| Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Goumindong
Merch Industrial
GoonSwarm
   |
Posted - 2008.06.16 11:57:00 -
[121]
 Originally by: LaVista Vista
Originally by: Goumindong
Well, what was his paragraph on it say? And what did the links say.
Aside: This wouldn't be a problem be if discussion list was public. Oh **** now were taking things out of context because there isn't the context to back **** up. Its almost as if that is more likely to happen when the list is private.
Or maybe it wouldn't have happened if all submission templates were public. 
The template is public, Jade released it in the meeting for agenda subject. The submission isn't.
I still fail to see how more context can ever be bad.
|
Toman Jerich
Ars ex Discordia
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.06.16 13:17:00 -
[122]
LaVista, there are basically two valid cases here you could have fallen under.
1) You don't know anything about capital ships. In that case, I would at least expect you to know that Bane himself is pretty much the living document of capital ship issues and potential solutions, and that you really ought to just trust that he's going to send something worth discussing to CCP.
2) You're familiar with capital ships and have an intuitive grasp of the issues with them and how interrelated those issues all are, and so you would cut Bane some slack because you have an intuitive grasp of the issues he was pointing at in the 5 minutes or whatever you gave him to write his explanation out in the meeting.
But you chose:
3) Stand in the way of progress in the interest of covering your ass, because oh no what rogue ideas will Bane send to CCP that you would actually have objected to if only you had known what crazy things he was going to write! Surely that mad goon won't send anything within the realm of the hundreds of Eve-o posts he's made on the topic. And what if CCP doesn't approve of how well the submission is organized! They might frown at you and scold you in iceland!
Basically, you're like the FAA telling Santa Clause he can't deliver presents to the little kids because he didn't get the paperwork in for his pilot's license.
|
Keddren Fel
|
Posted - 2008.06.16 13:38:00 -
[123]
Why do you hate the little children, LaVista? :(
|
Theramin Dogon
GoonFleet
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.06.16 13:49:00 -
[124]
Originally by: Toman Jerich
LaVista, there are basically two valid cases here you could have fallen under.
1) You don't know anything about capital ships. In that case, I would at least expect you to know that Bane himself is pretty much the living document of capital ship issues and potential solutions, and that you really ought to just trust that he's going to send something worth discussing to CCP.
2) You're familiar with capital ships and have an intuitive grasp of the issues with them and how interrelated those issues all are, and so you would cut Bane some slack because you have an intuitive grasp of the issues he was pointing at in the 5 minutes or whatever you gave him to write his explanation out in the meeting.
But you chose:
3) Stand in the way of progress in the interest of covering your ass, because oh no what rogue ideas will Bane send to CCP that you would actually have objected to if only you had known what crazy things he was going to write! Surely that mad goon won't send anything within the realm of the hundreds of Eve-o posts he's made on the topic. And what if CCP doesn't approve of how well the submission is organized! They might frown at you and scold you in iceland!
Basically, you're like the FAA telling Santa Clause he can't deliver presents to the little kids because he didn't get the paperwork in for his pilot's license.
If we can't trust the CSMs to pay attention to issues other than their own, I guess we'll never see any progress. Hell, hardly any of them post anyway, which doesn't do the public any good. Darius and Jade are the most prolific posters, but all they seem to do is argue. You'd think that with all the energy they spend arguing, they'd both be against the release of e-mails...but Darius wasn't. Jade even said before the meeting that if it did pass, he'd stop using the mailing list and use something else where he could keep his communications secret. What does Jade have to hide? He'd even said he was in favor of a more open, transparent process, but I guess he was just assuming there would a goon conspiracy. |
Illaria
|
Posted - 2008.06.16 13:49:00 -
[125]
Originally by: Toman Jerich
LaVista, [...]
But you chose:
3) Stand in the way of progress in the interest of covering your ass, because oh no what rogue ideas will Bane send to CCP that you would actually have objected to if only you had known what crazy things he was going to write! Surely that mad goon won't send anything within the realm of the hundreds of Eve-o posts he's made on the topic. And what if CCP doesn't approve of how well the submission is organized! They might frown at you and scold you in iceland!
Basically, you're like the FAA telling Santa Clause he can't deliver presents to the little kids because he didn't get the paperwork in for his pilot's license.
No one right in his mind, will vote on a carte blanche, just to cut you some slack.
Yes, while Bane is indeed one of the more respected GoonSwarm members and the capital issue appears less politically "loaded" now that the BoB vs. Coalition war is over, it doesn't relieve him of the duty to clarify and define what he puts up for vote.
It's a bit amusing that Goons like to paint themselves as champions of transparency in one case, but demand that the other CSM members will blindly vote on their issues, relying only on good faith.
----
Darius Johnson, not MY CSM. |
Anthony Pants
|
Posted - 2008.06.16 14:17:00 -
[126]
[ 2008.06.15 21:24:19 ] Ankhesentapemkah > Sorry, I must also say no because I dont have insight in the documentation and because I do not think this issue is currently unbalancing.
[ 2008.06.15 21:54:29 ] Ankhesentapemkah > people do not even understand my issue
[ 2008.06.15 21:54:45 ] Ankhesentapemkah > no listen to what I have to say
HOW IRONIC. |
Goumindong
Merch Industrial
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.06.16 14:26:00 -
[127]
Originally by: Illaria
Yes, while Bane is indeed one of the more respected GoonSwarm members and the capital issue appears less politically "loaded" now that the BoB vs. Coalition war is over, it doesn't relieve him of the duty to clarify and define what he puts up for vote.
It's a bit amusing that Goons like to paint themselves as champions of transparency in one case, but demand that the other CSM members will blindly vote on their issues, relying only on good faith.
It did however, relieve quite a few other members of that responsibility.
|
Slanty McGarglefist
University of Caille
|
Posted - 2008.06.16 14:34:00 -
[128]
I assume then that the 30 & 90 day GTC issue will not be raised to CCP at Iceland? I'm surprised it wasn't one of the discussed topics.
__________________________________________________
Originally by: CCP Wrangler
No
Doh! |
MotherMoon
Huang Yinglong
|
Posted - 2008.06.16 14:42:00 -
[129]
Originally by: Slanty McGarglefist
I assume then that the 30 & 90 day GTC issue will not be raised to CCP at Iceland? I'm surprised it wasn't one of the discussed topics.
allready happen
|
MotherMoon
Huang Yinglong
|
Posted - 2008.06.16 14:43:00 -
[130]
Originally by: LASER WATCHER
Originally by: MotherMoon
Originally by: LASER WATCHER
Edited by: LASER WATCHER on 16/06/2008 10:02:16
CSM is a council that is supposed to represent us to CCP, I want to know how they are deciding to represent us fully before they go and do it.
i am agreeing with goumindong i am agreeing with goumindong oh god
to bad I don't trust people that have an agenda (note I'm talking about a LOT of people that want to target jade) to take these e-mails that will nothing to do with CSM and they will use them. I mean hell if I had something against him that's what I do 
So, if there is a reason to not trust him, the information should stay private?
no it should go to CCP so they can chem him apart. and then be made public as CCP sees fit.
|
|
|
Slanty McGarglefist
University of Caille
|
Posted - 2008.06.16 15:19:00 -
[131]
Originally by: MotherMoon
Originally by: Slanty McGarglefist
I assume then that the 30 & 90 day GTC issue will not be raised to CCP at Iceland? I'm surprised it wasn't one of the discussed topics.
allready happen
Thanks.
__________________________________________________
Originally by: CCP Wrangler
No
Doh! |
Jade Constantine
|
Posted - 2008.06.16 15:38:00 -
[132]
The problem with the capitals online issue was that A) we didn't get to see the presentation notes and the documentation we did see was very brief and generalized. and B) (and this is an important one) - there were some very specific and contentious ideas expressed there that needed to be split up into different topics in order that we could vote on each element properly.
An idea like "reducing the skill reqs for capital use" is a huge thing and its an entirely different issue to "rebalancing the cpu reqs on capital shield xfer modules". Basically the issue was TOO big and all-encompassing while at the same time presenting some specific proposals that a majority of the CSM did not support.
I'll happily go on record and say right now that I do not find a good argument in the proposition that the "capitals online" problem can in any way be solved by reducing the skill reqs for capital pilots and allowing more alliances to spam capitals in fleet combat. It just didn't make ANY sense to me and I couldn't in all conscience vote for an issue that included this as a proposal.
As I've already stated elsewhere in relation to my campaign docs and the Issues I have supported, I believe the solution to "capitals online" is to increase the incidence of capital combat and loss through introducing greater necessity to expose these ships to formal combat risk and let natural attrition handle the problem.
This could be done in various ways: changing the sov system to be less defensively orientated. Aggression timers for station warfare, hell maybe introducing a timer to re-enter POS shields after you fire or activate a repper. I've already spoken on the Titan issue and I'd like them to be forced to remain on the field longer after they DD.
But basically I think the solution to "capital spam" is make the game harder for capitals and increase the risk they suffer on involvement in pvp contention. See more of them explode, we'll see less ridiculous over-spam.
So thats my position on the issue, and I completely oppose the principle that you deal with a "problem class" or "technique" by lowering the barriers to entry for that class or technique. Thats just counter-intuitive and in this specific case transcends game-balance into the realm of seeking partisan advantage for a hypothetical alliance for superior numbers of relatively low-skilled pilots and an aspiration to sit at the big boys capital table without doing the same training their rivals have already done to attain competency and military advantage in this field.
CSM Manifesto 2008 | Destroy Outposts! |
Martin VanBuren
GoonFleet
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.06.16 15:58:00 -
[133]
yo I aint reading that
|
Nynaeve Ares
Animus Incarnate
|
Posted - 2008.06.16 16:33:00 -
[134]
Edited by: Nynaeve Ares on 16/06/2008 16:34:24
The "!" and "(end)" things needs to be used properly. Towards the end the meeting it went to crap with people being skipped, people interrupting and people repeating what they had already said over and over because some stated an opposing view. If you can't explain yourself properly or have a misleading title for an issue well thats your own dam fault, take some time on it and bring it up in a later meeting.
Also we only need Support and Deny as options for when taking votes not: aye, nay, support, not support, yes, no, yeah, no support, support escalation, ****ing nay, deny.
|
Darius JOHNSON
|
Posted - 2008.06.16 17:48:00 -
[135]
Edited by: Darius JOHNSON on 16/06/2008 17:49:07
We can say what we will about the documentation provided, to date voting to bring an issue to Iceland has had very little to do with the individual's opinion. It was a recognition that the root issue warranted a discussion with CCP. This was something you'll find I even stated during the meeting, but which was glossed over in the interest of nitpicking about Bane's individual discussion points.
As I said... for a discussion issue each of us is perfectly capable of providing their own viewpoint. Just because Bane already has some ideas that doesn't mean that these ideas are the only things that will be considered by CCP in Iceland. We're voting to have a dialog. Not to approve the individual proposed solutions. The results of the vote yesterday indicate that 5 out of 9 of our CSM reps do not want to have a dialog about capital ships with CCP. Interestingly enough most of the dissenters live in empire if not all, where capital ships serve no purpose.
Voting to discuss an idea never had anything to do with agreeing with the details of an individual's specific proposal. I don't agree with some of the specifics in Jade's proposal regarding destructible outposts for instance. I still voted to have the conversation in Iceland because I feel it's a worthy conversation to have and who am I to say that simply because an idea only had 40 votes of approval we shouldn't talk about it?
Ultimately I don't believe the negative vote was an act of maliciousness, but attribute it to either a short-sighted myopia or a flat-out lack of concern because the issue doesn't impact the people involved. Either way isn't positive. Hopefully next time around people can look at the issue objectively or at least admit that they don't understand it and allow those who do to have their conversation.
Originally by: Jade Constantine
You might be a big man on the internets Darius but prepare to be laughed at quite a lot in Europe.
--
Illaria's CSM |
Pnuka
GoonFleet
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.06.16 19:02:00 -
[136]
Originally by: Jade Constantine
Thats just counter-intuitive and in this specific case transcends game-balance into the realm of seeking partisan advantage for a hypothetical alliance for superior numbers of relatively low-skilled pilots and an aspiration to sit at the big boys capital table without doing the same training their rivals have already done to attain competency and military advantage in this field.
Your thinly veiled jabs at BoB just earned you a few points in my book.
|
Goumindong
Merch Industrial
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.06.16 19:10:00 -
[137]
Originally by: Jade Constantine
So thats my position on the issue, and I completely oppose the principle that you deal with a "problem class" or "technique" by lowering the barriers to entry for that class or technique. Thats just counter-intuitive and in this specific case transcends game-balance into the realm of seeking partisan advantage for a hypothetical alliance for superior numbers of relatively low-skilled pilots and an aspiration to sit at the big boys capital table without doing the same training their rivals have already done to attain competency and military advantage in this field.
I hate to be the one to break this to you, but we're the big boys. Getting cap ship pilots is not a problem for us.
|
Silence Duegood
|
Posted - 2008.06.16 19:25:00 -
[138]
Originally by: Serenity Steele
[2008.06.15 18:18:58 ] Serenity Steele > Almost every ship class has a lame-duck ship in 1/4 races of EvE. Is the NightHawk any different to the lame duck for field command ships?
As someone who voted for Serenity I have to admit that the above statment is pretty damn disappointing. The rather brief and casual glance that the Nighthawk issue/thread was apparently given, and the total lack of understanding of the problem (and some of the amazing responses), have me genuinely concerned over some of the CSM choices.
|
Darius JOHNSON
|
Posted - 2008.06.16 20:06:00 -
[139]
Originally by: Silence Duegood
Originally by: Serenity Steele
[2008.06.15 18:18:58 ] Serenity Steele > Almost every ship class has a lame-duck ship in 1/4 races of EvE. Is the NightHawk any different to the lame duck for field command ships?
As someone who voted for Serenity I have to admit that the above statment is pretty damn disappointing. The rather brief and casual glance that the Nighthawk issue/thread was apparently given, and the total lack of understanding of the problem (and some of the amazing responses), have me genuinely concerned over some of the CSM choices.
As I said during the voting... I don't think it's our place to get caught up in the minutiae of buffing or not buffing individual shiptypes. I'd honestly prefer we concern ourselves with at least the barest oversight was was initially intended and high-level issues. If the Nighthawk issue gains more support then I'd be happy to bring it, as is required.
Originally by: Jade Constantine
You might be a big man on the internets Darius but prepare to be laughed at quite a lot in Europe.
--
Illaria's CSM |
Silence Duegood
|
Posted - 2008.06.16 20:22:00 -
[140]
Edited by: Silence Duegood on 16/06/2008 20:23:48
Originally by: Darius JOHNSON
As I said during the voting... I don't think it's our place to get caught up in the minutiae of buffing or not buffing individual shiptypes. I'd honestly prefer we concern ourselves with at least the barest oversight was was initially intended and high-level issues. If the Nighthawk issue gains more support then I'd be happy to bring it, as is required.
Thanks for the response, Darius.
In some ways I agree with your take that the CSM should try to refrain from getting too engaged with micromanaging nuances, versus tackling larger issues. However, as Caldari ships go (I have four characters, one for each race) this is a fairly glaring issue.
It's the only missile-based Caldari Command Ship, and the problem is not a small one (which a moderately focused read of the thread(s) will show). The problem has existed as long as the ship (read years). I don't expect a huge quantity of support, as not many people bother flying it. However, if you look at the linked thread from the Ideas and Features forum, it is up to 17 pages if I recall, and months old.
The numbers and math are there. It would take the Devs all of 10 minutes of coding to fix the issue. When you compare the ship to the Sleipnir (also a shield tanking Field Command) the Nighthawk is truly a joke.
Trust me, I do realize and very much respect your take on wanting to avoid small balance changes to ships. However, this is an old issue, one for which there is plenty of firm evidence and math to back it up (not opinions or preferences), and one which it would take only a trivial bit of coding to fix.
So, while it might seem to be a small ship balance issue, it's an old problem, and trivial to prove and to fix. Investment in time versus reward on the problem is enormous.
|
|
|
Hamfast
|
Posted - 2008.06.16 20:25:00 -
[141]
Now that it's too late...
It seems to me that a CSM member with no idea or opinion on a subject when the vote comes up would be to abstain from that vote... thus a issue could be approved (or fail) with a 3/2 (4 abstain) vote...
On the Public nature of the CSM, with luck, there will be another CSM after this one, and another after that... making the vast majority of what the CSM does Public would help the later CSM's skip over the problems this one faces having learned from it. Granted, some of the communications need to held private as they may cross the NDA line.
Lastly, Darius, I think you are mistaken on the "Submitted" information, while there will be "discussions" with CCP in Iceland, they (CCP) is required to respond to the documented issues submitted, if the document is lacking focus, then the response will be of little value.
--------*****--------
Learn and be informed, because a Politicians worst nightmare is an informed voter...
So choose your CSM Candidates wisely
|
Goumindong
Merch Industrial
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.06.16 20:33:00 -
[142]
Originally by: Hamfast
Lastly, Darius, I think you are mistaken on the "Submitted" information, while there will be "discussions" with CCP in Iceland, they (CCP) is required to respond to the documented issues submitted, if the document is lacking focus, then the response will be of little value.
The problem is, is that many issues have been passed onto CCP in the guise of "having a discussion"
|
Goumindong
Merch Industrial
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.06.16 20:44:00 -
[143]
Originally by: Silence Duegood
It's the only missile-based Caldari Command Ship, and the problem is not a small one (which a moderately focused read of the thread(s) will show). The problem has existed as long as the ship (read years). I don't expect a huge quantity of support, as not many people bother flying it. However, if you look at the linked thread from the Ideas and Features forum, it is up to 17 pages if I recall, and months old.
The problem is, on the scope of things fairly small, and non-critical. Its one ship in a line of missile using ships for a purpose that directly mimics what Drakes do(and the Drake is fantastic). Now, it may be clearly lacking in powergrid(or hams using too much), but how easy an issue is to see doesn't necessarily mean that it should be escalated.
I don't personally think it something that requires the council discussing it with CCP yet. And it looks like the majority of the council agreed. However, you can always ask Jade to see if he can make the argument on the side regarding the issue. It just means you won't get an official response and Jade probably can't tell you anything about how it went(NDA). But it might get something done.
|
Herschel Yamamoto
Bloodmoney Incorporated
|
Posted - 2008.06.16 21:15:00 -
[144]
Originally by: Hamfast
It seems to me that a CSM member with no idea or opinion on a subject when the vote comes up would be to abstain from that vote... thus a issue could be approved (or fail) with a 3/2 (4 abstain) vote...
I'm pretty sure CCP has banned abstentions. A stupid decision, IMO, for exactly this reason, but it's hardly one I can overturn.
------------------
Fix the forums! |
Silence Duegood
|
Posted - 2008.06.16 21:17:00 -
[145]
Originally by: Goumindong
Originally by: Silence Duegood
It's the only missile-based Caldari Command Ship, and the problem is not a small one (which a moderately focused read of the thread(s) will show). The problem has existed as long as the ship (read years). I don't expect a huge quantity of support, as not many people bother flying it. However, if you look at the linked thread from the Ideas and Features forum, it is up to 17 pages if I recall, and months old.
The problem is, on the scope of things fairly small, and non-critical. Its one ship in a line of missile using ships for a purpose that directly mimics what Drakes do(and the Drake is fantastic). Now, it may be clearly lacking in powergrid(or hams using too much), but how easy an issue is to see doesn't necessarily mean that it should be escalated.
I don't personally think it something that requires the council discussing it with CCP yet. And it looks like the majority of the council agreed. However, you can always ask Jade to see if he can make the argument on the side regarding the issue. It just means you won't get an official response and Jade probably can't tell you anything about how it went(NDA). But it might get something done.
I agree to a degree and will chat with Jade about going forward to CCP with the problem (thanks for the advice regarding that, btw). However, how many years should a ship be totally out of whack and broken till CCP finds 10 minutes to fix the code on it? Seriously, the lack of grid on the Nighthawk takes grade-school math and a tiny portion of logic to understand (this is totally excluding its useless Missile Precision bonus).
Yes, there are other ships that need tweaks also. However, the Nighthawk has been this broken since the day it was introduced, which is years ago. I do believe the longer-standing a problem is the more priority it should be given.
|
Darius JOHNSON
|
Posted - 2008.06.16 21:23:00 -
[146]
Originally by: Herschel Yamamoto
Originally by: Hamfast
It seems to me that a CSM member with no idea or opinion on a subject when the vote comes up would be to abstain from that vote... thus a issue could be approved (or fail) with a 3/2 (4 abstain) vote...
I'm pretty sure CCP has banned abstentions. A stupid decision, IMO, for exactly this reason, but it's hardly one I can overturn.
CCP didn't BAN anything. They made some suggestions which we could choose to or not to follow.
