The entire idea of "Alternates" was rendered obsolete the moment CSM 6 started the Skype channels with CCP and we had members that gave more of a damn about helping fix the game than flying to Iceland. In both CSM 6 and CSM 7, everyone had as loud a voice as they wished to have on any subject they wished to air an opinion on. While attending a summit in Iceland is certainly an effective means of lobbying or clarifying a position, the ability for those unable to attend in person to be there virtually has also eliminated the whole "alt" nonsense as well. I'm very happy that it's officially dead.

No one in CSM 6 or 7 really cared about who was or wasn't an "alt"; all that matters is the effort you put into the whole. In CSM 6 we had Two Step that rose above the efforts of the 'Top Nine'. In CSM 7 both Alek and Hans have proven without a doubt that you can advocate as part of the group no matter what your vote number was.

But, since it's his thread after all, I can say without hesitation that the one person on the last THREE CSM's that has given as much or more than any other member has been Trebor. I have exactly ZERO stake in his campaign, but I very much want to see some of the new blood in CSM 8 have someone onboard that has proven their mettle over and over again in this arena. It's fine if you disagree with him due to a difference of opinion; vote as you please. But when nearly every CSM that has worked with Trebor over the last three years praises his efforts, that speaks more loudly than anything else.

I'm sorry could you speak up, I am having trouble hearing you.

There seems to be a lot of monotonous droning in the background.

All I seem to hear is "We love CCP" and "Great one CCP'

Is CSM 7 there practicing again

You know at first I thought you were just another troll, then I thought maybe you were some kind of false flag operation to make Malcanis look bad by posting idiotic stuff while endorsing him in your sig.

Now finally you've admitted the truth: You hear voices in your head.

This explains so much.

You obviously missed the CSM 7 campaign. Pity that was a blast.

But in this particular case it seems to me that something as unique as the player elected representative body within a computer game should not die without at least a struggle.

But then if you are a Trebor supporter you might need to stop implying other people are insane and see a psychologist yourself

Mostly responding to FD's sig, can't say anyone could make a case for me selling out. Accepting the reality of what the CSM can can't do maybe, but if I sold out still looking for that fat stack in the mail.

As for Trebor, I've seen him at work and he exceeded my expectations in every way. And if the voices in FD's head want to be part of the CSM 8 election dialog, bonus!!

Issler

I'm not even sure what you mean by "selling out" at this stage. It feels like you seem to believe that if the CSM isn't in a state of open warfare with CCP then it's not doing its job. I won't say that CCP have been 'perfect' during CSM7's term, but I do believe that they have done more things right than they have since the CSM started.

If "selling out" means "supporting CCP when they get it right" to you, then I'm afraid you have an endorsement for someone who is an enthusiastic and vocal sellout in your sig. When I see dumb stuff like "POS are only used by a small percentage of the EVE community", then I have no hesitation in exposing the terrible assumptions in such a foolish statement, but I'm equally all in favour of positive reinforcement.

Why does the justification for a wardec need to be "deliver fights"? If your local highsec system is getting stripmined by a corp leaving you no rocks, hiring mercs to wardec them will give you what you want (stopping your competition from mining) even if there are no "goodfights" (ignoring the fact everyone will just jump ship to an npc corp).

My position is simply that the history and evolution of the mechanic raises red flags that make (2) an increasingly more attractive option, just as the history of CrimeWatch finally forced CCP to bite the bullet and go back to the drawing board.

See my personal take on this is CCP should be trying to encourage people living in highsec to value their corporations and to stay in them during wars. I had an interesting (if brief and offtopic) discussion about the possibility of corporation skillpoints which give greater benefits to pilots who stay in corp longer and allow corps to specialise over here.

Basically, there are two ways to go about it -- give people an incentive to stay in corp during the hard times, or penalize rats who leave a sinking ship.

Personally, that's a little too hands on. If people quit corp when their corp gets war-decced so be it. It differentiates the loyal ones from the tourists. Do you really want to forcibly keep that deadweight, who would have otherwise bolted, in your corp through punishing game mechanics? He's better off leaving imo. FREEDOM WORKS!

Basically, there are two ways to go about it -- give people an incentive to stay in corp during the hard times, or penalize rats who leave a sinking ship. The problem is that either one is just adding another bag on the side of the existing mechanic.

I'm not so sure I like the mechanic (I'd have to think about it for a while) but I certainly appreciate the problem it is trying to solve.

Basically, there are two ways to go about it -- give people an incentive to stay in corp during the hard times, or penalize rats who leave a sinking ship. The problem is that either one is just adding another bag on the side of the existing mechanic.

Rather than skillpoints, a better vehicle for conveying loyalty bonuses might be LPs earned and refine bonuses derived from corp standings.

This would only further reinforce solo play in single person corps. Corp standings get exponentially harder to maintain as your corp gets larger and its possible for one person to screw it up accidentally to the point where your only recourse is to kick them.

Since you gentlemen have invited yourselves over and gotten comfortable, how about you demonstrate your applied CSMing skills by explaining how you'd go about persuading CCP to increase the differentiation between (or granularity of) player vs. NPC corps?

I'd like to see players able to choose their own NPC corp, and I'd like to see that choice actually mean something wrt to game mechanics - advantages, disadvantages, bonuses, penalties, drawbacks and opportunities. This NPC corp should be a natural choice for people who like mining, that NPC corp might attract haulers, and so on. As this would encourage people with similar interests to be in contact with each other, they'd be forming communities with a common outlook, and this in turn would also provide a good solute for more player corps to crystallise from

Good answer I think. I like the possibility catalyzing/promoting player corps formation. This could also play well into ideas that were floated in the past such as player run customs enforcement etc.**

Now, how would you sell this to CCP as worth time ans resources, both of which are finite within CCP.

Basically everyone recognises that one of the biggest challenges facing EVE is to improve new player retention and that one of the best ways to do this is to get them involved in groups of existing players. My suggestion provides an obvious vehicle to do this, and it needn't be too developmentally expensive.

How's the removal of non-consensual PvP from high-sec coming along Trebor?

Saying something idiotic over and over again doesn't make it true or any less idiotic.

Seriously, where do you people come up with this stuff and do you really believe it? If it's because someone said it in a blog I have a bridge for sale or maybe a Titan or two that you may be interested in.

Saying something idiotic over and over again doesn't make it true or any less idiotic.

Seriously, where do you people come up with this stuff and do you really believe it? If it's because someone said it in a blog I have a bridge for sale or maybe a Titan or two that you may be interested in.

So, let's get a pledge from Trebor in this thread that if he gets on the CSM again, he will not advocate to restrict non-consenual PvP in high sec any more than it already is. We both know Trebor isn't the candidate to make that pledge. Why do we know this? Because his platform has strong implications against non-consensual PvP, which he has all but admitted, and denying it now is just making him look uncommitted to his ideas.

Friggz,

To me, what you just described represents a wild card candidate. You really don't know what you're voting for if a candidate were to say, "heh, we'll see what I think on a given day." Perhaps you have good reason for putting this much faith in Trebors judgement and wisdom. I on the other hand would like to see candidates who have enough exposure to the topic at hand, and have information to take a reasonably concrete stand before being elected.

If you follow American politics at all, Herman Cain, the Republican hopeful for President, would answer every question with "When I am President, I'll consult with people who are around and come up with the best decision." Of course, that is a total non-answer, as no one knows that that implies.

The funny thing is, Trebor has taken a side, but doesn't want to wander too far from the fence on his chosen side.

I see a big difference in saying "This is what I think" and "This is what I think now, and I pledge to always think it forever" To me the distinction between the two is very clear.

Saying something idiotic over and over again doesn't make it true or any less idiotic.

Seriously, where do you people come up with this stuff and do you really believe it? If it's because someone said it in a blog I have a bridge for sale or maybe a Titan or two that you may be interested in.