EVE Search - "That" time of year again.

Check My IP Information

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

"That" time of year again.

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 .. 11 :: [one page]

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Jenshae Chiroptera 2464	Posted - 2016.01.09 13:26:04 - [1] - Quote Once again, we are approaching the elections for the CSM. Once again, it will no doubt be largely Goons appointed members. Once again, we shall have the minority (Null Sec) speaking for the majority (High Sec). Once again, we will be voting for people people based on what tribe they are in (coalition) ... and yet again, we will be thinking about ourselves when we do this; without regard for whether they actually have the skills and neutral mindset to do a good job. Thus our carousel will keep on spinning, CCP shall have to take what the CSM put forward with a bucket of salt. (It seemed from this past year that even when the CSM was being positive and trying to put the brakes on some really bone-headed ideas; that they were completely ignored.) You can point to a few exceptions yes, like some of the stuff Sugar Kyle has done. You can harp on about how it is better than nothing and we haven't had another Incarna since we have had the CSM came about. You can also go on about the daily work they do and ignore why they are motivated to be there and the influence they try and exert. However, I want you to ask yourselves this: - Why are you voting for that person? - Is the CSM influence more gradual and insidious? - Is the CSM too full of peacocks or selfish agendas to be taken seriously by CCP? - Is CSM largely a lobby group? - How can the whole process be improved? - Are these questions too late? ( ... because the ballot pages are made, CCP's mind is made up and the rest of the year people don't care.) CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids There are other ways to fix Null Sec stagnation and Fozzie SOV is the wrong approach.
Bumblefck Kerensky Initiatives 10158	Posted - 2016.01.09 13:50:42 - [2] - Quote Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: - Why are you voting for that person? - Is the CSM influence more gradual and insidious? - Is the CSM too full of peacocks or selfish agendas to be taken seriously by CCP? - Is CSM largely a lobby group? - How can the whole process be improved? - Are these questions too late? - I'm not - That sounds like a comparative sentence but it's missing the target of comparison - No more than this thread - That's the whole idea - Elect everyone in New Eden to the CSM - No, they're just pointless Got a HoleySheet1 corpse? I'll buy it for 200m! Bumble's Space Log
Tippia Sunshine and Lollipops 26662	Posted - 2016.01.09 14:37:46 - [3] - Quote Once again, the unproven and rather silly notion that there is a GÇ£highsec majorityGÇ¥ (to say nothing of the outright laughable idea of there being a coherent highsec affiliation that sits in opposition of some equally coherent nullsec affiliation) is bandied about. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥ Get a good start: Newbie skillplan 2.3 - Vanguard Edition.
Nana Skalski Poseidaon 2206	Posted - 2016.01.09 14:54:37 - [4] - Quote I hope only few will vote, those who really want the change for better to happen, those who really want this game to succeed, those who really know the candidates. You, yes, I am talking about You, think of consequences when you vote. Think about your experience, think about experience of others. Dont be bamboozled by people talking about nullsec or highsec being the essence of the game, they need to rethink their stance, because we play everywhere as collective. Vote for people that want to play a better game, no matter where they are. ( -á° -ƒ-û -í°)/ GòáGò¼GòªGò¼Gòú - my sandcastle ( -á° -ƒ-û -í°)/ <=X - my yacht
MidnightWyvern Night Theifs 144	Posted - 2016.01.09 14:58:29 - [5] - Quote Tippia wrote: Once again, the unproven and rather silly notion that there is a GÇ£highsec majorityGÇ¥ (to say nothing of the outright laughable idea of there being a coherent highsec affiliation that sits in opposition of some equally coherent nullsec affiliation) is bandied about. Seriously, all of us who live in Null-Sec rarely are on the same page, but High-Sec is worse. So many opinions held by so many people and all of them "The Right Way to do High-Sec". _#portDust514 Don't let interactions like this become only a memory. (EVE alt> Sarayu Wyvern. Dust 514 alt> Mobius Wyvern.)
Chopper Rollins Lantean Empire 1194	Posted - 2016.01.09 15:11:26 - [6] - Quote Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: - Why are you voting for that person? - Is the CSM influence more gradual and insidious? - Is the CSM too full of peacocks or selfish agendas to be taken seriously by CCP? - Is CSM largely a lobby group? - How can the whole process be improved? - Are these questions too late? - To troll - No - Always was - No - No idea - Yes Goggles. Making me look good. Making you look good.
Querns GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 2289	Posted - 2016.01.09 15:18:07 - [7] - Quote Welcome to politics. An organized group with unified desires and goals will trounce an unorganized, disparate mass of people any day. This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
Doc Fury Furious Enterprises 7964	Posted - 2016.01.09 15:28:13 - [8] - Quote It's so adorable that there are still players who believe the CSM is relevant. Gÿ+ The accumulated filth of all their sex and murder will foam up about their waists and all the ho's and politicians will look up and shout 'Save us!' and I'll look down, and whisper: 'Hodor'.
Elise Randolph Habitual Euthanasia Pandemic Legion 1457	Posted - 2016.01.09 15:38:26 - [9] - Quote No offense, but this is the most pseudo-intellectual bullshit that I've read this year. ~
Jace Varus School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State 3	Posted - 2016.01.09 16:14:09 - [10] - Quote Tippia wrote: Once again, the unproven and rather silly notion that there is a GÇ£highsec majorityGÇ¥ (to say nothing of the outright laughable idea of there being a coherent highsec affiliation that sits in opposition of some equally coherent nullsec affiliation) is bandied about. Go to the beta map in-game, and turn to the average number of pilots in space in the last 30 minutes. There you go.

Tippia Sunshine and Lollipops 26663	Posted - 2016.01.09 16:25:11 - [11] - Quote Jace Varus wrote: Go to the beta map in-game, and turn to the average number of pilots in space in the last 30 minutes. There you go. Just one problem GÇö in fact, the exact same problem as with all those inane claims: it doesn't display players. The mythical majority is just that: a myth, at best born out of bad maths, at worst born out of sheer ignorance and wishful thinking. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥ Get a good start: Newbie skillplan 2.3 - Vanguard Edition.
Cristl 282	Posted - 2016.01.09 16:36:40 - [12] - Quote Elise Randolph wrote: No offense, but this is the most pseudo-intellectual bullshit that I've read this year. It's only the ninth of January though. Give it time and I'm sure we can increase the bullshit factor.
Deitra Vess Scope Works Psychotic Tendencies. 840	Posted - 2016.01.09 16:44:40 - [13] - Quote I don't get why they don't just have it so before you vote you declare your a "high sec player," "wormhole player," ect and then just put people into the csm as part of parties or whatever. Make the number of members divisible by 4 (for each major group) and put for example 3 people in to represent each aspect of the game. We would also see where the majority of the player base resides and they can focus on the areas where the most people are.
Tippia Sunshine and Lollipops 26665	Posted - 2016.01.09 17:10:48 - [14] - Quote Deitra Vess wrote: I don't get why they don't just have it so before you vote you declare your a "high sec player," "wormhole player," ect and then just put people into the csm as part of parties or whatever. Make the number of members divisible by 4 (for each major group) and put for example 3 people in to represent each aspect of the game. We would also see where the majority of the player base resides and they can focus on the areas where the most people are. Because it would be ridiculously easy to rig, and would yield the result that the majority is in null, and that, for some curious reason, all the GÇ£high sec candidatesGÇ¥ would also be mostly focused on null issues. The main flaw is that the distinction between those player types is itself pretty nonsensical. Again, they aren't coherent groups; treating them as anything even remotely resembling parties makes no sense because there is no shared opinion or policy outlook. Any pre-selected representation will inherently not be representative and any other representation will only be of those who show up and who organise, which will always be derided as biased and unfair. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥ Get a good start: Newbie skillplan 2.3 - Vanguard Edition.
Jenn aSide Ascendent. Test Alliance Please Ignore 13290	Posted - 2016.01.09 17:13:46 - [15] - Quote Tippia wrote: Jace Varus wrote: Go to the beta map in-game, and turn to the average number of pilots in space in the last 30 minutes. There you go. Just one problem GÇö in fact, the exact same problem as with all those inane claims: it doesn't display players. The mythical majority is just that: a myth, at best born out of bad maths, at worst born out of sheer ignorance and wishful thinking. You maybe forgot desperation and butthurt? What the "high sec partisans" never face is that a lot of high sec is just our alts. And even worse than that (from their perspective) is that of those who are real high sec players, many of them LIKE null, aspire to null (or low or WH gameplay) and vote for null candidates. The most vocal high sec posters here suffer from that 'truly false consensus' problem where they think everyone in high sec thinks like them, when in fact their views are just fringe idiocy that are unpopular EVEN in high sec.
Memphis Baas 907	Posted - 2016.01.09 17:56:49 - [16] - Quote CCP has to finish the damn null sov revamp and give roles to those capitals; everybody's bored and people are leaving. High sec is in a pretty good place, ships have been revamped, UI for industry has seen some changes, lots of the standings restrictions have been removed so y'all can POS and PI and whatever. Finish fixing null, so we can have the big wars again; they attract new players and keep the old interested and playing.
Ralph King-Griffin Devils Rejects 666 The Devil's Warrior Alliance 13480	Posted - 2016.01.09 18:07:31 - [17] - Quote Jenn aSide wrote: The most vocal high sec posters here suffer from that 'truly false consensus' problem where they think everyone in high sec thinks like them, when in fact their views are just fringe idiocy that are unpopular EVEN in high sec. cough Better the Devil you know. =]\|[=
Yourmoney Mywallet Jita Institute of Applied Monetary Manipulation 789	Posted - 2016.01.09 18:24:43 - [18] - Quote Who? What?
Benny Ohu Chaotic Tranquility Snuffed Out 4512	Posted - 2016.01.09 18:38:17 - [19] - Quote yes we need to start asking the real questions why haven't we seen any councilors birth certificates is the csm actually a cover for an extraterrestrial nacho smuggling operation could the csm voting process be improved with a peacock wrestling bonus round is there confirmation no csm x members were blood-drinking lizards, and if not, why not why won't ccp publically acknowledge independant reports csm voting causes rashes e: why are you voting for that person
Ibutho Inkosi Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic 14	Posted - 2016.01.09 18:40:32 - [20] - Quote This CSM election has a reputation of not being very representative. A vast majority of people seem relatively isolated, or limited in their in-game contacts with one another, so it seems like a large leap of faith that anyone would know anyone who runs, or would be known if running themselves. The reputation EVE's CSM has is it has, as a result, been hijacked and is constantly held by a small percentage of well-organized people, and therefore only represents them and their interests. I have a problem with endorsing situations such as these. I also have a problem with so-called professional people countenancing such conditions. However, when these so-called professionals are a party to exposing their own paying customers to the vagaries of a select few of their paying customers, then things are more than a little strange. This changes the relationship of the company and the customer to one of charlatan and dupe. It's a black cloud over what otherwise would be a rather positive situation, and also has to be suspect in why things a majority of players seem to clamor for don't seem to be getting any attention at all. Could it be to address such issues runs counter to the wishes of the select few who have hijacked the process? Sadly, in such cases as these, where credibility is breached, one must assume it does. Thanks for the peppy "lets' all get in there and do something" post. I can see the idealism driving it. Yet, so few players use and read this forum, I doubt it will have the required impact. As long as the tale of the hunt is told by the hunter, and not the lion, it will favor the hunter.

Velarra 489	Posted - 2016.01.09 18:54:24 - [21] - Quote https://secure.eveonline.com/
Trevor Dalech We pooped on your lawn Resonance. 200	Posted - 2016.01.09 19:03:14 - [22] - Quote Deitra Vess wrote: I don't get why they don't just have it so before you vote you declare your a "high sec player," "wormhole player," ect and then just put people into the csm as part of parties or whatever. Make the number of members divisible by 4 (for each major group) and put for example 3 people in to represent each aspect of the game. We would also see where the majority of the player base resides and they can focus on the areas where the most people are. I'm everything except a high sec player, although I do have a suicide ganking alt for when I'm bored, so I guess I do high sec as well. Which pigeonhole will you fit me into?
Kiandoshia Applied Anarchy ChaosTheory. 2391	Posted - 2016.01.09 19:12:32 - [23] - Quote Deitra Vess wrote: I don't get why they don't just have it so before you vote you declare your a "high sec player," "wormhole player," ect and then just put people into the csm as part of parties or whatever. Make the number of members divisible by 4 (for each major group) and put for example 3 people in to represent each aspect of the game. We would also see where the majority of the player base resides and they can focus on the areas where the most people are. There are no parties or major groups, only alts and more alts.
Demica Diaz SE-1 172	Posted - 2016.01.09 21:31:52 - [24] - Quote Cant we just work on improving game as whole instead of bickering over which sec gets majority?
King Aires Chicks on Speed Mordus Angels 81	Posted - 2016.01.09 21:45:49 - [25] - Quote Tippia wrote: Jace Varus wrote: Go to the beta map in-game, and turn to the average number of pilots in space in the last 30 minutes. There you go. Just one problem GÇö in fact, the exact same problem as with all those inane claims: it doesn't display players. The mythical majority is just that: a myth, at best born out of bad maths, at worst born out of sheer ignorance and wishful thinking. CCP tells us there is 1.5 accounts per person on average. So we can take the population of High-Sec and halve it to come up with the representative average of players who are at least "High-Sec". Therefore, there is still more high-sec than null. And the CSM is overwhelmingly weighted towards CFC bought trolls.
Johan Civire Caldari Provisions Caldari State 1044	Posted - 2016.01.09 22:09:53 - [26] - Quote Easy fixs remove csm done. No need for them. Do i care nope do i need them nope do the do what the want? yup so why keep them? 90% of those players in game do not give f*ck about csm because let be honest here, your just playing a game. Nothing more.... And devs do what the want. Pushing releasing stuff we do not ask, why the change? why change the interface back to 1999 style? why removing stuff like juxeboxs why remove the all mighty weapons dooms day and Nerf them in a nutshell? And so on and on and on........... Because like i say the do what the want to do. A new commander on the wheel and all crazy things are happening. Working on other games and split eve in 2 game`s with the money from eve online. Then making updates that take age to Finnish or half broken or half done its the same. I play way to long in eve. Catch my drift here. Nothing will change the do not listen. The keep dreaming that the can make eve in a cash cow. If the do that we are losing the game.
Tippia Sunshine and Lollipops 26669	Posted - 2016.01.09 22:48:00 - [27] - Quote King Aires wrote: CCP tells us there is 1.5 accounts per person on average. So GÇªnothing, because it is an average. What is the distribution among GÇ£non-highseccersGÇ¥ compared to GÇ£highseccersGÇ¥? What is the character distribution among these accounts? What is the distribution of characters among the two groups? Until you know all of those, you cannot conclude anything, and guess what? Not even CCP has any idea of where the players are. That's why all they have ever been able to produce is character counts. The best guess we have is based on the general trend that Gàö of all characters tend to be parked in highsec. However, this means that if every account that has a non-high character also has a highsec alt (and this is not a very drastic assumption to make), we have a character distribution of Gàô non-high, Gàô highsec alts, and Gàô GÇ£pure highsecGÇ¥, making them a pretty small minority. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥ Get a good start: Newbie skillplan 2.3 - Vanguard Edition.
Scipio Artelius The Vendunari End of Life 42990	Posted - 2016.01.09 23:49:01 - [28] - Quote Tippia wrote: King Aires wrote: CCP tells us there is 1.5 accounts per person on average. So GÇªnothing, because it is an average. What is the distribution among GÇ£non-highseccersGÇ¥ compared to GÇ£highseccersGÇ¥ that creates this average? What is the character distribution among these accounts? What is the distribution of characters among the two groups? Until you know all of those, you cannot conclude anything, and guess what? Not even CCP has any idea of where the players are. That's why all they have ever been able to produce is character counts. The best guess we have is based on the general trend that Gàö of all characters tend to be parked in highsec. However, this means that if every account that has a non-high character also has a highsec alt (and this is not a very drastic assumption to make), we have a character distribution of Gàô non-high, Gàô highsec alts, and Gàô GÇ£pure highsecGÇ¥, making them a pretty small minority. Yes. There's a lot more to the statistics to analyse than just the simple numbers. Of my current 8 characters, 7 are in highsec right now, yet the total time they actually do anything (5 of them are just cyno alts) is less than 1/4 of what I do on Scipio. Even those 5 cyno alts that are parked in highec currently are there for station/region trading, but if they have to undock then it's off to lowsec and nullsec for them and then back to their trading station. One player, mostly playing in lowsec and nullsec, yet the raw numbers look like 88% highsec and 12% nullsec. Come Win At Eve - Join The Vendunari
Scipio Artelius The Vendunari End of Life 42990	Posted - 2016.01.09 23:54:28 - [29] - Quote Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: - Why are you voting for that person? - Is the CSM influence more gradual and insidious? - Is the CSM too full of peacocks or selfish agendas to be taken seriously by CCP? - Is CSM largely a lobby group? - How can the whole process be improved? - Are these questions too late? - Who Xenuria? As a troll initially, but Mittens has already declared that Xenuria will be in, so I might have to vote Gevlon if he eventually gets accepted - CSM influence? - I think there are other reasons it isn't taken seriously by some of CCP - I think a lot of people go into it thinking they can lobby and then realise that's not its purpose - Abolish it - Maybe Come Win At Eve - Join The Vendunari
King Aires Chicks on Speed Mordus Angels 81	Posted - 2016.01.10 00:07:31 - [30] - Quote Scipio Artelius wrote: Tippia wrote: King Aires wrote: CCP tells us there is 1.5 accounts per person on average. So GÇªnothing, because it is an average. What is the distribution among GÇ£non-highseccersGÇ¥ compared to GÇ£highseccersGÇ¥ that creates this average? What is the character distribution among these accounts? What is the distribution of characters among the two groups? Until you know all of those, you cannot conclude anything, and guess what? Not even CCP has any idea of where the players are. That's why all they have ever been able to produce is character counts. The best guess we have is based on the general trend that Gàö of all characters tend to be parked in highsec. However, this means that if every account that has a non-high character also has a highsec alt (and this is not a very drastic assumption to make), we have a character distribution of Gàô non-high, Gàô highsec alts, and Gàô GÇ£pure highsecGÇ¥, making them a pretty small minority. Yes. There's a lot more to the statistics to analyse than just the simple numbers. Of my current 8 characters, 7 are in highsec right now, yet the total time they actually do anything (5 of them are just cyno alts) is less than 1/4 of what I do on Scipio. Even those 5 cyno alts that are parked in highec currently are there for station/region trading, but if they have to undock then it's off to lowsec and nullsec for them and then back to their trading station. One player, mostly playing in lowsec and nullsec, yet the raw numbers look like 88% highsec and 12% nullsec. All the while forgetting you never log those 7 in, so they wouldn't show up in the CCP snapshots anyways. Let us all just agree then, we will never know who is a sole High or Null sec player, but that population activity is highest in High Sec and representation on the CSM is what, 90% null sec? Scipio Artelius wrote: - Abolish it Now we are getting somewhere

Scipio Artelius The Vendunari End of Life 42990	Posted - 2016.01.10 00:11:59 - [31] - Quote King Aires wrote: Scipio Artelius wrote: Tippia wrote: King Aires wrote: CCP tells us there is 1.5 accounts per person on average. So GÇªnothing, because it is an average. What is the distribution among GÇ£non-highseccersGÇ¥ compared to GÇ£highseccersGÇ¥ that creates this average? What is the character distribution among these accounts? What is the distribution of characters among the two groups? Until you know all of those, you cannot conclude anything, and guess what? Not even CCP has any idea of where the players are. That's why all they have ever been able to produce is character counts. The best guess we have is based on the general trend that Gàö of all characters tend to be parked in highsec. However, this means that if every account that has a non-high character also has a highsec alt (and this is not a very drastic assumption to make), we have a character distribution of Gàô non-high, Gàô highsec alts, and Gàô GÇ£pure highsecGÇ¥, making them a pretty small minority. Yes. There's a lot more to the statistics to analyse than just the simple numbers. Of my current 8 characters, 7 are in highsec right now, yet the total time they actually do anything (5 of them are just cyno alts) is less than 1/4 of what I do on Scipio. Even those 5 cyno alts that are parked in highec currently are there for station/region trading, but if they have to undock then it's off to lowsec and nullsec for them and then back to their trading station. One player, mostly playing in lowsec and nullsec, yet the raw numbers look like 88% highsec and 12% nullsec. All the while forgetting you never log those 7 in, so they wouldn't show up in the CCP snapshots anyways. What? Where did you get that they don't login? That isn't how CCP do their snapshot anyway. Come Win At Eve - Join The Vendunari
Pix Severus Mew Age Outpaws 2022	Posted - 2016.01.10 00:15:19 - [32] - Quote Even if pure highsec players were the majority, most of them don't even know what the CSM is, nor do they care. So why bother representing them? Representing pure highsec is the equivalent of representing cats. My lord.
Nevyn Auscent Broke Sauce 2884	Posted - 2016.01.10 01:21:12 - [33] - Quote Tippia wrote: GÇªnothing, because it is an average. What is the distribution among GÇ£non-highseccersGÇ¥ compared to GÇ£highseccersGÇ¥ that creates this average? What is the character distribution among these accounts? What is the distribution of characters among the two groups? Until you know all of those, you cannot conclude anything, and guess what? Not even CCP has any idea of where the players are. That's why all they have ever been able to produce is character counts. The best guess we have is based on the general trend that Gàö of all characters tend to be parked in highsec. However, this means that if every account that has a non-high character also has a highsec alt (and this is not a very drastic assumption to make), we have a character distribution of Gàô non-high, Gàô highsec alts, and Gàô GÇ£pure highsecGÇ¥, making them a pretty small minority. Nice try. But no Tippia. CCP's numbers solidly place 'High Sec' players in the majority. No amount of throwing buzz words around on your part will change that fact. Of course, most of those are happy one account players who will play once a week and won't even notice 90% of the changes that happen to EVE, because they are happy bumbling around, shooting space ships, getting blown up occasionally when they feel they have a chance and enjoying pretty spaceship time. So as far as political lobbies go, no-one really needs to represent most of them because they have no political goals, and political lobbies are all about goals. The main issue with the CSM that CCP have to work out how to deal with is how 'leaky' it's becoming, and how those leaks are being abused. If CCP are actually catching people with enough evidence to dismiss them from the CSM, they are almost certainly only catching the tip of the iceberg with leaks, given how easy it is to quietly leak via non CCP channels, and then find some evidence to base the speculation on as a justification if CCP start asking questions.
Mithandra Catastrophic Operations Get Off My Lawn 398	Posted - 2016.01.10 02:43:29 - [34] - Quote The CSM is a waste of my time, in reading about it, talking about it or voting for it. I have zero interest in sending complete strangers to iceland to attempt to sway CCP in its decision making and game altering process. To many power blocks with too many agendas for any of the games players to be totally unbiased. Of Course im bitter cynical and disillusioned with the CSM as an institution. Like democracy, it was a good idea, its just proven impossible to find people selfless enough to make it work....... Come to think of it, much like democracy again. Eve is the dark haired, totally hot emo gothchild of the gaming community
Jenshae Chiroptera 2470	Posted - 2016.01.10 03:33:41 - [35] - Quote Elise Randolph wrote: No offense, but ... I love your passive aggressive cliches, please tell me more. Pix Severus wrote: Even if pure highsec players were the majority, ... why bother representing them?... $$$ for CCP = more developers = possible better game with a wider scope = possible higher number of players to shoot. CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids There are other ways to fix Null Sec stagnation and Fozzie SOV is the wrong approach.
Tippia Sunshine and Lollipops 26670	Posted - 2016.01.10 08:46:13 - [36] - Quote Nevyn Auscent wrote: Nice try. But no Tippia. CCP's numbers solidly place 'High Sec' players in the majority. No, they don't, for the very very very simple reason that they have never counted players. The numbers you're suggesting don't exist. The best they've ever been able to do as far as figuring out anything about actual players is a long-term trend estimate of 1.5 accounts/player, with no ability of telling how those accounts are distributed. They have only ever counted characters parked in a given section of space at the time (and yes, this includes characters not being logged in) for the simple reason that this is all they can count. People then get confused about the difference between characters and players, forgetting that such a thing as alts exist (on average 3 per account). The only facts we have GÇö character distribution, average characters per account, average account per player GÇö actually point to higsec being a minority. It just comes inherent with the simple fact that alts are a thing and that so few characters sit in highsec. When CCP themselves they tried to filter out GÇ£junkGÇ¥ characters that could conceivably just be some single-purpose alt, the shift away from highsec was pretty drastic. This isn't a matter of buzzwords; it's a matter of actually understanding what the data covers and not making the boneheaded assumption that counting characters is even remotely the same as counting characters. At the end of the day, in order for highsec to be a majority, you're going to have to show that non-highseccer on average have an non-highsec:highsec alt ratio higher than 3:1. In other words, with an average number of alts per player being 3, a significant portion of them would have to not have any alts in highsec at all. You could approach this with numbers (which we don't have) or with some wishy-washy gut feelingGÇª but guess what? The gut feeling is that the ratio is actually much lower than that; that most of them do have a highsec alt or five. If we go by anecdotal and individual data points, we often get ratios in the 1:2GÇô1:4 range, but we can dismiss those as not being representative since any ratio lower than 1:2 would mean there are no highseccers at all. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥ Get a good start: Newbie skillplan 2.3 - Vanguard Edition.
Remiel Pollard Red Federation RvB - RED Federation 7338	Posted - 2016.01.10 09:38:33 - [37] - Quote Jace Varus wrote: Go to the beta map in-game, and turn to the average number of alts in space in the last 30 minutes. There you go. FTFY. GÇ£Some capsuleers claim that ECM is 'dishonorable' and 'unfair'. Jam those ones first, and kill them last.GÇ¥ - Jirai 'Fatal' Laitanen, Pithum Nullifier Training Manual c. YC104
Remiel Pollard Red Federation RvB - RED Federation 7338	Posted - 2016.01.10 09:42:58 - [38] - Quote Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: More people is good, and pretending to care about CCP's financial status without knowing anything about it is a good point. No it's not, and no it's not. More of the right kind of people is good. The wrong kind were always going to quit, because EVE isn't and never was intended for them. As for CCP's finances, you talk about them as if you know they're about to go bankrupt and can prove it. So please, provide the data. Or, stop with this flaccid doomsaying that means absolutely nothing to anyone with a modicum of rational thought. GÇ£Some capsuleers claim that ECM is 'dishonorable' and 'unfair'. Jam those ones first, and kill them last.GÇ¥ - Jirai 'Fatal' Laitanen, Pithum Nullifier Training Manual c. YC104
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7054	Posted - 2016.01.10 10:06:14 - [39] - Quote Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: Once again, we shall have the minority (Null Sec) speaking for the majority (High Sec). Voting supports the majority. If you guys don't vote enough for the people that the "majority" want then yes, null sec groups who do vote and do know who they want will get their own way. Seems to me that the "majority" you speak of is really just a bunch of unaffiliated minorities with no shared direction. Remiel Pollard wrote: [More of the right kind of people is good. The wrong kind were always going to quit, because EVE isn't and never was intended for them. "Right kind of people" is subjective. There is no right kind of person for EVE, just players who enjoy it and players who don't. If CCP choose to make it so more people enjoy it, that doesn't make those new players wrong. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Shallanna Yassavi Imperial Academy Amarr Empire 71	Posted - 2016.01.10 12:13:47 - [40] - Quote About the only one I know of is this guy for what he wants to do with wardecs. The people wandering around multiboxing or whatever playing solo... just don't network. They don't read anything about how the game is broken and the crazy ideas put forward to fix it. A signature :o

