open All Channels
seplocked Jita Park Speakers Corner
blankseplocked [CSM Candidate] Goumindong
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8

Author Topic

Talkuth Rel
Minmatar
Republic Military School
Posted - 2008.04.30 19:06:00 - [91]
 

Originally by: Goumindong
Originally by: Talkuth Rel
The second part

You are mistaking understanding of how the game is played and won with a wish to hurt others.


No, for me it's about your idea of how the game is won being in direct conflict with what is best for the good of the game.

You (as an individual or a group) intend to "win" the game. "Winning" for you means that other players quit playing. A reduced playerbase harms the game as a whole. Do you see the contradiction, and can you understand why some would be concerned with someone who holds that view having anything to do with the future improvement of the game?

As to the other idea you mention, I don't think I actually believe that Goons directly intend hurt or harm to other individuals. I think they actually just don't care how what they do impacts others, it's complete lack of concern and total apathy. In some ways, I find this even more disturbing. At the very least, it's not a healthy mindset for a community-based game.
Originally by: Goumindong


Quote:
The first part


Only if you believe that we act as a monolithic entity and have no wish to play a fun game. Both of these things are not true, we are not monolithic and do like to have fun. If anything Waterfowl should have convinced you that we are indeed not monolithic.


You are a group who associates under one banner. Anything said or done by a member displaying that banner has the potential to be taken as a statement representing the group. This has nothing to do with how you are organized internally, but rather it's just how things work. The fact that you as a group do nothing to discourage any of these statements indicates to the minds of outsiders that they are in fact approved and endorsed statements. If there is no official word contradicting an individual's statements, then the unofficial word will be taken as official. Welcome to life. The fact that you as a group have not felt it necessary to control such statements because, as you put it, you do not care what others think, means that you have no place to now disagree with or dispute the reputation you have allowed to be created for yourselves. But that reputation should not matter, since you don't care what others think.

Except that now that you and others of your alliance need the favor and support of other players, suddenly you do care what they think. You want them to forget what was said and done before, and believe that your reputation was falsely earned, even though you never bothered to try to disprove it before. Do you see why there is a problem here? The only time you care about anyone besides yourself is when you need them. Which means that the moment you don't, you're off doing your own thing again.

If you don't care what others think, than you won't be representing anyone besides yourself on the CSM. If you do care, then you should have done something about your reputation before, when you had nothing to gain from it but the respect of others. As with so many politicians, the Goons' careless past has come back to haunt them, now that they have goals and aspirations requiring the respect and support of others. It's a little late in the game to be changing uniforms, everyone already knows what side you're playing on.

Goumindong
SniggWaffe
Posted - 2008.04.30 19:27:00 - [92]
 

Originally by: Talkuth Rel
You (as an individual or a group) intend to "win" the game. "Winning" for you means that other players quit playing. A reduced playerbase harms the game as a whole. Do you see the contradiction, and can you understand why some would be concerned with someone who holds that view having anything to do with the future improvement of the game?


Just like economics, belief or disbelief in something doesn't matter. It only matters whats true. You might want someone who deludes themselves as to the nature of Eve and how you play and win, but I don't. And I won't be the person to do that.

Quote:

You are a group who associates under one banner. Anything said or done by a member displaying that banner has the potential to be taken as a statement representing the group. This has nothing to do with how you are organized internally, but rather it's just how things work.


True, when people don't understand the group. If i can't convince you that your perceptions are wrong about the group, then there isn't much I can do on the front and i guess you will just have to believe that we are both monolithic entity as well as one that isn't[given that these are both statements given by people who wear the banner]

Talkuth Rel
Minmatar
Republic Military School
Posted - 2008.04.30 21:50:00 - [93]
 

Originally by: Goumindong
Originally by: Talkuth Rel
You (as an individual or a group) intend to "win" the game. "Winning" for you means that other players quit playing. A reduced playerbase harms the game as a whole. Do you see the contradiction, and can you understand why some would be concerned with someone who holds that view having anything to do with the future improvement of the game?


Just like economics, belief or disbelief in something doesn't matter. It only matters whats true. You might want someone who deludes themselves as to the nature of Eve and how you play and win, but I don't. And I won't be the person to do that.


