|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2008.06.09 15:45:00 -
[1]
Here's how you do it.
1. Get your CSM reps to pass the CSM electable chair issue to the constitution in Iceland. 2. Hold the election for chair and hope the CSM reps choose another chair. 3. result.
CSM Manifesto 2008 | Destroy Outposts! |
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2008.06.09 15:45:00 -
[2]
Here's how you do it.
1. Get your CSM reps to pass the CSM electable chair issue to the constitution in Iceland. 2. Hold the election for chair and hope the CSM reps choose another chair. 3. result.
CSM Manifesto 2008 | Destroy Outposts! |
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2008.06.09 20:28:00 -
[3]
Originally by: Inanna Zuni
Originally by: Pnuka The fact a goon wasn't muted or warned first is going to really open some eyes I think.
One person has commented to me that they wondered whether that was because I have made it very clear I am not on the CSM as a representative of my corp / alliance and so wouldn't wardec Jade's lot.
"You might say that, I couldn't possibly comment" is all I can say.
IZ
Yeah you are having a laugh to be honest. To say we'd welcome a wardec from the silly goons would be understating the case. There is no force in this game scares us in Empire Wars Inanna. So cut the silly insinuations - it makes you look foolish.
CSM Manifesto 2008 | Destroy Outposts! |
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2008.06.09 20:31:00 -
[4]
Originally by: Yorda In empire wars the enemies can just sit in the stations and there's really nothing you can do about it...
Lol you wish.
CSM Manifesto 2008 | Destroy Outposts! |
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2008.06.09 20:55:00 -
[5]
Edited by: Jade Constantine on 09/06/2008 20:55:31
Originally by: Luciela Darkfall I hoped he would calm down or assume a more mature posture. I was wrong. Jade really is feeling like he is some sort of god.
Hey weren't you the goon alt who said she'd rather vote for Sirmolle than me in the election! Smooth.
CSM Manifesto 2008 | Destroy Outposts! |
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2008.06.09 21:04:00 -
[6]
Originally by: Furb Killer Honestly, is this some kind of goon campaign to get a goon as chairman?
Yes I'm rather afraid it is. Get used to goon threadnaughts until they get their way.
CSM Manifesto 2008 | Destroy Outposts! |
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2008.06.09 21:06:00 -
[7]
Originally by: Luciela Darkfall ... and is bitter/passive agressive enough to remember the name of every one who critizes you!
[Protip!]
I actually clicked on your little avatar and saw that amongst your handful of previous posts there were ones flaming me. Nifty eh!
CSM Manifesto 2008 | Destroy Outposts! |
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2008.06.09 21:09:00 -
[8]
Edited by: Jade Constantine on 09/06/2008 21:17:49
Originally by: Luciela Darkfall
Why don't you mute me about it?
Either that, or I dunno, here's a Mr Slippy's wild ride of adventures grade idea I'm just throwing out here ...
Maybe you could post with your main? (if you haven't done so earlier in the thread already that is)
Oops my bad given away another goon protip for influencing the support totals there boys and girls.
CSM Manifesto 2008 | Destroy Outposts! |
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2008.06.09 22:58:00 -
[9]
Originally by: Herschel Yamamoto I'd quit Eve before I joined the Goons, and I'd probably wind up disliking Darius as Chair almost as much as I do you. Bane seems like he could be okay, but I'm hardly confident of that. But given the number of non-Goons in on this "Jade's a tyrant" bandwagon, you'd think you could at least attribute it to something other than a mysterious "conspiracy".
And besides - even if a Goon did get the Chair, what would happen then? They're bloody anarchists! It's not like the role gives them power, because whatever power it does have they'd refuse to use.
You are a fickle man Herschel Yamamoto. Lets see what the future brings.
CSM Manifesto 2008 | Destroy Outposts! |
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2008.06.09 23:40:00 -
[10]
Originally by: Herschel Yamamoto My objections are to your actions as Chair, not to your actions as a member. I haven't said anything at all against your being on the Council, or you bringing forward your platform commitments to the Council. I just find your actions as Chair appalling. I want you out of the Chair and still on the Council - I don't think I've said anything that would go against that at any point. I know I stood against the no confidence topic when it was new, but that's because it looked like an attempt to kick you out for reasons of personal dislike. Abuse of power is a whole different ball game.
Well you and I disagree on the issue of the muting obviously. I say fickle because it was one decision out of a fractious 4 hour meeting which otherwise place a lot of good issues onto the agenda for the forthcoming meetings with ccp. Now perhaps you are right, perhaps I'm wrong. But end of the day you get the whole package when you vote for someone - I'm passionate and mission-orientated when I get involved in something like this. I intended from day one to make a go of this process hence the major effort I've put into issue research/agenda building/feedback and driving the skeletal structure of the CSM towards something like a working model. Yes yesterday was messy as all hell and lots of disagreements came from my decision to mute Inanna. But you know what? I'm proud of the fact we slaved away on a hot evening for 4 hours to get 15 player issues onto the agenda for Iceland despite everything. I'd rather have imperfect accomplishments than perfect nothing. Over these past three weeks we've built up this process from virtually nothing and are going to achieve everything expected of us in the CSM docs.
As others have pointed out we aren't making money out of this - everyone is taking time from work, we're paying for our own beer and going to Iceland for a lot of meetings and chit-chat and PR stuff for the general good of this game.
So if you want to sit back and say "hey jade as a chairman you're rubbish" over a 30sec mute intention to get a vote done at the end of a 4 hour meeting and say my judgment is critically flawed as a result then hey, be my guest.
But taken in the context of the huge amount of effort I (and other CSM reps) have put into making this process actually work rather than simply throwing our hands up in the air and blaming it all on ccp and non-delivery of resources and promises then you are going to need to take a little criticism in return.
Yes, fickle is not unreasonable.
CSM Manifesto 2008 | Destroy Outposts! |
|
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2008.06.10 00:05:00 -
[11]
Originally by: Anton Marvik It's a bit late for appeasement, don't you think Jade? You put too much effort into denial to stop now. Distraction won't work any better.
Lol one thing you are going to have to realize about me is I treat people differently depending on my past experience with them. You've acted like a complete plonker from your first posts so I honestly don't care what you think Anton, sorry but I got elected for my disarming honesty as much as anything
Herschel Yamamoto on the other hand even though I disagree with him over the issue of muting inanna, I do care what he thinks because he's taken time to read and present issues here, take an interest in the CSM process and generally be a responsible respondent to issues threads.
So don't try and sun yourself in my conciliatory post to another person. Its really not meant for you!
CSM Manifesto 2008 | Destroy Outposts! |
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2008.06.10 01:57:00 -
[12]
Edited by: Jade Constantine on 10/06/2008 01:58:15
Originally by: Anton Marvik
Originally by: Kinkie Yuuki Jade is going great. Inanna was disruptive and deserved the 30 second? mute, lol.
