EVE Search - [CSM Candidate] Hardin

All Channels

Jita Park Speakers Corner

[CSM Candidate] Hardin

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 :: [one page]
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Hardin Amarr Imperial Dreams Curatores Veritatis Alliance	Posted - 2008.04.28 20:58:00 - [1] Hello all, In Summary: I love EVE and I want the CSM to work. I want it to be made up of 9 people who do actually represent the varied playstyles in EVE. I want a group that will look at ideas, debate them seriously and then come to informed decisions for the overall benefit of this game and not a CSM dominated by vocal individuals dedicated to promoting their own playstyle at the expense of everyone else's. I do not believe, as some people seem to do, that the CSM is going to be successful purely on the basis of having good communicators. Sure good communicators are necessary, but at the end of the day IF the CSM is going to work (and is not simply be a PR stunt for CCP) then it will be the content and thought behind our suggestions which will be more important than the volume and tenacity with which we promote them. Otherwise we may as well just leave it to the forums! I want to be one of those nine members. I want to try and contribute to the process of improving EVE. Whether or not the CSM will work only time will tell, but I certainly will be doing what I can to try and ensure that it does! If you want to find out more about me then please visit: http://hardinfaq.blogspot.com In addition, that site also links a number of other places where I have answered questions relating to the CSM. If you have gone through all of that and still have a question you want to ask then please feel free to do so here Cheers Hardin ----- Alliance Creation/Corp Expansion Services Advert
Cailais Amarr VITOC Chain of Chaos	Posted - 2008.04.28 21:22:00 - [2] I was going to ask you a detailed and insightful question, so I scoured your Blog and the EVE Mag article you wrote. I now realise that I was almost certainly at Uni with you (Im 33) so now I have an even better question! What did you think of the security staff at the Stumble Inn? Think carefully before you answer...... C. A new look at Local - IDEA
Hardin Amarr Imperial Dreams Curatores Veritatis Alliance	Posted - 2008.04.28 23:31:00 - [3] Edited by: Hardin on 28/04/2008 23:31:17 Originally by: Cailais I was going to ask you a detailed and insightful question, so I scoured your Blog and the EVE Mag article you wrote. I now realise that I was almost certainly at Uni with you (Im 33) so now I have an even better question! What did you think of the security staff at the Stumble Inn? Think carefully before you answer...... C. Lol - what a coincidence. (you know I stood for elections at RHUL too. Had the most unfun weekend of my life as an NUS delegate in Blackpool in the middle of winter ) Regarding Stumble Inn security staff, from what I can remember I had no problems with them - although by the second third year I had graduated from Stumble Inn to The Happy Man - much better looking lasses there ----- Alliance Creation/Corp Expansion Services Advert
Dungar Loghoth Caldari The Illuminati.	Posted - 2008.04.28 23:40:00 - [4] Edited by: Dungar Loghoth on 28/04/2008 23:39:49 Here's a question: Are you going to say "OOC, " every time you speak on council just so there isn't any confusion? ---
Hardin Amarr Imperial Dreams Curatores Veritatis Alliance	Posted - 2008.04.28 23:42:00 - [5] If you want me too ----- Alliance Creation/Corp Expansion Services Advert
Dungar Loghoth Caldari The Illuminati.	Posted - 2008.04.29 00:28:00 - [6] I will vote for you if you refer to yourself in all offical CSM material as Hardon. ---
Adrian Steel Caldari Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.04.29 03:03:00 - [7] Edited by: Adrian Steel on 29/04/2008 03:05:22 This quote is taken from Hardin's CSM site: Originally by: Hardin I believe I offer a strong 'neutral' option for anyone worried about the CSM being dominated by members of the mega-blocks. I have a question for Hardin: After stating the above on your site, how do you plan on down-playing the fact that you have been the leader of a large alliance that has controlled an entire 0.0 region for 4 years. The CVA has many influential allies in the surrounding regions, the core of whom are referred to by outsiders as "The Amarrian Block." If this is not a mega-block, would the term "huge" describe it properly?
Hardin Amarr Imperial Dreams Curatores Veritatis Alliance	Posted - 2008.04.29 07:47:00 - [8] Originally by: Adrian Steel This quote is taken from Hardin's CSM site: Originally by: Hardin I believe I offer a strong 'neutral' option for anyone worried about the CSM being dominated by members of the mega-blocks. I have a question for Hardin: After stating the above on your site, how do you plan on down-playing the fact that you have been heavily influential in the leadership of a large alliance that has controlled an entire 0.0 region for 4 years. The CVA has many influential allies in the surrounding regions, the core of whom are referred to by outsiders as "The Amarrian Block." If this is not a mega-block, would the term "huge" describe it properly? Always nice to answer questions from my friends in Star Fraction Firstly, we have only fully controlled Providence for less than a year - not four. Yes our influence over Providence is something which has grown slowly but steadly since the launch of 'Operation Deliverance' but by no means could we claim to have controlled the region until relatively recently. Secondly, I would hardly call myself heavily influential within that 'bloc' (if that is what you want to call it). I am not the leader of the CVA, although many assume that I am simply because I am the most public face of the alliance. Third, the CVA itself only comprises 789 pilots currently and that is after a year of growth! A look at this - http://www.eve-maps.com/outpostalert/alliancerank.asp?Sov=OFF clearly demonstrates the relative lack of numbers in comparision to other space holding alliances around us. Organisations such as LFA, Sylph, Paxton and sev3rance are not part of some mythical 'Bloc' but independent entities who make their own decisions. Fortunately for us they support the CVA's principles of NRDS and the development of Providence. But we do not assume their blind obedience. Hell they could all backstab CVA tomorrow for all we know If they do support us its because they know its because in their own interests to work together with CVA for mutual protection against the 'megablocks'. I would also point out that CVA and our friends have never taken offensive action outside of Providence. Now assuming that CVA's allies were infact all puppets or pets (which seems to be implied in your post) and we were acting as a 'bloc' (which we are not - certainly offensively) the fact is that the major megablocks (albeit at least one of them has fractured somewhat since I first wrote that piece) still outnumber combined Providence forces substantially. Hell Goonswarm alone outnumbers all the Providence based alliances on its own. So no - I don't see us a a 'mega' or even 'huge' bloc. A large independent political entity yes, but one that would still be severely outnumbered in the face of an attack by either the 'Alliance' or the 'Coalition'. Summing up the CVA is not huge, takes little to no interest in offensive affairs beyond the borders of Providence (apart from in the RP arena) and shoots both of the megablocks pretty much equally. So yes from that perspective I do believe I offer a strong 'neutral' option. ----- Alliance Creation/Corp Expansion Services Advert
zoolkhan Minmatar Mirkur Draug'Tyr	Posted - 2008.04.29 07:53:00 - [9] Originally by: Hardin So yes from that perspective I do believe I offer a strong 'neutral' option. how neutral against changes in game mechanics like the proposed destructionable outposts or rebalancing of bridges jammers etc? recruiting -forum
Hardin Amarr Imperial Dreams Curatores Veritatis Alliance	Posted - 2008.04.29 09:46:00 - [10] I have already said elsewhere that I am open to suggestions in these areas provided they maintain some balance. Even regarding the issue of 'destructible' Outposts I am not without compromise. As I said on the OOC forums: "I am not necessarily opposed to Outposts going pop... provided that: - CCP reduces the effort required to build and maintain them - comes up with a workable solution to the issue of people's assets stored in those stations - that there is a reasonable time lag 'destruct countdown' involved so that the people who want Outposts to pop have to maintain control and 'defend' the station for a reasonable period." And there are other options than the black and white suggestion that Outposts simply exist or don't exist. Others have suggested the idea of 'Derelict' & 'Disabled' stations which also have promise. Personally I don't think Outposts should be destructible (although I will look at both sides of the case) because I believe they are a key part of the process of developing 0.0 and attracting people to come and live there - something which will enhance PvP opportunities not hinder them. Yes they do mean people can play dock monkey... but hell its not hard to avoid PvP in 0.0 even if there isn't a station in local if people want to - so Stations are not the problem. But in addition to that I also like them from a roleplay perspective. They add a permanence and a history to the game that no other structure does. I am looking forward to the day that EVE Front goes live so that I can write a history of 'Unity/Deliverance Reclaimed' in 9UY detailing the various sieges - so that when a pilot jumps into the system they can get a feel of the epic battles that have been fought over the station. While Ushra'khan no longer have the station it is still a legacy and reminder that they were there - that they existed. I hope players of EVE in 10 years time can jump into 9UY and look up the ownership history of the station and get an idea of the ebb and flow of EVE politics and warfare (whether or not CVA still controls it ) I also believe that some of the proponents of 'destructible' Outposts are not seeing the larger picture. They seemingly wish to turn the clock back to 2004 when a small number of mega alliances 'owned' huge tracts of space - simply because there was no way for smaller alliances to get established and defend their claims. If Outposts were destructible then the megablocks would simply play a scorched earth game and there would be no real motivation for smaller alliances to populate 0.0 when everything they build could be torched at the whim of megablock enemy. This could be rectified by making Outposts cheaper to build and maintain so that they are not so much of an investment risk but I have my doubts about how realistic that is. I believe the opportunity to build Outposts and then realistically defend them is one of the reason 0.0 is becoming increasingly crowded and increasingly fractious, divided and warlike - which in my opinion is a positive trend in EVE because it inevitably leads to more conflict! Saying that I also believe smaller 'guerilla' forces should be given more options to 'annoy' a sov holder without the need to engage in full scale POS warfare. For example the ability to completely shut down a station (no services - including no docking) for a specific period. Obviously something like this offers huge potential for pure griefing so again the mechanics would need to be closely examined. So in summary, yes my personal belief is that Outpost should NOT be destructible. However if someone can come up with a good compromise or suggestion I am not going to rule it out simply because I am a member of the CVA. ----- Alliance Creation/Corp Expansion Services Advert
Kelsin Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.04.29 12:01:00 - [11] Hi Hardin, I've noticed you haven't weighed in on many (any?) of the "What's the most important issue" questions - can we get a definitive answer on what you feel is the most important issue that you would bring to CCP as a member of Council? Specifically, your response to this question in the EveMag interview is very vague - you say you are: Quote: ...interested in changes to POS Warfare/Sovereignty. I am slightly concerned that some of the candidates seem to be pushing an agenda on this agenda with no real recognition of game balance - nor recognition of the efforts that existing sov holders have put into obtaining and then maintaining sov. I hesitate to interpret this as saying you will champion the rights of Sovereignty holders without a clear confirmation from you - is that the case?
zoolkhan Minmatar Mirkur Draug'Tyr	Posted - 2008.04.29 12:04:00 - [12] my question was simple hardin. i was not asking for your opionion, but if you can ensure neutrality on that topic even though your alliance has , what? 8 OPS now and potentially a lot to loose if the current game mechanics would receive a change in favor to the attackers. This comes down to the ability to divide INGAME from OOG - someone who can divide it would spot the inbalance(?) and perhaps initiate a change ALTHOUGH it would not make the ingame friends and allies too happy. A unpopular decision so to speak, can you handle that? Perhaps in fewer lines? recruiting -forum
Renosha Argaron Caldari IronPig Sev3rance	Posted - 2008.04.29 12:30:00 - [13] Well you have my vote Hardin, Good luck Regards Renosha
Rawr Cristina Caldari Naqam	Posted - 2008.04.29 12:38:00 - [14] Sorry if this has been asked before, but: What is your opinion of the Local chat channel, and it's powerful function to allow people to completely avoid PvP? ...
