Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
Angrod Losshelin
Oath of the Forsaken WormHole Occupation and Resource Exploitation
91
|
Posted - 2014.12.09 00:03:43 -
[1] - Quote
Election Platform: W-Space PVE and PVP, Multiboxer Representation, and New Players in W-Space.
Platform Tenets:
Top Priority:
Quote:
- Corporation Roles
POS roles need changed very very badly. (more roles, better organization)
Recruit template for mails to recruiters. (AKA send mail to recruiters button)
Remove GÇ£shareGÇ¥ system that is useless and completely outdated. Replace with IWIN button.
The ability for CEO or designated directors to remove all roles from all players or a GÇ£clear buttonGÇ¥ which will make role reorganizing alot easier.
- Mining in W-Space (gas and ore)
Turning Ore Sites back into Scan Sigs
Reducing the Gas gap in profitability
- New Players in W-Space
Get Wormholes on the NPE (new player experience)
More CCP publicity
Better bonuses to T1 Scanning Frigs
More of this.
- Multi-Boxing
Increased PR for Multiboxers and their community
Support from multiboxers for legitimate CCP concerns
Better representation for multiboxers with CCP
Benefits to CCP from multiboxers
Better ways to restrict "problem boxing".
Lower Priority:
Quote:
- WH recruiting restrictions
Remove archaic requirement for stations in regards to recruiting.
Diversify type of WH space in recruiting tab.
C6 space is vastly different than C1 space.
- Multi-Boxing
Reducing false positive reports from players come Jan 1.
Increased CCP support for multiple accounts or alts.
- Little Things
Saving settings and window locations with the ability to share that across all accounts on this machine or make them linkable to others.
Ability to change the color scheme of each window individually.
ISIS for modules. Enough said.
You are more than welcome to contact me via in-game mail or on this forum. I plan on running until my legs stop working or my lungs do.
Check out my PodCast:-áhttp://praisebobpodcast.blogspot.com/
Also checkout these other PodCasts: http://evepodcasts.com/
|
Jayne Fillon
444
|
Posted - 2014.12.09 00:06:56 -
[2] - Quote
A new name is always welcome, and this is the first time I think anyone has run with multiboxing in their platform.
Should be fun to watch the fireworks at the very least.
Can't shoot blues if you don't have any. Long Live NPSI.
|
Angrod Losshelin
Oath of the Forsaken WormHole Occupation and Resource Exploitation
91
|
Posted - 2014.12.09 00:08:43 -
[3] - Quote
Jayne Fillon wrote:and this is the first time I think anyone has run with multiboxing in their platform.
Thank you! I agree if nothing else this will shine a light on a part of eve that many either hate with little to no information or ignore completely.
Check out my Podcast!
CSM X: Candidate - Wormholes, Multiboxing, and New Bro's!
|
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
4423
|
Posted - 2014.12.09 00:48:18 -
[4] - Quote
You do know that, with Rhea, no station is required for recruiting people?
When you say multi-boxing, are you meaning: Running multiple accounts at the same time (I have three accounts. I use them at the same time. I'm far from unusual on the CSM) or Running multiple accounts at the same time, using third party software.
Woo! CSM 9!
Fuzzwork Enterprises
Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter
|
Lanctharus Onzo
Alea Iacta Est Universal Brave Collective
54
|
Posted - 2014.12.09 03:27:18 -
[5] - Quote
Well hello there!
My name is Lanctharus Onzo and I am one of the co-host and writers of the Cap Stable Podcast.
In early 2014 our podcast interviewed a great majority of the candidates for CSM9 and we will be doing the same for CSM10.
Here is our announcement: http://capstable.net/2014/12/01/council-of-stellar-management-x-call-for-candidate-interviews/
As we stated in the announcement, you can contact us to schedule your one on one interview via any of the following methods:
Email: [email protected] Twitter: @CapStable Or via our contact form
We look forward to speaking to you about your particular skill set and expertise in EVE Online and we hope you success in your candidacy.
Sincerely,
Lanctharus Onzo Co-host & Writer of the Cap Stable Podcast Military Director, Alea Iacta Est Universal
Writer, Co-host of the Cap Stable Podcast
Twitter: @Lanctharus
|
Angrod Losshelin
Oath of the Forsaken WormHole Occupation and Resource Exploitation
91
|
Posted - 2014.12.09 04:42:51 -
[6] - Quote
Steve Ronuken wrote: You do know that, with Rhea, no station is required for recruiting people?
A character can create a new application to join a corporation from anywhere. (Previously could applications could only be submitted whilst docked in a station)
You are correct, I wrote this up and have been working on it for quite a while now. Thank you for the correction.
Steve Ronuken wrote:
When you say multi-boxing, are you meaning: Running multiple accounts at the same time (I have three accounts. I use them at the same time. I'm far from unusual on the CSM) or Running multiple accounts at the same time, using third party software.
I have multiboxed eve since almost the beginning with more than one account. Then three, now I have started utilizing third party software and am up to 7.
As a multi-boxer this simply means more than one account. Over half of eve's players are multi-boxers but don't necessarily consider themselves as such. Let me put this out there right now. I support the upcoming broadcasting changes, but most of the multi-boxing community feels misrepresented and their playstyle has come into question and attack with little to no response from CCP.
I feel all multi-boxers should be represented correctly and communication between some of this games most devout supporters and it's developers needs to happen. This change actually affects me very little, but it affects some dedicated players a great deal.
Third party software can be considered any mouse with a program or hotkey build it. Those mice with multiple buttons that you can map to eve...thats third party software. Either way, third party software has a huge impact on this game and there is not a single player that does not use it to affect their game play.
The issue is how the third party software is beign used and how it affects players. Some believe stuff like siggy and unsupported cache scrapping like Eve Central (agaisnt the EULA) is ok and some don't just like some dont agree will third party multiboxing software. There simply needs to be representation. I hope to be that.
Not everyone will agree I just hope enough do to let me help the community communicate better.
Check out my Podcast!
CSM X: Candidate - Wormholes, Multiboxing, and New Bro's!
|
Angrod Losshelin
Oath of the Forsaken WormHole Occupation and Resource Exploitation
91
|
Posted - 2014.12.09 04:43:55 -
[7] - Quote
Lanctharus Onzo wrote:Well hello there! My name is Lanctharus Onzo and I am one of the co-host and writers of the Cap Stable Podcast. In early 2014 our podcast interviewed a great majority of the candidates for CSM9 and we will be doing the same for CSM10. Here is our announcement: http://capstable.net/2014/12/01/council-of-stellar-management-x-call-for-candidate-interviews/ As we stated in the announcement, you can contact us to schedule your one on one interview via any of the following methods: Email: [email protected]Twitter: @CapStableOr via our contact formWe look forward to speaking to you about your particular skill set and expertise in EVE Online and we hope you success in your candidacy. Sincerely, Lanctharus Onzo Co-host & Writer of the Cap Stable Podcast Military Director, Alea Iacta Est Universal
I plan on attending. As a podcaster myself I am grateful you exist!
Check out my Podcast!
CSM X: Candidate - Wormholes, Multiboxing, and New Bro's!
|
Angrod Losshelin
Oath of the Forsaken
94
|
Posted - 2014.12.16 21:26:36 -
[8] - Quote
http://www.bobinmyhole.com/angrod-for-csm/ has been updated with some more information. Mainly my view and idea for WH is the new player Experience and POS related corporation roles.
Check out my Podcast!
CSM X: Candidate - Wormholes, Multiboxing, and New Bro's!
|
Proclus Diadochu
Isogen 5
1881
|
Posted - 2014.12.17 08:36:20 -
[9] - Quote
Angrod,
Currently brushing up on my "Praise Bob" episodes, and really enjoying the podcast. I'm looking forward to hearing your interviews and following your campaign. I'm glad we have a couple wormhole players running currently. Keep trucking along and I hope that your campaign goes well. Best of luck!
Irrelevant | Twitter: @autoritare
E-mail: [email protected]
My Blog: http://diogenes-club.blogspot.com/
The Diogenes Club | Join W-Space | Down The Pipe
|
BeBopAReBop RhubarbPie
The Conference Elite CODE.
1230
|
Posted - 2014.12.17 12:14:29 -
[10] - Quote
I'm very interested in your platform, especially anything that will make W-Space accessible to new players. You've mentioned a few things about roles. I completely agree that the system is in need of improvements, but are you committed to keeping corp theft viable as a profession? I know its a bit off your platform, but what is your opinion on the discussion of removing intra-corp agression in high sec?
New player resources:
Uni Wiki - General Info
Eve Altruist - PvP
Belligerent Undesirables - High Sec Pvp
|
|
Angrod Losshelin
Oath of the Forsaken
94
|
Posted - 2014.12.17 19:15:23 -
[11] - Quote
I feel that intra corp "combat" or aggression is more than viable and will remain so. I do not feel that adding ease of use or logical changes to the current role system should be postponed in regards to no changing current intra-corp aggression tactics.
Awoxing will always exist, corp theft will always exist. I would simply prefer the ability to actually control my role system logically rather than with the limited options they currently provide.
In wormhole space specifically intra-corp aggression is a very real and dangerous thing to CEO's and new corps. It destroys dreams and turns more people away from this game then should be. There are game mechanics flaws that pander to making corp theft amazingly easy. Where as safety becomes increasingly expensive and logistically insane. I think with the resolution of these game mechanics issues we will have a decrease in small time corp thefts and an increase in much larger schemes and thefts. Mainly due to lower totem pilots who think they can just enter and take **** their first week or so will die off rapidly, but as directors and corporate espionage professionals realize that the corp is increasing in wealth instead of having it taken over and over again they will be more and more tempted to disappear into the night with more valuable loots and isk.
Check out my Podcast!
CSM X: Candidate - Wormholes, Multiboxing, and New Bro's!
|
Angrod Losshelin
Oath of the Forsaken
94
|
Posted - 2014.12.17 19:16:20 -
[12] - Quote
Proclus Diadochu wrote:Angrod,
Currently brushing up on my "Praise Bob" episodes, and really enjoying the podcast. I'm looking forward to hearing your interviews and following your campaign. I'm glad we have a couple wormhole players running currently. Keep trucking along and I hope that your campaign goes well. Best of luck!
Thank you for your vote of confidence!
Check out my Podcast!
CSM X: Candidate - Wormholes, Multiboxing, and New Bro's!
|
Angrod Losshelin
Oath of the Forsaken Half Massed
100
|
Posted - 2014.12.22 18:01:04 -
[13] - Quote
http://www.bobinmyhole.com/angrod-for-csm/ has some Scanning Rig changes that I would love to support. Nothing earth shattering but still increasing new players usefulness to WH space.
Check out my Podcast!
CSM X: Candidate - Wormholes, Multiboxing, and New Bro's!
|
Proclus Diadochu
Isogen 5
1888
|
Posted - 2014.12.23 00:50:28 -
[14] - Quote
In reply to your blog post:
@ Scanning Rigs - While this is something I'd currently consider a little thing in the scheme of things, as most players in the wormhole community at this time aren't likely to be the sort flying T1 frigates, I see that your vision for NPE toward wormholes would mean this adjustment for Scanning Rigs for those newer players.
First, thoughts on NPE:
I'm not against NPE to wormholes across the board, but I don't see wormholes in general as a new player experience, nor do I want it to become something that is easy enough for any new player to experience. Wormholes and the mechanical understanding required to live in them is somewhere after the learning curve (Corp/POS management, fittings, implants, drugs, various and relatively more difficult PVE/PVP, fleet and ship management, etc) and although wormholes have become easier over the years, with help from training, documenting, and third-party tools, I don't want to theme park the experience. So to that end, I'm of the opinion that NPE for wormholes should be reviewed and developed very carefully as to not end the frontier completely.
As far as the rig changes, this is fine.