You are ignorant of the facts, my dear forum alt. Ianna was kicked from the chatroom and then unable to join until after a vote had concluded.
Well actually the sanction against Inanna was a 30 sec mute. But sadly the chat channel functionality is messed up and the un-mute setting = kick from channel. She then needed to be manually re-invited and un-muted again. But the point is the punishment was a 30 sec mute while the final vote of the evening was being stated. Its entirely false for you to state that she wasn't able to join against till after the vote - she was given an opportunity to cast her vote when she'd rejoined.
If anyone is ignorant of the facts (albeit intentionally so) its you Anton.
|
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2008.06.10 23:50:00 -
[13]
Originally by: Sir Ibex I knew this crap was going to happen. And I bet it's going to happen again and again, even if someone new is elected. I wish there was a way to do psychological screening before electing candidates. I say we give Jade a chance to "get his/her s*it together..." Sort to speak. People make mistakes, and sometimes they need to learn how to handle themselves in a new role. Let's just see how it plays out. I'll always have a chance to give my thumbs up later, if nothing will change.
Don't worry about me, my desktop PC runs on goon tears
|
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2008.06.11 02:07:00 -
[14]
Originally by: Pringlescan How can we have someone as chairperson who is obviously so decisive.
I'm having that one for lols. Nice quote.
|
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2008.06.11 16:31:00 -
[15]
Originally by: Jane Spondogolo [ Jade and friends: This proposal clarifies Jades power, and gives her a mandate to work from that allows the role to be done properly whilst providing a canonical reference to give that mandate. Everyone wins.
I'd welcome such a document, but only from CCP. I don't think any current member of the CSM or player supporter of CSM members has the required neutral perspective to be involved with this.
|
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2008.06.11 23:31:00 -
[16]
Originally by: Teh Doylan Jade if you feel like you have done nothing wrong, then allow the council to have a vote of no confidence and confidence in you at a time when all the original CSM representatives (not alternates) can be online.
I'm not in favor of any player measure that changes the constitution that hasn't been raised as an issue, been open for public debate for 7 days, been advocated to the CSM by a rep, and passed a simple majority there, documented as a submission proposal and been presented to CCP in the formal discussions at the conference.
(these coincidently are the steps that have been taken with the "electable chair" Issue I raised)
If any CSM rep had chosen to support this thread they could have done exactly the same and we'd be discussing the constitutional change to allow this in Iceland. As yet none have.
This is the only way such a vote could happen and I'm certainly not in favour of subverting the founding documentation to let people play politics with a CSM body that is not designed for this purpose.
So in short. Request denied. If anybody feels I've done something wrong they can certainly ask a rep to advocate this topic for them. Or complain to ccp I guess.
|
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2008.06.11 23:58:00 -
[17]
Originally by: Aprudena Gist So Apparely you can deny Darius Mail about the Vote of no Confidence then anyways?
Can I ask what you are talking about please?
CSM Manifesto 2008 | Destroy Outposts! |
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2008.06.12 00:02:00 -
[18]
Originally by: Aprudena Gist Edited by: Aprudena Gist on 11/06/2008 23:59:13
Originally by: Jade Constantine
Originally by: Aprudena Gist So Apparely you can deny Darius Mail about the Vote of no Confidence then anyways?
Can I ask what you are talking about please?
He send a Mail the other day on your Fancy E-Mail List thing about a vote of no confidence in the chairman of the CSM i do believe and you said you would not add item so said agenda for the meeting.
Really, he was talking about things on our private e-mail list? Thats a little bit unprofessional.
CSM Manifesto 2008 | Destroy Outposts! |
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2008.06.12 00:29:00 -
[19]
Originally by: Aprudena Gist He's allowed to talk about anything he said himself i dont really see an issue with it i can understand if he was showing us your e-mails or anyone else's emails but showing his own is perfectly fine.
Well you said he told you what I said too? I didn't give permission for him to talk about my emails.
CSM Manifesto 2008 | Destroy Outposts! |
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2008.06.12 01:47:00 -
[20]
Originally by: Herschel Yamamoto As long as you've made that clear, fine. I'm sure the 8-man mailing list will get lots of traffic. As for Jade's reaction, I haven't seen too much shock, and the indignance could well be legit.
Not much shock thats true. And not much actual drama. I think its poor to break confidences once agreed though.
|
|
Jade Constantine
|
Posted - 2008.06.12 16:22:00 -
[21]
Edited by: Jade Constantine on 12/06/2008 16:23:49
Originally by: Morgenreiter Not supported. IŠm a pretty new player and all these things about goons or whatever donŠt interest me. What interests me is, if someone speaks mature (so far as it is possible in a game environment), with reason and is open for dialogue and not just sending his opinions.
Another point is that this is a destrucive issue. A construcive would have been to propose another CSM member for chair. But even if: The issue about how the chair is chosen out is -already- on the agenda with ccp as far as i understood.
Yep the " Electable Chair"Issue was raised by me (ironically). It was posted on the Assembly hall for 7 days public discussion (tick) It got public support AND CSM member endorsement (tick) Raised on the agenda in a formal CSM meeting (tick) Got voted for by the CSM committee 4/2/2 (tick) I documented it yesterday and sent it to the CSM secretary (tick) And its getting submitted to CCP 7 days in advance of the conference as specified in our docs (tick)
This is how you get Issues that can impact the constitution/foundation documentation of the CSM into formal discussion. I've explained this quite a few times.
What would have been nice to see on the agenda as well would have been Issues raising the question of a non-voting CCP provided Chair. A rotating Chair, proposals of that sort. I think there is a problem with a voting CSM member acting in the role of Chair, and its something we need to consider, but we do need to raise Issues in the proper fashion.
This kind of thread (op post) doesn't help much because its just a lot shouting and no CSM advocacy. As long as it doesn't gain 5% of total player base in support (or specific CSM advocacy) it won't get added to the agenda automatically. But even getting a thread like this onto Issues agenda doesn't mean the Issue (itself) could get voted on there and then in any case, the principle of whether we in the CSM think its an important matter for the player base as a whole will be considered on the CSM and a vote held on the subject of whether we commend the Issue to CCP's attention: if it gets through that vote then it must then be raised in the CSM/CCP discussions at the formal conference since CCP need to have final sign off on any of these constitutional changes.
I'd like to see more people actively trying to understand the process at work here since it would render the apparent motivation behind a lot of these threads void and let us see more important Issues getting the air time they deserve.
|
Jade Constantine
|
Posted - 2008.06.12 23:28:00 -
[22]
Originally by: fuze You think this isn't important?
Nope this thread isn't important.
Quote: If CSM wouldn't be able to get their act together all issues wouldn't get handled properly. You don't have to agree or even like each other. Just that you accept your responsibility to give this your utmost best to make it work. That applies to all members. That you owe to all the people that voted for you.
Latest meeting of the CSM
Thats what people getting down to the hard work of actually being CSM reps looks like.
|
Jade Constantine
|
Posted - 2008.06.13 01:57:00 -
[23]
Originally by: Ikar Kaltin Im not going to pretend I read this thread, and Im not going to support or oppose this thread at this time since I havent read this thread. What I do know is that on a quick skim through this proposal recieved 96 (ish, give or take a few it being late) whilst other threads you have approved for discussion have recieved fewer than 20, and have been much less trolled by you Jade (helpful CSM icon lets me see when csm members post), and most notably:
http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=795676
Has recieved less than 4 responses and is alread promoted for the agenda by yourself. If this has recieved over 25x the support than that, then surely this thread should be at least discussed at the csm meeting?
Negative. Basically its part of our job to ignore nonsense posts. 200 supports on a nonsense issue are worth less than 1 support on a good issue. Sorry to disappoint you but threadnaughts simply mean nothing when you bring a little bit of good analysis to the table. Thats why no post like this will be advocated in good faith by a CSM delegate. A) it brings nothing to the game, and B) it would be embarrassing the CSM delegate to bring such a motion and have it voted down on the public record wasting time better alloted for decent issues.
|
Jade Constantine
|
Posted - 2008.06.13 02:18:00 -
[24]
Originally by: Khaerie CSM has just begun. The first board must be the strongest as it is their task to make mistakes, discover these mistakes and then put in tools to correct these mistakes.
The only thing I would request is to please not get bogged down in creating extra processes. I already see the red tape piling up fast.
We've learned that lesson really, administrative guff is going to the end of the agenda. We'll be concentrating primarily on good ISSUEs and doing our best to ignore the silly stuff from this point forward.
CSM Manifesto 2008 | Destroy Outposts! |
Jade Constantine
|
Posted - 2008.06.13 02:42:00 -
[25]
Edited by: Jade Constantine on 13/06/2008 02:46:33
Originally by: Maitsu How many players need to support this until CCP decides to step in? This is getting ridiculous.
by the current rules you need 5% of the player base. Thats around 11,000 supports. 10,900 to go. (It should be possible though Maitsu. You have 5000 people in goonswarm and each of these can support 3 times by abusing their alts). So you could actually manage 15,000 if you market the issue effectively internally. Get going is my advice! Either that or convince a rep to bring it up on the agenda. (of course once it gets on the agenda you still need to win 5/9 CSM votes to get it raised to the CSM/CCP conference and CCP need to approve it).
+ at some point you'll actually need some arguments rather than smack and nonsense. And comparing the CSM chair making a moderation decision to a genocidal dictator nuking half the world is probably not going to do it for you
CSM Manifesto 2008 | Destroy Outposts! |
Jade Constantine
|
Posted - 2008.06.13 14:32:00 -
[26]
Originally by: Courthouse
Originally by: fuze
Originally by: Courthouse EDIT: ...and he didn't even do that. A quorum of 7 is not a quorum of 9 as the CSM document states is needed.
Didn't see Serenity either so guess that was a quorum of 6.
But that meeting went way smoother. So next step would be a smooth meeting with all 9 members.
And to the goons. Tone down and wait how things pan out for a few meetings since CSM actually might have taken the clue not to slip up again.
Oh, so you didn't read the notes and decided to come post here.... That's fine, I went ahead and read the log for you. See, if you had read it you'd see that it called up an alternate for Serenity being absent, but it convienantly neglected to call on alternates for Bane or Darius.
So, a 9 member quorum, with 3 members absent and one alternate called in means we have a quorum of....
7.
Fortunately we had a ruling from CCP! Yay.
Quote: a) Alternate attendance. Should a Representative be unavailable, either not showing up (with a prior notification or not), having to leave early or experiencing technical difficulties an Alternate is to step in. The council is to be manned by 9 people at all times û and 9 people should always vote; the exception being when all representatives and alternates have been contacted and a meeting of 7 people is the only attendance that can be mustered.
And since the meeting was publicized and everyone was invited, both from the public forum thread and the in-game channel. And we managed to get a combination of 6 reps and 1 alternate we had a valid meeting.
|
Jade Constantine
|
Posted - 2008.06.13 14:50:00 -
[27]
Originally by: fuze So the meeting of 7 euros was approved by CCP standards. But what about the 2 US ones? Will there be meetings of 7 all the time? I'm just asking since this might goons worked up a bit which I think isn't all too strange. Also could be some private stuff we don't have to know. Anywayz.....
On the whole I'll try to pick meeting times that the majority of CSM reps can commit to attending without too many problems. Weekends are probably the best for this. But its worth everyone calming down a bit and realizing that there are going to be ALOT of meetings in this session and its not disastrous if people miss couple here and there. Everyone goes on holiday and sometimes things come up. I'm certainly going to miss some and Serenity will be filling in as vice chair. Its very good that we can count meetings with 7 reps valid otherwise we would have some real problems in the long term.
There's nothing "private" about this - we had a deadline and needed to vote on some multi item issues otherwise they coudn't get on the iceland conference agenda.
CSM Manifesto 2008 | Destroy Outposts! |
Jade Constantine
|
Posted - 2008.06.14 01:18:00 -
[28]
Originally by: Hori To Jade is doing a good job, and so is the rest of the CSM judging by that last meeting, some confusion, friction etc was bound to happen in the start.
And if Jade gets removed by this thread, wouldn't that kinda, invalidate the election? Not too familiar with the finer workings of politics, but voting time is where the peons get to voice their opinion?
From the OP 1. Calls upon the CSM to undertake an immediate vote for the removal of Jade Constantine from Chair;
Can the CSM do that?
Simple answer is no.
I've said a couple of times in the course of this thread. Only way this could conceivably happen is:
1. A CSM rep decides to support and advocate this issue after its been in discussion for 7 days.
2. CSM rep puts it on the agenda for a meeting.
3. During the meeting it needs a 5/9 (4/7) votes to pass and become an ISSUE for the formal conference between CSM/CCP.
4. Supporting CSM would write it up as a submission document and we'd discuss the measure with the CCP council.
5. What happens then nobody really knows because we have no idea if CCP are happy to have the choice of the electorate overturned by a motion supported by a tiny fraction of the votes cast in the main election.
But its all a little academic since this thread hasn't received the 5% of the electorate vote required to force it onto the CSM meeting agenda, and it hasn't been supported and advocated by a CSM rep.
At the moment its like a protest thing from angry goons really thats becoming a bit pointless because literally everyone else has already gotten over it and moved on through a very productive meeting in mid-week and expectation of another one on sunday.
CSM Manifesto 2008 | Destroy Outposts! |
Jade Constantine
|
Posted - 2008.06.14 01:24:00 -
[29]
Originally by: Ergo Ghost Also I'm surprised so many goons have signed this thread, given that with their numbers they're the most likely to be able to win the chair in the next elections & benefit from all of the extraordinary powers Jade's trying to give the position. Are you guys just too ADD to wait 6 months or are you all secretly gigantic fans of democracy & supporters of the little guy?
I suspect we'll end up deciding to go for a rotating chair or even ask ccp to supply us with a ccp-provided non voting chair to do the admin to be honest. There is no advantage to having an empowered Chair in any way. This whole argument was about the definition of "moderation" and got compounded by a desire to finish completing issues in a time crunch.
Remove the time pressure and moderation stops being an issue because if meetings fail to get *absolutely everything* done - it won't matter so much.
Anyway contrary to the fears of the goons on this thread I'm really pretty relaxed about the role of chair in this csm progress. I'm happy to see it rotating, see moderation and admin duties shared, or whatever else can be agreed on.
Single best idea ANYONE has come up with in the last week was Saphrine who suggested putting the admin stuff at the end of the agenda not the begin. That solves so many problems its silly we didn't think of it in the first place!
CSM Manifesto 2008 | Destroy Outposts! |
Jade Constantine
|
Posted - 2008.06.14 03:20:00 -
[30]
Originally by: Kitoba In fact, I'm wondering why it didn't already happen, considering all that mud throwing around here.
The reason it didn't happen the same reason Darius and Bane are running the goonswarm rather than being plebs inside goonswarm. They are smart enough to see that wasting the CSM's time with stupid little power plays will reflect badly on them.
At the end of the day our reputations as CSM reps depend on getting the job done and promoting issues to the attention of ccp.
CSM Manifesto 2008 | Destroy Outposts! |
|
Jade Constantine
|
Posted - 2008.06.14 03:30:00 -
[31]
Originally by: Aprudena Gist
Says the idiot who started all the ******** power play crap just get out.
You sound a little bit stressed. Maybe have a cup of tea and play some internet spaceships rather than student politics?
Seriously its not the end of the world that you don't get your way on this. Pace yourself, maybe I'll get indicted by the international war crimes tribunal for internet posting or perhaps you could open a class action suit and try to have me deported to texas or something?
CSM Manifesto 2008 | Destroy Outposts! |
Jade Constantine
|
Posted - 2008.06.14 03:32:00 -
[32]
Originally by: Kitoba I can't see how the election of a chairman could possibly distract the council more than this very debate.
This isn't a debate its a threadnaught.
(and a little light entertainment)
CSM Manifesto 2008 | Destroy Outposts! |
Jade Constantine
|
Posted - 2008.06.14 04:00:00 -
[33]
Originally by: Waterfowl Democracy It's what the Assembly Hall was designed for, showing support for issues that concern the players of this game.
Well technically its designed for showing support for Issues that concern ALL players of the game.
Whereas this is a petty little vendetta that only concerns bitter little fruits and their alts and cheerleaders. So far this thread has less support than Goum got in the election. Its not exactly a sterling triumphant beginning for your crusade and its actually alienated more people than its convinced.
CSM Manifesto 2008 | Destroy Outposts! |
Jade Constantine
|
Posted - 2008.06.14 04:30:00 -
[34]
Originally by: Kitoba I can't see how the election of a chairman could possibly distract the council more than this very threadnaught. In what way did I change the meaning? I think you've proven my point.
Distract who? I've done all my template writing up for the weekend - meeting agenda set, documents submitted to iceland etc etc. This thread is just another goon threadnaught - why should anybody care?
CSM Manifesto 2008 | Destroy Outposts! |
Jade Constantine
|
Posted - 2008.06.14 04:43:00 -
[35]
Originally by: Darius JOHNSON Actually the chair rejected my motion then changed its tune and started behaving more like a council member and less like a dictator. You keep using terms like "power plays" and "political points". I have nothing to gain from either.
If you want the motion Darius I told you all you had to do was support this thread and add it to the agenda as an Issue. Its pretty simple.
CSM Manifesto 2008 | Destroy Outposts! |
Jade Constantine
|
Posted - 2008.06.14 04:49:00 -
[36]
Edited by: Jade Constantine on 14/06/2008 04:53:31
Originally by: Darius JOHNSON Actually the chair rejected my motion
Quote: I told you all you had to do was support this thread and add it to the agenda as an Issue
Bolded AND underlined the important bits for you Darius.
Don't try and claim you were prevented from raising this if you had wanted to.
And do cut the "it" stuff out. It makes you look like a petulant child.
CSM Manifesto 2008 | Destroy Outposts! |
Jade Constantine
|
Posted - 2008.06.14 05:04:00 -
[37]
Originally by: Darius JOHNSON Ok, I gave you the out and tried to act civilized about the matter. The fact is that you refused any motion that limited what you stated was your authority.
Incorrect. I told you needed to compose an issue thread or support an existing issue thread to raise the point and it would be voted on as a discussion topic alongside all the rest.
Thats what I had to do with the "electable chair" issue. Thats what you would need to do with your issue.
I really don't understand why you are still spoiling for a fight on this Darius. We have come to a decent conclusion already as far as I understood. We had a very good meeting in the week and everyone has worked hard to meet our deadline.
I can only assume you feel obliged to play some macho goon patriarch role here and I have to tell you it doesn't impress me in the least. Grow up and get on with the job we were elected to do. Stop posturing and acting like an ass.
CSM Manifesto 2008 | Destroy Outposts! |
Jade Constantine
|
Posted - 2008.06.14 05:08:00 -
[38]
Edited by: Jade Constantine on 14/06/2008 05:14:06 Edited by: Jade Constantine on 14/06/2008 05:10:32
Originally by: Darius JOHNSON I'd like to add in addition to that that simply because I see no need to support this particular action at this juncture that does not mean people cannot voice their opinions or concerns on the subject. Everyone is entitled to their opinions and beliefs. Even when they run counter to your own.
I was just correcting your false statement Darius. You claimed I blocked your motion. I simply told you how to do it properly within the agreed procedure for raising issues.
Originally by: Darius JOHNSON ... deny my two motions. Those motions were indeed denied by you. You did state that it should be raised as an issue and I didn't say that you did not.
I think the problem here Darius is you what you're describing that I "blocked" or "denied" you when what I actually did is tell you how it could be done properly within the rules of the CSM process. I know its frustrating you can't get exactly what you want when you want it but we do have some rules for the submission of issues that the rest of us have to follow.
Originally by: Darius JOHNSON I really don't care to impress you. Your opinion of me is entirely irrelevant to me. If you want me to not respond to you do not associate me by name in your opinion posts.
I don't care if you respond or not Darius - thats up to you. But if you come and post an untrue statement I'll feel free to correct you on it.
CSM Manifesto 2008 | Destroy Outposts! |
Jade Constantine
|
Posted - 2008.06.14 05:18:00 -
[39]
Originally by: Vanessa Vale Someone with good writing skills should send a little article about the last meeting plus this thread to a few select gaming oriented sites. See how this "petty" thing goes on. You are a bloody disgrace.
