I thought these things were just agreements between the party members themselves, not an actual physical code that has consequences. If it is a code, then what is the point of even having a Cabinet when everyone will just have the same vote and public opinion?

False. Information is an objective quantity and quality. You either have it, or you don't.

It doesn't matter.
The victim does not get to decide what is against the rules, nor what punitive measures an authority takes against someone who breaks its rules.

This is super-elementary stuff. I can't begin to tell you how disappointing it is to be reminded of the fact that some people lack even this absolutely basic and fundamental understanding of how these things work, and why.

That's not what "non-sequitur" means.

Are you, Lucas Kell, able to rationally separate games from reality?

Variant 3 - CCP had previously decided the situation was fine but due to bad publicity brought on by the Vice Chair of the CSM making absurd statements, decided to take action against a single player to stem the wound. (note, majority of it's consumers has yet be de demonstrated, it's a couple of hundred at most).

Should CCP operate under fair rules and provided oversight on what those views entail to allow all players to make educated decisions in game rather than guessing and hoping (you know, like they do for all the other rules, and did up until now on their third party comms rules)?

Answer:Yes

This is like arguing with children.
Incredible that adults can be so ignorant, and speaks volumes to the importance of education.

And whats really funny, is that nothing you do, will change CCPs Statement.
Deal with it.

I am aware of what it means, and yes, I am able to

Please explain your reasoning.

This is like arguing with children.
Incredible that adults can be so ignorant, and speaks volumes to the importance of education.

And whats really funny, is that nothing you do, will change CCPs Statement.
Deal with it.

That's what usually happened when someone resorts to personal attacks. I can justify everything i've said.

I have already done so in text.

If you require further elaboration, we can take this outside

You made the statements. You did not explain your reasoning in any way.
Making a statement does not equate to explaining your reasoning to make that statement.

That's 2 with other words. To state that CCP will bow to absurd claims alone with out any other reasons is not valid. CCP previously denied other players sits in CSM, if I'm not mistaken. You didn't quote the addendum, wonder way?

What is fair or not is a matter of opinion. CCP doesn't have to abide to your understanding of fair. You have your right to ***** and moan about it, even on the CCP forums if CCP allows you too .

P.S. Do you enjoy trying to spin everything about? Is this your choice of meta-gaming? Well, it looks that you are losing .

Thats all I wanna know so I know who to report.

CCP need to weigh up whether the decisions they make will cause too much outcry.

No, its what happens when the other person in a discussion is incapable or unwilling, for one reason or another, to reciprocate in discussion.

You are dishonest in your argumentation. If you wish to continue, we can do so in voice, where you will be forced to unilaterally reciprocate in a live situation, which you are currently avoiding in a text based one.

I have already explained and justified everything I have said. If you require elaboration, we can do so in a direct live situation.
Just state the time and place.

I'm not sure if you understand the words you are stating at this point.

You have not justified the things i have been asking you about.

This is like arguing with children.
Incredible that adults can be so ignorant, and speaks volumes to the importance of education.

And whats really funny, is that nothing you do, will change CCPs Statement.
Deal with it.

Yes, I agree.

And the lack of "too much outcry" as a result of their decisions, shows they have taken the right course.
The CSM support it.
The community at large supports it (as evidenced by lack of outcry).
I support it.

I alone am sufficient to mitigate your "outcry". You have somekind of problem with the Statement that is known ambiguously only to you (and nobody else cares about). Fine. I, however, counter your vote of dissent, with my own vote of approval.

So your "outcry" has been negated.

Yeah okay then please explain

Reality is that you just argue for the sake of arguing. Whatever stance people had in this thread you'd argue against it.

Please explain your reasoning.

No, that's not 2 with other words, because your 2 states "the majority of its costumers/potential costumers", which is false. It's a vocal minority that are in support. Unless you can evidence at least 25000 different people being in support. And I didn;t feel the addendum was relevant to my quote.

And what is all this bullshit about losing? You can't "lose" at having an opinion. If CCP chooses not to change a thing, they have every right to do so, but that won't change my opinion about the situation. People on this forum are so eager to be able to go "look at me, look how right I am, look how wrong the other guy is MUA HA HA HA HA", grow the **** up. It's not about being right or wrong, it's all subjective. Some people support this change, others don't. CCP need to weigh up whether the decisions they make will cause too much outcry. People being free and able to voice their opinions on the matter allow them to make those decisions in an informed manner.

False.

I have explained all my reasoning.

It is what I have been taught to do.
State your argument, then explain it and furthermore, if possible, add evidence to support it.
I have done so on every point I have made.
Is this an unfamiliar format for you? Its generally a REQUIRED format for passing any kind of intellectual hurdle, from exams, to essays, to informed and structured discussion.

By that logic, I submit that you should never have been born, and should not be playing EVE.

.....

Ask CCP.

I am not in a position to answer questions that only CCP can.

If you have explained all your reasoning already, then it shouldn't be too hard for you to explain your reasoning again right?

Ahhh, the "I know you are so what am I?" defence.

Okay lets try it this way, do you think ero was the only one that should have been punished, or do you believe everyone involved should have been punished too?

Snip

Ahhh, the "I know you are so what am I?" defence.

LOL

He's turning our debate into a preschool ***** slinging contest.

It's pretty obvious he has no idea what he's doing. Maybe he's a youngster aspiring to one day be a lawyer. But for now he really needs to work on qualifying his statements. He either doesn't understand how to or what it even means.