Posted - 2010.06.17 17:07:00 - [31]

 

Originally by: Delilah Wild

---

If you read the various logs of this CSM, you will find some members of it either acknowledging and/or cultivating an anti-Ank bias.

---

I have read all these minutes and it is interesting you choose not to mention how many times Ank complaining of anti-Ank bias whenever people disagreed with her. I didn't know it was now considered sexism to disagree with a female's point of view. You also neglect to mention the schoolyard whining that occurred because Dierdra Vaal had an issue supported while Ank's first issue was not. I also notice that there was no claim of pro-ank bias when her other issues were passed by everyone. Could it be that the CSM are voting on a per issue basis and not on who raised them? In that case why did Ank vote against calling CCP to task for excellence? It would appear it is because she wanted her name on it too. I guess CSM is now all about keeping score of how many issues you raise to justify your position.

Originally by: Venkul Mul

---

Read the quote, Sokratesz was scolded, not threatened.

---

Scolded for a fairly minor off the cuff remark. He claimed there was a threat in a private chat but as it was behind the scenes we can't tell for sure. Mynxee appears to not want to reprimand ank for such behaviour because she quite rightly assumes people reading the minutes will make up their own minds.

Here is the section from meeting 3 with both Ank and Sok's comments in bold. Judge for yourself who is the more unprofessional.

[ 17:34:00 ] Ankhesentapemkah > oh yes and why are you passing dierdras issue and discuss unfinished expansions which is basically the same thing?
[ 17:34:08 ] Sokratesz > flerp
[ 17:34:40 ] Dierdra Vaal > I can see this debate going in circles already. Just vote on the issue. Its on the agenda so yes you dont need to pass it technically, but voting on this now means everyone can move on to the next issue with minimal drama. end
[ 17:35:33 ] Ankhesentapemkah > !
[ 17:35:49 ] Mynxee > ankh
[ 17:36:04 ] Mynxee > after ankh we will vote, then. easiest way to move on.
[ 17:36:09 ] Ankhesentapemkah > Dierdra has done the same thing with his unfinished expansion and his issue was passed even though I argued against that, and now I do this thing and everyone is against me it seems. I find this odd and would say this is anti-ankh crap again.
[ 17:36:16 ] Ankhesentapemkah > end
[ 17:36:53 ] Sokratesz > in other news, sky is blue
[ 17:37:38 ] TeaDaze > DV's issue specifically called them on the excellence issue. This FW is a rehash of previously passed issues
[ 17:37:46 ] Dierdra Vaal > just vote guys
[ 17:38:07 ] Mynxee > All in favor of Fix Factional Warfare raised by Ankh?
[ 17:38:12 ] Ankhesentapemkah > Excellence is a rehash of the unfinished expansion issue which I raised.
[ 17:38:12 ] Dierdra Vaal > aye
[ 17:38:19 ] Ankhesentapemkah > aye
[ 17:39:03 ] Mynxee > All opposed say Nay?
[ 17:39:09 ] Trebor Daehdoow > nay
[ 17:39:13 ] Sokratesz > nay
[ 17:39:16 ] Mynxee > nay
[ 17:39:27 ] ALPHA12125 > nay
[ 17:39:35 ] TeaDaze > nay - already covered
[ 17:39:47 ] Ankhesentapemkah > lol DOUBLE STANDARDS.

Sok is scolded like a naughty schoolboy for stating the sky is blue in reference to the 3rd meeting in a row where Ank accused the rest of the CSM of anti-Ank bias whenever other delegates disagreed with her.

Posted - 2010.06.17 19:14:00 - [33]

 

There is not much to respond to in FinnAgain's post except simple reassertions of unsubstantiated claims, willful misinterpretations and a juvenile attitude.

Dee Tearant, you have a more interesting response. One which I agree with in two respects.

First, like you I agree that merely disagreeing with a female is not sexism. I do not agree with people who unreasonably shield themselves against critique by claiming discrimination.

At the same time, coded language used as a placeholder for sexism and other invidious 'isms' is a well recognized phenomena. The meltdowns we hear claims of are in reality small, cherry-picked, political dust-ups. When placed alongside the over-the-top personal aspersions and heated rhetoric against Eva as a person, I think it is reasonable to call to account some people for implicit or hidden sexism.

This doesn't mean, of course, that you are being sexist. Still, I would respectfully ask that you and others explicitly reject such sexism when it occurs, and call others to account for it when you hear it.

For a long time, I've thought bigots speak poorly of our 'mature player-base', and it is little wonder that women shy away from Eve. They are certainly not people I or my mates want to be associated with, and we have very strict rules about respecting diversity in our corps. I hope this is true for you and your mates as well.

Second, I do not think there is anything wrong with Ank standing up for herself. Sometimes, calling attention to those who scapegoat us is one way to do that. I think we have all experienced being the scapegoat at home or at work, and felt the need to dig in our heels and say something is wrong or unfair.

That said, as I hope I made clear in my last post, it is time for Ank to move beyond this concern. To stick with it will be counterproductive, egg on trolls, and detract from more important issues.

So you have a sense of my intentions, I intervened in this debate partly because Ank represents an important element of Eve's citizens that deserves to be heard, and partly because the smears and fictions swirling around her detract from real issues that the CSM should be dealing with. It was necessary to separate fact from fiction in order to move us along.

For instance, one of the real issues is the inevitable (??) rebalancing of pvp between pirates and anti-pirates. Ank pushes strongly for this. The potential loss of protections and privileges that pirates currently enjoy is a major source of vitriol against Ank. I realize that the need to rebalance pirate/anti-pirate pvp is a point of view that some may not agree with. But I would rather have it debated on the merits, that through a personal politics of slurs.

Finally, I appreciate you taking the time to quote a substantive extract from the record. You are not trying to misquote by leaving out the immediate context. Nonetheless, may I ask you to please consider the larger context of Dierdra Vaal's scolding. He's not scolding Sokratesz for that one remark per se, but responding to a particular remark representative of a larger pattern of truant behaviour. There is a wider context than just those raw logs to consider here.

Now we can argue the merits of whether Sokratesz or Ank is worse. I don't want to do that. I'd rather we push all the members of the CSM to act in a professional and productive manner.

So I've publically called upon Ank to set her concerns with scapegoating to one side. Perhaps you can join me in asking Sokratesz to stop trolling. And in the future, we should call to account any of them who engages in behaviour that detracts from improving Eve for all of us.

Delilah
friendsofeve.wordpress.com

Posted - 2010.06.17 20:40:00 - [35]

 

Ankh is thoroughly unqualified to be a CSM member, as her actions have demonstrated. She has shown repeatedly that her primary concern is not the CSM or EVE but herself, and furthermore whenever others disagree with an idea of hers she accuses them of anti-Ankh sentiment. Frankly, there is one person and one person only at fault for any anti-Ankh sentiment on the CSM, and that is Ankh. Her insulting statements and petulant, childish behavior are more than enough to explain the existence of anti-Ankh sentiment.

As for sexism, please. She would be just as awful and unqualified if she were Evan Jobse instead of Eva Jobse, and I would be just as outspoken in my belief that she is incompetent and unsuitable for the CSM. I am quite certain that Finn would as well (seeing as he's my alt, after all). Furthermore, while I do not know your gender, Delilah, I am entirely prepared to state based on the contents of your blog and your statements on this forum that you do not understand EVE, do not understand the concept of "play," possess an entirely unjustifiable and arrogant sense of moral superiority, and, quite frankly, that you are a moron, albeit one capable of stringing lots of words together. As far as I am concerned these statements would all hold true regardless of whether you are male or female.

Perhaps if Ankh were willing to behave like an adult and accept defeat gracefully, instead of engaging in passive-aggressive behavior, insulting other members (as she did to Teadaze) and blaming "anti-Ankh sentiment" for every time a vote fails to go her way, then that "anti-Ankh sentiment" might go away. Instead, however, she has behaved in a manner similar to that of a temperamental child, throwing tantrums whenever she fails to get her way. Such behavior harms the constituencies Ankh was elected to represent, and, ironically, harms her own reputation and political position. Evidently, she lacks the maturity to recognize this. So, sadly, do you.

Posted - 2010.06.17 21:00:00 - [37]

 

Edited by: FinnAgain Zero on 17/06/2010 21:03:44

Originally by: Miyamoto Isoruku

---

As for sexism, please. She would be just as awful and unqualified if she were Evan Jobse instead of Eva Jobse, and I would be just as outspoken in my belief that she is incompetent and unsuitable for the CSM. I am quite certain that Finn would as well (seeing as he's my alt, after all).

---

Of course.

Although Delilah is just trolling, as the very first thing it says about Sok in its blog post is that Sok had a "hissy fit". Evidently the troll is only against such comments when they're applied to Ank. Or maybe we'll see the earlier troll that was trotted out during the campaign that if you respond to an insult with a similar insult, the second doesn't count and 'context' totally eliminates it, no do-overs and no backsies!