Hardin Amarr Imperial Dreams Curatores Veritatis Alliance	Posted - 2008.04.29 12:46:00 - [15] Originally by: Kelsin I hesitate to interpret this as saying you will champion the rights of Sovereignty holders without a clear confirmation from you - is that the case? I am not going on to CSM to 'champion' anything for anyone. Unlike Jade, (for whom, incidentally, you seem to be doing such a great cheerleading job) I do not believe that at this stage the candidates for the CSM should be sticking flags in the ground and drawing lines in the sand. I believe that approach is counterproductive, close minded and certainly not the approach I would expect from someone who is try to convince us that they are willing to work as part of a team because that is what the CSM should be. Yes we are all to some extent biased, based upon our experiences in this game (as indicated by my post above) and yes I expect some hearty, healthy debate. However, if the CSM is to be effective its members have to be open minded and make decisions based upon what they think is best for the interests of the game and not just for the benefit of their own alliances or playstyles and I am afraid Jade just hasn't convinced me on that score. I really don't want to spend a week in Iceland with a bunch of people who have already decided how everyone else should play the game and who are not willing to compromise because they have already sold their souls to a variety of forum bandwagons. Fortunately, I am confident that the majority of candidates don't want that either! ----- Alliance Creation/Corp Expansion Services Advert
Hardin Amarr Imperial Dreams Curatores Veritatis Alliance	Posted - 2008.04.29 12:56:00 - [16] Originally by: zoolkhan my question was simple hardin. i was not asking for your opionion, but if you can ensure neutrality on that topic even though your alliance has , what? 8 OPS now and potentially a lot to loose if the current game mechanics would receive a change in favor to the attackers. This comes down to the ability to divide INGAME from OOG - someone who can divide it would spot the inbalance(?) and perhaps initiate a change ALTHOUGH it would not make the ingame friends and allies too happy. A unpopular decision so to speak, can you handle that? Perhaps in fewer lines? Well I did already answer this kinda in my blog www.hardinfaq.blogspot.com Is Hardin biaised? Yes. I think anyone who says they are not biaised should be shot as a liar right now. There are things in my EVE history and how I play the game which have influenced my perspective on certain things. These perceptions could be regarded as 'bias' but similarly can simply be seen as my point of view. While I do believe I am open-minded and open to new ideas (as every Amarrian should :p) I will be honest and say that I am not a blank page and that I will not automatically endorse every idea suggested to me in an effort to win this election. That said I am in general an amiable chap and will judge every idea on its merits - not on the basis of which person or alliance proposed it. Yes I can separate ingame from out of game and as I have said before I will not support CVA interests simply because they are CVA interests - although of course my experience will colour my perspective on certain issues and it will be up to other CSM members to change my mind (or vice versa ). At the end of the day I am an EVE player who loves this game and wants this game to improve. Maybe it is a naive hope that CSM will be successful tool in that improvement process but I certainly want us to make an effort! ----- Alliance Creation/Corp Expansion Services Advert
Kelsin Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.04.29 12:57:00 - [17] Originally by: Hardin I believe that approach is counterproductive, close minded and certainly not the approach I would expect from someone who is try to convince us that they are willing to work as part of a team because that is what the CSM should be. But surely, if the CSM's role is to raise issues before CCP, at some point you have to choose what issues to raise. Will you shed some light on what sorts of issues you personally would bring up for the council to vote on and then present to CCP? Or would you not bring up any issues and only vote on others' proposals?
Hardin Amarr Imperial Dreams Curatores Veritatis Alliance	Posted - 2008.04.29 13:16:00 - [18] Originally by: Kelsin Originally by: Hardin I believe that approach is counterproductive, close minded and certainly not the approach I would expect from someone who is try to convince us that they are willing to work as part of a team because that is what the CSM should be. But surely, if the CSM's role is to raise issues before CCP, at some point you have to choose what issues to raise. Will you shed some light on what sorts of issues you personally would bring up for the council to vote on and then present to CCP? Or would you not bring up any issues and only vote on others' proposals? I really don't think raising issues is going to be a problem - as this forum already demonstrates! I mean exactly how many issues can we get honestly expect to get through? If no one else decides to raise them then amongst the first issues I would raise is Macroers (reducing) BACON (banning) Roleplay (enhancing) POS Warfare (improving) POS maintenance (simplifying) Lag (destroying) Newbies (encouraging) 0.0 (developing) Markets (improving) Dev Transparency (illuminating) Destroyers (boosting) Somehow I think others may beat me to it ----- Alliance Creation/Corp Expansion Services Advert
Hardin Amarr Imperial Dreams Curatores Veritatis Alliance	Posted - 2008.04.29 13:24:00 - [19] Originally by: Rawr Cristina Sorry if this has been asked before, but: What is your opinion of the Local chat channel, and it's powerful function to allow people to completely avoid PvP? Posting my opinion from another thread: Similarly, on the issue of local, I can see why some people are such advocates for its removal. However, I also see very good reasons why the removal of local would actually diminish (rather than increase) the likelihood of enjoyable PvP. Obviously we will have to agree to disagree sometimes but we also have to be able to compromise and adapt our standpoints based upon the input we receive from all the players of EVE and not just those that reflect the interests of our own particular corps. Specifically and quickly on local removal: 1) Uncertainty - Uncertainty increases the desire for safety. Safety is obtained by either not travelling to risky areas or seeking saftey in numbers - its human nature. The removal of local increases uncertainty gigantically and unless an effective alternative is put in place it is, in my opinion, more likely to reduce PvP action than increase it. 2) Tedium - Making things harder is not in itself wrong. I am sure there are many vets who long for a really hardcore EVE. The problem is there is a fine line between challenging and tedious. Make life too difficult and you run the risk of driving people out of the game. And while we are at it lets just make EVE that little bit more unpleasant and daunting for people joining the game, after all its not like they have enough to get to grips with already. 3) Solo play - The removal of local will pretty much eliminate solo play in 0.0. That's fine if you believe that 0.0 should be a mercilessly hostile unforgiving place but not so fine if you believe in developing economies and creating empires in 0.0. It's not like we should be doing anything that would encourage people to leave Empire space anyway! While those are my major concerns there are also big issues around login traps. Jump scout in, scan gate, one enemy in local, move scout on, jump fleet in, **** there's now 50 people on the gate - no warning whatsoever! Also undocking. No local - no idea who is in the system as you can't scan. Okay let's put windows on the station - erm what if they are all in cloakers? Okay lets introduce in station scanners - erm what if they are all in cloakers? As it stands it just seems way too imbalanced and impractical to me and if it was going to be introduced should have been introduced 4 years ago! Maybe there are ways around some of the issues I have outlined. Maybe I am just being too 'carebear' for my own good but I honestly think that the removal of local without an adeqaute alternative would severely damage the playing experience for the vast majority of players! I also forgot to add 'sociability' to that. While many players do not interact outside their own corps many others do. Removing local could make EVE even more unfriendly (particularly for new players) place than it is now. There options about how you could reduce the impact of removing local - for instance the channel still exists but only people who talk are shown and instead of a complete list of everyone in the system it instead shows a break down of: Blues XX Neutrals XX Reds XX War Targets XX Not sure how practicable that is though! ----- Alliance Creation/Corp Expansion Services Advert
Kelsin Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.04.29 14:03:00 - [20] Originally by: Hardin I mean exactly how many issues can we get honestly expect to get through? If no one else decides to raise them then amongst the first issues I would raise is Macroers (reducing) BACON (banning) Roleplay (enhancing) POS Warfare (improving) POS maintenance (simplifying) Lag (destroying) Newbies (encouraging) 0.0 (developing) Markets (improving) Dev Transparency (illuminating) Destroyers (boosting) Thanks, that's the sort of thing I was asking after. I'd like to hear some specifics on: Roleplay (enhancing) POS Warfare (improving) POS maintenance (simplifying) 0.0 (developing) as your ideas on exactly how these areas can be enhanced, improved, simplified and developed are central to what you would support/push for on the council and thus important for us to know.
