open All Channels
seplocked Jita Park Speakers Corner
blankseplocked [CSM6] Re-Elect Meissa Anunthiel
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: [1] 2

Author Topic

Meissa Anunthiel
Redshift Industrial
Rooks and Kings
Posted - 2011.03.02 05:50:00 - [1]
 

Edited by: Meissa Anunthiel on 09/03/2011 08:43:04
Direct Voting link: click here
Hi,

After serving on CSM 2, 3, 4 and 5, I'm running again for CSM 6. As a member of the CSM I have been able to contribute into making the CSM what it is today.

I am a balanced candidate, one with deep knowledge in all areas of the game, from PvP to industry, wormholes, lowsec, highsec, 0.0, mining, plexing, missions running, FW.

Since I take part in all Eve has to offer, I favor no aspect over another, and am one of the few CSM members to have continuously looked for unintended consequences, and taken into consideration how changes might impact the play styles that were not the ones targeted by the proposals. Indeed, I am in an industrial corporation in a small but renowned PvP alliance, Rooks and Kings. This unlikely combination gives me ample opportunity to take part in any game play I chose.

Considering the limited resources available for things other than InCarna, I intend to focus on providing as many small but much-needed game improvements that benefit everyone for the first part of the term, and helping CCP get rid of bots (preferably also by making those areas that are heavily macroed more engaging) then assisting CCP in giving much needed love to those existing areas of the game that have been all but left aside for the latter half.

One of the biggest difficulties for a newly elected candidates is to understand how CCP functions, and how the CSM interacts with them. That is an issue that has been regularly described as "by the time we understand how it works it's over" by former members when the CSM terms were still 6 months. Obviously that is not a problem I have, and voting for me is a way to make sure the CSM hits the ground running.

I have a proven track record of being able to work well with other members, no matter their background and priorities.

I don't try and get into the spotlight, and usually am content making sure the process works and changes go in the right direction, speaking out publicly only when I have something meaningful to add instead of engaging in forum warrioring continuously. Those who voted for me in the past know that I have always been available.

I will be posting more information here, be sure to ask any question you might have.

CSM Campaign website: http://www.rooksandkings.com/meissa/ (will be updated with my CSM 6 campaign page a bit later today.

Contactez-moi dans le jeu si vous avez des questions en français.
Póngase en contacto conmigo en el juego si tiene preguntas en español.


Meissa Anunthiel

Meissa Anunthiel
Redshift Industrial
Rooks and Kings
Posted - 2011.03.02 05:50:00 - [2]
 

Edited by: Meissa Anunthiel on 03/03/2011 21:50:11
You can tell a lot by what others say of someone, so here's a few things people who have worked with me during the terms have said:

Meissa is extremely analytical, well-versed in game mechanics and cause-and-effect of those mechanics, and able to express himself and his ideas very well.

His game knowledge is excellent and approach to presenting/supporting his opinions both in our internal forums and at Summits is very effective. So while he's one of the "quiet" CSM members, he contributes a lot of value. Just sayin.

-- Mynxee, CSM 5 chairwoman
(who also kindly included me in her list of people to consider voting for)

Meissa, despite not being a good or well known poaster is very dedicated, knowledgeable and, something which will be VERY important this time around, pretty impartial and balanced in his views (perhaps frustratingly so at times ). He's also a very nice chap and good fun on the lash for a Belgian.
-- Larkonis Trassler, CSM 3
(who named me as one of the 2 people to vote for)

<...> he knows the part of eve that he plays really well and he makes sound arguments even if i dont agree with them, and i think you should vote for him

-- Mazzilliu, CSM 3 and 5

Message from someone who's clearly not T'Amber just below too...

Serious Internet Politician
www.seriousinternetpolitician.com
Posted - 2011.03.02 06:14:00 - [3]
 

Edited by: Serious Internet Politician on 02/03/2011 06:17:09
I've activated one more account just to vote for Meissa.

Meissa cemented his worthyness for a full seat during the fifth CSM and his only failing is that he only got alternate the other times and not full seats.

