I decry the straw man argument on that. Thinking is hard, but math wasnt involved so I had a little hope.

Princess, I really have to point out that your arguments are all based on Logical fallacies.

Go Here, or better yet try to avoid the two you seem to make HERE, and HERE.

Your entire argument is based on you either affirming the consequent, or denying the antecedent.

Become a constituent. Vote Mittani.

a delightful sacrifice in the finest democratic tradition~

I have but a simple question.

Of all the questions that one individual or several groups could think about, this sole question seems to me the most significant.
And thus, I wish to ask you this:

What is your vision for our sandbox?

The CSM might not have game changing power, prehaps not even any power at all. The final decision always lies with CCP.
However, with all of this seemingly "powerlessness", we still see men and women who wish to be a beacon that the masses can rally behind. Yet, no "power" is within their grasp.

I would imagine that being on the CSM, sometimes a person has to go to great lengths to ensure that our game, our sandbox, still looks the way we know it. Sometimes without benefit to oneself and, prehaps, even to the detriment of one's surroundings.

So, in essence, I ask:

What drives you to continue your work in the CSM? What is your vision?

My goodness. If you cut out all of the condescending parts, you're not even left with something funny, just kinda sad.

Again, you're failing to differentiate between a determination of law, which the question of breach clearly is, and a determination of fact. I am not questioning whether someone's leg was peed upon, nor whether information from a chat was leaked. The first I'm sure is true in some context, and the second I can stipulate to. The question is whether Darius III breached his NDA with CCP. That's a legal question, and as CCP has stated they have seen no evidence of a breach, it's safe to assume there was no breach. If there was no breach, which again is a legal question, then Mittani's statement that there was a breach is mud slinging.

You seem stuck on this word "assessment". Relabeling a legal determination made by a non-party does not make it any more valid. It could be my "assessment" that my neighbor trespassed on another neighbor's property. However, when I make the statement "He trespassed", that does not make a legal truth of it. That would be a legal determination. If my neighbor is not alleging trespass, and a court has not found this to be the case, then I can "assess" this all I want. I could have witnessed one neighbor walking on another neighbor's land. But that doesn't mean there was a trespass. Perhaps there was an easement I don't know about.

Your main argument seems to be that The Mittani was not lying, only being ignorant. Either way, politically motivated ignorance is still mud slinging.

Also, when being condescending, please make a better effort to keep your writings clear of obvious errors. Trying to look down on me when you are adding extra Ls to until, Es to victim, Is to privilege, dropping the C in decisive, etc. does little to prove your condescension is valid.

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

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

What's most interesting about this statement is that your alliance has spent a lot of effort trying to draw the distinction between your role in-game (dishonest, scammer, etc.) and what you are in real life. It appears that they're wrong about you and we can expect the same things from you as a CSM as we expect in game. All those arguments about how Eve is a sandbox which excuses your in-game behavior and how silly people are for thinking you're not different in real life were for nothing.

Thank you for clearing that up.

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.

There's an old saying that "you can't make a good deal with bad people." I view a vote for a CSM as a contract between myself and the CSM. You are an admitted sadist, brag about slinging mud as a politician, and draw no distinction between you as a person and The Mittani. Regardless of how effective you say you were as a CSM last year, I feel its only a matter of time before you fall back on who you are as a person and politician. When this happens I think it's safe to say that you'll have no problem with screwing everyone over if you can... Eve, CCP, the players, and those who voted for you. I mean that's what mud-slinging sadists do, right? I'm sure it'll be lol-tastic too.

However, I'd rather vote for someone who is a decent human being to represent me in Iceland.

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

The fact that he's an admitted sadist and mudslinging politician who has trouble distinguishing between his role as a CSM and his role in-game will not affect your decision in either direction.

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!

Actually, you're kinda fail as a follower of Machiavelli. To quote The Prince:

"For this reason a prince ought to take care that he never lets anything slip from his lips that is not replete with the above-named five qualities, that he may appear to him who sees and hears him altogether merciful, faithful, humane, upright, and religious."

See, Machiavelli understood that a leader had to APPEAR virtuous, despite his true nature. It's funny you should mention Machiavelli as I was just musing to myself that you must have never read him. You're not going to be elected because you're a master of Machiavelli's teachings. You'll get elected because of the structure of the election and the large voting block you control.

... and draw no distinction between you as a person and The Mittani.

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.

So who are we speaking to here. The Mittani, or Alex? More importantly, who are we electing?