Characters =/= players
Scouts, traders, haulers and logistics (some or all of them alts of Low-sec/Null-sec/WH players) count against the total.

Because ganking is the only pvp in hi-sec

evidence #3 is the same for hi and null sec miners (and possibly low-sec miners as well).

• 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.

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.

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.

Considering that EVE has four flavors of space, and one has 80% of the population, I'd say the standard I'm measuring the current state against is an average distribution.

I don't think it's good for the game to have "bastard children," ie, neglected areas that only a few people care about. Especially if that particular area cuts against the theme of the game.

Restaurant analogies are popular in some of the other threads so let's put it like this. The current high sec is like a salad bar at a steak house that is threatening to shut down the grill and make the place vegetarian only.

Candidates like James 315 are advocating reducing the salad bar to an appetizer and putting the focus back on the steak.

You would be wrong:
Fanfest: State of the economy
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7MZD6-vGQms
@ 4:29
71% of all population
65% > 5m skill points

Tippia proved several times, in several different threads, why statements like yours are wrong (i.e. - alts). Where the characters are has no provable relation to where the players are (or self identify).

As we *all* know, players have alts. The longer one plays, the greater the % chance that player will have an (or several) alts. All we *know* is that during this "snapshot" character distribution looked like the above.

If it *proves* anything it's that "people have alts" and/or, there are a significant % of WH/Low sec/Null sec players who have to OR PREFER to make their money in hi-sec. (you know, in safety).

If what you said was true (80%) it's kinda hard to argue that "only a few people care about" it...

wtfisthisIdon'teven...

It's more like the Grill is pissed more people are choosing to eat vegetarian and trying to throw the salad bar out. Nullsec's problems need to be fixed (for sure) but that won't come by making the menu "single choice".

Tippia proved several times, in several different threads, why statements like yours are wrong (i.e. - alts). Where the characters are has no provable relation to where the players are (or self identify). As we *all* know, players have alts. The longer one plays, the greater the % chance that player will have an (or several) alts. All we *know* is that during this "snapshot" character distribution looked like the above.

If it *proves* anything it's that "people have alts" and/or, there are a significant % of WH/Low sec/Null sec players who have to OR PREFER to make their money in hi-sec. (you know, in safety).

You're splitting hairs. The number went down slightly to 71%, it's still disproportionately large. My point stands.

Seriously? Characters have no provable relation to players? So if 100% of the characters were in high sec, you wouldn't be able to definitively say that 100% of players were in high sec? Of course there is a relation.

I'm not disputing that that may be the case, but how do you go from your previous statement cautioning against assertions about player distribution, and then making your own assertions about player distribution. That's just a logical disconnect.

The fact that people are sending alts up to make money in high sec is indicative of the problem. There should be viable forms of income where ever a player lives.

I was referring to the under populated areas as being neglected. This is not hard to follow, are you being purposefully obtuse?

Nope. What you said would be true if James 315 wanted to turn all high sec systems in to low or null. It isn't being eliminated. The salad bar will still be there and the menu won't be single choice. Just the 71% of the patrons (or their alts) won't be eating leafy greens at a renowned steak joint.

The excessive safety enjoyed by the high sec resident must come at the cost of lower income. Other wise our brethren in low and null get a raw deal for all their initiative and risk taking. If your idea of a good game is free ISK for everyone for risk-free, inactive play, then yes, James 315 is going to utterly and mercilessly destroy high sec.

Wouldn't that actually reinforce Wescro's point about highsec being too lucrative - so lucrative, infact, that nullsec alts go to highsec to make ISK?

The excessive safety enjoyed by the high sec resident must come at the cost of lower income.

And to say "j315" will do x, y, z is not supported by any statements by him

The balance between risk/reward with high, low, null and wh definitely needs fixing.

Apart from all the ones on his blog.
Ah, but then again you can't be bothered to read that, so therefore, anything you can't be bothered to read doesn't exist?
At least now we can see where your narrow viewpoint comes from.

Aaaand James has dropped out of the CSM race.

He'd rather sit on Minerbumping and ***** about how CCP is killing his PVP sandbox. Lol.

Because engaging the community in a daily updated blog is a bad thing.

Great leaders don't necessarily have to get in office to do good, though they would no doubt make good representatives. Think Martin Luther King jr.

Because engaging the community in a daily updated blog is a bad thing.

Great leaders don't necessarily have to get in office to do good, though they would no doubt make good representatives. Think Martin Luther King jr.

It's not like it was a secret that CSMs have to agree to sign an NDA; indeed, it's pretty much the whole point of the CSM that they work with NDA material.

James' point was that CCP now gets to decide who is allowed to attend their meetings, so there's a good chance that he'll get NDA'd and still not be able to meaningfully contribute to the CSM.

Not that I approve, but that's his reasoning.

The members of CSM 7 made it pretty clear that all the CSM can attend meetings via video conferencing or at least voice. I agree that it's preferrable to be there in person, but that's hardly being "excluded".

Before, when the 7 attending members were the top 7 voters, you'd be 100% right. Now, when CCP is essentially directly choosing 5 of the 7 seats themselves, I think asking yourself whether or not they'd value your opinion at all - if they truly did, why wouldn't they have picked you?

There's no solid answer to that, of course, but it's a very valid question to ask, particularly when it's in relation to signing a year of your time away for unpaid work.

Bottom line though, is that he quit because he was afraid he wouldn't win.
Very disappointing.

Before, when the 7 attending members were the top 7 voters, you'd be 100% right. Now, when CCP is essentially directly choosing 5 of the 7 seats themselves, I think asking yourself whether or not they'd value your opinion at all - if they truly did, why wouldn't they have picked you?

There's no solid answer to that, of course, but it's a very valid question to ask, particularly when it's in relation to signing a year of your time away for unpaid work.