Verone Veto Corp	Posted - 2008.04.30 15:50:00 - [21] Originally by: Hardin If no one else decides to raise them then amongst the first issues I would raise is Macroers (reducing) BACON (banning) Roleplay (enhancing) POS Warfare (improving) POS maintenance (simplifying) Lag (destroying) Newbies (encouraging) 0.0 (developing) Markets (improving) Dev Transparency (illuminating) Destroyers (boosting) \o/ My votes are in for Hardin tbh >>> THE LIFE OF AN OUTLAW - EVE FICTION <<<
Hardin Amarr Imperial Dreams Curatores Veritatis Alliance	Posted - 2008.04.30 23:24:00 - [22] Originally by: Verone Originally by: Hardin If no one else decides to raise them then amongst the first issues I would raise is Macroers (reducing) BACON (banning) Roleplay (enhancing) POS Warfare (improving) POS maintenance (simplifying) Lag (destroying) Newbies (encouraging) 0.0 (developing) Markets (improving) Dev Transparency (illuminating) Destroyers (boosting) \o/ My votes are in for Hardin tbh Thanks Verone - your endorsement is appreciated. Regarding Kelsin's questions I find it quite amusing that you need to know all this information when its quite clear that you are operating as Jade's chief cheerleader - if not her unofficial campaign manager Is there a realistic possibility that my answers will convince you to vote for me or are you just trying to make me say something stupid which you can jump up and down on and go 'Nah na na na nah Hardin is an idiot'? You first asked me which issues I was interested in - I gave you a list - were you happy no - now you want specifics - but specifics on carefully selected topics. Will you be happy with those - probably not! Nevertheless, I will rise to the bait. Roleplay (enhancing): I would like CCP to take roleplay more seriously. I know that many knock 'roleplay' in EVE but the backstory and history iS of interest to large groups of players (probably more than we think). I would like to see an EVE which is more dynamic in relation to roleplay, where the old established Empires 'react', 'respond' and 'interact' with players and player empires more than they currently do. I would like to see more recognition given to pod pilot politics in the shape of 'Empire' reactions to the initiatives of both individual pod pilots, corporations and alliances - although this is an area in which CCP has already improved massively of late (and this is an area in which CCP has to tread carefully to avoid claims of bias) I would like to see CCP endorse and support efforts such as EVE Front - which will give players the opportunity to contribute to the history and immersion of this game. And of course I would like storylines to progress a little faster and more logically. Hell the Amarr Empire has been without an Emperor for the past year with little to no IC justification. It is not good enough! I will also be interested in seeing the details of Factional Warfare and ensuring that this is something that adds to the roleplay of EVE rather than detracts from it. ----- Alliance Creation/Corp Expansion Services Advert
Hardin Amarr Imperial Dreams Curatores Veritatis Alliance	Posted - 2008.04.30 23:28:00 - [23] Edited by: Hardin on 30/04/2008 23:34:24 POS Warfare (improving): I think pretty much everyone agrees that POS/Sov warfare as it stands needs to be reformed. The question is improving it whilst maintaining balance. I do believe defenders should have the advantage to reflect their 'entrenched' state and their initial and ongoing investment (both in ISK and time) in defensive structures. I don't think cynojammers are the problem. Unless a defender is tipped off (or the attacker extremely incompetent) the initial strike to down a cynojammer (which takes place at a time and place of the attackers choosing) is relatively straightforward and painless. Attackers then have the option of leaving those caps in the system until needed. In the event that the attacker does withdraw caps from the system and doesn't interdict the system (allowing the defender to regroup and repair/online cynojammers and jumpbridges) then the attacker is asking for trouble... Nevertheless I do think it is excessive that after re-onlining the cynojammer the defender can then move as many assets into the system as it wants using the mechanic of jump bridges. The ability for defenders to uuse jump bridges to jump in multiple super caps and caps to defend a cynojammer (either via Doomsdays or Remote Rep) when an attacker can only use conventionals (assuming the attacker didn't leave their cap fleet in the system after the initial attack) is imho unbalanced towards the defender. My suggestion would be that any jumpbridges put out of action by the attacker in the initial assault cannot be reactivated while there are POSes in reinforced in the system. Similarly new jumpbridges cannot be installed and activated while there are reinforced POSes in a system. In this way if defenders wanted to move Caps into a system to defend their cynojammer/poses would have to open a window in their cynojamming protection which the alert/organised attacker could also take advantage of. It also means that the defender will (may) need to FIGHT to get its conventional defence fleet into the system rather than simply bypassing the attackers fleets by using jumpbridges. I am open to other ideas on this subject - but will not support any idea which pushes the balance too far in favour of either side. While siege warfare is tough for the attacker you just have to look at BoB's recovery in Querious and Period Basis to see how large well organised attackers can quickly capture space - particularly if the defender is not properly dedicated and motivated. POS Maintenance (simplifying): One of the main objections I have to making it easier for attackers to kill POSes is the amount of effort that POS owners need to go to to keep the buggers online. POS maintenance (as most people acknowledge) is not much fun and needlessly so. If the process of maintaining and refueling POS structures was simplified and made less demanding then I would certainly look more agreeably on proposals to make their destruction more 'fun' too. However as it stands, I see people investing significant amounts of ISK and time in maintaining POS networks (with the exception being those lucky few who have the right moon materials) and believe this should be reflected in the effort that attackers have to go to to remove them. I believe CCP already has some work in progress in this area and look forward to finding out more. ----- Alliance Creation/Corp Expansion Services Advert
Hardin Amarr Imperial Dreams Curatores Veritatis Alliance	Posted - 2008.04.30 23:32:00 - [24] 0.0 (developing): One of the main reasons I was attracted to EVE in the first place was the ability for players to build empires and civilisations in 0.0, empires shaped and molded by us as players and based upon our own ideologies and philosophies - something unique to EVE as a single server game. Over time CCP have released tools which have allowed alliances to start to develop an infrastructure in 0.0, to actually build real and solid things. Since that happened we have seen a fragmentation of alliances. There are more space holding alliances in EVE now than at any time in its history and this adds to the flavour and depth of EVE politics, which can only be a good thing because inevitably it leads to friction and conflict. Yet despite the tools Sov holders have been given we still see the majority of EVE pilots based in Empire. Why? The easy answer is that they are all carebears - but the reality is that the infrastructure and economy of most 0.0 regions (and even low-sec) regions still does not offer the economic incentives to outweigh the risk of relocating to 0.0 - nor does the NBSI attitude (an understandable attitude in view of current game mechanics) favoured by the majority of 0.0 alliances. I therefore believe that Sov Holders should be given further options with which to develop their space and stimulate their economies. One suggestion - which I have seen proposed - is the introduction of 'agents' to Outposts with sov holding alliances able to 'pay' agents (the cost would depend on the level of the agent) to relocate to their stations and thus provide another incentive for people to move to 0.0 (of course the sov holding alliance benefits from the docking fees and general economic activity stimulated by this - while the PvPers raiding their space benefit from additional targets without having to worry about their ****ty sec status). Of course that particular idea may prove unworkable purely from a technical standpoint (I am not a dev) but I would welcome tools which actually ENCOURAGE alliances to REALISTICALLY consider policies beyond the simplistic 'its not blue - shoot it' approach and to actually think about the development of their economies (beyond ratting, mining and moon mining). This is something which will enhance the game long term as it will help populate 0.0, increasing PvP opportunities for us all. I enjoy the depth of EVE, the depth in history, the depth of ideologies, the depth of its economy, the depth of playstyles, the depth in tactics, the depth of personalities and the depth in politics but am worried that some want to remove this depth and turn 0.0 into Counterstrike in space. I have made it clear in my blog (and above) that I do have a bias in how I view this game. My in game experiences shape these views. This is PRECISELY why I believe I and other CSM members should not be pushing specific policies and agendas at this stage. S hould the electorate have a reasonable idea about our general game philosophy and the type of characters we are - yes they should. But we are being elected to a team, a TEAM which will look at all these ideas and issue and then (hopefully) come to educated and informed decisions which are in the best interests of the game. If the CSM ends up being full of people who are standing to promote specific agendas - with no willingness to compromise and look beyond their own interests - then I am not very hopeful as to how this is going to turn out. Fortunately, I believe the majority of candidates - candidates such as Omber Zombie, Serenity Steele, Guomindong, Zoolkhan and Bane Glorious, to name just a few - do have the best interests of the game at heart and I hope I get the chance to work with them. ----- Alliance Creation/Corp Expansion Services Advert
Bane Glorious GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.04.30 23:48:00 - [25] Hardin is a good guy. Hope I get to see him in Iceland.
Heartblood	Posted - 2008.05.01 03:55:00 - [26] Goons supporting Hardin really makes me quite reluctant o_O If I can ask, Hardin, what is your opinion of Goons and their generally obnoxious behaviour? Are you friends?
Hardin Amarr Imperial Dreams Curatores Veritatis Alliance	Posted - 2008.05.01 07:35:00 - [27] Edited by: Hardin on 01/05/2008 07:35:10 Asking me my opinion of Goons is the same as asking me what I think of Americans or Russians! In other words it is impossible to generalise Goons have over 4,500 members. Just like every alliance they have their fair share of ****s and knobs. Just like every alliance they have members who take this game of 'Internet Spaceships' way too seriously (but then you could argue that anyone standing for CSM does too ) and certainly I am not an advocate of metagaming tactics to gain an advantage over your enemies (but its not like Goons are the only guilty party on that score ). Certainly, I think Goons have added something to this game. Hell the Great War has been epic and probably wouldn't have happened if they hadn't taken the first steps! I admire them for their role in the Great War in the same way I admire SirMolle and BoB for making themselves public enemy #1 - deliberately! And yes, while Goons have crossed the line of taste and do act like obnoxious twunts sometimes (the fecking up of CAOS being a prime example), they have also contributed to the 'EVE story' and creatively to the EVE community - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vfv1QtZDirY - being a good example. As for me being friends with Goons - well no. Apart from a few words exchanged on their forums and a chat with one of their pilots in local once I have had little to no direct interaction with Goons other than when they come to Providence and usually that interaction is based upon the use of my lasers ----- Alliance Creation/Corp Expansion Services Advert
The Templariarch Amarr Shadow Company Phalanx Alliance	Posted - 2008.05.01 11:18:00 - [28] Edited by: The Templariarch on 01/05/2008 11:24:19 Quote: I want to try and contribute to the process of improving EVE You favour Amarr ships above Minmatar. You are an Ammar Nationalist in heart and soul this will have influence. You are a hardcore RP`r which is fine but when it comes to design and playstyles I believe you should be locked up in a cellar, but as long as you keep yr hands off ship design and mods,... Hardin is a living eve wiki so a non-authority function and he has my vote. Stop making Excuses, Start making Changes!
Speedie Tappaja Minmatar Malicious Intentions	Posted - 2008.05.01 15:06:00 - [29] I support this person!
Hardin Amarr Imperial Dreams Curatores Veritatis Alliance	Posted - 2008.05.01 15:14:00 - [30] Originally by: Speedie Tappaja I support this person! Always nice to have a 'Tappaja' on the team o7 ----- Alliance Creation/Corp Expansion Services Advert
GOLDEN LAMB	Posted - 2008.05.01 15:42:00 - [31] Dear Hardin, dont you think that a "politian" should stand up for his own believes at least in a game if not in real life? What makes your "looking at ideas" better than that of dev at CCP?
Kelsin Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.05.01 15:48:00 - [32] Thank you for clarifying your positions - I don't want you to feel that you're being persecuted, I expect all the candidates to be clear about their positions on issues, because the voters deserve to know the inclinations of those who may end up on the front lines of our communicaton with CCP. The reason I asked for clarification on those specific issues is that the other issues you listed (except for the market, which admittedly I don't know much about) are no-brainer issues that almost every candidate (and indeed every player) can agree on. Regarding your statements on the development of 0.0 space, I would like to hear some specifics on what sorts of tools you think sovereignty holding alliances should have access to to enrich 0.0 as a destination for players. Suppose you are on the council and it comes time to bring a proposal regarding your ideas for 0.0 to CCP - what would that proposal say? My personal feelings are that while more tools for the development of 0.0 could be great, the current system of gaining and holding territory needs to be revamped before those tools are designed. So ideally I'd like to see tool ideas that aren't dependant on the current status quo of Sovereignty.
