Ah so you did post in the wrong thread. Please don't **** up my manifesto any more.

this thread is coming to a screeching halt on account of skyrim, will try to get a couple of ~serious replies~ out today though

I wonder what lessons of gameplay wisdom Mittens will take back from Skyrim to be applied to EVE.

I'd imagine there's some stuff to be said for solo player content after all ;)

You're wrong.

I mined my ass off in 2005/2006 in Syndicate when the Swarm lived and died based on the prices of Zydrine, and Crokite was valuable enough that ops would be formed and defenses positioned to ensure that mining ops occured. The dynamic was interesting and dangerous, yet profitable enough that we'd do it despite the risk of being killed.

You're also wrong because you don't understand the concept of guards. Stealth bombers? Hurricane, please. Crying about AFK cloakers?

Nullsec requires profit to make mining worthwhile, and it should be dangerous enough to inspire people to run mining ops with guards. If you mine solo and whine about risk of being popped, that's because you're Doing It Wrong.

Given Soundwave's interest in the topic, I think there's a good chance that the drone regions will be revisited in the summer expansion. I wholly agree with you that dronespace should not be the major source of minerals, but I would also be very disappointed to see drones become $GENERIC_BOUNTY_RAT_TYPE_09

Opinions don't, but most people should be treated with respect even if you don't respect them. It's common courtesy. Even though you've treated me with far less respect than I've treated you, it still does not stop me from showing you more than you show me.
If I have done anything that makes me not worthy of being treated with respect, than please tell me what it is.

If you are tired of discussing a certain topic with me there are more polite ways to let me know. If you choose not to do so without a valid reason (and there are few valid reasons IMO) then it looks like you are trying to manipulate me emotionally.

Not this question again.

Seriously, are you going to believe Mitanni, or for that matter any CSM rep if they say they care for the player base as a whole? What does that even mean when the player base is divided on so many issues? You can't argue for prioritizing development of flying in space over walking in stations and prioritizing development of walking in stations over flying in space; when someone says they "represent the player base as a whole" they are merely pretending the people who don't agree with them on the issues they care about aren't actually part of the player base.

Educate yourself on what Mitanni has done as CSM6 chair, perhaps by reading this thread or his candidate thread (the candidate thread's OP is very informative in particular). Ask any questions you still have about specific issues. If you like what he's done for the game then vote for him. If you don't, don't.

The only thing he can really mention, and has been mentioned before, as caring about what's good for the game (not in the interest of "the player base as a whole") as opposed to solely advancing his bloc's interest is advocacy for a technetium nerf when our alliance is absurdly rich from technetium. Some delusional posters have claimed that this is merely because we do not have more than half the technetium moons in the game, and thus are advocating for a tech nerf because everyone else in 0.0 combined has more tech income than we do. There's also his well-known advocacy for supercap nerfs, which people have disparaged as being solely for the benefit of fighting our foes. This is of course ignoring how the existence of supercaps in their current state keep poorer, newer alliances without supercaps from being able to compete with supercap-having alliances (including ours).

The simple fact is that goonswarm's playstyle aligns with the playstyle Mitanni advocates for as CSM, so of course it's going to seem like he's advancing his alliance's interests. Because he is, by making the game more enjoyable to them. Ultimately I don't think it's productive to worry about whether you can fully trust any one candidate; in Mitanni's case you should be considering whether the changes he brought about in CSM6 are the kind of changes you want more of. Anybody can promise you what they think you want to hear, but results are indisputable.

So what's the first issue on the agenda for your second term, Chairman?