Then as already asserted, you and I are playing two very different games, as what we have here is a fundamental difference on what the truth actually is. What I see as true is that your idea of truth is not the heart of the game at all, but in actuality the pursuit of your "truth" is a method of the game's destruction.

Consider what the goals of your truth mean if pursued to their ultimate end. One faction wins by forcing everyone else out of the game. That faction, then having no one else to fight, turns on itself, splintering into smaller factions who then fight against each other until there is only one left. The process repeats itself through many iterations until you are left with only two players. Once one of those players quits, the other has won. This "winning" player is now left alone in an empty world, and nothing else to do, so he too quits. (tangential philosophical question: has this player then won, or has he actually lost, as he has quit?) The game is no longer sustainable and is now over.

Now, I don't believe for a moment that this outcome is truly possible. But the fact remains that this is your end goal, given your idea of what constitutes winning. What you see as winning would lead to the inevitable destruction of the game. How is that supposed to make you qualified to serve as part of an organization whose goals are the continuation and improvement of the game, an organization whose goals are in direct contradiction to your own? Why should anyone believe that you would not abuse such a position to serve your own goals of "winning"?


Goumindong
SniggWaffe
Posted - 2008.05.01 06:00:00 - [94]
 

Originally by: Talkuth Rel

Then as already asserted, you and I are playing two very different games, as what we have here is a fundamental difference on what the truth actually is. What I see as true is that your idea of truth is not the heart of the game at all, but in actuality the pursuit of your "truth" is a method of the game's destruction.




You still misunderstand. Take for a moment RA. Why is RA still here? RA is still here because its players did not leave the game. They did not log off. At this time, and still now, this is the primary means of winning wars.

Anything else is with regards to the BoB proclamation that they would grief the goons out of the game

PartyPopper
GoonFleet
GoonSwarm
Posted - 2008.05.01 17:06:00 - [95]
 

Originally by: Talkuth Rel
lots and lots and lots of words


Apart from the weird propaganda-influenced and misunderstood rhetoric about us wanting to destroy the game, everything you are saying is correct. However, you are missing one very important thing about Goonswarm: we don't care. And when you want to analyse this statement to form even more opinions about us, just remember: we don't care. Any chain of events that leads to as many hilarious e-honour posts as yours must be a good thing.

tl;dr - i don't think you get goons

Also don't vote for Goumindong, he will waste so much time with his ridiculous ideas and everyone else trying to get him to stop that there won't be any time for anything important, though that would be a pretty funny outcome. I'm more worried about Bane going to Icelandic prison for attempted murder...

Wu Jiun
State War Academy
Posted - 2008.05.01 18:11:00 - [96]
 

as a lowsec dweller i'd like to hear a bit more on the following aspects:

"You simply do something like let the policing corporation take all station taxes and proceeds [...] Then give every member of that corporation kill rights on any player who generates kill rights on any other player within their authority."

i like this idea very much generally speaking. what i'd like to know is how big the range of authority should be. are we talking about systems, constellations or even regions?

how much money do you think is at stake here respectively?

how about the pay is not only tied to taxes (and as such to the prosperity of the region/sucess of policing) but also to some measure of sucess as in i.e. proportional to (killed criminals)/(crminal acts). (just throwing something out here that i didn't really think through yet)

another point is how to decide who is policing. how would you keep the policing corp from going pirate theirselves? whats keeping corps from sabotaging the policing by taking the spot and not doing anything? especially a pvp tournament looks too much like gamble and exploitable to be the deciding factor.

what is about allowing for several policing corps at the same time/location? why exclusive?

about outlaws: what your stance on remote repairing? currently remote repairing ships will draw sentry aggro even if they don't have a gcc. well if a harmless passerby is attacked i very well understand the need to punish all attackers including their logistic ships with sentries.

if on the other hand two outlaw gangs fight each other or the non-outlaw gang has flagged themselves to the pirates earlier e.g. by agressing during a station camp (it happens) and as such no criminal acts are commited why would the logistic ships need to suffer all alone? we frequently have to flag ourselves to the sentries although we can actually legally shoot the people just to save our logistics.

about ship/module balance: what do you think about current t2 ammunition and more specifically the tracking penalty on the close range ones?

what about torps/hams? whats your idea on fitting, range and damage?

do you think the wardec system needs an overhaul and is it any important?

how important is ambulation for the game?

Equin
Gallente
Merch Industrial
GoonSwarm
Posted - 2008.05.01 18:41:00 - [97]
 

If you had to guess what percentage of your corporation supported you for CSM what percentage would you guess?

Followup:
Do you think this number needs to be high or are there valid reasons for people to pick a CSM that doesn't have the support of their corporation?

Frygok
Minmatar
The Littlest Hobos
Ushra'Khan
Posted - 2008.05.01 18:44:00 - [98]
 

First of, I really think you should create a rule where you stop replying to NPC alts, Goum. Some of them in this thread seems very keen on deliberately misunderstanding your wording and meaning, and enjoys picking things out of context, as well as having issues looking beyond alliance tag.

Now, something I have been pondering since I read your part on page 1 regarding no hegemon and not having the vets being in power:

1) How do you feel about a few moons (dysp and pro) are the most important thing in 0.0 warfare (aside from personal ego's ;))? Specifically how a few alliances are more or less permanently using these moons with very little risk. Simplified, I know. I was more looking on your view on these moons being so important. Should there be more high-end moons? Should there be a yearly/6 month re-seeding? Should there be more different types of moons, making it more difficult for large alliances to have all the components needed? I would specifically link this to low sec, where you could have more moons that were non-present in 0.0 space.

2) A direct continuation of 1). As you no doubt are aware of, large 0.0 alliances can without too much hassle control huge amounts of space due to logistics. One of the worst things that happened IMO to this game was the Jump Bridges and Titan bridging, as well as JF's (and carriers being able to transport BS and lower), as it minimized the risk of moving stuff to and from 0.0, as well as preventing smaller groups of mercs/pirates from interrupting the "supply train", thus removing what I feel is a great niche role. Do you feel the current balance between boring and time consuming logistics and too easy movement to and from 0.0 is fine?

Thank you! (And sorry for the horribly long post!

Waterfowl Democracy
The Ministry of Indigenous Affairs
GoonSwarm
Posted - 2008.05.01 18:48:00 - [99]
 

Originally by: Equin
If you had to guess what percentage of your corporation supported you for CSM what percentage would you guess?

Followup:
Do you think this number needs to be high or are there valid reasons for people to pick a CSM that doesn't have the support of their corporation?


He failed to get enough signatures to even run in the internal CSM representative elections. He needed to get 20 and he got 8. And half of those were comedy signatures with comments such as:
"signed because sending goumindong to argue with other people is like the best troll of all."
(from a member of MRCHI)

Hrin
Merch Industrial
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2008.05.01 19:25:00 - [100]
 

As a space hero, I officially anti-endorse Goumindong.

Equin
Gallente
Merch Industrial
GoonSwarm
Posted - 2008.05.01 20:15:00 - [101]
 

Originally by: Hrin
As a space hero, I officially anti-endorse Goumindong.


What? Goumindong is our last, best hope for survival. You and the rest of the anti-Goumindong party are going to ruin everything.

Goumindong
SniggWaffe
Posted - 2008.05.01 20:47:00 - [102]
 

Originally by: Wu Jiun
as a lowsec dweller i'd like to hear a bit more on the following aspects:


This is the hardest part of fixing the problem and it might be fixed via factional warfare anyway, so anything we are discussing is very iffy.

Quote:

i like this idea very much generally speaking. what i'd like to know is how big the range of authority should be. are we talking about systems, constellations or even regions?


Anything enacted via system can be expanded to constellation and region via player action. The only difference would be on what scale its contested. It would be nice to have a mechanic that was contested on a system by system basis. But many systems in low-sec do not have stations and using rat and station tax as a means of funding the police would make these systems much less valuable. That means its much more viable to make the mechanic constellation based instead of system based

Quote:

another point is how to decide who is policing. how would you keep the policing corp from going pirate theirselves? whats keeping corps from sabotaging the policing by taking the spot and not doing anything? especially a pvp tournament looks too much like gamble and exploitable to be the deciding factor.



Well, if a pirate corp gets a hold of an area, the area is going to not be policed well. Such profits will go down, people will leave and the pirates wont have anyone to pirate from.