Originally by: Jade Constantine
You might be a big man on the internets Darius but prepare to be laughed at quite a lot in Europe.
--
Illaria's CSM |
Darius JOHNSON
|
Posted - 2008.06.16 21:24:00 -
[147]
Originally by: Silence Duegood
I agree to a degree and will chat with Jade about going forward to CCP with the problem (thanks for the advice regarding that, btw). However, how many years should a ship be totally out of whack and broken till CCP finds 10 minutes to fix the code on it? Seriously, the lack of grid on the Nighthawk takes grade-school math and a tiny portion of logic to understand (this is totally excluding its useless Missile Precision bonus).
Yes, there are other ships that need tweaks also. However, the Nighthawk has been this broken since the day it was introduced, which is years ago. I do believe the longer-standing a problem is the more priority it should be given.
Get more than 40 people to support it in assembly hall. As it stands it has less support than destructible outposts which is downright sad.
Originally by: Jade Constantine
You might be a big man on the internets Darius but prepare to be laughed at quite a lot in Europe.
--
Illaria's CSM |
Silence Duegood
|
Posted - 2008.06.16 21:33:00 -
[148]
Edited by: Silence Duegood on 16/06/2008 21:33:57
Originally by: Darius JOHNSON
Originally by: Silence Duegood
I agree to a degree and will chat with Jade about going forward to CCP with the problem (thanks for the advice regarding that, btw). However, how many years should a ship be totally out of whack and broken till CCP finds 10 minutes to fix the code on it? Seriously, the lack of grid on the Nighthawk takes grade-school math and a tiny portion of logic to understand (this is totally excluding its useless Missile Precision bonus).
Yes, there are other ships that need tweaks also. However, the Nighthawk has been this broken since the day it was introduced, which is years ago. I do believe the longer-standing a problem is the more priority it should be given.
Get more than 40 people to support it in assembly hall. As it stands it has less support than destructible outposts which is downright sad.
While I understand support for an issue does play a role, I'm not sure how much weight that should be given.
If an issue can clearly be shown to exist with any aspect of the game (with actual evidence and proof of such an issue), why should the popularity of the issue hold priority over common sense?
|
Darius JOHNSON
|
Posted - 2008.06.16 21:40:00 -
[149]
Originally by: Silence Duegood
While I understand support for an issue does play a role, I'm not sure how much weight that should be given.
If an issue can clearly be shown to exist with any aspect of the game (with actual evidence and proof of such an issue), why should the popularity of the issue hold priority over common sense?
Everyone who has an issue be it a pet issue or not is themselves convinced that the evidence is CLEAR. I personally don't fly nighthawks and know nothing about them. The bottom line is that if an issue is CLEARLY a problem you should be able to get more than 40 people to support it. Unfortunately it's as good a measurement as any that I'm personally going to get to go by because, as I said, I don't fly them though some goons have complained about it.
Who knows? If the issue's that clear then maybe the devs will see it on their own and we won't even have had to bring it to their attention?
Originally by: Jade Constantine
You might be a big man on the internets Darius but prepare to be laughed at quite a lot in Europe.
--
Illaria's CSM |
Goumindong
Merch Industrial
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.06.16 21:46:00 -
[150]
Originally by: Darius JOHNSON
Everyone who has an issue be it a pet issue or not is themselves convinced that the evidence is CLEAR. I personally don't fly nighthawks and know nothing about them. The bottom line is that if an issue is CLEARLY a problem you should be able to get more than 40 people to support it. Unfortunately it's as good a measurement as any that I'm personally going to get to go by because, as I said, I don't fly them though some goons have complained about it.
Who knows? If the issue's that clear then maybe the devs will see it on their own and we won't even have had to bring it to their attention?
Please, even the most obvious of issues like corporate email logging which would reasonably have every single CEO in the game telling their corps to vote for it to force it being pushed to the CSM have only received 500 votes.
You voted to discuss destroying stations despite it having less than 40 votes at the time and having large opposition and effecting probably fewer people than the nighthawk problems did. Don't pull that populist BS. Either there was a good reason to not bring it to CCP or their wasn't.
"I don't know what is going on" is not a good reason, though understandable since there is no easy mechanic by which the CSM can be educated and informed on the topic(with proper dissent of course), but the excuse of ignorance does not make the reason any better.
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |