EVE Search - Today I announce my intention to run for the CSM

Check My IP Information

All Channels

Jita Park Speakers Corner

Today I announce my intention to run for the CSM

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

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

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Aynen	Posted - 2010.04.21 18:11:00 - [61] I encounter a lot of people who say that they shouldn't bother to get more people from high-sec into 0.0 because 0.0 is 'fine the way it is'. This mostly in discussions about the powerblocks and how they are being considered by some as the reason not to get into 0.0. It seems you do not agree fully with this? (or not at all) When Dominion came out, I was hoping it'd mean that the alliances wouldn't be able to hold all of 0.0 anymore because it wouldn't be cost effective. It seems however that this wasn't the case if I look at the eve map as by far most of 0.0 still seems to be firmly occupied. Would you want there to be more unclaimed parts of 0.0 or do you feel there is no harm in having all or by far most of 0.0 be claimed by the Alliances?
mazzilliu Caldari Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion	Posted - 2010.04.21 19:27:00 - [62] Edited by: mazzilliu on 21/04/2010 19:28:01 Originally by: Aynen I encounter a lot of people who say that they shouldn't bother to get more people from high-sec into 0.0 because 0.0 is 'fine the way it is'. This mostly in discussions about the powerblocks and how they are being considered by some as the reason not to get into 0.0. It seems you do not agree fully with this? (or not at all) When Dominion came out, I was hoping it'd mean that the alliances wouldn't be able to hold all of 0.0 anymore because it wouldn't be cost effective. It seems however that this wasn't the case if I look at the eve map as by far most of 0.0 still seems to be firmly occupied. Would you want there to be more unclaimed parts of 0.0 or do you feel there is no harm in having all or by far most of 0.0 be claimed by the Alliances? I don't know who these people are that wish for 0.0 to be unoccupied. But I totally disagree with them. The more people that are in 0.0, the more fun that hunting for people in 0.0 with small gangs(and any size gang, in general) will be. We need to get newbies out there, and it will not only provide more action but also crowd out the macroers and make it less possible for them to function(auto log out isn't so great when someone is entering local once every few minutes) Before the new sov mechanics came out, a lot of space was claimed solely for the fuel bill benefits. Many systems were claimed because of a single pos, set up for an individual's benefit, possibly subsidised by some minor moon mineral. It's not like big alliances were intentionally claiming huge space for no benefit- mostly it was because for most systems, there is no opposition for a single individual's sov claim(with their ultimate purpose having more to do with rorqual safespots and very little to do with sovereignty). It was a byproduct of the emptiness of 0.0. Nowadays, the same poses for ratting and moon mining still exist. Sov is not the sole indicator for determining if a space is really occupied(or who lives there), and I think any discussion focusing entirely on sov largely misses the point. I think a better metric to follow is "pilots in space in the last 30 minutes", "jumps in the last hour" and "pirate ships destroyed in last 24 hours". MAZZILLIU FOR CSM 2010
Aynen	Posted - 2010.04.22 06:18:00 - [63] In your innitial post you talk about bringing back to the table old issues, but considering the timing, I'd think that CCP will also want to talk to the CSM 5 about Planetary Interaction a lot. What are your thoughts on where they should take it, and how high the priority should be of PI development in relation to other things in the backlog you spoke of?
