|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 5 post(s) |
Benny Ohu
Chaotic Tranquility Casoff
2221
|
Posted - 2014.01.12 16:21:00 -
[1] - Quote
csms should not discuss any relevant or topical issues
apparently, even mentioning a ship class is an indisputable example of bias |
Benny Ohu
Chaotic Tranquility Casoff
2222
|
Posted - 2014.01.12 16:29:00 -
[2] - Quote
Pinky Hops wrote:No -- he brought up supercapitals. Ships that have zero relevance to most of the playerbase, and have particular relevance to the power balance between large coalitions...One of which he happens to be in. are you saying that some csms play eve online
this cannot be tolerated |
Benny Ohu
Chaotic Tranquility Casoff
2222
|
Posted - 2014.01.12 16:53:00 -
[3] - Quote
Pinky Hops wrote:Benny Ohu wrote:Pinky Hops wrote:No -- he brought up supercapitals. Ships that have zero relevance to most of the playerbase, and have particular relevance to the power balance between large coalitions...One of which he happens to be in. are you saying that some csms play eve online this cannot be tolerated 1) are you disputing that supercaps have zero relevance to most of the playerbase? 2) i have no idea why you didn't read my entire post, or reply to it 3) i don't understand your "CSM's playing eve online" comment or what it has to do with this discussion Basically: post better please. i'm not posting to please you |
Benny Ohu
Chaotic Tranquility Casoff
2222
|
Posted - 2014.01.12 17:16:00 -
[4] - Quote
Pinky Hops wrote:Benny Ohu wrote:i'm not posting to please you No, you're posting zero content trolls. Pretty obvious ones at that. If you have nothing relevant to say, maybe you should keep it to yourself. You're also derailing the conversation -- probably deliberately. you're posting baseless accusations. 'mentioning a ship class' is not pursuing an agenda, 'speaking while being in a coalition' is not indication of bias, 'not specifically mentioning every ship' is not evidence of corruption
i'm not interrupting a conversation of any worth |
Benny Ohu
Chaotic Tranquility Casoff
2222
|
Posted - 2014.01.12 17:51:00 -
[5] - Quote
Pinky Hops wrote:What is and is not brought up is absolutely evidence of priorities. Who in particular brings what up and when is evidence of the relative priorities of the individual. then the individual, a respected member of the community voted for in a fair election in which every player had a vote, and in receipt of information not allowed to the rest of the playerbase, believes that this is an issue deserving of a high priority
and the rest of your post is baseless |
Benny Ohu
Chaotic Tranquility Casoff
2222
|
Posted - 2014.01.12 18:19:00 -
[6] - Quote
you're failing to back up your premises, instead you're attacking me personally
how could i possibly be at fault |
Benny Ohu
Chaotic Tranquility Casoff
2222
|
Posted - 2014.01.12 19:01:00 -
[7] - Quote
Pinky Hops wrote:Wondering where you got this from. Was it because I was responding to a troll who just repeatedly says "baseless" with no other content, while I write paragraphs describing exactly how I draw my conclusions and the logic behind them? no, you only posted a conclusion and a single premise, which you failed to back up
Pinky Hops wrote:It would take again, concrete examples of CSM's advocating for a change that would be:
1) Detrimental to their own individual power group/alliance/coalition/whatever 2) Positive for the game as a whole perhaps you should provide evidence for your own assertions first, as the assumption of 'csm is acting as they're expected' is more likely than the assumption of 'csm is corrupt'
secondly the fact that a csm may advocate mostly or solely for changes that benefit their own alliance is not indication of corruption, as those changes themselves may be beneficial and in the interest of the wider playerbase |
Benny Ohu
Chaotic Tranquility Casoff
2222
|
Posted - 2014.01.12 19:07:00 -
[8] - Quote
Pinky Hops wrote:Benny Ohu wrote:secondly the fact that a csm may advocate mostly or solely for changes that benefit their own alliance is not indication of corruption hahahahahhahahha that's cute dude. no, it's just a GIANT coincidence. unless shown otherwise, yes, just a coincidence |
Benny Ohu
Chaotic Tranquility Casoff
2222
|
Posted - 2014.01.12 19:26:00 -
[9] - Quote
and yet, no support |
Benny Ohu
Chaotic Tranquility Casoff
2222
|
Posted - 2014.01.12 19:41:00 -
[10] - Quote
until you are able to provide proof to a premise to support the conclusion that 'change x was not to benefit the game but to benefit a csm', then yes, a circumstance where a csm supports a change to the benefit of their alliance and the game is just circumstance
i have provided no argument, i am asking you to supply yours, and you have failed |
|
Benny Ohu
Chaotic Tranquility Casoff
2222
|
Posted - 2014.01.12 19:43:00 -
[11] - Quote
unless asking someone to support their ridiculous, damaging claims against prominent and respected members of the playerbase is ~trolling~ |
Benny Ohu
Chaotic Tranquility Casoff
2222
|
Posted - 2014.01.12 21:12:00 -
[12] - Quote
Pinky Hops wrote:Benny Ohu wrote:until you are able to provide proof to a premise to support the conclusion that 'change x was not to benefit the game but to benefit a csm', then yes, a circumstance where a csm supports a change to the benefit of their alliance and the game is just circumstance
i have provided no argument, i am asking you to supply yours, and you have failed I did supply it. Several times. I consider it to be evidence of bias that CSM members prioritize supercapitals in a discussion of balance. It effects a small portion of the game and it's relevant to their own home teams. You consider it to be a coincidence. When I pushed the matter -- you stated that even if the coincidences piled up over and over again, it wouldn't prove anything (which pretty much every mathematician, scientist, logician, statistician, actuary, etc , in the world would disagree with...) you failed to back up your premises. the argument is not sound
the fact a csm prioritised a certain issue does not indicate that they're corrupt. it only indicates they believe it's an issue worth pursuing. it's relevant to them because they play eve online
i did not state that. even if there were many coincidences (you have named one, and it's shaky), this is only a trend, and even if there was a trend, there's no indication there's a common cause. even then, you need to prove the common cause. which you have not |
Benny Ohu
Chaotic Tranquility Casoff
2228
|
Posted - 2014.01.18 19:30:00 -
[13] - Quote
Pinky Hops wrote:I only pointed out that it's primarily a biased committees with people who's main agenda is to push for things that benefit them/their corp/ their alliance/ their coalition/ whatever.
The fear is, that it has become an extension of the EVE metagame,
the more obvious ploys
And in all but the most extreme cases, they will argue for their own personal gain, or for the personal loss of people who don't play like they do still waiting on anything but unfounded accusations
posting the same conclusion over and over is not premise, example or proof |
Benny Ohu
Chaotic Tranquility Casoff
2237
|
Posted - 2014.01.22 02:54:00 -
[14] - Quote
Lady Areola Fappington wrote: fun fact, australia only lowered the drinking (and voting) age to 18 to match the age of conscription |
Benny Ohu
Chaotic Tranquility Casoff
2250
|
Posted - 2014.01.23 15:37:00 -
[15] - Quote
Quote:"What, you don't like walking in stations? Go make your own game then!"
If CCP operated the way you suggest, EVE would be dead by now. don't like trammel?
Quote:Also remember that although EVE has been around for a long time, it also has a history of having some of the most corrupt development staff of any MMO in the history of gaming - which is why zero external accountability is probably bad. you mean, that one time one man spawned a blueprint
like that one time one csm member mentioned supercaps
Mallak Azaria wrote:Benny Ohu wrote:fun fact, australia only lowered the drinking (and voting) age to 18 to match the age of conscription And it was a really bad idea. I cannot disagree. |
Benny Ohu
Chaotic Tranquility Casoff
2360
|
Posted - 2014.01.31 04:27:00 -
[16] - Quote
so we are talking about that one guy that spawned a blueprint that one time
not exactly a trend is it
i hope noone mentioned supercaps in the winter summit, that'd be two summits in a row and absolute proof of systemic corruption in the csm |
Benny Ohu
Chaotic Tranquility Casoff
2387
|
Posted - 2014.02.02 08:46:00 -
[17] - Quote
ShahFluffers wrote:Now, indulge me. What "misconduct" did a DEV do last year? Because I'm coming up empty on Google.
betting the answer is 'd3 said a thing and noone cared' |
Benny Ohu
Chaotic Tranquility Casoff
2389
|
Posted - 2014.02.03 00:40:00 -
[18] - Quote
Pinky Hops wrote:It's hard to be too specific on the official forums because it's "classified" within CCP - meaning me speaking of it might get me banned.
There is a leaked internal CCP document describing what happened - you can find it pretty easily with a search engine. The misconduct involved the developer misusing his access to information, and it happened (or was leaked) in mid 2013.
Benny Ohu wrote:betting the answer is 'd3 said a thing and noone cared' ahahahaha |
Benny Ohu
Chaotic Tranquility Casoff
2389
|
Posted - 2014.02.03 03:04:00 -
[19] - Quote
Pinky Hops wrote:Darek Castigatus wrote: CSM member using insider info for market speculation while drunk one night after a CSM session, which they admitted, were censured for and kicked off the council. I wasn't aware of this, but that's rather hilarious. Also -- kind of unsurprising, in a sad way. "guys the csm is fully corrupt and there's so many examples of this" "i was not aware of the one time a csm member used insider information for ingame advantage" |
Benny Ohu
Chaotic Tranquility Casoff
2389
|
Posted - 2014.02.03 03:09:00 -
[20] - Quote
i'll also point out that you're referencing ~hard evidence~ which was supplied by d3 in a breach of nda
and even if taken as true would show that internal affairs is doing their job properly which is a complete non-scandal |
|
Benny Ohu
Chaotic Tranquility Casoff
2391
|
Posted - 2014.02.03 15:21:00 -
[21] - Quote
awaiting indications of a trend since the number of people who abused their position at ccp is at a grand total of one
and, uh, some uncorroborated 'logs' coughed up by a csm who then got his arse banned for it vOv |
Benny Ohu
Chaotic Tranquility Casoff
2391
|
Posted - 2014.02.03 15:24:00 -
[22] - Quote
even then, is two people 'regularly'? |
Benny Ohu
Chaotic Tranquility Casoff
2393
|
Posted - 2014.02.03 15:41:00 -
[23] - Quote
... which you had no idea of until now
ok so we have one guy, who screwed up before there was an IA team one other guy who was detected and caught and some crap posted by a disgraced csm who frankly was useless anyway (that was his thing, you know)
yep this is solid evidence of the entire csm being corrupt and acting only in their own interests better pack it up now
looks like you're all rumbled thanks to the efforts of the pinky hops the world's greatest detective
who, uh, apparently can't use google yet |
Benny Ohu
Chaotic Tranquility Casoff
2393
|
Posted - 2014.02.03 15:52:00 -
[24] - Quote
once, you mean. as in, it happened one time.
and one csm. who bought a whole lot of the wrong material. and mynnna, who asked about supercaps. |
Benny Ohu
Chaotic Tranquility Casoff
2393
|
Posted - 2014.02.03 16:08:00 -
[25] - Quote
oh ok i didn't realise we were taking unsubstantitated unverified 'logs' supplied by a discredited source as evidence or reading books into the phrase 'a csm asked about a commonly known balance issue in the balance discussion' i am so sorry |
|
|
|