I agree that a tournament is not a good mechanic, I just am having trouble coming up with anything better. If you need LPs, or some NPC based system the police are not given an incentive to police[since that stops them from generating LP and NPCing].

As well, in order for taxes to be profitable there will be a need to have fewer people on the force. Which again limits absolute production which will

The main problem with an adversarial mechanic is that if its ongoing, you can too easily work around the mechanic. I haven't figured a system to make this work, and am very open to suggestions of all sorts on that front.

Quote:
about outlaws: what your stance on remote repairing? currently remote repairing ships will draw sentry aggro even if they don't have a gcc. well if a harmless passerby is attacked i very well understand the need to punish all attackers including their logistic ships with sentries.

if on the other hand two outlaw gangs fight each other or the non-outlaw gang has flagged themselves to the pirates earlier e.g. by agressing during a station camp (it happens) and as such no criminal acts are commited why would the logistic ships need to suffer all alone? we frequently have to flag ourselves to the sentries although we can actually legally shoot the people just to save our logistics.


There is no work around for this mechanic that will not lead to vigorous abuse. At the moment however there is a problem with remote repairers in that even though they flag you correctly, the repairer will not be aggressed. This means that you can remote repair an aggressed ship while still being able to dock on a station. Agression state needs to carry over just as flagging carries over.

Quote:
about ship/module balance: what do you think about current t2 ammunition and more specifically the tracking penalty on the close range ones?


The tracking penalty on short range ammo is not much of an issue. The only real problem is that Hail has a range penalty when RF EMP effectively does not and it should have either its falloff or Optimal penalty removed.

Quote:

what about torps/hams? whats your idea on fitting, range and damage?


Torps are overpowered. HAMs need to have their powergrid reduced to be in line with other short range weapon systems. Preferably i would have torps and hams be the low PG option at 20km/40km top ranges with roughly the old damage profile.

Cont...


Goumindong
SniggWaffe
Posted - 2008.05.01 20:50:00 - [103]
 

Edited by: Goumindong on 01/05/2008 21:31:45
Quote:

do you think the wardec system needs an overhaul and is it any important?


The wardec system is fine and serves its purpose of allowing corporations to fight without interference in empire. There may be some problems with corp/alliance jumping, but that can't be avoiding without allowing war-dec abuse in the same way there is role abuse to keep people in corps.[Except the dec abuse would not be able to be monitored as easily

Quote:
How important is Ambulation?


Not very, since it will have no "in game function" as CCP says though I am sure very many people will happily spend their time using its resources. Ambulation as far as I am concerned is a bonus that we get due to CCP developing the White Wolf MMO and getting Eve as a test bed for the technology they will be using.

ed: Forgot one

Quote:

what is about allowing for several policing corps at the same time/location? why exclusive?


Because deciding how to split up the taxes would be even more of a problem than deciding who gets the job

Goumindong
SniggWaffe
Posted - 2008.05.01 21:16:00 - [104]
 

Originally by: Frygok

Now, something I have been pondering since I read your part on page 1 regarding no hegemon and not having the vets being in power:

1) How do you feel about a few moons (dysp and pro) are the most important thing in 0.0 warfare (aside from personal ego's ;))? Specifically how a few alliances are more or less permanently using these moons with very little risk. Simplified, I know. I was more looking on your view on these moons being so important. Should there be more high-end moons? Should there be a yearly/6 month re-seeding? Should there be more different types of moons, making it more difficult for large alliances to have all the components needed? I would specifically link this to low sec, where you could have more moons that were non-present in 0.0 space.



Moon mining being a primary source of income for 0.0 alliances is a good thing and a bad thing. Its good because it gives more economic significance to holding space where previously with low moon mineral prices holding space was about complexes(and to a lesser extent, mining). Which could be run with comparatively small amount of control of the area. A good example of this would be RA, who even though they had lost most of their space to LV was still able to produce via the complexes in the area.

Its good because it increases the value of holding space for the sake of holding space and allows corporations themselves to profit rather than relying on members to rat/produce with taxed income.

Its good because it provides real "pvp income" where players entirely dedicated to pvp can play a zero sum game over resources with which to fund the war machine

Its bad because it increases the resources of 0.0 relative to newcomers. If anything, the price of dsypo should tell you that there is not "very little risk" involved in its production. It may be not risky in an area without war, but when there is war these assets are primary targets.

Moon balance is another thing, but i am not sure about the distribution of these valuable moons and am not sure how or where i would make a determination on where the moons should go. Certainly not high-sec, and adding more moons to low-sec would be nice. If anything i would look at randomly re-seeding all un-mined moons[with sec appropriate materials], but would only do that if supply started to become a real issue

Quote:
.

2) A direct continuation of 1). As you no doubt are aware of, large 0.0 alliances can without too much hassle control huge amounts of space due to logistics. One of the worst things that happened IMO to this game was the Jump Bridges and Titan bridging, as well as JF's (and carriers being able to transport BS and lower), as it minimized the risk of moving stuff to and from 0.0, as well as preventing smaller groups of mercs/pirates from interrupting the "supply train", thus removing what I feel is a great niche role. Do you feel the current balance between boring and time consuming logistics and too easy movement to and from 0.0 is fine?


I do not. Personally, i don't want towers to use fuel at all. I want the fuel cost of the tower to be built into its production cost. But I also want towers that serve functions not directly related to holding sov to be easier to disable. Which means taking moon mining arrays outside of POS shields, taking labs outside of pos shields, increasing the fitting on bridges, and jammers and generators so that they cannot be sat at a deathstar or EW star. And I want their hit points reduced such that smallish forces can reasonably destroy them in a short amount of time[with a re-inforcement timer on it so that you can't just disable an enemies logistics front in one fell swoop]

This means that all anti-logistics work and pro-logistics work is PvP oriented rather than time sink oriented, and logistics becomes about moving men and materials and not fueling a POS network.

Goumindong
SniggWaffe
Posted - 2008.05.01 22:16:00 - [105]
 

Originally by: Equin
If you had to guess what percentage of your corporation supported you for CSM what percentage would you guess?

Followup:
Do you think this number needs to be high or are there valid reasons for people to pick a CSM that doesn't have the support of their corporation?


There are roughly 4000 members of Goonswarm and roughly 900 voted in the election with roughly 1/3rd of the votes going between the three primary candidates. Were goon politics based on other attributes these numbers would have been very different.

I would guess based on block voting that very few in my corporation would support me since we have an imperative to vote for Bane and Darius. Whether they would in the absence of the block vote call, the other goon candidates[not including the PL candidate], or a lack of bandwagoning I cannot really make a determination of.

Is their lack of support a valid reason to vote for someone else? Certainly not, since it has nothing to do with my competency.

Shin Ra
Sebiestor Tribe
Posted - 2008.05.01 22:18:00 - [106]
 

Un-nerf damps indeed.

Good luck in your campaign.

Waterfowl Democracy
The Ministry of Indigenous Affairs
GoonSwarm
Posted - 2008.05.02 00:22:00 - [107]
 

Originally by: Goumindong

There are roughly 4000 members of Goonswarm and roughly 900 voted in the election with roughly 1/3rd of the votes going between the three primary candidates. Were goon politics based on other attributes these numbers would have been very different.

I would guess based on block voting that very few in my corporation would support me since we have an imperative to vote for Bane and Darius. Whether they would in the absence of the block vote call, the other goon candidates[not including the PL candidate], or a lack of bandwagoning I cannot really make a determination of.

Is their lack of support a valid reason to vote for someone else? Certainly not, since it has nothing to do with my competency.


This isn't an answer to the question. NO ONE in goonswarm can stand you and we all think you'd be a horrible CSM representative. That is why you had 8 people sign your nomination out of 4000 members (that's 0.2% btw).

Goumindong
SniggWaffe
Posted - 2008.05.02 00:49:00 - [108]
 

Originally by: Waterfowl Democracy
Quote:

Is their lack of support a valid reason to vote for someone else? Certainly not, since it has nothing to do with my competency.

This isn't an answer to the question. NO ONE in goonswarm can stand you and we all think you'd be a horrible CSM representative. That is why you had 8 people sign your nomination out of 4000 members (that's 0.2% btw).


Please read next time, that is the question and answer.

Also, bane got about 30, with about the same trolling him. Which is about .08% of GF. Oh noes, .08% Bane doesn't have their support, run for the hills! Darius got 60, a whole 1.6%![The CEO, and he lost the general to Bane].

Please, start making an argument or asking relevant questions instead of just making statements and being useless.

Bane Glorious
Ministry of War
Posted - 2008.05.02 01:05:00 - [109]
 

Originally by: PartyPopper
I'm more worried about Bane going to Icelandic prison for attempted murder...

Please visit your user settings to re-enable images.

Waterfowl Democracy
The Ministry of Indigenous Affairs
GoonSwarm
Posted - 2008.05.02 01:14:00 - [110]
 

Originally by: Goumindong
Originally by: Waterfowl Democracy
Quote:

Is their lack of support a valid reason to vote for someone else? Certainly not, since it has nothing to do with my competency.

This isn't an answer to the question. NO ONE in goonswarm can stand you and we all think you'd be a horrible CSM representative. That is why you had 8 people sign your nomination out of 4000 members (that's 0.2% btw).


Please read next time, that is the question and answer.

Also, bane got about 30, with about the same trolling him. Which is about .08% of GF. Oh noes, .08% Bane doesn't have their support, run for the hills! Darius got 60, a whole 1.6%![The CEO, and he lost the general to Bane].

Please, start making an argument or asking relevant questions instead of just making statements and being useless.


Bane Glorious got enough nominations to get through to the next round (all that was needed and something you didn't manage) and in fact recieved the most votes out of all the candidates.

Goumindong, how does it feel to be the most ignored post on goonfleet.com? Why do you continue to post when most people have you ignored and any thread you post in devolves into people telling you to shut up?

Goumindong
SniggWaffe
Posted - 2008.05.02 02:05:00 - [111]
 

Edited by: Goumindong on 02/05/2008 02:06:56
Originally by: Waterfowl Democracy

Bane Glorious got enough nominations to get through to the next round (all that was needed and something you didn't manage) and in fact recieved the most votes out of all the candidates.


Yes, if you were literate, you would know that I know this.

Quote:

Goumindong, how does it feel to be the most ignored post on goonfleet.com? Why do you continue to post when most people have you ignored and any thread you post in devolves into people telling you to shut up?


My feelings are not at issue, only my competency. Of which there is ample evidence.

Please ask a relevant question next time or get out.

Waterfowl Democracy
The Ministry of Indigenous Affairs
GoonSwarm
Posted - 2008.05.02 03:27:00 - [112]
 

I feel that my questions are relevant.

Goumindong, do you feel that a potential CSM representative should be telling posters to get out of their threads in a combative manner?

Goumindong
SniggWaffe
Posted - 2008.05.02 04:02:00 - [113]
 

Originally by: Waterfowl Democracy
I feel that my questions are relevant.

Goumindong, do you feel that a potential CSM representative should be telling posters to get out of their threads in a combative manner?


I am sorry if you took that as combative, I am simply attempting to have less obfuscation in the thread so that people can have a clear view of how i think and what I know. It would be nice if you respected that.

lecrotta
Minmatar
lecrotta Corp
Posted - 2008.05.02 10:36:00 - [114]
 

Originally by: Goumindong
Originally by: Waterfowl Democracy
I feel that my questions are relevant.

Goumindong, do you feel that a potential CSM representative should be telling posters to get out of their threads in a combative manner?


I am sorry if you took that as combative, I am simply attempting to have less obfuscation in the thread so that people can have a clear view of how i think and what I know. It would be nice if you respected that.


That is your problem bud, you are convinced your right about everything you say and that your ideas are perfect and are utterly unwilling to be criticized or told you are wrong.

But as this thread, your alliance members and other threads show the majority of ppl do not like your ideas (or you it seems) and not only that but your supposed to want to be a representative of those ppl and yet you argue and ignore all those that do not think like you do.

Why would anybody want to vote for somebody who ignores all but his own ideas and is convinced that he is always right, not only that but has already made his mind up about loads of issues without checking for where the majority of public opinion is (against you by the looks of this thread) and made posts about them.

Dopefish
Amarr
Quad and Fish
Posted - 2008.05.02 12:14:00 - [115]
 

Originally by: lecrotta

That is your problem bud, you are convinced your right about everything you say and that your ideas are perfect and are utterly unwilling to be criticized or told you are wrong.

But as this thread, your alliance members and other threads show the majority of ppl do not like your ideas (or you it seems) and not only that but your supposed to want to be a representative of those ppl and yet you argue and ignore all those that do not think like you do.

Why would anybody want to vote for somebody who ignores all but his own ideas and is convinced that he is always right, not only that but has already made his mind up about loads of issues without checking for where the majority of public opinion is (against you by the looks of this thread) and made posts about them.


People in general have no idea whatsoever what is best for them.
Telling people what is best for them is a shure way of being disliked.

Goum obviously sucks at politics, but his logic is undeniable.


lecrotta
Minmatar
lecrotta Corp
Posted - 2008.05.02 12:37:00 - [116]
 

Edited by: lecrotta on 02/05/2008 12:40:32

Originally by: Dopefish
Originally by: lecrotta

That is your problem bud, you are convinced your right about everything you say and that your ideas are perfect and are utterly unwilling to be criticized or told you are wrong.

But as this thread, your alliance members and other threads show the majority of ppl do not like your ideas (or you it seems) and not only that but your supposed to want to be a representative of those ppl and yet you argue and ignore all those that do not think like you do.

Why would anybody want to vote for somebody who ignores all but his own ideas and is convinced that he is always right, not only that but has already made his mind up about loads of issues without checking for where the majority of public opinion is (against you by the looks of this thread) and made posts about them.


People in general have no idea whatsoever what is best for them.
Telling people what is best for them is a shure way of being disliked.

Goum obviously sucks at politics, but his logic is undeniable.




So his and your policy is stfu and do what we say cos you know nothingLaughing...erm ok gr8 thnx bb.

His logic is from a fitting tool bud cos he has hardly any xp, and ppl do not like his ideas cos they know what they are talking about not the other way around. Although im sure he will get some support from the waaambulance nerf nerf cry babies who need to blame the game instead of their crappy skills and team work.

Dopefish
Amarr
Quad and Fish
Posted - 2008.05.02 14:03:00 - [117]
 

Originally by: lecrotta

So his and your policy is stfu and do what we say cos you know nothingLaughing...erm ok gr8 thnx bb.



Yes. And its the policy of anyone with an agenda. But if you go out and say it like it is and being honest you wont get any votes. This is why politicians lie and tell you you matter when you really dont.




Hamfast
Gallente
Posted - 2008.05.02 14:28:00 - [118]
 

I have several questions, and taking a page out of Talkuth Rel’s book, I decided to ask each candidate in their own thread…

1) Invention – A good idea that still needs work…
a. Have you ever tried invention?
b. What ideas do you have to improve invention?

2) Pilot Security Level – Should it be more important?
a. (In High Sec) – Should Concord react faster if the victim has a higher security level? If the attacker has a lower rating?
b. Should the Security Level of a system affect changes to Pilot Security level changes?
c. Should the Security Level of a Targeted Pilot have more of an effect on the security change of the attacker?

3) Industry – The Creators of Eve
a. Do you regularly build anything?
b. Do you regularly mine?
c. What do you think could be done to improve industry in Eve?
d. You have been asked to help with new ships for industrial characters, describe a few ideas…

Semkhet
Dark Tornado
Ethereal Dawn
Posted - 2008.05.02 15:04:00 - [119]
 

People should read the 48 pages of this thread. The subject, form and substance matters less than the obsessive mindset you can identify.

After that reading, you can vote for Goumindong if you still believe that he is able to abstract himself from his own thinking (after all, you're looking for someone to represent your opinions, not a guy either casting votes for the sole purpose of pushing his private agenda or unable to understand concept which aren't part of his play style...) Wink

A candidate should be neutral and objective. Goumindong is neither.

PartyPopper
GoonFleet
GoonSwarm
Posted - 2008.05.02 17:43:00 - [120]
 

Originally by: Bane Glorious
Originally by: PartyPopper
I'm more worried about Bane going to Icelandic prison for attempted murder...

Please visit your user settings to re-enable images.


are you telling me that if you were sat across a table from Goumindong for days on end you wouldn't stab him in the face?

because then I might have to vote for darius


Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8

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