King Aires Chicks on Speed Mordus Angels 81	Posted - 2016.01.10 13:55:43 - [41] - Quote Tippia wrote: Nevyn Auscent wrote: Nice try. But no Tippia. CCP's numbers solidly place 'High Sec' players in the majority. No, they don't, for the very very very simple reason that they have never counted players. The numbers you're suggesting don't exist. The best they've ever been able to do as far as figuring out anything about actual players is a long-term trend estimate of 1.5 accounts/player, with no ability of telling how those accounts are distributed. They have only ever counted characters parked in a given section of space at the time (and yes, this includes characters not being logged in) for the simple reason that this is all they can count. People then get confused about the difference between characters and players, forgetting that such a thing as alts exist (on average 3 per account). The only facts we have GÇö character distribution, average characters per account, average account per player GÇö actually point to higsec being a minority. It just comes inherent with the simple fact that alts are a thing and that so few characters sit in highsec. When CCP themselves they tried to filter out GÇ£junkGÇ¥ characters that could conceivably just be some single-purpose alt, the shift away from highsec was pretty drastic. This isn't a matter of buzzwords; it's a matter of actually understanding what the data covers and not making the boneheaded assumption that counting characters is even remotely the same as counting characters. At the end of the day, in order for highsec to be a majority, you're going to have to show that non-highseccer on average have an non-highsec:highsec alt ratio higher than 3:1. In other words, with an average number of alts per player being 3, a significant portion of them would have to not have any alts in highsec at all. You could approach this with numbers (which we don't have) or with some wishy-washy gut feelingGÇª but guess what? The gut feeling is that the ratio is actually much lower than that; that most of them do have a highsec alt or five. If we go by anecdotal and individual data points, we often get ratios in the 1:2GÇô1:4 range, but we can dismiss those as not being representative since any ratio lower than 1:2 would mean there are no highseccers at all. Two things wrong with this. CCP knows pretty accurately from unique email accounts to IP addresses to linked accounts how many actual players they have. Whether they release that info to us is another story. The trend of accounts per unique player has gone up over the years, I believe it used to be as low as 1.2 and is now over 1.5. So you can blow that theory of yours out of the water right now. Next we have the problem of self-identification. Here is the states we have people who self-identify as "Independent" because they don't like the political parties. But history shows us certain groups of "Independent" voters always vote one way or another. Basically, you can claim to be a Null Sec'er all you want, but if 7 of 8 of your accounts and a majority of your time is spent in High Sec which category do you think CCP would quantitatively drop you in? All data ever given to us is that either Players in High Sec are the vast majority, characters in High Sec are the vast majority or just the amount of time people spend in High Sec is the vast majority. So roll the semantics dice and tell me why Null Sec CFC makes up more than three-fourths of the CSM?
Querns GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 2290	Posted - 2016.01.10 14:29:20 - [42] - Quote King Aires wrote: So roll the semantics dice and tell me why Null Sec CFC makes up more than three-fourths of the CSM? It's because the CSM is representative of the people who vote, not of the people who play the game. Changing things to magically stratify the CSM based on a mystical calculation that places individual characters into buckets based on "is in the Imperium" and "is not in the Imperium" will just lead to us gaming the system to put our candidates in anyways, by deploying puppets into the "is not in the Imperium" bucket. This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
Malcanis Vanishing Point. The Initiative. 17310	Posted - 2016.01.10 14:45:34 - [43] - Quote Tippia wrote: Once again, the unproven and rather silly notion that there is a GÇ£highsec majorityGÇ¥ (to say nothing of the outright laughable idea of there being a coherent highsec affiliation that sits in opposition of some equally coherent nullsec affiliation) is bandied about. The best proof that there isn't a highsec majority is that they never manage to get more than 1 - at most - "high sec" guy voted in to the CSM. Obviously "true" hisec players are therefore a minority, and a small minority at that. The alternative hypothesis - that "true" high sec players are actually a majority, but that they're collectively so stupid, ignorant and uninvolved with the game that between the "62%" they represent, they can't out-organise and outvote the - what is it we're told now now? 10%? that some people say are nullsec players is, of course, completely implausible. I refuse to give any credit to such a disrespectful and unfounded hypothesis that slanders my fellow players, and people, like the OP, who advance it should be ashamed for themselves for putting out such bigoted dogwhistle style implications. "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his ISK/hr depends upon his not understanding it!"
Jenshae Chiroptera 2470	Posted - 2016.01.10 14:57:32 - [44] - Quote Lucas Kell wrote: ...Voting supports the majority. If you guys don't vote enough for the people that the "majority" want then yes, null sec groups who do vote and do know who they want will get their own way. ... I found last year that most of High Sec doesn't know that a CSM even exists or what it does. CCP does not make a big enough song and dance. They could put up a notification like down time upon log in or they could stick it like a MoTD in Local chat. How can a vote represent a majority when the majority doesn't know the vote even happens? CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids There are other ways to fix Null Sec stagnation and Fozzie SOV is the wrong approach.
King Aires Chicks on Speed Mordus Angels 81	Posted - 2016.01.10 15:08:48 - [45] - Quote Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: Lucas Kell wrote: ...Voting supports the majority. If you guys don't vote enough for the people that the "majority" want then yes, null sec groups who do vote and do know who they want will get their own way. ... I found last year that most of High Sec doesn't know that a CSM even exists or what it does. CCP does not make a big enough song and dance. They could put up a notification like down time upon log in or they could stick it like a MoTD in Local chat. How can a vote represent a majority when the majority doesn't know the vote even happens? Probably because in the grand scheme of things the CSM is worthless. It needs to be dismantled completely. I mean proof that we lost members this year because of NDA breach, misconduct and inattention and no one but Reddit Meme makers gave a crap.
Tippia Sunshine and Lollipops 26671	Posted - 2016.01.10 15:53:27 - [46] - Quote King Aires wrote: Two things wrong with this. CCP knows pretty accurately from unique email accounts to IP addresses to linked accounts how many actual players they have. Whether they release that info to us is another story. The trend of accounts per unique player has gone up over the years, I believe it used to be as low as 1.2 and is now over 1.5. So you can blow that theory of yours out of the water right now. Then do so. How does an increase in accounts per player blow my theory out of the water? And no, CCP does not know how many players there are GÇö if they did, they wouldn't have such problems giving a very specific number of accounts per player. Look at the numbers they released when they finally were able to offer a guesstimate that statistic GÇö it's a range with a lower bound and an upper bound, with 1.5 being the mid point. This has been stable, and haven't gone up much, over the years. Or, to quote CCP Quant: CCP Quant wrote: I have in front of me an interval of the number of accounts per player in EVE Online. "An interval? You mean you don't know?" you may ask... well email isn't a proper player identifier since back in the days we comically blocked attempts at making accounts on existing email addresses :) This is why we have to do some guesswork for estimating the upper limit, with the accounts per unique email being the lower one. So no. They do not know very accurately, and it cannot be deduced from unique email accounts and IP addresses (especially not the last one). Quote: Next we have the problem of self-identification. Here is the states we have people who self-identify as "Independent" because they don't like the political parties. But history shows us certain groups of "Independent" voters always vote one way or another. GÇªand that is exactly why the supposed highsec majority does not exist. At the end of the day, CCP has no way to ever determined algorithmically or through data-mining where you GÇ£belongGÇ¥, and none of the stats actually show anything that would give a useful answer. What we can say with some certainty is that it would require a hugely unrealistic distribution of non-highseccers' alts for the highseccers to be a majority. Quote: So roll the semantics dice and tell me why Null Sec CFC makes up more than three-fourths of the CSM? Because they're organised and because they represent the voters. No die-rolling necessary. Now, you said there were two things wrong with what I said. Which two things were that? GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥ Get a good start: Newbie skillplan 2.3 - Vanguard Edition.
Tippia Sunshine and Lollipops 26671	Posted - 2016.01.10 16:03:55 - [47] - Quote Malcanis wrote: The alternative hypothesis - that "true" high sec players are actually a majority, but that they're collectively so stupid, ignorant and uninvolved with the game that between the "62%" they represent, they can't out-organise and outvote the - what is it we're told now now? 10%? that some people say are nullsec players is, of course, completely implausible. I refuse to give any credit to such a disrespectful and unfounded hypothesis that slanders my fellow players, and people, like the OP, who advance it should be ashamed for themselves for putting out such bigoted dogwhistle style implications. Beyond that, assuming this hypothesis is actually accurate, it also raises an immediate question: what's the problem? If these players are that stupid, ignorant, and uninvolved with the game, then so what if they're not represented? By very definition, they don't care, don't notice, and ultimately don't understand what's going on in the game and have no valuable insight or input into where it should be going. Their input is, at best, worthless; at worst downright erroneous and destructive. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥ Get a good start: Newbie skillplan 2.3 - Vanguard Edition.
Malcanis Vanishing Point. The Initiative. 17312	Posted - 2016.01.10 16:06:30 - [48] - Quote Tippia wrote: Malcanis wrote: The alternative hypothesis - that "true" high sec players are actually a majority, but that they're collectively so stupid, ignorant and uninvolved with the game that between the "62%" they represent, they can't out-organise and outvote the - what is it we're told now now? 10%? that some people say are nullsec players is, of course, completely implausible. I refuse to give any credit to such a disrespectful and unfounded hypothesis that slanders my fellow players, and people, like the OP, who advance it should be ashamed for themselves for putting out such bigoted dogwhistle style implications. Beyond that, assuming this hypothesis is actually accurate, it also raises an immediate question: what's the problem? If these players are that stupid, ignorant, and uninvolved with the game, then so what if they're not represented? By very definition, they don't care, don't notice, and ultimately don't understand what's going on in the game and have no valuable insight or input into where it should be going. Their input is, at best, worthless; at worst downright erroneous and destructive. That's racist. There, I said it. "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his ISK/hr depends upon his not understanding it!"
Tippia Sunshine and Lollipops 26671	Posted - 2016.01.10 16:14:41 - [49] - Quote Malcanis wrote: That's racist. There, I said it. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥ Get a good start: Newbie skillplan 2.3 - Vanguard Edition.
Indahmawar Fazmarai 4487	Posted - 2016.01.10 16:25:27 - [50] - Quote Tippia wrote: Once again, the unproven and rather silly notion that there is a GÇ£highsec majorityGÇ¥ (to say nothing of the outright laughable idea of there being a coherent highsec affiliation that sits in opposition of some equally coherent nullsec affiliation) is bandied about. Apparently you missed a important presentation by CCP during Fanfest 2015. CCP Seagull: "EVE should be a universe where the infrastructure you build and fight over is as player driven and dynamic as the EVE market is now". 62% of players: "We're not interested. May we have Plan B, please?" CCP Seagull: "What Plan B?"

Tippia Sunshine and Lollipops 26671	Posted - 2016.01.10 16:29:24 - [51] - Quote Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote: Tippia wrote: Once again, the unproven and rather silly notion that there is a GÇ£highsec majorityGÇ¥ (to say nothing of the outright laughable idea of there being a coherent highsec affiliation that sits in opposition of some equally coherent nullsec affiliation) is bandied about. Apparently you missed a important presentation by CCP during Fanfest 2015. GÇªwhich in any way relates to what I saidGÇª how? GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥ Get a good start: Newbie skillplan 2.3 - Vanguard Edition.
Max Fubarticus The Scope Gallente Federation 77	Posted - 2016.01.10 16:30:43 - [52] - Quote Elise Randolph wrote: No offense, but this is the most pseudo-intellectual bullshit that I've read this year. Hmmm... Actually I think mine are slightly more intellectually challenged than this. Max Civil discourse is uniquely human. After all, when is the last time a pride of lions and a herd of water buffalo negotiated SOV over a watering hole? Never. Someone either gets their ass kicked or eaten. At the end of the day someone holds SOV.
Indahmawar Fazmarai 4487	Posted - 2016.01.10 16:41:46 - [53] - Quote Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: (...) - Why are you voting for that person? - Is the CSM influence more gradual and insidious? - Is the CSM too full of peacocks or selfish agendas to be taken seriously by CCP? - Is CSM largely a lobby group? - How can the whole process be improved? - Are these questions too late? - I'll vote people who I know what they've done as CSM. It is unlikely that I bother to read about the other 70, 80 or 150 candidates unless I know them from before being candidates - I think that the CSM haves little influence in what they want and zero in what CCP doesn't wants - I don't think that individualities make much difference unless they're like some of CSM X and crap all over the place for the next CSM - as I said, the CSM haves zero influence in what CCP doesn't wants, so far for lobbying - improve the process? It depends on what is the CSM supposed to be and do. I don't think CCP knows what they want the CSM for; it was born as a PR move in a customers-to-company trust crisis and as far as I know another trust crisis, this time company-to-customers, has shot it dead. If CCP wants customer feedback to guide their development process, they don't need a CSM. That's why CCP is the only company that haves a CSM whereas other companies have other and often better ways to get useful feedback from their customers. - asking what to do is never late, if there's to be a CSM 12, or that CSM still is anything like what we have now. If CSM is shut down or reshaped, new questions will be needed. CCP Seagull: "EVE should be a universe where the infrastructure you build and fight over is as player driven and dynamic as the EVE market is now". 62% of players: "We're not interested. May we have Plan B, please?" CCP Seagull: "What Plan B?"
Indahmawar Fazmarai 4487	Posted - 2016.01.10 16:45:00 - [54] - Quote Tippia wrote: Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote: Tippia wrote: Once again, the unproven and rather silly notion that there is a GÇ£highsec majorityGÇ¥ (to say nothing of the outright laughable idea of there being a coherent highsec affiliation that sits in opposition of some equally coherent nullsec affiliation) is bandied about. Apparently you missed a important presentation by CCP during Fanfest 2015. GÇªwhich in any way relates to what I saidGÇª how? Those are subscriber archetypes based on the ingame activity of their accounts over time. Look at what they do, where, and how many there are of each. CCP Seagull: "EVE should be a universe where the infrastructure you build and fight over is as player driven and dynamic as the EVE market is now". 62% of players: "We're not interested. May we have Plan B, please?" CCP Seagull: "What Plan B?"
Jenn aSide Ascendent. Test Alliance Please Ignore 13294	Posted - 2016.01.10 16:49:30 - [55] - Quote Malcanis wrote: Tippia wrote: Malcanis wrote: The alternative hypothesis - that "true" high sec players are actually a majority, but that they're collectively so stupid, ignorant and uninvolved with the game that between the "62%" they represent, they can't out-organise and outvote the - what is it we're told now now? 10%? that some people say are nullsec players is, of course, completely implausible. I refuse to give any credit to such a disrespectful and unfounded hypothesis that slanders my fellow players, and people, like the OP, who advance it should be ashamed for themselves for putting out such bigoted dogwhistle style implications. Beyond that, assuming this hypothesis is actually accurate, it also raises an immediate question: what's the problem? If these players are that stupid, ignorant, and uninvolved with the game, then so what if they're not represented? By very definition, they don't care, don't notice, and ultimately don't understand what's going on in the game and have no valuable insight or input into where it should be going. Their input is, at best, worthless; at worst downright erroneous and destructive. That's racist. There, I said it. I lul'd But I also brought up another possibility. The one that probably makes Fazmarai sit up at night unable to sleep: There is a high sec majority, and they agree with US rather than the self proclaimed spokesmen of PVE and High Sec. Just the thought of that is freaking delicious.
Tippia Sunshine and Lollipops 26671	Posted - 2016.01.10 16:52:41 - [56] - Quote Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote: Those are subscriber archetypes based on the ingame activity of their accounts over time. Look at what they do, where, and how many there are of each. There is no GÇ£whereGÇ¥; the GÇ£how manyGÇ¥ counts logged activity (i.e. accounts online), not players; there is no coherent majority that holds one particular view in one particular part of space GÇö it's all a smear of activities, with the largest portion of players doing just about everything. So, again, it relates to what I saidGÇª how? At best, that last bit absolutely annihilates the silly notion that the supposed GÇ£highsec majorityGÇ¥ even exist. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥ Get a good start: Newbie skillplan 2.3 - Vanguard Edition.
Jenn aSide Ascendent. Test Alliance Please Ignore 13294	Posted - 2016.01.10 16:53:56 - [57] - Quote Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote: Tippia wrote: Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote: Tippia wrote: Once again, the unproven and rather silly notion that there is a GÇ£highsec majorityGÇ¥ (to say nothing of the outright laughable idea of there being a coherent highsec affiliation that sits in opposition of some equally coherent nullsec affiliation) is bandied about. Apparently you missed a important presentation by CCP during Fanfest 2015. GÇªwhich in any way relates to what I saidGÇª how? Those are subscriber archetypes based on the ingame activity of their accounts over time. Look at what they do, where, and how many there are of each. And this is what Fazmarai has pinned his entire thought process on. The idea that lots of people are like him, and they (like him) are the downtrodden, forgotten and oppressed minority. which is odd because in a video game where everyone pays (in some form) for access, a "downtrodden, forgotten and oppressed" anything isn't even possible lol. Fazmarai has done this because he wants certain things from the game (things the game and CCP have never really promised) and yet knows that if he just tells the truth and says "I would like this to be this way" he'll get dismissed easily. So he relies on the od politicians trick of "but the people demand and deserve!" to try to get his point across... ...And still gets easily dismissed lol. I call that irony.
Jenn aSide Ascendent. Test Alliance Please Ignore 13294	Posted - 2016.01.10 17:02:10 - [58] - Quote Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: CCP does not make a big enough song and dance. They could put up a notification like down time upon log in or they could stick it like a MoTD in Local chat. I'd love to see this also. Mainly because I love seeing people like this live in miserable denial. CCP would make a pop up telling people about the voting, telling people about the csm, giving links and such. An the end result would be no different, because the "high sec majority" that is SO oblivious to the CSM in this age of easy access to information is the same "high sec majority" that will just click away that pop up and keep mining/mission running lol. Of those few who did vote, they'd end up voting for null sec candidates anyways, because most high sec folk don't hold the bitter prejudices against null that the self proclaimed spokes people do. The fact that the voters roundly and absolutely rejected you in your bid for CSM will not be solved by CCP intervention. It wasn't some conspiracy that keep you off the CSM Jenshae, it was you.
King Aires Chicks on Speed Mordus Angels 83	Posted - 2016.01.10 17:14:58 - [59] - Quote Jenn aSide wrote: Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: CCP does not make a big enough song and dance. They could put up a notification like down time upon log in or they could stick it like a MoTD in Local chat. I'd love to see this also. Mainly because I love seeing people like this live in miserable denial. CCP would make a pop up telling people about the voting, telling people about the csm, giving links and such. An the end result would be no different, because the "high sec majority" that is SO oblivious to the CSM in this age of easy access to information is the same "high sec majority" that will just click away that pop up and keep mining/mission running lol. Of those few who did vote, they'd end up voting for null sec candidates anyways, because most high sec folk don't hold the bitter prejudices against null that the self proclaimed spokes people do. The fact that the voters roundly and absolutely rejected you in your bid for CSM will not be solved by CCP intervention. It wasn't some conspiracy that keep you off the CSM Jenshae, it was you. Why do I feel you are really an anchor on Fox News. I swear you just keep repeating talking points and narratives of things you have convinced yourself to be true but have little basis in reality. At least Tippia is creative and has style.
Goatman NotMyFault Lubrication Industries Fortis Et Certus 224	Posted - 2016.01.10 17:22:18 - [60] - Quote I really couldnyt care less about this, but i should really run for a Place in CSM just as a protest.... And should it begin snowing in hell and i won a Place, i would do my best to try to change the game in directions that would **** off most of the old grumpy vets that refuses to leave EVE (Yeah those that try to keep EVE so they wont loose anything of their own goods.) VOTE GOAT FOR CSM. SEE EVE CRASH AND DIE IN FLAMES!!

Tippia Sunshine and Lollipops 26678	Posted - 2016.01.10 17:23:16 - [61] - Quote Goatman NotMyFault wrote: I really couldnyt care less about this, but i should really run for a Place in CSM just as a protest.... And should it begin snowing in hell and i won a Place, i would do my best to try to change the game in directions that would **** off most of the old grumpy vets that refuses to leave EVE (Yeah those that try to keep EVE so they wont loose anything of their own goods.) VOTE GOAT FOR CSM. SEE EVE CRASH AND DIE IN FLAMES!! Well, I'm convinced. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥ Get a good start: Newbie skillplan 2.3 - Vanguard Edition.
Ralph King-Griffin Devils Rejects 666 The Devil's Warrior Alliance 13495	Posted - 2016.01.10 17:38:41 - [62] - Quote Goatman NotMyFault wrote: I really couldnyt care less about this, but i should really run for a Place in CSM just as a protest.... And should it begin snowing in hell and i won a Place, i would do my best to try to change the game in directions that would **** off most of the old grumpy vets that refuses to leave EVE (Yeah those that try to keep EVE so they wont loose anything of their own goods.) VOTE GOAT FOR CSM. SEE EVE CRASH AND DIE IN FLAMES!! thats actually a fairly compelling pitch. run with xenoria in a joint campaign and its looking legitimate too Better the Devil you know. =]\|[=
Jenn aSide Ascendent. Test Alliance Please Ignore 13296	Posted - 2016.01.10 17:40:02 - [63] - Quote King Aires wrote: Jenn aSide wrote: Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: CCP does not make a big enough song and dance. They could put up a notification like down time upon log in or they could stick it like a MoTD in Local chat. I'd love to see this also. Mainly because I love seeing people like this live in miserable denial. CCP would make a pop up telling people about the voting, telling people about the csm, giving links and such. An the end result would be no different, because the "high sec majority" that is SO oblivious to the CSM in this age of easy access to information is the same "high sec majority" that will just click away that pop up and keep mining/mission running lol. Of those few who did vote, they'd end up voting for null sec candidates anyways, because most high sec folk don't hold the bitter prejudices against null that the self proclaimed spokes people do. The fact that the voters roundly and absolutely rejected you in your bid for CSM will not be solved by CCP intervention. It wasn't some conspiracy that keep you off the CSM Jenshae, it was you. Why do I feel you are really an anchor on Fox News. I swear you just keep repeating talking points and narratives of things you have convinced yourself to be true but have little basis in reality. At least Tippia is creative and has style. Translation: "I have no counter to anything you're saying, so let me point out how you keep saying it, yea, that's the ticket". Let us know when you actually have something to say, we'll talk about why it's wrong.
Remiel Pollard Red Federation RvB - RED Federation 7342	Posted - 2016.01.10 18:12:50 - [64] - Quote A vote for Remiel is a vote for getting 'bacon' added to available trade commodities on the market. I promise I won't do anything else but that. GÇ£Some capsuleers claim that ECM is 'dishonorable' and 'unfair'. Jam those ones first, and kill them last.GÇ¥ - Jirai 'Fatal' Laitanen, Pithum Nullifier Training Manual c. YC104
Tippia Sunshine and Lollipops 26681	Posted - 2016.01.10 18:18:29 - [65] - Quote Remiel Pollard wrote: A vote for Remiel is a vote for getting 'bacon' added to available trade commodities on the market. I promise I won't do anything else but that. Oh, la-di-da. Bacon, huh? What everyone else is having isn't good enough for you? Pff. =ƒÿñ Bloody space-bourgeoisie ruining it for the common protein farmer. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥ Get a good start: Newbie skillplan 2.3 - Vanguard Edition.
Remiel Pollard Red Federation RvB - RED Federation 7344	Posted - 2016.01.10 18:20:23 - [66] - Quote Tippia wrote: Remiel Pollard wrote: A vote for Remiel is a vote for getting 'bacon' added to available trade commodities on the market. I promise I won't do anything else but that. Oh, la-di-da. Bacon, huh? What everyone else is having isn't good enough for you? Pff. =ƒÿñ Bloody space-bourgeoisie ruining it for the common protein farmer. When you walk into a store, and someone asks you, "would you like to sample some protein delicacies?" And someone else asks you, "would you like to sample some bacon?" Which one is going to sound less like a steroid-infused 'health' shake? GÇ£Some capsuleers claim that ECM is 'dishonorable' and 'unfair'. Jam those ones first, and kill them last.GÇ¥ - Jirai 'Fatal' Laitanen, Pithum Nullifier Training Manual c. YC104
Goatman NotMyFault Lubrication Industries Fortis Et Certus 224	Posted - 2016.01.10 18:21:41 - [67] - Quote Remiel Pollard wrote: A vote for Remiel is a vote for getting 'bacon' added to available trade commodities on the market. I promise I won't do anything else but that. I may agree that BACON is the Cure for everything, but i still belive im the best option for CSM. VOTE GOAT AND ULL GET SO MUCH FREE MOONSHINE ULL BELIVE JESUS GIVING YA A LAPDANCE.
Remiel Pollard Red Federation RvB - RED Federation 7344	Posted - 2016.01.10 18:23:11 - [68] - Quote Goatman NotMyFault wrote: Remiel Pollard wrote: A vote for Remiel is a vote for getting 'bacon' added to available trade commodities on the market. I promise I won't do anything else but that. I may agree that BACON is the Cure for everything, but i still belive im the best option for CSM. VOTE GOAT AND ULL GET SO MUCH FREE MOONSHINE ULL BELIVE JESUS GIVING YA A LAPDANCE. As it happens, bacon also cures moonshine headaches. They need more than one person on the CSM you know. We're not competing here. GÇ£Some capsuleers claim that ECM is 'dishonorable' and 'unfair'. Jam those ones first, and kill them last.GÇ¥ - Jirai 'Fatal' Laitanen, Pithum Nullifier Training Manual c. YC104
Goatman NotMyFault Lubrication Industries Fortis Et Certus 224	Posted - 2016.01.10 18:45:13 - [69] - Quote Remiel Pollard wrote: Goatman NotMyFault wrote: Remiel Pollard wrote: A vote for Remiel is a vote for getting 'bacon' added to available trade commodities on the market. I promise I won't do anything else but that. I may agree that BACON is the Cure for everything, but i still belive im the best option for CSM. VOTE GOAT AND ULL GET SO MUCH FREE MOONSHINE ULL BELIVE JESUS GIVING YA A LAPDANCE. As it happens, bacon also cures moonshine hangovers. They need more than one person on the CSM you know. We're not competing here. What?? this aint a run for a dictatorship? (BTW...EVE's best ship aint the friendship... its the dictatorship!!) "The goat, a mean, smelly four legged creature that farts uncontrollably, much like many members of CSM, needs to be lactated with genuine care. Approach from behind with the fingers warmed gently and smelly faintly of Brut aftershave. Grip the naked udder firmly and yank downwards while screaming "Bush is a girl!". If CONCORD and Factional Police agents have not dropped in and arrested in you within thirty seconds, either a) you're doing it wrong, or b) the goat's your mother." VOTE GOAT AND ILL FINALLY WASH!!
Tippia Sunshine and Lollipops 26681	Posted - 2016.01.10 19:08:41 - [70] - Quote Goatman NotMyFault wrote: VOTE GOAT AND ILL FINALLY WASH!! What, and ruin the raw animal appeal? GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥ Get a good start: Newbie skillplan 2.3 - Vanguard Edition.

Goatman NotMyFault Lubrication Industries Fortis Et Certus 226	Posted - 2016.01.10 19:49:58 - [71] - Quote Tippia wrote: Goatman NotMyFault wrote: VOTE GOAT AND ILL FINALLY WASH!! What, and ruin the raw animal appeal? Dont dispair... soon ill release a New Cologne Collection, first out in all Brutor Tribe station, will be the "Eu de Goat".... followed by the CCP sponsored New Quafe Product: "Quafe with Goat Sweat" VOTE GOAT
Celthric Kanerian Ascendance Of New Eden Workers Trade Federation 619	Posted - 2016.01.10 20:03:49 - [72] - Quote I've never voted for any CSM, as I never notice them doing anything at all.
Jenshae Chiroptera 2470	Posted - 2016.01.10 21:54:17 - [73] - Quote Tippia wrote: ... Beyond that, assuming this hypothesis is actually accurate, it also raises an immediate question: what's the problem? ... The obvious difference is huge alliances that put out mails and coalitions that all use the same forum. One can reach many with Null Sec. High Sec is far, far more divided and has no game pressure to group up the same way. CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids There are other ways to fix Null Sec stagnation and Fozzie SOV is the wrong approach.
Top Guac Mexican Avacado Syndicate 101	Posted - 2016.01.10 22:16:00 - [74] - Quote Celthric Kanerian wrote: I've never voted for any CSM, as I never notice them doing anything at all. People only interested in themselves rarely notice what others are doing - Top Guac 2016 Here are Sugar's first 25 posts about CSMX: http://www.lowseclifestyle.com/p/csmx.html (she's up to post 40 now, which can all be found in her blog) Here's the official CCP CSM page: http://csm.eveonline.com/ (there is quite a bit there about things individual CSM members are doing) There's lots of information there if you just look.
King Aires Chicks on Speed Mordus Angels 84	Posted - 2016.01.10 22:59:57 - [75] - Quote Top Guac wrote: Celthric Kanerian wrote: I've never voted for any CSM, as I never notice them doing anything at all. People only interested in themselves rarely notice what others are doing - Top Guac 2016 Here are Sugar's first 25 posts about CSMX: http://www.lowseclifestyle.com/p/csmx.html (she's up to post 40 now, which can all be found in her blog) Here's the official CCP CSM page: http://csm.eveonline.com/ (there is quite a bit there about things individual CSM members are doing) There's lots of information there if you just look. After having read that I don't think I can ever get that time of my life back. Reminds me of that time my friends conned me into going to a Nickleback concert
Malcanis Vanishing Point. The Initiative. 17318	Posted - 2016.01.10 23:03:19 - [76] - Quote King Aires wrote: Top Guac wrote: Celthric Kanerian wrote: I've never voted for any CSM, as I never notice them doing anything at all. People only interested in themselves rarely notice what others are doing - Top Guac 2016 Here are Sugar's first 25 posts about CSMX: http://www.lowseclifestyle.com/p/csmx.html (she's up to post 40 now, which can all be found in her blog) Here's the official CCP CSM page: http://csm.eveonline.com/ (there is quite a bit there about things individual CSM members are doing) There's lots of information there if you just look. After having read that I don't think I can ever get that time of my life back. Reminds me of that time my friends conned me into going to a Nickleback concert They weren't your friends. "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his ISK/hr depends upon his not understanding it!"
King Aires Chicks on Speed Mordus Angels 84	Posted - 2016.01.10 23:10:38 - [77] - Quote Malcanis wrote: King Aires wrote: Top Guac wrote: Celthric Kanerian wrote: I've never voted for any CSM, as I never notice them doing anything at all. People only interested in themselves rarely notice what others are doing - Top Guac 2016 Here are Sugar's first 25 posts about CSMX: http://www.lowseclifestyle.com/p/csmx.html (she's up to post 40 now, which can all be found in her blog) Here's the official CCP CSM page: http://csm.eveonline.com/ (there is quite a bit there about things individual CSM members are doing) There's lots of information there if you just look. After having read that I don't think I can ever get that time of my life back. Reminds me of that time my friends conned me into going to a Nickleback concert They weren't your friends. Well they aren't anymore
Top Guac Mexican Avacado Syndicate 101	Posted - 2016.01.10 23:11:17 - [78] - Quote King Aires wrote: After having read that I don't think I can ever get that time of my life back. Reminds me of that time my friends conned me into going to a Nickleback concert Whether you waste it one way or another, it's still just being wasted - Top Guac 2016
Marsha Mallow 2785	Posted - 2016.01.10 23:16:55 - [79] - Quote Top Guac wrote: Here are Sugar's first 25 posts about CSMX: http://www.lowseclifestyle.com/p/csmx.html (she's up to post 40 now, which can all be found in her blog) Here's the official CCP CSM page: http://csm.eveonline.com/ (there is quite a bit there about things individual CSM members are doing) There's lots of information there if you just look. It's not particularly positive info at the moment though. Sugar's last few blogs and her AMA sounded like she was pretty down over the current state of affairs. I voted for her, both terms, amongst others and it ticks me off seeing anyone come out of that level of engagement with such obvious disappointment. I'll be damned if I sit back idly whilst people like her put that level of effort in then walk away feeling shite, and it's evident from too many competent former CSMs to ignore. Some of them are acting like they have PTSD and that's too high a price to nominate another player to pay on our behalf over a game, or on behalf of a community who don't appreciate the entity. Plus have you even looked at the people running this time? If anyone thinks this year was a disaster, next year will be a hairpulling armageddon judging by who is running. The only one I can see worth voting for atm, and with any endorsement of note, is Steve. Who CCP might as well recruit at this point anyway. The rest either don't have a clue what the CSM is and make outrageous promises or are gibbering smackmonkeys you can pretty much guarantee will cause loads of drama. It's a cringingly bad prospect as things stand, and despite the best intentions of some of the people applying the fact that so few with any real credibility are willing to sign up should be sending a massive signal that a shake up is needed. That said I'm only halfway through the revised white paper. There are a few bits worth considering in there. Linky. Knowing they have more SP than I do isnGÇÖt going to stop me from taking the fight if I was going to take it.
Jenshae Chiroptera 2470	Posted - 2016.01.10 23:31:55 - [80] - Quote Marsha Mallow wrote: ... Plus have you even looked at the people running this time? ... I'm voting for Xenuria CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids There are other ways to fix Null Sec stagnation and Fozzie SOV is the wrong approach.

Marsha Mallow 2787	Posted - 2016.01.10 23:46:47 - [81] - Quote Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: I'm voting for Xenuria Please explain as per your own criteria. I'd also like to know why you are voting for a Goon candidate. Tia. Line by line btw. Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: Once again, it will no doubt be largely Goons appointed members. Once again, we shall have the minority (Null Sec) speaking for the majority (High Sec). Once again, we will be voting for people people based on what tribe they are in (coalition) ... and yet again, we will be thinking about ourselves when we do this; without regard for whether they actually have the skills and neutral mindset to do a good job. However, I want you to ask yourselves this: - Why are you voting for that person? - Is the CSM influence more gradual and insidious? - Is the CSM too full of peacocks or selfish agendas to be taken seriously by CCP? - Is CSM largely a lobby group? - How can the whole process be improved? - Are these questions too late? Knowing they have more SP than I do isnGÇÖt going to stop me from taking the fight if I was going to take it.
Jenshae Chiroptera 2471	Posted - 2016.01.11 00:10:04 - [82] - Quote Marsha Mallow wrote: ... Please explain ... "Feck it" Your post was actually the tipping point. I now feel CSM is pointless, without hope and we might as well vote for Xenuria after the year CCP has given us. CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids There are other ways to fix Null Sec stagnation and Fozzie SOV is the wrong approach.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7055	Posted - 2016.01.11 00:24:40 - [83] - Quote Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: I found last year that most of High Sec doesn't know that a CSM even exists or what it does. CCP does not make a big enough song and dance. They could put up a notification like down time upon log in or they could stick it like a MoTD in Local chat. How can a vote represent a majority when the majority doesn't know the vote even happens? It's not CCPs fault if there are people who actively avoid paying attention to the game they play. It's not like the CSM is some hidden thing. And the thing is, who's to say what the majority is? More characters live in highsec, sure, but that doesn't mean they support the highsec candidates. I have most of my characters living in highsec, with only a few in null and low, yet I vote mainly for null CSM members because that's where I live with my main and that's where I've wanted to see developed. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Marsha Mallow 2787	Posted - 2016.01.11 00:44:49 - [84] - Quote Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: Marsha Mallow wrote: ... Please explain ... "Feck it" Your post was actually the tipping point. I now feel CSM is pointless, without hope and we might as well vote for Xenuria after the year CCP has given us. Porkies. You were screeching about this in 2012, and it's not unrelated now. I was going to ask you to rename the topic to 'time of the month' but prolly no-one would get it here. One of the people you quoted in your OP there was a formie corpie btw, beta player, goonhater, glorious badposter. He quite literally rage quit a director channel 3 years in because I said Hairgel Boy was fit (which was a lie, hairgel is vile). He then ragequit public because another (female) director remarked she'd been in GSF in the past on a sold alt. I think I was expected to scurry after him gushing apologies, but I couldn't be arsed so he quit playing. I still wonder whether I'm responsible, he is, or the ebil tubbies? Thoughts? There's no tipping point as such other than the CSM process becoming obviously farcical in many respects. Unlike you, I've always been a supporter of the CSM, have voted for a lot of strong candidates, and appreciate the work that they've done. I also quite like Leeloo and how she runs things, so don't want to see any of the community team criticised over what might just be something that needs significant review. But we can't stop bad candidates from being elected, and we can't stop good candidates from also being elected then burned out by the process. This wastage of enthusiastic people playing against a hostile community, an ambivalent development team, and on a backdrop of what has become Nixon style real-politique just strikes me as a huge waste of time for everyone involved. So yeh, feck it. Knowing they have more SP than I do isnGÇÖt going to stop me from taking the fight if I was going to take it.
Jenn aSide Ascendent. Test Alliance Please Ignore 13303	Posted - 2016.01.11 01:25:17 - [85] - Quote Marsha Mallow wrote: Porkies. You were screeching about this in 2012, and it's not unrelated now. We interrupt this thread for a special message to point out that the fellow you replied to (who likes to say that I am somehow a broken record who never says anything new) is full of it because of the two of us, I'm the one who HASN'T been on a multi-year crusade against the evils video game injustice Now back to your regularly scheduled thread.
Joe Risalo State War Academy Caldari State 1198	Posted - 2016.01.11 01:59:31 - [86] - Quote Lets see... A very small group of people, supposed to 'represent' a very large amount of players, elected through a process that many don't know about, which is easily monopolized, spreading flags of what 'they' feel Eve should be like, hindering CCP's attempts at progress in developing a game that entices large audiences, and doing so under the premise of what 'they' feel will make a 'better' Eve. I'd rather abolish the CSM and rely on protests.
Avvy Republic University Minmatar Republic 269	Posted - 2016.01.11 03:00:11 - [87] - Quote Mithandra wrote: ... I have zero interest in sending complete strangers to iceland to attempt to sway CCP in its decision making and game altering process. To many power blocks with too many agendas for any of the games players to be totally unbiased. ... That's kind of my feeling about it too.
Djsaeu Republic Military School Minmatar Republic 15	Posted - 2016.01.11 03:15:53 - [88] - Quote CSM? Don't care, Don't know, Don't want to know. I just pay to play.
Remiel Pollard Red Federation RvB - RED Federation 7349	Posted - 2016.01.11 04:23:50 - [89] - Quote Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: Tippia wrote: ... Beyond that, assuming this hypothesis is actually accurate, it also raises an immediate question: what's the problem? ... The obvious difference is huge alliances that put out mails and coalitions that all use the same forum. One can reach many with Null Sec. High Sec is far, far more divided and has no game pressure to group up the same way. Wait... you mean to say that, superior PR wins elections??? WELL I NEVAH! GÇ£Some capsuleers claim that ECM is 'dishonorable' and 'unfair'. Jam those ones first, and kill them last.GÇ¥ - Jirai 'Fatal' Laitanen, Pithum Nullifier Training Manual c. YC104
Joe Risalo State War Academy Caldari State 1200	Posted - 2016.01.11 04:59:45 - [90] - Quote Remiel Pollard wrote: Wait... you mean to say that, superior PR wins elections??? WELL I NEVAH! It's more like voting for prom queen than voting a representative that would lead to the betterment of Eve. It's all about who has the most people that know them and really like to look at their.... youtube videos.... in tight clothing.

Jenshae Chiroptera 2472	Posted - 2016.01.11 06:47:13 - [91] - Quote Jenn aSide wrote: ... (who likes to say that I am somehow a broken record who never says anything new) .... Aww you finally got it and stopped filtering! Now, the first stage is denial. Not much we can do to help you with that I'm afraid but I will try keep an eye out for when you get past it. Marsha Mallow wrote: ... screeching + it's not unrelated now. ... So yeh, feck it. I guess that highlights how pointless it is. I can at least say that I tried. I flew about, talked with as many people as I could, even directed them to various candidates to try and at least get some more votes. I actually ran for CSM to try and do something. Unlike Jenn aSnide who as far as I can tell has never actually contributed anything besides, "People are delusional and by implication I am superior." CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids There are other ways to fix Null Sec stagnation and Fozzie SOV is the wrong approach.
Indahmawar Fazmarai 4488	Posted - 2016.01.11 07:50:17 - [92] - Quote Marsha Mallow wrote: Top Guac wrote: Here are Sugar's first 25 posts about CSMX: http://www.lowseclifestyle.com/p/csmx.html (she's up to post 40 now, which can all be found in her blog) Here's the official CCP CSM page: http://csm.eveonline.com/ (there is quite a bit there about things individual CSM members are doing) There's lots of information there if you just look. It's not particularly positive info at the moment though. Sugar's last few blogs and her AMA sounded like she was pretty down over the current state of affairs. I voted for her, both terms, amongst others and it ticks me off seeing anyone come out of that level of engagement with such obvious disappointment. I'll be damned if I sit back idly whilst people like her put that level of effort in then walk away feeling shite, and it's evident from too many competent former CSMs to ignore. Some of them are acting like they have PTSD and that's too high a price to nominate another player to pay on our behalf over a game, or on behalf of a community who don't appreciate the entity. Plus have you even looked at the people running this time? If anyone thinks this year was a disaster, next year will be a hairpulling armageddon judging by who is running. The only one I can see worth voting for atm, and with any endorsement of note, is Steve. Who CCP might as well recruit at this point anyway. The rest either don't have a clue what the CSM is and make outrageous promises or are gibbering smackmonkeys you can pretty much guarantee will cause loads of drama. It's a cringingly bad prospect as things stand, and despite the best intentions of some of the people applying the fact that so few with any real credibility are willing to sign up should be sending a massive signal that a shake up is needed. That said I'm only halfway through the revised white paper. There are a few bits worth considering in there. Linky. I've been following Sugar since her first term, and also Mike Azariah. The fact that Mike has gone AWOL at his blog and Sugar is struggling to keep with her CSM compromises against everyone and everything is depressing in itself; it sucks when bad things happen to nice people. As I said, CSM was born from a breach of trust and IMO it has died in a breach of trust. Probably one of the first things on the table of the new CCO will be to decide what to do with the CSM, since in its current state I doubt that there was an outrage if CCP just disbanded it and no amount of good will can heal the wound caused by certain jerk. CCP 2016 is not CCP 2005. EVE 2016 is in no way EVE 2005. And there's better ways to engage the customers than let a small minority pick their favorites and then reward those people (good or bad) with a tainted gift. The CSM will crush the candidates under lots of work and being continuously between a rock and a hard place, like a step child disliked both by the customers and the employees. CCP Seagull: "EVE should be a universe where the infrastructure you build and fight over is as player driven and dynamic as the EVE market is now". 62% of players: "We're not interested. May we have Plan B, please?" CCP Seagull: "What Plan B?"
LordInvisible Nova Ardour Mafia Horde 21	Posted - 2016.01.11 08:43:41 - [93] - Quote CSM: bunch of ppl cherry picking the "issues" that _THEY_ seem interesting while getting rewards and fame IF CCP decides that those "issues" are more interesting than walking in stations, fozziesov and other "features" that "fix" things that are not even broken.. As in RL life, I find it pointless to even think about politics, since I do not like to feed already overfed ppl (with fame, attention etc..).
Malcanis Vanishing Point. The Initiative. 17322	Posted - 2016.01.11 11:56:00 - [94] - Quote Joe Risalo wrote: Lets see... A very small group of people, supposed to 'represent' a very large amount of players, elected through a process that many don't know about, which is easily monopolized, spreading flags of what 'they' feel Eve should be like, hindering CCP's attempts at progress in developing a game that entices large audiences, and doing so under the premise of what 'they' feel will make a 'better' Eve. I'd rather abolish the CSM and rely on protests. How is it easily monopolized? "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his ISK/hr depends upon his not understanding it!"
Tippia Sunshine and Lollipops 26683	Posted - 2016.01.11 12:12:46 - [95] - Quote Malcanis wrote: Joe Risalo wrote: Lets see... A very small group of people, supposed to 'represent' a very large amount of players, elected through a process that many don't know about, which is easily monopolized, spreading flags of what 'they' feel Eve should be like, hindering CCP's attempts at progress in developing a game that entices large audiences, and doing so under the premise of what 'they' feel will make a 'better' Eve. I'd rather abolish the CSM and rely on protests. How is it easily monopolized? Well, you see, if lots of people don't voteGÇª GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥ Get a good start: Newbie skillplan 2.3 - Vanguard Edition.
Alphea Abbra Grim Determination Violence of Action. 827	Posted - 2016.01.11 12:13:05 - [96] - Quote It seems that people are angry that those who votes are those who also get represented the best. I'm not sure why you're angry about that, since all proposed alternatives I've seen are much, much worse. If you want to reduce CFC influence on CSM, vote for non-CFC people. If you explicitly want hi-sec people, get some to run and mount a campaign. An STV system is good for maybe-possible-candidates, so if you get going with good campaigns and good candidates, you can actually do something about all this. Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: I now feel CSM is pointless, without hope and we might as well vote for Xenuria after the year CCP has given us. Best reason to vote for the blabbering fool I've seen so far. Not that it's a good reason, still.
SurrenderMonkey Space Llama Industries 1473	Posted - 2016.01.11 16:00:44 - [97] - Quote King Aires wrote: Tippia wrote: Jace Varus wrote: Go to the beta map in-game, and turn to the average number of pilots in space in the last 30 minutes. There you go. Just one problem GÇö in fact, the exact same problem as with all those inane claims: it doesn't display players. The mythical majority is just that: a myth, at best born out of bad maths, at worst born out of sheer ignorance and wishful thinking. CCP tells us there is 1.5 accounts per person on average. So we can take the population of High-Sec and halve it to come up with the representative average of players who are at least "High-Sec". Therefore, there is still more high-sec than null. And the CSM is overwhelmingly weighted towards CFC bought trolls. I have two accounts active at the moment. One of my characters rarely enters high sec. The other 5 almost never leave high sec. I am certainly not a ******* "high sec player". "Help, I'm bored with missions!" http://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/
Jenshae Chiroptera 2475	Posted - 2016.01.11 18:33:08 - [98] - Quote Alphea Abbra wrote: ... If you want to reduce CFC influence on CSM, vote .... Check what the a "mango" is to the Chinese server and then look at Goons. CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids There are other ways to fix Null Sec stagnation and Fozzie SOV is the wrong approach.
Alphea Abbra Grim Determination Violence of Action. 827	Posted - 2016.01.11 19:10:55 - [99] - Quote Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: Alphea Abbra wrote: ... If you want to reduce CFC influence on CSM, vote .... Check what the a "mango" is to the Chinese server and then look at Goons. If that is related to anything we're discussing here, you can link it and actually do some in-depth explaining. Else, I'm not really going to see how it's anything but a rambling outcry, just like your intent to vote for Xenuria as an act of revenge.
Jenshae Chiroptera 2475	Posted - 2016.01.11 19:27:38 - [100] - Quote Alphea Abbra wrote: Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: Alphea Abbra wrote: ... If you want to reduce CFC influence on CSM, vote .... Check what the a "mango" is to the Chinese server and then look at Goons. If that is related to anything we're discussing here, you can link it and actually do some in-depth explaining. Else, I'm not really going to see how it's anything but a rambling outcry, just like your intent to vote for Xenuria as an act of revenge. There, there, open wide choo choo train coming. CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids There are other ways to fix Null Sec stagnation and Fozzie SOV is the wrong approach.

SurrenderMonkey Space Llama Industries 1481	Posted - 2016.01.11 20:25:48 - [101] - Quote Also, regarding the imaginary "high sec majority": Why is it assumed the interests of this group would be shared? Even when I could be reasonably said to "live" in high sec, I really doubt what I wanted to see happen to high sec even remotely mirrored the positions of whatever this "high sec majority" is believed to want. "Help, I'm bored with missions!" http://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/
Remiel Pollard Red Federation RvB - RED Federation 7355	Posted - 2016.01.11 20:32:15 - [102] - Quote Joe Risalo wrote: Remiel Pollard wrote: Wait... you mean to say that, superior PR wins elections??? WELL I NEVAH! It's more like voting for prom queen than voting a representative that would lead to the betterment of Eve. It's all about who has the most people that know them and really like to look at their.... youtube videos.... in tight clothing. You're such a drama queen GÇ£Some capsuleers claim that ECM is 'dishonorable' and 'unfair'. Jam those ones first, and kill them last.GÇ¥ - Jirai 'Fatal' Laitanen, Pithum Nullifier Training Manual c. YC104
Joe Risalo State War Academy Caldari State 1203	Posted - 2016.01.11 20:37:27 - [103] - Quote Remiel Pollard wrote: Joe Risalo wrote: Remiel Pollard wrote: Wait... you mean to say that, superior PR wins elections??? WELL I NEVAH! It's more like voting for prom queen than voting a representative that would lead to the betterment of Eve. It's all about who has the most people that know them and really like to look at their.... youtube videos.... in tight clothing. You're such a drama queen lol, thank you!! Doesn't falsify my claim though, lol.
Jenn aSide Ascendent. Test Alliance Please Ignore 13320	Posted - 2016.01.11 20:43:36 - [104] - Quote SurrenderMonkey wrote: Also, regarding the imaginary "high sec majority": Why is it assumed the interests of this group would be shared? Why? I thought it was obvious. Because the people claiming injustice on behalf of all high sec need those interests to be shared. That way the people who self-proclaim themselves spokespersons for high sec can continue to believe they have a leg to stand on. I mean, if those beliefs aren't shared, if the high sec majority doesn't exist but instead is a collection of alts of non-high sec players combined with masses os solo/casual players that honestly either don't give a damn or do care but not in the way they like, well then that would mean that what these GD high sec posters is saying is absolute...erm, um, what's the British slang word I'm looking for...oh yea... BOLLOCKS.
Alphea Abbra Grim Determination Violence of Action. 827	Posted - 2016.01.11 20:48:49 - [105] - Quote Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: Alphea Abbra wrote: Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: Alphea Abbra wrote: ... If you want to reduce CFC influence on CSM, vote .... Check what the a "mango" is to the Chinese server and then look at Goons. If that is related to anything we're discussing here, you can link it and actually do some in-depth explaining. Else, I'm not really going to see how it's anything but a rambling outcry, just like your intent to vote for Xenuria as an act of revenge. There, there, open wide choo choo train coming. So they're pretty much entirely unrelated, apart from both being large nullsec powers? I mean, you're trying to make CFC out to rule the entirety of nullsec? Spoiler alert: They don't. Never have, probably never will. Last time they controlled half of their territory, TEST decided they could rule on their own, and when sov. and jump changes were on their way, CFC retracted into the territory they knew they could control (And seeing how N3 struggled with controlling vast amounts of space after the changes, in hindsight that may have been wise). If you want to suggest that CFC are ruling EVE, however, that's... not really true. Especially not in regards to the CSM. So please, try again. It's like discussing with Xenuria, I always leave with a sense of superior intelligence.
Remiel Pollard Red Federation RvB - RED Federation 7356	Posted - 2016.01.11 20:50:53 - [106] - Quote Joe Risalo wrote: Remiel Pollard wrote: Joe Risalo wrote: Remiel Pollard wrote: Wait... you mean to say that, superior PR wins elections??? WELL I NEVAH! It's more like voting for prom queen than voting a representative that would lead to the betterment of Eve. It's all about who has the most people that know them and really like to look at their.... youtube videos.... in tight clothing. You're such a drama queen lol, thank you!! Doesn't falsify my claim though, lol. No need to falsify something that has been asserted without substantiation. It falsifies itself just fine by ignoring the nature of democratic politics from the outset. Nothing you said here, as dramatic as you tried to make it seem, negates the fact that superior PR wins elections. Not just in EVE, but everywhere. The guy with the most money, the best PR, and the strongest campaign who can make the most people aware of his existence will get the most votes. Policy is irrelevant if no one knows you exist. GÇ£Some capsuleers claim that ECM is 'dishonorable' and 'unfair'. Jam those ones first, and kill them last.GÇ¥ - Jirai 'Fatal' Laitanen, Pithum Nullifier Training Manual c. YC104
SurrenderMonkey Space Llama Industries 1482	Posted - 2016.01.11 20:53:03 - [107] - Quote Jenn aSide wrote: SurrenderMonkey wrote: Also, regarding the imaginary "high sec majority": Why is it assumed the interests of this group would be shared? Why? I thought it was obvious. Because the people claiming injustice on behalf of all high sec need those interests to be shared. That way the people who self-proclaim themselves spokespersons for high sec can continue to believe they have a leg to stand on. I mean, if those beliefs aren't shared, if the high sec majority doesn't exist but instead is a collection of alts of non-high sec players combined with masses os solo/casual players that honestly either don't give a damn or do care but not in the way they like, well then that would mean that what these GD high sec posters is saying is absolute...erm, um, what's the British slang word I'm looking for...oh yea... BOLLOCKS. Bit problematic, eh? I really would like one of the self-appointed representatives of the "high sec majority" to lay out a brief list of their assorted action-items. I'm... curious. "Help, I'm bored with missions!" http://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/
Joe Risalo State War Academy Caldari State 1203	Posted - 2016.01.11 21:05:28 - [108] - Quote Remiel Pollard wrote: No need to falsify something that has been asserted without substantiation. It falsifies itself just fine by ignoring the nature of democratic politics from the outset. Nothing you said here, as dramatic as you tried to make it seem, negates the fact that superior PR wins elections. Not just in EVE, but everywhere. The guy with the most money, the best PR, and the strongest campaign who can make the most people aware of his existence will get the most votes. Policy is irrelevant if no one knows you exist. When you have approx. 5000 people that will vote for you, solely out of association, while others (like myself) have no idea how the process even works, let alone where/when/or how to vote, it's very easy to take advantage of. If we're going to keep the CSM, then it needs to be better publicized by CCP. I say this because they're currently allowing a very small minority to dictate the outcome of the elections, solely on the lack of knowledge the general Eve public has on the CSM. If CCP truly want the CSM to represent the players, then they need to ensure that every player knows about it.
Saisin Chao3's Rogue Operatives Corp Chao3 Alliance 307	Posted - 2016.01.11 21:20:58 - [109] - Quote For every toon in the CFC it is likely that there is another toon of the same player in another area of space, be it High Sec, WH, Low sec, ... So saying that any null sec bloc can't represent the rest of the game is very likely to be incorrect. The only way to know who represents what is to get rid of the anonymity of alts, and have them linked publicly. As far as I know only one candidate is pushing this (see my sig). So what about having CCP publish the names of all the alts of all candidates that will choose to formally apply for CSM this year? This way we all would have a clear view of what each player behind their public alt truly stands for. Vote Borat Guereen for CSM XI "surrender your ego, be free". innuendo. Freedom fighters, unite with Chao3
Joe Risalo State War Academy Caldari State 1203	Posted - 2016.01.11 21:28:36 - [110] - Quote Saisin wrote: For every toon in the CFC it is likely that there is another toon of the same player in another area of space, be it High Sec, WH, Low sec, ... So saying that any null sec bloc can't represent the rest of the game is very likely to be incorrect. The only way to know who represents what is to get rid of the anonymity of alts, and have them linked publicly. As far as I know only one candidate is pushing this (see my sig). So what about having CCP publish the names of all the alts of all candidates that will choose to formally apply for CSM this year? This way we all would have a clear view of what each player behind their public alt truly stands for. This does you no good, as alt accounts are not factored. It would not only be uncouth of CCP to show accounts shared by a single individual, but also likely illegal, as it essentially means they're publicly sharing the purchase history of a single individual.

Jenshae Chiroptera 2475	Posted - 2016.01.11 21:39:12 - [111] - Quote Alphea Abbra wrote: ... I mean, you're trying to make CFC out to rule the entirety of nullsec? .... Man-go. "Go to H1Z1." They go. "Vote for X, Y and Z." They go. Simple. Right there for you to read. CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids There are other ways to fix Null Sec stagnation and Fozzie SOV is the wrong approach.
Saisin Chao3's Rogue Operatives Corp Chao3 Alliance 307	Posted - 2016.01.11 21:52:40 - [112] - Quote Joe Risalo wrote: Saisin wrote: For every toon in the CFC it is likely that there is another toon of the same player in another area of space, be it High Sec, WH, Low sec, ... So saying that any null sec bloc can't represent the rest of the game is very likely to be incorrect. The only way to know who represents what is to get rid of the anonymity of alts, and have them linked publicly. As far as I know only one candidate is pushing this (see my sig). So what about having CCP publish the names of all the alts of all candidates that will choose to formally apply for CSM this year? This way we all would have a clear view of what each player behind their public alt truly stands for. This does you no good, as alt accounts are not factored. It would not only be uncouth of CCP to show accounts shared by a single individual, but also likely illegal, as it essentially means they're publicly sharing the purchase history of a single individual. It would do good, as each player's experience in Eve is the sum of all his alts's experience. It would not be illegal if the CSM application was mofified in such a way that allowed CCP to disclose all the alts of the candidate would be included as a condition to run. Then each player would make their choice to run or not under these rules, and each voter could really see who they are voting for. Vote Borat Guereen for CSM XI "surrender your ego, be free". innuendo. Freedom fighters, unite with Chao3
Top Guac Mexican Avacado Syndicate 102	Posted - 2016.01.11 21:53:01 - [113] - Quote Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: Alphea Abbra wrote: ... I mean, you're trying to make CFC out to rule the entirety of nullsec? .... Man-go. "Go to H1Z1." They go. "Vote for X, Y and Z." They go. Simple. Right there for you to read. If you are going to go with that sort of thinking, then why didn't the kickstarter succeed? Like, if it's just as simple as the top of the CFC saying something, then surely the target should have been easy.
Jenn aSide Ascendent. Test Alliance Please Ignore 13322	Posted - 2016.01.11 21:56:12 - [114] - Quote Top Guac wrote: Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: Alphea Abbra wrote: ... I mean, you're trying to make CFC out to rule the entirety of nullsec? .... Man-go. "Go to H1Z1." They go. "Vote for X, Y and Z." They go. Simple. Right there for you to read. If you are going to go with that sort of thinking, then why didn't the kickstarter succeed? Like, if it's just as simple as the top of the CFC saying something, then surely the target should have been easy. You're trying to use facts to defeat prejudice. This has worked exactly 0 times in the history of mankind. Good luck anyway lol.
Joe Risalo State War Academy Caldari State 1204	Posted - 2016.01.11 21:59:45 - [115] - Quote Saisin wrote: It would do good, as each player's experience in Eve is the sum of all his alts's experience. It would not be illegal if the CSM application was mofified in such a way that allowed CCP to disclose all the alts of the candidate would be included as a condition to run. Then each player would make their choice to run or not under these rules, and each voter could really see who they are voting for. What you must consider is that in doing so, it removes the capability of said player performing certain actions within Eve, such as HS PVE to fund pvp, and other things such as removing their capability to spy with any of their accounts. Having said that, it's also extremely easy for a player to "hide" account association. I can create a separate bank account, with a separate card, on in my wife's name, and CCP would not know the association.
Jenshae Chiroptera 2475	Posted - 2016.01.11 22:01:51 - [116] - Quote Top Guac wrote: ... If you are going to go with that sort of thinking, then why didn't the kickstarter succeed? ... You can go find your own answers for that exception. CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids There are other ways to fix Null Sec stagnation and Fozzie SOV is the wrong approach.
Alphea Abbra Grim Determination Violence of Action. 827	Posted - 2016.01.11 22:07:10 - [117] - Quote Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: Alphea Abbra wrote: ... I mean, you're trying to make CFC out to rule the entirety of nullsec? .... Man-go. "Go to H1Z1." They go. "Vote for X, Y and Z." They go. Simple. Right there for you to read. And you did not think that was a convoluted way of saying that? You could also have said that CFC is akin to every other well-functioning organisation with a strong hierarchy, and point to any other EVE organisation that is able to thrive. When all you do is link to a post about one alliance ('Mangos') poised to take over most of nullsec, you're not really making any clear attempt at a reference. Maybe, for those of us not inside your little bubble, you could work on your comparisons? But even with your clarification, how is that a problem? I started by saying "if you want less CFC influence, don't vote for CFC, and organise the non-CFC vote." If you run better candidates and campaigns than the CFC, then CFC will lose. It's one of the most basic things in political science. If you want to make all of CFC look like sheep, then you also failed. When nullsec blocs seem to vote in bloc, that's no different from members/supporters of modern parties voting for the candidate that a party leadership has decided to endorse (Or, more practically, to have run for the party in the election). You would likely find that members of nullsec alliances more often than party members swapped out people, so they did not follow the official "party" endorsement. I did, and I know several others who did. Actually, this is mostly hitting yourself. You are so bad, so unpopular, so unable to organise, that even though you claim to be a large majority (62% or thereabouts?), a small minority can outvote you quite handily. If you want to whine against CFC for being better at elections than yourself, remember that you claim to be the majority, and nothing is standing between you and an election victory except your own competence and popularity. CFC can, according to your comparison, make even the most slave-esque sheep vote, while all the (Comparatively) free-thinkers and nice people of hisec are staying away? Apparently, your failure is that you're so much worse than CFC, even with all the cards on your hand you're unable to win elections.
Top Guac Mexican Avacado Syndicate 103	Posted - 2016.01.11 22:08:35 - [118] - Quote Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: Top Guac wrote: ... If you are going to go with that sort of thinking, then why didn't the kickstarter succeed? ... You can go find your own answers for that exception. Nah, I'm already a Reddit superstar (obviously not on this parody). CFC owning nullsec....maybe the next kickstarter will get there.
Remiel Pollard Red Federation RvB - RED Federation 7356	Posted - 2016.01.11 22:10:08 - [119] - Quote Joe Risalo wrote: If CCP truly want the CSM to represent the players, then they need to ensure that every player knows about it. What if they do know about it, and they just don't care? I'll tell you a secret, I know all about it, and I don't care one jot. Never voted, never have, never will. Whether we need em or not, or they're relevant or not, it doesn't make one spit of difference to me. I'm here to shoot at spaceships. If a CSM comes along with some kind of influence that changes the cold, hard nature of EVE Online, I unsubscribe, and at the end of the day, that's on CCP, not the CSM. They're little more than liaisons, and we have enough CSM minutes to see quite clearly that their attention is not just on nulsec, but on the game as a whole, to make it better for everybody. To compromise where it's needed. Most of the plebs in highsec drilling ore with a pretty beam of light just don't care. As for nul, no one has any way of knowing who you're voting for, unless you tell them. Doesn't matter how much influence you have, as a leader, over the players under your 'command', they have a mind of their own, and you are insulting the player base and their capacity for self-agency by assuming all these things that you're assuming. Don't be that guy. Or be that guy, I don't care, but the latter will result in little more than returning the ridicule and insult that you're dishing out with these assumptions of the minds of people you know nothing about. GÇ£Some capsuleers claim that ECM is 'dishonorable' and 'unfair'. Jam those ones first, and kill them last.GÇ¥ - Jirai 'Fatal' Laitanen, Pithum Nullifier Training Manual c. YC104
Jenshae Chiroptera 2475	Posted - 2016.01.11 22:34:12 - [120] - Quote Alphea Abbra wrote: ... Actually, this is mostly hitting yourself. You are so bad, so unpopular, so unable to organise, that even though you claim to be a large majority (62% or thereabouts?), ... I like how you go on about "you" this and that, based on the assumption that I am a High Sec resident. Try some "they"s rather. CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids There are other ways to fix Null Sec stagnation and Fozzie SOV is the wrong approach.

Saisin Chao3's Rogue Operatives Corp Chao3 Alliance 307	Posted - 2016.01.11 22:38:09 - [121] - Quote Joe Risalo wrote: Saisin wrote: It would do good, as each player's experience in Eve is the sum of all his alts's experience. It would not be illegal if the CSM application was mofified in such a way that allowed CCP to disclose all the alts of the candidate would be included as a condition to run. Then each player would make their choice to run or not under these rules, and each voter could really see who they are voting for. What you must consider is that in doing so, it removes the capability of said player performing certain actions within Eve, such as HS PVE to fund pvp, and other things such as removing their capability to spy with any of their accounts. Having said that, it's also extremely easy for a player to "hide" account association. I can create a separate bank account, with a separate card, on in my wife's name, and CCP would not know the association. You could do that. CCP could also state in their EULA that if you are caught doing that, these accounts will be perma banned. It is then up to you to decide if the risk is worth it or not, like one does when engaging in RMT for example. As for your example of doing some activities in game, you are only pointing to risks' avoidance, hiding behind anonymous alts. Borat Guereen highlights this in his campaign thread. Vote Borat Guereen for CSM XI "surrender your ego, be free". innuendo. Freedom fighters, unite with Chao3
Alphea Abbra Grim Determination Violence of Action. 827	Posted - 2016.01.11 22:50:29 - [122] - Quote Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: Alphea Abbra wrote: ... Actually, this is mostly hitting yourself. You are so bad, so unpopular, so unable to organise, that even though you claim to be a large majority (62% or thereabouts?), ... I like how you go on about "you" this and that, based on the assumption that I am a High Sec resident. Try some "they"s rather. Am I to understand that you're not advocating for the mythical 62% to rise up and elect all sorts of non-CFC people? I'm personally working more from an alternative from the "hiseccers should vote for hiseccers"-crowds idea, namely that political alignment is largely independent on where you live or what you do there, but is rather dependent on goals and ideals. Which is why you often see serious candidates from nullsec, lowsec and WH work together or even endorse each other. Essentially, I think there are three groups in the CSM: The serious, improvement candidates; the misunderstanders; and the conspiracy nutjobs. It's a coincidence that most conspiracy nutjobs I've seen are from hisec, but not a coincidence that they want to tap into the, in their minds, wealth of votes that hisec seems to offer for the dumb or politically challenged. But does it matter? Irregardless of how you define them, you want some group (Whose existence is questionable) to come out of the woodworks and elect non-CFC people. You're failing that task, even though your voter potential should be huge, if some of the CSM conspiracies are to be believed. The reason for that, given that you explicitly think the CFC are sheep being commanded by a few leaders, is that you're even worse at elections than the CFC are.
SurrenderMonkey Space Llama Industries 1484	Posted - 2016.01.11 23:59:40 - [123] - Quote Saisin wrote: Joe Risalo wrote: Saisin wrote: For every toon in the CFC it is likely that there is another toon of the same player in another area of space, be it High Sec, WH, Low sec, ... So saying that any null sec bloc can't represent the rest of the game is very likely to be incorrect. The only way to know who represents what is to get rid of the anonymity of alts, and have them linked publicly. As far as I know only one candidate is pushing this (see my sig). So what about having CCP publish the names of all the alts of all candidates that will choose to formally apply for CSM this year? This way we all would have a clear view of what each player behind their public alt truly stands for. This does you no good, as alt accounts are not factored. It would not only be uncouth of CCP to show accounts shared by a single individual, but also likely illegal, as it essentially means they're publicly sharing the purchase history of a single individual. It would do good, as each player's experience in Eve is the sum of all his alts's experience. It would not be illegal if the CSM application was mofified in such a way that allowed CCP to disclose all the alts of the candidate would be included as a condition to run. Then each player would make their choice to run or not under these rules, and each voter could really see who they are voting for. How divorced from any sort of realistic perspective do you actually have to be to think that internet spaceship video-game politicians owe you a single scrap of their PII? I'm pretty sure this is why they invented aerosol bitterant. "Help, I'm bored with missions!" http://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/
Jenshae Chiroptera 2477	Posted - 2016.01.12 06:45:33 - [124] - Quote Alphea Abbra wrote: (Nonsense). Again, it is simple: Within the scope of the entire EVE population, the CFC is a minority and they are controlling 75% of the votes. Type out as much fluff as you like but it is obvious that something is broken and people are not informed that the CSM exists and or what it does. CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids There are other ways to fix Null Sec stagnation and Fozzie SOV is the wrong approach.
SurrenderMonkey Space Llama Industries 1490	Posted - 2016.01.12 07:24:44 - [125] - Quote Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: Alphea Abbra wrote: (Nonsense). Again, it is simple: Within the scope of the entire EVE population, the CFC is a minority and they are controlling 75% of the votes. Type out as much fluff as you like but it is obvious that something is broken and people are not informed that the CSM exists and or what it does. So what you're saying is... Grr, goons. "Help, I'm bored with missions!" http://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/
Scipio Artelius The Vendunari End of Life 43103	Posted - 2016.01.12 07:42:45 - [126] - Quote Scipio Artelius wrote: Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: - Why are you voting for that person? - Is the CSM influence more gradual and insidious? - Is the CSM too full of peacocks or selfish agendas to be taken seriously by CCP? - Is CSM largely a lobby group? - How can the whole process be improved? - Are these questions too late? - Who Xenuria? As a troll initially, but Mittens has already declared that Xenuria will be in, so I might have to vote Gevlon if he eventually gets accepted - CSM influence? - I think there are other reasons it isn't taken seriously by some of CCP - I think a lot of people go into it thinking they can lobby and then realise that's not its purpose - Abolish it - Maybe I should probably update my earlier response, because I wouldn't really vote for Xenuria or Gevlon, for the following reasons: Xenuria: Is running on a reform platform, but I have no clue what the reforms are supposed to be because he seems to be claiming that he can't know what reforms are needed them until he's on the CSM. He's also already assured of a place, being on the Goon ticket, so there's no need for me to vote for him. Gevlon: If he is ever accepted, he'll still be running on the basis of disrupting the CSM as much as possible, which would seem to me to be very frustrating to the other members who take their role genuinely. Who? Steve Ronuken: If ever there is someone that just quietly does stuff for the rest of us, you only need to go look at the tools he provides on his website to know that he's extremely invested in the game and very willing to share with other people. Uriel Paradisi Anteovenucci: Well, only if it doesn't affect his ability to dig into the SiSi asset database and expose all the upcoming things; as well as all his work on the Lore of the game. Clearly another guy that will take the role seriously to provide genuine feedback to CCP because he cares about the game Joffy Aulx-Gao: Not only because, with the departure of Sugar, lowsec could use an additional voice, but also because he has some unique challenges to playing the game, that might help CCP understand broader issues, particularly with UX aspects of the game that might help identify and avoid issues similar to what arose for color-blind players with the icon changes. Vic Jefferson: I don't like it when he hotdrops me with a Carrier or a heap of my friends (and they still kill me), but other then that, from all the posts I read here in the forum, he's not only knowledgeable and has a lot of opinions I agree with, but he also communicates them very well; which I can only see as an asset on the CSM. Others: Don't know yet. I'd vote for Sibyyl and MarshaMallow in a heartbeat for similar reasons of intelligence, genuineness and committment to the game, but they aren't running; so I'll keep looking. I should probably also change my opinion on abolishing the CSM. I think there is real value for the players to be gained by having a player group in such close and regular contact with the developers; and with someone like CCP Leeloo in her role, the CSM has a better chance of having a positive influence than in the past. Come Win At Eve - Join The Vendunari
Joe Risalo State War Academy Caldari State 1204	Posted - 2016.01.12 07:47:58 - [127] - Quote How in the hell do I even find out who's running, what their premise is, and how to vote? This is the kind of crap that CCP should be telling the players because a very large portion of us have no clue.. Myself included.
Scipio Artelius The Vendunari End of Life 43103	Posted - 2016.01.12 08:03:32 - [128] - Quote Joe Risalo wrote: How in the hell do I even find out who's running, what their premise is, and how to vote? This is the kind of crap that CCP should be telling the players because a very large portion of us have no clue.. Myself included. There's a whole section of the forum called: Council of Stellar Management within that there are 3 categories: Assembly Hall Jita Park Speakers Corner CSM Campaigns Click on the CSM Campaigns forum and the candidates post threads there. Here's the direct link: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=topics&f=5971 . Come Win At Eve - Join The Vendunari
Jenn aSide Ascendent. Test Alliance Please Ignore 13329	Posted - 2016.01.12 16:26:53 - [129] - Quote Scipio Artelius wrote: There's a whole section of the forum called: Council of Stellar Management What? You expect a person who obviously has some form of computing device (because he's posting on this forum which also means he's paid some form of payment to CCP, because that's the only real way to be on this forum to begin with) to actually TWITCH his right index finger enough to scroll down to see that forum section that has a highlighted name? This is 2016 sir. Therefore the only suitable solution is for an actual CCP employee to come to our homes and operate our computers for us. It's the only way to be sure.
SurrenderMonkey Space Llama Industries 1492	Posted - 2016.01.12 16:44:52 - [130] - Quote Joe Risalo wrote: How in the hell do I even find out who's running, what their premise is, and how to vote? This is the kind of crap that CCP should be telling the players because a very large portion of us have no clue.. Myself included. http://community.eveonline.com/news/dev-blogs/csm11-elections/ Maybe if you weren't so busy being deliberately obtuse? "Help, I'm bored with missions!" http://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/

Alphea Abbra Grim Determination Violence of Action. 827	Posted - 2016.01.12 18:14:05 - [131] - Quote Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: Within the scope of the entire EVE population, the CFC is a minority and they are controlling 75% of the votes. If it's simple, your source should be readily available? Of course also including a way to check whether non-CFC votes for CFC, and to check whether CFC players use out-of-CFC accounts? Of course, they only have 3/13 seats, and IIRC corbexx joined CFC after getting elected - so you might also want to justify a 75% of the votes claim. Quote: Type out as much fluff as you like but it is obvious that something is broken and people are not informed that the CSM exists and or what it does. What seems most broken is actually your whining, but sure, the voter percentages are generally too low. I think it might be threefold: 1) CSM seems irrelevant to your daily play, so it's not something you care enough to vote for; 2) People often lie about the CSM-elections being rigged or controlled by nullsec coalitions (Or CFC specifically), and thus participating in the election is only adding legitimacy to the CFC control; 3) People lack awareness of what the CSM is/does, and don't care enough to look it up in the election cycle, while they're invisible inbetween, making many people forget. Incidentally, where I meet the most people who know about the CSM and cares, is actually in the nullsec groups. It seems to me that those who actually do inform about the CSM, and stresses the importance of voting, are the nullsec coalitions. I think this is because the nullsec coalitions also have a better structure to inform about such matters, and because they generally have candidates who will hold Q&A's for their members, so rather like you're more likely to be informed about elections if you're in a political party, the same goes for the nullsec coalitions. But why should that be the fault of those nullsec coalitions? As far as I can see, you're condemning CFC for informing their members of a choice they have, to vote, and who the CFC leadership endorses. You're arguing, effectively, for disenfranchising people so that other non-voting groups are comparatively equal. Why? It'd be much different if you argued for CCP sending out EVE-mails (As they've done), or splash banners on the login screen (As they've done), or dev. blogs about the importance of the CSM and how to vote (As they've done), or emails (As they've done), or banners on the launcher (As they've done), or other things that I currently can't remember. Are these efforts doing enough to increase the amount of voters? No, sadly not. But that's not the fault of nullsec coalitions in general or the CFC in particular. Some of it is actually due to people who rant like you do, that the CSM is worthless or in perpetual control of nullsec coalitions. In other words, people who lie to make people disinterested in voting, since it seems like an impossibility to win. Some of it, of course, is also structurally. Since groups are generally larger in nullsec, like larger political parties, they can bring more votes and thus are harder to do anything about. Since hisec aren't in the same big organisations, candidates have to built more of that organisation themselves. But since you think there are so many more hisec people, that should be counterweigted by the higher numbers, right? Again, you turn your own failure around and blame it on nullsec in general or CFC in particular, when it's actually not their fault, and they in part try to do exactly what you ask, namely informing voters and raising voter participation. Don't ask for them to be disenfranchised because another group doesn't vote despite CCPs efforts. I don't get why you blame the participating groups for getting seats relative to their support from the voting population.
Jenn aSide Ascendent. Test Alliance Please Ignore 13330	Posted - 2016.01.12 18:50:05 - [132] - Quote Alphea Abbra wrote: You're arguing, effectively, for disenfranchising people so that other non-voting groups are comparatively equal. Why? Because that's about a million times easier than these types saying to themselves "hmmm, my views are not only unreasonable, they are terribly unattractive EVEN to people who should be on my side" I enjoy watching this, watching unreasonable people lie to themselves and be in such utter discomfort and disarray (over a situation in a video game no less) that you can actually smell it across the internet. But at the exact same time, stepping away from the game BS, it's all really really sad. Not "lol internet" sad, more like "omg these people actually exist" sad. I mean if people go to these lengths to deny some very simple and easy to observe facts in this kind of setting (ie high sec people/casuals/solo players don't vote for csm and won't no matter how much you tell them about it) WTF do they do in real life ,where things don't go the way you want them to from time to time? I imagine they hold the same views (ie it's a big conspiracy because these people I don't like keep winning) there as here. It's all a bit maddening to me, especially when I realize that if it were the other way around (ie high sec/solo/casual types dominated the csm while people in more dedicated/organized groups didn't vote for some reason), these same 'abolish the csm' types would be defending the institution to the death.
Memphis Baas 926	Posted - 2016.01.12 19:23:26 - [133] - Quote Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: Memphis Baas wrote: CCP has to finish the damn null sov revamp and .... You really want Null Sec to be even more shallow? Do you think people would finally like it and flock out there forming many alliances that would all war with each other in constant pew pew? Yeah, I don't agree with the "more shallow" direction, but: - They've announced that major changes are coming, so people are waiting. Nobody's going to invest time, effort, and resources into a home or a war while the game mechanics are under construction. - You're never going to change CCP's direction, even if you're in the CSM. CSM 10 seemed to be focused on null, but the year has passed and CCP has implemented... nothing. Honestly they appear to be on another 18 month vacation, which means we have to wait 6-9 more months. So, whatever they implement, shallow or not, I want them to get a move on. So we can see it, and do another Burn Jita or have another half of the player base quit, or whatever the hell works to open their eyes. CSM, even if we elect the "perfect" people, won't accomplish that.
Jenshae Chiroptera 2478	Posted - 2016.01.12 19:51:52 - [134] - Quote Alphea Abbra wrote: ... - so you might also want to justify a 75% of the votes claim. ... Go find their list of who they were all told to vote for. CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids There are other ways to fix Null Sec stagnation and Fozzie SOV is the wrong approach.
SurrenderMonkey Space Llama Industries 1495	Posted - 2016.01.12 20:07:21 - [135] - Quote Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: Alphea Abbra wrote: ... - so you might also want to justify a 75% of the votes claim. ... Go find their list of who they were all told to vote for. "Go find all of my supporting evidence for me." Link or GTFO, tbh. "Help, I'm bored with missions!" http://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/
Jenshae Chiroptera 2478	Posted - 2016.01.12 20:15:07 - [136] - Quote SurrenderMonkey wrote: ... Link or GTFO, tbh. I am in a fleet. One of those weird people who actually play. CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids There are other ways to fix Null Sec stagnation and Fozzie SOV is the wrong approach.
SurrenderMonkey Space Llama Industries 1495	Posted - 2016.01.12 20:19:32 - [137] - Quote Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: SurrenderMonkey wrote: ... Link or GTFO, tbh. I am in a fleet. One of those weird people who actually play. So you have time to write long-winded "Grr, goons" soliloquies, but are too busy to support any of it? That's convenient. "Help, I'm bored with missions!" http://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/
Jenshae Chiroptera 2478	Posted - 2016.01.12 20:28:26 - [138] - Quote SurrenderMonkey wrote: So you have time to write long-winded "Grr, goons" soliloquies, but are too busy to support any of it? That's convenient. Fleet form up. Heard of it? Edit: Anyway, enough of you for now. Seems like trolling to get a thread locked. CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids There are other ways to fix Null Sec stagnation and Fozzie SOV is the wrong approach.
Scipio Artelius The Vendunari End of Life 43144	Posted - 2016.01.12 20:33:08 - [139] - Quote Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: SurrenderMonkey wrote: So you have time to write long-winded "Grr, goons" soliloquies, but are too busy to support any of it? That's convenient. Fleet form up. Heard of it? Edit: Anyway, enough of you for now. Seems like trolling to get a thread locked. Yeah but it's not really the reason you can't support the claim that 75% of votes are the goons. You know the real reason is that we don't have access to those raw numbers and the statement can't be supported by evidence. It's conjecture, irrespective of how accurate or not it might be. Come Win At Eve - Join The Vendunari
SurrenderMonkey Space Llama Industries 1497	Posted - 2016.01.12 20:36:31 - [140] - Quote Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: SurrenderMonkey wrote: So you have time to write long-winded "Grr, goons" soliloquies, but are too busy to support any of it? That's convenient. Fleet form up. Heard of it? Edit: Anyway, enough of you for now. Seems like trolling to get a thread locked. Sure. It's utter bollocks, though, given that you clearly have time to come here and post limp-wristed excuses. If you were actually too busy, you would skip the part where you tell us you're simply far too busy doing important internet spaceship things and then just come back with your evidence later. "Help, I'm bored with missions!" http://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/

Alphea Abbra Grim Determination Violence of Action. 830	Posted - 2016.01.12 20:52:13 - [141] - Quote Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: Alphea Abbra wrote: ... - so you might also want to justify a 75% of the votes claim. ... Go find their list of who they were all told to vote for. And CFC candidates figured on the N3 ballot that was suggested by N3 leadership, but if you think that make Sion or Endie into N3 controlled puppets, you're officially an imbecile. So no, that is not a source (But thanks for playing), and even if it was, it wouldn't prove what you think it does. 'Supporting' either those with whom you share the most concerns (About nullsec, moons, rebalances, jump changes etc.) even if they're dire enemies, or those whom you know to work hard to improve the game (Remember that plenty of WH and lowsec candidates also figured prominently on the nullsec coalitions' lists) is fairly sound politics, since it will maximise the sound input that CCP gets (Edit: From the perspective of the endorser, that is, since "sound" is a subjective metric). Should the CFC, or other nullsec groups, not do what the voting system (STV) enables them to do? Again, why are you asking for some groups who already vote to be disenfranchised, just to level the playing field with groups who aren't voting (For whatever reason)?
Remiel Pollard Red Federation RvB - RED Federation 7365	Posted - 2016.01.12 21:48:33 - [142] - Quote Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: SurrenderMonkey wrote: So you have time to write long-winded "Grr, goons" soliloquies, but are too busy to support any of it? That's convenient. Fleet form up. Heard of it? Edit: Anyway, enough of you for now. Seems like trolling to get a thread locked. Asking for evidence is trolling? Don't start that crap, there's enough of that on twitter. If you can't provide a citation for your assertions, they can be dismissed. People ask for evidence for two reasons, which are not mutually exclusive: 1. because they are sceptical of your unsubstantiated claims, and 2. because they don't believe you have any, and don't have to. So without the evidence, regardless of how 'busy' you are (which we also have no reason to believe) your nonsense can be dismissed like any other wild claim. GÇ£Some capsuleers claim that ECM is 'dishonorable' and 'unfair'. Jam those ones first, and kill them last.GÇ¥ - Jirai 'Fatal' Laitanen, Pithum Nullifier Training Manual c. YC104
Scipio Artelius The Vendunari End of Life 43152	Posted - 2016.01.12 22:22:18 - [143] - Quote Alphea Abbra wrote: Should the CFC, or other nullsec groups, not do what the voting system (STV) enables them to do? If they can, then they absolutely should (just as we all would if we could). In one way I actually think the level of representation of the null blocks is a strength of the system for the rest of us. In it's current form, the CSM was partly designed to minimise the risk of another T20 situation; and if ever an issue arises again with the integrity of the system, just like with T20, the most likely group to benefit from that is one of the nullsec blocks. DHB Wildcat demonstrated last year that even in a situation where something is kept quiet, it's possible that someone might want to take an issue to CCP. Not everyone might want to do that so publicly though. Having strong representation of the blocks on the CSM provides people that are potentially trusted enough by other members of their groups, that they could take suspicions to them to be raised with CCP. That's a win for all of us if that ever occurred. I think, similarly while the lowsec and highsec groups are less likely to benefit from another T20 like incident, the null block voting process always includes people like Steve Ronuken, Mike Azariah, Sugar and others that people within highsec and lowsec might also feel comfortable raising an issue with, even if they weren't prepared to go to internal affairs. I think there are other stronger benefits of the CSM, but as for 'over representation' of the null blocks and null block voting tickets, they can be a positive depending on how you consider it. Come Win At Eve - Join The Vendunari
Malcanis Vanishing Point. The Initiative. 17328	Posted - 2016.01.12 22:27:04 - [144] - Quote It's "that" time of year again - when certain people who believe that we shouldn't be allowed to make certain choices get mad about people voting for the wrong people. "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his ISK/hr depends upon his not understanding it!"
Malcanis Vanishing Point. The Initiative. 17329	Posted - 2016.01.12 22:43:10 - [145] - Quote Grrr freedom! "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his ISK/hr depends upon his not understanding it!"
Marsha Mallow 2796	Posted - 2016.01.12 23:15:20 - [146] - Quote Malcanis wrote: Grrr freedom! n++[ 2013.11.29 19:25:11 ] Malcanis > balls to voting n++[ 2013.11.29 19:25:21 ] Malcanis > one fat lying ****** or another, what's the odds? Knowing they have more SP than I do isnGÇÖt going to stop me from taking the fight if I was going to take it.
Tippia Sunshine and Lollipops 26684	Posted - 2016.01.12 23:23:45 - [147] - Quote Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: SurrenderMonkey wrote: ... Link or GTFO, tbh. I am in a fleet. In other words, you chose GTFO because you got caught lying through your teeth and, as is usually the case when that happens, cant produce even the slightest shred of evidence to support your fantasy. Quote: Anyway, enough of you for now. Seems like trolling to get a thread locked. Why would you want to get your own thread locked? Is it because you accidentally revealed that it's just a bunch of baseless hot air and whinging without any substance or connection to reality? GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥ Get a good start: Newbie skillplan 2.3 - Vanguard Edition.
Jenshae Chiroptera 2478	Posted - 2016.01.12 23:36:22 - [148] - Quote Tippia wrote: Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: I am in a fleet. In other words, you chose GTFO because you got caught lying through your teeth and, as is usually the case when that happens, cant produce even the slightest shred of evidence to support your fantasy. SurrenderMonkey wrote: Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: SurrenderMonkey wrote: So you have time to write long-winded "Grr, goons" soliloquies, but are too busy to support any of it? That's convenient. Fleet form up. Heard of it? Edit: Anyway, enough of you for now. Seems like trolling to get a thread locked. Sure. It's utter bollocks, though, given that you clearly have time to come here and post limp-wristed excuses. If you were actually too busy, you would skip the part where you tell us you're simply far too busy doing important internet spaceship things and then just come back with your evidence later. First Google hit. Now eat your pods. CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids There are other ways to fix Null Sec stagnation and Fozzie SOV is the wrong approach.
Alphea Abbra Grim Determination Violence of Action. 830	Posted - 2016.01.12 23:51:22 - [149] - Quote Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: First Google hit. Now eat your pods. No, since #5 (Of 14) is Bobmon, who did not get elected (Meaning that CFC got the 4 first spots on their list), or in other words 28%, but moreover, because you haven't proven a thing. You could be linking us to the honest-to-God list of the actually best candidates in the eyes of ALL of EVE except you, until you actually give us some evidence to support your claims. You're also neglecting names like Gorga, UAxDeath and Sort Dragon, who aren't CFC and who most likely got voted in by their own groups (Since the CFC voting machine stopped short of their #5). You want to tell us that CFC is controlling 75% of the votes. As far as I can see, they're at most 28%, but even that is assuming that only* CFC people voted for their first 4. I don't think that's true, but to even get to that 28% mark, you'll have to show that. In short, you're not yet on your way to proving any of your ramblings. Addendum: I also forgot that LAWN are CFC, meaning CFC got 3 on their own backs + corbexx. My bad, I missed that one. *I know this number is sloppy, but it's quick and comparable to the 75% figure. Edit: And back to the real issue: Why do you want to disenfranchise the currently voting groups to make them equal in voting power to the currently non-voting groups?
Tippia Sunshine and Lollipops 26685	Posted - 2016.01.12 23:55:59 - [150] - Quote Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: First Google hit. GÇªdoes not demonstrate the CFC controlling 75% of the votes. Since that's your claim, that's the one you need to back up. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥ Get a good start: Newbie skillplan 2.3 - Vanguard Edition.

Remiel Pollard Red Federation RvB - RED Federation 7367	Posted - 2016.01.13 00:05:47 - [151] - Quote Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: First Google hit. Now eat your pods. Wait, you took that literally? You're more autistic than me. That's what we call a pitch, over in PR circles. It's no different from a lawyer saying to a jury in his opening remarks, "you will find the defendant guilty because...". He's not telling them to find the defendant guilty, he's asserting with confidence that they will. You need to brush up on your PR skills. That reddit post still has to plead its case. The person who posted it still has to be respectable enough to draw in a big enough group of people that will do as he suggests. There is a lot more at play here than mindless drones just doing what they're told. If all that was needed was a list, then all it would be is a list. Same thing in sales - you don't ask a customer if they'd like something better than what they've picked, you direct them to something better and say, "nah, that's not what you want, this is." No one is actually telling them how to think, it's just a strategy used to assert and influence. Despite it being an effective one, one that anyone can use, people still have a mind of their own. Hell, you could even go get their list, and with enough charisma and the right campaign of your own, establish an oppositional voting bloc. But somehow, methinks the charisma is weak with this one. GÇ£Some capsuleers claim that ECM is 'dishonorable' and 'unfair'. Jam those ones first, and kill them last.GÇ¥ - Jirai 'Fatal' Laitanen, Pithum Nullifier Training Manual c. YC104
Remiel Pollard Red Federation RvB - RED Federation 7369	Posted - 2016.01.13 00:19:52 - [152] - Quote It's funny, you know, how he opens his pitch with: "2015 is the year that CCP is really going to tackle the sov revamp. This alone should terrify you. If you've been keeping up with my director blog at all, you'll have seen a few of my CSM musings and how my assessments have grown steadily more negative." And regardless of the 'voting bloc', the sov remap went ahead as planned, much to the disappointment of many a nulseccer. I'll let you think on that a moment. GÇ£Some capsuleers claim that ECM is 'dishonorable' and 'unfair'. Jam those ones first, and kill them last.GÇ¥ - Jirai 'Fatal' Laitanen, Pithum Nullifier Training Manual c. YC104
SurrenderMonkey Space Llama Industries 1509	Posted - 2016.01.13 00:20:13 - [153] - Quote Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: First Google hit. Now eat your pods. So in an STV voting system, the Goons, who allegedly control 75% of the votes, provided an ordered list of whom to vote for, and we only have to go 5 people down on that list to find someone who wasn't elected. I am forced to ask: Do you know how STV works? "Help, I'm bored with missions!" http://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/
King Aires Chicks on Speed Mordus Angels 85	Posted - 2016.01.13 01:27:16 - [154] - Quote SurrenderMonkey wrote: Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: First Google hit. Now eat your pods. So in an STV voting system, the Goons, who allegedly control 75% of the votes, provided an ordered list of whom to vote for, and we only have to go 5 people down on that list to find someone who wasn't elected. I am forced to ask: Do you know how STV works? I think it would be easier to count the people on that list who weren't elected... then ask yourself how silly what you just said really was. Actually it makes me have even less faith in the CSM now that I read that list.
SurrenderMonkey Space Llama Industries 1509	Posted - 2016.01.13 01:35:14 - [155] - Quote King Aires wrote: SurrenderMonkey wrote: Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: First Google hit. Now eat your pods. So in an STV voting system, the Goons, who allegedly control 75% of the votes, provided an ordered list of whom to vote for, and we only have to go 5 people down on that list to find someone who wasn't elected. I am forced to ask: Do you know how STV works? I think it would be easier to count the people on that list who weren't elected... then ask yourself how silly what you just said really was. Actually it makes me have even less faith in the CSM now that I read that list. Yes, that might make sense, if you don't understand how STV works. You should probably read up on it. Be a doll and livestream yourself while doing so, it would be nice if we could all catch the, "Ah, ****" face you're likely to make when you realize what the problem is. "Help, I'm bored with missions!" http://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/
Remiel Pollard Red Federation RvB - RED Federation 7370	Posted - 2016.01.13 05:58:58 - [156] - Quote King Aires wrote: Actually it makes me have even less faith in the CSM now that I read that list. I'm a bit worried that you had any to begin with. Not surprised though. GÇ£Some capsuleers claim that ECM is 'dishonorable' and 'unfair'. Jam those ones first, and kill them last.GÇ¥ - Jirai 'Fatal' Laitanen, Pithum Nullifier Training Manual c. YC104
Alphea Abbra Grim Determination Violence of Action. 830	Posted - 2016.01.13 07:23:44 - [157] - Quote King Aires wrote: SurrenderMonkey wrote: Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: First Google hit. Now eat your pods. So in an STV voting system, the Goons, who allegedly control 75% of the votes, provided an ordered list of whom to vote for, and we only have to go 5 people down on that list to find someone who wasn't elected. I am forced to ask: Do you know how STV works? I think it would be easier to count the people on that list who weren't elected... then ask yourself how silly what you just said really was. Actually it makes me have even less faith in the CSM now that I read that list. The answer, for anyone who knows how STV functions, is "not at all silly", and simply counting who was/wasn't elected is like looking at the an Obama 2012 swingstate wishlist and then assuming the wishlist itself was what changed the outcome. In other words, such a count would be completely unhinged from reality and the voting system. As I explained before, the CFC voting machine (If one such exists - nobody has proven to me that they vote in bloc) stopped short of their #5. But even that is assuming that all votes for the first 4 were CFC votes, which isn't a sure thing at all. We then have the result that an unproven minority (Again, how many out-of-CFC accounts to CFC players have?) should be the only ones voting for 4 candidates to even get to a 28%. This is really far fetched. If you have less faith in the CSM after reading that list, then it's because you don't know how elections work. Your faith or lack thereof is a symptom of your own ignorance, and has nothing to do with the CSM. But again, back to the real issue: Why should the groups that currently vote* be disenfranchised by you, just to make groups that do not currently vote* have a comparative voting power? *I really should start adding "allegedly" to those, because you haven't even proven that much (Though to me it seems to be the case). It could actually be that the voters were genuinely hisec players, who just preferred nullsec candidates over hisec candidates. You might want to show that there's any problem except that your favourites do not get elected.
Scipio Artelius The Vendunari End of Life 43180	Posted - 2016.01.13 07:33:23 - [158] - Quote Jenshae Chiroptera[url=https://www.reddit.com/r/Eve/comments/2x3ugo/cfc_csm_election_2015_truth_in_advertising_edition/ wrote: Google hit[/url]. Now eat your pods. Oh Jenshae. /o\ Is it wrong of me to be embarassed for you? I even like you (though I don't agree with your views a lot of the time), but I don't even know what to make of that. How is that evidence that 75% of votes are Goons? I'm not even saying it's wrong to suggest that 75% of votes are goon controlled. It may well be right, but that isn't evidence to support the claim. Come Win At Eve - Join The Vendunari
Gregor Parud Ordo Ardish 2180	Posted - 2016.01.13 07:52:49 - [159] - Quote Frankly, the whole CSM thing has outstayed its welcome and it used more for meta stuff than actual use.
Ria Nieyli 38587	Posted - 2016.01.13 08:10:54 - [160] - Quote Selling my vote for 50M ISK.

Remiel Pollard Red Federation RvB - RED Federation 7372	Posted - 2016.01.13 13:15:33 - [161] - Quote Remiel Pollard wrote: King Aires wrote: Actually it makes me have even less faith in the CSM now that I read that list. I'm a bit worried that you had any to begin with. Not surprised though. I don't know why you 'liked' this post Aires, but it doesn't mean what I think you think it means. GÇ£Some capsuleers claim that ECM is 'dishonorable' and 'unfair'. Jam those ones first, and kill them last.GÇ¥ - Jirai 'Fatal' Laitanen, Pithum Nullifier Training Manual c. YC104
King Aires Chicks on Speed Mordus Angels 85	Posted - 2016.01.13 15:01:45 - [162] - Quote Remiel Pollard wrote: Remiel Pollard wrote: King Aires wrote: Actually it makes me have even less faith in the CSM now that I read that list. I'm a bit worried that you had any to begin with. Not surprised though. I don't know why you 'liked' this post Aires, but it doesn't mean what I think you think it means. I don't know why you care what posts I like and don't.
Jenshae Chiroptera 2479	Posted - 2016.01.13 19:04:11 - [163] - Quote Gregor Parud wrote: Frankly, the whole CSM thing has outstayed its welcome and it used more for meta stuff than actual use. For emphasis. P.S. Not bothered about a link that I grabbed just before going to bed. Additionally, the public list and the actual list sent out could easily have had a different order. There were a lot of really good candidates that were not on that list and didn't make it to CSM, whilst others were surprising results. "Vote for this person no one really knows" "Okay" CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids There are other ways to fix Null Sec stagnation and Fozzie SOV is the wrong approach.
Tippia Sunshine and Lollipops 26698	Posted - 2016.01.13 19:15:32 - [164] - Quote Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: P.S. Not bothered about a link that I grabbed just before going to bed. Additionally, the public list and the actual list sent out could easily have had a different order. GÇªwhich means that it proves your point even less than it does in its current state (which is not a whole lot since it holds no information about voters, their voting patterns, and the supposed control over these voters). Quote: There were a lot of really good candidates that were not on that list and didn't make it to CSM, whilst others were surprising results. GÇ£GoodGÇ¥ and GÇ£surprisingGÇ¥ by what measure? Your personal preference and knowledge? GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥ Get a good start: Newbie skillplan 2.3 - Vanguard Edition.
Jenshae Chiroptera 2479	Posted - 2016.01.13 19:41:49 - [165] - Quote Tippia wrote: ...GÇ£GoodGÇ¥ and GÇ£surprisingGÇ¥ by what measure? Your personal preference and knowledge?... I am clearly an introverted person, who never discusses anything with anyone else and is not even in a corp much less a fairly large coalition. CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids There are other ways to fix Null Sec stagnation and Fozzie SOV is the wrong approach.
Alphea Abbra Grim Determination Violence of Action. 833	Posted - 2016.01.13 19:49:07 - [166] - Quote Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: Not bothered about a link that I grabbed just before going to bed. Additionally, the public list and the actual list sent out could easily have had a different order. You're not bothered that the thing you attempted to pass off as a source to your claims aren't sources, and that thus far none of your claims are substantiated? You're not bothered by the fact that your attempt to explain away why your "source" is bunk, itself is bunk? You're not bothered by being shown to be wrong? I'm just checking. Because so far, all you've tried is to throw sand in our eyes every time we've asked for any evidence at all. There are really two questions: What evidence do you have to say that CFC controls any given percentage of the voters? Why do you want one allegedly voting group disenfranchised to make them equal to a group that allegedly doesn't vote? Quote: There were a lot of really good candidates that were not on that list and didn't make it to CSM, whilst others were surprising results. "Vote for this person no one really knows" "Okay" So because people didn't vote for the candidates you liked, and did vote for other candidates, CFC must control all voters?
Jenn aSide Ascendent. Test Alliance Please Ignore 13334	Posted - 2016.01.13 19:55:31 - [167] - Quote Alphea Abbra wrote: So because people didn't vote for the candidates you liked, and did vote for other candidates, CFC must control all voters? That's exactly what he's saying, and it's real easy to understand why if you read the guy's posts on these forums. "CFC controls most of the votes and that's why I didn't get elected to the CSM" is way easier to accept than the truth, which is that the voters rejected him on the (lack of) merits of his campaign, not because of some evil goon conspiracy to keep his "truth" away from Iceland (lol).
Jenshae Chiroptera 2479	Posted - 2016.01.13 20:03:18 - [168] - Quote Jenn aSide wrote: ...why I didn't get elected to the CSM 1) Core's shadow. 2) Had recently returned to EVE. 3) Not a people pleaser. ... but keep making your fantasies. CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids There are other ways to fix Null Sec stagnation and Fozzie SOV is the wrong approach.
Tippia Sunshine and Lollipops 26702	Posted - 2016.01.13 20:07:49 - [169] - Quote Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: Tippia wrote: ...GÇ£GoodGÇ¥ and GÇ£surprisingGÇ¥ by what measure? Your personal preference and knowledge?... I am clearly an introverted person, who never discusses anything with anyone else and is not even in a corp much less a fairly large coalition. So there's nothing to actually suggest that there was anything surprising about the people chosen or that the supposed alternatives were any better. Ok. vOv In short, the entire list is a red herring that failed to have the distracting effect you were hoping for, and your claim remains unsupported and unproven. If anything, all you have to go on disproves the scenario you've dreamed up. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥ Get a good start: Newbie skillplan 2.3 - Vanguard Edition.
Alphea Abbra Grim Determination Violence of Action. 834	Posted - 2016.01.13 20:25:48 - [170] - Quote Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: Jenn aSide wrote: ...why I didn't get elected to the CSM 1) Core's shadow. 2) Had recently returned to EVE. 3) Not a people pleaser. ... but keep making your fantasies. And that returns us neatly to my question. When you acknowledge that it was your own faults as a candidate that turned voters away from you and towards better, more known candidates, why do you want to disenfranchise CFC voters? They had nothing to do with the issues you identify that make voters vote for those who aren't you. It seems to me that you're working on a project to make the CFC out to be the bad guys, when in this regard they're more likely to be found among the good guys. CFC leadership was among the first of nullsec coalitions to really build a determined campaign to get votes and translate those votes into seats. The CFC may have increased voter turnout like no other group has. Why do you blame them, when you really ought to work together with them?

Gregor Parud Ordo Ardish 2188	Posted - 2016.01.13 21:29:06 - [171] - Quote Alphea Abbra wrote: Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: Jenn aSide wrote: ...why I didn't get elected to the CSM 1) Core's shadow. 2) Had recently returned to EVE. 3) Not a people pleaser. ... but keep making your fantasies. And that returns us neatly to my question. When you acknowledge that it was your own faults as a candidate that turned voters away from you and towards better, more known candidates, why do you want to disenfranchise CFC voters? They had nothing to do with the issues you identify that make voters vote for those who aren't you. It seems to me that you're working on a project to make the CFC out to be the bad guys, when in this regard they're more likely to be found among the good guys. CFC leadership was among the first of nullsec coalitions to really build a determined campaign to get votes and translate those votes into seats. The CFC may have increased voter turnout like no other group has. Why do you blame them, when you really ought to work together with them? Can you explain to us why the last 40 odd posts of yours, spanning a year's length, all have to do with the CSM? Could it be that you're an alt used for PR?
Zeko Rena ENCOM Industries 3264	Posted - 2016.01.13 21:32:46 - [172] - Quote I vote for people who I think have cool looking avatars
Benny Ohu Chaotic Tranquility Snuffed Out 4517	Posted - 2016.01.13 21:43:00 - [173] - Quote Gregor Parud wrote: Can you explain to us why the last 40 odd posts of yours, spanning a year's length, all have to do with the CSM? Could it be that you're an alt used for PR? can you explain why the last 1 posts of yours are kinda creepy
Alphea Abbra Grim Determination Violence of Action. 835	Posted - 2016.01.13 21:48:23 - [174] - Quote Gregor Parud wrote: Can you explain to us why the last 40 odd posts of yours, spanning a year's length, all have to do with the CSM? Could it be that you're an alt used for PR? I'm very interested in politics, both IRL (It's what I do and study) and in space. I'm also uncertain whether the "last 40 odd posts" is really accurate. I spent some time goodpoasting with Sol as well. Likewise, I'm not sure whether it'd change anything if I really am an alt (Although I'm not, just to clarify). Take my arguments at their merits, unless I specifically refer to my RL expertise in any such matters. If you're trying to imply that I am doing CFC PR, then feel free to check out my alliance history, though it still wouldn't change my arguments.
Gregor Parud Ordo Ardish 2188	Posted - 2016.01.13 22:42:35 - [175] - Quote Right right, so not an alt with an agenda, at all.
Robert Sawyer The Vendunari End of Life 85	Posted - 2016.01.13 22:51:06 - [176] - Quote Remember, the CSM is not a very influential political body - it reflects the views of some players, but not all. To be honest, ever since I've been playing EVE (June 2014) I have never heard of the CSM, nor do I care what they do as their opinions do not matter to me. In fact, the CSM actually annoys me because the votes are never serious and Goons are usually picked as members for the lulz. And jeez, why would you vote for Bees when their space is literally crawling with bubbles and Sabre patrols? "And when, at last, the moment is yours, that agony will become your greatest triumph."
Alphea Abbra Grim Determination Violence of Action. 836	Posted - 2016.01.13 23:00:56 - [177] - Quote Gregor Parud wrote: Right right, so not an alt with an agenda, at all. Who would I be an alt of, and what would that change? I'm almost genuinely curious, because I can't see why it has anything to do with the arguments I make, or the lack of evidence for Jenshae Chiropteras claims. Still, I'm not. You can ask my corporate leadership if you really want to - but naturally they could also be in on the conspiracy?!? -, or I could care enough to explain my life story - a story I've prepared already and simply made up?!? -, or more appropiately, you could tell me why it'd change one bit, and thus why we'd need to care at all. After showing that, you could show what evidence there is for it. You might want to top it by having dinner at Milliways.
Jenshae Chiroptera 2479	Posted - 2016.01.13 23:09:05 - [178] - Quote Back on track: My experience of crossing High Sec multiple times and talking to people was that they didn't know the CSM existed nor what it does. That is what is relevant. CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids There are other ways to fix Null Sec stagnation and Fozzie SOV is the wrong approach.
SurrenderMonkey Space Llama Industries 1520	Posted - 2016.01.13 23:17:01 - [179] - Quote Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: Back on track: My experience of crossing High Sec multiple times and talking to people was that they didn't know the CSM existed nor what it does. That is what is relevant. Your anecdote is what is relevant? "Help, I'm bored with missions!" http://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/
Gregor Parud Ordo Ardish 2190	Posted - 2016.01.13 23:29:56 - [180] - Quote Alphea Abbra wrote: Gregor Parud wrote: Right right, so not an alt with an agenda, at all. Who would I be an alt of, and what would that change? I'm almost genuinely curious, because I can't see why it has anything to do with the arguments I make, or the lack of evidence for Jenshae Chiropteras claims. Still, I'm not. You can ask my corporate leadership if you really want to - but naturally they could also be in on the conspiracy?!? -, or I could care enough to explain my life story - a story I've prepared already and simply made up?!? -, or more appropiately, you could tell me why it'd change one bit, and thus why we'd need to care at all. After showing that, you could show what evidence there is for it. You might want to top it by having dinner at Milliways. Because it's funny how people who you never see posting all of a sudden come out of the woodwork for very specific threads and uses, frantically and feverishly debating points for a specific faction.

Alphea Abbra Grim Determination Violence of Action. 836	Posted - 2016.01.13 23:44:45 - [181] - Quote SurrenderMonkey wrote: Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: Back on track: My experience of crossing High Sec multiple times and talking to people was that they didn't know the CSM existed nor what it does. That is what is relevant. Your anecdote is what is relevant? You didn't know? Evidence is actually just plural of anecdotes that you really wish to be true... Although it does generally fit with my own anecdotes. The CSM seems to be of interest to bigger groups, space-politics-groups and groups with more emphasis on "serious" EVE and meta-play, so I do think knowledge of the CSM is more prevalent among larger WH, low- and nullsec groups (Though I have no way of knowing this for certain). Right or wrong, the low voter turnout is a symptom of bad things, and if that is due to lack of the most basic knowledge (That an election is happening and you have a voting right), then that should be rectified. The way to rectify it is to make sure all players know there's an election going on, such as sending out EVE-mails, using splash banners or posting dev.blogs, all three are things CCP have done before. At that point, it's hard to tell whether people don't know, or don't care, when it comes to voting. The way not to rectify it is to disenfranchise groups where you think voter turnout is proportionally higher, just to curb some groups' electoral successes compared to other groups. To really say anything with confidence, however, we need data that I haven't seen, and might not exist. What we're doing is guessing and trying out 'common sense'-arguments, which is why I'd be very careful about stating anything categorically.
Alphea Abbra Grim Determination Violence of Action. 836	Posted - 2016.01.13 23:50:59 - [182] - Quote Gregor Parud wrote: Alphea Abbra wrote: Gregor Parud wrote: Right right, so not an alt with an agenda, at all. Who would I be an alt of, and what would that change? I'm almost genuinely curious, because I can't see why it has anything to do with the arguments I make, or the lack of evidence for Jenshae Chiropteras claims. Still, I'm not. You can ask my corporate leadership if you really want to - but naturally they could also be in on the conspiracy?!? -, or I could care enough to explain my life story - a story I've prepared already and simply made up?!? -, or more appropiately, you could tell me why it'd change one bit, and thus why we'd need to care at all. After showing that, you could show what evidence there is for it. You might want to top it by having dinner at Milliways. Because it's funny how people who you never see posting all of a sudden come out of the woodwork for very specific threads and uses, frantically and feverishly debating points for a specific faction. Being unsubbed for about a year will have that effect, but I don't debate for a specific faction. I argue against a specific type of loon, but that's because I put reason and evidence in high regard. Still, nice try. 3/10 - next time, try to half-answer a few points, and you might keep it going for longer.
Jenshae Chiroptera 2479	Posted - 2016.01.14 00:00:29 - [183] - Quote SurrenderMonkey wrote: Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: Back on track: My experience of crossing High Sec multiple times and talking to people was that they didn't know the CSM existed nor what it does. That is what is relevant. Your anecdote is what is relevant? ... and you have done what exactly? CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids There are other ways to fix Null Sec stagnation and Fozzie SOV is the wrong approach.
SurrenderMonkey Space Llama Industries 1522	Posted - 2016.01.14 01:22:06 - [184] - Quote Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: SurrenderMonkey wrote: Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: Back on track: My experience of crossing High Sec multiple times and talking to people was that they didn't know the CSM existed nor what it does. That is what is relevant. Your anecdote is what is relevant? ... and you have done what exactly? Illustrated that you are incapable of factually supporting your claims. "Help, I'm bored with missions!" http://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/
Christian Weston Chandler Virgins With Rage 0	Posted - 2016.01.14 04:08:08 - [185] - Quote I will vote for anyone who gets drunk, goes on stage and brags about harassing a depressed miner. Preferably while the investors are present and watching.
Pix Severus Mew Age Outpaws 2138	Posted - 2016.01.14 04:27:08 - [186] - Quote Christian Weston Chandler wrote: I will vote for anyone who gets drunk, goes on stage and brags about harassing a depressed miner. Preferably while the investors are present and watching. As long as his arms aren't blue, I would have to agree. My lord.
Jenshae Chiroptera 2480	Posted - 2016.01.14 20:10:28 - [187] - Quote SurrenderMonkey wrote: Illustrated that you are incapable of factually supporting your claims. So nothing but hot air that is against all EVE players knowing about CSM ...? Well ... whose interests does that serve? You look a bit of a git at the moment. CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids There are other ways to fix Null Sec stagnation and Fozzie SOV is the wrong approach.
Malcanis Vanishing Point. The Initiative. 17333	Posted - 2016.01.14 20:13:17 - [188] - Quote Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: SurrenderMonkey wrote: Illustrated that you are incapable of factually supporting your claims. So nothing but hot air that is against all EVE players knowing about CSM ...? Well ... whose interests does that serve? You look a bit of a git at the moment. 75% of EVE players disagree! "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his ISK/hr depends upon his not understanding it!"
Jenn aSide Ascendent. Test Alliance Please Ignore 13342	Posted - 2016.01.14 20:22:13 - [189] - Quote As I said, I'd be happy to see CCP do something to inform more people of the CSM. Mainly because I know it won't make a difference. After is doesn't make a difference (because EVERY voting system ever conceived favors the organized and interested/willing to vote people over the disorganized and apathetic/unwilling to vote even if you paid them people), you and folks like you will identify yet another series of (conspiracy laden) reasons why it didn't work, instead of realizing that the problem wasn't some cfc conspiracy or CCP action or lack of general knowledge about the CSM. The actual issue here is that people just simply reject your beliefs and goals and will continue to do that no matter what.
SurrenderMonkey Space Llama Industries 1528	Posted - 2016.01.14 20:31:13 - [190] - Quote Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: SurrenderMonkey wrote: Illustrated that you are incapable of factually supporting your claims. So nothing but hot air that is against all EVE players knowing about CSM ...? Well ... whose interests does that serve? You look a bit of a git at the moment. You made an assertion. I asked you to support that assertion. You posted "evidence" that conclusively disproved your assertion. You then said that the evidence doesn't matter, only your anecdotal tale of high-sec political missionary work does. How do you imagine that I have, in any way, argued against "All Eve players knowing about the CSM?" My problem is that you're making things up and expecting them to be regarded as fact, even when you are provably lying. "Help, I'm bored with missions!" http://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/

Malcanis Vanishing Point. The Initiative. 17336	Posted - 2016.01.14 20:35:47 - [191] - Quote SurrenderMonkey wrote: Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: SurrenderMonkey wrote: Illustrated that you are incapable of factually supporting your claims. So nothing but hot air that is against all EVE players knowing about CSM ...? Well ... whose interests does that serve? You look a bit of a git at the moment. You made an assertion. I asked you to support that assertion. You posted "evidence" that conclusively disproved your assertion. You then said that the evidence doesn't matter, only your anecdotal tale of high-sec political missionary work does. How do you imagine that I have, in any way, argued against "All Eve players knowing about the CSM?" My problem is that you're making things up and expecting them to be regarded as fact, even when you are provably lying. Jenshae, everybody. Give her poorly informed and articulated anger at something or other other a big hand! "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his ISK/hr depends upon his not understanding it!"
ISD Buldath ISD STAR 287	Posted - 2016.01.14 22:43:10 - [192] - Quote Quote: 27. Off-topic posting is prohibited. Off-topic posting is permitted within reason, as sometimes a single comment may color or lighten the tone of discussion. However, excessive posting of off-topic remarks in an attempt to derail a thread may result in the thread being locked, or a forum warning being issued to the off-topic poster. I have removed some off topic Posts, and those quoiting them. ~ISD Buldath Interstellar Services Department Support, Training and Resources Division Lt. Commander
Jenshae Chiroptera 2480	Posted - 2016.01.14 23:25:45 - [193] - Quote Malcanis wrote: ... her ... anger ... Hmm? Did someone tell you that this is anger when you were a kid? Malcanis, I think if it did come out that CSM were voted for by an informed minority, it might make you being in CSM and your input modestly questionable as CCP could have been steered in the wrong direction for years. CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids There are other ways to fix Null Sec stagnation and Fozzie SOV is the wrong approach.
Seven Koskanaiken FinFleet Northern Coalition. 1696	Posted - 2016.01.15 04:11:34 - [194] - Quote Selling the CSM to the eve playerbase should be easier than selling water in the desert, a "virtual space election" is exactly the sort of pretentious turgid horseshit that your typical overprivileged nerd creams themselves for, regardless of what area of space they play in. If CCP can barely scrape a 10% turnout for it then they've doing something wrong.
Remiel Pollard Red Federation RvB - RED Federation 7386	Posted - 2016.01.15 04:40:49 - [195] - Quote Seven Koskanaiken wrote: Selling the CSM to the eve playerbase should be easier than selling water in the desert, a "virtual space council" is exactly the sort of pretentious turgid horseshit that your typical overprivileged nerd creams themselves for, regardless of what area of space they play in, the fact they're even playing this ******* game in any capacity should qualify them as at least potentially interested in ~a space election~. If CCP can barely scrape a 10% turnout for it then they've been doing something wrong. Your mistake is assuming you know enough about the player base and the individuals with minds of their own within it to form this conclusions. Which explains why you're in NC. - nothing but fail over there. Perpetual fail GÇ£Some capsuleers claim that ECM is 'dishonorable' and 'unfair'. Jam those ones first, and kill them last.GÇ¥ - Jirai 'Fatal' Laitanen, Pithum Nullifier Training Manual c. YC104
Alphea Abbra Grim Determination Violence of Action. 836	Posted - 2016.01.15 07:04:27 - [196] - Quote Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: I think if it did come out that CSM were voted for by an informed minority, it might make you being in CSM and your input modestly questionable as CCP could have been steered in the wrong direction for years. Okay, so as usual, you make a number of mistakes here. "If it did come out" shouldn't be an "if". It's known, and has been for each year CCP has released the election results. You're trying to fabricate a conspiracy, while the only reason you know anything at all is because CCP released the information in public. "informed" should be "interested". To be informed takes clicking a splash page link and 5 minutes. Those who do are interested, those who don't aren't, but nothing is hidden away. "make ... your input ... questionable" is dishonest and deceptive, seemingly based on your anger at being rejected yourself (While that is entirely, purely and 100% your own fault as a poor candidate). "CCP could have been steered..." is wrong. CSM doesn't steer. And again, most fundamentally, is your opposition to democracy. Wanting to disenfranchise one group for the audacity that you perceive them to vote more than others, is not the right way to go. You don't become more electable by removing voters, except by comparison to more succesful candidates whose voters you might remove. Being engaged in a democratic election entails accepting the judgement of the voters. You can't simply decide to make up a new electorate because the old one didn't vote like you wanted, and trying to limit opposing votes isn't democratic.
Kiandoshia Applied Anarchy ChaosTheory. 2391	Posted - 2016.01.15 07:22:53 - [197] - Quote Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: CCP could put CSM info into Local same as a MoTD I hope they don't. Some people just don't care about it. I think it is being thrown at us enough in order to figure out how to vote if we can be arsed to. Actually, wait, I am going about this all wrong! What are CSM votes worth? Maybe I can sell mine.
Nana Skalski Poseidaon 2694	Posted - 2016.01.15 09:01:52 - [198] - Quote Kiandoshia wrote: Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: CCP could put CSM info into Local same as a MoTD I hope they don't. Some people just don't care about it. I think it is being thrown at us enough in order to figure out how to vote if we can be arsed to. Actually, wait, I am going about this all wrong! What are CSM votes worth? Maybe I can sell mine. I can buy it so you dont have to vote, for 1 000 000 ISK. Just send me your corpse. Units: 1. I will use it for ancient minmatar Doodoo rituals if I see you voting. ( -á° -ƒ-û -í°)/ GòáGò¼GòªGò¼Gòú - my sandcastle ( -á° -ƒ-û -í°)/ <=X - my yacht
Malcanis Vanishing Point. The Initiative. 17348	Posted - 2016.01.16 13:03:08 - [199] - Quote Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: Malcanis wrote: ... her ... anger ... Hmm? Did someone tell you that this is anger when you were a kid? Malcanis, I think if it did come out that CSM were voted for by an informed minority, it might make you being in CSM and your input modestly questionable as CCP could have been steered in the wrong direction for years. I'm largely (although not completely) happy with the direction they've taken in recent years. With two notable exceptions (WiS, Hi-sec reform) - one of which is not one that they're ever likely to be in a position to deliver anyway - CCP have given me everything I wanted from them. And I bet Hi-sec is pretty high up on the "To Do" list once Citadels and Gates goes live. In fact one of my biggest disappointments about being elected to the CSM was that one of the two issues that I intended to push the hardest was basically the first thing that they put in front of us at the summit. However, that was more than made up for by being able to relentlessly argue for the desperate need for power projection changes. And then being able to call attention to possible solutions being proposed by people who are clever than me. The people who voted for me were in no doubt about what they'd be getting, and what was delivered by CCP was substantially what I wanted. "Steered in the wrong direction", you say? "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his ISK/hr depends upon his not understanding it!"
Jenshae Chiroptera 2481	Posted - 2016.01.17 22:45:31 - [200] - Quote Sorry, I forgot about this thread. Alphea Abbra wrote: ... To be informed takes clicking a splash page link and 5 minutes. ... Two days during the working week last year? In a launcher that many of us by-pass? Malcanis wrote: "Steered in the wrong direction", you say? Good response. Personally, I like Phoebe, less hot dropping going on all over the place. If the vision ever comes true then EVE would see more strategy. Others hate the changes and have quit the game over it. Can't please everyone and will always lose some. How many left, I don't know. Steering in the wrong direction may well be the Null Sec focus and coming at it from the wrong approach. The priority might have been better on High Sec, where the majority are. Sure, they only stick around for a year and a half on average and I can see the logic in trying to get more of them out to Null Sec to then stay longer. However, Fozzie's team have sacrificed depth while trying to reduce complexity. Their dream of little groups taking space and blooming in Null Sec have not been realised. Why not? I think it is because Null Sec is a tough place to live, it is like a surface rock that smaller groups can't always penetrate to get to the water and soil beneath. As EVE stands today, I would recommend that any new corp gets jump clones on opposite sides of High Sec, levels their PVE ships, sticks to one tank type and when ready move into a Class 2 or Class 3 worm hole. There is far better access control with worm holes and it can be an incubator to build wealth and skill points as a group, being able to lay down an infrastructure. . The trouble at this point is that if you recruit people, you usually need to trust them. If you have a weak time zone they can sneak enemies into your worm hole and you can lose your system. So you can't really grow well in numbers. It is a much larger risk than High Sec or even Low Sec in some regards. So, if you look at worm holes and Null Sec, all you can really do is have more worm holes, have one for newbies, have drama, have POSes in there blown up and keep going up the WH classes. Even when you get to Class 6 and a fairly established corp or alliance, you are now left with the people who like worm holes and people who like blingy ships in moderately sized engagement. There is no natural leap from Worm Holes to Null Sec. It can work as an incubator but it is not the best solution. There is also a great deal that can and is in many cases being done socially to try and build more new players in Null Sec. The trouble is that they are usually being built by the larges coalitions and not by smaller entities. Anyway, I am rambling on uselessly and anyone reading up to the point of this last paragraph has probably had their eyes glaze over and their minds' switch off. CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids There are other ways to fix Null Sec stagnation and Fozzie SOV is the wrong approach.

Malcanis Vanishing Point. The Initiative. 17359	Posted - 2016.01.17 23:02:34 - [201] - Quote Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: However, Fozzie's team have sacrificed depth while trying to reduce complexity. Their dream of little groups taking space and blooming in Null Sec have not been realised. Why not? I think it is because Null Sec is a tough place to live, it is like a surface rock that smaller groups can't always penetrate to get to the water and soil beneath. I strongly disagree with the first part of that, and somewhat agree with the second. The map is evidently (a word which the much missed Sir Pterry reminds us means " that which is seen " vastly more diverse than it was on the 26th of November 2014. There are still coalitions. There are also small groups, new alliances, independent projects like the PFR, and enough empty space for any new group that wants to try its hand at homesteading. And we have seen conclusively proved that Aegis sov does not allow even the largest group on the map to come and evict a region-sized group in a weekend. Or even a week. Nor does it allow them to easily keep them out of that space without constant effort. And yeah nullsec is a tough place to live. It requires a level of group co-operation and co-ordination that is simply in a different league to that which is needed in hi-sec. It is now; it was ever thus. On the plus side, the tools to facilitate this are far more effective than they were in 2006 when I started; Jump Freighters, wormholes, covops-cloaked BRs, travel inties - in many ways these new guys have it so easy! On the other hand, if the tools they have to climb that mountain are much better, the mountains they have to climb are much higher. Even the scrubbiest groups in 0.0 are better organised and have access to better doctrines than the average 2006 nullsec alliance. "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his ISK/hr depends upon his not understanding it!"
Jenshae Chiroptera 2481	Posted - 2016.01.17 23:46:42 - [202] - Quote Malcanis wrote: ... I strongly disagree with the first part of that, and somewhat agree with the second..... What you quoted and this are not clear. Entosis: Waving a mining laser at a structure from a little ship. No longer is there time saving and cost / benefits to stacking your fleet for DPS to grind down a structure. That is one aspect of depth that has been lost. No longer do you need to put a 100 man fleet out there to be attacked. You can simply send out some T3Ds to kill the annoying interceptors. ... and boy can you farm the little groups now. Want to really make them unwelcome? Just drop capital blobs around that they can't break and tag team the entosis work. CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids There are other ways to fix Null Sec stagnation and Fozzie SOV is the wrong approach.
Alphea Abbra Grim Determination Violence of Action. 838	Posted - 2016.01.18 06:53:32 - [203] - Quote Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: Sorry, I forgot about this thread. Alphea Abbra wrote: ... To be informed takes clicking a splash page link and 5 minutes. ... Two days during the working week last year? In a launcher that many of us by-pass? After your 75% lie, I'm going to ask for a source on that. See, this is what happens when you're obviously careless with the truth, acknowledges it, and doesn't care to rectify anything. And just to make sure you don't try anything funny again: I can probably spot if your source for this claim is as bad as your source for the 75%. A fake source will not work, and will only hurt your credibility even more. But to the substance of it: I told you why your conspiracy does not hold water, and trying to solve your conspiracy by disenfranchising groups should be reprehensible to everyone. You respond with a claim that CCP doesn't do enough to improve voter turnout. Am I to see this as a tacit acknowledgement that you have realised how wrong you were? Because who are disputing that CCP should do more? I think there's more to do, like they've done in the past. Dev. blogs. EVE mails. Real mails. YT videos... But I'm also being realistic about it. There are a lot for whom CSM is just a name for something they don't care about. EVE is just a game, and voting for politicians in a game can seem silly. Those who are interested have plenty of sources, both from CCP and elsewhere, to make up their mind. It doesn't take a lot of effort to get informed, but it does take interest. And this is really the crucial thing. CCP (And candidates) should work on raising the voter turnout, but we should not kid ourselves about what the CSM means to most people. At some point, we've reached everyone, and those who aren't voting (Remember that a blank vote is a sign that no candidate deserves the vote, while staying at home is a sign of lack of caring or trust) know they could vote, but choose not to. For a small, loud group, there is 62% of the EVE population who aren't voting. This has not yet been shown to be correct (And I have a hard time seeing how it could), but it's a further question of whether they know about CSM and choose not to vote, or if they're uninformed but would vote if aware. The first part does not matter, though. The second part is something CCP and candidates can do something about. Trebor Daehdoow mailed out back when he ran, and I also once got a CSM-election-mail from CCP, though it's currently lost in 62 pages of alliance mails, so I can't find it. If CCP did that again, and if candidates tried to reach their potential constituents to get out the vote (As especially null-sec coalitions do), you'd see voter turnout rise. But that is hard work. Posting conspiracies on the EVEO forums is easy.
Jenshae Chiroptera 2482	Posted - 2016.01.18 23:37:31 - [204] - Quote Alphea Abbra wrote: .. After your 75% lie, I'm going to ask for a source on that. ... More fool me. I believe it. I know accounts have been PLEX'ed in advance ready to vote also. (Yours is likely one of those) As for sources, you can wait until the cows come home or you can actually do some digging. I high-lighted it last year. CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids There are other ways to fix Null Sec stagnation and Fozzie SOV is the wrong approach.
SurrenderMonkey Space Llama Industries 1565	Posted - 2016.01.19 00:14:13 - [205] - Quote Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: Alphea Abbra wrote: .. After your 75% lie, I'm going to ask for a source on that. ... More fool me. I believe it. I know accounts have been PLEX'ed in advance ready to vote also. (Yours is likely one of those) As for sources, you can wait until the cows come home or you can actually do some digging. I high-lighted it last year. This is the Eve version of "study it out" and "unskewed polls" right? "Help, I'm bored with missions!" http://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/
Alphea Abbra Grim Determination Violence of Action. 838	Posted - 2016.01.19 05:35:36 - [206] - Quote Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: Alphea Abbra wrote: .. After your 75% lie, I'm going to ask for a source on that. ... More fool me. I believe it. I know accounts have been PLEX'ed in advance ready to vote also. (Yours is likely one of those) Or I returned because GRDE and some of the old S2N folks got together. Both are good options, really. But no, you don't know accounts that have been PLEX'ed to vote. I mean, you expect me to believe that? Not just believe you, which is already a stretch, but also believe that alliancer leaders have no sense of proportion or fiscal responsibility? Alliances like the CFC, who have the numbers to win seats, as long as nullsec votes? You're using Xenuria arguments. Just so you're aware. And you're still wrong. Quote: As for sources, you can wait until the cows come home or you can actually do some digging. I high-lighted it last year. Sooooo... you got nothing? I mean, if you had actual evidence for your claims, you'd proudly and confidently be shouting them from the rooftops (As you tried with the 75%). The whole "secret intel" is only done by those who know they're lying, or have no idea but assume they are. At this point, it's starting to bore me, really. You lie about something, then refuse to back it up, but say that "the evidence is out there" like any moronic conspiracy nut would, sprinkled by a little "you're an alt" sillyness. Can't you at least be interesting?
Jenshae Chiroptera 2483	Posted - 2016.01.19 06:40:55 - [207] - Quote Alphea Abbra wrote: ... But no, you don't know accounts that have been PLEX'ed to vote. ... I have met more than one CFC director via the test server. I know. I have seen them and their alliance members using them recently and I have spoken with them. (If you want more than that, you can suck it. They are some of the few ones I quite like and CFC shot a guy's titan for some pretext + Bat Country, etc) CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids There are other ways to fix Null Sec stagnation and Fozzie SOV is the wrong approach.
Remiel Pollard Red Federation RvB - RED Federation 7422	Posted - 2016.01.19 06:47:37 - [208] - Quote Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: Alphea Abbra wrote: ... But no, you don't know accounts that have been PLEX'ed to vote. ... I have met more than one CFC director via the test server. I know. I have seen them and their alliance members using them recently and I have spoken with them. (If you want more than that, you can suck it. They are some of the few ones I quite like and CFC shot a guy's titan for some pretext + Bat Country, etc) In other words, you expect us to take your word for it? No. Pass. Evidence please. Without proof, you're just making **** up. That's called lying. GÇ£Some capsuleers claim that ECM is 'dishonorable' and 'unfair'. Jam those ones first, and kill them last.GÇ¥ - Jirai 'Fatal' Laitanen, Pithum Nullifier Training Manual c. YC104
Maldiro Selkurk CHEMO IMMUNO RESISTANT VIRUS X 539	Posted - 2016.01.19 06:57:24 - [209] - Quote Tippia wrote: Jace Varus wrote: Go to the beta map in-game, and turn to the average number of pilots in space in the last 30 minutes. There you go. Just one problem GÇö in fact, the exact same problem as with all those inane claims: it doesn't display players. The mythical majority is just that: a myth, at best born out of bad maths, at worst born out of sheer ignorance and wishful thinking. So the vast majority of players are docked up or in a wormhole ? Ive seen you toss this trash about before, it runs counter to anything remotely reasonable given the facts presented by the game itself and it makes you look desperate and silly. Yawn,-á I'm right as usual. The predictability kinda gets boring really.
Maldiro Selkurk CHEMO IMMUNO RESISTANT VIRUS X 539	Posted - 2016.01.19 07:01:52 - [210] - Quote As to the CSM it is controlled by organized groups and this is in keeping with CCPs development philosophy as i understand it. I dont think it is ultimately good for the game as a whole but it is consistent with their bigger groups are in control game development pattern. It would be nice if CCP did away with the pretense that the CSM is voted in by the playerbase and instead just let the 4 largest coalitions send in their CSM mouthpieces and be done with it, the outcome would be the same and it wouldnt be such an insulting slap in the face to anyone not in those 4 coalitions. Yawn,-á I'm right as usual. The predictability kinda gets boring really.

SurrenderMonkey Space Llama Industries 1578	Posted - 2016.01.19 07:11:15 - [211] - Quote Maldiro Selkurk wrote: Tippia wrote: Jace Varus wrote: Go to the beta map in-game, and turn to the average number of pilots in space in the last 30 minutes. There you go. Just one problem GÇö in fact, the exact same problem as with all those inane claims: it doesn't display players. The mythical majority is just that: a myth, at best born out of bad maths, at worst born out of sheer ignorance and wishful thinking. So the vast majority of players are docked up or in a wormhole ? Ive seen you toss this trash about before, it runs counter to anything remotely reasonable given the facts presented by the game itself and it makes you look desperate and silly. Players != characters. I have 6 characters, all of which I use to some degree or another. 5 of them basically never leave high sec. One of them basically never enters high sec. If you're pretending that all of my characters are a player, well, gosh, 5/6 players live in high sec! Except, no. 5/6 "players", in this case, are station-sitting alts because characters are not players. "Help, I'm bored with missions!" http://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/
Mindrago Aldent Spacetramp Holding 46	Posted - 2016.01.19 09:01:52 - [212] - Quote Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: Back on track: My experience of crossing High Sec multiple times and talking to people was that they didn't know the CSM existed nor what it does. That is what is relevant. Bullshit..you didn't ask me. Over xmas I flew around hi sec systems trying to give away a shiny new Endurance..All I was after was a simple reply to me shouting merry xmas in local. Using your argument, and as I got no reply, that must mean xmas doesn't exist! I know the CSM exists, I also know lots of players in hs know it exists. Do they vote? doubtful. The reason? Most see it as pointless as their single vote will not affect the block voting low/null alliances. You have to remember that the vast majority of hs corps are a few mates/members who just log on to do what they like to do and have 0 interest in alliances or the political bullshit that goes on at this time of year. Or any time of year. I personally think the csm should be disbanded and ccp should stop pandering to it and take control of their game back. Make the changes they want to and if YOU don't like it, well feel free to find a facebook game.
Malcanis Vanishing Point. The Initiative. 17364	Posted - 2016.01.19 11:58:01 - [213] - Quote Mindrago Aldent wrote: Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: Back on track: My experience of crossing High Sec multiple times and talking to people was that they didn't know the CSM existed nor what it does. That is what is relevant. Bullshit..you didn't ask me. Over xmas I flew around hi sec systems trying to give away a shiny new Endurance..All I was after was a simple reply to me shouting merry xmas in local. Using your argument, and as I got no reply, that must mean xmas doesn't exist! I know the CSM exists, I also know lots of players in hs know it exists. Do they vote? doubtful. The reason? Most see it as pointless as their single vote will not affect the block voting low/null alliances. You have to remember that the vast majority of hs corps are a few mates/members who just log on to do what they like to do and have 0 interest in alliances or the political bullshit that goes on at this time of year. Or any time of year. I personally think the csm should be disbanded and ccp should stop pandering to it and take control of their game back. Make the changes they want to and if YOU don't like it, well feel free to find a facebook game. So CCP have lost control of their came to the CSM? I thought the CSM was powerless and accomplished nothing. "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his ISK/hr depends upon his not understanding it!"
Mister Ripley Ministry of War Amarr Empire 131	Posted - 2016.01.19 12:11:06 - [214] - Quote Malcanis wrote: Mindrago Aldent wrote: Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: Back on track: My experience of crossing High Sec multiple times and talking to people was that they didn't know the CSM existed nor what it does. That is what is relevant. Bullshit..you didn't ask me. Over xmas I flew around hi sec systems trying to give away a shiny new Endurance..All I was after was a simple reply to me shouting merry xmas in local. Using your argument, and as I got no reply, that must mean xmas doesn't exist! I know the CSM exists, I also know lots of players in hs know it exists. Do they vote? doubtful. The reason? Most see it as pointless as their single vote will not affect the block voting low/null alliances. You have to remember that the vast majority of hs corps are a few mates/members who just log on to do what they like to do and have 0 interest in alliances or the political bullshit that goes on at this time of year. Or any time of year. I personally think the csm should be disbanded and ccp should stop pandering to it and take control of their game back. Make the changes they want to and if YOU don't like it, well feel free to find a facebook game. So CCP have lost control of their came to the CSM? I thought the CSM was powerless and accomplished nothing. Man, you CSM guys are slow... CSM is powerless because CCP doesn't listen, because CCP has no control of their game, because Ilumittani! And aliens!
Alphea Abbra Grim Determination Violence of Action. 839	Posted - 2016.01.19 12:26:47 - [215] - Quote Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: Alphea Abbra wrote: ... But no, you don't know accounts that have been PLEX'ed to vote. ... I have met more than one CFC director via the test server. I know. I have seen them and their alliance members using them recently and I have spoken with them. (If you want more than that, you can suck it. They are some of the few ones I quite like and CFC shot a guy's titan for some pretext + Bat Country, etc) You're asking me to take your word for it? You're a known liar, and your previous reaction to being called out on a bad source was barely even a shrug and some claim about how you're still correct, and you expect me to take your statements on faith? No. Can't. Do. Again, this is why it's bad to lie, shrug when called out on it, and continue spouting some random BS. I won't take your word for it, because until shown otherwise, I have no reason to believe this is different from your 75% claim. You discredited yourself, now you reap the rewards. Mister Ripley wrote: Man, you CSM guys are slow... CSM is powerless because CCP doesn't listen, because CCP has no control of their game, because Ilumittani! And aliens! You really don't think Mittens is an alien?!? Wow, do you also believe the Lamestream CONCORD media? Sleepers are an inside job! [/Conspiracy]
Drago Shouna Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire 297	Posted - 2016.01.19 12:38:25 - [216] - Quote nvm
Malcanis Vanishing Point. The Initiative. 17372	Posted - 2016.01.19 14:14:48 - [217] - Quote Mister Ripley wrote: Malcanis wrote: Mindrago Aldent wrote: Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: Back on track: My experience of crossing High Sec multiple times and talking to people was that they didn't know the CSM existed nor what it does. That is what is relevant. Bullshit..you didn't ask me. Over xmas I flew around hi sec systems trying to give away a shiny new Endurance..All I was after was a simple reply to me shouting merry xmas in local. Using your argument, and as I got no reply, that must mean xmas doesn't exist! I know the CSM exists, I also know lots of players in hs know it exists. Do they vote? doubtful. The reason? Most see it as pointless as their single vote will not affect the block voting low/null alliances. You have to remember that the vast majority of hs corps are a few mates/members who just log on to do what they like to do and have 0 interest in alliances or the political bullshit that goes on at this time of year. Or any time of year. I personally think the csm should be disbanded and ccp should stop pandering to it and take control of their game back. Make the changes they want to and if YOU don't like it, well feel free to find a facebook game. So CCP have lost control of their came to the CSM? I thought the CSM was powerless and accomplished nothing. Man, you CSM guys are slow... CSM is powerless because CCP doesn't listen, because CCP has no control of their game, because Ilumittani! And aliens! Ohhhh.... "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his ISK/hr depends upon his not understanding it!"
Lan Wang Knights of the Posing Meat FETID 2308	Posted - 2016.01.19 14:49:50 - [218] - Quote Bumblefck wrote: Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: - Why are you voting for that person? - Is the CSM influence more gradual and insidious? - Is the CSM too full of peacocks or selfish agendas to be taken seriously by CCP? - Is CSM largely a lobby group? - How can the whole process be improved? - Are these questions too late? - I'm not - That sounds like a comparative sentence but it's missing the target of comparison - No more than this thread - That's the whole idea - Elect everyone in New Eden to the CSM - No, they're just pointless i love your tash "Yeah. Put your tears in a jet can and leave them on your undock for your assailants to pick up. If they're camping you, I'm sure they're going to get thirsty." - Darth Squeemus ............................... Angel Cartel \|\| Serpentis
Alphea Abbra Grim Determination Violence of Action. 839	Posted - 2016.01.19 15:00:16 - [219] - Quote Malcanis wrote: So CCP have lost control of their came to the CSM? And also eeewww. And also kinky. And also invite? Next time the CSM does this, I mean...
Jenshae Chiroptera 2484	Posted - 2016.01.19 19:26:49 - [220] - Quote In the system we trust. In the system we have no doubts. The system is clearly perfect. CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids There are other ways to fix Null Sec stagnation and Fozzie SOV is the wrong approach.

SurrenderMonkey Space Llama Industries 1588	Posted - 2016.01.19 19:29:19 - [221] - Quote Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: In the system we trust. In the system we have no doubts. The system is clearly perfect. Did you have an argument to make, or have you just been reduced to shrilly complaining about THE SYSTEM for no articulable reason at this point? "Help, I'm bored with missions!" http://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/
Jenshae Chiroptera 2484	Posted - 2016.01.19 19:30:56 - [222] - Quote SurrenderMonkey wrote: Did you have an argument to make, or have you just been reduced to shrilly complaining about THE SYSTEM for no articulable reason at this point? Have you actually done anything or presented anything concrete yet to disprove anything that I have said? Your opinion doesn't amount to much. CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids There are other ways to fix Null Sec stagnation and Fozzie SOV is the wrong approach.
SurrenderMonkey Space Llama Industries 1589	Posted - 2016.01.19 19:40:43 - [223] - Quote Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: SurrenderMonkey wrote: Did you have an argument to make, or have you just been reduced to shrilly complaining about THE SYSTEM for no articulable reason at this point? Have you actually done anything or presented anything concrete yet to disprove anything that I have said? Your opinion doesn't amount to much. I am presenting this quote as concrete evidence that you do not understand how burden of proof functions. "Help, I'm bored with missions!" http://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/
Jenshae Chiroptera 2484	Posted - 2016.01.19 19:46:18 - [224] - Quote SurrenderMonkey wrote: Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: SurrenderMonkey wrote: Did you have an argument to make, or have you just been reduced to shrilly complaining about THE SYSTEM for no articulable reason at this point? Have you actually done anything or presented anything concrete yet to disprove anything that I have said? Your opinion doesn't amount to much. I am presenting this quote as concrete evidence that you do not understand how burden of proof functions. I am presenting this quote as a deflection of a question. I stand upon something. The results of the elections and the CSM candidates supported by Goons. You stand upon your opinion and nothing else. CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids There are other ways to fix Null Sec stagnation and Fozzie SOV is the wrong approach.
SurrenderMonkey Space Llama Industries 1589	Posted - 2016.01.19 19:48:09 - [225] - Quote Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: SurrenderMonkey wrote: Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: SurrenderMonkey wrote: Did you have an argument to make, or have you just been reduced to shrilly complaining about THE SYSTEM for no articulable reason at this point? Have you actually done anything or presented anything concrete yet to disprove anything that I have said? Your opinion doesn't amount to much. I am presenting this quote as concrete evidence that you do not understand how burden of proof functions. I am presenting this quote as a deflection of a question. I stand upon something. The results of the elections and the CSM candidates supported by Goons. You stand upon your opinion and nothing else. Well, no, I stand upon the mathematical reality of STV when coupled with an ordered list, which conclusively proves your claim false. Meanwhile, you're just making things up. "Help, I'm bored with missions!" http://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/
Jenshae Chiroptera 2484	Posted - 2016.01.19 20:11:24 - [226] - Quote SurrenderMonkey wrote: ... I stand upon the mathematical reality of STV .... You stand on the belief that the system can't be gamed. "Alliance A, put X at the top of your list. Alliance B, put Y at the top of your list. Alliance C, put Z at the top of your list," ... and hey, guess what? Not all alliances have the same activity or membership numbers. CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids There are other ways to fix Null Sec stagnation and Fozzie SOV is the wrong approach.
SurrenderMonkey Space Llama Industries 1589	Posted - 2016.01.19 20:14:47 - [227] - Quote Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: SurrenderMonkey wrote: ... I stand upon the mathematical reality of STV .... You stand on the belief that the system can't be gamed. And why wouldn't I? It is not as if anyone has suggested a compelling, factually supported argument that it has been gamed, or even can be meaningfully gamed. Right now you're just some quack screaming about chemtrails and WiFi sickness. "Help, I'm bored with missions!" http://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/
Malcanis Vanishing Point. The Initiative. 17377	Posted - 2016.01.19 20:30:38 - [228] - Quote Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: SurrenderMonkey wrote: ... I stand upon the mathematical reality of STV .... You stand on the belief that the system can't be gamed. "Alliance A, put X at the top of your list. Alliance B, put Y at the top of your list. Alliance C, put Z at the top of your list," ... and hey, guess what? Not all alliances have the same activity or membership numbers. That can't overcome that 62% "supermajority" though, unless that supermajority chooses not to vote. It's an election, sweetie. People who do vote are going to get better results than people who don't vote. It's not unexpected. It's not even unfair. It's certainly not a bad thing. EDIT: here's the wiki on the system used. See if you can't dig out a way it can be gamed that doesn't devolve to "well all the candidates are people I don't like and none of the people who actually take 60 seconds to click and drag a dozen times to vote are people I do like" "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his ISK/hr depends upon his not understanding it!"
Jenshae Chiroptera 2484	Posted - 2016.01.19 20:39:27 - [229] - Quote Malcanis wrote: That can't overcome that 62% "supermajority" though, unless that supermajority chooses not to vote. Are you absolutely sure that the 62% know there is a vote happening? CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids There are other ways to fix Null Sec stagnation and Fozzie SOV is the wrong approach.
Malcanis Vanishing Point. The Initiative. 17379	Posted - 2016.01.19 21:11:46 - [230] - Quote Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: Malcanis wrote: That can't overcome that 62% "supermajority" though, unless that supermajority chooses not to vote. Are you absolutely sure that the 62% know there is a vote happening? This is the 11th CSM election. There have been, what? 10 in the last 7 years. Plenty of the "62%" seem to manage to find their way to the forum to complain about grr gons hat gons bloc votang because someone has been busy persauding them not to vote. The election is advertised in devblogs, it's all over the EVE 3rd party media (even if only people complaining about it), it appears on the launcher, and you can hardly open 2 form threads here without running across at least a reference to it. Very new players have, I suppose, some excuse. Anyone who's been playing since there was last an election has none. Just accept it. They know there are elections. They're just not voting. And people like you making **** up about "gaming" the elections are a big part of that. "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his ISK/hr depends upon his not understanding it!"

Jenshae Chiroptera 2485	Posted - 2016.01.19 21:57:14 - [231] - Quote Malcanis wrote: ...Anyone who's been playing since there was last an election has none. .... Average life expectancy of a High Sec account is 1.5 years + climbing the learning curve + time of year they join. CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids There are other ways to fix Null Sec stagnation and Fozzie SOV is the wrong approach.
Marsha Mallow 2799	Posted - 2016.01.19 22:50:29 - [232] - Quote Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: Malcanis wrote: ...Anyone who's been playing since there was last an election has none. .... Average life expectancy of a High Sec account is 1.5 years + climbing the learning curve + time of year they join. Then only exceptional players are retained, engage with the community, and have awareness of the CSM. Your 62% may well be dropout scrubs whose unspoken voice no-one wants to hear anyway. Because they aren't likely to stay ingame, and are probably whiny locusts moving between games in search of nerd-nirvana. To the retained playerbase - why should this functionally illiterate and gormless blob of whingers be able to vote candidates in, then quit playing and leave us to deal with the consequences? Perhaps CSM votes should only be issued after players have acquired citizenship and fulfilled the naturalisation process? Jen, that's my CSM delegate you're baiting btw. And I do mean 'delegate'. I voted with the intention of delegating that role to him, so I could boot him about it and call him my sockpuppet. But he worked hard and acheived results. And still takes the time to engage with you, despite the fact that you're wasting time window dressing trash talk, and have no real point. Make some daft remark to signal that you accept being PvP'd by another player, without the CCP/CSM/clan gibbering. I'll give you a headstart to hide :) Knowing they have more SP than I do isnGÇÖt going to stop me from taking the fight if I was going to take it.
Jenshae Chiroptera 2485	Posted - 2016.01.19 23:03:01 - [233] - Quote Marsha Mallow wrote: Jen, that's my CSM delegate you're baiting btw. One poster's bait is another poster's debate. Subjective. Marsha Mallow wrote: ... Then only exceptional players are retained, engage with the community, and have awareness of the CSM. Your 62% may well be dropout scrubs whose unspoken voice no-one wants to hear anyway. ... Try that the other way around. They don't know they have a voice. They see changes to Null Sec and think their way of play is ignored. Again, CSM might have helped lead CCP into focusing on the wrong area of space. If it has been the other way around, perhaps more would have been enabled to transition into other areas of space more smoothly and additionally, they would spend more time paying for an account in High Sec. If the average life of High Sec accounts could be extended by just a month, that would be significant. CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids There are other ways to fix Null Sec stagnation and Fozzie SOV is the wrong approach.
Jenn aSide Ascendent. Test Alliance Please Ignore 13404	Posted - 2016.01.19 23:07:27 - [234] - Quote Is this guy still clinging to the "if they only knew me they'd elect me/listen to my idea and share them" idea? CCP please make a pop up telling people ingame about the CSM. I want to see this mental house of cards crash and burn in my lifetime.
SurrenderMonkey Space Llama Industries 1595	Posted - 2016.01.19 23:27:00 - [235] - Quote Jenn aSide wrote: Is this guy still clinging to the "if they only knew me they'd elect me/listen to my idea and share them" idea? CCP please make a pop up telling people ingame about the CSM. I want to see this mental house of cards crash and burn in my lifetime. Dean Chambers was only wrong because he didn't consider voter fraud. "Help, I'm bored with missions!" http://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/
Jenshae Chiroptera 2485	Posted - 2016.01.19 23:30:51 - [236] - Quote Jenn aSide wrote: Is this guy still clinging to the "if they only knew ~~me they'd elect me/listen to my idea and share them~~" idea? ... FTFY. I won't be running again. Ever. Pay attention. Said that before the results last year (CSM thread if you want to check it) CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids There are other ways to fix Null Sec stagnation and Fozzie SOV is the wrong approach.
Alphea Abbra Grim Determination Violence of Action. 840	Posted - 2016.01.19 23:49:51 - [237] - Quote Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: In the system we trust. In the system we have no doubts. The system is clearly perfect. I don't know why you'd think that, but given how you're a moron who lies about most things I've seen, I'm hardly surprised at this point. No, I really can't see why you're surprised that the vote is decided by the voters. STV is made exactly so it's hard to game, that's the whole mechanic. The reason why you fail, and is a failure as a candidate and as an activist for a cause, is because you both advocate disenfranchisement on your own side (For some reason I can't fathom, saying that CSM and voting is useless because some other group votes), and on "the opponent" side, and because the base you want to get to vote for you or your cause doesn't exist. You imagined up a bunch of problems, then you blame those problems on a group you have an irrational hate against, and when people don't buy your premise, you claim they're part of the conspiracy. 9/11 truthers have more brain and have put more effort into their conspiracy than you have into yours. You're pathetic.
Malcanis Vanishing Point. The Initiative. 17381	Posted - 2016.01.20 00:01:02 - [238] - Quote Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: Marsha Mallow wrote: Jen, that's my CSM delegate you're baiting btw. One poster's bait is another poster's debate. Subjective. Marsha Mallow wrote: ... Then only exceptional players are retained, engage with the community, and have awareness of the CSM. Your 62% may well be dropout scrubs whose unspoken voice no-one wants to hear anyway. ... Try that the other way around. They don't know they have a voice. They see changes to Null Sec and think their way of play is ignored. Again, CSM might have helped lead CCP into focusing on the wrong area of space. If it has been the other way around, perhaps more would have been enabled to transition into other areas of space more smoothly and additionally, they would spend more time paying for an account in High Sec. If the average life of High Sec accounts could be extended by just a month, that would be significant. And once again, nullsec got eff all between Dominion (yeah thanks for that) and Crius. Retribution up until Crius was either zone agnostic or all about empire. Basically null got ONE thing that was good post Revalations, and that was the system upgrade/anoms thing. Which was horrible gameplay, but at least increased the potential economic density of nullsec such that it only took a whole region to match a good quality hi-sec system with 2+ level IV agents. Hi-sec isn't being "ignored". It's just had it's damb turn and, if I don't miss my guess, as soon as Citadels come out, it'll get another. So quit the stupid whining, God. Also, public disclosure: Marsha voted for me with like 17 accounts, and started complaining about it even before I was actually elected. IIRC she got a snit on because I said that CCP was absotively right to dumpster Ankmephat-thing, or whatever her name was. "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his ISK/hr depends upon his not understanding it!"
Marsha Mallow 2800	Posted - 2016.01.20 00:24:53 - [239] - Quote Malcanis wrote: Also, public disclosure: Marsha voted for me with like 17 accounts, and started complaining about it even before I was actually elected. IIRC she got a snit on because I said that CCP was absotively right to dumpster Ankmephat-thing, or whatever her name was. 28 and I'll whine about it FOREVER. But no, I wasn't arsed over Ankh being fired and found the spoonthrowing incident hilarious. Although the 'Deaf *** gets fired from CSM' topic posted on Kugu by Viper at the time seemed excessively nasty, the comments were nauseating, and it bothered me that she was clearly an immature person whose CSM dismissal may have resulted in real life consequences. As a game developer herself, who'd put the CSM on her CV (which was leaked) and in the gaming industry, an accusation of an NDA leak might be fairly significant career-wise and disproportionately damaging. Think the argument you recall is - I never agreed with CSMs being forced to post real names, you did, it's been subsequently overturned - I won/you lost/you're a bad loser <.< Being subject to the abuse of people on a forum who ejaculated on pictures of female players then posted them for applause, seemed a bit off, in addition to the CV (which had her contact details) and the rest. I think I got in a 'snit' because you regurgitated the 'deaf ***' tripe and deserved a smack in the mouth. Your election was after that conversation. You're fired btw. Again. Got at least 20 of those saved sockpuppet. Knowing they have more SP than I do isnGÇÖt going to stop me from taking the fight if I was going to take it.
SurrenderMonkey Space Llama Industries 1599	Posted - 2016.01.20 00:25:55 - [240] - Quote Er... you know when you say, "Win or lose, I'm not going to run again," when it is apparent to everyone that you will not even enter the same zipcode as "winning" that we all understand it's just a bunch of face saving nonsense, right? "Help, I'm bored with missions!" http://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/

Malcanis Vanishing Point. The Initiative. 17383	Posted - 2016.01.20 08:50:31 - [241] - Quote SurrenderMonkey wrote: Er... you know when you say, "Win or lose, I'm not going to run again," when it is apparent to everyone that you will not even enter the same zipcode as "winning" that we all understand it's just a bunch of face saving nonsense, right? Since you've said so, with neither citation nor logic to back up your assertion, we'll just have to take it on faith. "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his ISK/hr depends upon his not understanding it!"
Malcanis Vanishing Point. The Initiative. 17383	Posted - 2016.01.20 08:51:25 - [242] - Quote Marsha Mallow wrote: Malcanis wrote: Also, public disclosure: Marsha voted for me with like 17 accounts, and started complaining about it even before I was actually elected. IIRC she got a snit on because I said that CCP was absotively right to dumpster Ankmephat-thing, or whatever her name was. 28 and I'll whine about it FOREVER. But no, I wasn't arsed over Ankh being fired and found the spoonthrowing incident hilarious. Although the 'Deaf *** gets fired from CSM' topic posted on Kugu by Viper at the time seemed excessively nasty, the comments were nauseating, and it bothered me that she was clearly an immature person whose CSM dismissal may have resulted in real life consequences. As a game developer herself, who'd put the CSM on her CV (which was leaked) and in the gaming industry, an accusation of an NDA leak might be fairly significant career-wise and disproportionately damaging. Think the argument you recall is - I never agreed with CSMs being forced to post real names, you did, it's been subsequently overturned - I won/you lost/you're a bad loser <.< Being subject to the abuse of people on a forum who ejaculated on pictures of female players then posted them for applause, seemed a bit off, in addition to the CV (which had her contact details) and the rest. I think I got in a 'snit' because you regurgitated the 'deaf ***' tripe and deserved a smack in the mouth. Your election was after that conversation. You're fired btw. Again. Got at least 20 of those saved sockpuppet. This is what it looks like when you bite, kids. Don't bite. "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his ISK/hr depends upon his not understanding it!"
Maldiro Selkurk CHEMO IMMUNO RESISTANT VIRUS X 541	Posted - 2016.01.20 11:14:57 - [243] - Quote SurrenderMonkey wrote: Maldiro Selkurk wrote: Tippia wrote: Jace Varus wrote: Go to the beta map in-game, and turn to the average number of pilots in space in the last 30 minutes. There you go. Just one problem GÇö in fact, the exact same problem as with all those inane claims: it doesn't display players. The mythical majority is just that: a myth, at best born out of bad maths, at worst born out of sheer ignorance and wishful thinking. So the vast majority of players are docked up or in a wormhole ? Ive seen you toss this trash about before, it runs counter to anything remotely reasonable given the facts presented by the game itself and it makes you look desperate and silly. Players != characters. I have 6 characters, all of which I use to some degree or another. 5 of them basically never leave high sec. One of them basically never enters high sec. If you're pretending that all of my characters are a player, well, gosh, 5/6 players live in high sec! Except, no. 5/6 "players", in this case, are station-sitting alts because characters are not players. All those ships in highsec have a player flying them. If there was only a modest difference between the head counts of highsec and everywhere else i could see your point but the difference is overwhelmingly in favor of highsec having more players. In order for nullsec to have some huge 'unseen' mass that is truly the heart and soul of EVE pretty much every highsec player would have to have like 50 accounts and be playing them simultaneously 23/7 but that isnt the case. Tippia is wrong but desperately wants to be right. I dont get 'her' obsession with this point but it is a lost case straight out of the gate. Yawn,-á I'm right as usual. The predictability kinda gets boring really.
Alphea Abbra Grim Determination Violence of Action. 840	Posted - 2016.01.20 11:40:40 - [244] - Quote Maldiro Selkurk wrote: All those ships in highsec have a player flying them. If there was only a modest difference between the head counts of highsec and everywhere else i could see your point but the difference is overwhelmingly in favor of highsec having more players. In order for nullsec to have some huge 'unseen' mass that is truly the heart and soul of EVE pretty much every highsec player would have to have like 50 accounts and be playing them simultaneously 23/7 but that isnt the case. Tippia is wrong but desperately wants to be right. I dont get 'her' obsession with this point but it is a lost case straight out of the gate. But this is simply not known. CCP says how many characters are where. We don't have the data to extrapolate from that to any certain knowledge about player distribution. The best we can do is educated guesses, as Tippia has done. And again, if you're right, and the majority of players are hi-sec (Again, we don't have any clear evidence to back this up), then nothing needs to happen to the CSM. Hi-sec candidates just need to get off their buttoms and get those voters, and they'll have at least 62% of the seats. That just doesn't happen. Why? Well, maybe it's because most candidates are like Jenshae or Xenuria, and couldn't get elected on their own if running against a rock of modest intelligence. Maybe it's because hi-sec people don't care enough to vote. Maybe it's because hi-sec people don't know an election is happening. There could be plenty of reasons, and we can't ascertain any of them based on the lacklustre data, but a combination seems plausible. What isn't the reason is STV, certain null-sec groups voting too much or certain null-sec groups rigging the election. That, at least, we know for certain. And just for the record, the claim isn't that hi-sec players have 50 accounts. It's that plenty of null-, low- and WH-players have several alts in hi-sec, and that that skews the numbers (Again, SurrenderMonkey has 5/6 of his characters in hi-sec, I have half my active characters in hi-sec...). Just so you don't make yourself look like an idiot next time by missing the discussion by a nautic mile.
Lan Wang Knights of the Posing Meat FETID 2311	Posted - 2016.01.20 11:44:56 - [245] - Quote this sounds like a stealth highsec agenda pushing thread, or is it stealth?, i dunno but its definately a highsec agenda "Yeah. Put your tears in a jet can and leave them on your undock for your assailants to pick up. If they're camping you, I'm sure they're going to get thirsty." - Darth Squeemus ............................... Angel Cartel \|\| Serpentis
Tippia Sunshine and Lollipops 26792	Posted - 2016.01.20 12:51:58 - [246] - Quote Alphea Abbra wrote: Maldiro Selkurk wrote: All those ships in highsec have a player flying them. If there was only a modest difference between the head counts of highsec and everywhere else i could see your point but the difference is overwhelmingly in favor of highsec having more players. In order for nullsec to have some huge 'unseen' mass that is truly the heart and soul of EVE pretty much every highsec player would have to have like 50 accounts and be playing them simultaneously 23/7 but that isnt the case. Tippia is wrong but desperately wants to be right. I dont get 'her' obsession with this point but it is a lost case straight out of the gate. But this is simply not known. CCP says how many characters are where. We don't have the data to extrapolate from that to any certain knowledge about player distribution. The best we can do is educated guesses, as Tippia has done. [GÇª] And just for the record, the claim isn't that hi-sec players have 50 accounts. It's that plenty of null-, low- and WH-players have several alts in hi-sec, and that that skews the numbers (Again, SurrenderMonkey has 5/6 of his characters in hi-sec, I have half my active characters in hi-sec...). Just so you don't make yourself look like an idiot next time by missing the discussion by a nautic mile. In fact, let's run the numbers again and not assume anything special about the highseccers GÇö definitely not something as silly as their having 50 alts each. Hell, let's even ignore the more sensible character counts and go for the really na+»ve ones CCP have done, where every last non-trial character is counted, even those who have never trained a single skill or hardly even undocked. The FF2012 presentation (which is still the last time I saw them compare the two numbers), put the na+»ve character distribution at 71.5% highsec; 28.5% elsewhere. Quant's data mining that was presented at the last FF and on reddit put the expected account per player at 1.5; the average character per account at just above 2, meaning an average of three characters per player. Highsec is still the place to trade for basics and essentials like craptons of base minerals and skill books. So let's do the very conservative assumption that everone who lives outside of highsec has one (1) alt character in highsec, and let's look at a statistically representative sample of 1,000 characters. 285 of them are not in highsec. At our assumed 2:1 split between highsec/non-highsec alts, these characters represent 142-+ actual players. 715 of the characters are in highsec. Per the same split, 142-+ of those are just outsider alts. 572-+ characters are owned by GÇ£true highseccersGÇ¥, who have three characters each. These characters therefore represent 191 players. The 72/28 split in character distribution has translated into 57/43 split in players. Yay! Highsec is a majority! But the majority is less than a third the size of what the character count would suggest (14pp rather than 44pp). What if we look at the more sensible character count where all the unused and untrained alts aren't included? The same presentation suddenly shifted the character population to 65.3% highsec, 34.7% outsiders. Let's do the maths again 347 ousider characters yields 173-+ players. 653 highsec characters - 173-+ alts yeilds 479-+ true highsec characters. 479-+ characters at 3 per player yields 155 true highsec players. The 65/35 split in character distribution has translated into a 48/52 split in players. Oh my, no more majorityGÇª What looked like a 30pp majority actually turns out to be a 4pp minority. All because we make two fairly reasonable assumptions: that averages are indeed average across both types of players, and that the non-highseccers only have one alt each in highsec. So what about the map? For one, there's the sample bias of picking pilots in space. Being in space in highsec is a fair bit different than being in space in low or null GÇö in the latter two, being in space without a plan is a bad plan; the the former, milling about half AFK is done habitually. Oh, and w-space doesn't show up and all, so we're ignoring something on the order of one in twenty players. Then there's the matter of density. There are some 1,200 highsec systems; almost 3,300 null, and 700 lowsec ones. With more people being actually in space, rather than safely docked up, but crammed into a third the number of systems, is it any surprise that the heatmap shows up differently for the two? Even if w-space was shown GÇö a place where docking up happens in one very special system GÇö there are 2,500 of those systems so those brave few who are in there are very spread out and would hardly even register. All of that just based on numbers. The heretical idea that some true highseccers might still want to align themselves with the (supposed) non-high candidates would erode the GÇ¥majorityGÇ¥ even furtherGÇª GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥ Get a good start: Newbie skillplan 2.3 - Vanguard Edition.
Jenn aSide Ascendent. Test Alliance Please Ignore 13408	Posted - 2016.01.20 13:27:32 - [247] - Quote Alphea Abbra wrote: Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: In the system we trust. In the system we have no doubts. The system is clearly perfect. I don't know why you'd think that, but given how you're a moron who lies about most things I've seen, I'm hardly surprised at this point. No, I really can't see why you're surprised that the vote is decided by the voters. STV is made exactly so it's hard to game, that's the whole mechanic. The reason why you fail, and is a failure as a candidate and as an activist for a cause, is because you both advocate disenfranchisement on your own side (For some reason I can't fathom, saying that CSM and voting is useless because some other group votes), and on "the opponent" side, and because the base you want to get to vote for you or your cause doesn't exist. You imagined up a bunch of problems, then you blame those problems on a group you have an irrational hate against, and when people don't buy your premise, you claim they're part of the conspiracy. 9/11 truthers have more brain and have put more effort into their conspiracy than you have into yours. You're pathetic. +1 99% of the crazy on this forum (and on Earth) comes from people not being able to come to grips with one over-arching fact: They themselves are the causes of their own problems and unhappiness, and blaming it on others, on outside circumstances and/or the actions of others is just a pitiful defense mechanism aimed at avoiding the pain of realizing it. This goes double for "Activist Types" For people like Jenshae, he will never be able to accept the fact that intelligent High Sec residents heard it's cases, weighed it carefully, and rejected it wholesale. No, it must be some conspiracy, someone is controlling something. You used the word Pitiful to describe it Alphea, and I agree totally.
ISD Fractal ISD Community Communications Liaisons 788	Posted - 2016.01.20 14:09:16 - [248] - Quote Quote: 2. Be respectful toward others at all times. The purpose of the EVE Online forums is to provide a platform for exchange of ideas, and a venue for the discussion of EVE Online. Occasionally there will be conflicts that arise when people voice opinions. Forum users are expected to be courteous when disagreeing with others. 4. Personal attacks are prohibited. Commonly known as flaming, personal attacks are posts that are designed to personally berate or insult another forum user. Posts of this nature are not conductive to the community spirit that CCP promotes. As such, this kind of behavior will not be tolerated. 27. Off-topic posting is prohibited. Off-topic posting is permitted within reason, as sometimes a single comment may color or lighten the tone of discussion. However, excessive posting of off-topic remarks in an attempt to derail a thread may result in the thread being locked, or a forum warning being issued to the off-topic poster. Some posts, and those quoting them, have been removed for violating the above rules. ISD Fractal Ensign Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs) Interstellar Services Department
Jenshae Chiroptera 2486	Posted - 2016.01.20 17:31:02 - [249] - Quote Tippia wrote: ... All of that just based on numbers. The heretical idea that some true highseccers might still want to align themselves with the (supposed) non-high candidates would erode the GÇ¥majorityGÇ¥ even furtherGÇª Good post. However, they have already boiled it down to *the life of accounts* used mostly in an area of space by the highest SP character's activity. i.e. During that process are you going to tell me that they don't know what the proportions are simply because it was a different figure that was released? CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids There are other ways to fix Null Sec stagnation and Fozzie SOV is the wrong approach.
Tippia Sunshine and Lollipops 26796	Posted - 2016.01.20 17:47:45 - [250] - Quote Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: i.e. During that process are you going to tell me that they don't know what the proportions are simply because it was a different figure that was released? Yes. They have never had a good grasp of actual players. Even their best guess at the most basic of stats GÇö accounts per player GÇö has a whopping -¦10% margin of error. There are so many ways to start an account and just as many ways of registering and paying for them that they simply cannot find something that simple out with any degree of certainty (and even with that one, the +10% bit is itself an estimate rather than a strict limit). Anything to do with accounts or characters is silly easy to do stats on because they own all the data. The players behind those accounts and characters are hidden behind non-unique (hell, in many cases unverified) emails, a wide array of payment methods from a whole bunch of different vendors, some of which CCP probably aren't even allowed to know. To make matters worse, they're often very casual with how they use the word GÇ£playerGÇ¥, often attaching it to stats that actually deal with characters or accounts, as if there was an absolute 1:1:1 correlation. So any time you hear them say it, you need to look very carefully at what it is they're actually counting. Only once (the aforementioned account-per-player estimate) have I ever seen them actually count people, and not something else. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥ Get a good start: Newbie skillplan 2.3 - Vanguard Edition.

Jenshae Chiroptera 2486	Posted - 2016.01.20 18:00:40 - [251] - Quote Tippia wrote: ... The players behind those accounts and characters are hidden behind non-unique (hell, in many cases unverified) emails, a wide array of payment methods from a whole bunch of different vendors, some of which CCP probably aren't even allowed to know. ... So, on one hand, we have people saying that the average High Sec players are too apathetic or dim to vote and on the other, they are taking special measures to use different IP addresses, home networks, machines and e-mail addresses ... riiiight. CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids There are other ways to fix Null Sec stagnation and Fozzie SOV is the wrong approach.
Tippia Sunshine and Lollipops 26796	Posted - 2016.01.20 18:10:59 - [252] - Quote Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: So, on one hand, we have people saying that the average High Sec players are too apathetic or dim to vote and on the other, they are taking special measures to use different IP addresses, home networks, machines and e-mail addresses ... riiiight. No. On the one hand, we have people saying that most players GÇö regardless of classification GÇö don't care to vote for some reason. On the other hand, we have CCP themselves saying that some of the restrictions they have had throughout the history of the game mean that they can't use email as a unique identifier: they accidentally mad it impossible to do so by (bad) design. They're also saying that none of the other potential identifiers are all that unique, at least not to the point where they can resolve the initial identification issue. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥ Get a good start: Newbie skillplan 2.3 - Vanguard Edition.
Jenshae Chiroptera 2487	Posted - 2016.01.20 19:56:23 - [253] - Quote 1) Is the IP address used the same? 2) Is the same machine used? 3) Is the same e-mail used? 4) Are multiple accounts carrying on conversations at the same time? That is off the top of my head. I am sure there are more ways to find out how many players you have. Consider how few complaints there were when bots were banned (rather accurate there). CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids There are other ways to fix Null Sec stagnation and Fozzie SOV is the wrong approach.
Tippia Sunshine and Lollipops 26798	Posted - 2016.01.20 19:59:51 - [254] - Quote Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: 1) Is the IP address used the same? 2) Is the same machine used? 3) Is the same e-mail used? 4) Are multiple accounts carrying on conversations at the same time? IP addresses are not unique, nor exclusive. GÇ£MachinesGÇ¥ are not unique, nor exclusive. Emails are not unique, nor consistent. Multiple accounts can be in conversation at once. Do you for a second believe that CCP wouldn't like to know exactly how many players they have if they could? They can't. It's that simple, and while you may think that it's a bit embarrassing, they are not exactly hiding this fact. They've told us that they can't and why on multiple occasions. They are already using all those methods and the best they have is a -¦10% margin of error. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥ Get a good start: Newbie skillplan 2.3 - Vanguard Edition.
Jenshae Chiroptera 2487	Posted - 2016.01.20 23:30:56 - [255] - Quote For starters: Tippia wrote: ...GÇ£MachinesGÇ¥ are not unique, .... Exclusive? How often do you see two people playing EVE on the same computer at the same time? CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids There are other ways to fix Null Sec stagnation and Fozzie SOV is the wrong approach.
Remiel Pollard Red Federation RvB - RED Federation 7474	Posted - 2016.01.21 00:06:16 - [256] - Quote Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: For starters: Tippia wrote: ...GÇ£MachinesGÇ¥ are not unique, .... Exclusive? How often do you see two people playing EVE on the same computer at the same time? MAC addresses can be and often are spoofed for various reasons. GÇ£Some capsuleers claim that ECM is 'dishonorable' and 'unfair'. Jam those ones first, and kill them last.GÇ¥ - Jirai 'Fatal' Laitanen, Pithum Nullifier Training Manual c. YC104
Tippia Sunshine and Lollipops 26801	Posted - 2016.01.21 00:22:54 - [257] - Quote Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: For starters: Exclusive? How often do you see two people playing EVE on the same computer at the same time? For starters. MACs are not unique or exclusive GÇö the wiki page even explicitly explains how and why this is not the case. For another, you just demonstrated yourself why it can't be used to pin it on one person. The only bet you have is if the person is multiboxing and if it's all done on the same computer and if the client records that hardware information and if that information is actually sent to and collected by CCP. If two people use the same computer, and you rely on this unreliable piece of data, you get a false positive. So it doesn't really do what's needed for the kind of precision you're after. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥ Get a good start: Newbie skillplan 2.3 - Vanguard Edition.
Ohanka 373	Posted - 2016.01.21 11:03:51 - [258] - Quote Servers shut down permanently when? North Korea is Best Korea
Nana Skalski Poseidaon 3294	Posted - 2016.01.21 12:05:41 - [259] - Quote I suppose they have been off for you long enough already, so long that you returned back. Want to sell your vote? ( -á° -ƒ-û -í°)/ GòáGò¼GòªGò¼Gòú - my sandcastle ( -á° -ƒ-û -í°)/ <=X - my yacht
Jenshae Chiroptera 2488	Posted - 2016.01.21 17:32:05 - [260] - Quote Remiel Pollard wrote: MAC addresses can be and often are spoofed for various reasons. Average players? Tippia wrote: ... If two people use the same computer, and you rely on this unreliable piece of data, you get a false positive. ... and you think that a combination of tests IP + MAC + + + would significantly throw off a statistical study? CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids There are other ways to fix Null Sec stagnation and Fozzie SOV is the wrong approach.

Tippia Sunshine and Lollipops 26810	Posted - 2016.01.21 17:42:38 - [261] - Quote Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: Average players? Manufacturers have begin making hardware and software that continuously randomise MAC addresses without any prompting, and as mentioned. So yes. And even then, the whole idea hinges on the client collecting and sending that data, which as mentioned will create tons of false positives. Quote: ... and you think that a combination of tests IP + MAC + + + would significantly throw off a statistical study? I'm saying that in spite of knowing more about this than you do, CCP cannot produce any better than an estimate with a 20%-wide error margin. So yes, the statistics can very obviously be thrown off significantly. None of your ideas work the way you want them to work, nor do they work for the purpose you want. Trying to combine these inherently imprecise and unreliable data points will most likely just create even more false positives and false negatives that make the whole thing even more unreliable, since previously dead sure predictions will not improve, but will rather be mixed up with all kinds of uncertainties. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥ Get a good start: Newbie skillplan 2.3 - Vanguard Edition.
Jenshae Chiroptera 2488	Posted - 2016.01.21 18:05:08 - [262] - Quote Tippia wrote: ... None of your ideas work the way you want them to work, nor do they work for the purpose you want. .... Well this is fantastic news. It means that all the cyber criminals that take deliberate measure to not be found or counted are simply made up figments of the media and propaganda! I guess your most salient point is, "CCP cannot produce..." CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids There are other ways to fix Null Sec stagnation and Fozzie SOV is the wrong approach.
Tippia Sunshine and Lollipops 26811	Posted - 2016.01.21 18:23:27 - [263] - Quote Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: It means that all the cyber criminals that take deliberate measure to not be found or counted are simply made up figments of the media and propaganda! No, it means that you, your ISP, CCP's ISP, and the peering networks between the two of you have no reason to respond to information requests from a local non-LE like CCP. On the flip side of that coin, an LE the size of CCP would just keel over and die if they had to identify all the individuals behind a 300k:ish group of accounts with the required degree of precision. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥ Get a good start: Newbie skillplan 2.3 - Vanguard Edition.
Avvy Republic University Minmatar Republic 282	Posted - 2016.01.21 18:31:18 - [264] - Quote Lan Wang wrote: this sounds like a stealth highsec agenda pushing thread, or is it stealth?, i dunno but its definately a highsec agenda Is it a high sec agenda Or is it the fact that a few players get to represent the rest, where those few players have their own agendas plus are not known to the majority of the player base. That's not to say they can't be fair but that still remains a mystery to the majority of the player base. I guess it's a bit like voting for politicians, probably why I've not bothered to vote for the last 15+ years. They usually say one thing then do something else (politicians that is). Plus another thing about politicians, for the majority it seems their party comes first. So do the CSMs put their own corps first?
Alphea Abbra Grim Determination Violence of Action. 842	Posted - 2016.01.21 19:56:48 - [265] - Quote Avvy wrote: Is it a high sec agenda In the same way that many (would-be) politicians claim to represent people without any evidence of them doing so, yes this is a "high sec agenda". I don't think enough players who play primarily in hi-sec and concern themselves mostly with common hi-sec endeavours care enough about CSM elections for this to be an agenda defined, however loosely, by sec status. I can't say for sure, but the fact that very few CSM candidates who run on what they call hi-sec agendas get in, seems to indicate this. Quote: Or is it the fact that a few players get to represent the rest, where those few players have their own agendas plus are not known to the majority of the player base. That's not to say they can't be fair but that still remains a mystery to the majority of the player base. Two questions: Are you familiar with the concept of representative democracy (Or, as it is in this case, representation by delegate), and how would you identify whether CSM members are unknown? A followup question could be whether you can discern that CSM members are unknown due to factors such as some players not caring and thus never bothering to look more into the CSM after seeing it on splash screens, or causes more related to some hidden "null-sec agenda"? Because the issues aren't just that we can only make educated guesses about distribution of voter turnout, but also that plenty of low- and null-sec candidates have vast experiences with missions, or mining, or industry, or... that can make them as appealing to the stereotypical hi-sec miner or missioner as they presumably are to their comrades back in null or low. Furthermore, since the CSM is not an assembly like the ones we know from the real world, but are more akin to advisory boards that government instutitions, educational institutions and companies use (For example, governments often use advisory boards made up of relevant NGO's, experts and industries on many areas, while universities often have expected employers of their graduates come with input and feedback). It's not a parliament that legislates, it's a sounding board that responds. This means that any agenda/feedback that a plurality or majority of CSM members share/agrees on is given to CCP, as a list of allegedly good and productive ideas on the subject. CCP can then listen (Or not), and see how many threadnaughts happen if they decide not to take the arguments into account. So having candidates competing on their agendas will most often in reality be broad ideas in general areas, and then a long resume of the expertise they expect to bring to the table. Quote: I guess it's a bit like voting for politicians, probably why I've not bothered to vote for the last 15+ years. They usually say one thing then do something else (politicians that is). Plus another thing about politicians, for the majority it seems their party comes first. So do the CSMs put their own corps first? Three things immediately comes to mind: First, you, and those like you, are the reason why the political system in your country is bad (Unless of course you live in a FPTP system, then it's a reasonable reaction to being a minority); two, you don't get what the CSM is; three, you think that what benefits some (Presumably null-sec?) corps and alliances is contrary to the wishes of hi-sec. ... We're back to people who don't vote, and who often argue against voting, being mad that the CSM allegedly represents those who allegedly does vote. At least you didn't suggest disenfranchising people, so you're better than Jenshae.
Jenshae Chiroptera 2490	Posted - 2016.01.21 21:54:03 - [266] - Quote Tippia wrote: ... the peering networks between the two of you have no reason to respond to information requests ... What can be accomplished with a Trojan? Now, what can be accomplished with a client or launcher? Avvy wrote: ... So do the CSMs put their own corps first? Depends how you count leaks. CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids There are other ways to fix Null Sec stagnation and Fozzie SOV is the wrong approach.
Tippia Sunshine and Lollipops 26811	Posted - 2016.01.21 22:26:15 - [267] - Quote Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: What can be accomplished with a Trojan? Now, what can be accomplished with a client or launcher? A lawsuit that forces the company to shut down, and which *still doesn't provide any useful information*. You're asking for something truly idiotic from a position of absolute ignorance. Stop harping on about it. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥ Get a good start: Newbie skillplan 2.3 - Vanguard Edition.
Jenshae Chiroptera 2490	Posted - 2016.01.21 22:39:23 - [268] - Quote Tippia wrote: A lawsuit that ... "Would you like to help CCP by allowing us to collect some anonymous information? It will be used solely for internal purposes and to improve the game." Never seen a question like that pop up when running or installing programs and games? (Sometimes, such agreements are by default in the Terms of Service). CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids There are other ways to fix Null Sec stagnation and Fozzie SOV is the wrong approach.
Alphea Abbra Grim Determination Violence of Action. 843	Posted - 2016.01.21 22:48:57 - [269] - Quote Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: Tippia wrote: ... the peering networks between the two of you have no reason to respond to information requests ... What can be accomplished with a Trojan? Now, what can be accomplished with a client or launcher? Are you acting, or do you not even understand what you write yourself? You were told why we don't have any reason to talk about a hi-sec majority, based on CCP data. Now you want to attack the data CCP released because it doesn't support the conclusions you wanted? During the discussion about what data CCP has (At least, what they say they have and release in public - so the data we can actually do anything with) about players and accounts, Tippia explains why CCP labels this data with a 10% margin of error. That's not Tippias invention. It's CCP not having more accurate data. You ask whether a few things should give a clear picture. Spoiler: If they did, CCP would already have that clear picture. So no, it doesn't. You then proclaim that issues a private company might have in procuring this data is the same that a law enforcement agency would have procuring this data. Now you're suggesting that to overcome a lack of data, CCP should turn the launcher into a Trojan, to enable CCP to discern whether you're one or more persons connected to a number of accounts? It would not even solve all the problems, of course. I once had two functioning laptops, and played a different account on each (The set-up was different). A Trojan in my launcher could then reveal that I am two players. Connecting it to IP OTOH would make my then-roomie and I look like only one player, controlling a number of accounts. Or when I lived at a dorm, we were a handful of people on the same IP, controlling some 10-15 accounts between us, but while IP would show us to be one player, launcher or MAC addresses would show us to be more than the persons we were, and social interaction ingame would give a muddled picture. Emails would probably reveal as many players as there were accounts. Players based on creditcards would be off by at least one. This is just a short walkthrough about the problems of determining how many accounts are connected to people. Any one assumption (IP, email, MAC, social interaction, CC) applied across us would yield a different and incorrect number of players behind the accounts. CCP probably uses a more detailed analysis to arrive to their numbers, but they realise that they don't have an exact count and therefore they apply that margin of error. We can use the numbers to work out rough estimates, qualified guesses, about player distribution (Rather than just the character distribution CCP knows and releases), as Tippia demonstrated before. These will have that same margin of error attached, but based on a very conservative assumption (1 trade alt per player), it was shown that the idea of a hi-sec majority that can sweep elections is only that: An idea. We're back to the fundamental problem in your complaint: It's not based on facts. Is there a large hi-sec player majority that should have a proportional voice on the CSM? We have essentially no reason to think so. It's more likely around 50-50 or less, in non-HS' favour. Should HS voters vote for "HS agenda" candidates? There seems to be no compelling reason to do so. Is HS marginalised in terms of how much their vote is worth? Not at all. Is HS marginalised in terms of voter information? Well, possibly, since NS, LS and WH organisations are generally larger, their candidates have a larger starting basis. Then again, if it's a roughly 50-50 player split between HS and other sectors, that shouldn't matter too much, since the potential basis of HS is so much larger. Does CCP marginalise or empower any specific voting group? We have no reason to think so. Is there any voter fraud or gaming of the system? None has been shown, although a few times people misunderstands what STV is, and accuses use of STV voter/seats mechanics of fraud. Is the solution to a perceived imbalance between player locations and CSM members' locations to disenfranchise some groups? Only if you're against democratic elections. Might the apparent discrepancy between voters and candidates really be due to some voters simply never caring? Yes, that's a possiblity. Might it even be because voters in general don't share your notions of HS/NS, and vote for the "NS" candidates? Yes, that's also possible. To reiterate: The problem of some groups not voting like you want them to, looks, quite frankly, to be an honest evaluation of your worth as a candidate. Furthermore, the discrepancy you claim is as of yet not substantiated, but if you're right, it makes your problem to reach voters even larger. The problem isn't Goons or other null-sec alliances. The problem isn't likely to be found among hi-sec voters. To find the most plausible cause of the problem, look in a mirror.
Tippia Sunshine and Lollipops 26811	Posted - 2016.01.21 23:02:08 - [270] - Quote Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: Never seen a question like that pop up when running or installing programs and games? GÇªwhich wouldn't let them collect any more useful data than what they already have. Get it through your head: they already know this infinitely better than you can ever aspire to. They're already doing everything they can. They will not get the level of accuracy you demand. Live with it. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥ Get a good start: Newbie skillplan 2.3 - Vanguard Edition.

Avvy Republic University Minmatar Republic 282	Posted - 2016.01.22 03:44:50 - [271] - Quote Alphea Abbra wrote: We're back to people who don't vote, and who often argue against voting, being mad that the CSM allegedly represents those who allegedly does vote. At least you didn't suggest disenfranchising people, so you're better than Jenshae. Depends how you look at a none vote. Some people say it's a wasted vote. People like myself that don't vote, don't vote because if you have a small number of parties and you don't feel any of those parties really represent you, then if you do vote, you are effectively saying you agree with them. I look at a none vote as just a lack of confidence or non representation from the parties that are standing. Now being from the UK, if there was a vote to leave Europe, then that's one I would consider.
Alphea Abbra Grim Determination Violence of Action. 845	Posted - 2016.01.22 07:38:57 - [272] - Quote Avvy wrote: Alphea Abbra wrote: We're back to people who don't vote, and who often argue against voting, being mad that the CSM allegedly represents those who allegedly does vote. At least you didn't suggest disenfranchising people, so you're better than Jenshae. Depends how you look at a non vote. Some people say it's a wasted vote. People like myself that don't vote, don't vote because if you have a small number of parties and you don't feel any of those parties really represent you, then if you do vote, you are effectively saying you agree with them. I look at a non vote as just a lack of confidence in or non representation of the parties that are standing. Now being from the UK, if there was a vote to leave Europe, then that's one I would consider. Then a blank vote is what you're looking for. But in the UK, I can see why you'd think that. FPTP is a system that directly screws you over for voting for the parties you do like. And it's a shame, since you actually have so many nationally active parties in the UK, who in a better system would be viable and enrich the debate. EVE actually moved away from this sort of system, and to the STV system. But comparing CSM candidates to politicians, however much we want to call them space-politicians, is inaccurate. They don't vote on new laws and they don't have a platform to force through any agendas, no matter how big a majority they hold.
Malcanis Vanishing Point. The Initiative. 17392	Posted - 2016.01.22 08:13:20 - [273] - Quote "My theory is fine. Go get me some better data!" "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his ISK/hr depends upon his not understanding it!"
Jeremiah Saken The Fall of Leviathan 505	Posted - 2016.01.22 08:58:54 - [274] - Quote I don't undestand all that noize about CSM. There was Mike's article some time ago on CZ about CSM. This "body" has really small influence what and how will be developed. Small group of players that see what will come in the future. Their feedback will be or won't be taken under consideration. Great example was SP trading. CCP hold the strings here. It's a illusion that CCP want to know what is our opinion. So they gather few players, elected by % of playerbase, show them some future features and then disallowed to talk about it. "First rule of CSM meeting is that you don't talk about CSM meetings". Grow up girls and boys, CCP care about your opinion so much that they put news on reddit first than their "for the memebers only" forum. PS. It's not a personal attack on CSM members, for the time I spend here in EvE I'm sure they are the best what this community has to offer. "(...) I am tormented with an everlasting itch for things remote. I love to sail forbidden seas (...)" "Here in the garden of the arcane delights dark shadows overwhelm us and and we become blind..."
Avvy Republic University Minmatar Republic 282	Posted - 2016.01.22 12:53:39 - [275] - Quote Alphea Abbra wrote: But comparing CSM candidates to politicians, however much we want to call them space-politicians, is inaccurate. They don't vote on new laws and they don't have a platform to force through any agendas, no matter how big a majority they hold. I was only really comparing the election process, not what they do after they're elected. Except in relation to possible broken election promises.
Jenshae Chiroptera 2491	Posted - 2016.01.23 03:51:28 - [276] - Quote Tippia wrote: GÇªwhich wouldn't let them collect any more useful data than what they already have. ... Websites and intranet sites collect better data than this. CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids There are other ways to fix Null Sec stagnation and Fozzie SOV is the wrong approach.
Alphea Abbra Grim Determination Violence of Action. 845	Posted - 2016.01.23 11:20:53 - [277] - Quote Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: Tippia wrote: GÇªwhich wouldn't let them collect any more useful data than what they already have. ... Websites and intranet sites collect better data than this. I don't think CCP would be mad if you sent them your solution, so that in the future they can have p<0.001 certainty they've got the right number of players. I don't think it exists, because if so CCP would probably have made it, but feel free to mail it to them. And then the rest of us can laugh at you when new, perfectly accurate, numbers come out and still show that you're full of it.
Malcanis Vanishing Point. The Initiative. 17399	Posted - 2016.01.23 12:39:59 - [278] - Quote Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: Tippia wrote: GÇªwhich wouldn't let them collect any more useful data than what they already have. ... Websites and intranet sites collect better data than this. Good lord, you're serious, aren't you? "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his ISK/hr depends upon his not understanding it!"
Tippia Sunshine and Lollipops 26816	Posted - 2016.01.23 18:35:52 - [279] - Quote Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: Websites and intranet sites collect better data than this. No. They collect a fraction of the data CCP does, if they collect it at all. That's because they only have some same tools CCP have, and even less reason to collect it. Above all, they don't even remotely care about the question CCP is having such difficulty answering. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥ Get a good start: Newbie skillplan 2.3 - Vanguard Edition.
Jenshae Chiroptera 2491	Posted - 2016.01.24 05:09:54 - [280] - Quote Malcanis wrote: Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: Tippia wrote: GÇªwhich wouldn't let them collect any more useful data than what they already have. ... Websites and intranet sites collect better data than this. Good lord, you're serious, aren't you? You do realise that there is object oriented programming for web, which can do pretty much anything, right? No longer just a few basic scripts to display some stuff. CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids There are other ways to fix Null Sec stagnation and Fozzie SOV is the wrong approach.

Tippia Sunshine and Lollipops 26817	Posted - 2016.01.24 05:37:42 - [281] - Quote Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: You do realise that there is object oriented programming for web, which can do pretty much anything, right? No longer just a few basic scripts to display some stuff. You do realise that this has nothing to do with his question, right? And that your ignorance about the topic is showing more and more every time you post? GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥ Get a good start: Newbie skillplan 2.3 - Vanguard Edition.
Malcanis Vanishing Point. The Initiative. 17414	Posted - 2016.01.24 10:33:39 - [282] - Quote Tippia wrote: Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: You do realise that there is object oriented programming for web, which can do pretty much anything, right? No longer just a few basic scripts to display some stuff. You do realise that this has nothing to do with his question, right? And that your ignorance about the topic is showing more and more every time you post? BUT BUT BUT CODE MAGIC! And top men! "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his ISK/hr depends upon his not understanding it!"
Alphea Abbra Grim Determination Violence of Action. 847	Posted - 2016.01.24 11:18:31 - [283] - Quote Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: Malcanis wrote: Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: Tippia wrote: GÇªwhich wouldn't let them collect any more useful data than what they already have. ... Websites and intranet sites collect better data than this. Good lord, you're serious, aren't you? You do realise that there is object oriented programming for web, which can do pretty much anything, right? No longer just a few basic scripts to display some stuff. Then please do send this magical code to CCP, so we can get the p<0.001 number of players, and you can still be wrong, but this time you will acknowledge it because the data still proves you wrong? Look, Jen, after a few years with experience in statistics, I actually realised that the "torture numbers to say anything" clich+¬ that people have about statistics isn't accurate. Proving a faulty hypothesis with data can be really hard, and the worse your data are, the harder it gets to show anything. If you really want to be able to say anything, you can't just torture the numbers, you gotta make them up. Indoctrination, if you want an analogy to torture. You're asking for new data because the old data didn't fit your view. But apart from this new data being magical, we also have no reason to think it will prove you right. But until we get this perfect, flawless data that authoritatively tells us the number of players, their average number of accounts and what kind of player that is, the numbers Tippia presented before is our best educated guess. You were wrong in suggesting that there is be an unrepresented majority of players in hi-sec. You were unfounded in suggesting that these players are kept from voting somehow. It is morally reprehensible to suggest disenfranchising some people just to have some alleged non-voters' vote be comparatively equal. And until you send in your magical code and get data that still shows you wrong, this is all just a red herring from that.
Jenshae Chiroptera 2491	Posted - 2016.01.24 14:37:18 - [284] - Quote Alphea Abbra wrote: ...And until you .... No. Until you guys actually go out and talk to High Sec players and find out just how ignorant of CSM they are and return with anonymised chat logs, my central point to this thread will not be swept under the rug. Malcanis wrote: ... BUT BUT BUT CODE MAGIC! ... BUT BUT BUT people actually pay me to code security systems. (I'll give you an out though. Perhaps, I am just using a lot of pre-made tools well and exploiting management's ignorance. You are welcome to tell yourselves that.) CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids There are other ways to fix Null Sec stagnation and Fozzie SOV is the wrong approach.
Jenshae Chiroptera 2491	Posted - 2016.01.24 14:57:22 - [285] - Quote Purely incidental encounter: Quote: n++[ 2016.01.22 17:49:51 ] Di > too bad soe ships don't have cool skins n++[ 2016.01.22 17:50:16 ] Di > the only alternative is actually worse than the original imo n++[ 2016.01.22 17:51:01 ] Da > default skin is awesome enough :) n++[ 2016.01.22 17:51:48 ] Di > too awesome maybe? n++[ 2016.01.22 17:53:16 ] Ta > which boat are we talking aout? n++[ 2016.01.22 17:53:30 ] Da > nah, there's no such thing as too much awesome n++[ 2016.01.22 17:53:50 ] Da > Astero Stratios Nestor colour scheme n++[ 2016.01.22 17:53:53 ] Di > soe ships generally n++[ 2016.01.22 17:54:53 ] Jenshae > OMG! Like that shade of lipstick on the Astero, like it is so tacky! Why don't we all put nail varnish on its thrusters and give it a make over!!! n++[ 2016.01.22 17:55:20 ] Da > ah n++[ 2016.01.22 17:55:25 ] Ar > /emote covers Jenshae in concealer n++[ 2016.01.22 17:55:26 ] Da > it's that time of year n++[ 2016.01.22 17:55:43 ] Jenshae > What time of year? n++[ 2016.01.22 17:55:53 ] Mi > CCCCCCCCSSSSSSSSSMMMMMMMMMM n++[ 2016.01.22 17:55:58 ] Da > lol n++[ 2016.01.22 17:56:04 ] Di > getting love sick time n++[ 2016.01.22 17:56:10 ] Da > Mi couldn't have put it better myself n++[ 2016.01.22 17:56:15 ] Ta > I like that Astero n++[ 2016.01.22 17:56:16 ] Jenshae > Oh that? This has become my manufacturing toon. n++[ 2016.01.22 17:56:43 ] Da > For what it's worth, I don't think I'm going to bother this time around n++[ 2016.01.22 17:57:36 ] Jenshae > I am voting for Xenuria. They are the candidate that CCP deserves after destroyers ruining the frigate meta and SOV being shallow and shyte. n++[ 2016.01.22 17:57:38 ] Ta > what time of year is it? n++[ 2016.01.22 17:57:53 ] Di > I would go with a Stratios n++[ 2016.01.22 17:58:01 ] Ta > and is my Incursus big enough to do it? n++[ 2016.01.22 17:58:36 ] Jenshae > What can you fly and what are you trying to do? n++[ 2016.01.22 17:59:11 ] Da > Ta it's not an in-game event or anything, just politics n++[ 2016.01.22 17:59:24 ] Da > game politics, but politics nonetheless n++[ 2016.01.22 17:59:34 ] Di > I just want it, that's all n++[ 2016.01.22 17:59:39 ] Ta > I was wondering what time of year it was somebody said they were sitting it out this time so i figured it was an event n++[ 2016.01.22 18:00:18 ] Jenshae > CSM = players voted by players (the few who know there is a vote happening) to whisper in CCP's (the game developer) ears and stear them all over the map. n++[ 2016.01.22 18:00:48 ] Ta > oh okay politices them no fun in that n++[ 2016.01.22 18:01:08 ] Di > where can I do that vote? n++[ 2016.01.22 18:01:31 ] Da > CCP will announce it when the time comes n++[ 2016.01.22 18:01:31 ] Di > I want to tell them that the "rookie experience" sucks [ 2016.01.22 18:02:42 ] Jenshae > Di the only good candidate I know that is running is Jin'taan if he gets elected, drop him a message to raise your detailed feedback and concerns to CCP. n++[ 2016.01.22 18:03:18 ] Ta > How did you get bold? n++[ 2016.01.22 18:03:40 ] Jenshae > Screen shots, a whole short bloody presentation is the sort of thing they need, not just "It sucks" because then CCP, says, "They didn't say why it sucks so we can't fix it. Shrugs and dismisses it" CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids There are other ways to fix Null Sec stagnation and Fozzie SOV is the wrong approach.
Tippia Sunshine and Lollipops 26819	Posted - 2016.01.24 15:02:37 - [286] - Quote Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: Purely incidental encounter: So one guy not knowing, and when being told explicitly saying he doesn't care GÇö same as the guy who does know GÇö provesGÇª what? GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥ Get a good start: Newbie skillplan 2.3 - Vanguard Edition.
Alphea Abbra Grim Determination Violence of Action. 847	Posted - 2016.01.24 15:20:51 - [287] - Quote Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: Alphea Abbra wrote: ...And until you .... No. Until you guys actually go out and talk to High Sec players and find out just how ignorant of CSM they are and return with anonymised chat logs, my central point to this thread will not be swept under the rug. It's not sweeping it under a rug. It's saying "This does not stand up to scrutiny", a very different thing. I'm also not going to go out and collect anecdotes. Two reasons: I'm not going to believe anecdotes are representative, or qualify as evidence, even if I collect them myself; and I'm not going to do your work for you. If you think there is a large majority of players who do not vote, in hi-sec, there are three things you can do: You can inform them yourself; you can provide reasons and evidence for why and where we should inform them; you can get CCP to inform them. As long as the information you provide is correct, you should be fine on your own. But you're not just claiming (Without evidence and in spite of our qualified guesses) that there's a silent majority in hi-sec. You're also claiming a conspiracy to keep them silenced, and a desire to even the odds by silencing those whom you claim are doing the silencing. All of this, as I said, without proof. Quote: Malcanis wrote: ... BUT BUT BUT CODE MAGIC! ... BUT BUT BUT people actually pay me to code security systems. (I'll give you an out though. Perhaps, I am just using a lot of pre-made tools well and exploiting management's ignorance. You are welcome to tell yourselves that.) I'm sure people pay you lots of money for your incredible expertise in the matter of discerning individual persons accessing a service through a number of accounts, and that you can easily code this and send it to CCP so you can get the authoritative and p<0.001 data that will show how players, not just characters, are distributed. My money are on option "It will not show a hi-sec majority of players", and until you tell us that your awesome knowledge and coding power has resulted in an elaborate setup, sent to CCP and shown to us here, I'll continue to assume that you think so, too. Quote: Purely incidental encounter: Again, anecdotes doesn't and cannot prove any point in either direction. I could go out and find 10 testimonials of hi-sec players who knew about CSM and either did or didn't vote because of well-informed decisions, and it wouldn't prove or disprove any point anywhere, because it's anecdotal. But even then, your own anecdote shows that 3/5 know about the CSM and one of those 2 who did not know immediately asked "where can I vote?" So what you ought to ask for, really, is that CCP uses (As they have before) their splash page and dev.blogs and so on to announce the elections ... as they've done already or, I'm sure, they intend to do.
Jenshae Chiroptera 2491	Posted - 2016.01.24 16:01:30 - [288] - Quote Tippia wrote: So one guy not knowing, ... 2/4 + lurkers. CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids There are other ways to fix Null Sec stagnation and Fozzie SOV is the wrong approach.
Alphea Abbra Grim Determination Violence of Action. 847	Posted - 2016.01.24 16:10:44 - [289] - Quote Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: Tippia wrote: So one guy not knowing, ... 2/4 + lurkers. Addendum to my last post: Apart from this being, at best, an anecdote, how am I to be sure that it's not something you made up entirely? Last time you tried to pass something off as evidence for your cause, you knew you were lying since the "proof" you presented was nowhere close to being that, and it would be clear from even the most cursory look. So I'm sorry I even considered your post an anecdote. We need to take a step back first: Why should I trust you, a known liar, to provide accurate anecdotes of your conversations? How am I able to confirm that the anecdote you posted even took place?
Jenshae Chiroptera 2491	Posted - 2016.01.24 16:45:48 - [290] - Quote Alphea Abbra wrote: ... how am I to be sure that it's not something you made up entirely? ... Go and investigate instead of being one of those brats that runs around screaming, "Liar! Liar! Pants on fire!" DO. You won't trust anything that doesn't fit what you believe until you go and do; experience things first hand. CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids There are other ways to fix Null Sec stagnation and Fozzie SOV is the wrong approach.

Alphea Abbra Grim Determination Violence of Action. 847	Posted - 2016.01.24 16:59:23 - [291] - Quote Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: Alphea Abbra wrote: ... how am I to be sure that it's not something you made up entirely? ... Go and investigate instead of being one of those brats that runs around screaming, "Liar! Liar! Pants on fire!" I only do that with you and Xenuria. You're free to guess why. But you say things here like you already did the investigation, and so I can save valuable time by simply asking for a copy of your evidence... except that you haven't given anything but unsubstantiated claims and clearcut lies so far. That's why I ask for evidence each time. While my normal reaction to someone posting an anecdote might be mild curiosity, or asking for something with greater weight than anecdotes, for you I simply don't have that default level of trust to report anything accurately. You lied before, you knew it, and you shrugged it off and continued to make the same claim. Later, after being shown in what direction the evidence we do have points, you asked for new data with a whole new slew of claims. Quote: You won't trust anything that doesn't fit what you believe until you go and do; experience things first hand. Incorrect. I'm perfectly willing to change my mind, if I am presented with evidence for it. Until that happens, I'm not putting much faith in the claims of someone who claims conspiracies and lies about the evidence. Especially not when that person then both gives anecdotes in lieu of evidence, and asks me to go out and find anecdotes myself. Not even if they're first-hand.
Jenshae Chiroptera 2491	Posted - 2016.01.24 17:04:31 - [292] - Quote Alphea Abbra wrote: ...You're free to guess why. .... You are butt-hurt and Jenn aSnides' trolling alt? CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids There are other ways to fix Null Sec stagnation and Fozzie SOV is the wrong approach.
SurrenderMonkey Space Llama Industries 1695	Posted - 2016.01.24 17:08:26 - [293] - Quote Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: Alphea Abbra wrote: ... how am I to be sure that it's not something you made up entirely? ... Go and investigate instead of being one of those brats that runs around screaming, "Liar! Liar! Pants on fire!" DO. You won't trust anything that doesn't fit what you believe until you go and do; experience things first hand. Have you considered that people respond to you with, "Liar liar pants on fire," because you've made a habit of presenting spurious claims based on data that is anecdotal at best, and, at worst, in opposition to those claims? "Help, I'm bored with missions!" http://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/
Alphea Abbra Grim Determination Violence of Action. 847	Posted - 2016.01.24 17:11:14 - [294] - Quote Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: Alphea Abbra wrote: ...You're free to guess why. .... You are butt-hurt and Jenn aSnides' trolling alt? Neither, but decent deflect. It's almost as if you don't want to tell anyone what evidence you have, and rather just do what conspiracy theorists of all times have done: Claim unsubstantiated things, post links that doesn't really back it up, claim suppression and whenever anyone asks for evidence, say it's out there, just go look. ... It's not trolling to ask for evidence for your rather extraordinary claims. It's not trolling to ask for evidence for your ordinary claims, when you've been shown to lie before. It's not trolling not to believe you on faith. It's due dilligence.
Jenshae Chiroptera 2491	Posted - 2016.01.24 17:13:27 - [295] - Quote SurrenderMonkey wrote: Have you considered ... *Gets this far, checks name and profile picture then shrugs and makes this post without reading further. CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids There are other ways to fix Null Sec stagnation and Fozzie SOV is the wrong approach.
Jenshae Chiroptera 2491	Posted - 2016.01.24 17:15:18 - [296] - Quote Alphea Abbra wrote: ... I'm perfectly willing to change my mind, .... I don't believe you. CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids There are other ways to fix Null Sec stagnation and Fozzie SOV is the wrong approach.
Alphea Abbra Grim Determination Violence of Action. 847	Posted - 2016.01.24 17:21:53 - [297] - Quote Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: Alphea Abbra wrote: ... I'm perfectly willing to change my mind, .... I don't believe you. Then the lucky thing is, you can test it. Provide evidence for your claims. If I can't show your evidence to be wrong or flawed in some way, and won't change my mind, you were right now to believe me. All it takes is a little evidence.
Tippia Sunshine and Lollipops 26819	Posted - 2016.01.24 17:23:05 - [298] - Quote Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: 2/4 + lurkers. One who asked what it was. So one (1). Trying to make it sound like more because that one character was hidden in a bunch of unrelated static does not suddenly make him more than one guy. There's one who asks GÇ£whenGÇ¥, which is not the same question as GÇ£what.GÇ¥ This out of a conversation between 6 people plus, as you point out, any number of lurkers. You know, since your claim is that no-one knows about it, that's an awful low amount of people who asked about it and an awful lot of people who did not, because they already know and/or didn't care. Quote: Go and investigate instead of being one of those brats that runs around screaming Why, when you provide such ample evidence to prove yourself wrong. More than 83% seem to know about the CSM, according to your own evidence. Your claim is that a majority does not. Your anecdotal evidence disproves your made-up statistic, much like how your previous attempt at providing evidence disproved your previous made-up statistic of how many votes were being controlled. Every time you try to prove something, all you do is prove yourself wrong. And yet, you keep saying the same thing, willingly and intentionally. This is the reason people call you a liar: because you lie. You make stuff up. That's all you ever do. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥ Get a good start: Newbie skillplan 2.3 - Vanguard Edition.
Jenshae Chiroptera 2491	Posted - 2016.01.24 17:40:46 - [299] - Quote Tippia wrote: Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: 2/4 + lurkers. One who asked what it was. So one (1). Trying to make it sound like more because that one character was hidden in a bunch of unrelated static does not suddenly make him more than one guy. There's one who asks GÇ£whenGÇ¥, which is not the same question as GÇ£what.GÇ¥ This out of a conversation between 6 people plus, as you point out, any number of lurkers. ... You can see from how thing were spelt out that Di could pick up what the CSM was and want to vote. Knowing nothing, they thought the vote might be on Reddit for all they knew. Ti thought the CSM was an event. Again, talk to people. This chat log happened recently and without my deliberate efforts. I have a new computer and I have my own experiences from running for CSM. I won't be running around talking to people again this year. I have no motivation. The chat logs from last year are gone. Even if I had them, I wouldn't put in the wasted effort of digging through them for you. So, take that as me having no proof and rejoice. Why don't I make the effort to find more proof? Your opinion of me is not worth trying to sway because I do not value it (but the pointless arguing in circles is a good distraction while, warp, warp, warping). CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids There are other ways to fix Null Sec stagnation and Fozzie SOV is the wrong approach.
Tippia Sunshine and Lollipops 26821	Posted - 2016.01.24 17:50:21 - [300] - Quote Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: You can see from how thing were spelt out that Di GÇªknew enough to not ask GÇ£whatGÇ¥, but GÇ£whenGÇ¥. That is all. Anything else is just you putting words in their mouth, and since you can't even get their names right with the text right in front of you, your attempts at reading and pulling some meaning out of it is very close to being 100% unreliable. Even if you count him, you still don't have your majority. Your evidence disproves your claims, as always. Yet you keep lying. Quote: Again, talk to people. Yes, please do so and come back with some actual, non-anecdotal evidence. Preferably something that doesn't immediately prove you wrong. Quote: Why don't I make the effort to find more proof? Most likely because a) you can't, and b) because it always backfires spectacularly on you when you try. I'm sure you could invent some other reasons, but your history of lying makes anything you say highly suspect and more likely to be untrue than true. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥ Get a good start: Newbie skillplan 2.3 - Vanguard Edition.

Jenshae Chiroptera 2491	Posted - 2016.01.24 17:56:48 - [301] - Quote Tippia wrote: Quote: Again, talk to people. Yes, please do so ... "No u" We have devolved to this point. CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids There are other ways to fix Null Sec stagnation and Fozzie SOV is the wrong approach.
Alphea Abbra Grim Determination Violence of Action. 847	Posted - 2016.01.24 18:05:21 - [302] - Quote Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: Tippia wrote: Quote: Again, talk to people. Yes, please do so ... "No u" We have devolved to this point. You mean that after Tippia presented the numbers we have, and how the most conservative assumption results in the best guess that hi-sec is a minority, and you have supplied no evidence whatsoever to bolster your claims, that you and Tippia are equally at fault? One side, yours, made a lot of claims. Most of them are unsubstantiated thus far. The rest have been debunked. I get why you want the rest of us to look for evidence for your claims (Because we're not stupid, so it might actually be evidence for it, and not anecdotes against it), but that is simply not how debates or burdens of proof works. You made a series of claims. You're unable to back them up with any evidence. You ask us to provide evidence for you. Can you see why that position was untenable? But I'll accept Quote: So, take that as me having no proof and rejoice. as your admission of defeat and guilt. Personally, I forgive you. Just don't do it next time.
Tippia Sunshine and Lollipops 26822	Posted - 2016.01.24 18:10:40 - [303] - Quote Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: "No u" We have devolved to this point. No. We're simply asking you to provide something to actually support your stance GÇö something that's been pretty much consistent throughout the entire thread. What we've done is systematically prove you wrong on everything. You keep presenting GÇ£evidenceGÇ¥ that proves you wrong. In face of this evidence, you keep saying the same thing, at which point we say that you're wrong. You then ask us to prove it, in some failed attempt at an onus probandi fallacy, except that we also don't need to prove you wrong because you've already done so. You then try to blame your failure on us, when it was in large part you who did it to yourself. It's not a GÇ£no, youGÇ¥; it's GÇ£so you keep saying; prove itGÇ¥. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥ Get a good start: Newbie skillplan 2.3 - Vanguard Edition.
Jenshae Chiroptera 2491	Posted - 2016.01.24 18:12:00 - [304] - Quote Gêà -> u. CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids There are other ways to fix Null Sec stagnation and Fozzie SOV is the wrong approach.
Tippia Sunshine and Lollipops 26823	Posted - 2016.01.24 18:25:16 - [305] - Quote Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: I decline, for now and all eternity. Then you also need to stop making spurious claims. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥ Get a good start: Newbie skillplan 2.3 - Vanguard Edition.
Alphea Abbra Grim Determination Violence of Action. 847	Posted - 2016.01.24 18:26:27 - [306] - Quote Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: Alphea wrote: G¼ñ Gêà -> u. Yes, and it's very openminded of you to recognise that you've been wrong for 15 pages. But I already wrote that I accepted your admission, so there's no reason for you to continue. Quote: I will be voting for Xenuria this year. Look, I realise you want to punish someone, but honestly, CCP are not at fault here. CCP didn't control who the voters voted for. It's unfair to punish CCP simply because the voters didn't vote for you.
Jenshae Chiroptera 2491	Posted - 2016.01.24 18:27:14 - [307] - Quote Tippia wrote: ... spurious . I disagree. Alphea Abbra wrote: Quote: I will be voting for Xenuria this year. Look, I realise you want to punish someone, but honestly, CCP are not at fault here. CCP didn't control who the voters voted for. It's unfair to punish CCP simply because the voters didn't vote for you. CCP and especially Fozzie's team deserve Xenuria after this last year's changes and for ignoring the solid feedback that the good members of CSM X presented. CCP does not deserve a good CSM this year. I will not be voting for someone I like and being directly responsible for putting them in a bad situation. CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids I will be voting for Xenuria because...
Tippia Sunshine and Lollipops 26823	Posted - 2016.01.24 18:30:16 - [308] - Quote Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: I disagree. Doesn't matter. You've openly and explicitly said that you refuse to provide evidence to support your claims. This makes them spurious. What you think beyond that point is irrelevant. Your insistence on disagreeing with facts is yet another reason people call you a liar, by the way. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥ Get a good start: Newbie skillplan 2.3 - Vanguard Edition.
Jenshae Chiroptera 2491	Posted - 2016.01.24 18:35:02 - [309] - Quote Tippia wrote: Doesn't matter. . Your opinion and I do not care about it. (Note, that I am using short sentences. At some point perhaps you might get the message and stop making up what ever fantasy full of hopes you have running through your head) CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids I will be voting for Xenuria because...
Alphea Abbra Grim Determination Violence of Action. 847	Posted - 2016.01.24 18:37:47 - [310] - Quote Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: Tippia wrote: ... spurious . I disagree. You disagree that you should stop posting spurious claims? So you think you should post spurious claims? The alternative interpretation, that you don't think you're posting spurious claims, isn't relevant here since you already admitted that you've been wrong for 15 (Now 16) pages, and you already admitted that you had no evidence to give in support of your hypothesis. This is pretty much textbook definition of spurious, and so cannot be the intended use. Quote: CCP and especially Fozzie's team deserve Xenuria after this last year's changes and for ignoring the solid feedback that the good members of CSM X presented. CCP does not deserve a good CSM this year. I will not be voting for someone I like and being directly responsible for putting them in a bad situation. I'm not sure I agree with your analysis of Fozzie, but given that this is your opinion, I can see how your threat/action of voting Xenuria makes sense. Of course, I also think a more contructive approach would yield better results, but let's see over the next year.

Tippia Sunshine and Lollipops 26823	Posted - 2016.01.24 18:38:31 - [311] - Quote Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: Your opinion No, it's just fact. It's very nice of you to equate the two, though. Quote: I do not care about it. Again, the ample evidence you provide throughout this thread belies your claims. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥ Get a good start: Newbie skillplan 2.3 - Vanguard Edition.
Jenshae Chiroptera 2491	Posted - 2016.01.24 18:43:15 - [312] - Quote Tippia wrote: No, it's just fact. . Your opinion of my claims. Repeating a study to reproduce results that I have absolutely no doubts about, will change nothing and is a waste of my time and effort. CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids I will be voting for Xenuria because...
Tippia Sunshine and Lollipops 26823	Posted - 2016.01.24 18:55:37 - [313] - Quote Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: Your opinion of my claims. Again, you're confusing my opinion with facts. It's very nice of you to hold my opinion in such high regard, but it doesn't really do you any good. Quote: Repeating a study to reproduce results that I have absolutely no doubts about GÇªwould provide some evidence to demonstrate that your claims are not spurious. Your doubts (or lack thereof) of the outcome are of no consequence to how spurious they remain up until that point. If you think that it's a waste of time to have something to support your stance, then all you're really saying is that your stance is worthless. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥ Get a good start: Newbie skillplan 2.3 - Vanguard Edition.
Jenshae Chiroptera 2491	Posted - 2016.01.24 21:49:24 - [314] - Quote Tippia wrote: GÇªwould .... ... at this point never be done, simply to spite you. ... and yes, I have cut off my nose but it was less effort than spending months going around High Sec talking to people. CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids I will be voting for Xenuria because...
Alphea Abbra Grim Determination Violence of Action. 848	Posted - 2016.01.24 22:24:13 - [315] - Quote Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: Tippia wrote: GÇªwould .... ... at this point never be done, simply to spite you. ... and yes, I have cut off my nose but it was less effort than spending months going around High Sec talking to people. You're not really spiting anyone. It's more just reinforcing our belief that you're an unapologetic liar who can't find any evidence in support of your claims, and knows that perfectly well. And spending months talking to people in hi-sec seems both like a waste of time because your magical code can do this much easier, and because the plural of anecdote isn't evidence. Seriously, don't you get it? You can get a thousand anecdotal testimonies, but if we don't know whether they were representative or not; honest or not; influenced by the interviewer or not; worse informed than the equivalent null-sec-player or not; ... we can't use a months' worth of anecdotes collected in hi-sec at all. If you get 1000 testimonies of alleged hi-sec people with a roughly 70-30 of voters/non-voters, and I get 1000 testimonies of alleged null-sec people with a roughly 60-40 voters/non-voters split, would that show anything? First of all, no it wouldn't. It would still be purely anecdotal. Secondly, such a split could easily come from a simple effect of player age (You can imagine that you don't follow the first CSM election while playing - I know I didn't, I voted blank in my first) or that the very invested players (Who are also invested in voting) are prone to moving towards null-sec. In short, simply collecting anecdotal testimonials (And hoping it's not a CFC boogeyman behind the other screen) isn't really evidence. It's just a huge waste of time. But at least now I begin to understand why you were so distressed when we didn't accept any of your claims. You thought your own anecdote was evidence, and thus should carry weight?
Jenshae Chiroptera 2491	Posted - 2016.01.24 22:30:06 - [316] - Quote Alphea Abbra wrote: Blah Still don't care. CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids I will be voting for Xenuria because...
Tippia Sunshine and Lollipops 26825	Posted - 2016.01.24 22:41:33 - [317] - Quote Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: at this point never be done, simply to spite you. Trying to spite me does not make you right GÇö it only makes you look stupid (and me right). Quote: I have cut off my nose but it was less effort than spending months going around High Sec talking to people. So what you're saying is that, if there is a problem GÇö something you have been utterly incapable of proving GÇö you are the cause. You can't be arsed with informing people, and then you complain (without proof) that they're not informed. You can't accept basic facts of statistics and sampling. You don't understand the voting system. You don't even understand the numbers we do have. More and more, it seems like it's not the (unproven) GÇ£majorityGÇ¥ that is uninformed or ignorant GÇö it's only you. Quote: I won't back down about this. I won't produce the evidence you want. Then you are wrong. No amount of adamant refusal to accept this fact will change it, nor will it change the proven fact that you are a liar GÇö in fact, it only provides further proof. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥ Get a good start: Newbie skillplan 2.3 - Vanguard Edition.
Jenshae Chiroptera 2491	Posted - 2016.01.24 22:47:12 - [318] - Quote Tippia wrote: ... Then you are wrong. ... You will believe that even if I go out and gather evidence. Again, effort wasted. I think you are a lost cause. Believe as you will. Your opinion does no matter. Edit: Weirdest thing. I said that I believed that the match between Camel and Warlords was fixed and everyone said I was an idiot. Then I found this on Reddit today Which had a this in it. ... hmmm .... I have miss-placed a thread somewhere. CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids I will be voting for Xenuria because...
Tippia Sunshine and Lollipops 26825	Posted - 2016.01.24 22:51:35 - [319] - Quote Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: You will believe that even if I go out and gather evidence. You're confusing me with you. Just like how you're confusing my opinion with fact. Quote: Believe as you will. Your opinion does no matter. This is not a matter of belief or opinion, but of fact. The fact is that you simply do not understand the things you're trying to discuss. We know this as a fact because it is the only thing you've ever been able to prove; it's the only conclusion of the evidence you've produced. You are trying to argue against mathematical axioms and procedures. You are arguing against your own recorded posting history. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥ Get a good start: Newbie skillplan 2.3 - Vanguard Edition.
Jenshae Chiroptera 2491	Posted - 2016.01.24 22:54:50 - [320] - Quote Tippia wrote: This is not a matter of belief or opinion, I believe you are a waste of time. You believe I am a liar. I know that what I have stated is true. You demand I produce proof because you are too lazy to go out and find it yourself. I refuse. Make your own "truths" as much as you like. I am not buying it. CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids I will be voting for Xenuria because...

Tippia Sunshine and Lollipops 26825	Posted - 2016.01.24 22:58:29 - [321] - Quote Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: You believe I am a liar. No. I know you're a liar. I know this because of the things you've said that contradict reality, and then repeated even when this contradiction has been pointed out to you. Quote: I know that what I have stated is true. Then you should have no problem proving it. Yet you can't; yet you refuse; yet you keep telling the same lies about things that have been disproven, often by you. Quote: You demand I produce proof because you are too lazy to go out and find it yourself. No. I demand you produce proof because it is your duty to do so, not mine. Until you do, because you're lazy, incompetent, or just a liar, any claim you make is inherently unproven and can be trivially dismissed as untrue. Trying to shift the burden of proof is a classic fallacy and only further proves you wrong every time you try to employ it. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥ Get a good start: Newbie skillplan 2.3 - Vanguard Edition.
Jenshae Chiroptera 2491	Posted - 2016.01.24 23:10:35 - [322] - Quote Tippia wrote: ... I know this because of the things you've said that contradict reality, .... Your perception of reality, which is flawed. CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids I will be voting for Xenuria because...
Tippia Sunshine and Lollipops 26827	Posted - 2016.01.24 23:16:10 - [323] - Quote Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: Your perception of reality. No. Recorded history and data. Quote: which is flawed Prove that the data is flawed. Prove that you haven't posted your posts in this thread. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥ Get a good start: Newbie skillplan 2.3 - Vanguard Edition.
Alphea Abbra Grim Determination Violence of Action. 850	Posted - 2016.01.24 23:20:53 - [324] - Quote Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: Tippia wrote: This is not a matter of belief or opinion, I believe you are a waste of time. You believe I am a liar. Maybe we're wasting our time with you. Perhaps. We're not wasting our time insofar that your conspiracies and entirely unsubstantiated claims (Or rather, at this point, your known lies) should go unchallenged, and thus be able to poison the well for the rest of us. And maybe it's just fun to engage in all manners of debate. Y'know, the default reason why you'd play a game is to have fun. Quote: I know that what I have stated is true. You demand I produce proof because you are too lazy to go out and find it yourself. But on page 15, you acknowledged that you'd been wrong for 15 pages. Which Jen am I supposed to believe? The one that lies and acknowledges it, or the one that lies and doubles down on it? ... No, you're perfectly aware at this point that you're talking bovine waste. You know it because if you're so sure, you could provide loads of proof, but instead you have either rejected it, tried to shift the burden of proof, given red herrings or things that at even the most cursory inspection points in the opposite direction of your claims. In other words, you're asking us to go out and find the proof for your claims, because you know that you're unable to do so yourself. It doesn't surprise me, really, except that at this point you should be aware that in all likelyhood, evidence that we dig up will at best be inconclusive, and at worst go against your claims even further, so you have to be aware that it wouldn't help even if we went out to dig up all the evidence. Quote: Make your own "truths" as much as you like. I am not buying it. I go where the evidence leads me. So far, you've given me nothing, while all the available evidence points in other directions. If you're unwilling to go where the evidence leads you, then you'll continue being wrong. I hope you don't act like this IRL, because if so, you'll have issues.


Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 .. 11 :: [one page]

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.