@ Wormhole NPE - At one point last year I talked about how it would be nice for CCP to create tutorial missions in the exploration side that would allow players to probe down a generated wormhole that would lead to a specific mission area somewhere and allow them to complete a mission against Sleepers. It would likely conflict with lore, unless worked around, and would have to be limited to maybe the player who generated the mission, or those in fleet/gang with him/her to prevent nastiness. That or make the mission area "highsec" rules, which I don't care for unless the plan would be to have different level missions that allow players to work up to the dangerous level of wormholes, where the higher wormhole "missions" would be -1.0, no local, and anyone could scan down. Not sure on this, as I've said, I don't feel wormholes are NPE. But, I'm irrelevant :P
@ POS Mechanics - I've been setting up/tearing down/infiltrating POS's in wormholes for a long time, and at this point, I say to let CCP develop a permanent fix to address all current concerns and not waste any development time on band-aids. That's all.
@ Multiboxing - You quote:
Quote:As a multi-boxer this simply means more than one account. Over half of eveGÇÖs players are multi-boxers but donGÇÖt necessarily consider themselves as such. I don't agree with this statement, as many wouldn't. It isn't an accurate statement. A multiboxer is someone who actively plays multiple accounts at the same time. I have many accounts, and I am only multiboxing if I play more than one at a time. That is the definition of multiboxing.
multi-account =/= multi-box
That said, mutliboxing is a playing style, and since all playing styles should be considered, so as long as they adhere to the EULA/TOS, I appreciate your concern with representation to a familiar playstyle. To each their own :)
Edit: Spelling
Irrelevant | Twitter: @autoritare
E-mail: [email protected]
My Blog: http://diogenes-club.blogspot.com/
The Diogenes Club | Join W-Space | Down The Pipe
|
Angrod Losshelin
Oath of the Forsaken Half Massed
100
|
Posted - 2014.12.23 23:53:22 -
[15] - Quote
Proclus Diadochu wrote:
@ Scanning Rigs - While this is something I'd currently consider a little thing in the scheme of things, as most players in the wormhole community at this time aren't likely to be the sort flying T1 frigates, I see that your vision for NPE toward wormholes would mean this adjustment for Scanning Rigs for those newer players.
Yes, exactly.
Proclus Diadochu wrote:
First, thoughts on NPE:
I'm not against NPE to wormholes across the board, but I don't see wormholes in general as a new player experience, nor do I want it to become something that is easy enough for any new player to experience. Wormholes and the mechanical understanding required to live in them is somewhere after the learning curve (Corp/POS management, fittings, implants, drugs, various and relatively more difficult PVE/PVP, fleet and ship management, etc) and although wormholes have become easier over the years, with help from training, documenting, and third-party tools, I don't want to theme park the experience. So to that end, I'm of the opinion that NPE for wormholes should be reviewed and developed very carefully as to not end the frontier completely.
I do not want to see WH space become anything less than it is, I simply want an increase in people to shoot. What better way to do that then to expose our awesome slice of space to new bro's
Proclus Diadochu wrote:
@ Wormhole NPE - At one point last year I talked about how it would be nice for CCP to create tutorial missions in the exploration side that would allow players to probe down a generated wormhole that would lead to a specific mission area somewhere and allow them to complete a mission against Sleepers. It would likely conflict with lore, unless worked around, and would have to be limited to maybe the player who generated the mission, or those in fleet/gang with him/her to prevent nastiness. That or make the mission area "highsec" rules, which I don't care for unless the plan would be to have different level missions that allow players to work up to the dangerous level of wormholes, where the higher wormhole "missions" would be -1.0, no local, and anyone could scan down. Not sure on this, as I've said, I don't feel wormholes are NPE. But, I'm irrelevant :P
I think this would be best handled in an "instanced" or roomed WH for new players. Something non exploitable.
Proclus Diadochu wrote:
@ POS Mechanics - I've been setting up/tearing down/infiltrating POS's in wormholes for a long time, and at this point, I say to let CCP develop a permanent fix to address all current concerns and not waste any development time on band-aids. That's all.
I agree, and with the new Proteus patch announcements this looks to be happening, but we will have to wait and see if this actually resolves all of the issues.
Proclus Diadochu wrote:
@ Multiboxing - You quote:
I don't agree with this statement, as many wouldn't. It isn't an accurate statement. A multiboxer is someone who actively plays multiple accounts at the same time. I have many accounts, and I am only multiboxing if I play more than one at a time. That is the definition of multiboxing.
multi-account =/= multi-box
That said, mutliboxing is a playing style, and since all playing styles should be considered, so as long as they adhere to the EULA/TOS, I appreciate your concern with representation to a familiar playstyle. To each their own :)
I can agree with that statement, however, how many accounts do people have without actually using them at the same time?
Either way, I want to follow the EULA as well but I will argue against any EULA that restricts my gameplay outside of my bounds of reason. I'll follow it, but that doesn't mean I have to agree with it.
With that being said, the current changes are acceptable if they are explained. The main concern for alot of multi-boxers is that this will not solve any issues, so whats next? That's what most are afraid of, as am I. CCP's reputation with taking the ax to an issue that needs surgery is well known and feared with good reason.
Check out my Podcast!
CSM X: Candidate - Wormholes, Multiboxing, and New Bro's!
|
Angrod Losshelin
Oath of the Forsaken Half Massed
100
|
Posted - 2015.01.05 22:01:35 -
[16] - Quote
Well after the holidays and being sick as a space hooker on labor day I am back and ready to go! I will be updating the blog shortly with some more points and campaign arguments.
Check out my Podcast!
CSM X: Candidate - Wormholes, Multiboxing, and New Bro's!
|
Angrod Losshelin
Oath of the Forsaken Half Massed
100
|
Posted - 2015.01.05 22:18:28 -
[17] - Quote
Angrod Losshelin wrote:Well after the holidays and being sick as a space hooker on labor day I am back and ready to go! I will be updating the blog shortly with some more points and campaign arguments.
http://warptozero.net/index.php?topic=85.msg817#msg817 check this forum out for alot of cool replies from your CSM candidates including the beautiful me!
Check out my Podcast!
CSM X: Candidate - Wormholes, Multiboxing, and New Bro's!
|
GeeShizzle MacCloud
508
|
Posted - 2015.01.05 23:02:50 -
[18] - Quote
i guess i am technically part of the multiboxer community as you so eloquently describe and i definitely do NOT feel misrepresented at all. in fact i feel happy with the Jan 1st changes and if anything am more content with CCPs current approach and general attitude to the changed TOS and EULA than previously.
Not wanting to rain on your parade or anything...
though have to say good on you for finding a USP to separate yourself from the crowd of CSM hopefuls. |
Angrod Losshelin
Oath of the Forsaken Half Massed
100
|
Posted - 2015.01.05 23:19:08 -
[19] - Quote
GeeShizzle MacCloud wrote:i guess i am technically part of the multiboxer community as you so eloquently describe and i definitely do NOT feel misrepresented at all. in fact i feel happy with the Jan 1st changes and if anything am more content with CCPs current approach and general attitude to the changed TOS and EULA than previously.
Not wanting to rain on your parade or anything...
though have to say good on you for finding a USP to separate yourself from the crowd of CSM hopefuls.
I am glad you are happy for the changes. I agree it pulls more out of the grey area than was previously, but it also caused alot of issues and generated more questions that simply need answered.
Check out my Podcast!
CSM X: Candidate - Wormholes, Multiboxing, and New Bro's!
|
GeeShizzle MacCloud
508
|
Posted - 2015.01.05 23:54:22 -
[20] - Quote
Angrod Losshelin wrote: I am glad you are happy for the changes. I agree it pulls more out of the grey area than was previously, but it also caused alot of issues and generated more questions that simply need answered.
Well if your interests in bringing 3rd party multiboxing issues to CCP is to further reduce the area of grey that lies between what's for and against the TOS and EULA for the purposes of closing any loopholes that may potentially exist then i could support that. But if you're gunning for finding loopholes to exploit, then that's more than objectionable in my eyes.
However such a venture would not be outside the spirit of previous ventures by many eve players, some might say it can be said to somewhat define an eve online player from other MMO's or multiplayer games. |
|
Angrod Losshelin
Oath of the Forsaken Half Massed
101
|
Posted - 2015.01.09 18:58:47 -
[21] - Quote
GeeShizzle MacCloud wrote:Angrod Losshelin wrote: I am glad you are happy for the changes. I agree it pulls more out of the grey area than was previously, but it also caused alot of issues and generated more questions that simply need answered.
Well if your interests in bringing 3rd party multiboxing issues to CCP is to further reduce the area of grey that lies between what's for and against the TOS and EULA for the purposes of closing any loopholes that may potentially exist then i could support that. But if you're gunning for finding loopholes to exploit, then that's more than objectionable in my eyes. However such a venture would not be outside the spirit of previous ventures by many eve players, some might say it can be said to somewhat define an eve online player from other MMO's or multiplayer games.
Honestly, most exploits exist because of loopholes created with shoddy or incomplete definitions. At the same time CCP runs into the issue of over defining and by extension "defining" accepted exploits. This is kind of what happened originally with IS boxer and 3rd party programs. They have specifically said multi-boxing is allow but removed a tool from multi-boxers. While I understand their ability to do so they have failed, and it seems on purpose, to adequately define the limitations and complete reasoning behind the changes.
Multi-boxers are generally extremely worried about keeping their accounts active, which means following the rules. We need these better defined or we risk losing our hard earned accounts. Loopholes are bad because they become widespread and then become accepted and then we run into the same issue, CCP changes their minds, and people either get angry, lose accounts, or quit the game.
We want definition, the majority of multi-boxers I have spoken with simply want to know why and what they can do. Most is clearly defined but alot is not.
Check out my Podcast!
CSM X: Candidate - Wormholes, Multiboxing, and New Bro's!
|
Lanctharus Onzo
Alea Iacta Est Universal Brave Collective
80
|
Posted - 2015.01.12 08:31:29 -
[22] - Quote
Angrod Losshelin wrote:Lanctharus Onzo wrote:Well hello there! My name is Lanctharus Onzo and I am one of the co-host and writers of the Cap Stable Podcast. In early 2014 our podcast interviewed a great majority of the candidates for CSM9 and we will be doing the same for CSM10. Here is our announcement: http://capstable.net/2014/12/01/council-of-stellar-management-x-call-for-candidate-interviews/ As we stated in the announcement, you can contact us to schedule your one on one interview via any of the following methods: Email: [email protected]Twitter: @CapStableOr via our contact formWe look forward to speaking to you about your particular skill set and expertise in EVE Online and we hope you success in your candidacy. Sincerely, Lanctharus Onzo Co-host & Writer of the Cap Stable Podcast Military Director, Alea Iacta Est Universal I plan on attending. As a podcaster myself I am grateful you exist!
Hello Angorod,
It's been awhile.
Wanted to find out when you would like that interview?
Writer, Co-host of the Cap Stable Podcast
Twitter: @Lanctharus
|
Angrod Losshelin
Oath of the Forsaken Half Massed
102
|
Posted - 2015.01.26 21:12:18 -
[23] - Quote
I sent you a mail bud. Also, the exact reason we need fair representation here. Threads being locked left and right and people being told to post in the obviously ignored CCP thread. This is a tough fight, but I am willing to be on the front lines.
Check out my Podcast!
CSM X: Candidate - Wormholes, Multiboxing, and New Bro's!
|
Ima Wreckyou
The Conference Elite CODE.
759
|
Posted - 2015.01.26 23:40:53 -
[24] - Quote
Angrod Losshelin wrote:Multi-boxers are generally extremely worried about keeping their accounts active, which means following the rules. We need these better defined or we risk losing our hard earned accounts. Loopholes are bad because they become widespread and then become accepted and then we run into the same issue, CCP changes their minds, and people either get angry, lose accounts, or quit the game.
We want definition, the majority of multi-boxers I have spoken with simply want to know why and what they can do. Most is clearly defined but alot is not. I am not sure if you gain much sympathy with your campaign if you basically support cheaters.
the Code ALWAYS wins
|
Angrod Losshelin
Oath of the Forsaken Half Massed
102
|
Posted - 2015.01.26 23:43:38 -
[25] - Quote
Ima Wreckyou wrote:Angrod Losshelin wrote:Multi-boxers are generally extremely worried about keeping their accounts active, which means following the rules. We need these better defined or we risk losing our hard earned accounts. Loopholes are bad because they become widespread and then become accepted and then we run into the same issue, CCP changes their minds, and people either get angry, lose accounts, or quit the game.
We want definition, the majority of multi-boxers I have spoken with simply want to know why and what they can do. Most is clearly defined but alot is not. I am not sure if you gain much sympathy with your campaign if you basically support cheaters.
Coming from .CODE who are basically eve terrorists. Lol. No, I do not support cheating and most multi-boxers don't either. We do not want to cheat we do not want to be viewed as such. In order to follow the rules the rules need to be well defined, we need communication and clarification from the rule makers, and they need to be enforced correctly and fairly. Simple as that.
Check out my Podcast!
CSM X: Candidate - Wormholes, Multiboxing, and New Bro's!
|
ISD Decoy
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
341
|
Posted - 2015.01.26 23:44:16 -
[26] - Quote
Quote:12. Discussion of forum moderation is prohibited.
The discussion of EVE Online forum moderation actions generally leads to flaming, trolling and baiting of our ISD CCL moderators. As such, this type of discussion is strictly prohibited under the forum rules. If you have questions regarding the actions of a moderator, please file a support ticket under the Community & Forums Category. I have removed a post discussing forum moderation. Please review our forum rules before continuing to post or reply.
ISD Decoy
Lieutenant Commander
Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs)
Interstellar Services Department
|
Angrod Losshelin
Oath of the Forsaken Half Massed
102
|
Posted - 2015.01.26 23:49:21 -
[27] - Quote
ISD Decoy wrote:Quote:12. Discussion of forum moderation is prohibited.
The discussion of EVE Online forum moderation actions generally leads to flaming, trolling and baiting of our ISD CCL moderators. As such, this type of discussion is strictly prohibited under the forum rules. If you have questions regarding the actions of a moderator, please file a support ticket under the Community & Forums Category. I have removed a post discussing forum moderation. Please review our forum rules before continuing to post or reply.
Great, now my CSM thread is being censored as well. In that case, check out my latest blog post: http://www.bobinmyhole.com/
This is outrageous. Multi-boxers deserve representation. This is what part of my whole campaign is about folks. I want more people in WH's and I want misrepresentation and this unnecessary censorship.
Check out my Podcast!
CSM X: Candidate - Wormholes, Multiboxing, and New Bro's!
|
ashley Eoner
394
|
Posted - 2015.01.27 00:08:54 -
[28] - Quote
Ima Wreckyou wrote:Angrod Losshelin wrote:Multi-boxers are generally extremely worried about keeping their accounts active, which means following the rules. We need these better defined or we risk losing our hard earned accounts. Loopholes are bad because they become widespread and then become accepted and then we run into the same issue, CCP changes their minds, and people either get angry, lose accounts, or quit the game.
We want definition, the majority of multi-boxers I have spoken with simply want to know why and what they can do. Most is clearly defined but alot is not. I am not sure if you gain much sympathy with your campaign if you basically support cheaters. Great so it's now cheating to run multiple clients..
That's funny to me because that means you're a cheater too as I've seen you using multiple accounts when ganking. Same for loyalannawhetver and at least half of code.. |
ISD Ezwal
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
3762
|
Posted - 2015.01.27 07:49:52 -
[29] - Quote
I have removed a rule breaking post.
The Rules: 12. Discussion of forum moderation is prohibited.
The discussion of EVE Online forum moderation actions generally leads to flaming, trolling and baiting of our ISD CCL moderators. As such, this type of discussion is strictly prohibited under the forum rules. If you have questions regarding the actions of a moderator, please file a support ticket under the Community & Forums Category.
Please refrain from doing so again as there might be consequences.
ISD Ezwal
Vice Admiral
Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs)
Interstellar Services Department
|
Ariete
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
14
|
Posted - 2015.02.06 21:12:25 -
[30] - Quote
Hi Angrod, If your interested I am holding a wormhole debate for the CSM X election. I have sent you a in game mail with the details.
Vote Ariete for CSM X
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |