We have not seen evidence of any NDA breaches. Should you have any, please feel free to contact us via the petition system.

You both are slightly incorrect actually.

The information leaked from a NDA protected channel was deemed non NDA breaking. That he leaked information from that channel was never in question. After the incident it was reiterated to all of us that the channel that leaked was not to be leaked in any way.

I'd love to think the world is as black and white as you say

Ever think that maybe they didn't want to make a big deal out of it so they wouldn't have another mess on their hands while dealing with all the other crap that was going on at the time?

Breaking NDA isn't a reason not to vote for somebody honestly. That's a legal determination and between CCP and the CSM member.

This man speaks truth.

What was leaked was deemed NON NDA BREAKING...

I don't like people misquoting someone else, and then misquoting me. I said that the following was the truth:



Note that I didn't just quote the first sentence as you did. I consider the last sentence far more important. The NDA is a serious thing, but the stuff that we *know* d3 leaked was minor, and was just Mittens talking about leaking fake info to Riverini. If the leak was more substantive, it would have been a bigger issue.

Here's a simple question that Princess can answer. If there is nothing NDA breaching, then are you saying that the entire minutes in that meeting can be given out without question? IE if Darius were to give out the entire minutes under the argument by using their statement that few lines Darius intentionally leaked wasn't NDA breaking therefore the rest of the minutes must not be NDA breaking. Would that still be okay with you? The fact is, Darius did leak specific minutes from a meeting under NDA and the rest of the CSM6 team can't trust him anymore not to leak anymore minutes for his own gain.

It is not for CCP to determine whether the NDA was breached. Whether a contract has been violated or not is a question of law, and as such is for the courts to determine.

My input?

By responding at all to this thread you are giving The Mittani what he wants, which is threefold: first, you are using your time and effort to focus on him and his antics; second, you are keeping this thread bumped so that he maintains popular name recognition and can later point to the length of the thread to gloat about "whining pubbies," "threadnought," and other such things to gloat; third, you are by virtue of the first two points not doing other, more enjoyable things with your time. It is entirely possible that you derive enjoyment and satisfaction from arguing in circles with idiots on the Internet, and if so then more power to you and honestly I'm quite jealous since you've got a goldmine of never-ending bliss at your fingertips; but, if that is not the case, then you are allowing a megalomaniac to dominate your time, effort, and emotions. In short, you are losing by even participating.

I'd suggest that instead of wasting your time, you vote for me.

So you're saying...

*bunch of crap I didn't say*

Honestly, after reading the guy's thread I think I'll just not vote for him because of his posting. How's that?

Now, I believe this is The Mittani's thread. Don't make me pee on your leg again.

It may have been based on something trivial but facts is that it came from an NDA meeting, did it not? Yes or no.

Nope. He made an assessment. He is free to do that, and better placed to do so than both of us (unless you're privy to the NDA). You are calling him out as a lier based on CCP saying that they lack proof. This does, however, not mean that there was no breach of the NDA. The worst thing you can call him out for is to not have begun his statement with "In my assessment..." Which, I think, is a rather lame outcall. Again, I don't care, I just think its fun that you holding others to standards in their arguments that you are not able to meet yourself, that is my amusement and only concern in this. So by your argument you are a lying [insert derogatory term here], because you are no able to show the truth of your statement that there has been a lie.

I have no doubt that you will now either put your head back into the sand with another statement of, "no, that is not what I said", or once more move the goalpost.

Yes or no, did the trivial statements come from a meeting that was under NDA. That's it. That's all I want to hear. Yes or no.

I still haven't gotten my answer.

Did the trivial statements come from a meeting that was under NDA. Yes or no.

Are the contents of the minutes in that meeting under NDA. You know this answer. The answer is yes. Back to you, Bob.

Did the trivial statements come from a meeting that was under NDA. Yes or no.

Yes or no. You have a reading comprehension of a child. Prove me wrong.

Ladie Harlot wrote:
Didn't get enough NDA leaking during CSM6?


We have not seen evidence of any NDA breaches. Should you have any, please feel free to contact us via the petition system.

And no. You are making a rather common mistake in the application of innocent utill prove guilty. This applies in the eyes of the law, but does not mean that a thing has or has not happened. Also, it applies in criminal law, which this is not. (You've seen to many cop shows.) That something is a legal issue - like if Marzetti has promised not to pee on your leg or not and whether he has violated that promise or not - does not mean that it may not have taken place unless it has been found to be so by a court. I have never been found guilty of exeeding the speed limit, doesn't mean that I never have. The alleged victime has chosen to say that they lack proof, and apparently in in private that though it was said in a channel where all information was to be considered priviliged under the NDA, that this particular information did not. As a matter of law that is an assessment, and no more. Its not desicive either way.