What aren't you understanding here? Darius and I hate each others guts. He has no respect for my experience in this game, I have no respect for his. You should count yourself lucky we're even talking. Seriously, I'm happy to interact within the parameters we've been set by CCP but if Darius tries coming on with this rubbish in public I'm going to challenge him on it - every time.
I wasn't elected to roll over for the goons. Get used to it.
CSM Manifesto 2008 | Destroy Outposts! |
Jade Constantine
|
Posted - 2008.06.14 05:25:00 -
[40]
Edited by: Jade Constantine on 14/06/2008 05:26:00
Originally by: Darius JOHNSON
I posted here in response to your post here mentioning me by name. It's right here in this thread.
Yep thats right I had stated that you were too smart to be seen wasting everyone's time with a crappy motion like this. I'm happy to take it back. Obviously you aren't that smart after all. If you had "moved on" then why provoke this argument by claiming I blocked your motions when what I actually did was explain to you the process of how the Issues had to be raised?
Seriously Darius. You need to chill and bow out of this stupid thread. Its not helping your good judgment to be forced to perform for the goon chorus.
CSM Manifesto 2008 | Destroy Outposts! |
|
Jade Constantine
|
Posted - 2008.06.14 05:39:00 -
[41]
Originally by: Darius JOHNSON You did block my motions. Interpreting the validity of motions wasn't any more in your purview than vetoing votes.
No interpretation of validity was done. I told you to post an issue discussion thread or support an existing one and go through the motions for raising an issue. Dunno how to make this any clearer for you.
Quote: If you want me to not respond to you then don't editorialize what I say.
I don't care if you respond or not. Its your choice at the end of the day.
Quote: I'd be happy to post the emails to allow them to speak for themselves but I fear you would take umbrage with that and the vote to do so has not yet been had.
Yeah but posting those emails would involve you breaking the terms of service you agreed wouldn't they - little bit inconvenient there. Maybe you might consider not provoking public arguments every single day over every single issue we've ever talked about? How about that for an idea?
Quote: How I can "provoke" and argument by clarifying what YOU STATED was MY position is beyond me.
You didn't clarify Darius you lied. You said I blocked your motions when what I actually did is told you how you should make them within the same rules we are all bound by.
CSM Manifesto 2008 | Destroy Outposts! |
Jade Constantine
|
Posted - 2008.06.14 06:04:00 -
[42]
Originally by: Darius JOHNSON
Up until my motion to limit the scope of your moderation to prevent you from disenfranchising elected representatives at whim, like you did last Sunday, we had discussed NUMEROUS administrative items. We had even had a vote on one. Immediately after the motion was presented you unilaterally decided for the rest of us that we would no longer be discussing administrative issues.
I think most of us emailed CCP asking for intervention actually. I said I wouldn't be countenancing any more "administrative" votes until we heard back and got some guidance. The sole significant administrative issue we'd discussed thus far was the alternates thing. If saying "no more of this crap until we hear from ccp" is considered by you to be a bad thing then we'll agree to differ.
Quote: I was told we could not discuss that motion because of your decision and it would have to be raised as an issue. This would have meant you could have continued your wreckless vetoing and muting until CCP made a decision in Iceland.
Well like I said, lots of us had apparently asked for guidance from ccp and waiting till that guidance was given seemed like a good idea to me. Spin it how you will Darius, you wanted to move into the offensive with admin motions to change the balance of the council without a 7 day discussion, without submission templates and without face to face time in Iceland.
Again I'll cite the example of the Issue I brought up to impact the council dynamics "electable chair" and I went through the approved methods and got it heard for 7 days and then voted on the CSM. What made you think you didn't have to meet the same standards of approval?
Quote: Thus the problem I had. Change it to not blocking a motion if that makes you feel better in Jadeworld. The facts are the facts and they're right there plain as day.
How about we simply tell the truth rather than listening to Darius Johnson trying to wriggle his way out of lying in public.
Quote: You decided you had the authority to change the game midstream. Perhaps that long and wordy explanation will sit better with you than "blocked".
I held your motions that would impact the balance of the council to the same standards that mine had met. If you call that changing the rules you really are deluded. You made an allegation that I had blocked your motions - that allegation was false. I did tell you how to raise them properly.
Quote: Those were not "rules we were all bound by". Just the day before we had all operated under a different premise.
Absolutely not. Again I cite the "electable chair" motion and its passage through the CSM process. Your motion of "no confidence in the chair" should have to follow exactly the same checks and balances and be heard in exactly the same manner.
Quote: YOU decided that YOU didn't like that. Immediately thereafter you unilaterally vetoed the vote that you didn't like from the day before, declaring it void. Also not a rule we are all bound by.
I said it was void pending an inquiry to CCP. We made the inquiry, to got the information, matter was resolved.
Really you are flapping around like a fish on dry land here Darius and making a scene for absolutely no good purpose. Give it up.
CSM Manifesto 2008 | Destroy Outposts! |
Jade Constantine
|
Posted - 2008.06.14 06:33:00 -
[43]
I'll leave you to your alliance of yes-men Darius. When you get to the point of simply casting insults its fairly clear you don't have an answer. Was a pointless argument as they always are with you.
CSM Manifesto 2008 | Destroy Outposts! |
Jade Constantine
|
Posted - 2008.06.17 14:02:00 -
[44]
The role of chair would be better handled by some kind of non-voting ccp-employee in my opinion. Since all the CSM reps (myself included) have our own votes and interest and aspirations for the game then it sits poorly to have the chair combined with a voting position. Still, I've tried to address this concern in meetings 4/5 by calling the other reps to do the introduction, debate moderation, call to vote on their own Issues and I've only stepped in when asked to by the leading involved rep.
I'd invite your to compare and contrast the stormy meeting 3
With the far smoother and less arguementative meeting 4 and meeting 5
And while speaking of "constructive outcomes" I'd remind you that over the 3 weeks of pre-Iceland talks we have successfully tabled from community discussions the following issues for face to face conference with CCP:
1. Removal of 30/90 day time cards 2. Jump Bridges and Cyno-jammers fix 3. Log Server exploitation/BACON. 4. Skill Queue Functionality? 5. 5% rule is too strict. 6. Kill Rights should be transferable. 7. Alliances in Faction Warfare. 8. Funky POS alterations. 9. Improve Black Ops. 10. Make suicide ganking more difficult 11. General Eve Forums improvement/fixing 12. CSM should vote for its own chairman 13. Evaluation of empire war dec mechanics 14. Feasibility of Outposts going boom 15. Replace double-click in a chat channel 16. Cargo hold size of ships in hanger but not in use 17. Re-examination of 0.0 Sovereignty 18. Reload all Ammo 19. Small Freighters 20. Drone Implants 21. Rigged Ships and Cargo 22. Aggression timer is too short/variable hull fix 23. Improve Bombs 24. Chat Channel Pilot listing 25. EW Icons 26. HUD minimum sizes 27. Personal Assets HUD 28. Skills Page Improvement 29. Assembly Arrays 30. Experimental Industry Issues 31. Science POS improvements 32. Sell Order tweaks 33. Shares Stock Market 34. Contracts Improvements 35. Completion of unfinished Story Arcs in Eve 36. Roleplay Interests in EVE / dynamic consquence 37. Moon Mining Improvement / dynamic seeding 38. PVP Ownership of Wrecks 39. Corporation Standings Slots 40. Corporations automatical get Alliance standings 41. Buff Large Autocannons 42. Colorblind UI 43. Account Security 44. Mac/Linux Client 45. Multi Monitor Support 46. Evemail Spam from corp events.