Good luck Meissa and see you in local Very Happy




Dro Nee
Posted - 2011.03.02 06:50:00 - [4]
 

Would you articulate what some of the "small but much-needed game improvements" are? Also, would you spell out the metrics and methedologies you use to evaluate whether something is a "problem" or not?


Cheers

Meissa Anunthiel
Redshift Industrial
Rooks and Kings
Posted - 2011.03.02 11:03:00 - [5]
 

Edited by: Meissa Anunthiel on 08/03/2011 19:07:40
Originally by: Dro Nee
Would you articulate what some of the "small but much-needed game improvements" are? Also, would you spell out the metrics and methedologies you use to evaluate whether something is a "problem" or not?
Cheers


There are many "small but much-needed game improvements".

Let's start with the UI, improvements have been made on that front, but far from enough:
- Fleet management UI still sucks (not fleet finder, the fleet management itself)
- The market window, well, is barely functional (come on, no way to see my listed orders and their price without opening the wallet)?
- The overheating UI is pathetic, feedback is delayed, buttons are extremely tiny and easy to miss...
Those are exemples of small UI items that wouldn't take too long to modify to significantly improve the gaming experience.

Then there's the game mechanics themselves:
- War declaration costs and timings and end terms (lots of thinking required, probably not that much on the implementation side).
- Cosmos/Faction items that have 0 uses, not even fitting benefits
- Mothership (aka Supercarriers) rebalancing, Black Ops rebalancing
- (pet peeve of mine) capital ship self-destruction timers
- Launching multiple invention/copy/production jobs at once
- Corporate/Alliance bookmark sharing
These are exemples of things, there's a [url=http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1425870]thread where players can put their own[/url] that I'm keeping a close eye on.

But in essence, these are features that have a low development cost for a somewhat high return. Considering the lack of resources available during the InCarna development, the focus (at least for the first half of the year) should be placed on those, no matter how much bigger improvements (albeit with bigger returns) would be needed.

The metrics and methodologies depend on the "problem" to assess, obviously. For many things I have experience to go by, either my own or other's (I keep a list of people who can help put my own perceptions in perspective, debate ad nauseam, play devil's advocate). For things that are substantiatable through figures, I usually go with QENs if the information is available there or I make specific requests to CCP for figures on this or that. Eventually (hi Diagoras), they provide the figures to make a rational fact based decision on.

Eve being what it is, no matter how self-relevant the problem fixes are, there are always consequences however. A buff to something is always a nerf to something else, and vice versa. In some rare cases, there are no downsides to a change. Most of the time, there are side effects. All of which need to be taken into consideration and weighed, and this is where I shine (if I may say so myself) because I've done (nearly) everything, explored the game mechanics, learned how stuff works...

That was a bit more articulate that I expected to be, how that answers your question.

Dro Nee
Posted - 2011.03.02 18:00:00 - [6]
 

Thanks for the reply! If i may I would like to press you on the metrics side a little more.

How do you know that there is a problem with black ops, or log-off timers on caps/supercaps? What specific evidence would you use to conclude that they have been fixed (assuming some changes were made)?

Meissa Anunthiel
Redshift Industrial
Rooks and Kings
Posted - 2011.03.02 18:51:00 - [7]
 

Originally by: Dro Nee
Thanks for the reply! If i may I would like to press you on the metrics side a little more.

How do you know that there is a problem with black ops, or log-off timers on caps/supercaps? What specific evidence would you use to conclude that they have been fixed (assuming some changes were made)?



There's several factors to indicate Black Ops are a problem. First, there's very few of them flown, I rarely encounter them personally, plus QEN data says there's very few of them flown and built (and I seem to recall we got data from CCP about them last term, but I didn't know that when I thought they were broken). Then there's EFT and comparing their capabilities with that of other ships, plus my custom fitting tool (a substitute for EFT). Comparing the performance difference between most black ops, both offensively and defensively doesn't match the value difference with their T1 counterparts.
I don't subscribe to the view that a ship 6 times more expensive need to be 6 times more powerful, obviously, but the low usage combined with frankly pathetic overall capacities for a T2 lead to a perception it could use buffing.
Now, it's also relatively subjective.
In theory a ship 20 times as pricey as a T1 but with a jump drive/portal could be worth it. The fact is that it isn't, or it would be used :p

For log-off timer on caps, there's no data to be had really, it's impossible to sink a sieged/triaged ship before it self-destructs now in a one on one situation, or even 3 against 1 for that matter, if the ship is reasonably tanked. I could go with EFT data to make my point, but in this instance there's really no arguing that.
I appreciate that self destruction can be a valid point to deprive another of a killmail and thereby deprive them of a potential tactical advantage of knowing your fit, but when it ceases to be a decision to be made that has consequences at some point in time, but an automatism when you know you're going to die and there's nothing the other can do to prevent you from killing yourself before you do it yourself, it's not much of a choice anymore.
I'd rather see self destruction happen at a time where the person still may have a fighting chance and decides to make it a gamble. Either initiate self-destruct now, or keep trying to fend off the attackers.
Right now no such choice has to be made.
As for the metrics, to answer is: personal experience, EFT, my personal EFT-like tool.

While I understand your question, I would think the most valuable question would be "why do I think a player needs to be prevented from self-destructing at will in the first place", and that's where balance and gameplay issues arise, and where the question of fun, reward, etc. enter. And there's no putting figures on that, just weighing all pros and cons, ie, under what circumstances is it acceptable for a pilot to deprive another of the fruits of their labor (a killmail in this instance)...

My job as a CSM member arguing that kind of issue is to make sure the data discussed represent the facts, and then arguing both sides of the question to make sure no decision is made in ignorance and without having carefuly weighed everything.

Dro Nee
Posted - 2011.03.02 18:57:00 - [8]
 

Edited by: Dro Nee on 02/03/2011 19:04:51
Your reply on BO's was the kind of thing that I was looking for, and you intuited the deeper question I was asking about self-destruct timers (although the answer seemed a little wishy washy :P ). So far you have been the most specific and I appreciate that.

Thanks for your time and good luck with your campaign!

Meissa Anunthiel
Redshift Industrial
Rooks and Kings
Posted - 2011.03.03 20:02:00 - [9]
 

Originally by: Serious Internet Politician
Edited by: Serious Internet Politician on 02/03/2011 06:17:09
I've activated one more account just to vote for Meissa.

Meissa cemented his worthyness for a full seat during the fifth CSM and his only failing is that he only got alternate the other times and not full seats.

Good luck Meissa and see you in local Very Happy



Thanks a lot Not T'Amber.

Just to clarify one thing, during CSM 4, there was still a term limit in place, and I wanted to absolutely be in CSM 5 to have the chance for continuity on my efforts in CSM 3 (the terms were 6 months then), so it was a case of either not running at all or run for an alternate seat (no limit on alternate seats). So I went with that and purposefully ran for an alternate seat for CSM 4 so I could still participate in the debates and have a hands on approach, but without the iceland trips, which I knew from experience to still be an effective place to be.

iP0D
Posted - 2011.03.03 20:18:00 - [10]
 

Don't take this the wrong way, you're a leavel headed guy, and it is clear from the Summit Minutes that you can participate quite clearly. But, if elected, are you planning to participate in the meetings and in the general communications to us players more than before?

I mean, you really give a strong impression that you just show up just before and after events, and for the rest you're completely invisible and often absent as well.

If there's one lesson from CSM 5 it is that constant, consistant and transparant communication is a must. In part for reasons of dealing with CCP (pressure management, see the example of the backlog and the Hansoft case) but also in keeping players (voters) informed in general. There's more to life than just a convo or private talk, especially if the idea is to get a job well done.

I'm sure you get where this comes from, it's just we rarely see anything from you - except just before and just after events. And well, that leaves gaps Sad


Meissa Anunthiel
Redshift Industrial
Rooks and Kings
Posted - 2011.03.03 21:24:00 - [11]
 

Originally by: iP0D
Don't take this the wrong way, you're a leavel headed guy, and it is clear from the Summit Minutes that you can participate quite clearly. But, if elected, are you planning to participate in the meetings and in the general communications to us players more than before?

I mean, you really give a strong impression that you just show up just before and after events, and for the rest you're completely invisible and often absent as well.