Edit: evidently I was in too late and it's now trolling some more here, too. "hissy fit is totally code for sexist beliefs... except when I use it!"

And, big surprise, still no examples of anything I got wrong or "misrepresented", because it's lying about it.

Posted - 2010.06.18 00:32:00 - [39]

 

Sexism means the same thing as "smear", "distortion", "debunked claim", etc...
Something that's true and is unfavorable about Ank.

Posted - 2010.06.18 13:06:00 - [41]

 

At least Ankh makes things interesting. I, for one, am looking forward to the next meeting log.

Posted - 2010.06.18 14:26:00 - [43]

 

Thanks for your reply Sujanra Acoma,

Actually, I don't think you and I are that far apart. We both agree that Ank should drop the complaint about scapegoating, and Sokratesz is behaving unprofessionally. We also agree that Sokratesz and Ank and the rest of the CSM should be expected to work cooperatively and productively together.

Please note, however, that there are multiple themes to this thread. Its not simply about whether Ank is justified in griping or not.

For that reason, I cannot simply blame both sides equally. Or fail to place the dispute in the context needed to understand it fully. Simply blaming both sides wouldn't be a middle-ground position, it would be a 'false balance'.

I'm not saying this is what you were trying to do. Rather I'm explaining why I push back hard on the misleading claims of those who want to make this all about Ank. It is more complex than that.

My preference is to see this discussion move towards professional expectations of the CSM. If I'm interpreting you correctly, you are so inclined as well.

As for Mynxee, I too think she has done a good job of chairing the CSM. Her wink and nod on this thread was a departure from that, and one that I hope won't happen again.

Delilah
friendsofeve.wordpress.com

Posted - 2010.06.18 20:15:00 - [45]

 

Just 2 things.

I expect the csm members act mature, whichever side it comes from.
Remember one thing and one thing only CSM delegates, you are chosen to represent the playerbase, nothing more and certainly nothing less.

As for Finn(Not)Again.

You must be one bored gamer. Or you just have a personal grudge versus Ank, because checking back reveals that in the passt few weeks most of your posts are regarding Ank in some way or another.

Just for your information. Regardless if you agree as how she got voted or that she got voted is of null concern. Your acting like Don Quichotte and Ank is your personal windmill. It's way passt amusing and it's more closing into the point of pathetic.

So my dear CSM delegates, do that what you are voted for and make this game more enjoyable in general, for the carebears and the hardcore PvP-ers and for the griefers and scammers.

Posted - 2010.06.19 11:25:00 - [47]

 

Originally by: Delilah Wild

---

For instance, one of the real issues is the inevitable (??) rebalancing of pvp between pirates and anti-pirates. Ank pushes strongly for this. The potential loss of protections and privileges that pirates currently enjoy is a major source of vitriol against Ank. I realize that the need to rebalance pirate/anti-pirate pvp is a point of view that some may not agree with. But I would rather have it debated on the merits, that through a personal politics of slurs.

---

Eh... elaborate on the "protection and privileges" that pirates enjoy? Since from what I can see, any neutral fighting vs a pirate (outlaw) will have a very big advantage on their side. I would say that neutrals have too much protection in lowsec.

And if I need to refresh your memory, this is a list of disadvantages pirates have in lowsec:

- We can be killed & podded without any penalty.
- When fighting on station or gates we will have 300dps against us from the guns.
- We cannot assist any corp mates on station or gates without getting gun aggro, unless neutral players, who can assist their corp mates on a station or gate.
- Above reasons 2 will kill anything below a BC if there for more then a few seconds.
- When killing a pirate, usually 50% of the damage will be from gate or station guns, so yes, they hurt alot.

A non-pirate fighting a pirate will not suffer any of these penalties, and will be at a decent advantage. So, tell me, what is this "real" issue of pirates having too much privileges?

Posted - 2010.06.19 14:08:00 - [49]

 

Originally by: FinnAgain Zero

---

Brilliant factual rebuttal.
(You're not even a good troll)

---

I am glad your responce excelled in pure genious. But I actually didn't expect more than that.
Thank you for confirming my thoughts about you though.

Posted - 2010.06.19 20:59:00 - [51]

 

Originally by: Delilah Wild

---

Hello Killer Gandry,

Thanks for writing.

I think the vast majority of us reading these threads couldn't agree with your views on the CSM and other matters more.

Delilah

---

See, it's smug crap like this that annoys me. You're just as bad.