Each of these issues stood for the mandated 7 days of public discussion. Each was brought up in a formal quorate CSM meeting and received a passing vote. Each has been ruled an Issue of importance and general community interest and has been documented in the form of a submission template and provided in advance to CCP to form the agenda for the conference in Iceland.
Now if anybody still holds that a few sparks and arguments in the debating chamber and some froth on the forums invalidates the good work done by CSM representatives who have worked pretty damn hard to get this thing on the road to a ridiculously short timescale then there's not much I can say to that besides - run next time and show us you can do better.
Because I happen to think this inaugural CSM has done a damn fine job. And anybody continuing to snipe from the sidelines in the face of very clear evidence of accomplishment is being petty, disingenuous and mindlessly vindictive.
CSM Manifesto 2008 | Destroy Outposts! |
Jade Constantine
|
Posted - 2008.06.26 16:16:00 -
[45]
Originally by: SickSeven Edited by: SickSeven on 26/06/2008 13:36:48 I support this for the simple fact that the Chair engages in childish banter with his critics.
You dont see real world people of power posting videos on youtube to call their critics names and liars.(not that this has happend with the CSM... yet)
Well here's one
This ones even better
This one is epic
Slap across the face
We could certainly go on ...
But anyways here's the bottom line. CCP recognize that the CSM delegates represent different interest groups from the community and its our role to best represent our constituencies. We had an excellent historical lecture on the roots of Icelandic democracy during the CSM conference and heard ourselves described as "internet chieftains" responsible for thrashing out laws and policies in open and passionate debate.
This is raw democracy and plain-speaking and its very far away from the sanitized image-politics of idealized process that some on this thread have lamented the lack off.
We had a superb conference in Iceland and each of the CSM delegates did an excellent job in representing their constituencies and supporters and cooperating in addressing critical issues to the game at this time. At the close of business I asked my fellow CSM reps if they'd be happy to see me continue as Chair till the end of the first session of the CSM and got their full support.
So thats the deal really. Anybody who didn't like the way I've handled the chair position this time around is welcome to stand at the next CSM in the winter and who knows, get the support, promote your message, appeal to the voters and get elected and you'll get a chance to show us all how its done.
Until then lets get back to business.
CSM Manifesto 2008 | Destroy Outposts! |
Jade Constantine
|
Posted - 2008.07.02 19:39:00 -
[46]
Edited by: Jade Constantine on 02/07/2008 19:41:41
I predict that in November (when I step down from CSM chair at the time of the next election) this thread will have 900 supports and I suspect I could run perma-run my nano-cerb's mwd on power derived from the emo tears expressed by the posters here
CSM Manifesto 2008 | Destroy Outposts! |
Jade Constantine
|
Posted - 2008.07.02 22:24:00 -
[47]
Originally by: Ayrianna Na***a I vote for the removal of Jade. The recent exploits by SF to try to crap all over FW and deccing only certain Militia corps tells me he is not a good representative of the community.
Some facts to rain on your parade:
a) you are the kind of person to scream "exploit" (on an alt) when you've been wardecced by another participant in an open pvp game.
Quote: His arguments are drivel of words as he tries to confuse you with obscure terms that have no relevance to the discussion.
b) you are the kind of person that never responds to an argument with logic and merely twists and turns and makes insults of your own.
Quote: He doesn't listen to anyone that has an opposing view. He just dismisses them as everyone else is wrong and he is righteous and right.
c) you are the kind of person that gets upset when I don't afford you the status of other posters that register opinions with their main accounts and keep their temper under control in the course of debates.
Quote: This is unacceptable.
No "ayrianna na***a" YOU are unacceptable and your arguments are poor. Feel free to a) cry me a river and b) vote for somebody else in the next election.
Because if I wasn't opposed by people like you I wouldn't be doing my job.
And thats the truth of it.
CSM Manifesto 2008 | Destroy Outposts! |
Jade Constantine
|
Posted - 2008.07.02 22:26:00 -
[48]
Originally by: Dianabolic In a position such as Chair of a comittee you can hardly please everybody even some of the time.
So, if everybody hates you I'd wager you're doing as good a job as can be expected.
As a result I LOL at this thread, especially as the person who brought it up isn't even on the CSM, the members of which should surely feel far more aggrieved and, if they truely DO believe that changing the chair is the right course of action, are pretty remiss in their failure to do so without prompting from the forums.
True words there Dianabolic. I was always going to annoy some people with a pro small unit pvp agenda in these elections
CSM Manifesto 2008 | Destroy Outposts! |
Jade Constantine
|
Posted - 2008.07.03 13:49:00 -
[49]
Edited by: Jade Constantine on 03/07/2008 13:53:57
The irony is that while the CSM members themselves have met, had a damned successful face to face meeting that ended in a very positive NYT article that got us praised as approaching the business in a professional and diligent manner. This thread still keeps on sucking in a collection of bottom-feeders trying to make some kind of mileage on their personal vendettas and angst.
This Caldari FW thing is a case in point. Having discussed the issue on the thread in question and challenged the Caldari FW members to post an ISSUE thread with their proposed solutions only one actually did that "nVChicky". The rest (including the worst of the people posting immediately above) decided that their arguments were too weak to actually make a proposal and they preferred to keep whining and making false "exploit" accusations in the face of clearly presented evidence to the contrary.
I said in the other thread and I'll say it here. I consider it a personal triumph that people who hate non-consensual pvp and loathe very notion of the empire war-dec mechanic want me removed from the CSM. It validates the manifesto I stood for, it emboldens the vision I have for the game and it convinces me it was right to stand and serve on this committee just to confront and neutralize the kind of whiny poltroon's who would make Eve into an instanced WOW arena game if they got their way.
I dine out on the emo tears of those posters above me crying about how membership of the Caldari Militia hasn't protected them from empire wardecs. I laugh at their weakness and cowardly lack of backbone and its my pleasure to blow up their ships in-game. I ran for CSM on an election platform of pro-pvp opportunity and dynamism and it would be the height of hypocrisy for me not to be a fan of small unit pvp in game.
