Always been a headset person rather than a separate mic person, because I've seen just how embarassing sounds from the rest of the world can be over comms.

Whether the mic is set off by someone's partner telling them 'Get off that game and get into bed', or someone's mother yelling 'Hurry up and do the dishes now', or a tornado siren, I've heard too many ridiculous noises transmitted to ever use anything but a headset.

Sabriz:

I'll start this off on the wrong foot, but please read it through. :)

I hate CODE. I think they're extortionist griefers and it is only because EVE is the sandbox that it is that I don't think they should be banned entirely. They say they produce content, and in fairness they certainly do, but it is not the kind of content that I care to participate in.

Having said that, despite much of my heart railing against this, your thread here has shown you to be a thoughtful person, I think, with some very intriguing ideas, complex and nuanced enough so that my heart's argument of, "She's just a CODE griefer! Ignore her!" just isn't fair and won't wash.. So, despite your background, I find myself following you and seriously considering you.

How's that for a ringing endorsement? :)

Space has become littered with abandoned POS structures. What is your position on getting rid of them? I'd like to see, perhaps, a orbital degrading mechanic once the fuel is gone. This, then would open up the moons for pilots that will actually use them. The current mechanic, of course, involves Wardec-ing a possibly abandoned Corp and then sitting there for an extended period of time blapping the structures. I think something better is quite possible.

The only reason ganking is presently profitable is the total and utter lack of concern most freighter pilots in highsec have for their own safety. If freighter pilots become more dilligent we simply will not be able to kill them profitably.

To use a roleplaying analogy, in-game I'm chaotic evil.

IRL, I'm chaotic good.

However, when the consequences of chaotic evil behaviour are limited to space pixels (i.e. outside RL), chaotic evil characters make for a much more interesting world.

This.

Or, you may have no concerns whatsoever about mining, but you might desire to increase sales of the Hulks you build.

What can be done to manage expectations of safety in high-sec?

That benefit you mention is legitimate and something I hadn't considered as I tend to handle that AFK checking in different ways. I would be in favor of an AFK flag in corp or alliance. For local, I see little merit either way.

That's an incredibly simple view to take on complex issues. Ideas should be looked at for their individual positives and negatives, even if it reduces conflict. Following your idea, some pretty important changes would not have been made, not least of which the recent jump changes which most certainly reduced conflict. Sorry, but views like that are as likely to spell the end of EVE as the completely opposite view where any change that increases conflict should be rejected.

Have I mentioned that this idiot is the day to day leadership of my corp? :)

As someone that briefly played WOW, I can confirm that this feature is useful in groups that are both voluntary to join and expected to remain consistently active (so useful for fleets, but not corp/alliance wide, as corps/alliances often have people who are online, docked/POSsed and AFK).

The WOW feature in question is very obtrusive (it takes your client's focus and must be clicked through to move on). It would need to be unobtrusive in EVE, otherwise spies in blob fights will spam it at bad times, such as 0.25-2 seconds after someone broadcasts for reps and screams in voice "break break, my Nyx is at 15% structure". I'm for spies having disruptive tools to use in fights, but they should not be based upon restricting the abilities of other players to communicate with their game client.

Corp thieves are more dangerous and much harder to defend against.

And hey, genius, they aren't changing how corp thieves work, so it's not going to be "a lot harder" to catch them, it's going to be just as difficult as it ever was.

Serious question:
You often make the claim that highsec is not supposed to be the early game, when compared to low, null and wormhole space and isn't something you grow out of, it's a section of space in it's own right. At the same time however you state that high level PVE should be nerfed in highsec and put into lowsec more - like moving L4 missions into lowsec for example.

So why is it you think that for PVE, highsec should just be a starter area, while for PvP it should be the full game? Surely if highsec is a whole game area, it should cater to all levels of play for both PvE and PvP, thus things such as level 5 missions should occur fully in highsec too. Or if PvE players are supposed to move on to higher levels of PvE outside of highsec, that PvP players should have to move on too.

Marmite calm down.

Clothe Tora Bushido

Updated the third post with a recommended voting order. This is subject to change if other exceptional candidates are brought to my attention; or, for that matter, if other fair or good candidates want to make a cross-endorsement deal.