Hardin Amarr Imperial Dreams Curatores Veritatis Alliance	Posted - 2008.05.01 16:59:00 - [33] Originally by: GOLDEN LAMB What makes your "looking at ideas" better than that of dev at CCP? Nothing. In fact, as an individual, I am probably far worse. However we are not being elected to be devs, we are being elected to form part of a team which will examine, debate and refine ideas and then use the 'power' of our elected position (which remains to be seen) to try and encourage CCP to take them seriously. I believe that my personality, character, experience and general attitude makes me suited to that job. It is up to the voters to decide whether or not they agree. ----- Alliance Creation/Corp Expansion Services Advert
Frygok Minmatar M. Corp Mostly Harmless	Posted - 2008.05.01 18:54:00 - [34] Edited by: Frygok on 01/05/2008 18:55:05 Hi Hardin! (You Amarr slaver scum! ) Since you are one of the few candidates I am considering voting for, I have a few questions for you I hope you won't mind answering. It is specifically regarding the interdependence (or lack thereof) of 0.0 <-> Low sec <-> Empire. I am talking about exploring -> moon mining -> alliance sov -> logistic. I hope I can make the connection (and my question) clear. How do you feel that exploration is currently doing in terms of 0.0 space? Especially moon exploration is now a dead-end, as pretty much all moons have been explored. If we add to that there is a very limited number of high-end moons which define alliances (and even breaks them, ie. TRI), do you feel that perhaps yearly or six-months re-seeding of moons would be a way to keep moon exploration and moon mining a continuing proces? This leads me to alliance sov. Currently, alliances are covering HUGE areas of space, thus covering huge number of moons, ie. having basically all types of moon mats available. Do you think that introducing new types of moons with new types of components to be mined in low sec could be a way for smaller alliances/large corps to play a role in the manufacturing of ships and items? This would require new requirements to create items and ships, so I reckon it's far-fetched, but it's more the idea behind making low sec more appealing and important in the connection between 0.0 and empire. This leads me to my final question, which is regarding logistics. The reason why alliances hold such vast areas IMO is very much due to its so easy to move across large areas of space via jumpbridges, cyno chains and titans, thus being able to snatch alot of moons. How do you feel the current balance is in EVE? Has the game become too small? Or do you feel that cutting away what potentially is boring hours of logistics outweight this argument of being too easy to cover large areas (and thus be able to cover low sec aswell, should the idea of specific low sec moons be introduced)? Thanks for your time :)
Nate D Universal-Corp The Nexus Alliance	Posted - 2008.05.02 01:46:00 - [35] Edited by: Nate D on 02/05/2008 01:56:13 Hey Hardin! How do you feel about communication in EVE specifically related to EVE Voice? Will you push for more to be done with EVE Voice such as an out of game client, giving it a more roleplay friendly cover (hailing people in space), auto-join favorite channels on login, etc? -Nate
Hardin Amarr The Honored Society Onorata Alleanza	Posted - 2008.05.02 12:45:00 - [36] Originally by: Frygok Hi Hardin! (You Amarr slaver scum! ) Since you are one of the few candidates I am considering voting for, I have a few questions for you I hope you won't mind answering. It is specifically regarding the interdependence (or lack thereof) of 0.0 <-> Low sec <-> Empire. Strange you should ask that one of me because CVA is probably one of the few alliances that actually still has significant interests in all three. As you probably know CVA started as an anti pirate/terrorist force in Empire. We then launched 'Operation Deliverance' which was initially focused in clearing our pirates in the low sec areas around Kheram, Misaba, Mamet, Ziriert and Gemodi and then gradually started extending itself in Providence 0.0 - reclaiming it for the Amarr Empire. To this day CVA continues to police low-sec Amarrian space - particularly the routes from hi-sec Empire down to Providence because it is in our interest to encourage the free flow of goods and pilots into the market that we (and our allies) are developing in Amarrian Providence. I like your idea regarding the introduction of different types of moon materials available only in low-sec for the reasons you have given. Low-sec does need a hand - particularly as many areas of low-sec are overrun with piratey types and this means the risk vs reward balance is wrong. If pirates are controlled then low-sec as it stands can be enticing - as the areas around Misaba, Mamet & Ziriert demonstrate - however the majority of low-sec is not policed by organisations such as the CVA and as a result are just not attractive enough on a risk vs reward basis. Now I am not blaming pirates for low-sec depopulation - hell they make the game more fun - but I think CCP have to recognise that they exist and therefore ensure that potential low-sec rewards reflect low-sec risk. At the end of the day if low-sec was more valuable more organisations would make an effort to police it - creating a lot more PvP opportunities for everyone! Its a win-win. I agree with you that EVE seems to be a much smaller place now than it did - certainly when I started its sheer size seemed simply overwhelming at times. However, I am not sure that that the reason it seems smaller now is down to sov mechanics and logistics or because there are a hell of a lot more players playing now. Part of the reason the game seemed quite so 'vast' was because you could travel 5/6 jumps from the main Empire hubs and find systems which you could have all to yourself. I can remember back in my Empire/Mining days of finding a system called Inix-Ilix (or something like that) and spending almost 4 weeks mining it out with nobody but the odd passerby for company! As I am a vet - I really don't know whether the fact that EVE feels so small now is simply because it is so much busier - or whether it is because I have 'been there done that'. Do new players joining fresh still get that sense of scale that we did when we were newbs? Certainly from comments on the forums some at least do. Of course if the playerbase is expanding it would be nice if CCP could refelct this by adding new space - but this shouldn't be done at the expense of diluting other improvements. I do agree with you however that 'exploration' as a profession does seem to have much less appeal now than it once did. I like your idea of reseeding moons on a reasonably frequent basis. In fact I would like to see it being slightly more random with different moons in each system reseeding randomly - with a six month life span on each 'vein' before it reseeds as something else. (It could be justified RP wise as the exhaustion of particular veins and uncovering of new veins). This would maintain moon exploration as a dynamic profession - and although it would be a pain in the arse when your high end moon suddenly gives out - it provides moon miners and constellation holders with real incentives to keep checking their moons.
Hardin Amarr The Honored Society Onorata Alleanza	Posted - 2008.05.02 12:47:00 - [37] I would also encourage CCP to continue developments in the area of more long term 'roaming' complexes (a week rather than a day) which can only be discovered through exploration. I know that some alliance mates have had great fun with 'complex escalation' chains and more of this kind of thing would be welcome! Finally, being more specific about the issue of alliances holding vast territories I believe that this has actually 'improved' with the introduction of sov mechanics. I can remember when EVE 0.0 was dominated by between 5/6 super alliance who each controlled multiple regions purely be controlling a small number of bottleneck access points. Since Sov mechanics and logistics have come in we have seen a fragmentation of alliances and territory holders. (although many of those alliances have formed blocs of their own). By making it easier for small alliances to defend their space CCP have allowed smaller alliances to actually gain footholds in 0.0 but at the same time time in order for smaller alliances to properly defend space they have to build major defensive positions - 3 Outposts per constellation to gain Sov 4 - each supported by x number of POSes + all the cynojammer and jumpbridges POSes scattered throughout the rest of their claimed space. The need to maintain all these strctures and defences now ties up a lot of resources and will in my opinion see alliances concentrating in smaller - but more heavily fortified - areas of space. We are starting to see territory holding alliances focused on constellation sized areas. Whether that is good or bad is a matter of opinion - but my view is the more alliances in 0.0 who are invested in their holdings/territory the better, because inevitably this will lead to more politics and conflict. Yes fleets can move further and faster than before but in order to do so they will have to rely more on their industrialists servicing and maintaining those POS networks - which is in turn governed by the size of the alliance. As we have seen with Tri recently this balancing act between industrialist - providing the logistics support - and pure PvPers who just want to shoot things - can lead to interesting 'dynamics' and politics within alliances... I do agree somewhat with those who argue that 'defenders' can have it to easy and have suggested that one solution would be that jumpbridges cannot be installed (or reonlined once disabled) in systems under siege (while POSes are in reinfoprced). This would mean that if defenders wanted to jump in multiple caps and supercaps to defend/rep their poses/cynojammers - they will actually have to lower their cynojammer - allowing the attacker the same opportunity to get caps into the system (I would extend the onlining time to make this more of a realistic opportunity). It would also mean that defenders would need to get their conventional fleets into the system via traditional gates - providing the attacker's conventional fleet with an opportunity to smash it without the defender having the advantage of POS guns and multiple titans/ms (unless of course the defender has chosen to drop their cynojamming for a period or already had caps in the system before the first POS was reinforced). Anyway I hope these answers give you some idea as to my viewpoint and haven't totally alienated you. :-)
Hamfast Gallente	Posted - 2008.05.02 14:31:00 - [38] I have several questions, and taking a page out of Talkuth RelÆs book, I decided to ask each candidate in their own threadà 1)Invention û A good idea that still needs workà a.Have you ever tried invention? b.What ideas do you have to improve invention? 2)Pilot Security Level û Should it be more important? a.(In High Sec) û Should Concord react faster if the victim has a higher security level? If the attacker has a lower rating? b.Should the Security Level of a system affect changes to Pilot Security level changes? c.Should the Security Level of a Targeted Pilot have more of an effect on the security change of the attacker? 3)Industry û The Creators of Eve a.Do you regularly build anything? b.Do you regularly mine? c.What do you think could be done to improve industry in Eve? d.You have been asked to help with new ships for industrial characters, describe a few ideasà
Hardin Amarr The Honored Society Onorata Alleanza	Posted - 2008.05.02 15:12:00 - [39] Originally by: Hamfast I have several questions, and taking a page out of Talkuth RelÆs book, I decided to ask each candidate in their own threadà 1)Invention û A good idea that still needs workà a.Have you ever tried invention? b.What ideas do you have to improve invention? 2)Pilot Security Level û Should it be more important? a.(In High Sec) û Should Concord react faster if the victim has a higher security level? If the attacker has a lower rating? b.Should the Security Level of a system affect changes to Pilot Security level changes? c.Should the Security Level of a Targeted Pilot have more of an effect on the security change of the attacker? 3)Industry û The Creators of Eve a.Do you regularly build anything? b.Do you regularly mine? c.What do you think could be done to improve industry in Eve? d.You have been asked to help with new ships for industrial characters, describe a few ideasà 1)a - No. 1)b - None 2)a No - Concord should react faster full stop 2)b Yes - Higher sec hits in high sec systems 2)c No - Problem being that many 'anti-pirates' actually have worse sec status than the pirates 3)a No - As I have said elsewhere I have never manufactured a single item in almost 5 years in EVE 3)b No - I haven't mined since my first year in EVE. Primarily because I get my income from making alliances and because I got to the point where if I saw another piece of Veldspar I would have had a nervous breakdown 3)c More PvP - more ships being killed - more stuff to build and sell! 3)d MINING TITAN!
LaVista Vista Conservative Shenanigans Party	Posted - 2008.05.02 15:14:00 - [40] I see you left CVA. How come?
Hardin Amarr The Honored Society Onorata Alleanza	Posted - 2008.05.02 15:15:00 - [41] Originally by: Hardin 3)b No - I haven't mined since my first year in EVE. Primarily because I get my income from making alliances and because I got to the point where if I saw another piece of Veldspar I would have had a nervous breakdown
LaVista Vista Conservative Shenanigans Party	Posted - 2008.05.02 15:18:00 - [42] Originally by: Hardin Originally by: Hardin 3)b No - I haven't mined since my first year in EVE. Primarily because I get my income from making alliances and because I got to the point where if I saw another piece of Veldspar I would have had a nervous breakdown Oh, usually i thought people would have alts for that. Smart!
Hardin Amarr The Honored Society Onorata Alleanza	Posted - 2008.05.02 16:08:00 - [43] Hardin is my 'alt' albeit he is more famous than my main. I created 'Hardin' Day 1 of EVE after seeing the box in my local GAME store. Bought it because I liked the whole concept of 'smuggling' which was mentioned on the case. Immediately thought of Han Solo - and decided that maxing my Charisma by choosing a Ni-Kunni and pumping 3 of my attribute points into it would be the best thing to do... That is why Hardin has 28 Charisma (should max it to 30 sometime ) and that is why a few months later I created the very first 'SKILL TRAINING GUIDE' (http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=53301&page=1#1) and got myself a second account (Siobhan) with which to do all my PvP stuff... So anyway from an Roleplay perspective Hardin is the ultimate pen pusher. People contact him to make alliances and he uses his massive charisma, charm and contacts in the Concord bureaucracy to make the process as painless as possible. Check out my employment record sometime - but not if you are on a slow PC
Dariah Stardweller	Posted - 2008.05.02 19:29:00 - [44] Well Hardin, as far as I can tell you are my man. :) Need help campaigning?
Taizu Lilith Minmatar Re-Awakened Technologies Inc Electus Matari	Posted - 2008.05.03 07:51:00 - [45] What do you think about resource gathering in EVE? (which is primarily about mining and missioning) How can this be made more enjoyable? What do you think about the Minmatar-Amarr conflict? ((players/CCP))
SirMolle Evolution Band of Brothers	Posted - 2008.05.04 11:30:00 - [46] Sry Hardin, but youre it for me at least. I find it hard to find anyone else who is nonbiased, and have no hidden agenda. We may shoot each other ingame, but im pretty sure you are the only choice.
Hardin Amarr The Honored Society Onorata Alleanza	Posted - 2008.05.04 20:16:00 - [47] Well this wasn't something I expected but thanks
goodby4u Logistic Technologies Incorporated	Posted - 2008.05.04 20:19:00 - [48] Edited by: goodby4u on 04/05/2008 20:21:43 Hardin, I asked these 3 questions to other candidates before and forgive me if you answered them but... 1)Would you support further amarr boosts and if so, what kind would you back? 2)How high is lag on your list of things to fix? 3)Would you support a boost to people that travel solo/in small gangs or nerf to people that travel in blobs?
Hardin Amarr The Honored Society Onorata Alleanza	Posted - 2008.05.04 20:27:00 - [49] 1) I don't believe Amarr need further boosts. I only fly Amarr, my alliance is Amarr predominant and we do fine! 2) I have talked about lag on several occasions. If you go to www.hardinfaq.blogspot.com and follow the EVE Mag link (my section is on page 54) and if you look at 'most pressing issue' you will see my comments on lag! Also some others sleswhere in this thread...
Spoon Thumb Paladin Imperium Curatores Veritatis Alliance	Posted - 2008.05.04 23:29:00 - [50] I personally feel NPC content and scenery are lacking in Eve. Could you summarise what you would put to the devs in regard to improving this area of the game?
TimGascoigne	Posted - 2008.05.05 05:34:00 - [51] Originally by: Hardin Nevertheless I do think it is excessive that after re-onlining the cynojammer the defender can then move as many assets into the system as it wants using the mechanic of jump bridges. The ability for defenders to uuse jump bridges to jump in multiple super caps and caps to defend a cynojammer (either via Doomsdays or Remote Rep) when an attacker can only use conventionals (assuming the attacker didn't leave their cap fleet in the system after the initial attack) is imho unbalanced towards the defender. I can't quite interpret this paragraph are you saying that capital ships can use the jump bridge because I can assure you that is not the case. PS. You get my vote
Hardin Amarr Imperial Shipment	Posted - 2008.05.05 08:09:00 - [52] Originally by: Spoon Thumb I personally feel NPC content and scenery are lacking in Eve. I agree with you... Originally by: Spoon Thumb Could you summarise what you would put to the devs in regard to improving this area of the game? In a nutshell promote the development of more backstory for the minor bloodlines and pirate factions. ----- Alliance Creation/Corp Expansion Services Advert
fuze InfoMorph Services Ltd	Posted - 2008.05.05 10:15:00 - [53] Q: How come you're the only one mentioning the major reason CSM was formed on your bio? (Others don't)
RedLion Caldari Polaris Project Curatores Veritatis Alliance	Posted - 2008.05.05 11:07:00 - [54] Vote for Hardin! He is not Caldari, but still one of the best, finest, caring pilots out there! - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - The Gallenteans must be destroyed - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Adrielle Firewalker Minmatar WASTELAND MINERS Inc.	Posted - 2008.05.05 11:44:00 - [55] You have my vote Hardin. You've always come across as a decent bloke, and your spin is usually humourous in nature. People may laugh at the whole 'fix lag' promise, but I think they are missing the point - trying to find areas where load on the server can be improved, and explore new avenues with which to lessen its effects - is something that should be given serious consideration. I'd be interested to see if the people saying its ridiculous to even try are actually the same people that complain about it all the time... I won't go on about all the things you've said you're (currently) looking to address, but I really feel that a solid candidate with an RP background needs to get in to represent that part of the community, and I believe you're the man to do it ================ ~Adrielle Original MinmatarT
Octavinus Augustus Amarr Auctoritan Syndicate Curatores Veritatis Alliance	Posted - 2008.05.05 12:11:00 - [56] Originally by: RedLion ...He is not Caldari, but still one of the best.... If this had been an IC thread I think you'd be in trouble for this one... Back on topic, I believe there are many good candidates out there who have a well balanced an pretty much nonbiased view on the future of EvE. Hardin is certainly one of those people. Good luck with the election. Q: How do you make a disobediant Minmatar slave scream? A: Skin it and roll it in salt.
RedLion Caldari Polaris Project Curatores Veritatis Alliance	Posted - 2008.05.05 12:59:00 - [57] Originally by: Octavinus Augustus Originally by: RedLion ...He is not Caldari, but still one of the best.... If this had been an IC thread I think you'd be in trouble for this one... Back on topic, I believe there are many good candidates out there who have a well balanced an pretty much nonbiased view on the future of EvE. Hardin is certainly one of those people. Good luck with the election. Yeah, I'm sorry, but I just wanted to point out that Caldari can also vote for a fellow allied Amarr! - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - The Gallenteans must be destroyed - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Caya Amarr Body Count Inc. Mercenary Coalition	Posted - 2008.05.05 14:19:00 - [58] This man gets my vote. Its been honor to know and call u friend for more than 4 years now. I am sure u will not forget to pack ammo this time :).
Spoon Thumb Paladin Imperium Curatores Veritatis Alliance	Posted - 2008.05.05 14:37:00 - [59] It's all about the Khaldari, the perfect mix of Caldari business acumen and the Dark Amarr culture of the Khanid Kingdom! --- But in all seriousness, 80% or whatever of the population of Eve live in high sec and I bet most of them are doing either PvE stuff or industry/trading/mining stuff. I personally am disappointed that balancing ships or creation of new toys for 0.0 pvp seems to get put ahead of NPC content. Can you convince me that you will be able to put across those concerns above or with equal weighting as the things that affect the vocal minority in 0.0?
goodby4u Logistic Technologies Incorporated	Posted - 2008.05.05 20:56:00 - [60] Hardin, you get my vote because your unbiased, care about the general public, and support most of the same views as myself...Oh and you said you wouldnt shoot your voters . Goodluck on your campeign.
Victor Vision Central Intelligence Service	Posted - 2008.05.05 21:34:00 - [61] Hardin, you have my vote. EVE War I-The Beginning - EVE History Wiki
Zacheria Malfor Gallente Reikoku Band of Brothers	Posted - 2008.05.05 21:56:00 - [62] I'd just like to wish you the best of luck Hardin and I hope you become part of the CSM. You have secured my vote, mucho respect from the old days when I fought CVA in LEGI0N and I'm glad to see you are still around and active. Your honesty in regards to the CSM is refreshing in regards to bias and it's nice to see detailed yet concise answers too. Best of luck /Zacheria Malfor Do not fear the reaper, for death is the only certainty in life.
Anton Marx Caldari Warhamsters Against ALL Authorities	Posted - 2008.05.05 22:44:00 - [63] Edited by: Anton Marx on 05/05/2008 22:46:31 Edited by: Anton Marx on 05/05/2008 22:45:15 Hi Hardin, I am just popping here to say that I very much liked one of your campaign posters that says "How can you say NO to that chin?". I had a class in university last year about leadership and one of our professors presented us with an interesting study suggesting that political candidates with big chins enjoy a higher chance of electability compared to other not so chin-gifted individuals. Another "prerequisite for success" was for the candidate not to be ginger ;) I guess you (at least your avatar) incorporates both. Coupled with your good public image and your in-game political allegiance, I think you have already secured yourself a position in the CSM! Regards, Anton Marx EDIT: I can't believe I typed campaing [WAR.H] Anton Marx
Victor Vision Central Intelligence Service	Posted - 2008.05.05 23:00:00 - [64] Originally by: Anton Marx Edited by: Anton Marx on 05/05/2008 22:46:31 Edited by: Anton Marx on 05/05/2008 22:45:15 Hi Hardin, ... I think you have already secured yourself a position in the CSM! ... Mr. Marx, I do not speak for Hardin, but in my opinion his place will only be secured if we vote for him... Please do not take his election as granted, cast your vote instead EVE War I-The Beginning - EVE History Wiki
Ma Raia'l Amarr PIE Inc. Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris	Posted - 2008.05.06 01:09:00 - [65] How can you say no to that chin?
RedLion Caldari Polaris Project Curatores Veritatis Alliance	Posted - 2008.05.06 03:20:00 - [66] Almost like an old Jose Mourinho :) Hardin the special one? - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - The Gallenteans must be destroyed - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Grr Amarr Epitoth Fleetyards Vigilia Valeria	Posted - 2008.05.06 05:40:00 - [67] Goes without saying (but I'll say it anyway) that I'll be voting Hardin and encouraging (but not forcing) my pilots to make the right choice as well. o7 Epitoth Fleetyards is Recruiting
Urd Yggdrasil Brutor tribe	Posted - 2008.05.06 06:40:00 - [68] Originally by: Verone Originally by: Hardin If no one else decides to raise them then amongst the first issues I would raise is Macroers (reducing) BACON (banning) Roleplay (enhancing) POS Warfare (improving) POS maintenance (simplifying) Lag (destroying) Newbies (encouraging) 0.0 (developing) Markets (improving) Dev Transparency (illuminating) Destroyers (boosting) \o/ My votes are in for Hardin tbh This man blows haulers all day out of the sky, BUT he actually has a perfect sence for politics :) I followed MrVerone here, I VOTED HARDIN :) :) :) Now make my Trasher ebil ! /Urd Urd was one named, the other Verdandi. And the name Skuld was carved on a piece of wood for the third. The Eddan -The Valans Spsdom/Fortunetold, the Scandinavian mythologi.
Rodj Blake Amarr PIE Inc. Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris	Posted - 2008.05.06 07:25:00 - [69] Vote Hardin - the right man for the job. Dulce et decorum est pro imperium mori.
Navtiqes Noob Mercs	Posted - 2008.05.06 09:32:00 - [70] rubs pod ball I choose you, Hardin!
Dantalus Portos Amarr 1st Praetorian Guard Vigilia Valeria	Posted - 2008.05.06 10:59:00 - [71] Vote most definitely cast for Hardin. I really liked your statement about not going into CSM with too fixed an agenda. Your role is to discuss, consider and shape the future - not shout and scream to get an election manifesto through to the devs. I truly hope that all members elected understand the role they have been entrusted with as well as you do, Hardin. Top man.
Ezekiel Amann	Posted - 2008.05.06 11:14:00 - [72] Even if Hardin is bias toward any interest, you have to realize so are the others that will be on the council so in that aspect its already balanced. You've got my vote dude. God be with you.
Jecob	Posted - 2008.05.06 11:36:00 - [73] Hardin, you got one of my Votes.
NurAbSal Amarr Imperial Dreams Curatores Veritatis Alliance	Posted - 2008.05.06 12:19:00 - [74] My vote goes for Hardin ofc... :)
Garrick Konquero Gallente ImmCo	Posted - 2008.05.06 15:19:00 - [75] Hardin is a grown-up, a (seemingly) decent bloke, and (evidently) has RL skills relevant to working on the CSM. I'll definitely be considering him for my vote.
Ellyra Caldari Science and Trade Institute	Posted - 2008.05.06 15:46:00 - [76] My vote was cast for Hardin. I believe he has the maturity and mindset for such a task and truly holds the best interest of the EVE universe at heart. I also enjoy the eloquency of this forum posts! Good luck Hardin!
Hardin Amarr Imperial Dreams Curatores Veritatis Alliance	Posted - 2008.05.06 19:51:00 - [77] Thanks for all the support guys. I hope I can get in and repay your trust! ----- Alliance Creation/Corp Expansion Services Advert
Danton Marcellus Nebula Rasa Holdings	Posted - 2008.05.06 21:47:00 - [78] This candidate is being endorsed and promoted on the Nebula Rasa forums. Should/would/could have, HAVE you chav! Also Known As
Ice Baby Caldari Ice Cream Express	Posted - 2008.05.06 22:21:00 - [79] My vote goes to Hardin, because I don't want to see Jade, or any goon being chief of CSM panel. ------------------------------ Adding bounty will not make it easier to kill me.
Faekurias Cash Money Brothers R0ADKILL	Posted - 2008.05.06 23:35:00 - [80] After reading everything about everyone, everywhere, my vote goes to you Hardin. +1 Hope you win. o/
fuze InfoMorph Services Ltd	Posted - 2008.05.06 23:35:00 - [81] Originally by: fuze Q: How come you're the only one mentioning the major reason CSM was formed on your bio? (Others don't) Can you plz answer this question?
Hardin Amarr Imperial Dreams Curatores Veritatis Alliance	Posted - 2008.05.06 23:59:00 - [82] Originally by: fuze Originally by: fuze Q: How come you're the only one mentioning the major reason CSM was formed on your bio? (Others don't) Can you plz answer this question? Maybe they felt it was irrelevant or unimportant? The 'remit' of the CSm certainly has changed from when it was first proposed to what it is today...
fuze InfoMorph Services Ltd	Posted - 2008.05.07 00:21:00 - [83] Thank you for answering. Personally I would very much prefer that CSM would decide its own course without interference of CCP because that will make them credible. They don't have to agree so that there will be discussions based on good arguments.
TimGascoigne	Posted - 2008.05.07 06:12:00 - [84] all your votes are belongs to hardin
ZenRath	Posted - 2008.05.07 10:51:00 - [85] What organisations do you belong to in rl?
Hardin Amarr Crimson-Jihad	Posted - 2008.05.07 12:04:00 - [86] Why? Are you planning on stalking me? ----- Alliance Creation/Corp Expansion Services Advert
ZelRox Reikoku Band of Brothers	Posted - 2008.05.07 12:15:00 - [87] You have my vote. Your rep speaks for itself. ---------------------- BiH 4tw
Joceb	Posted - 2008.05.07 12:40:00 - [88] Not an idiot, Knows his ****.
Hardin Amarr Crimson-Jihad	Posted - 2008.05.07 15:37:00 - [89] Cheers for all the support and votes people. Also wanted to let all supporters know that you can get hold of some snazzy 'Vote Hardin' sigs on my blog site at: http://hardinfaq.blogspot.com/2008/03/get-your-hardin-sig-here-right-click.html This is the latest creation produced independently by Verone: Thanks Verone ----- Alliance Creation/Corp Expansion Services Advert
MineralOel Steuer Amarr OP EC	Posted - 2008.05.07 15:56:00 - [90] Voted for Hardin also looking forward to vote Hardin for Amarr Emperor 2009 !!!11
Vicarrah Minmatar Darkness Of Absolution Eternal Defiance	Posted - 2008.05.07 18:49:00 - [91] Strangely enough, I voted Hardin too. Vicarrah Tahiri Matriarch Advisor to the Executive Council - Eternal Defiance
Hardin Amarr Crimson-Jihad	Posted - 2008.05.07 19:11:00 - [92] Well that's a turn up for the books Thanks (and don't think I am gonna go soft on your freedom fighting brothers and sisters because of this) ----- Alliance Creation/Corp Expansion Services Advert
Yendaj Minmatar Heretic Army Heretic Nation	Posted - 2008.05.07 21:27:00 - [93] Originally by: Hardin Originally by: Kelsin I hesitate to interpret this as saying you will champion the rights of Sovereignty holders without a clear confirmation from you - is that the case? I am not going on to CSM to 'champion' anything for anyone. Unlike Jade, (for whom, incidentally, you seem to be doing such a great cheerleading job) I do not believe that at this stage the candidates for the CSM should be sticking flags in the ground and drawing lines in the sand. I believe that approach is counterproductive, close minded and certainly not the approach I would expect from someone who is try to convince us that they are willing to work as part of a team because that is what the CSM should be. Yes we are all to some extent biased, based upon our experiences in this game (as indicated by my post above) and yes I expect some hearty, healthy debate. However, if the CSM is to be effective its members have to be open minded and make decisions based upon what they think is best for the interests of the game and not just for the benefit of their own alliances or playstyles and I am afraid Jade just hasn't convinced me on that score. I really don't want to spend a week in Iceland with a bunch of people who have already decided how everyone else should play the game and who are not willing to compromise because they have already sold their souls to a variety of forum bandwagons. Fortunately, I am confident that the majority of candidates don't want that either! ^^ This Is why you got my vote... + The fact that you spell the english language correctly!
Maggot Minmatar Neh'bu Kau Beh'Hude Ushra'Khan	Posted - 2008.05.07 22:28:00 - [94] Originally by: Hardin Originally by: Kelsin I hesitate to interpret this as saying you will champion the rights of Sovereignty holders without a clear confirmation from you - is that the case? I am not going on to CSM to 'champion' anything for anyone. Unlike Jade, (for whom, incidentally, you seem to be doing such a great cheerleading job) I do not believe that at this stage the candidates for the CSM should be sticking flags in the ground and drawing lines in the sand. I believe that approach is counterproductive, close minded and certainly not the approach I would expect from someone who is try to convince us that they are willing to work as part of a team because that is what the CSM should be. Yes we are all to some extent biased, based upon our experiences in this game (as indicated by my post above) and yes I expect some hearty, healthy debate. However, if the CSM is to be effective its members have to be open minded and make decisions based upon what they think is best for the interests of the game and not just for the benefit of their own alliances or playstyles and I am afraid Jade just hasn't convinced me on that score. I really don't want to spend a week in Iceland with a bunch of people who have already decided how everyone else should play the game and who are not willing to compromise because they have already sold their souls to a variety of forum bandwagons. Fortunately, I am confident that the majority of candidates don't want that either! Thats pretty uncharitable given the healthy destructable outpost discussion involving you and Jade on the OOC Chatsubo forums. Given the support both of you are getting you might want to be a little less "close minded". Good luck. Maggot.
TimGascoigne	Posted - 2008.05.08 02:01:00 - [95] vote hardin to maintain local and with it your ability to undock.
Verone Veto Corp	Posted - 2008.05.08 02:16:00 - [96] Originally by: Hardin Cheers for all the support and votes people. Also wanted to let all supporters know that you can get hold of some snazzy 'Vote Hardin' sigs on my blog site at: http://hardinfaq.blogspot.com/2008/03/get-your-hardin-sig-here-right-click.html This is the latest creation produced independently by Verone: Thanks Verone Always a pleasure mate. You got my vote any day of the week. >>> THE LIFE OF AN OUTLAW - EVE FICTION <<<
Hardin Amarr Crimson-Jihad Critical Dissent	Posted - 2008.05.08 15:05:00 - [97] Originally by: Maggot Originally by: Hardin Originally by: Kelsin I hesitate to interpret this as saying you will champion the rights of Sovereignty holders without a clear confirmation from you - is that the case? I am not going on to CSM to 'champion' anything for anyone. Unlike Jade, (for whom, incidentally, you seem to be doing such a great cheerleading job) I do not believe that at this stage the candidates for the CSM should be sticking flags in the ground and drawing lines in the sand. I believe that approach is counterproductive, close minded and certainly not the approach I would expect from someone who is try to convince us that they are willing to work as part of a team because that is what the CSM should be. Yes we are all to some extent biased, based upon our experiences in this game (as indicated by my post above) and yes I expect some hearty, healthy debate. However, if the CSM is to be effective its members have to be open minded and make decisions based upon what they think is best for the interests of the game and not just for the benefit of their own alliances or playstyles and I am afraid Jade just hasn't convinced me on that score. I really don't want to spend a week in Iceland with a bunch of people who have already decided how everyone else should play the game and who are not willing to compromise because they have already sold their souls to a variety of forum bandwagons. Fortunately, I am confident that the majority of candidates don't want that either! Thats pretty uncharitable given the healthy destructable outpost discussion involving you and Jade on the OOC Chatsubo forums. Given the support both of you are getting you might want to be a little less "close minded". Good luck. Maggot. As I have said before and will say again I do not oppose Jade's ideas simply because they come from Jade - indeed I think some are quite workable - IF they are balanced properly and take into account that not everyone views EVE in the same way that Jade does. Another candidate made this statement yesterday: Quote: I'm also not necessarily against ANY changes to any particular ships. If it makes it harder to kill miners... who cares? I'm all about balance and if I see an idea which is reasonable, which isn't completely gamebreaking and stupid, then I'll certainly give it the thought and support it warrants. Which is pretty much how I view the whole CSM thing. My concern, as stated above, is that while some of Jade's ideas are probably welcome, taken as a whole they have the potential to be gamebreaking and seem to be driven by an idealistic view of EVE which takes not account of human nature. Do things have to be improved? - Sure. Do we need to completely transform EVE in order to do so? - I don't think so. From reading some of the stuff on the CSM forum you would get the impression that EVE was the most crapilly designed, useless piece of **** game ever designed. Yet if that is the case why are we all still playing it and why do its subscriber numbers keep increasing? If it is so undynamic why are fora such as CAOD and Scrapheap filled with news of epic wars, betrayals, victories and defeats? Jade likes to portray EVE (particlarly 0.0) as some boring undynamic hellhole - in the same way that some real world politicians like to use issues such as 'The Environment' or 'Terrorism' to scare us so that they can levy more taxes or erode more of our personal freedoms. Just as we have to acknowledge that there are real issues with 'Terrorism' and 'The Environment' we can acknowledge that there are problems with 0.0 warfare - but, as we do in real life, we have to recognise when issues are being hyped excessively by pressure groups because it is in their own interests to do so! Maybe I am reading too much into it but I get the impression that you are not happy with me expressing my view about Jade. All I will say is that at least I am open about it. ----- Alliance Creation/Corp Expansion Services Advert
Hardin Amarr Crimson-Jihad Critical Dissent	Posted - 2008.05.08 15:07:00 - [98] Edited by: Hardin on 08/05/2008 15:12:52 Instead Jade chooses to dress his criticism up in pretty words: Quote: "Seriously though I'm hoping that we do get a decent range of independent candidates on the CSM to confront the big-alliance block vote "stuffed-shirt" factor, I'd certainly much rather be working with a variety of interesting and passionate people representing diverse specialties and focus in the game than have to listen to clone "reduce lag so our blobbing works better" speeches from alliance appointees. As far as I am concerned I am not going to CSM to 'confront' anyone because I am not pushing any agenda other than improving this game. However, it is quite clear that Jade simply views this election as an opportunity to confront the 'uninteresting', 'unpassionate', 'alliance appointed', 'stuffed shirts' & 'clones' represented by myself and pretty much everyone else who happens to disagree with Jade... If I am fortunate enough to be elected to CSM I will happily work with Jade and the other candidates to improve this game. However, I will not work with him to wreck it! Jade is a literate, intelliegent guy who has a worthy viewpoint and some good ideas. I just hope that when the election is over and the CSM finally settles down to debate, and discuss which issues to promote with CCP that he is willing to compromise rather than confront. ----- Alliance Creation/Corp Expansion Services Advert
Rawr Cristina Caldari Naqam	Posted - 2008.05.08 17:19:00 - [99] Originally by: Hardin Originally by: Rawr Cristina Sorry if this has been asked before, but: What is your opinion of the Local chat channel, and it's powerful function to allow people to completely avoid PvP? 1) Uncertainty - Uncertainty increases the desire for safety. Safety is obtained by either not travelling to risky areas or seeking saftey in numbers - its human nature. The removal of local increases uncertainty gigantically and unless an effective alternative is put in place it is, in my opinion, more likely to reduce PvP action than increase it. ... I also forgot to add 'sociability' to that. While many players do not interact outside their own corps many others do. Removing local could make EVE even more unfriendly (particularly for new players) place than it is now. There options about how you could reduce the impact of removing local - for instance the channel still exists but only people who talk are shown and instead of a complete list of everyone in the system it instead shows a break down of: Blues XX Neutrals XX Reds XX War Targets XX Not sure how practicable that is though! I partially agree with you. I think Local should definately display the number of people, and act as a 'passive' chat channel much like you suggested. I don't believe however it should be able to determine neutrals from hostiles/WTs, but instead only seperate friendlies from others. That way, if someone who isn't mutually blue with you jumps in, you couldn't be certain if they were hostile or not, but at least had some kind of warning about it and had time to choose whether to risk it or not. Obviously, that's just my opinion. I'm not basing my vote on just that or anything. You already have that ...
Maggot Minmatar Neh'bu Kau Beh'Hude Ushra'Khan	Posted - 2008.05.08 17:54:00 - [100] Hardin, I thought in page one you went to some effort to point out you do not represent a large bloc so how could Jade's comments be relevant to you. Make your mind up mate! For many people the game is broken and Jade realises this, that is why his voice is needed, as is his passion to finding a solution. I am only paying my subs in the hope that the game changes. Representation from others who are happier with current mechanics are equally valid and that is why it is important that both yourself and Jade make it to the Council. The recent discussions on the Chatsubo forum had given me the impression that you both could work with each other, however your direct attacks on this forum leave a very different impression. Maggot.
Hardin Amarr Crimson-Jihad Critical Dissent	Posted - 2008.05.08 18:20:00 - [101] Edited by: Hardin on 08/05/2008 18:21:23 Originally by: Maggot Hardin, The recent discussions on the Chatsubo forum had given me the impression that you both could work with each other, however your direct attacks on this forum leave a very different impression. Direct attacks? Because I said I didn't agree with some of his proposals? I thought this was an election process? I haven't said I won't work with Jade. Indeed some of his proposals are rather good - albeit some may needs some tweaking - and I will be happy to support them! What I won't do is support changes which are unbalanced and focused on promoting a particular playstyle over all others - but even on these points I will be happy to discuss, debate and if necessary compromise. What I am concerned about - which is what I highlighted in the first of my posts which you quoted - is that Jade will not be able (or willing) to compromise because he has entrenched himself so firmly in his anti-terroritorialist, anti-big alliance position. Jade himself has used the word 'confront' to describe his attitude to the CSM. So, if you think I am giving the wrong impression then I suggest you have a word with Jade too... ----- Alliance Creation/Corp Expansion Services Advert
Maggot Minmatar Neh'bu Kau Beh'Hude Ushra'Khan	Posted - 2008.05.08 19:07:00 - [102] Your direct attack is quoted below and has nothing to do with your disagreement of his ideas: Quote: Unlike Jade, (for whom, incidentally, you seem to be doing such a great cheerleading job) I do not believe that at this stage the candidates for the CSM should be sticking flags in the ground and drawing lines in the sand. I believe that approach is counterproductive, close minded and certainly not the approach I would expect from someone who is try to convince us that they are willing to work as part of a team because that is what the CSM should be. What makes you more able to discuss and agree a compromise proposal than Jade? Personally I thought you had both being doing a good job on Chatsubo but you have chosen to start making negative comments about Jade's abilities. I honestly hope you are both in the team but its not "The Apprentice" so no need to start backstabbing each other at this point.
Hardin Amarr Crimson-Jihad Critical Dissent	Posted - 2008.05.08 19:39:00 - [103] I wouldn't exactly call it backstabbing - more like front stabbing But yes... its a circular arguement and we will leave it there. IF Jade and I are fortunate enough to be elected (and that is by no means guaranteed) I am sure we will have some heated discussions but at the end of the day I am sure we will also enjoy a pint together too! Well I hope so anyway ----- Alliance Creation/Corp Expansion Services Advert
Karn Mithralia Neh'bu Kau Beh'Hude Ushra'Khan	Posted - 2008.05.09 09:45:00 - [104] With arguing skills like those ... Maggot for CSM! -----------------------------------------
Katrina Bekers Gallente Sudo Magodo Corp	Posted - 2008.05.09 11:13:00 - [105] Hardin, After some Providence leader told me about your run for CSM, I started studying this thread and the rest of the Jita Park. I have two questions: 1) What is/will be your preferred contact venue? As I understand it, CSM members are supposed to be the watchdogs and "vox populi" carriers for CCP, and thus they need a very strong interface with CCP and even better with playerbase. So, what is your plan about gathering feedback from your representees? Forum? Blog? Private forum? Email? IM? 2) In the rest of this subforum, players are asking specific questions "to the candidates" at large, shotgun style; you often don't answer their calls, while your competitors do. Is that a precise strategy to collect all the Hardin-thought in a single place (this thread), or what? Thank you for your effort. -- Kate :: Dept. Foreign Relations :: Sudo Magodo Corp.
Hardin Amarr The Dark Guards Goodfellas.	Posted - 2008.05.09 11:53:00 - [106] Edited by: Hardin on 09/05/2008 11:55:31 Originally by: Katrina Bekers Hardin, 1) What is/will be your preferred contact venue? As I understand it, CSM members are supposed to be the watchdogs and "vox populi" carriers for CCP, and thus they need a very strong interface with CCP and even better with playerbase. So, what is your plan about gathering feedback from your representees? Forum? Blog? Private forum? Email? IM? People can contact me in game. I have published the names of all three characters and am online and checking eve mail most days - particularly as I have an alliance creation business to run. The only exception to this will be when I am travelling but then I wouldn't be contactable any other way either. Alternatively if people do want an out of game email they could try [email protected] - but be warned I do not check it as regularly as my ingame mail. I may consider redeveloping my blog www.hardinfaq.blogspot.com post the election but haven't really put any thought into how that will work yet. This election is the first time I have done any 'blogging' and I have some interesting ideas of how I will develop it post the election. On a slight aside most people know that I have a huge interest in the 'history' and 'politics' of EVE and I have been particularly impressed by what Yalson has done here: http://www.scrapheap-challenge.com/viewtopic.php?t=15879 so may look at developing a more 'public' up to the minute blog on EVE politics (dependent on time commitments of course). Originally by: Katrina Bekers 2) In the rest of this subforum, players are asking specific questions "to the candidates" at large, shotgun style; you often don't answer their calls, while your competitors do. Is that a precise strategy to collect all the Hardin-thought in a single place (this thread), or what? Yes and no. I have answered some of the other threads where I believe I can make relevant input. Others I have not answered because they apply to aspects of the game that I am either not expert in or have not got any predetermined view of and others are simply asking questions which I have already answered either through my blog or through the EVE Mag interview. I do not believe I should be spamming my opinions on every single EVE issue under the sun purely to win votes. As I have said before we are not being elected to rebuild EVE based upon our own theories of how this game operates. We are being elected to listen to the ideas of the community and as a body work together to identify which of those ideas are workable, in the interests of the entire community and then promote them to CCP. Rather than pontificating on every game design issue under the sun I would rather demonstrate my commitment to the sensible, balanced, non-biaised and successful development of an EVE which is more fun for all of us! ----- Alliance Creation/Corp Expansion Services Advert
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.05.09 12:07:00 - [107] Originally by: Maggot I thought in page one you went to some effort to point out you do not represent a large bloc so how could Jade's comments be relevant to you. Make your mind up mate! It may be presumptuous of me to come and defend Hardin here, but Jade has a history of making these comments that you have to consider and its very clear that he was putting Hardin in the same league as the rest of us who are from large alliances. As he has done before and will do again. To make two "real life" analogies[one each where each side is the "bad" guys to make everything fair]. When the United States talks about "rogue states" its clear they mean Iran and North Korea as much as Iran and North Korea might protest at the U.N. that they do not fit the bill. And when Crimson Jihad says that they won't bow to the U.S. Imperialist Pig Dogs its fairly clear they are talking about the President and Harry Tasker as much as they might say they are not Imperialist Pig Dogs. Hardin might protest the label, but it is clear who Jade is talking about, and Hardin is taking no undue liberties with that section.
Maggot Minmatar Neh'bu Kau Beh'Hude Ushra'Khan	Posted - 2008.05.09 12:53:00 - [108] Goumindong, I am not sure it is "clear" anywhere that Jade's comments related to Hardin. If Hardin choses to put himself in the category of Quote: 'uninteresting', 'unpassionate', 'alliance appointed', 'stuffed shirts' & 'clones' thats up to him. Maggot.
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.05.09 13:05:00 - [109] Originally by: Maggot I am not sure it is "clear" anywhere that Jade's comments related to Hardin. If you've had dealings with Jade in the past it is certainly clear. I don't use the forum that Hardin does when he talks with Jade, but i've had the chance to discuss things with him in the past and it fits the bill perfectly. Vote Goumindong for CSM
Camar Veto. Veto Corp	Posted - 2008.05.09 23:05:00 - [110] I refuse to come to terms with the fact I gave my vote to a dirty amarrian! Oh, please also raise hell regarding making low-sec a bit more attractive MINMATART STRIPS! VIKING LOST...
1st MOAB	Posted - 2008.05.11 14:47:00 - [111] Originally by: Camar I refuse to come to terms with the fact I gave my vote to a dirty amarrian! Oh, please also raise hell regarding making low-sec a bit more attractive A typical comment for a veto guy. but yes compared to level 4 missions in high security low security struggles and needs attention.
Kelsin Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.05.11 15:51:00 - [112] Originally by: Hardin My concern, as stated above, is that while some of Jade's ideas are probably welcome, taken as a whole they have the potential to be gamebreaking and seem to be driven by an idealistic view of EVE which takes not account of human nature. Do things have to be improved? - Sure. Do we need to completely transform EVE in order to do so? - I don't think so. Well Hardin, is it really fair to say that your opinions and biases will be tempered by a sense of fairness and understanding of game balance, but that other candidates somehow lack that ability? The criticisms you're presenting here are so vague as to be equally applicable to you or any other candidate, but you present yourself as somehow fair-minded and rational enough that you can avoid the pitfalls of bias when others cannot.
Octavinus Augustus Amarr Auctoritan Syndicate Curatores Veritatis Alliance	Posted - 2008.05.11 21:12:00 - [113] Originally by: Kelsin Originally by: Hardin My concern, as stated above, is that while some of Jade's ideas are probably welcome, taken as a whole they have the potential to be gamebreaking and seem to be driven by an idealistic view of EVE which takes not account of human nature. Do things have to be improved? - Sure. Do we need to completely transform EVE in order to do so? - I don't think so. Well Hardin, is it really fair to say that your opinions and biases will be tempered by a sense of fairness and understanding of game balance, but that other candidates somehow lack that ability? Actually, this is not exactly what Hardin is saying is it? It seems to me that he's simply expressing a view that part of Jade's vision for EvE might well introduce a whole series of new gamebreaking problems. But I'd better let Hardin himself answer this when he gets around (sorry for putting words in your mouth Hardin). What is actually astonishing is that you, Kelsin, (being such a vocal supporter of Jade's) make this statement regarding Hardin and yet fail to see how well it fits Jade himself. After all, Jade has repeatedly stated that his main purpose behind running is to become a "counterweight" for all those 0.0 alliance representatives who will fight so very hard to keep the status quo in 0.0 - because it is in their interest as alliances (Jade's view). So Jade can be objective while all the other candidates can't? Kelsin, do you not think a bit of soulsearching would be quite needed in your own camp, before throwing around comments such as this about Hardin? Just a suggestion of course. Anyhow, I'll shut up and let Hardin run his own show. He's far better at it than me anyhow. Q: How do you make a disobediant Minmatar slave scream? A: Skin it and roll it in salt.
Kelsin Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.05.12 00:24:00 - [114] Well pretty much all of the candidates have acknowledged that they come to the race and would be coming to the CSM with their own perspectives and biases. But I question the assertion that one candidate would be so blinded by their perspective that they would somehow force game-breaking changes onto CCP, whilst another candidate has some greater self-awareness that would protect them against making that same error. To me this is hubris. Instead I think we'd all be better served by focusing on the CSM as existing to promote the improving of various areas of gameplay as opposed to thinking of the CSM as arbiters of game balance, if you see what I mean by that distinction. And by that same token I'd rather seen candidates running on the strength of their ideas, and if they run on the precept that they will champion improvements to a certain area of the game, that's great and I think we'd benefit by having a spectrum of people with good ideas about all the different parts of the game.
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.05.12 00:51:00 - [115] Originally by: Kelsin Well pretty much all of the candidates have acknowledged that they come to the race and would be coming to the CSM with their own perspectives and biases. But I question the assertion that one candidate would be so blinded by their perspective that they would somehow force game-breaking changes onto CCP, whilst another candidate has some greater self-awareness that would protect them against making that same error. To me this is hubris. Unfortunately its the truth. And there is ample evidence of it. If only in Hardin, Myself, and others clearly arguing against our alliances best interest[and therefor our best interest]. Vote Goumindong for CSM
Archbishop Amarr PIE Inc. Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris	Posted - 2008.05.12 11:38:00 - [116] Edited by: Archbishop on 12/05/2008 11:43:35 When I voted yesterday I took into consideration several things. In the end I found 3-4 really good candidates and almost wish I could've been able to vote for them all. When it was done however I voted for HARDIN as I know he's experienced Eve from many different fronts. Why did I vote for him? 1. He's 100% trustworthy. 2. He's played Eve both in Empire and in 0.0 space where he first was a visitor then a resident. 3. He's recognized the effort it took to colonize 0.0 space and establish a vibrant community (society in effect) in a dark and dangerous corner of space. 4. He's a good friend. Hardin recognizes that while changes may be needed to balance Eve somewhat the concept of "throwing the baby out with the bathwater" isn't the way to go. To me he understands it's always easier to destroy then build and alliances that commit the time and resources to establish a society in 0.0 space shouldn't be at the mercy of some Tom, **** and Harry pvp corp who has never built anything a day in it's life. I play in Empire space 95% of the time but I recognize the good the 0.0 alliances bring to the game. A place where people can explore and colonize and find their own way. While I agree cyno-jammers are a problem I also agree you don't just chang the entire focus of the game. I voted for Hardin and I suggest you do as well! Archbishop PIE WEBSITE & FORUMS
Krystian Caldari Snakes on a Gate	Posted - 2008.05.12 22:55:00 - [117] Edited by: Krystian on 12/05/2008 22:56:43 I have known CVA since my first year of playing EvE. Stable alliance thru worst and best of times. Tho I cannot say I personally know Hardin very well I do know the alliance he stems from is honorable and has given many new players in EvE a shot in 0.0 space. I dont believe there are any alliances left who can claim to have held space longer, been as nice to new players and who have been all around great. The stability, helpfullness and good natured attitude of Hardin's alliance speaks droves for him. From my past colleagues who have worked with him (Huzzah, IAC, No Quarter) I can say he is an honorable respectable man. If you feel uncertain of the other canidates being confusing or shakey in reputation, Hardin by far outstrips them all in competence and ability. He has my vote.
Tissa Minmatar Alice in Wonderland Derek Knows Us	Posted - 2008.05.13 11:24:00 - [118] I voted Hardin because I met both him and rodj at the e-on awards. I found them both to be thoroughly good blokes, Hardin seemed to have his head screwed on right and I trust him to go to Iceland and not be a tit. No wonder you're late. Why, this watch is exactly two days slow. www.evefront.com
Sral TBear Mark Of Chaos	Posted - 2008.05.13 12:21:00 - [119] Edited by: Sral TBear on 13/05/2008 12:21:49 this is wierd, odd and i just done something i never thought i would do. Doing something for someone in CVA. I have votet on you, you darn anti piwate scum On the serius note. You are the most unbiased one. Your answers seems straight and honnest. Hope you get in Sir my vote is yours on other note, hope to give you "popcorn" some time TBear
Gaius Kador PIE Inc.	Posted - 2008.05.13 15:24:00 - [120] Top bloke, gruesome char, which is why you get my vote Hardin ;) If you win, i'd say its time to upgrade your allready enchanced chin to mk.III ----------------------------------------------
Alexi Borizkova Caldari New Age Solutions New Age Solutions Amalgamated	Posted - 2008.05.13 16:11:00 - [121] When I decided I didn't want to train alliance skills, Hardin was the only man offering the service that seemed reliable and trustworthy. From all the times I've read him speak and watched his subsequent actions, my viewpoint has been reinforced. Personally, I believe Hardin believes in working with all the players and playstyles of eve to make a better game for all of us to enjoy, so he gets my vote. Take that for what you will, but also take my votes both of confidence, and at the ballot box.
Malleus Andropov Amarr PIE Inc. Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris	Posted - 2008.05.13 18:06:00 - [122] I'm voting for the best reputation in Eve, Hardin. ps. his chin must be a dyspro moon. -------
Sforza Gallente Reikoku Band of Brothers	Posted - 2008.05.14 09:52:00 - [123] I sent two of my three votes Hardin's way. Having been shot by 'The Chin with the Spin' several times in the past, I have absolute trust that he wants the best for the CSM & EVE, and not just an ego boost. But you HAVE to go to the first CSM with an Amarrian hoodie! Regards Sforza Director, Reikoku Band of Brothers
zoolkhan Minmatar Mirkur Draug'Tyr Fate Weavers	Posted - 2008.05.14 11:51:00 - [124] Edited by: zoolkhan on 14/05/2008 11:53:38 Originally by: Sforza I sent two of my three votes Hardin's way. Having been shot by 'The Chin with the Spin' several times in the past, I have absolute trust that he wants the best i should have shot your more when i had the chance having flown on your side for many years before you defected to BoB -and failed to gain your trust makes my trigger finger itchy :) j/k but, i hate you... a little :) recruiting -forum
TimGascoigne	Posted - 2008.05.14 19:12:00 - [125] only 5 days till hardin becomes are representative
Per Bastet Amarr B.O.O.M Socius Tutaminis Velox	Posted - 2008.05.15 16:16:00 - [126] After doing some Serious Reading and Research, Hardin you have Received my Vote, as well as the Vote from my Second account and my Dad has also Voted for you.
Hardin Amarr Ordo Quaesitoris Magna Ordo	Posted - 2008.05.15 19:10:00 - [127] Thanks for all the positivity folks... Unlike some I don't believe in self bouncing my own threads every other post - so do appreciate all the third party endorsements ----- Alliance Creation/Corp Expansion Services Advert
Thy Filth Hikikomori Broadcast	Posted - 2008.05.15 21:16:00 - [128] I Voted for you Hardin, on both my accounts! I just have a feeling next time I return to Rens im going to get stabbed!
TimGascoigne	Posted - 2008.05.15 22:45:00 - [129] here hardin on EvE Cast 38mins in
Max Teranous The Illuminati. Cruel Intentions	Posted - 2008.05.16 14:11:00 - [130] Originally by: Hardin Thanks for all the positivity folks... Unlike some I don't believe in self bouncing my own threads every other post - so do appreciate all the third party endorsements You got 2 of my votes, so have a free bump Oh, and srspost - your thoughts on the faction warfare implementation? Feel free to reply on SHC or here! Max
Hardin Amarr Imperial Dreams Curatores Veritatis Alliance	Posted - 2008.05.16 15:36:00 - [131] Originally by: Max Teranous Originally by: Hardin Thanks for all the positivity folks... Unlike some I don't believe in self bouncing my own threads every other post - so do appreciate all the third party endorsements You got 2 of my votes, so have a free bump Oh, and srspost - your thoughts on the faction warfare implementation? Feel free to reply on SHC or here! Max Thanks Max :-) And re. my views on FW implementations please see this post which I gave one of the General Discussion threads on the subject: Originally by: VinkNut CVA imo have done a great job of keeping "RP" and a 0.0 alliance, and they probaly did this purley because of lack of content within RP side of eve and trying to keep things moving and not stale. Now there is tools for content an they can not partake as an alliance. EXACTLY While I think that FW as it stands is unlikely to be the death of RP alliances I do think this is an ill thought out proposal from CCP and if I am elected to CSM will be doing what I can to get this sorted... At present pretty most of the major RP factions who have been busy creating their own content for the past 5 years will be excluded from Factional Warfare unless they try and play around it - and they shouldn't have to. I also believe that there are lots of other people (outside the traditional RP alliances) who will want to participate in this opportunity but will be faced with the choice of leaving friends and colleagues to do so. I fail to see why CCP have built up expectations around this launch with some admittedely lovely looking stories and videos and then excluded a large percentage of the player base from participating unless they willingly abandon the very structures/organisations that CCP has been encouarging them to develop for the past five years! ----- Alliance Creation/Corp Expansion Services Advert
Piitaq Gallente 19th Star Logistics	Posted - 2008.05.18 06:13:00 - [132] Hi Hardin, Ive asked a couple of the other CSM candidates this question, and now Ill ask you: What do you think about can flippers? I do some high sec jet can mining from time to time, and I cant help getting frustrated, over people stealing my ore for no other purpose whatsoever, than to provoke a fight. I mean if you want to PvP then go to low sec or null sec and find a target worth figthing. I dont know why it is so popular to target carebears, its not like they get paid for killing a mining barge, and the loot drop is maybe some mining crystals and a shield booster, but ofcourse its an easy kill. Would you back up ideas that help miners with the griefers, or do you think there is enough functionality in place already, like secure cans, "ninja" mining, etc? Or should we just grow some teeth, since this game is for PvPers and not pacifists?
Mag's MASS Ministry Of Amarrian Secret Service	Posted - 2008.05.19 10:54:00 - [133] Much respect to you Hardin. You have my votes. Mag's Originally by: Avernus One of these days, the realization that MASS is no longer significant will catch up with you.
Nachshon Gradient Electus Matari	Posted - 2008.05.29 01:00:00 - [134] Hardin, congratulations on your election. It's nice to see that the RPers got the most votes. ____________________________________ Caldari by birth, Minmatar by citizenship. The True Meaning of Freedom My v

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 :: [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.