Eve as dark universe and its a hard environment for people used to 100% safety and instanced pvp in controlled environments. But thats the soul of Eve, the beauty and the allure of the game is in player vs player strife and consequence for actions and the day that corporations can make themselves totally safe in empire from wardecs is the day this game begins to die. I stand utterly opposed to the notion that Arlenna Molatov, Steel Tigeress, Ayrianna Na***a, Nitalya and Lord Frost can declare their corporations for a Militia and will no longer have to be vulnerable to the corporation wardec mechanic. I am utterly opposed to the notion that anybody wardeccing them will be faced by faction npc response, and I am utterly opposed to the principle that carping whines and mewling complaints on the forums will get these people more safety for their in-game corporations.
Hard words? People might condemn me for standing on the CSM and having strong opinions. But thats ridiculous. I got elected because of strong opinions and its my responsible to keep on expressing them and ensuring that the people who read my election manifesto and trusted me to promote the kind of Eve Online I described there has a place in the future we are helping to build.
So Caldari Militia. How about facing up to your real ISSUEs and learning how to deal with wardecs with spaceships in space and small unit pvp? You have an opportunity to play this game now. You joined a thing called Faction Warfare and its time for you to prove that you know what the second word actually means. Enough of this ridiculous forum whining and more action in space. If you do have an actual assembly hall issue you want to express be my guest - make a thread, lets see how the debate goes. But if you decide instead to keep on whinging and trying to personalize the issue of game mechanics that are working exactly as they were intended then you are going to work a minor miracle and reduce your reputation even further.
This CSM forum is not a self-help group for butthurt wannabe pvp pretenders who go crying to their mothers when the first time a hostile wardec comes in.
CSM Manifesto 2008 | Destroy Outposts! |
Jade Constantine
|
Posted - 2008.07.03 14:09:00 -
[50]
Edited by: Jade Constantine on 03/07/2008 14:14:14
Originally by: Esmenet
Originally by: Jade Constantine blabla
A few whiny caldari dont really change the reasoning behind the original suggestion.
Don't get me wrong, I believe the entire thread is full of fail-posters and I'm happy to laugh at anyone foolish enough to click "support" on this issue for the reasons stated. The last few caldari whiners just help to typify the general standard of people posting yes in this thread quite neatly - basically anyone butt-hurt by ANY decision or issue that goes against them gets to shout abuse at the CSM chair in this thread. Its probably the****utic.
-edit. How the hell is the word the****utic filtered? -edit2. gah I see thats ther-apeutic (thats as in ... a consequence of a medical treatment, of any kind, the results of which are judged to be desirable and beneficial.)
CSM Manifesto 2008 | Destroy Outposts! |
|
Jade Constantine
|
Posted - 2008.07.03 16:01:00 -
[51]
Originally by: Monsieur Escargots Why should it be possible for someone to War Dec someone else, and be completely secure in their own area of space?! It was not intended to work this way, and yet, by deccing someone in FW, you are effectivly making it so that you only have to fight when you want to, on your terms, negating them the benefit of ever making any kind or suprise or ambush tactic, and also taking any risk from war time logistic operations. This is what you are saying you want to not happen if they made FW corps immune to decs, which I agree, is not right, nobody should be safe. this is Eve, not Carebears online.
Well lets say I'm a 0.0 alliance. All my logistics, money making, ratting and holdings are out somewhere in deep 0.0 protected by a NAP fest, cyno-jammers, jump-bridges and the rest. If I wardec x target in empire then my pvpers are going to go after those guys while all my logistics and money-making remain safe in deep home ground 0.0. Its very much the same issue. And end of the day, is spinning through hisec Gallente space any more dangerous for the Caldari FW militia then taking a tour through Delve would be. I don't think so.
Quote: Now I am not saying you will use this tactic. I belive you will sit in low sec systems, in contested space, and tell people to "bring it", but this doesn't mean others won't, and this is where something may need to be done.
Well we're actually sitting in their hisec systems saying "bring it" as well as contested lowsec systems. But the point is the Militia is a tool they can use in one way "get lots of free wardecs against enemy militias" or "join as an individual to be protected from wardecs" or they could just as easily pull the corp out of the militia and go hunting wherever they wish. They have complete flexibility of response and countermeasure. Sure others could conceivably wardec a Caldari Militia member corp and then sit in Gallente hisec and do nothing, but that costs a wardec fee to no good ends. The onus is on the declarer to do something with the war end of the day or they end up paying for nothing.
Quote: I havn't come here with any suggestions or solutions to this problem, only to highlight the fact that if it isn't yet, it may well become a problem that needs to be dealt with, and as the chair of the CSM, it should be your perogative to look at it with an unbias view and present a solution or at least recognise the potential for honest debate. However, with you being the head of the alliance in question, are you truely able to stay unbias?
Oh absolutely. SF's role in this is relatively minor. I suspect many many organizations will wardec individual militia corp members in the weeks to come because thats eve. Just because a corporation affiliates with a FW militia doesn't mean it stops being a player corp that is responsible for handling the consequences of its actions.
There's also a bit of a confusion over the role of CSM chair in all this:
My responsibility as chair is pretty straightforward:
1. Organize and chair meetings of the CSM, ensure that issues get heard, votes get made, and process gets followed. I do have a responsibility to ensure that other CSM reps get a fair hearing and get to register their decisions on the public record.
My responsibilty as a CSM delegate is pretty straightforward too:
1. Represent the views and interests of my constituency and advocate those Issues I believe will be in the general interest of Eve online.
These are two different things and responsibilities as Chair have no bearing on specific positions on items like the wardec mechanics or faction warfare - as long as I make sure the discussions happen, voting is fair, and results get recorded thats the duty of chair sorted.
As a CSM rep I've got a full right and duty to express the opinions and positions I was elected on. In this case I'm pro pvp combat and player on player consequence in the matter of empire wardecs.
CSM Manifesto 2008 | Destroy Outposts! |
Jade Constantine
|
Posted - 2008.07.03 17:39:00 -
[52]
Originally by: Pithecanthropus I sit and watch how you gain the safety of or Gallente navies while Caldari deals with the drawbacks. Yet you sit in your safe haven calling them carebears.
I'll stop you there. We're in Nouv, thats Caldari Hisec. Where incidently our wardec targets in the Caldari Militia live. Perhaps you are "watching" somebody else entirely? In any case that basic failure to address in-game reality and post truthfully on the forums does rather neatly summarize the rest of your post. I suggest you stop "watching" (the wrong people) and get into your space ship and fight the wardec you are complaining about rather than spamming the forums with your erroneous complaints about a game mechanic that people have repeatedly indicated is operating precisely as intended.
CSM Manifesto 2008 | Destroy Outposts! |
Jade Constantine
|
Posted - 2008.07.03 18:09:00 -
[53]
Originally by: Kame Malice So... uh... what's your responce to the rest of his allegations?
Groundless and false. Without merit. Just like your post in fact
CSM Manifesto 2008 | Destroy Outposts! |
Jade Constantine
|
Posted - 2008.07.03 18:55:00 -
[54]
Edited by: Jade Constantine on 03/07/2008 18:58:06
Originally by: Steel Tigeress Which is where you fail. As soon as anyone disagree's with you, you lose it and start enforcing your point of view. this thread and the FW one are prime examples. Instead of looking at the issue and sseeing there is the posibility of unbalance and abbuse, you shout down the opposition because it affects you and yours.
No Tigeress. I have robustly argued a point and dealt with your false accusations of "exploits" "griefing" and "broken mechanics". You have been crying 'sploit like a spoiled child because you have become the victim on an empire wardec. Many others have pointed out that you are wrong. Undeterred you continue to allege exploits and griefing because you feel your own gameplay has been hindered by a hisec wardec. What you wanted was for somebody in a position of some kind of authority to agree with you. Instead you have been challenged to back up your points and present factual argument. You have failed on all accounts and now fall back on the tried and trusted route of alleging bias and misbehavior.
Quote: A professional leader would look into matters regardless of their personal feelings on the issue: You fail in this, so are unfit for leadership.
A professional leader looks into the facts before they listen to the sensualist cries of "haxx and exploit". You have directly lied about many things in the course of this discussion Tigress. Either these are intentional lies or lies from simple incompetence. In any case your arguments are damaged by your inability to debate matters without descending into falsehood and sensationalist slander.
Quote: Except for that right now it appears that the issues your constituency are interested in is fixing FW, and removing you from your seat. Oh wait that cant be right, that doesnt agree with the voices in your head, so when an issue is raised that has garnered as much support as this one, it should be laughed off and insulted because it doesnt agree with you. I pity what your going to go through when CCP gets tired of the elected chair laughing at and insulting its playerbase, and ignoring the issues brought forth and supported on this board.
I challenged you to put an Issue thread into public debate. Why don't you do it? When you get 200 supports in favour of nerfing Empire wars lets talk.
Quote: For once you should do the respectable thing and realize that if your actions and beliefs stir up this much controversy, perhaps you arnt suited for the juob, and leave on your own. But that wont happen regardless of the fact that well over 200 votes of support want the issue of your removal raised.
Thats because these 200 votes come about around 60 people who got butt-hurt for various reasons into trying to undo the result of a democratic electoral process, thus far it has received no support from a CSM member and consequentially hasn't been brought to our formal attention. Quite properly the 2400 votes I received in the election are considerably more relevant in the grand scheme of things. So once again, if you want the CSM to sponsor changes you propose in Eve online make an Issue thread and set out your arguments. If they hold water you'll get some good support and a CSM delegate will bring the issue to the council. I'd advise you to have a nice cup of tea first though and clear some of the vitriol from your veins because nobody is convinced by personal attacks mixed with game development objectives.
So, if you actually have something you care about go do this.
CSM Manifesto 2008 | Destroy Outposts! |
Jade Constantine
|
Posted - 2008.07.03 19:14:00 -
[55]
Originally by: Steel Tigeress Fine. Thats all fine, what is not fine is that SF can hunt me anywhere in Empire, while I cannot hunt you. If I was caldari, you could hide in Galente or Min space and I couldnt pursue.
I've underlined your falsehood.
You can certainly hunt us. While you are in the militia you will have to keep moving since enemy npc's will hit you sure. Or you could temp drop the miltia and hunt us. Or you could pay mercs to hit us. Or you even shift to the other milita and hit us. Or you could drop your corp and join the militia as individuals. Or you could surrender and ask for terms. There is a world of options and the problem you are expressing is absolutely no different from the problem faced by many eve corporations and alliances that find themselves wardecced by entities with home and income streams based in owned 0.0 space.
If you get wardecced by Band of Brothers are you going to be able to hunt them fleely in Delve? Or are you going to be relentlessly hunted by their patroller drones (players) defending their space.
Really. You are making a big fuss over nothing and claiming you have no options or ability to counterattack when you clearly do.
CSM Manifesto 2008 | Destroy Outposts! |
Jade Constantine
|
Posted - 2008.07.03 19:33:00 -
[56]
Originally by: Steel Tigeress There is a huge difference between the two. One is an automated defence that will happen anytime, no way around it. The other can be avoided, has a much slower response time, and most import BoB in 0.0 is being protected by other PLAYERS.
Are you really trying to claim that you'd have more luck moving a Caldari Faction Warfare gang through Delve than you would spinning through a couple of Gallente hisec systems being chased by some faction npc ships that don't even scramble? Seriously.
Quote: You and SF have the opportunity of protection by NPC's, and that protection is costing you nothing, its a side effect of your enemy being in FW.
Well its costing us 100-200m isk a wardec actually. Thats not "nothing" and its considerably more than you pay by being in the Militia and getting free protection from the enemy militia in your hisec.
Quote: Your posts have already been reported, course I dont actually think CCP will do anything. But you were reported for conduct unbecomming a person holding a CCP endorsed position. Even if nothing is done at least they will be aware of the problem....thats you.
Well maybe there's an upside and through the process of making nonsense reports you'll learn about proportionality and how to handle an adult debate without losing your temper. In the end it could turn out to be a learning experience for you.
Still, I'll return to my earlier advise and suggest if you do still feel strongly about this subject you should raise an ISSUE thread with your proposed resolution. Would be much more productive than following me round the forums and shouting "'sploits" "haxx" "griefer" "broken war mechanics" "CSM bias". Have the courage of your convinctions and put up an Issue. I know you can do it!
CSM Manifesto 2008 | Destroy Outposts! |
Jade Constantine
|
Posted - 2008.07.03 19:57:00 -
[57]
Originally by: Steel Tigeress Dont you ever, ever lecture me about courage and convictions. You fail to grasp what either of those two words actually meen. Maybe when you ever have to sacrifice anything for what you believe we can talk on this issue. Suffice to say you have the freedome to be a ***** because of the sacrifices of guys like me.
Until then keep spinning your wheels how ever fast you like, because the more you post about how much all the oppinions in this thread dont matter, the more people will realize how wrong you are for the job.
I'll keep lecturing you about courage and convictions as long as your gameplay appears to lack these things. You are complaining about gameplay consequence and incoming wardecs in an open-pvp game that is famous for its dark and brutal environment and opportunity for conflict and warfare. Rather than fighting in-game and getting into your spaceship to defend your allies you've brought the fight to the forums and are trying to make mileage by attacking a CSM member who dares disagree with your ill-thought out and badly argued tirade against the principle of corporation wardecs. You basically want everything your own way and you lack the backbone to fight for what you believe in.
I've advised you many times to start an ISSUE topic on this subject and you still prefer to come back attacking me rather than taking the slightest risk in tabling your own topic for discussion. That I've reached unfavourable conclusions about your lack of courage should hardly be surprising. Still, you could always reach for the wardec button from your alt corp?
CSM Manifesto 2008 | Destroy Outposts! |
|
|
|