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


 
Pages: 1 [2] 3

Author Topic

Demos Colodan
101st Space Brigade - Wings of Destiny
Utterly Harmless
Posted - 2008.04.30 10:00:00 - [31]
 

I don't have any alts (noobie ^^)

Serenity Steele
Dynamic Data Distribution
Posted - 2008.04.30 11:06:00 - [32]
 

Edited by: Serenity Steele on 30/04/2008 11:14:32
Edited for legibility and clarity

Originally by: Ray McCormack
Would you care to elaborate as to why they're irrelevant?


Originally by: LaVista Vista
I too was wondering exactly about this.
No offence to SS, i know you are a good guy. It's exactly relevant.
With the rumors that you are a bobbit, people wants to know.
I would expect no less myself, if i had a character in a large alliance.


Ok, I'm going to try fit it into one post, wish me luck .. a bit simplified however ..

IMO the information is irrelevant because
CCP have performed due diligence
"CCP have already done due diligence in checking RL identity, passport and location data, and ensured candidates have a clean record to run." as per Jades statement.

It won't improve the CSM
Releasing alts will not improve any voters ability to a good choice as to any candidates ability to perform the duties as CSM. A good choice IMO is one determined by a candidates ability to:
- Understand the mechanics of the EVE-Online universe
- Understand the underlying vision for the EvE-Online universe
- Understand the aspirations and concerns of the player base
- Understand how the mechanics of the EvE universe can be balanced/exploited
- Filter and identify important issues or developments from 1000's of ideas
- Objectively describe the pros and cons of issues raised by the player base
- Constructively debate the issues within the CSM
- Communicate CCP's response to the player base
- Identify from experience ways to improve the CSM mechanisms for future candidates.

The information available to assess candidates under the current CSM rules is:
- Reveal the persons RL name. Hi I'm Shayne Smart.
- The name of the candidate character. Hi I'm Serenity Steele, ALT of Shayne Smart.

Given the requests are now
- Show Alternative Character Names = All Alternative characters names of Shayne Smart
- Show Across all accounts = All Accounts that are registered to the credit card, address, email address of Shayne Smart
- Enable candidates to post their alts and have CCP verify.

These requests can:
- At best, give voters a false sense of security:
Since candidate accounts paid for by GTC, accounts under a different name will not show. Since candidates are capable of changing their subscription details in a matter of minutes, thereby making it effectively voluntary anyway. Optional posting and verification by CCP can be gamed in exactly the same way.

- At worst, cloud a voters ability to make a good choice. by irrelevant entertainment. Council Members who have been elected will need all their experience to so by showing their actions, answers to these posts and first hand communication in-game to really show the best they can do. There is already a social control in place revealign peoples RL names that means they have a RL impact on their jobs/life/future if they are deliberately malicious. There is a committee control in place (9 CSM members and CCP's ultimate say) to reduce influence of any deliberately malicious people.

That leaves potential of a lot of prejudice, entertaintment and tin foil hattery;
The last 2 are fun for sure, however irrelevant to getting EvE a good CSM.

LaVista Vista
Conservative Shenanigans Party
Posted - 2008.04.30 11:11:00 - [33]
 

Serenity, i do not disagree with you.

But you know, just as well as I, that people DO care about ingame politics in regards to the election.

Some people don't want to vote for goons, some don't want to vote for bob.

So while i agree with what you are saying, those things are not really what people are looking for. People just have prejudice towards certain alliances.

Ben Derindar
Dirty Deeds Corp.
Posted - 2008.04.30 11:13:00 - [34]
 

Ben is my PvP main, and Amuenet is a support character of mine, also in AXE.

My other four characters are my mission runner and three market checkers/t1 hauler alts/cyno alts. Their identities are known in select circles but I'd prefer not to reveal them publically at this stage, if nothing else just so I can still have time to myself in-game once the campaign is over.

/Ben

Serenity Steele
Dynamic Data Distribution
Posted - 2008.04.30 11:15:00 - [35]
 

Originally by: LaVista Vista
Serenity, i do not disagree with you.

But you know, just as well as I, that people DO care about ingame politics in regards to the election.

Some people don't want to vote for goons, some don't want to vote for bob.

So while i agree with what you are saying, those things are not really what people are looking for. People just have prejudice towards certain alliances.


Thanks, I forgot to mention the word prejudice. Edited it in Smile

Leandro Salazar
Quam Singulari
Posted - 2008.04.30 11:18:00 - [36]
 

Edited by: Leandro Salazar on 30/04/2008 11:18:28
Leandro Salazar and Tinian Singh are my main characters, both combat pilots, one for mainly battleships and PvE, the other for T2 frigs and cruisers and PvP.
Gabriel Salazar is also mine, but hes only a CEO char keeping my old corp alive.
The other three are market, industry and research alts in n00bcorps and their names are none of anyones business.

Ray McCormack
Nordar Innovations.
Posted - 2008.05.01 06:28:00 - [37]
 

Originally by: CCP Xhagen
Originally by: Ray McCormack
Will CCP be releasing a verified list of candidates' alternative character names across all accounts?



No, CCP will not be releasing any further information about the candidates beyond what has been released to this date.

Fair enough. Are you then prepared for the ****storm that will ensue when solid evidence is found linking a candidate to their alt and it turns out the public have been conned into democratically electing the wrong representative?

Ray McCormack
Nordar Innovations.
Posted - 2008.05.01 06:56:00 - [38]
 

Originally by: Serenity Steele
- due diligence
- it won't improve the CSM
- false sense of security
- cloud voters judgement with irrelevant details

I safely assume I can summarise your post into those four main points? So to retort.

As stated before, I'm not essentially interested in the due diligence performed by CCP. I'm interested in being supplied with the information that will inform me if I'm voting for a BOB alt or the alt of someone that stole from the BMBE.

I'm willing to accept the argument that it could unnecessarily ruin the experience for a candidate and limit them from effectively performing their duties. But that is a very well known risk of public office. I could cite hundreds of instances of public figures unfairly facing public humiliation to the net effect of nothing but some media entertainment. But I could again cite thousands more where that drama as it's unfolded has proved the individual unworthy of his position.

There is the chance candidates can hide characters from detection even from CCP. And, to be honest, I feel this is probably the main reason for them not wanting to release the information. They cannot guarantee 100%, so offer zero. I would however by happy with any information on this point, and would be happy to accept that their due diligence has been fulfilled when supplying it. And the false sense of security is no different to the one we've been presented with now.

Hiding 'irrelevant' details from voters is entirely undemocratic. No one is worthy of judging what information is relevant. That is why we have political analysts and commentators and opposition-funded smear campaigns to inform the public of what they feel is most relevant. And by all means don't fool yourself that this won't be present in yours or any future CSM campaigns.

Ray McCormack
Nordar Innovations.
Posted - 2008.05.01 07:06:00 - [39]
 

Originally by: Serenity Steele
Thanks, I forgot to mention the word prejudice. Edited it in Smile

Isn't prejudice an inherent cornerstone of any democratic election? Laughing

Maidel
Amarr
Imperial Dreams
Curatores Veritatis Alliance
Posted - 2008.05.01 19:13:00 - [40]
 

All the candidates seem to fall into three categories:

1) Have answered the question and dont feel they have anything to hide (or have thought about it carefully and are intelligent enough to lie smoothly).
2) Havent even bothered replying to the thread (could have something to hide, but dont have a guilty conscience about it and therefore dont feel compelled to post)
3) absolutely have to say this is a bad idea and refuse to answer the question (Have a guilty conscience...)

Reash
Amarr
Auctoritan Syndicate
Curatores Veritatis Alliance
Posted - 2008.05.01 19:35:00 - [41]
 

Originally by: Maidel
All the candidates seem to fall into three categories:

1) Have answered the question and dont feel they have anything to hide (or have thought about it carefully and are intelligent enough to lie smoothly).
2) Havent even bothered replying to the thread (could have something to hide, but dont have a guilty conscience about it and therefore dont feel compelled to post)
3) absolutely have to say this is a bad idea and refuse to answer the question (Have a guilty conscience...)


I wouldnt go so far as to say the reasons for not posting would be a guilty concience, some people may fear that they will have their alts attacked in game or giving away alts names would reveal spys in other alliance. While in the CVA we do not condone that, a lot of EVE players do not feel the same way.

Maidel
Amarr
Imperial Dreams
Curatores Veritatis Alliance
Posted - 2008.05.01 19:38:00 - [42]
 

Originally by: Reash

I wouldnt go so far as to say the reasons for not posting would be a guilty concience,


I suspect I didnt make myself clear enough.

Not posting doesnt equal a guilty conscience (you could be guilty or you could just not care)

Posting a post that says you absolutely refuse to post your alts - now thats where the guilty conscience is.

Kelsin
Dirt Dog Trading Company
Posted - 2008.05.01 19:41:00 - [43]
 

Originally by: Maidel
I suspect I didnt make myself clear enough.

Not posting doesnt equal a guilty conscience (you could be guilty or you could just not care)

Posting a post that says you absolutely refuse to post your alts - now thats where the guilty conscience is.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarthyism

Maidel
Amarr
Imperial Dreams
Curatores Veritatis Alliance
Posted - 2008.05.01 19:44:00 - [44]
 

Edited by: Maidel on 01/05/2008 19:51:18
Edited by: Maidel on 01/05/2008 19:44:37
Originally by: Kelsin
Originally by: Maidel
I suspect I didnt make myself clear enough.

Not posting doesnt equal a guilty conscience (you could be guilty or you could just not care)

Posting a post that says you absolutely refuse to post your alts - now thats where the guilty conscience is.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarthyism


http://smartarses.org/ Laughing

Dyntheos
The Legion of Spoon
Curatores Veritatis Alliance
Posted - 2008.05.01 21:14:00 - [45]
 

I don't think refusing to reveal one's alts says anything about a guilty conscience or not...agree with zoolkhan here.

(That being said, I am fervently against alts in general...but that is another matter Wink)

Danton Marcellus
Nebula Rasa Holdings
Posted - 2008.05.01 21:49:00 - [46]
 

I'd not release any information on alts or possibly 2nd accounts if I were to run, simply for the fact that I don't want my enemy to know if and when I'm twoboxing it, where I have possible political pull and/or added firepower, if any. I'd like to keep people guessing, it has served me well so far.

Aeo IV
Amarr
Xomic OmniCorporation
Posted - 2008.05.01 22:51:00 - [47]
 

Disclosing this information should be part of the risk vs reward ideals of EVE online, the rewards are great, if elected, and thus, so should the risks.

You, as a candidate, are asking me, as a voter, to trust you with my vote, but I'm not sure I can truly trust anyone who refused full disclosure.

Danton Marcellus
Nebula Rasa Holdings
Posted - 2008.05.02 00:11:00 - [48]
 

Originally by: Aeo IV
Disclosing this information should be part of the risk vs reward ideals of EVE online, the rewards are great, if elected, and thus, so should the risks.

You, as a candidate, are asking me, as a voter, to trust you with my vote, but I'm not sure I can truly trust anyone who refused full disclosure.



Only if you sent me millions of real money for my campaign would I bend to the will of a voter. Don't ***** out, disclosing alts for votes now, naked syncronized dancing on unicycles next.

Breha Organa
Posted - 2008.05.02 02:56:00 - [49]
 

Originally by: Serenity Steele
I'm with Zoolkhan and Jade Constantine on this one.IMO it's simply not relevant. I'm not revealing the name of my exotic dancer or slaver hound either.


Speaking of exotic dancers, every ship order I fill comes with a "free" exotic dancer, and I will not reveal the names of my all-female crew... who happen to be former Orion Slavegirls.

So, I realize this is difficult to verify... however, I only have one account, and my two alts are: Siuwa Fenmenor, Minmatar trade specialist... and Ursula LeGuin, named after my all-time favorite author, and whom I will begin to play with when Breha Organa reaches 50 mil skill points.

zoolkhan
Minmatar
Mirkur Draug'Tyr
Ushra'Khan
Posted - 2008.05.02 07:08:00 - [50]
 

Edited by: zoolkhan on 02/05/2008 07:15:06
Originally by: Maidel
All the candidates seem to fall into three categories:

1) Have answered the question and dont feel they have anything to hide (or have thought about it carefully and are intelligent enough to lie smoothly).
2) Havent even bothered replying to the thread (could have something to hide, but dont have a guilty conscience about it and therefore dont feel compelled to post)
3) absolutely have to say this is a bad idea and refuse to answer the question (Have a guilty conscience...)

4) want to remain players too and dont want their gamefun suffer.
I dont think it is appropriate to expect a candidate to screw their gameplay.
5) some candidates revealed only some of their alts
this is very clever, not even you have spotted it - but i am certain you counted them
to those who have "nothing to hide".
6) think its pointless to mention cynoalts and forward scouts, because after mentioning them they can jut be recreated.
7) Are men of honor and principle - hate it of their honor is questioned , hate it tp prostitue themselfes for a job that already bears enough sacrifices otherwise.
8) have alts that are not as irrelevant as alts of other candidates if disclosed
you can interpret that as "has something to hide" - yes something to hide
from ingame enemies. In what sense is that relevant to the performance of the CSM work?
9) have stated that sharing alt names would be done on case to case basis
by ingame request - at least there is a tiny chance to find out if the request is mainly coming from ingame enemies - or from a concerned voter

ill stop here - youre CVA, of course you will say anything that gains your rep points.
Good luck with that approach.

I have only one character that i want to hide - and that is because i happen
to run a frigging "behind the enemy lines scouting corp" if the voters emphasis
dont go far enough to accept that there are good reasons not to share my mothers maiden shoesize with everyone - but still be a good guy, then i cant help it.

I may enter history as the candidate who stands by his principles, i will either gain votes
for that or lose them. But i will not abadon my own codex just because some people
view me as a portential horse****r because i dont share all my ingame secrets with everybody.


Ray McCormack
Nordar Innovations.
Posted - 2008.05.02 07:38:00 - [51]
 

Please don't degenerate this thread into a form of political slander. Keep that rubbish for CAOD and argue the principles rather than against each other.

With regards to us wanting your mother's shoesize or for you to perform erotic sex dances, please understand how unacceptable that is. Argue each request on its merits, not that it will eventually lead to you surrendering your greater freedoms to us. It is in no way an argument against what we are asking you to reveal, but rather serves to illustrate how flimsily veiled your own arguments are.

This is also in no way a witch-hunt against those not revealing their alts. Partly because we cannot verify those claims, but also because this is a request, not a demand. That is why I have chosen not to list the alts revealed in this and other threads.

While I can empathise with you not wanting to compromise the work you have done with your alts (be it infiltration, trust scams, general piracy, etc) I'm sure you can identify with the fact that all that information goes towards helping us build a firm idea of your character. Unfortunately public office does come with some form or other of you having to surrender some of your freedoms. It is a necessary evil (for want of a better word) to ensure the public have at their disposal all the information required to make an informed decision.

So while the activities you perform on your alts may be well within game mechanics and the careers of our sandbox environment, they reveal a whole lot more about your make-up than any brief discussion you can hold behind the safety of one avatar.

zoolkhan
Minmatar
Mirkur Draug'Tyr
Ushra'Khan
Posted - 2008.05.02 08:16:00 - [52]
 

Edited by: zoolkhan on 02/05/2008 08:22:22
Originally by: Ray McCormack

So while the activities you perform on your alts may be well within game mechanics and the careers of our sandbox environment, they reveal a whole lot more about your make-up than any brief discussion you can hold behind the safety of one avatar.



Thats Naive.

If i reveal you the names of my alts you know nothing.
You can find out their corps (NPC) and ask an agent for their positions.
It will still be very hard for you to understand what theyre doing.
A negative sec rating doesnt make one a pirate, could be just war based on standings
in near 0.0 areas i.e.

You will never know if all candidates really disclosed all alts from
ALL THEIR ACCOUNTS or no, some even say they have no alts at all

Woudl you want to vote the most effective liar?
(not assuming anyone is lying, but the risk cannot be denied that it woudl be possible)

- Since you will have difficulties to validate their claims,
what kind of correct picture will you be generating?

What do you prefer:
a) The person who lies - gets the votes because he is disclosing information
he wants you to know and he thinks you want to hear?

or

b) The person who admits disclosing his alts would affect the gameplay

-
important note:
i assume that all candidates are true and all their clames are honest i give them the benefit of the doubt.

- but the topic of generating false security has been mentioned by a co-candidate here.
perhaps you will understand why this way of getting a picture of a candidate is
perhaps not really the best approach.

Only way to really know who is true or not - is if ccp would disclose it,
not we ourselfes - which ccp is not going to do.

we could close the discussion here from a pragmatic, facts oriented standpoint.
Youre not able to generate a 100% validated correct picture of a candidate in this thread.
Thats a fact. plain and simple. But lets go on for the sake of it...

one could assume after realizing that "admitting my alts name is XYZ" and hiding my other two accounts doesnt bring you closer to your apparrant target.



If i was paranoid, i would assume youre one alt working for one of those
who already looks shiny and good by having named some of their alts
..and now try to discredit those who took a stand :-)

Of course that would be a very paranoid way of viewing it and
i distant myself from that as far possible. Wink

proposal:


Equally well, you could ask for the profession of our alts - if tehy do scam, piracy or whatever
because _THAT_ is probably the relevant information that you are after and i would not hide their profession, that would not endanger my personal gameplay as long i dont have to mention their names.

Your response to that proposal would be most interesting.


Ray McCormack
Nordar Innovations.
Posted - 2008.05.02 08:51:00 - [53]
 

Originally by: zoolkhan
Thats Naive.

Thanks. Let me however address your reply to illustrate how you have instead displayed naivety by misinterpreting my request.

Originally by: zoolkhan
If i reveal you the names of my alts you know nothing.
You can find out their corps (NPC) and ask an agent for their positions.
It will still be very hard for you to understand what theyre doing.
A negative sec rating doesnt make one a pirate, could be just war based on standings
in near 0.0 areas i.e.

I'm well aware of game mechanics, as are they majority of the people that will be voting. Unless you're implying your constituency doesn't? We can find out as much information about your alts as we can of your supposed main, so I'm not sure what you're arguing. I'm not suggesting we will discover an alter-ego, but rather that who your alts are makes up an inherent part of who you are as a person.

Originally by: zoolkhan
You will never know if all candidates really disclosed all alts from
ALL THEIR ACCOUNTS or no, some even say they have no alts at all

Please see the part where I ask for this to be a CCP verified or produced list. I have no interest in letting you provide me with them.

This makes the rest of your argument moot. And while I understand CCP said they will not release any further information, it still doesn't mean I cannot argue further in order to change their minds.

Originally by: zoolkhan
Your response to that proposal would be most interesting.

Your proposal is interesting, as it would directly illustrate your leanings towards one form of gameplay or another. Which is essentially why we are electing you. However, that same can be garnered from your replies to the pointed questions in this forum.

It in no way helps illustrate that I could be voting for a sworn enemy or for a lying, cheating (within the bounds of the rules), back-stabbing low-life. And while this may not affect the way they represent me on the council, due to the nature of a democratic process I as a voter have the right to know who I am electing.

Virtuozzo
The Collective
Against ALL Authorities
Posted - 2008.05.02 08:52:00 - [54]
 

I'm with Ray on this. It's politics, where everything is subject to scrutiny, regardless of subject or content either way.

I don't agree it would be as damaging as posed by a few, only thing it would do is reinforce the perception of having been able sofar to play the game from every angle, high and low.

Sure, there's a few candidates with skeletons in historic closets, distributing identities across organisations, but who doesn't do that.

I can understand privacy however, trouble is, this is politics, privacy doesn't coexist. But look on the bright side, we'll get entertainment with blackmail stories, soap opera's and all of that :-)

zoolkhan
Minmatar
Mirkur Draug'Tyr
Ushra'Khan
Posted - 2008.05.02 09:28:00 - [55]
 

Edited by: zoolkhan on 02/05/2008 09:30:46
Originally by: Virtuozzo

I can understand privacy however, trouble is, this is politics, privacy doesn't coexist.



in politics the representants are compensated for the visibility and lack of privacy by a rather large salary, power and a huge budget for campaigning. Not to mention all kind
of lobbyistic bribary benefits.

in contrast and the example of CSM, we have to pay for the pleasure to represent you - unlike more than 200.000 other players who have not even applied - we are happy to do so and willing to face the consequences as they were announced prior the application phase. Such
as telling you, and the entire internet who the guy behind this character is.

No politician is ever asked to disclose his nicknames, messnger nics etc

When that is happening, you would start to compare correctly.

I pay around 35€ each month, i truly love this game, i am very confident i know where the pain-points are because i play a lot and since its beginning - i have friends amongst pirates antipirates, all races and all factions and most alliances inlcuding all of those who have a CSM-candidate sent to this race. Still i am a symbol of independance, being loose of any alliance ties myself (including all my alts btw). I represent the player - not a lobby.

- if idealism, knowledge, respect and experience does not weight as heavy
as disclosing my alts then it is a sad fact i am willing to accept.

I am fully aware, as i pointed out in my first post - that my faith lies in the voters hands.

It still does, i am absolutely fine with that. I stick with my principles, and stand behind my words. I always do, also to those i regret. I would vote myself just for that :)







Ray McCormack
Nordar Innovations.
Posted - 2008.05.02 09:57:00 - [56]
 

Originally by: zoolkhan
No politician is ever asked to disclose his nicknames, messnger nics etc

That's an irrelevant comparison. When politician's personal lives are investigated to show where they went to school, who they were friendly with, what their religious leader preaches, which interns they have bedded, what financial scams they have pulled off, who they've been spying on and whether or not they lead a double life with a second family in another country; then can we start comparing the two seeing as that is effectively what the power of an alt offers you?

And arguing that you should be relieved of the duty to have to disclose such details because the rewards aren't great enough suggests you're possibly not a fit candidate to stand for election. Selfless and beyond reproach, those are good qualities. None of which that statement displays.

Daan Sai
Polytrope
Posted - 2008.05.02 11:35:00 - [57]
 

For Pete's sake Ray, give it a rest. You're none the wiser whatever the candidates say anyway. *Its a game!* Rolling Eyes

Personally I respect their rights of privacy if they choose.



Ray McCormack
Nordar Innovations.
Posted - 2008.05.02 11:49:00 - [58]
 

Originally by: Daan Sai
For Pete's sake Ray, give it a rest. You're none the wiser whatever the candidates say anyway. *Its a game!* Rolling Eyes

Great argument. Welcome to public debate, feel free to throw your arms in the air and sigh loudly, that's always considered constructive.

Venkul Mul
Gallente
Posted - 2008.05.02 12:50:00 - [59]
 

Mr McCormack your whole argument is based on your idea that:

1) as a voter you have a right to know personal data about the candidates;

2) the quality of game experience of the candidates after disclosure is not important and not influent, they are receiving some great boon that only you see so they must pay for it with full disclosure;

3) that the CSM is the same of a governorship or other influent political position in a government.

The whole tone of your post give me the conviction that if some of the candidates were to support a idea with which you disagree you will be at the head of a mob hunting him and all his alts and that is the first reason not to divulge the alts names.

Another reason is that giving out the alt names make them more vulnerable to blackmail: "support my idea or me and my friend will hunt your freighter alt to extinction", "I am the CEO of your alt X, support our corp/alliance or you will suffer", ecc. ecc. The higher the number of character disclosed the higher the vulnerability of the player, as deleting 1 character to avoid problems is a thing, deleting 5 is another.

Again the quality of enjoyment in the game will suffer, as people will start tempesting all the player alt with mails asking to support idea A, drop suggestion B, absolutely counter proposal C, ask to GM XX to relook my petition because he overlooked fact X or Y and so on.
Digging through that kind of spam on 1 account can be a acceptable cost, doing that for 3, 6 or more characters will rapidly sour the player to the game and his position to the CSM.

You see the position in the CSM is not one of political power with decisional capability, it is a consulting body that can give suggestions. When someone is selected with an election for that kind of body you don't get the kind of disclosure that is normal for a political position, you look his curriculum to see if he is qualified (the character that he is presenting for the CSM election) and if there is some outstanding problems with him (CCP check on the player for bans).




Ray McCormack
Nordar Innovations.
Posted - 2008.05.02 13:48:00 - [60]
 

Well, that is the best counter-argument put forth in the whole thread. Thank you for taking the time to respond intelligently. I don't readily disagree with any of your points. Apart from the idea of myself, pitchfork in hand, leading an angry mob in a witch-hunt of the candidate's alts.

To lay the beast to rest, I will admit to having an ulterior motive in wanting a verified disclosure of alternative characters. It is my belief that a candidate is misrepresenting their self as a trustworthy individual, when the actions of their alts speak otherwise.

However I have no verifiable proof linking the candidate to their alt. This was my attempt at obtaining this proof, or indeed even forcing the candidate to withdraw without disclosing their alts. I will not however bring my reputation into disrepute by posting hearsay. So unless the candidate either reveals the alts or CCP does, voters are being mislead into voting for an individual that isn't worthy.

It is this single reason alone that makes full disclosure a necessary evil.


Pages: 1 [2] 3

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