Oh, and just so no one thinks that I'm claiming e-peen here, I neither hold, nor have I ever studied for, an undergrad in philosophy.

I think the Goons and everyone else with any kind of common sense has been arguing that the fact that CCP found what D3 leaked to not be NDA-breaking is beside the point. The concern is that D3 willfully and purposefully leaked information from a channel that was clearly defined to be protected by NDA. After the fact, CCP reiterated that the channel was protected by NDA and that nothing from that channel should be leaked.

What does that say about D3's character? He either doesn't hold a lot of regard for NDA, is some kind of billionaire in real life and doesn't afraid of any litigation, or has a distinct and disturbing lack of common sense. I don't find any of those options particularly comforting, especially in someone who could potentially be representing my interests on the CSM.

On a side point, your idea that you can half-quote something like you did with Two Step's post and still retain the entire truth and meaning of his words is ludicrous. Please just remove D3's ******* from your mouth, it'll save everyone a lot of trouble.

I didn't ask for that answer. Yes or no. That's all I wanted.

Would you vote for me, then?

holy crap you guys spent the last three pages arguing about 'if i sling mud' and having non-lawyers trying to parse legal phrases

i sling mud, i scam supercaps, and i'm a sadist, this isn't new or particularly interesting

I'm an incumbent. You can expect exactly the same kind of stuff from me in CSM7 as you got in CSM6, the most effective CSM in history.

I'm delighted to run on my record.

And because of this me and all of my alts shall vote for mittens!

I think there's a lot of folks who missed my CSM6 campaign last year. I make no bones about being a complete bastard. Most people who know me in nullsec or have been on the wrong end of my alliance are entirely aware of the lengths I go to in order to win.

In CSM6 I vowed that I would put my skill at raw bastardry to use - to improve the game and make the CSM actually work; I did exactly that. I'm not a saint, an angel, or a ~nice guy~. Those kind of people don't do well in a political group where your task is to influence and persuade others, to cut deals, to think in a Machiavellian manner.

If you think an effective politician is a 'moral' person, well, I know a great guy who can act as a trusted third party if you need to transfer a supercap!

The Mittani would beat a dog if he thought it would get him something he desired (like a ham sammich).

This Alexander Gianturco fellow, I don't think he would beat a dog, unless under the most extreme circumstances/duress.

The Mittani is an asshole. I hear that this Alexander Gianturco fellow is actually a pretty nice and friendly guy.

all i see in your posts is 'a bloo bloo bloo', my computer must be screwing up again~

It's nice that Darius has goals.

Is this the Eve version of "OBAMA IS A SECRET MUSLIM!!!!!"?

Where is the Mittani to answer the many charges questions placed by the player base?

It's nearly a week since last he seemed to be bothered about CSM7.

Mind Mittens is one "lost sock" I wouldn't really want turning up. Too many holes in the fabric of what he stands for as a CSM candidate to be of any use really.

fortunately for that PB character the rest of the blog is so uninteresting and pathetic it is unlikely anyone will ever visit it again

that getting mocked when you try to quote the prince is the highlight of your year so much you recusitated that horrid blog is basically the saddest thing I've ever heard

not only did you think you came out even slightly ahead there you were so proud you posted it n a blog and linked to the blog

some days I think I'm too hard on the common pubbie and then they go and do this

mittani also presumably knows, unlike our dimwitted friend, that machiavellian has a different meaning in common english language than "to the letter follower of machiavelli", it instead refers to a certain disregard for ethics

if there is anyone capable of coherent thought who was puzzled, please see: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/machiavellian

definition 2&3

and they're not intelligent enough to figure out they're wrong

wait, so by "interview" that pubbie actually meant he just edited together excerpts from this thread? that's even worse than riverini

Thank you for confirming that you do not know how to use a dictionary.

I'll vote for him as he is good for the CSM and i have a horrible feeling he actually may even keep his CSM role seperate from being Goon.

And I liked the Dog

"i sling mud, i scam supercaps, and iGÇÖm a sadist, this isnGÇÖt new or particularly interesting"

In CSM6 I vowed that I would put my skill at raw bastardry to use GÇô to improve the game and make the CSM actually work; I did exactly that. IGÇÖm not a saint, an angel, or a ~nice guy~. Those kind of people donGÇÖt do well in a political group where your task is to influence and persuade others, to cut deals, to think in a Machiavellian manner.

It's so cute when someone hates someone else so much they'll literally spend DAYS looking for any way they can twist all the words the way they want.

But by your text throughout the thread you clearly view Mittens Re-election as a bad choice which it isn't, it is an interesting choice, which is better even than a good choice