mazzilliu Caldari Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion	Posted - 2010.04.22 18:33:00 - [64] Originally by: Aynen In your innitial post you talk about bringing back to the table old issues, but considering the timing, I'd think that CCP will also want to talk to the CSM 5 about Planetary Interaction a lot. What are your thoughts on where they should take it, and how high the priority should be of PI development in relation to other things in the backlog you spoke of? Planetary interaction and DUST are going to be high on the priority list for CCP regardless of what the CSM says. I forsee any CSM feedback getting drowned out by feedback from bug testers and devs that have their own ideas. I think it's something that I really should be working on most after the first Iceland meeting and before the second online CCP meeting- after I've gotten a handle on how the situation is internally, then I can think of the best way to make suggestions to ensure that this won't just become another fancy moon miner borefest, and make sure that the proposals themselves have a high chance of making it reality. I'm definitely going to be doing thorough testing of the planetary interaction mechanics on sisi especially before the iceland trip though, its too big of an issue to ignore. tl;dr it's something that definitely needs CSM attention just because of the amount of CCP attention it's getting, but it's too early for me to say too many concrete things about it. MAZZILLIU FOR CSM 2010
Fayth Memory	Posted - 2010.04.22 18:40:00 - [65] Having fun talking to your alt?
Aynen	Posted - 2010.04.23 07:20:00 - [66] Edited by: Aynen on 23/04/2010 07:20:27 Originally by: Fayth Memory Having fun talking to your alt? I'm not her alt, I'm quite happy to be my own person. I actually ran for CSM myself last term (unsuccesfully) and CCP would have not allowed us both to run if we had been the same person.
mazzilliu Caldari Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion	Posted - 2010.04.23 18:36:00 - [67] Originally by: Aynen Edited by: Aynen on 23/04/2010 07:20:27 Originally by: Fayth Memory Having fun talking to your alt? I'm not her alt, I'm quite happy to be my own person. I actually ran for CSM myself last term (unsuccesfully) and CCP would have not allowed us both to run if we had been the same person. no, joke's on you aynen, you are my alt! I got the CCP confirmation e-mail for acceptance of my CSM application. I'm going to take various questions sent to me here and elsewhere, put them in the format of an interview, and release the response as a video. If it turns out okay I will keep doing that. MAZZILLIU FOR CSM 2010
Aynen	Posted - 2010.04.23 22:38:00 - [68] Originally by: mazzilliu no, joke's on you aynen, you are my alt! If that means I get into Pandemic Legion that's ok with me :)
mazzilliu Caldari Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion	Posted - 2010.04.23 23:29:00 - [69] Originally by: Aynen Originally by: mazzilliu no, joke's on you aynen, you are my alt! If that means I get into Pandemic Legion that's ok with me :) ok, but alts dont get roles, and they also dont get forum access so :P I'm also thinking about this idea I've had some time ago, and only casually mentioned it at fanfest to some devs but never pushed it further: The subject of discussion was about making missions more dynamic, and I suggested that competitive or co-operative missions be introduced. It would have to be limited in certain ways to prevent people from beating their alts over and over, but the missions could be set up to be similar to PVP, but not focusing on killing other players. Then both participants can get a mission reward if it was actually run through, but the winner gets a bigger reward. For example a mission could be created to match player A and B against each other, and they would be sent to a deadspace area that is divided into two sections with one ship allowed in at a time, and you had to kill your own NPCs while remote repping the enemy's NPCs so they can't kill them. or maybe you could create an EVE-ified version of competitive games like capture the damsel, or football, or soccer, or chess. the possibilities are endless, and I think that if there's a lot of interest in the idea, I could present it to CCP and maybe be able to convince them that this big undertaking is worth it. Some of these missions would definitely have to be in highsec, but they can also be in lowsec and 0.0. The security status of each area could interact differently with the mechanics of each mission in that the penalties for shooting your competitor differ greatly(in one you can do it no worries, or you can lose sec, or get blown up)and it affects your tactics. It allows for great variation in a mission system that is currently stagnant and known for being boring. MAZZILLIU FOR CSM 2010
Khul Drukath Maelstrom Crew Paradigm Alliance	Posted - 2010.04.25 09:11:00 - [70] Maz, where do you stand on the issue of corps in highsec wars using out-of-corp (neutral) remote reppers to aid them? What changes, if any, would you make to this mechanic? (Totally understood if highsec wars are not on your radar, you can only focus on so much).

mazzilliu Caldari Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion	Posted - 2010.04.25 12:37:00 - [71] Originally by: Khul Drukath Maz, where do you stand on the issue of corps in highsec wars using out-of-corp (neutral) remote reppers to aid them? What changes, if any, would you make to this mechanic? (Totally understood if highsec wars are not on your radar, you can only focus on so much). Exploits are on my radar as well and I definitely know this is an exploit. I can't remember if it has already been raised or not, but it's something I would totally support fixing, and would raise again if it hasnt been fixed yet. MAZZILLIU FOR CSM 2010
Dianeces North Eastern Swat Pandemic Legion	Posted - 2010.04.25 18:51:00 - [72] mazz-il-oo is v. kawaii~
SOH'CAH'TOA Amarr Viziam	Posted - 2010.04.28 23:20:00 - [73] mazzilliu for csm \o/
Xutech	Posted - 2010.04.30 22:38:00 - [74] There seems to be a clear disparity between the CSMs . LetÆs be honest û votes are certainly going to come in large blocks based on your alliance and faction supporters . But IÆm talking about another difference between the CSM candidates which IÆd call, those willing to participate, and those that arenÆt. Active participation isnÆt as easy as it sounds, for it requires the ability to see which actions have what effects, which proposals are timely and worthy, and which, no matter their value, must be pruned. The other side of the coin isnÆt so easy to label, but no matter how virtuous the proponents of that method sound, they are nothing but useless in the long run. They like the sound of their own voice, the rhythm and cadence, and the CSM vote gives them the opportunity to lecture a captive audience. See, thats really the pivotal point. Do you want to elect someone so you can give them the opportunity to make a speech, give a lecture? A lecture is a static, immobile object. A real CSM member should be willing to make concessions, spot good ideas, be flexible, join with other CSMs to push something through. I get the feeling that some of the other CSM candidates are so blinded by their brilliance that they feel cooperation is a kind of failure. That kind of mentality is going to waste time and waste the position they sit in. Much as most people wonÆt like to hear it, Mazzilliu is actually a conservative part of Eve online. In the good sense. Much as some people might not like to hear it. She is, and her people certainly are, playing the game as intended, in the spirit it was intended to be played. As a darwinian, small to mid sized game of PVP. So much of what they do is an essential basis for the theme and theory of the game. And those self same people have made every possible effort to preserve that integrity, and shape it, not to distort it into an image of another game, or an internal ideal of society. Of course some CSMs want to fix the societal ills of Eve û because itÆs their life. They certainly have the crypto-fascist vote covered. But they want to remake the game, not keep it true to its spirit of freedom, nor to show much interest in your opinion. You should vote for Mazzilliu because she is having fun. Where the game is not fun, it bothers her.
zenthral staichon Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion	Posted - 2010.05.05 00:21:00 - [75] Mazziliu. What are your opinions on the inherent immorality of player killing? Please, people, serious debate only.
mazzilliu Caldari Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion	Posted - 2010.05.05 13:27:00 - [76] Originally by: zenthral staichon Mazziliu. What are your opinions on the inherent immorality of player killing? Please, people, serious debate only. when players die, they need to stay dead! itt eve is full of zombies Check out my CSM campaign video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mu297_GUJJw And be sure to vote for me! http://www.eveonline.com/council/voting/Vote.asp?c=309 MAZZILLIU FOR CSM 2010
mazzilliu Caldari Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion	Posted - 2010.05.05 13:51:00 - [77] Edited by: mazzilliu on 05/05/2010 13:52:08 Edited by: mazzilliu on 05/05/2010 13:51:41 A corpmate asked me to elaborate on my science&industry issue ideas on our own forums. I'll paste my response here as well: Originally by: "TenthReality" Could you expand on the Science/Industry changes you briefly scroll through in the video? the first thought that comes to mind is POSes. just pretty much everything about POSes, including the interface for manufacturing, researching, and moon mining. it's a confusing interface, and manufacturing is frustrating when you need to have the minerals at a POS and inconvenient when you can't reprocess modules at a pos. most people i have seen that use assembly arrays only do it when there is no alternative- at player owned stations with little manufacturing, or t2 producers to get better speeds. the science & industry interface needs to be able to remember MORE settings. maybe be able to set a default build count? or don't make the player choose just exactly which of the many identical slots they want to use to make something? There needs to be work on that so there's less clicks to get something that you want done. also the assets tab needs work on it(not strictly part of science&industry but you use it a lot when organizing). it's hard to sort through your things when the bits of data aren't sorted into columns. # of jumps, and # of items, are not visually lining up. just another terrible piece of UI. There should be some sort of alert when you have jobs ready to deliver. Not one every time a job completes though, it would get annoying. the ability to sort by meta level in the inventory isnt added yet still, and it should be I do not like how player owned stations are inferior to NPC stations in almost every way, manufacturing and science slots included. for the sake of populating 0.0 people need more convenience in player owned stations by providing a reasonable number of slots. ..and finally.... and most importantly.... a way to distinguish bpos from bpcs! i dont really care if ccp rejected this idea a million times before. it can reject it a million and one times. MAZZILLIU FOR CSM 2010 CHECK OUT MY CAMPAIGN VIDEO http://www.eveonline
debbie harrio	Posted - 2010.05.05 14:55:00 - [78] I will be voting for Mazz with one if not more of my alts.....for the boobies
Aynen	Posted - 2010.05.05 17:16:00 - [79] What are your thoughts on interactive storytelling in Eve, mainly if players should be able to greatly impact what CCP's writers will write or if those writers should have full control over where they want the story of Eve to go?
mazzilliu Caldari Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion	Posted - 2010.05.07 00:15:00 - [80] Originally by: Aynen What are your thoughts on interactive storytelling in Eve, mainly if players should be able to greatly impact what CCP's writers will write or if those writers should have full control over where they want the story of Eve to go? i was attending this meeting about this very subject at fanfest last year. the speaker said it very well, so I'll try to paraphrase: Keeping the story straight and non-contradictory is very difficult, even when its being written by a handful of ccp employees. Letting players get in on it just makes it too hard to keep the story consistent. this doesn't mean that players cant have any impact whatsoever. but i really doubt ccp will allow players to write out the minor details- only let them impact the major events. I like whatever opportunity there is for the players to write the story. And this doesn't even take into account the ongoing story of 0.0 politics, which is entirely player driven. MAZZILLIU FOR CSM 2010 CHECK OUT MY CAMPAIGN VIDEO

mazzilliu Caldari Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion	Posted - 2010.05.07 00:35:00 - [81] Edited by: mazzilliu on 07/05/2010 00:38:21 I re-edited the original post to show my issues. the first version is very old. i will have a website coming up soon. SOOOOON MAZZILLIU FOR CSM 2010 CHECK OUT MY CAMPAIGN VIDEO
Essyl Moss Caldari M. Corp	Posted - 2010.05.07 01:19:00 - [82] maz, Can you expand on improve low sec? Its been a very long time since I've spent any meaningful time in low sec, but I'm curious as to how you think this space should be used to add unique content. Did you have specific ideas, or are you asking that CCP should begin looking at it? Moss
mazzilliu Caldari Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion	Posted - 2010.05.07 02:38:00 - [83] Originally by: Essyl Moss maz, Can you expand on improve low sec? Its been a very long time since I've spent any meaningful time in low sec, but I'm curious as to how you think this space should be used to add unique content. Did you have specific ideas, or are you asking that CCP should begin looking at it? Moss It has been a while for me too, since there's nothing worthwhile in there to kill. Here is my plan for lowsec- It is subject to much change, but the end goal is to increase the income(but not lower the risk) until it becomes worthwhile for carebears to live there, after factoring in ship losses. Quote: -Add more entrances to 0.0. This means more passers by, and more ships carrying goodies for pirates to shoot at. Currently there are only a few chokepoints, that are often camped and people are extremely wary to carry things through there. Opening up more passes makes people feel safer, and through the twisted logic of EVE piracy, ends up killing more people as more of them are willing to pass through. Too often alliance members try to hitch a ride for their cargo on a jump freighter, because putting it in a hauler is deemed too risky. -Add ABC ores to lowsec. This is not only a pro-pirate measure, but a pro-carebear and pro-newbie measure. Newbies starting out from highsec generally never get to see high end ores until they join a 0.0 alliance or something. This gives them at least a taste of what is out there. Even pro miners will be attracted to this because the logistics is easier close to empire. ----- An alternative idea to this is moving some type of ore and make it almost all lowsec exclusive. The details still have to be worked out but the end goal is to increase mining income because of CCP's upcoming mineral changes. -Add more battleship spawns to belts in lowsec. Maybe not triple 1.7 mil bounty rats spawns, but one or two 1mil+bounty battleship once in a while would be a big boon to lowsec without essentially turning it into 0.0. It would mean that a newbie with incomplete skills would also be able to kill a spawn with a significant bounty, and it would be enough to draw them out of highsec and make it worthwhile to be there. The end goal is to reach 2/3rds or 3/4ths of the income you get from a 0.0 system or corresponding sec status. How much income is the real question. I don't know how receptive CCP will be to increasing it to be equal to or greater than 0.0- or even how high it ought to be raised to attract people there. MAZZILLIU FOR CSM 2010 CHECK OUT MY CAMPAIGN VIDEO
DamienV Pilipino Corp Primary.	Posted - 2010.05.07 05:20:00 - [84] Mazz has my votes! She manages to get things done and make the CSM entertaining.
Muad' Dib Gallente Beyond Divinity Inc	Posted - 2010.05.07 12:00:00 - [85] Edited by: Muad'' Dib on 07/05/2010 12:00:29 Originally by: mazzilliu stuff All your issues are the exact ones needed to take the pirate vote. But you are not pirate - you used to be one many seasons ago, and your alliance was one of the biggest abusers of the no-joy AOE DD. I do believe that you honestly wish to get rid of the robot army of 0.0, but your way of doing it serves the interests of your alliance as well - more targets is not a bad thing though. While voting for you would serve my interests as a voter i feel that you would serve more the interests of your alliance. Not to mention those rumours i heard about your attendance to CSM meetings. After first looking through the candidates roster - thanks for only putting it in devblog form CCP i had to go to another site that had a link to your own site, i have found just you, Mynxee, Omber Zombie, Sok and Helen as names i took an interest in. Your thread is the first i am looking at so why do you think you should get my 5 votes over the others ? --- I smack just for myself. Allow faction cap boosters to be traded via normal market !
mazzilliu Caldari Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion	Posted - 2010.05.07 12:19:00 - [86] Edited by: mazzilliu on 07/05/2010 12:19:50 Originally by: Muad' Dib Edited by: Muad'' Dib on 07/05/2010 12:00:29 Originally by: mazzilliu stuff All your issues are the exact ones needed to take the pirate vote. But you are not pirate - you used to be one many seasons ago, and your alliance was one of the biggest abusers of the no-joy AOE DD. I do believe that you honestly wish to get rid of the robot army of 0.0, but your way of doing it serves the interests of your alliance as well - more targets is not a bad thing though. While voting for you would serve my interests as a voter i feel that you would serve more the interests of your alliance. Not to mention those rumours i heard about your attendance to CSM meetings. After first looking through the candidates roster - thanks for only putting it in devblog form CCP i had to go to another site that had a link to your own site, i have found just you, Mynxee, Omber Zombie, Sok and Helen as names i took an interest in. Your thread is the first i am looking at so why do you think you should get my 5 votes over the others ? Why in the world would I be in lowsec when I know there's more targets in 0.0? And the same thing is true of my corp. we left 0.0 because the targets kept going away. We would camp a gate and eventually most of the carebears went extinct. The ratters in 0.0 are all battleships, unlike lowsec, and everyone has much better loot than lowsec. We had too many people for the number of people we were fighting. Carebear 0.0 alliances were much better, because they're awful at following fleet orders, and we could fight way outnumbered. why is there such a big deal about what security status you're in? if you're some person, greifing carebears every day, does that not make you a pirate? If lowsec had more targets we would spend more time there. MAZZILLIU FOR CSM 2010 CHECK OUT MY CAMPAIGN VIDEO
Muad' Dib Gallente Beyond Divinity Inc	Posted - 2010.05.07 13:11:00 - [87] You are clinging to a small section of my post. I do not care why your corp left low-sec for 0.0, your reasons are your own. That was just touched in passing in my post. I said that the issues i saw being mentioned in the OP were the ones that the pirates might look for. The pirate vote is not exactly big, but it is not small and right now i see just a few candidates ready to take it - you included. It is my impression upon reading the OP, but you are looking to get the pirate vote to boost your own alliance vote. --- I smack just for myself. Allow faction cap boosters to be traded via normal market !
mazzilliu Caldari Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion	Posted - 2010.05.07 13:17:00 - [88] Originally by: Muad' Dib You are clinging to a small section of my post. I do not care why your corp left low-sec for 0.0, your reasons are your own. That was just touched in passing in my post. I said that the issues i saw being mentioned in the OP were the ones that the pirates might look for. The pirate vote is not exactly big, but it is not small and right now i see just a few candidates ready to take it - you included. It is my impression upon reading the OP, but you are looking to get the pirate vote to boost your own alliance vote. i dont really see anything nefarious in trying to get votes, or being in an alliance. i dont really see any conflict of interest. both groups like to kill lots and lots of stuff. so for as long as there's no way i can pass a csm issue to give all alliances named pandemic legion free money, there's not really any way this can be a bad thing for everyone not pandemic legion. MAZZILLIU FOR CSM 2010 CHECK OUT MY CAMPAIGN VIDEO
Muad' Dib Gallente Beyond Divinity Inc	Posted - 2010.05.07 13:25:00 - [89] Edited by: Muad'' Dib on 07/05/2010 13:29:28 Originally by: mazzilliu Originally by: Muad' Dib You are clinging to a small section of my post. I do not care why your corp left low-sec for 0.0, your reasons are your own. That was just touched in passing in my post. I said that the issues i saw being mentioned in the OP were the ones that the pirates might look for. The pirate vote is not exactly big, but it is not small and right now i see just a few candidates ready to take it - you included. It is my impression upon reading the OP, but you are looking to get the pirate vote to boost your own alliance vote. i dont really see anything nefarious in trying to get votes, or being in an alliance. i dont really see any conflict of interest. both groups like to kill lots and lots of stuff. so for as long as there's no way i can pass a csm issue to give all alliances named pandemic legion free money, there's not really any way this can be a bad thing for everyone not pandemic legion. No politician will ever see anything nefarious with trying to get votes, but that doesn't meant that voter who got 'tricked' into giving his vote will feel the same way. :) As for the conflic of interests, you take it a step too far; i never mentioned a conflict of interest, certainly it has never been before and will not be so with the usual 4-5 votes going to the major 0.0 powerblock backed characters. Since you've avoided the issue for the 2nd time, i have to ask you directly, what about the rumours i heard about your attendance record to CSM meetings ? LE: I just re-read your OP and you touch on 2 things that will affect the low-sec player. That is the small gang improvement effort and the revitalizing of low-sec and 0.0. Low-sec does offer some opportunities as ISK making source that is superior to 0.0 - yes ... superior. --- I smack just for myself. Allow faction cap boosters to be traded via normal market !
Galgacus	Posted - 2010.05.07 13:42:00 - [90] That video is ****, tbh



Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 :: 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.