If there's one lesson from CSM 5 it is that constant, consistant and transparant communication is a must. In part for reasons of dealing with CCP (pressure management, see the example of the backlog and the Hansoft case) but also in keeping players (voters) informed in general. There's more to life than just a convo or private talk, especially if the idea is to get a job well done.

I'm sure you get where this comes from, it's just we rarely see anything from you - except just before and just after events. And well, that leaves gaps Sad




Valid concerns.
TL;DR: yes, sorry, communication is part of the job, yes.


First and foremost I wasn't a public personna before running for the first time, and have never been interested in being one. I didn't post much, I was more of a lurker. For none of the past elections was there more than minimal interest in my candidacy thread, and that's fine really. What I did was campaign on a more personal level, reach out to subgroups that have their own different forums, on which I post, or contact people directly, or have them contact me directly. Those are the places where I communicated the most.

For the rest, I don't think repeating what others have said to bring anything of value. Chiming in "me too" just to get attention really isn't my style so I post only if I have something meaningful to add, defend a point of view that isn't represented or provide information/clarification when arguments are going on about things I know to be untrue, that kind of thing. Posting isn't a hobby of mine, reading is, however.

But yes, I've come to recognize lately that some expect me to be more active publicly. That seldom is well received however, because I insist on holding a moderate point of view, recognising both sides, and that usually irritates people who tend to have one sided views (cfr. the posts I had made about InCarna). Mynxee qualifies me as "too diplomatic", it's just my nature, I can't do dichotomy :p
That being said, once held, I defend positions tooth and nails.

As for some of my absence mid last term, there's been a number of RL constraints that led to some absences, indeed. I won't elaborate on that here however. Also, the periods that are not before/after meetings are usually slow, but yes, I'll be happy to say "you're right, I have no excuse". Doesn't mean I was ignoring my responsibilities, the minutes of the Iceland meetings don't say who said/did what (and that's a good thing), but I can assure you I was well prepared on all the subjects brought up, made significant points during discussions, etc, I post on the CSM forums, in CSM email correspondences, etc. all in line with my usual way, carefully thought, to the point and constructive.

As far as your statement about communication, I agree that it requires constance and consistency, and I do believe it has had that, CSM communication usually is precluded by a series of email about it, and I post my comments there to make sure CSM messages represent my position. The last point on your comm list is transparency, that's one point where I'll beg to differ a bit. There's a clear advantage to being able to have discussions behind closed doors sometimes like on the internal CSM forums, where we can have clear, unpoluted and civilized (mostly :p) discussions with devs are invaluable, yet they're not open... The outcome is transparent however...

Also, keep in mind communication is only half the job. The more important part is getting stuff done to talk about. That's where I shine...

Mynxee
Veto.
Veto Corp
Posted - 2011.03.03 21:53:00 - [12]
 

Originally by: Meissa Anunthiel
Mynxee qualifies me as "too diplomatic", it's just my nature, I can't do dichotomy :p That being said, once held, I defend positions tooth and nails.


C/C Wink Having a moderate delegate or two on the CSM is not so bad; it does tend to tone down some of us who may tend to be a bit more *cough* stridently one-sided in our opinions. Twisted Evil It's clear from working together on CSM5 that you arrive at your opinions only after careful thought and examination of all angles. That was very helpful at Summits, and also in one or two of our more "energetic" internal discussions.

Good luck in your bid for a CSM6 seat.

iP0D
Posted - 2011.03.03 21:54:00 - [13]
 

Originally by: Meissa Anunthiel
The last point on your comm list is transparency, that's one point where I'll beg to differ a bit. There's a clear advantage to being able to have discussions behind closed doors sometimes like on the internal CSM forums, where we can have clear, unpoluted and civilized (mostly :p) discussions with devs are invaluable, yet they're not open... The outcome is transparent however...



I think you are missing a point though, I appreciate the candid response either way.

Back in October last year, there was a lot of talk about pressure management as part of the instrumentation provided by most notably CCP's CEO. I can't take credit for coining that triangle of transparancy, consistancy & communication, but they are the foundation to any interaction between a company and an external stakeholder.

But on two levels. Within the interaction, and outside of that interaction - because there is more than the loop between the stakeholder and its host.

The CSM can communicate, even consistantly and transparantly with CCP as you say, behind closed doors. That is productive, and constructive, it is needed. But it is but one side of the coin, as without the pressure management instrumentation an external stakeholder has only the individual will of people in the host company as both validation and sanction. This is why smart companies put emphasis on providing an instrumentation of pressure management for the external stakeholder. CCP has done so.

The example posted in Mittens thread of the backlog issue, which was a case of vague statements and excuses (let's be honest) is a good example. It was not until the CSM made the matter transparant to players by means of communiccating on it and engaging on the topic in a consistant manner. The topic being out there created a noticable pressue on its own, but once players picked up on it and one guy did the work himself, the pressure management case was complete. Up to that point there had been personal appeal, argumentation, discussion, etc. But no results. Once the pressure management was put in place, there were results. And that pressuree management was enabled through applying those 3 concepts to the interaction between the CSM and players.

Maybe that clarifies it more. On that particular topic, the outcome was for a long, long time not transparent at all. Until pressure management was applied. I trust you see the difference between this approach and that of "hurf blruf fist on table", which has nothing to do with pressure management whatsoever. On the contrary, CCP walked out of EVE a long time ago because of it, the consequences of which we face today still. If there is one thing positive (of all of it) from CSM 5 it is the visible efforts from Zulu to rejoin the dynamic of EVE once again, something which is significant in its own right for many reasons.

At the end of the day, the one thing I hope to see in CSM 6 is for that CSM as a team to never shy away from applying the so very needed accountability in these things. Not because of absence of trust in CCP, but because it is what works. And CCP can handle that well, after all that is exactly what their company values are about.



Meissa Anunthiel
Redshift Industrial
Rooks and Kings
Posted - 2011.03.03 22:39:00 - [14]
 

Originally by: iP0D
:words: (Virt, is that you?)

I like theoretical considerations as much as the next home philosopher, but I'll try and keep the wording simple and not delve into side definition considerations, as the first instance of my reply was heavily into... ;-)

So... first I don't agree with your assumption that that triangle (transparency, consist & comm) is be the "foundation to any interaction between a company and an external stakeholder". At least not the kind of transparency or communication we were talking about in the previous post (CCP->CSM as opposed to CSM->players or CCP->players). And "consistency" is frequently a synonym for "immutability". I expect someone I go the trouble of talking to to be able to change opinions in the face of sensible arguments, and therefore to be, by definition, inconsistent. I however people to be consistent in their engagements... Bah, definitions... Either way, I agree they are vital (in their amended form).

I think the backlog issue getting resolved didn't happen the way you describe it, we requested it in CSM 2 where we got told "not a chance in hell" (paraphrasing), CSM 3 said maybe later for our own issues, CSM 4 made CSM a stakeholder, CSM 5 made it clear we needed it, and we got it. Saying it happened all of a sudden during CSM 5 because of forum rage amounts to ignoring the contributions past CSM have made in getting CCP to accept that idea in the first place. It didn't happen as a consequence of the people outrage and outcry, the public reaction was a symptom of our own continuous frustration, but there was a clear indication we were heading there even without the public manifestation of exasperation (I'm outside my country for work atm, I'll find the relevant sections of CSM-CCP meetings later if you want).
In that instance surely comm & transparency (CCP->CSM) played important parts, but not transparency (CSM->public). Not that I'm saying it doesn't matter, it's extremely important, but it wasn't a cause here, rather it helped reinforce the public belief in the CSM doing what was required to perform its (perceived) function as player representation and was therefore a correlation only.

Also, I do agree CCP Zulu coming back (or rather, coming to the front) is a godsend in CCP following your magic triangle (not being sarcastic, just humour attempt). It is significant, it is welcome, and it is a very good sign. His predecessor barely bothered to show up during CSM/CCP meetings, Zulu is practically always there, bless the man.

I expect indeed CSM 6 to be able to keep putting pressure, and hopefully to cease being seen as hostile by some, but rather really a stake holder, in the pure sense of the word, someone to work with rather than fight against. We've made great progress on that front (with one high profile roadbumps, but heh). I just hope the elected members manage to keep their ego and sense of entitlement in rein, because there's lots of potential for that among the candidates...

iP0D
Posted - 2011.03.03 23:04:00 - [15]
 

Edited by: iP0D on 03/03/2011 23:04:58
Originally by: Meissa Anunthiel
theoretical considerations as much as the next home philosopher


Not him, I hope to god I'm not that terrible at huge posts. His SHC posts are usually right on the mark tho. Even if they make everyone's eyes bleed with walls of text.

It's not a theoretical consideration either way. No philosophy required :P It's a common concept in stakeholder/host interactions. It is a little bit different with CCP since they took the "democratic" angle, but yeah well I suppose it fits with EVE as a sandbox where players drive the events.

Either way, no need to reinvent the wheel Razz We can be happy that CCP acknowledged these things. I was part of the Firaxis team for Civ V, and that was a classic example of how not to run a stakeholder group for a software service product. We had the exact same issue you describe where consistancy becomes immutability, the result of which was the publisher interaction grinding to an immediate halt. The results of which are well, rather visible in Civ V.

As much as there has been an evolution of sorts, for CSM as an experiment (unlike Virt I don't think the first CSM implementation was one of damage control on top of honest intentions) to end up growing into a useful instrument (but one which part of CCP seems to have serious trouble with) I don't think we can take it as a continuity case. While bits and pieces went from one to the next, each CSM "broke" a chain, so to say. Hence why I hope that from CSM 5 to CSM 6 that will not be the case.

I agree with Bartholomaeus on SHC btw that CSM 5 really did wake up CCP, in many ways. Not so much along the lines of "holy **** rage" (tbh I saw more from CSM 5 last year to keep "rage" constructive and directed than what I saw from CCP) but in a realisation among many that 1) CCP at a time moved away from the environment they created and 2) CCP had lost the understanding of applicable perspectives rather than pure metrics. But it is also clear that CCP got split in a way with CSM. Look at the difference between team gridlock and team incarna. Not as people, but as cases of interaction.

That's where I fear for CSM 6. Got to be honest there, CSM 5 did (not through intention) highlight and show insight into a lot of causes of issues we players have had to deal with over the last few years. I've seen CCP for a fair few years now, and there is always a reaction against that. Usually that of the cold shoulder, and often that of playing the party trumpet .. while neither gives any opening for getting anywhere other than the next awesome media show.

Which takes us back to pressure management. Unlike barth and Virt I do not think that CCP still are honest in their company values. I think they lost those when they went from medium sized company to a multi national distributed firm. But maybe I am wrong. But I would damn prefer to see people on the CSM 6 who can constructively engage in pressure management. Based on those 3 simple things, applied to both directions. Simply because without that, we're back to square one with CCP. especially in the aftermath of what is going to be a struggle with wht SCH calls "team awesome". That does not conflict with NDA or facetime, it reinforces it.

And that is why I asked you my original question. Because well, you always seemed to drop out of sight. And where one person can reach for a convo, the common capsuleer userbase does depend on independant media these days for information and insight. Maybe now it's fully clear Cool

Trebor Daehdoow
Gallente
Sane Industries Inc.
Posted - 2011.03.03 23:40:00 - [16]
 

While obviously I believe that "all your votes are belong to me", if you have your heart set on Meissa, then your vote will be well cast.

Meissa has a sharp mind and a detailed knowledge of EVE. He defends his positions both well and fairly. We've disagreed about things, but those disagreements were never arguments, and were always productive.

I hope we'll both have the opportunity to serve on CSM6.

Good luck, Meissa!

Meissa Anunthiel
Redshift Industrial
Rooks and Kings
Posted - 2011.03.08 19:07:00 - [17]
 

Shameless self-serving bump ;-)

BearUkraine
Gallente
Light Style
Posted - 2011.03.09 11:58:00 - [18]
 

+1 from me. Good luck.

Barbsi
Posted - 2011.03.09 13:35:00 - [19]
 

You just "received" 2 votes from me. Good luck.

Sentenel
Posted - 2011.03.09 15:46:00 - [20]
 

Edited by: Sentenel on 09/03/2011 15:54:18
Looking at the candidate who have only 231 kill records since 2007, with a Darwin fit in losses, have no experience in sov warfare, but cares to give his opinion on a balance and 0.0 subject here and there for 4 CSM terms (by the way, you was not in CSM 2 and 4, you was an alt).
This makes me wander why we have this mess in in the game, and what bright ideas of that was yours?

Corina's Bodyguard
Posted - 2011.03.09 17:08:00 - [21]
 

Voted for someone else, as their platform interested me just slightly more.

But, if I could vote twice you'd definitely be second.
Though I do have an alt somewhere round here...

Meissa Anunthiel
Redshift Industrial
Rooks and Kings
Posted - 2011.03.09 17:41:00 - [22]
 

Originally by: Sentenel
Edited by: Sentenel on 09/03/2011 15:54:18
Looking at the candidate who have only 231 kill records since 2007, with a Darwin fit in losses, have no experience in sov warfare, but cares to give his opinion on a balance and 0.0 subject here and there for 4 CSM terms (by the way, you was not in CSM 2 and 4, you was an alt).
This makes me wander why we have this mess in in the game, and what bright ideas of that was yours?



Because Meissa is a command ship and logistics pilot, I have no gun on my damnation (why would I) though I sometimes do put a civilian AC in there to ***** a mail just for people like you who think non-damage dealing ships have no role :p When flying those, I have other things to do than whoring mails.
Also, I have alts, the main of which flies carriers and dictors, both light and heavy.
Considering the alliance I am a member of (Rooks and Kings), do you think if I was devoid of PvP value they'd still have had me in?

As far as me being alt in CSM 2 and 4. I was indeed (on purpose for CSM 4 due to term limits). Do you know that alts participate in discussions and get to vote when a "full member" is absent, which is the vast majority of the time, or participate in the forum conversations that happen with the devs on the private forums, among others.

Also, I never take credit for group efforts, and the CSM is very much a group effort. I haven't done that in any past elections and I'm certainly not going to start now. You can see my argumentative contributions in the minutes, or take the word of other CSM members (ones I quoted above, or others that you may find in other threads or on SHC) for what happens in Iceland.

NereSky
Gallente
RETRIBUTIONS.
Legion of The Damned.
Posted - 2011.03.09 18:35:00 - [23]
 

my 2 are in your favour , good luckCool

Light Sym
Posted - 2011.03.09 22:16:00 - [24]
 

Our chat confirmed my impression that you will invest time and effort into representing low-sec. Got my vote.

Nayette Ellis Dalogne
Posted - 2011.03.09 23:33:00 - [25]
 

Four votes cast and a shameless bump for you. Good luck. Very Happy

Misanth
RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE
Posted - 2011.03.10 01:06:00 - [26]
 

Will be sending at least one vote your way, perhaps more, we'll see.

Clyde ElectraGlide
Gallente
Center for Advanced Studies
Posted - 2011.03.10 01:11:00 - [27]
 

You have my vote.

David Bonesaw
Gallente
Guillotine Therapy
Rooks and Kings
Posted - 2011.03.10 04:22:00 - [28]
 

+4 votes from me

Dracnys
Caldari
Posted - 2011.03.10 14:35:00 - [29]
 

I like your humble, fact-oriented presentation. You make no empty promises and I think you got the role of the CSM right, to highlight the small improvements to CCP, not to try to move something big that will get rejected for sure.
You have my vote.

Meissa Anunthiel
Redshift Industrial
Rooks and Kings
Posted - 2011.03.10 19:39:00 - [30]
 

Originally by: Dracnys
I like your humble, fact-oriented presentation. You make no empty promises and I think you got the role of the CSM right, to highlight the small improvements to CCP, not to try to move something big that will get rejected for sure.
You have my vote.


Many thanks, to you and others. Spread the word if at all possible, I'll be very happy to answer any questions your friends may have.

Meissa



Pages: [1] 2

This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 


The new forums are live

Please adjust your bookmarks to https://forums.eveonline.com

These forums are archived and read-only