|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
Bantara
Corp 54
Curatores Veritatis Alliance
21
   |
Posted - 2013.01.17 21:02:00 -
[1] - Quote
oh....*sniff*
heh
yeah, no....
Kainotomiu Ronuken wrote: Are there any other reasons[to not vote for James]?
Kainotomiu Ronuken wrote: James has an undeniable and varied knowledge of game mechanics. He spent several years in nullsec, has pulled off one of the largest scams in EVE's history (at the time)...
|
Bantara
Corp 54
Curatores Veritatis Alliance
22
|
Posted - 2013.02.25 20:25:00 -
[2] - Quote
Kainotomiu Ronuken wrote:Bantara wrote:Kainotomiu Ronuken wrote: Are there any other reasons[to not vote for James]?
Kainotomiu Ronuken wrote: James has an undeniable and varied knowledge of game mechanics. He spent several years in nullsec, has pulled off one of the largest scams in EVE's history (at the time)...
I'm flattered to see that you feel the need to reiterate my own points, but did you have anything to add?
Is your sarcasim a passive-aggressive way of disagreeing with my obvious-even-if-indirect point?
Let me point it out for you if you missed it, though I don't actually think you did...
Kainotomiu Ronuken wrote: James...has pulled off one of the largest scams in EVE's history (at the time)...
You asked the question, I provided the answer that you yourself listed. |
Bantara
Corp 54
Curatores Veritatis Alliance
22
|
Posted - 2013.02.25 21:56:00 -
[3] - Quote
Kainotomiu Ronuken wrote:Firstly, there's nothing wrong with scamming.
And thus why I laughed.
Do not confuse legality with morality.
|
Bantara
Corp 54
Curatores Veritatis Alliance
22
|
Posted - 2013.02.25 22:09:00 -
[4] - Quote
Kainotomiu Ronuken wrote:You should watch out for confusing actions in a vidya game with morality, too.
You are a human being.
I am a human being.
Morality is involved.
You don't have to agree. But there it is.
|
Bantara
Corp 54
Curatores Veritatis Alliance
22
|
Posted - 2013.02.25 23:14:00 -
[5] - Quote
You guys are taking that too far, that wasn't my point.
Some people are pvp pilots and run on "pvp" platforms. Others live in sov space and run on 0.0 sovereignty platforms. Others are hi-sec dwellers and run on that platform. Others are pirates and run on pirate platforms.
You're comfortable with scamming. You find it to be an interesting and unique element of Eve. To you, this is a point in James's favor. But not everyone thinks the same way. What for you is a pro, to another is a con. It's not like you only said, "James has excellent knowledge of how Eve works," something I would hope all players would approve of. You said, "look, James has pulled off huge scams!" and then asked "why wouldn't one want to vote for him?"
It's comical how Eve-culturally-centric and narrow-minded that is. Thus, I laughed.
Anyways, no need to continue this further. Either you get it, or you don't, and James has an official thread which should be bumped more than this one. |
Bantara
Corp 54
Curatores Veritatis Alliance
24
|
Posted - 2013.03.19 21:05:00 -
[6] - Quote
Wescro2 wrote:Tiberius StarGazer wrote:This is an opinion, not a fact, if you are going to state a "Fact" you should support it with evidence. And this is an opinion that I do not agree with. Indeed I find James315 arguments that highsec is broken to be vague and lacking.
- Evidence #1: An overwhelming majority of characters live in high-sec.
- Evidence #2: Miner ganking is at historic lows according to the CSM minutes.
- Evidence #3: It's more profitable for a miner to fit for yield and get ganked occasionally, than to fit tank and sacrifice yield.
Conclusion: High sec is either too safe, or too rewarding.
Wescro2, you are still making a leap from the 3 evidences to the conclusion. It's difficult to define the word "too" off the top of one's head, but what you're saying here is that current conditions are far off from some standard.
Problem is...Where does that standard come from??
In order to declare "hi-sec is broken" as fact, you're going to have to have an objective standard to be making this comparison of off. But as far as I can tell, y'all don't have one. Tell me if I'm wrong. What you have is your opinion as to what hi-sec should look like; that is the standard you are using to declare it broken.
So even though your evidences are fact, your conclusion is still opinion. By no means do I mean to deprive you of the right to your own opinion and standards, but you shouldn't try to pass them off as fact. |
Bantara
Corp 54
Curatores Veritatis Alliance
24
|
Posted - 2013.03.20 16:33:00 -
[7] - Quote
Wescro2 wrote:The excessive safety enjoyed by the high sec resident must come at the cost of lower income.
I asked this once on minerbumping and got no response that I'm aware of, but I'll ask again:
Can you point out to me where in James 315's "platform" he supports your statement here? James does not seem to be for reducing hi-sec reward alone, but reducing hi-sec reward and increasing risk.
|
|
|
| |
|