick the can with it is hardly a fair litmus test as to whether there would be any value in creating a 'party'.
Especially, when I would think with the proper leadership---your average so called 'carebear' will be infinitely better armed with information and guidance, thus producing infinitely more realistic and constructive issues.
Hersh,
I don't get it. Spell it out for me. Seeing as the basics of carebearism seems to be "leave me alone, I'm trying to build a sand castle here", it's highly unlikely that their interests will otherwise disrupt anybody else's game---unless of course somebody else's game is harassing people who just want to do their own thing with some friends---at which point----ho hum, advocacy works/ everybody wins.
|
Herschel Yamamoto
Bloodmoney Incorporated
|
Posted - 2009.03.26 16:46:00 -
[27]
Originally by: Dorian Tats Hersh,
I don't get it. Spell it out for me. Seeing as the basics of carebearism seems to be "leave me alone, I'm trying to build a sand castle here", it's highly unlikely that their interests will otherwise disrupt anybody else's game---unless of course somebody else's game is harassing people who just want to do their own thing with some friends---at which point----ho hum, advocacy works/ everybody wins.
How left alone should they be, though? There's a lot of bearish miners out there who think that can-flipping mechanics are fundamentally broken, for example - leaving them alone is possible, but it'd negatively impact the gameplay of the flippers. Or a bit more to the point, look at Ankh's campaign to nerf suicide ganking in CSM 1 - a carebear CSMer(don't let the FW stats fool you) who used her position to launch a direct attack at a PvP career choice and succeeded. Now, I'm not saying that her position was wrong - on the contrary, I largely agreed with it - but it was a bear's argument that did negatively impact other people.
Remember the old chestnut about this being Eve Online and not Hello Kitty Online - harassment is a perfectly normal and acceptable part of Eve's gameplay. Yes, it can be tweaked up or down, but those harassers are playing Eve too, and their choice of sand castle to build(in this case, one of delicious salty tears and the occasional loot drop) is just as legitimate as yours. The two do come into conflict sometimes, and that has to be acknowledged. ----- Bloodmoney Incorporated is recruiting! |
Dorian Tats
|
Posted - 2009.03.26 17:06:00 -
[28]
Great! Hop back into those trees so hopefully we can all miss the forest!
Look, I'm not here to debate what the appropriate can flipping mechanic is nor do I, at this point, maintain any opinion on exactly how "left alone" folks should be in high sec when they're mining, nor to even judge a definition of left alone. It's overly detailed and not pertinent to the discussion. It's probably an argument that's been had here a thousand times and with bringing it up as a universal straw man, it will probably be had a thousand times more.
What's actually being talked about here is what, if any, value might their be to creating a streamlined point for players of similar ilk to constructively provide their interests to one or more CSM members. Save your can flipping stuff for when/if this theoretical organization materializes and when/if they even bring this up in their internal discussions and when/if they decide to bring it to the attention of the general community.
Originally by: Herschel Yamamoto
How left alone should they be, though? There's a lot of bearish miners out there who think that can-flipping mechanics are fundamentally broken, for example - leaving them alone is possible, but it'd negatively impact the gameplay of the flippers. Or a bit more to the point, look at Ankh's campaign to nerf suicide ganking in CSM 1 - a carebear CSMer(don't let the FW stats fool you) who used her position to launch a direct attack at a PvP career choice and succeeded. Now, I'm not saying that her position was wrong - on the contrary, I largely agreed with it - but it was a bear's argument that did negatively impact other people.
Remember the old chestnut about this being Eve Online and not Hello Kitty Online - harassment is a perfectly normal and acceptable part of Eve's gameplay. Yes, it can be tweaked up or down, but those harassers are playing Eve too, and their choice of sand castle to build(in this case, one of delicious salty tears and the occasional loot drop) is just as legitimate as yours. The two do come into conflict sometimes, and that has to be acknowledged.
|
Dorian Tats
|
Posted - 2009.03.26 17:11:00 -
[29]
Actually, I want to make sure I understand what's being said here Hersh:
You're not suggesting that jetcanners (herein, "potential victims") don't have a right to as much vocal and meaningful advocacy as the flippers do, right?
I don't think that's what you're saying, but I want to be sure.
|
Herschel Yamamoto
Bloodmoney Incorporated
|
Posted - 2009.03.27 05:24:00 -
[30]
Originally by: Dorian Tats (snip)
Anyone can stand on a soapbox in the street and trumpet their desire to make life better for everyone, to cure what ails us, to produce win/wins, and to otherwise make happiness fall from the sky like rain. This isn't limited to the CSM either - we're pikers compared to RL politicians. Thing is, even if they do mean what they say, they can't generally deliver. Yes, it's possible to have everyone gain from a change, but a lot more frequently, someone gains and someone else loses. The gains can outweigh the losses, but you can't carry on blithely unaware that there are people who will suffer a loss because of the change you propose.
This is why it's fundamentally false to claim that you're trying to let everyone play the game they want, because when the platitudes end and the policies begin, you're not. You can't. You can't even increase the isolationism offered to players without affecting other people, because you're withdrawing the new isolationists from interactions they would otherwise have engaged in, and that would otherwise have benefited others. You say I'm being too specific, but I'm just pulling out one example of many. There is no issue where you can propose a change that does not harm somebody, and you cannot call those changes simple isolationism with a straight face. Bears have simple tastes much of the time, but their desires will inevitably come into conflict with the desires of others.
As for the overarching issue, I think we agree. I'm entirely for players organizing to have their voices heard, and this seems like a decent vehicle for doing so. I'm not trying to derail Issler's attempt here, I'm just trying to make sure that everyone understands what it will actually look like at the end. You can't get what you want without stepping on the toes of others, at least to some extent, so be aware of that going in. If this party is to succeed, it needs a clear agenda and a clear understanding of how it will enact that agenda and what obstacles it will face along the way. You will never get unanimous support for anything non-trivial, and you will not be able to enact that agenda without serious opposition. Understand that, prepare for it, and while you may choose to use pithy slogans in your communications with the outside world, never make the mistake of using them inside your own head. You are not making the game better for everyone, you are not meekly asking to be left alone in a way that doesn't affect anyone else, and you are not making it so that everyone can play the game they want. You are advancing an agenda that you believe will help the game as a whole(or, if you're a jerk, that you believe will help you personally), but there will be casualties along the way, and they will fight you. That's not to say you shouldn't try - on the contrary, I fully encourage you to do so - but please, go into this with your eyes open.
Originally by: Dorian Tats Actually, I want to make sure I understand what's being said here Hersh:
You're not suggesting that jetcanners (herein, "potential victims") don't have a right to as much vocal and meaningful advocacy as the flippers do, right?
I don't think that's what you're saying, but I want to be sure.
Too many negatives in that sentence for me to be really unambiguous, so I'll just state this cleanly. Everyone has a right to advocate for themselves, their play styles, and their preferred gameplay changes to the best of their ability. I may dispute your points, I may disagree with your goals, but I will never dispute your right to fight for them as best you can. To the best of my recollection, the only people I've ever attacked for speaking on these boards were obvious trolls - hell, I tend to give likely trolls the benefit of the doubt. This isn't about whether Issler's crowd can speak up, it's about what it would wind up looking like when they do. ----- Bloodmoney Incorporated is recruiting! |
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |