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


 
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5

Author Topic

Vicarrah
Minmatar
Posted - 2008.05.07 18:49:00 - [91]
 

Strangely enough, I voted Hardin too.

Hardin
Amarr
Imperial Dreams
Curatores Veritatis Alliance
Posted - 2008.05.07 19:11:00 - [92]
 

Well that's a turn up for the books Smile

Thanks (and don't think I am gonna go soft on your freedom fighting brothers and sisters because of this) Wink

Yendaj
Minmatar
Silentread Logistics
Posted - 2008.05.07 21:27:00 - [93]
 

Originally by: Hardin
Originally by: Kelsin


I hesitate to interpret this as saying you will champion the rights of Sovereignty holders without a clear confirmation from you - is that the case?


I am not going on to CSM to 'champion' anything for anyone.

Unlike Jade, (for whom, incidentally, you seem to be doing such a great cheerleading job) I do not believe that at this stage the candidates for the CSM should be sticking flags in the ground and drawing lines in the sand.

I believe that approach is counterproductive, close minded and certainly not the approach I would expect from someone who is try to convince us that they are willing to work as part of a team because that is what the CSM should be.

Yes we are all to some extent biased, based upon our experiences in this game (as indicated by my post above) and yes I expect some hearty, healthy debate.

However, if the CSM is to be effective its members have to be open minded and make decisions based upon what they think is best for the interests of the game and not just for the benefit of their own alliances or playstyles and I am afraid Jade just hasn't convinced me on that score.

I really don't want to spend a week in Iceland with a bunch of people who have already decided how everyone else should play the game and who are not willing to compromise because they have already sold their souls to a variety of forum bandwagons.

Fortunately, I am confident that the majority of candidates don't want that either!


^^ This
Is why you got my vote...

+ The fact that you spell the english language correctly! Wink

Maggot
Minmatar
Mirkur Draug'Tyr
Ushra'Khan
Posted - 2008.05.07 22:28:00 - [94]
 

Originally by: Hardin
Originally by: Kelsin


I hesitate to interpret this as saying you will champion the rights of Sovereignty holders without a clear confirmation from you - is that the case?


I am not going on to CSM to 'champion' anything for anyone.

Unlike Jade, (for whom, incidentally, you seem to be doing such a great cheerleading job) I do not believe that at this stage the candidates for the CSM should be sticking flags in the ground and drawing lines in the sand.

I believe that approach is counterproductive, close minded and certainly not the approach I would expect from someone who is try to convince us that they are willing to work as part of a team because that is what the CSM should be.

Yes we are all to some extent biased, based upon our experiences in this game (as indicated by my post above) and yes I expect some hearty, healthy debate.

However, if the CSM is to be effective its members have to be open minded and make decisions based upon what they think is best for the interests of the game and not just for the benefit of their own alliances or playstyles and I am afraid Jade just hasn't convinced me on that score.

I really don't want to spend a week in Iceland with a bunch of people who have already decided how everyone else should play the game and who are not willing to compromise because they have already sold their souls to a variety of forum bandwagons.

Fortunately, I am confident that the majority of candidates don't want that either!


Thats pretty uncharitable given the healthy destructable outpost discussion involving you and Jade on the OOC Chatsubo forums.

Given the support both of you are getting you might want to be a little less "close minded".

Good luck.

Maggot.

TimGascoigne
Sebiestor Tribe
Posted - 2008.05.08 02:01:00 - [95]
 

vote hardin to maintain local and with it your ability to undock.

Verone
Gallente
Veto Corp
Posted - 2008.05.08 02:16:00 - [96]
 

Originally by: Hardin
Cheers for all the support and votes people.

Also wanted to let all supporters know that you can get hold of some snazzy 'Vote Hardin' sigs on my blog site at:

http://hardinfaq.blogspot.com/2008/03/get-your-hardin-sig-here-right-click.html

This is the latest creation produced independently by Verone:

Please visit your user settings to re-enable images.

Thanks Verone Razz




Always a pleasure mate.

You got my vote any day of the week. Smile


Hardin
Amarr
Imperial Dreams
Curatores Veritatis Alliance
Posted - 2008.05.08 15:05:00 - [97]
 

Originally by: Maggot
Originally by: Hardin
Originally by: Kelsin


I hesitate to interpret this as saying you will champion the rights of Sovereignty holders without a clear confirmation from you - is that the case?


I am not going on to CSM to 'champion' anything for anyone.

Unlike Jade, (for whom, incidentally, you seem to be doing such a great cheerleading job) I do not believe that at this stage the candidates for the CSM should be sticking flags in the ground and drawing lines in the sand.

I believe that approach is counterproductive, close minded and certainly not the approach I would expect from someone who is try to convince us that they are willing to work as part of a team because that is what the CSM should be.

Yes we are all to some extent biased, based upon our experiences in this game (as indicated by my post above) and yes I expect some hearty, healthy debate.

However, if the CSM is to be effective its members have to be open minded and make decisions based upon what they think is best for the interests of the game and not just for the benefit of their own alliances or playstyles and I am afraid Jade just hasn't convinced me on that score.

I really don't want to spend a week in Iceland with a bunch of people who have already decided how everyone else should play the game and who are not willing to compromise because they have already sold their souls to a variety of forum bandwagons.

Fortunately, I am confident that the majority of candidates don't want that either!


Thats pretty uncharitable given the healthy destructable outpost discussion involving you and Jade on the OOC Chatsubo forums.

Given the support both of you are getting you might want to be a little less "close minded".

Good luck.

Maggot.



As I have said before and will say again I do not oppose Jade's ideas simply because they come from Jade - indeed I think some are quite workable - IF they are balanced properly and take into account that not everyone views EVE in the same way that Jade does.

Another candidate made this statement yesterday:

Quote:
I'm also not necessarily against ANY changes to any particular ships. If it makes it harder to kill miners... who cares? I'm all about balance and if I see an idea which is reasonable, which isn't completely gamebreaking and stupid, then I'll certainly give it the thought and support it warrants.


Which is pretty much how I view the whole CSM thing.

My concern, as stated above, is that while some of Jade's ideas are probably welcome, taken as a whole they have the potential to be gamebreaking and seem to be driven by an idealistic view of EVE which takes not account of human nature. Do things have to be improved? - Sure. Do we need to completely transform EVE in order to do so? - I don't think so.

From reading some of the stuff on the CSM forum you would get the impression that EVE was the most crapilly designed, useless piece of **** game ever designed. Yet if that is the case why are we all still playing it and why do its subscriber numbers keep increasing? If it is so undynamic why are fora such as CAOD and Scrapheap filled with news of epic wars, betrayals, victories and defeats?

Jade likes to portray EVE (particlarly 0.0) as some boring undynamic hellhole - in the same way that some real world politicians like to use issues such as 'The Environment' or 'Terrorism' to scare us so that they can levy more taxes or erode more of our personal freedoms.

Just as we have to acknowledge that there are real issues with 'Terrorism' and 'The Environment' we can acknowledge that there are problems with 0.0 warfare - but, as we do in real life, we have to recognise when issues are being hyped excessively by pressure groups because it is in their own interests to do so!

Maybe I am reading too much into it but I get the impression that you are not happy with me expressing my view about Jade. All I will say is that at least I am open about it.

Hardin
Amarr
Imperial Dreams
Curatores Veritatis Alliance
Posted - 2008.05.08 15:07:00 - [98]
 

Edited by: Hardin on 08/05/2008 15:12:52



Instead Jade chooses to dress his criticism up in pretty words:

Quote:
"Seriously though I'm hoping that we do get a decent range of independent candidates on the CSM to confront the big-alliance block vote "stuffed-shirt" factor, I'd certainly much rather be working with a variety of interesting and passionate people representing diverse specialties and focus in the game than have to listen to clone "reduce lag so our blobbing works better" speeches from alliance appointees.


As far as I am concerned I am not going to CSM to 'confront' anyone because I am not pushing any agenda other than improving this game. However, it is quite clear that Jade simply views this election as an opportunity to confront the 'uninteresting', 'unpassionate', 'alliance appointed', 'stuffed shirts' & 'clones' represented by myself and pretty much everyone else who happens to disagree with Jade...

If I am fortunate enough to be elected to CSM I will happily work with Jade and the other candidates to improve this game. However, I will not work with him to wreck it!

Jade is a literate, intelliegent guy who has a worthy viewpoint and some good ideas. I just hope that when the election is over and the CSM finally settles down to debate, and discuss which issues to promote with CCP that he is willing to compromise rather than confront.

Rawr Cristina
Caldari
Naqam
Posted - 2008.05.08 17:19:00 - [99]
 

Originally by: Hardin
Originally by: Rawr Cristina
Sorry if this has been asked before, but:

What is your opinion of the Local chat channel, and it's powerful function to allow people to completely avoid PvP?


1) Uncertainty - Uncertainty increases the desire for safety. Safety is obtained by either not travelling to risky areas or seeking saftey in numbers - its human nature. The removal of local increases uncertainty gigantically and unless an effective alternative is put in place it is, in my opinion, more likely to reduce PvP action than increase it.

...

I also forgot to add 'sociability' to that. While many players do not interact outside their own corps many others do. Removing local could make EVE even more unfriendly (particularly for new players) place than it is now.

There options about how you could reduce the impact of removing local - for instance the channel still exists but only people who talk are shown and instead of a complete list of everyone in the system it instead shows a break down of:

Blues XX
Neutrals XX

Reds XX
War Targets XX
Not sure how practicable that is though!


I partially agree with you. I think Local should definately display the number of people, and act as a 'passive' chat channel much like you suggested.

I don't believe however it should be able to determine neutrals from hostiles/WTs, but instead only seperate friendlies from others. That way, if someone who isn't mutually blue with you jumps in, you couldn't be certain if they were hostile or not, but at least had some kind of warning about it and had time to choose whether to risk it or not.

Obviously, that's just my opinion. I'm not basing my vote on just that or anything. You already have that Razz

Maggot
Minmatar
Mirkur Draug'Tyr
Ushra'Khan
Posted - 2008.05.08 17:54:00 - [100]
 

Hardin,

I thought in page one you went to some effort to point out you do not represent a large bloc so how could Jade's comments be relevant to you. Make your mind up mate!

For many people the game is broken and Jade realises this, that is why his voice is needed, as is his passion to finding a solution. I am only paying my subs in the hope that the game changes.

Representation from others who are happier with current mechanics are equally valid and that is why it is important that both yourself and Jade make it to the Council.

The recent discussions on the Chatsubo forum had given me the impression that you both could work with each other, however your direct attacks on this forum leave a very different impression.

Maggot.

Hardin
Amarr
Imperial Dreams
Curatores Veritatis Alliance
Posted - 2008.05.08 18:20:00 - [101]
 

Edited by: Hardin on 08/05/2008 18:21:23


Originally by: Maggot
Hardin,

The recent discussions on the Chatsubo forum had given me the impression that you both could work with each other, however your direct attacks on this forum leave a very different impression.




Direct attacks? Because I said I didn't agree with some of his proposals? I thought this was an election process?

I haven't said I won't work with Jade. Indeed some of his proposals are rather good - albeit some may needs some tweaking - and I will be happy to support them!

What I won't do is support changes which are unbalanced and focused on promoting a particular playstyle over all others - but even on these points I will be happy to discuss, debate and if necessary compromise.

What I am concerned about - which is what I highlighted in the first of my posts which you quoted - is that Jade will not be able (or willing) to compromise because he has entrenched himself so firmly in his anti-terroritorialist, anti-big alliance position.

Jade himself has used the word 'confront' to describe his attitude to the CSM. So, if you think I am giving the wrong impression then I suggest you have a word with Jade too...


Maggot
Minmatar
Mirkur Draug'Tyr
Ushra'Khan
Posted - 2008.05.08 19:07:00 - [102]
 

Your direct attack is quoted below and has nothing to do with your disagreement of his ideas:

Quote:
Unlike Jade, (for whom, incidentally, you seem to be doing such a great cheerleading job) I do not believe that at this stage the candidates for the CSM should be sticking flags in the ground and drawing lines in the sand.

I believe that approach is counterproductive, close minded and certainly not the approach I would expect from someone who is try to convince us that they are willing to work as part of a team because that is what the CSM should be.


What makes you more able to discuss and agree a compromise proposal than Jade?

Personally I thought you had both being doing a good job on Chatsubo but you have chosen to start making negative comments about Jade's abilities.

I honestly hope you are both in the team but its not "The Apprentice" so no need to start backstabbing each other at this point.

Hardin
Amarr
Imperial Dreams
Curatores Veritatis Alliance
Posted - 2008.05.08 19:39:00 - [103]
 

I wouldn't exactly call it backstabbing - more like front stabbing Wink

But yes... its a circular arguement and we will leave it there.

IF Jade and I are fortunate enough to be elected (and that is by no means guaranteed) I am sure we will have some heated discussions but at the end of the day I am sure we will also enjoy a pint together too!

Well I hope so anyway Wink

Karn Mithralia
Neh'bu Kau Beh'Hude
Ushra'Khan
Posted - 2008.05.09 09:45:00 - [104]
 

With arguing skills like those ... Maggot for CSM!

Laughing

Katrina Bekers
Gallente
Fighters Squadron
Posted - 2008.05.09 11:13:00 - [105]
 

Hardin,

After some Providence leader told me about your run for CSM, I started studying this thread and the rest of the Jita Park.

I have two questions:

1) What is/will be your preferred contact venue? As I understand it, CSM members are supposed to be the watchdogs and "vox populi" carriers for CCP, and thus they need a very strong interface with CCP and even better with playerbase. So, what is your plan about gathering feedback from your representees? Forum? Blog? Private forum? Email? IM?

2) In the rest of this subforum, players are asking specific questions "to the candidates" at large, shotgun style; you often don't answer their calls, while your competitors do. Is that a precise strategy to collect all the Hardin-thought in a single place (this thread), or what?

Thank you for your effort.

Hardin
Amarr
Imperial Dreams
Curatores Veritatis Alliance
Posted - 2008.05.09 11:53:00 - [106]
 

Edited by: Hardin on 09/05/2008 11:55:31

Originally by: Katrina Bekers
Hardin,
1) What is/will be your preferred contact venue? As I understand it, CSM members are supposed to be the watchdogs and "vox populi" carriers for CCP, and thus they need a very strong interface with CCP and even better with playerbase. So, what is your plan about gathering feedback from your representees? Forum? Blog? Private forum? Email? IM?



People can contact me in game. I have published the names of all three characters and am online and checking eve mail most days - particularly as I have an alliance creation business to run. The only exception to this will be when I am travelling but then I wouldn't be contactable any other way either.

Alternatively if people do want an out of game email they could try [email protected] - but be warned I do not check it as regularly as my ingame mail.

I may consider redeveloping my blog www.hardinfaq.blogspot.com post the election but haven't really put any thought into how that will work yet. This election is the first time I have done any 'blogging' and I have some interesting ideas of how I will develop it post the election.

On a slight aside most people know that I have a huge interest in the 'history' and 'politics' of EVE and I have been particularly impressed by what Yalson has done here: http://www.scrapheap-challenge.com/viewtopic.php?t=15879 so may look at developing a more 'public' up to the minute blog on EVE politics (dependent on time commitments of course).

Originally by: Katrina Bekers

2) In the rest of this subforum, players are asking specific questions "to the candidates" at large, shotgun style; you often don't answer their calls, while your competitors do. Is that a precise strategy to collect all the Hardin-thought in a single place (this thread), or what?


Yes and no. I have answered some of the other threads where I believe I can make relevant input. Others I have not answered because they apply to aspects of the game that I am either not expert in or have not got any predetermined view of and others are simply asking questions which I have already answered either through my blog or through the EVE Mag interview.

I do not believe I should be spamming my opinions on every single EVE issue under the sun purely to win votes.

As I have said before we are not being elected to rebuild EVE based upon our own theories of how this game operates. We are being elected to listen to the ideas of the community and as a body work together to identify which of those ideas are workable, in the interests of the entire community and then promote them to CCP.

Rather than pontificating on every game design issue under the sun I would rather demonstrate my commitment to the sensible, balanced, non-biaised and successful development of an EVE which is more fun for all of us!


Goumindong
SniggWaffe
Posted - 2008.05.09 12:07:00 - [107]
 

Originally by: Maggot

I thought in page one you went to some effort to point out you do not represent a large bloc so how could Jade's comments be relevant to you. Make your mind up mate!



It may be presumptuous of me to come and defend Hardin here, but Jade has a history of making these comments that you have to consider and its very clear that he was putting Hardin in the same league as the rest of us who are from large alliances. As he has done before and will do again.

To make two "real life" analogies[one each where each side is the "bad" guys to make everything fair]. When the United States talks about "rogue states" its clear they mean Iran and North Korea as much as Iran and North Korea might protest at the U.N. that they do not fit the bill. And when Crimson Jihad says that they won't bow to the U.S. Imperialist Pig Dogs its fairly clear they are talking about the President and Harry Tasker as much as they might say they are not Imperialist Pig Dogs.

Hardin might protest the label, but it is clear who Jade is talking about, and Hardin is taking no undue liberties with that section.

Maggot
Minmatar
Mirkur Draug'Tyr
Ushra'Khan
Posted - 2008.05.09 12:53:00 - [108]
 

Goumindong,

I am not sure it is "clear" anywhere that Jade's comments related to Hardin.

If Hardin choses to put himself in the category of
Quote:
'uninteresting', 'unpassionate', 'alliance appointed', 'stuffed shirts' & 'clones'
thats up to him.

Maggot.

Goumindong
SniggWaffe
Posted - 2008.05.09 13:05:00 - [109]
 

Originally by: Maggot

I am not sure it is "clear" anywhere that Jade's comments related to Hardin.


If you've had dealings with Jade in the past it is certainly clear. I don't use the forum that Hardin does when he talks with Jade, but i've had the chance to discuss things with him in the past and it fits the bill perfectly.

Camar
North Eastern Swat
Pandemic Legion
Posted - 2008.05.09 23:05:00 - [110]
 

I refuse to come to terms with the fact I gave my vote to a dirty amarrian! Wink

Oh, please also raise hell regarding making low-sec a bit more attractive Twisted Evil

1st MOAB
Posted - 2008.05.11 14:47:00 - [111]
 

Originally by: Camar
I refuse to come to terms with the fact I gave my vote to a dirty amarrian! Wink

Oh, please also raise hell regarding making low-sec a bit more attractive Twisted Evil



A typical comment for a veto guy. but yes compared to level 4 missions in high security low security struggles and needs attention.

Kelsin
Dirt Dog Trading Company
Posted - 2008.05.11 15:51:00 - [112]
 

Originally by: Hardin
My concern, as stated above, is that while some of Jade's ideas are probably welcome, taken as a whole they have the potential to be gamebreaking and seem to be driven by an idealistic view of EVE which takes not account of human nature. Do things have to be improved? - Sure. Do we need to completely transform EVE in order to do so? - I don't think so.


Well Hardin, is it really fair to say that your opinions and biases will be tempered by a sense of fairness and understanding of game balance, but that other candidates somehow lack that ability? The criticisms you're presenting here are so vague as to be equally applicable to you or any other candidate, but you present yourself as somehow fair-minded and rational enough that you can avoid the pitfalls of bias when others cannot.

Octavinus Augustus
Amarr
Auctoritan Syndicate
Curatores Veritatis Alliance
Posted - 2008.05.11 21:12:00 - [113]
 

Originally by: Kelsin
Originally by: Hardin
My concern, as stated above, is that while some of Jade's ideas are probably welcome, taken as a whole they have the potential to be gamebreaking and seem to be driven by an idealistic view of EVE which takes not account of human nature. Do things have to be improved? - Sure. Do we need to completely transform EVE in order to do so? - I don't think so.


Well Hardin, is it really fair to say that your opinions and biases will be tempered by a sense of fairness and understanding of game balance, but that other candidates somehow lack that ability?


Actually, this is not exactly what Hardin is saying is it? It seems to me that he's simply expressing a view that part of Jade's vision for EvE might well introduce a whole series of new gamebreaking problems. But I'd better let Hardin himself answer this when he gets around (sorry for putting words in your mouth Hardin).

What is actually astonishing is that you, Kelsin, (being such a vocal supporter of Jade's) make this statement regarding Hardin and yet fail to see how well it fits Jade himself.

After all, Jade has repeatedly stated that his main purpose behind running is to become a "counterweight" for all those 0.0 alliance representatives who will fight so very hard to keep the status quo in 0.0 - because it is in their interest as alliances (Jade's view). So Jade can be objective while all the other candidates can't?

Kelsin, do you not think a bit of soulsearching would be quite needed in your own camp, before throwing around comments such as this about Hardin? Just a suggestion of course.

Anyhow, I'll shut up and let Hardin run his own show. He's far better at it than me anyhow.

Kelsin
Dirt Dog Trading Company
Posted - 2008.05.12 00:24:00 - [114]
 

Well pretty much all of the candidates have acknowledged that they come to the race and would be coming to the CSM with their own perspectives and biases. But I question the assertion that one candidate would be so blinded by their perspective that they would somehow force game-breaking changes onto CCP, whilst another candidate has some greater self-awareness that would protect them against making that same error. To me this is hubris.

Instead I think we'd all be better served by focusing on the CSM as existing to promote the improving of various areas of gameplay as opposed to thinking of the CSM as arbiters of game balance, if you see what I mean by that distinction.

And by that same token I'd rather seen candidates running on the strength of their ideas, and if they run on the precept that they will champion improvements to a certain area of the game, that's great and I think we'd benefit by having a spectrum of people with good ideas about all the different parts of the game.

Goumindong
SniggWaffe
Posted - 2008.05.12 00:51:00 - [115]
 

Originally by: Kelsin
Well pretty much all of the candidates have acknowledged that they come to the race and would be coming to the CSM with their own perspectives and biases. But I question the assertion that one candidate would be so blinded by their perspective that they would somehow force game-breaking changes onto CCP, whilst another candidate has some greater self-awareness that would protect them against making that same error. To me this is hubris.



Unfortunately its the truth. And there is ample evidence of it. If only in Hardin, Myself, and others clearly arguing against our alliances best interest[and therefor our best interest].

Archbishop
Amarr
PIE Inc.
Posted - 2008.05.12 11:38:00 - [116]
 

Edited by: Archbishop on 12/05/2008 11:43:35

When I voted yesterday I took into consideration several things. In the end I found 3-4 really good candidates and almost wish I could've been able to vote for them all. When it was done however I voted for HARDIN as I know he's experienced Eve from many different fronts.

Why did I vote for him?

1. He's 100% trustworthy.

2. He's played Eve both in Empire and in 0.0 space where he first was a visitor then a resident.

3. He's recognized the effort it took to colonize 0.0 space and establish a vibrant community (society in effect) in a dark and dangerous corner of space.

4. He's a good friend.

Hardin recognizes that while changes may be needed to balance Eve somewhat the concept of "throwing the baby out with the bathwater" isn't the way to go. To me he understands it's always easier to destroy then build and alliances that commit the time and resources to establish a society in 0.0 space shouldn't be at the mercy of some Tom, **** and Harry pvp corp who has never built anything a day in it's life.

I play in Empire space 95% of the time but I recognize the good the 0.0 alliances bring to the game. A place where people can explore and colonize and find their own way. While I agree cyno-jammers are a problem I also agree you don't just chang the entire focus of the game.

I voted for Hardin and I suggest you do as well!

Archbishop



Krystian
Caldari
Clown Punchers.
Clown Punchers Syndicate
Posted - 2008.05.12 22:55:00 - [117]
 

Edited by: Krystian on 12/05/2008 22:56:43
I have known CVA since my first year of playing EvE. Stable alliance thru worst and best of times. Tho I cannot say I personally know Hardin very well I do know the alliance he stems from is honorable and has given many new players in EvE a shot in 0.0 space. I dont believe there are any alliances left who can claim to have held space longer, been as nice to new players and who have been all around great. The stability, helpfullness and good natured attitude of Hardin's alliance speaks droves for him. From my past colleagues who have worked with him (Huzzah, IAC, No Quarter) I can say he is an honorable respectable man. If you feel uncertain of the other canidates being confusing or shakey in reputation, Hardin by far outstrips them all in competence and ability. He has my vote.

Tissa
Minmatar
Mnemonic Enterprises
New Eden Research.
Posted - 2008.05.13 11:24:00 - [118]
 

I voted Hardin because I met both him and rodj at the e-on awards. I found them both to be thoroughly good blokes, Hardin seemed to have his head screwed on right and I trust him to go to Iceland and not be a tit.

Sral TBear
Shipwreck cove
Posted - 2008.05.13 12:21:00 - [119]
 

Edited by: Sral TBear on 13/05/2008 12:21:49
this is wierd, odd and i just done something i never thought i would do. Doing something for someone in CVA. I have votet on you, you darn anti piwate scumTwisted Evil

On the serius note. You are the most unbiased one. Your answers seems straight and honnest. Hope you get in Very Happy

Sir my vote is yours

on other note, hope to give you "popcorn" some time YARRRR!!

TBear

Gaius Kador
PIE Inc.
Posted - 2008.05.13 15:24:00 - [120]
 

Top bloke, gruesome char, which is why you get my vote Hardin ;)

If you win, i'd say its time to upgrade your allready enchanced chin to mk.III


Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5

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