You have a lot of good points and suggestions for how CCP should go forward with the hisec changes, and out of all the candidates flying under the "we want a better hisec" banner, I feel your proposals stick to the spirit of what Eve is about.

I do have a couple questions, and forgive me if you've been asked them earlier, but I just want to know your opinions on two things hisec related in particular.

So the first thing I'd like to hear was what your stance on ganking is in it's current state. I'm sure you have some form of opinion on this since you're in the most (in)famous ganking alliance. Imo, ganking is a very legitimate play style, but is somewhat risk adverse, as you go in fully aware that you're going to be losing the ship you're flying, and as a result there is little to no risk to the ganker. I was wondering if you have a plan to add risk to ganking or if you disagree and feel ganking is in a good place as is.

Secondly, I feel as though non-FW lowsec is, for the most part, pretty dead compared to hisec. Part of the problem I feel stems from the fact that there is little reason for hisec bears to move into low when the risk outweighs the reward, for example, how miners can make equal amounts of money mining in a 0.8 system as they could mining in a 0.3 system. I was wondering if you have an opinion to the lack of reward vs risk that non-combat oriented playstyles have in lowsec, and if so, how you would change it if you could.

Most or all of the incumbents seeking re-election for CSM X are easily worth voting for.

That depends on what your definition of content creator is. Sabriz seems to have a blinkered view, as if any change which doesn't promote CODEs ability to shoot newbies is automatically not content creation, as if shooting a bunch of mining barges piloted by players who generally have no clue what they are doing is actually worthwhile content to support.

Sabriz and Tora both stand out in that they both represent an important and historically underrepresented playstyle.

Which is all perfectly fine. The problem is that your ideas don't respect their ability to counter you attempts to fight them on their own terms.

When did I ever say that? I'm certainly not advocating passive defense. In this particular instance we're not even talking ganking, we're talking wardecs. I don't believe a wardec should lock you in and force you to fight with guns to get out.

And I agree. People should use decently fit ships, ECM drones and evasion to not get ganked. That said, I think ganking is too static. I like Black Pedro's idea that concord response times should vary for example, so sometimes you only get 10 secs, sometimes you get 50 for example. I also think the shocking overuse of catalysts highlights a balance issue there. I'd like to see a larger variety of ships and fits able to be used for various reasons. At no point will you ever find me saying that ganking should be removed or passive defense should be the way forward. Hell, I want freighters to be given more active and less passive defense methods specifically because they are too passive.

So yeah, if that's what you've managed to get from what Iv'e said, you very much misunderstand. I just don't think every situation needs to be resolved by fighting it out with guns. Some players don't like that playstyle, and that's OK.

James 315, Psychotic Monk and a few others but those are the two I can name.

Whilst the highsec predator community are often dishonest to outsiders, we aren't dishonest to each other (and Monk in particular took that as an absolute principle).

Personally I feel the new AWOX settings are potentially hazardous because if we accidentally shoot a corpie then CONCORD will come and kill us. So I will be leaving it as 'unsafe' as before.

And before someone points it out I know I'm the only girl in my corporation. I'm speaking theoretically.

And you were instrumental in a dismal failure to organise creative content for players against incursions.

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=366607

This is the extent of your skills? If you cannot convenience villains to be evil then how will you convenience CSM or CCP that your view has any merit.?

Its been nice that your friends have assisted answering questions for your campaign, but is that really an viable option at a summit? Maybe you can keep asking for a toilet break to batphone through to James315 for the "real answer".

Here's an image of a kitten to thank my voters.

http://ashcreekanimalclinic.com/clients/14298/images/kitten10.jpg

That kitten really hopes I get elected.

Well Sabriz did understand what I was asking and the answer I received was satisfactory. But since you did not, I have since edited it for clarity. Note especially for you, it was typed slowly, you don't read very fast if you takes days to notice.

Of course you can't, but then from a CODE member who quite publicly has some kind of personal problem with me trying to push for a CODE candidate, I hardly expect you to be objective. Didn't you block me already?

At the end of the day, people can take it how they want. Clearly that guy takes it as a bad sign, and while I may not entirely agree, I can understand why he sees it that way. Personally I think the problem with Sabriz isn't the level of work he'd put in, it's that he'd actively refuse to consider opposing styles of play to his own as even valid, let alone deserving of any positive changes.