Originally by: Leandro Salazar

---

Edited by: Leandro Salazar on 22/05/2008 16:02:44
In the case of clear ridicule and disrespect expressed towards the CSM and EVE as a whole by members of their alliance, as well as the stated intent to disrupt EVE as game by said alliance, I would like to see the two GoonSwarm members on the CSM removed and replaced by the top backups, because the only thing I am confident they will do is make the work of the council harder and do their best to hurt EVE as a game.

Express support or discuss criticism of this idea here. Thank you.

---

Originally by: Moridrex

---

Full love and support. I feel Goons, especially after Jihadswarm, should not be allowed to near game mechanics. Bug reporting is fine. ;)

And I must say props to the Goon who supported this maybe I'll have more respect for you guys. ;)

---

Originally by: Academion

---

Edited by: Academion on 22/05/2008 16:17:24
I would like to support this vote of no confidence, but append a vote of no confidence in the other CSM's and the alternate CSM's as well as in CCP in general and ask for their removal from the game's development.

---

Originally by: Academion

---

Edited by: Academion on 22/05/2008 16:17:24
I would like to support this vote of no confidence, but append a vote of no confidence in the other CSM's and the alternate CSM's as well as in CCP in general and ask for their removal from the game's development.

---

Originally by: Patripassion

---

Originally by: Moridrex

---

Full love and support. I feel Goons, especially after Jihadswarm, should not be allowed to near game mechanics. Bug reporting is fine. ;)

And I must say props to the Goon who supported this maybe I'll have more respect for you guys. ;)

---

A good way to stop this might be to not let anybody with negative sec status have a vote in the CSM council or in this forum!

---

Originally by: Leandro Salazar

---

Edited by: Leandro Salazar on 22/05/2008 16:02:44
In the case of clear ridicule and disrespect expressed towards the CSM and EVE as a whole by members of their alliance, as well as the stated intent to disrupt EVE as game by said alliance, I would like to see the two GoonSwarm members on the CSM removed and replaced by the top backups, because the only thing I am confident they will do is make the work of the council harder and do their best to hurt EVE as a game.

Express support or discuss criticism of this idea here. Thank you.

---

Originally by: Phrixus Zephyr

---

You clearly have no idea of what SA is like. Yes, alot of it is lolgoons, but they're more than capable of intelligent discussion.

See forums like D&D, instead of making rediculous statements based on alliance and hearsay.

(Yes, i am also well aware that the first person to smack me will proberbly be a Goon.)

---

Originally by: Gorobom

---

Originally by: Phrixus Zephyr

---

You clearly have no idea of what SA is like. Yes, alot of it is lolgoons, but they're more than capable of intelligent discussion.

See forums like D&D, instead of making rediculous statements based on alliance and hearsay.

(Yes, i am also well aware that the first person to smack me will proberbly be a Goon.)

---

He can just look at other posts in this very forum. He already signed some started by goons.

---

Originally by: Phrixus Zephyr

---

Originally by: Gorobom

---

Originally by: Phrixus Zephyr

---

You clearly have no idea of what SA is like. Yes, alot of it is lolgoons, but they're more than capable of intelligent discussion.

See forums like D&D, instead of making rediculous statements based on alliance and hearsay.

(Yes, i am also well aware that the first person to smack me will proberbly be a Goon.)

---

He can just look at other posts in this very forum. He already signed some started by goons.

---

Yes and I can also form an opinion of a race/nation of people based on the actions of a few aswell.

Or, you can take my suggestion and go look at SA and find plenty of intelligent discusion that would put anything eve-o has on offer to shame.

---

Originally by: Leandro Salazar

---

Edited by: Leandro Salazar on 22/05/2008 16:02:44
In the case of clear ridicule and disrespect expressed towards the CSM and EVE as a whole by members of their alliance, as well as the stated intent to disrupt EVE as game by said alliance, I would like to see the two GoonSwarm members on the CSM removed and replaced by the top backups, because the only thing I am confident they will do is make the work of the council harder and do their best to hurt EVE as a game.

Express support or discuss criticism of this idea here. Thank you.

---

Originally by: nlewis

---

jammers are the meatshield [Bob] wish their pets were

---

Originally by: Leandro Salazar

---

Edited by: Leandro Salazar on 22/05/2008 16:02:44
In the case of clear ridicule and disrespect expressed towards the CSM and EVE as a whole by members of their alliance, as well as the stated intent to disrupt EVE as game by said alliance, I would like to see the two GoonSwarm members on the CSM removed and replaced by the top backups, because the only thing I am confident they will do is make the work of the council harder and do their best to hurt EVE as a game.

Express support or discuss criticism of this idea here. Thank you.

---

Originally by: Gorobom

---

Originally by: Phrixus Zephyr

---

Originally by: Gorobom

---

Originally by: Phrixus Zephyr

---

You clearly have no idea of what SA is like. Yes, alot of it is lolgoons, but they're more than capable of intelligent discussion.

See forums like D&D, instead of making rediculous statements based on alliance and hearsay.

(Yes, i am also well aware that the first person to smack me will proberbly be a Goon.)

---

He can just look at other posts in this very forum. He already signed some started by goons.

---

Yes and I can also form an opinion of a race/nation of people based on the actions of a few aswell.

Or, you can take my suggestion and go look at SA and find plenty of intelligent discusion that would put anything eve-o has on offer to shame.

---

You misunderstood me.

---

Originally by: Trader Man

---

Totally support the idea, if you think about the whole election then obviously two goons was a rigged election.

In any proper ellection there is a notion of majority voters participating,
CCP claims that there total of around 200k acounts, all in all only around 10k ppl participated, that means only approximatelly 5% of eve population participated.

Lets take this analysis a bit further, according to official statistic average age of participant was around 1,5 game time, that implies that for sure an average participant is totally aware of obnoxiously stupid behavior of goonswarm people, hence the probability of him voting for goonswarm is very low !UNLESS! he is goonswarm member himself.

Goonswarm is a very big and active alliance, they could easily encourage their fellow members on internal forums to vote for their candidates.

This situation would not have occured in the first place if rate of participation was much higher. Although I do realise that it is very difficult to speculate about potential ellection outcome, however I would forecast that if rate of participation was sufficiently high then none of goonswarm members would have been elected.

Maybe an appropriate solution would be to re-run the ellection, but this time introduce some sort of encouragement policy to induce more ppl to vote (carrot cake maybe?)

This way electorate base which be much more representative and will reflect true will of eve comunity !

---

Originally by: Gorobom

---

Originally by: Trader Man

---

Totally support the idea, if you think about the whole election then obviously two goons was a rigged election.

In any proper ellection there is a notion of majority voters participating,
CCP claims that there total of around 200k acounts, all in all only around 10k ppl participated, that means only approximatelly 5% of eve population participated.

Lets take this analysis a bit further, according to official statistic average age of participant was around 1,5 game time, that implies that for sure an average participant is totally aware of obnoxiously stupid behavior of goonswarm people, hence the probability of him voting for goonswarm is very low !UNLESS! he is goonswarm member himself.

Goonswarm is a very big and active alliance, they could easily encourage their fellow members on internal forums to vote for their candidates.

This situation would not have occured in the first place if rate of participation was much higher. Although I do realise that it is very difficult to speculate about potential ellection outcome, however I would forecast that if rate of participation was sufficiently high then none of goonswarm members would have been elected.

Maybe an appropriate solution would be to re-run the ellection, but this time introduce some sort of encouragement policy to induce more ppl to vote (carrot cake maybe?)

This way electorate base which be much more representative and will reflect true will of eve comunity !

---

It already does. It reflects that the "eve comunity" doesn't care about CSM, while Goonswarm does. It reflects that the "eve comunity's true will" is that of not bothering with the game much, while Goonswarm did enough so that they got two members in CSM.

This is what the elections reflect. If the "eve comunity" cared as much as Goons did, then the results would be different. But they didn't. Why should they be psychologically forced to vote? Not every goon voted either.

---

Originally by: Trader Man

---

Imagine this, you got a town - there are 1000 ppl living in this town, during maoyr ellections only mayor himself turned up and 5 of his friends, and everyone obviously voted for mayor. Does that mean that Mayor got right to make new laws which would affect the whole population? Obviously not.

If none else turned up for the ellection they indeed deem this exercise pointless and they do not need a mayor, hence mayor position should not be introduced in the first place.

---

Originally by: schneirder

---

Edited by: schneirder on 22/05/2008 18:02:54

Originally by: Trader Man

---

Imagine this, you got a town - there are 1000 ppl living in this town, during maoyr ellections only mayor himself turned up and 5 of his friends, and everyone obviously voted for mayor. Does that mean that Mayor got right to make new laws which would affect the whole population? Obviously not.

If none else turned up for the ellection they indeed deem this exercise pointless and they do not need a mayor, hence mayor position should not be introduced in the first place.

---

I don't think you "get" democracy. If you don't vote (and a spoiled ballot or otherwise vote of no), then you don't get to complain about the outcome. If you don't want a 'Mayor', then vote in a fashion that demonstrates so.

---

Quote:

---

If you observe any reasonably democratic country in the world, it would say in the constitution that ellections are NOT valid, unless certain % of population turns and unless that particular candidate gets a majority of votes in excess of some threshold.

---

Originally by: schneirder

---

Edited by: schneirder on 22/05/2008 18:02:54

Originally by: Trader Man

---

Imagine this, you got a town - there are 1000 ppl living in this town, during maoyr ellections only mayor himself turned up and 5 of his friends, and everyone obviously voted for mayor. Does that mean that Mayor got right to make new laws which would affect the whole population? Obviously not.

If none else turned up for the ellection they indeed deem this exercise pointless and they do not need a mayor, hence mayor position should not be introduced in the first place.

---

I don't think you "get" democracy. If you don't vote (and a spoiled ballot or otherwise vote of no), then you don't get to complain about the outcome. If you don't want a 'Mayor', then vote in a fashion that demonstrates so.

---

Originally by: Trader Man

---

Clearly your logic is faulty here, if what you said was true, then decisions which CSM makes should ONLY be affecting that small group of ppl.

(words)

P.S. and don't tell me this bulcrap that 80% of goonswarm did not vote for goons swarm representative, that is obviously a lie !

---

Originally by: Ispitane

---

Perhaps Goons, being lesser mortals, should only be awarded three fifths of a vote each?

---

Originally by: Tolis Irithel

---

One thing I haven't seen mentioned in many places within the various CSM-oriented debates concerning voting turnout etc.

A lot of emphasis has been placed on 0.0-related issues not being given appropriate representation on the CSM committee. Now, forgive me if I'm wrong here, but...

1) Take a tight assumption (which I don't agree with) that the GoonSwarm CSM members, and only the GoonSwarm CSM members, are representing 0.0 interests). This represents 2/9, or c. 22% of the CSM.

2) According to the second economic report produced by CCP, only 19% of the "active accounts" within EVE (that moved system) entered 0.0.

Given that 22% > 19%, I *must* be missing something. As much for my own peace of mind as anything else, I'd quite like to know what it is.

---

Originally by: Tolis Irithel

---

One thing I haven't seen mentioned in many places within the various CSM-oriented debates concerning voting turnout etc.

A lot of emphasis has been placed on 0.0-related issues not being given appropriate representation on the CSM committee. Now, forgive me if I'm wrong here, but...

1) Take a tight assumption (which I don't agree with) that the GoonSwarm CSM members, and only the GoonSwarm CSM members, are representing 0.0 interests). This represents 2/9, or c. 22% of the CSM.

2) According to the second economic report produced by CCP, only 19% of the "active accounts" within EVE (that moved system) entered 0.0.

Given that 22% > 19%, I *must* be missing something. As much for my own peace of mind as anything else, I'd quite like to know what it is.

---

Originally by: Tolis Irithel

---

Edited by: Tolis Irithel on 22/05/2008 18:32:05
I was never suggesting that the 22% was wrong, just for clarity; 22%>19% was not an argument that 22% was wrong. (I wouldn't make that argument because I don't agree that 22% is accurate, in any case.)

Fair enough though, you make perfectly good and valid points as to why members of large alliances may be considered to have more knowledge of the problems being discussed. I for one am quite happy with the range of different foci/opinions, on all sides of the debate.

(Editing, because the above post seems to have changed. I'm not really sure where the whole 11%<19% thing was coming from; I've never advocated or encouraged any change in CSM membership at all.)

---

Originally by: Silence Duegood

---

/signed

Goons and their behaviour have no place on the CSM board.

---

Originally by: Ispitane

---

Quote:

---

If you observe any reasonably democratic country in the world, it would say in the constitution that ellections are NOT valid, unless certain % of population turns and unless that particular candidate gets a majority of votes in excess of some threshold.

---

Let's take the United Kingdom, which (rigging of postal votes aside) is somewhat democratic. Please find something somewhere on www.statutelaw.gov.uk that specifies a minimum number of votes for the election of an MP to be valid.

---

Originally by: Tolis Irithel

---

Edited by: Tolis Irithel on 22/05/2008 18:32:05
I was never suggesting that the 22% was wrong, just for clarity; 22%>19% was not an argument that 22% was wrong. (I wouldn't make that argument because I don't agree that 22% is accurate, in any case.)

Fair enough though, you make perfectly good and valid points as to why members of large alliances may be considered to have more knowledge of the problems being discussed. I for one am quite happy with the range of different foci/opinions, on all sides of the debate.

(Editing, because the above post seems to have changed. I'm not really sure where the whole 11%<19% thing was coming from; I've never advocated or encouraged any change in CSM membership at all.)

---

Originally by: nlewis

---

jammers are the meatshield [Bob] wish their pets were

---

Originally by: Trader Man

---

If you observe any reasonably democratic country in the world, it would say in the constitution that ellections are NOT valid, unless certain % of population turns and unless that particular candidate gets a majority of votes in excess of some threshold.

---

Originally by: Trader Man

---

It is absurd to state that simply because 1 country (in that case is UK) does not have certain law mechanism, then this mechanism does not exist elsewhere and does not make sense. I don't know if UK has minimum turnout (and I don't care and I don't want to find out because read above), but many countries do and it seems to be a very logical mechanism.

---

Originally by: Trader Man

---

Well here you go - another stupid argument by goonswarm guy.

---

Originally by: Tolis Irithel

---

Edited by: Tolis Irithel on 22/05/2008 19:16:55
I do realise the problems with the 19% figure I specified above, and in combination with:

1) There are only 9 representatives, so % targets are quite limited.
2) I don't accept the 22%, as I think candidates beyond the two GS candidates are prepared, and able, to look at 0.0 issues; in reality, I believe this to be far higher than 22%. I used this as an approximation because:

a) It's lower than what I think, so by using it I'm making a stronger case.
b) The likely deviance is for an underestimation, offsetting the underestimation in the 19%, whether in part or in full.

22% ~ 19%, and (22+a)% should be closer to (19+b)% than any other combination, hence my support, unless you either genuinely believe that only the GS candidates represent 0.0 issues or that the number of alts/random temporary players is massive. Unfortunately, the only publicly available data on 0.0 entry is a single data point, so the statistical significance, is, admittedly, limited.

---

Originally by: Gorobom

---

There's a lot more issues in 0.0 now than in high-sec. Furthermore, 0.0 players are forced against hard walls more often, making them more aware of the issues of EVE. This, combined with the fact 0.0 is mutable and entirely based on real-player politics, makes 0.0 players much more interested in voting and participating in those politics. This is what they've been doing constantly - politics. 0.0 alliances depend on it much more, since they actually "own" space. 0.0 Alliances are more organized usually, because you need to have well defined politics in order to sustain thousands and thousands of players.

To sum it up: Most High sec players never really faced serious, real politics in this game and care about it less than, say, your average GS member. This is reflected in the elections.

---

Originally by: trading hub

---

That is the case even we do not factor in notion that 50% of active eve population (conservative estimate) hate goons.

---

Originally by: Trader Man

---

I totally agree with the bold part, and hence it is especially strange that 2 gs ppl representing the whole 0.0

This will create biased single view. If you are arguing that 0.0 issues require more attention and hence more weight then fine, maybe we need more candidates from 0.0 elected then % population that actually lives in 0.0, however that implies goons are definently overrepresented

---

Originally by: nlewis

---

jammers are the meatshield [Bob] wish their pets were

---

Originally by: Leandro Salazar

---

I would like to see the two GoonSwarm members on the CSM removed and replaced by the top backups

---

Originally by: Sariyah

---

Agree. I hate goons as many others for the clear attempt to destroy the game.

---

Originally by: Trader Man

---

Totally support the idea, if you think about the whole election then obviously two goons was a rigged election.

In any proper ellection there is a notion of majority voters participating,
CCP claims that there total of around 200k acounts, all in all only around 10k ppl participated, that means only approximatelly 5% of eve population participated.

Lets take this analysis a bit further, according to official statistic average age of participant was around 1,5 game time, that implies that for sure an average participant is totally aware of obnoxiously stupid behavior of goonswarm people, hence the probability of him voting for goonswarm is very low !UNLESS! he is goonswarm member himself.

Goonswarm is a very big and active alliance, they could easily encourage their fellow members on internal forums to vote for their candidates.

This situation would not have occured in the first place if rate of participation was much higher. Although I do realise that it is very difficult to speculate about potential ellection outcome, however I would forecast that if rate of participation was sufficiently high then none of goonswarm members would have been elected.

Maybe an appropriate solution would be to re-run the ellection, but this time introduce some sort of encouragement policy to induce more ppl to vote (carrot cake maybe?)

This way electorate base which be much more representative and will reflect true will of eve comunity !

---

Originally by: Mr Stark

---

Anyone who supports scamming and metagaming does not have the right be on this council. Goonswarm are openly trying to disrupt play for everyone else.

---

Originally by: Inanna Zuni

---

If you don't like who got elected stand for yourself (the 'put up or shut up' position) or join the support team for someone else you do like. But even then , the people who get elected are the ones who take office*.

---

Originally by: Leandro Salazar

---

Originally by: Inanna Zuni

---

If you don't like who got elected stand for yourself (the 'put up or shut up' position) or join the support team for someone else you do like. But even then , the people who get elected are the ones who take office*.

---

As a matter of fact I was a candidate myself and actually finished as the final backup. That you as an actual CSM member are not aware of that...

---

Originally by: Leandro Salazar

---

As a matter of fact I was a candidate myself and actually finished as the final backup. That you as an actual CSM member are not aware of that...

---

Originally by: Leandro Salazar

---

Originally by: Inanna Zuni

---

If you don't like who got elected stand for yourself (the 'put up or shut up' position) or join the support team for someone else you do like. But even then , the people who get elected are the ones who take office*.

---

As a matter of fact I was a candidate myself and actually finished as the final backup. That you as an actual CSM member are not aware of that...

---

Originally by: Leandro Salazar

---

Edited by: Leandro Salazar on 22/05/2008 16:02:44
In the case of clear ridicule and disrespect expressed towards the CSM and EVE as a whole by members of their alliance, as well as the stated intent to disrupt EVE as game by said alliance, I would like to see the two GoonSwarm members on the CSM removed and replaced by the top backups, because the only thing I am confident they will do is make the work of the council harder and do their best to hurt EVE as a game.

Express support or discuss criticism of this idea here. Thank you.

---

Originally by: cimmaron

---

Edited by: cimmaron on 23/05/2008 00:21:25

Originally by: Leandro Salazar

---

Edited by: Leandro Salazar on 22/05/2008 16:02:44
In the case of clear ridicule and disrespect expressed towards the CSM and EVE as a whole by members of their alliance, as well as the stated intent to disrupt EVE as game by said alliance, I would like to see the two GoonSwarm members on the CSM removed and replaced by the top backups, because the only thing I am confident they will do is make the work of the council harder and do their best to hurt EVE as a game.

Express support or discuss criticism of this idea here. Thank you.

---

I agree, Failswarm has no place on the council, they do enough to pollute eve as it is.

---

Originally by: Rawr Cristina

---

I don't like goons as a whole either, but they're people just like us arn't they?

---

Originally by: Leandro Salazar

---

... would like to see the two GoonSwarm members on the CSM removed and replaced by the top backups ... please note that this thread was a direct response to THIS one.

---

Originally by: Leandro Salazar

---

Edited by: Leandro Salazar on 23/05/2008 08:03:24
In the case of clear ridicule and disrespect expressed towards the CSM and EVE as a whole by members of their alliance, as well as the stated intent to disrupt EVE as game by said alliance, I would like to see the two GoonSwarm members on the CSM removed and replaced by the top backups, because the only thing I am confident they will do is make the work of the council harder and do their best to hurt EVE as a game.

Express support or discuss criticism of this idea here. Thank you.

DISCLAIMER:
If you are not a Goon but intend to defend them, before you jump into this thread, brandishing your Sword of Righteousness +5, and defend the human rights of every Goon ever born and mark me as a rascist, fascist, murderer of democracy and public enemy #1, please note that this thread was a direct response to THIS one. Then think long and hard about the meaning of words like irony and parody...

---

Originally by: Felysta Sandorn

---

Considering that goons have outright said they are here for the 'lulz' and just want to ruin other player's gaming experiences, I'm inclined to agree with the OP... The fact of the matter is, if goons wanted to, they could create a thread in this forum and give it 1000 thumbs up at the drop of the hat, making the whole idea completely impractical. I for one don't want to wait for that to happen before someone realises a mistake has been made.

I'd say a maximum of one player per alliance should be in the CSM, meaning get rid of one of the goons. That way at least we can retain some of the sanity from this mockery of a council.

---

Originally by: Scagga Laebetrovo

---

Based on the reasoning behind your proposal, I rate you lower than any goon. Well done on shooting yourself in the foot three times in the same post.

I would suggest a vote of no confidence be a recourse available to CSM members, not voters. Furthermore, it could only binding if the move acquired a strong majority (e.g. probably at least 6 or 7/9 CSM members).

---

Originally by: Leandro Salazar

---

Originally by: Scagga Laebetrovo

---

Based on the reasoning behind your proposal, I rate you lower than any goon. Well done on shooting yourself in the foot three times in the same post.

I would suggest a vote of no confidence be a recourse available to CSM members, not voters. Furthermore, it could only binding if the move acquired a strong majority (e.g. probably at least 6 or 7/9 CSM members).

---

Sigh...
A real shame that the irony is lost on pretty much everyone except the goons themselves it seems. I really should have remembered that I learned long ago that subtleties like irony are not taught in todays schools anymore before I started this.
Oh well, it IS fun regardless (or maybe because?) of the ignorance abound.

---

Originally by: Scagga Laebetrovo

---

Two wrongs don't make a right, ever.

Your propositions are completely unethical and suggest that one can discriminate against a person based on actions of his alliance members. Your lack of insight in this matter is even more disturbing.

---

Originally by: Leandro Salazar

---

Originally by: Scagga Laebetrovo

---

Two wrongs don't make a right, ever.

Your propositions are completely unethical and suggest that one can discriminate against a person based on actions of his alliance members. Your lack of insight in this matter is even more disturbing.

---

No. What is truly disturbing is your total lack of understanding of the meaning of irony and parody. Try this and this

And if that is not good enough, here it is in plain text: The OP was supposed to poke fun at the other thread and is not a serious proposal. Tbh I was expecting it to be locked within an hour. But I guess the mods must be having fun reading here too lol.

---

Originally by: Lord XSiV

---

How about a vote of no confidence for the entire CSM?

Afterall, it is hardly a democratic representation of the community if only 11% of the population turned out to vote. In fact, the vote by itself shows a no confidence in the the process so it most certainly should be scrapped.

As a paying customer I would rather see the money being spent on improving the game rather than giving out free trips to iceland based on a popularity contest.

---

Originally by: Christy Walton

---

QFT.

11% shows exactly that, players DO NOT WANT CSM to speak for us. But, Jades' got another free trip!

---

Originally by: Felysta Sandorn

---

Considering that goons have outright said they are here for the 'lulz' and just want to ruin other player's gaming experiences, I'm inclined to agree with the OP... The fact of the matter is, if goons wanted to, they could create a thread in this forum and give it 1000 thumbs up at the drop of the hat, making the whole idea completely impractical. I for one don't want to wait for that to happen before someone realises a mistake has been made.

I'd say a maximum of one player per alliance should be in the CSM, meaning get rid of one of the goons. That way at least we can retain some of the sanity from this mockery of a council.

---

Originally by: Lord XSiV

---

How about a vote of no confidence for the entire CSM?

Afterall, it is hardly a democratic representation of the community if only 11% of the population turned out to vote. In fact, the vote by itself shows a no confidence in the the process so it most certainly should be scrapped.

As a paying customer I would rather see the money being spent on improving the game rather than giving out free trips to iceland based on a popularity contest.

---

Originally by: Gordon Antilis

---

No Support!

Goonswarm has done a lot for the community, and have single handedly destroyed far worse enemies in the Eve Universe. Goons wouldn't have been voted in if the people didn't want it.

---

Originally by: Silence Duegood

---

The above is the stupidest post I've read in a long while.

I'll be sitting on the edge of my seat waiting for you to cite some examples of what wonderous things GS has done for the community (DoS attacks and racial/sexist discriminatory remarks don't really count, btw).

This game (let alone the CSM board) would be a far better place without them and their petulance.

---

Originally by: Silence Duegood

---

Originally by: Gordon Antilis

---

No Support!

Goonswarm has done a lot for the community, and have single handedly destroyed far worse enemies in the Eve Universe. Goons wouldn't have been voted in if the people didn't want it.

---

The above is the stupidest post I've read in a long while.

I'll be sitting on the edge of my seat waiting for you to cite some examples of what wonderous things GS has done for the community (DoS attacks and racial/sexist discriminatory remarks don't really count, btw).

This game (let alone the CSM board) would be a far better place without them and their petulance.

---

Originally by: nlewis

---

jammers are the meatshield [Bob] wish their pets were

---

Originally by: Silence Duegood

---

Originally by: Gordon Antilis

---

No Support!

Goonswarm has done a lot for the community, and have single handedly destroyed far worse enemies in the Eve Universe. Goons wouldn't have been voted in if the people didn't want it.

---

The above is the stupidest post I've read in a long while.

I'll be sitting on the edge of my seat waiting for you to cite some examples of what wonderous things GS has done for the community (DoS attacks and racial/sexist discriminatory remarks don't really count, btw).

This game (let alone the CSM board) would be a far better place without them and their petulance.

---

Originally by: Darius JOHNSON

---

The examples you've asked for are all over. In my CSM thread for one. The attacks and whetever you're allegating simply haven't occurred. Show proof or get out. Goonswarm has never, ever engaged in any illegal activity.

:edit: I'd like to note that you're the petulant one ITT.

---

Originally by: Darius JOHNSON

---

Goonswarm has never, ever engaged in any illegal activity.

---

Quote:

---

The fact that this attack took place over a holiday weekend was especially revealing of motive, which we believe was specifically by design to ensure that CCP would not be able to react as fast and efficiently as we would under normal circumstances. The allegations investigated above by this internal affairs department will also be examined by our legal resources, as we do not intend to sit idly by while our servers, community and reputation are under attack.

---

Originally by: LaVista Vista

---

Darius, did you read this devblog?

---

Originally by: LaVista Vista

---

Originally by: Darius JOHNSON

---

Goonswarm has never, ever engaged in any illegal activity.

---

Darius, did you read this devblog?

---

Originally by: Silence Duegood

---

I mean, GS is famous for what among the playerbase? Furthering the game? Helping people? No.

---

Originally by: Silence Duegood

---

Originally by: Darius JOHNSON

---

The examples you've asked for are all over. In my CSM thread for one. The attacks and whetever you're allegating simply haven't occurred. Show proof or get out. Goonswarm has never, ever engaged in any illegal activity.

:edit: I'd like to note that you're the petulant one ITT.

---

Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha...

Seriously, are you delusional? I mean, GS is famous for what among the playerbase? Furthering the game? Helping people? No.

Goatse links, sponsorship scams, sexism, racism, griefing, GS members/leadership have even openly admitted to wanting to disrupt and/or ruin the game for others en masse.

What proof do I need? It's common knowledge the GS was responsible for the DoS attacks on EVE/CCP a while back. People know and have observed what you all do. You can be delusional in your blog all you'd like regarding how amazing GS is for the community. However, most people with half a brain can spend a week in the game and find out for themselves that GS is held in low regard for a reason - you all are childish and play the game to 'win' and to grief people.

---

Originally by: Theramin Dogon

---

Edited by: Theramin Dogon on 26/05/2008 22:56:29
I support your vote of no confidence thread, as well as your "**** goons" stance.

Originally by: Silence Duegood

---

I mean, GS is famous for what among the playerbase? Furthering the game? Helping people? No.

---

So I guess you've never heard of a little program called "EVEmon".

---

Originally by: Silence Duegood

---

stuff

---

Originally by: Calyce

---

I agree to an extent.
The council themselves should be able to ahve a vote of no confidence in other members, but only after they have had time to see what the person is like/doing.

This whole bloomin no confidence before the CSM has even done anything is completely stupid.

The two goonies who were voted in I have confidence in, but some of the utter ****ers who happen to be in the same alliance shoud be banned from the human race.

On the whole I'd say, no, we voters shouldn't have any more say in the matter once we have voted the members in. Thes rest should be up to the CSM candidates that we voted for.

If you didn't vote, then maybe next time you will actually bother to vote.

silence == acceptance.

---

Originally by: Claire Lacombe

---

Subverting electoral systems by those who gain power seems like a good way to introduce credibility into such a fledgling system.

---

Originally by: Esmenet

---

Your own posts show that the goons give a certain flavour to the game that is valuable.

---

Originally by: Silence Duegood

---

Originally by: Theramin Dogon

---

Edited by: Theramin Dogon on 26/05/2008 22:56:29
I support your vote of no confidence thread, as well as your "**** goons" stance.

Originally by: Silence Duegood

---

I mean, GS is famous for what among the playerbase? Furthering the game? Helping people? No.

---

So I guess you've never heard of a little program called "EVEmon".

---

This is about the most inane thing I've read in a while. That someone would post something so fundamentally lacking in reason and logic is pretty incredible. However, this is Goons we're talking about.

What one or two members do with a piece of software does not speak to the entirety of Goonswarm. Did you all help with the development of the programs? Were you all pecking at the keyboard like a thousand monkies to assist with the software?

Goonswarm IN GENERAL have demonstrated through actions and blatant admissions that it is their intention to ruin the game for others, and to grief people out of the game through any means necessary.

The actions (and admissions) of hundreds of you speak to the group as a whole. That one or two of you develop some useful software does not.

Nice try though. I'll look forward to more Goons bumping this thread.

---

Originally by: Jowen Datloran

---

Originally by: LaVista Vista

---

Darius, did you read this devblog?

---

Oh, I had nearly forgotten about that.

Guess I won't now.

---

Originally by: schneirder

---

Members of Goonfleet have done nothing but damage this game, and I support this.

---