I am of the opinion that his intentions are less than honest.
I am of the opinion that he works for the Goons, and only the Goons (as he have said repetadely he does).
And I am of the opinion that I can post this on the forum even if you dont like it.

Are you serious?

Are you seriously asking why a player elected body who are there to represent the playerbase dealing with CCP to the benefit of EVE Online the game, is instead used as a vehicle to further CSM members in game interests?

Because if you dont see that as a problem, you and I are definitly not playing the same game.

You are assuming that, in furthering his/their own interests, he's not representing the player base. Why is that?

So yes, what's the problem, should it even be true to begin with, especially since you admit that his interest is actually good for the game as a wholeGǪ?

But The Mittani doesnt represent the EVE Online playerbase now does he? He represents Goons. Period. He says so himself.
The CSM should be metagame free zone. I dont belive it is.

Now that is a different argument. To be blunt, in a democracy, an elected official answers to his or her constituents. If the Mittani is elected to the CSM he is not answerable to you or I - he is answerable to his constituents.

Goons were advocating nerfing tech when they had none, or was at a disadvantage versus ther enemies. After they took over Deklein with its tech, and before the **** went down with the NC, I cant see anywhere anything proving they wanted to nerf tech.

But The Mittani doesnt represent the EVE Online playerbase now does he? He represents Goons. Period. He says so himself.
The CSM should be metagame free zone. I dont belive it is.

But The Mittani doesnt represent the EVE Online playerbase now does he? He represents Goons. Period. He says so himself.

The CSM should be metagame free zone. I dont belive it is.

Instead we have in-game elections of in-game candidates representing in an OUT OF GAME body that is supposed to represent the playerbase as a whole. And which is supposed to be neutral.

Oh so while the Goons had Deklein and Morsus Mihi had Tribute and Razor had Branch and the NC High Command divided up the Tech in Venal?

The tech owned by Morsus Mihi, Razor et all was nothing to do with Goons. Goons had less tech then than they do now. Your desire to lump alliances together into powerblocs and assess their total capacity is devoid of ingame actuality.

If I am not mitstaken Jita Alt666, neither Morsus Mihi, Razor or indeed any other part of the old NC were shooting them and trying to take their stuff. I think you will find that this is a rather significant factor, when trying to assess a strategic situation.

You are assuming that, in furthering his/their own interests, he's not representing the player base. Why is that?

So yes, what's the problem, should it even be true to begin with, especially since you admit that his interest is actually good for the game as a wholeGǪ?

Guys dont worry about what Tippia says.. Its a well known fact he is a goon fanboi, and probably getting spit roasted by both mittani and vile rat at this moment.

at the Goons and their alts and/or supportes would crawl out of the woodwork to defend the great Mittani frankly didnt come as a big surprise.

The Mittani wil not do ANYTHING that doesnt benefit theGoons ingame, in his dealings with CCP.
He represents and works for Goons, and Goons only, unlike some of the other candidates.

It's about as much a Gǣwell-known factGǥ as the provably false base Reilly Duvolle's tinfoil-hattery rests onGǪ
Also, nice ad hominem. I take it you are also unable to demonstrate any kind of actual problem, seeing as how you have to go straight for the fallacies?

let me explain why you're an idiot

- you think that PL/raiden/ncdot would not simply shrug off a tech nerf considering that they have a lot of old money
- you think that there are tech moons that pump out more tech per hour than other moons
- you actually use dotlan, kugu and evenews24 as sources
- you have been called out on all of these and you do nothing but deflect

pubbies are hilarious

This still remains a fact not fallacy.

I mean for god sake you have even admitted your love for goons over and over again on the forums.

Every post against them, up pops Tippia The Troll running to their defense.

Can someone point to me where in the CSM charter it says the are supposed to be neutral?

Can you point to ANY official document stating that CCP expect the CSM to be neutral?

What makes it a fallacy is that you're trying to deflect a question about the effects of representation by appealing to some irrelevant, unconnected, assumed, and blatantly false assertion of association.

What makes it a not-actually-a-fact-at-all is thatGǪ well, it's not actually a fact at all GÇö it's something you just made up and can't prove.

Excellent. Prove it.

No. Every post against them using unsound reasoning and GÇ£factsGÇ¥ pulled from some poster's nether region, up pops me asking what those claims are based on and how on earth the argument actually holds together. It has very little to do with the Goons and quite a lot to do with my disliking apparent lack of proper argumentation.

GǪwhy it is that this kind of argumentation pops up so often in relation to the Goons is an interesting, but slightly different question.

Tippia, God of making people actually back up their BS claims

Do not even argue til you have numbers and figures ready to prove your point, you will lose.

You know what fine, I will, I am going to be happy linking every post.

Full document: http://www.eveonline.com/download/devblog/CSM.pdf

with specific quote:

"The key question that council members must consider before casting their vote is whether or not the issue at hand has the potential to improve or otherwise benefit the entire EVE society, and not just a select group within the community that was successful in bringing attention to their unique case. Seeing the big pictureGÇöin this case, the needs of a society with over 300.000 individualsGÇöis the primary responsibility of a CSM Representative, and reconciling that view with the interests that won them the election is the greatest challenge they will facein this implementation.

... and ...

CCP is unable to accommodate any issue considered detrimental to the collective interests of EVE , particularly if the issue(s) touch upon meta-level concerns."

That doesn't mean neutral. It simply means that they can't try to use their CSM position to gain tactical advantage. CSM5(you know, the one driven mainly by highsec reps) can't have claimed neutrality when they destroyed the ability to make a survivable amount of isk in nullsec.

Consider that fact that the current nullsec voting bloc all agree that alliance level income(in particular Tech) needs to be nerfed.

In Game actions, such as providing content, should not EVER be considered. And remember, ice interdiction, hulkageddon, scams, that is all defined as content, and are the behaviors that make eve stand out from every other crappy MMO.

Oh, and to those who believe that his constituency is goons and goons alone, yeah, no. There are alot more than just them. I voted for Mittens last year before I was a member of the CFC, simply because I felt that his platform was(and still is) the best for the game as a whole. I know people who play exclusively in highsec who support him, and I know members of the CFC who will vote against him because they don't want to see moongoo rebalanced.

PS. I also voted for a highsec rep that year(one who made it in on a platform of supporting highsec interests) because I wanted to make sure there was a balance of members, and BEHOLD! we do.

Not my fault the platform I voted for there decided he represented all of eve instead of focusing on the platform he ran on. In this case, it was for the best. Just means I am moving my non-nullsec vote to another candidate.