Posted - 2010.06.20 10:49:00 - [53]

 

Originally by: Miyamoto Isoruku

---

Ankh is thoroughly unqualified to be a CSM member, as her actions have demonstrated. She has shown repeatedly that her primary concern is not the CSM or EVE but herself, and furthermore whenever others disagree with an idea of hers she accuses them of anti-Ankh sentiment. Frankly, there is one person and one person only at fault for any anti-Ankh sentiment on the CSM, and that is Ankh. Her insulting statements and petulant, childish behavior are more than enough to explain the existence of anti-Ankh sentiment.

As for sexism, please. She would be just as awful and unqualified if she were Evan Jobse instead of Eva Jobse, and I would be just as outspoken in my belief that she is incompetent and unsuitable for the CSM. I am quite certain that Finn would as well (seeing as he's my alt, after all). Furthermore, while I do not know your gender, Delilah, I am entirely prepared to state based on the contents of your blog and your statements on this forum that you do not understand EVE, do not understand the concept of "play," possess an entirely unjustifiable and arrogant sense of moral superiority, and, quite frankly, that you are a moron, albeit one capable of stringing lots of words together. As far as I am concerned these statements would all hold true regardless of whether you are male or female.

Perhaps if Ankh were willing to behave like an adult and accept defeat gracefully, instead of engaging in passive-aggressive behavior, insulting other members (as she did to Teadaze) and blaming "anti-Ankh sentiment" for every time a vote fails to go her way, then that "anti-Ankh sentiment" might go away. Instead, however, she has behaved in a manner similar to that of a temperamental child, throwing tantrums whenever she fails to get her way. Such behavior harms the constituencies Ankh was elected to represent, and, ironically, harms her own reputation and political position. Evidently, she lacks the maturity to recognize this. So, sadly, do you.

---

I could not have worded it in a better way, thank you for that sir.

I have used a grand total of seven words in statements of questionable seriousness to denounce Ankh during the CSM meetings. I was honestly going to make the effort but I lost count in the 200's, but Ankh has used entire paragraphs at a time, on more than a dozen occasions, to denounce not only the entire CSM but also TeaDaze who probably put more honest time into this than the rest of us pooled together. Baseless criticism, an unwillingness to accommodate and cooperate in order to aid improvement, repeated statements of paranoia an tinfoil hattery, now you tell me who is throwing a fit against whom, and with what purpose?

Originally by: Delilah Wild

---

It takes patience and discipline to deal with the truant behaviour of people like Sokratesz. And perhaps Ank doesn't suffer fools gladly. Most strong women I know do not. Yet at the same time, one must expect, adapt and transcend such behaviour in any politicized circumstance.

---

Serious Business. I mean Super Serious Business. I mean Stop Using Such Difficult Words In An Attempt To Justify Your Crusade For The Defense Of Ankh.

Posted - 2010.06.20 11:43:00 - [55]

 

ITT: Radical Feminism.

Posted - 2010.06.20 16:26:00 - [57]

 

The problem is, of course, that you are a usual troll.
You're also a committed liar. As pointed out to you, pirates are already at a severe disadvantage in lowsec (and a massive one in highsec), and yet instead of your real agenda, nerfing pirates, you pretend that you're really interested in "improving eve for everybody!" or "balancing the game between pirates and anti-pirates" or some such nonsense. If you wanted it balanced, then there'd be a 50% chance that gate guns would fire on outlaws or those with a high sec status, and a 50% chance that Concord would gank pirates or their targets, and a 50% chance that pirates wouldn't give out universal kill rights when they're red flashy and instead those with 5.01 sec status would go flashy, and...

But you're not honest. You're just looking for a back door method to nerf pirates and trying to distort your intentions dishonestly. You want to find a way to make "life in lowsec better". Except what you really mean is "neuter pirates so that people can be ever safer in lowsec". Because you simply don't understand the game of EVE, and you want even more places where you can carebear and now lowsec, too, has to be extremely hostile to pirates so that you can run your lvl 5's there, or whatever.

You're just part of the Church of Victim. You've adopted a narrative of powerlessness. It's the mean pirates, it's the mean 0.0 pilots, it's the mean PvPers, it's the mean people who don't like Ank. Whoever. You're powerless and can't learn to deal with the game with the tools the game already has given you. You need even more protection. And you're prepared to cry about it.

Posted - 2010.06.20 20:19:00 - [59]

 

The reason I said Ank winning isn't all that bad emerges. Threads like this, it has Ank showing her natural paranoia along with a decreasing patience threshold of her fellow CSM members. Also the standard issue fanboi/gurl making blanket statements about sexism and the like which with out a doubt will increase in fervor and tenor as ank continues to think that people having different opinions means that a conspiracy is in action against her. This is going to make some great forum ****.