If you go to the Jita Park Speaker Corner you will find the thread of CSM candidate Jayne Fillon. In it I brought up the fact that Jayne has made an alt by the name of Bheskagor Azizora and violated the EULA by impersonating another player. I cannot post the logs here but if one were so inclined to search the alt mentioned above online, they may find it on pastebin. While the rules concerning impersonation may be something that people disagree upon I think the important part is the topic of principle. On principle is it ok for someone to represent the playerbase as CSM if they don't even respect the EULA?

Maybe I don't agree with the tax laws in my country or I enjoy some hardcore drug like ****** even though I hurt no one. But if I plan on running for office, I should respect the position enough to follow the rules.

What are your thoughts?

What are your thoughts?

In any case this thread isn't about Jayne specifically but the principle of the matter. We've seen how it is when people in position get different rules applied to them. Regardless how people feel about the rules the principle remains.

The forum alts have spoken. I think you're missing the point. Principles may not matter to people like you but there's plenty who do care.

The forum alts have spoken. I think you're missing the point. Principles may not matter to people like you but there's plenty who do care.

Then in principle, instead of organising a witch-hunt to burn the heretic - take it to the authorities with the capability to dispense the correct justice. That, good sir, is principle. But taking the law into your own hands when you have correct avenues is definitely not.

And, congratulations to whomever has a 35m SP forum alt. You're one luck person even with such a bad skill spread as mine

A: I'm not an alt, simply between corps atm.

B: Stabbing someone in the back on the basis of "Principles" hardly seems like a morally sound place to stand.

The "official" part has been taken care of. I'm discussing the topic in general. Can one ignore rules even if there is debate about them just because it doesn't sit well in their opinion AND hold such an office? I'm not taking any "law into my hands" as I cannot do anything.

No, apart from slandering him when your claims have not been proven or handled by the authorities with the right to do so. You're more like that member of parliament than I gave you credit for.

If you'd wanted to discuss the topic in general you wouldn't have mentioned the individual.

Fact is, you're on a witch-hunt looking for some quick, vigilante justice to try and do as much harm through your words as you possibly can. I find that behavior deplorable. Done with you and your kind.

If that is what he did, poor taste for his part and may he be punished by the GM in accordance with whatever rules apply.

But a having a private conversation, either 1v1 or in a small group, in which you then take a persons statements they did not intend for public display and use them to try and publicly shame them, is not something to be ignored.

You might not be that good of a writer, but you have submitted and released several pieces to various game news sites. Any degree of journalism imparts an obligation not to release information spoken with any expectation of confidence. Although this was not directly related to any article, releasing incriminating private logs in which you took part and solicited is still a serious breach of etiquette.

Journalism is about exposing things like this if you want to go in that angle.

Would you be as upset if I exposed a botter or any other EULA breaker? Of course not.

Edit: Anyway this isn't about his guilt or innocence, this is about the over all principle of the discussion. You're the one focusing on one guy where as i'm discussing an over arching issue.

Journalism is about exposing things like this if you want to go in that angle.

Would you be as upset if I exposed a botter or any other EULA breaker? Of course not.

If you used the same method you just did then tried to justify it, yeah I would be.

A journalist is held to a high standard of ethics and accountability.
A paparazzi is not.

And intentional violations of confidence are among the worst breaks from that ethical code that do not result in physical harm (disclosing names, locations, or identifying information that could result in violent retaliation against that person)


But since you seem to think that this is on a different subject altogether, exactly what do you think the issue is?
That someone imitated you? Boo-hoo, this is not the place for it. Take it to a GM, or the C&P section, where they deal with stuff like that. But you brought your accusations to GD, then proceeded to try and play the innocent as to your own role.

I'm confident that the GM's will deal with any issues that arise from the alleged impersonation. All I see here though is a chance to chew someone out for throwing stones in a glass house.

I'm sure the GMs will do their job well enough. But this thread isn't for them. It's for the every day individual discussing the ethical character of CSM candidates in general. You can continue to white knight the guy all you want, but that's not what the thread is about.

I'm sure the GMs will do their job well enough. But this thread isn't for them. It's for the every day individual discussing the ethical character of CSM candidates in general.

You can continue to white knight the guy all you want, but that's not what the thread is about.

This Jayne guy sounds like a total ******* tbh.

But you don't start a reasonable discussion about candidates by calling one out and accusing them of breaking the EULA.

And this thread is far too polluted to even attempt a reasonable discussion.

Go start a new one, start it out as a reasonable discussion thread about CSM candidates, don't call anyone out in the OP, then pretend to be someone else and sneak a discussion about it in after 3-4 posts as a "concerned eve citizen" on an alt. Like any good mudracker who knows how not to get the blowback.

Ethical character? Are you serious? Firstly this is Eve, pretty much anything goes as long as it doesn't break the EULA or ToS, which as far as I can see hasn't happened, implicating someone is not the same as impersonation. Secondly the CSM are basically politicians, neither knows the meaning of ethics

What is it about then? All I see is some airing of dirty laundry in public and a bucketful of imagined butthut.

I for one think Jayne can manage to sabotage his own campaign with ineptitude without help.

That 8 page article on the TMC pretending to be an authority on carriers and everything wrong with their fleet using in nullsec, while at the same time being ignorant of basic carrier mechanics like refitting drones into drone bays and an admitted lack of experience with capitals basically punched him off my list for any potential vote.

But issues like EULA violations are really not something to be judged by the masses. Especially not when the source is someone with a grudge and potentially dodgy pastebin conversations.

There is a politician here in NZ who has been levelling all sorts of accusations against a rather large, multi-national Supermarket chain. What he says may have some truth to it. It may be entirely false - at the moment it's too early in the piece to tell.

But, what makes him interesting is that he is only willing to make these accusations in parliament, where he is protected against any defamation or related claims. He's thus far refused to repeat himself in public outside of parliament. At least, that was the state when I last saw something related to this. Typical Labour candidate, to my mind, playing politics instead of actually focussing on what is important.

What are your thoughts?