open All Channels
seplocked Jita Park Speakers Corner
blankseplocked What would you drive in ther first meeting?
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Author Topic

xKovishx
Posted - 2008.05.07 19:32:00 - [1]
 

I still have 1 vote remaining with my accounts and I really cant decide who I will vote. I voted my favorite industrial here but im still looking for the 'pvp' candidate. I want you CSM candidate to tell what you'd drive forward in the first meething. These might or might not represent my own views. Im not native english speaker but I'd like you to answer these questions.

Examples: Titan nerf (how?)
Pos warfare change (-II-)
The blob problem (-II-=
Small gang warfare / roaming becoming nano only[Tho this has to do with the blob problem)
Small corps dying / forced to join alliances (again blob thing)
Piracy in lowsec is gate only (Why, how would you buff lowsec, dont give generic 'remove L4 missions from hisec as that clearly isnt a solution)
SP gap
BlackOps
Blockaderunners (HICS)
Alliance sizes (I mean how big territories they control)
Assaul Frigs

I know its a lot to answer but I'd expect if you REALLY are running for CSM you should take your time to answer these. I bet there are other PvPers interested also.

Arithron
Gallente
Gallente Trade Alliance
Posted - 2008.05.07 20:04:00 - [2]
 

A good question. First (assuming I am elected), let me say that if any of your topics were posted on the CSM forum and generated player interest and support, I would happily look at the issues you raise carefully. I'm not initially going to be supporting topics until I have looked at the arguements for and against in detail. I won't be proposing topics for the CSM (and thus getting 1 representative's support), as this is not what I believe I am being elected to do. I am being elected to LISTEN to players, present and discuss/debate the issues in the CSM meetings, and vote for or against the issue to be taken to CCP. My vote will depend on both the debate on the CSM forum AND the debate in the CSM meetings.

In short, I'd discuss any issues that have obvious support and the better interests of the majority at heart.

Take care,
Bruce Hansen (Arithron)

zoolkhan
Minmatar
Mirkur Draug'Tyr
Ushra'Khan
Posted - 2008.05.07 20:39:00 - [3]
 

you threw a lot terms in here, i am yet to see a question.

you want to nerf? or not nerf? and how many titans have you seen from close already that you call for their nerf? i have at least once almost rammed ones starboard side.
I though it was a planet or something.

seriously, if you expect me to take the time for your questions, then i can expect you to formulate those questions in the first place.

i an no native english speaker either. But i do know that in most languages
a question starts with "how or why" and they usually do end with a "?".

Your post is just a list of shipclasses mainly.

however the few questions i could identify i try to answer:

"titan nerf (how?)" ok, here we have "how" and "?" so i i answer "why?"

i dont own a titan, but i never thought they need a nerf.
Theyre supposed to be ginormous weapons.
Give me a good reason why they should be nerfed. You seem to be a pvp'er.

Lets see if youre a warrior who fears a challenge.

I know about at least 2-3 titans which died. They are killable. yes they are.

"(Why, how would you buff lowsec, dont give generic 'remove L4 missions from hisec as that clearly isnt a solution)"

i would rise the mission reward, place higher quality agent into lower security system.
(no need to remove l4 from hisec)

And as a true pvper you will probably know that 99,99% of combat in eve happens at some gate, station or pos. This is also in low-sec but not only low-sec specific.

Now there is an easy solytion to that. Remove all gates, and travel like our elders
hundrets of years between the solar systems.

Or live with figts at gates :)

and the rest is just keywords but no question.

If you rephrase them into questions, ill answer them too of course.

Quote:
I know its a lot to answer but I'd expect if you REALLY are running for CSM you should take your time to answer these. I bet there are other PvPers interested also.


Wasnt that much after all.

A few general words:

I am not too fond of aktionism. Nerfing this, boosting that is usually short sighted
and not fully thought through single sided thinking.

anti pirates want pirates beeing nerfed (no insurance for criminals? lol),
pirates want carebears beeing nerfd (away with local, have our sheeps be unaware til theyre dust, no local plus cloak... hmm juicy, easy.. boring and lame)

As you all can see, i can see both sides.

And i will bind nobodys sides arms to the back and have the other side execute him.

I want a fair fight. Balance.

corrections in design might become necessary, but if i see a list of problems of that size, then i automatically wonder if the things on that list are really the problems of the most players.

After these sentences you figure i am not a populist either.

If you want to vote for a brain taht knows pvp as well as other things
vote me. Otherwise there are enough examples on the candidates list
who would love to guess what you want to hear. Wink


Goumindong
SniggWaffe
Posted - 2008.05.07 20:47:00 - [4]
 

Edited by: Goumindong on 07/05/2008 20:47:49
I can tell you what i would like to push. But the way that this will be working means that it will be very difficult to say what will be on the agenda.

the rest is a little to broad to really get an answer on though you could check out my thread if you have any specific questions and read some of my materials regarding POS, Titans, and the rest.

Dierdra Vaal
Caldari
Veto.
Veto Corp
Posted - 2008.05.07 21:27:00 - [5]
 

I think the main topics of the first meeting will be about the workings of the CSM itself. Functions and protocols within the council, setting date and times for meetings, setting goals, and setting measures by which to assess the success or failure of the CSM.

The CSM will need proper organisation and planning if it wants to work efficiently and achieve something.

Max Torps
Nomadic Conglomerate
Posted - 2008.05.07 21:43:00 - [6]
 

Edited by: Max Torps on 07/05/2008 22:12:30
To be fair, I'd like to quote the roles of the individual CSM members as set by CCP. Just so that everyone reading this will know who does what.

Quote:
Summary of Representative Responsibilities

Chairman and Vice-Chairman:

Organize meetings of the CSM
Moderate meetings
Delegate assignments where necessary
Summon Alternates when primary Representatives are unavailable

Secretary and Vice-Secretary:

Record minutes of all CSM meetings
Record all CSM votes and results
Publish an agenda for each CSM meeting
Publish meeting minutes within three days of the meeting

All Representatives:

Attend meetings called by the Chair or Vice-Chair
Assist the Secretary and Vice-Secretary with managerial tasks
Engage the populace on all issue debates and discussions
Represent the public views on issues to the CCP Council


The Roles within the CSM are awarded thus:

Quote:

Selecting a Chairman will be straightforward matter; the Representative with
the highest vote tally will automatically become the Chairman and is responsible
for the internal council vote of a Vice-Chairman, Secretary and Vice-Secretary.


Should the positions not be filled within three days an appointment authority is
granted to the Chairman to fill the positions.
Should the Chairman step down as
such or as a Representative, a vote is to be held to appoint a new Chairman.


That really wont take long. Once settled, it's down to business.

I take the view of Arithron but we must also be aware that Topic Representation has the following interesting clause.

Quote:
A topic can be anything that a player considers important. The goal is to either
gain the support of a Representative, or gain a 5% public support level on the
issue from the total voter population. If either of these conditions is met, the topic
must be addressed by the CSM. Regardless of the support method, topics cannot
be adopted by the CSM unless they have been open for community discussion
for at least seven days.



So the next step will probably consist of CSM's with agenda's making topics available for community discussion and the community voicing what they want as topics. I think that despite the slow take up of this forum that things could get heated, in a good way.

Busy times indeed for those successful in campaigning to be on the council.

Vote for me here
Candidate thread here
Website here


Arum Erzoh
Amarr
Kreios Imperium
Posted - 2008.05.07 22:03:00 - [7]
 

Max is right. To a degree our hands will be tied as to how we address issues and how the issues are brought forth to the table.

Following the elections all candidates, or should I say Council members, will be petitioning their issues as well as monitoring which issues the player-base want to see brought to CCP's attention. It'll be interesting, and once the elections are complete we'll see how player involvement shapes the leading issues.

Ben Derindar
Dirty Deeds Corp.
Posted - 2008.05.08 07:40:00 - [8]
 

Originally by: xKovishx
I still have 1 vote remaining with my accounts and I really cant decide who I will vote. I voted my favorite industrial here but im still looking for the 'pvp' candidate. I want you CSM candidate to tell what you'd drive forward in the first meething.

That depends on what the "hot topics" are seen to be, during the term.

We candidates can talk about how we'd like to fix this or change that, but until we are asked to look at those issues by the community first, there isn't really much we can do.

/Ben

Breha Organa
Posted - 2008.05.12 18:17:00 - [9]
 

Edited by: Breha Organa on 12/05/2008 18:45:59
Originally by: Ben Derindar
Originally by: xKovishx
I still have 1 vote remaining with my accounts and I really cant decide who I will vote. I voted my favorite industrial here but im still looking for the 'pvp' candidate. I want you CSM candidate to tell what you'd drive forward in the first meething.

That depends on what the "hot topics" are seen to be, during the term.

We candidates can talk about how we'd like to fix this or change that, but until we are asked to look at those issues by the community first, there isn't really much we can do.

/Ben



I must respectfully disagree with Ben here. Perhaps it's just semantics, but this will be a "ground-breaking" year for CSM. All eyes will be on us to see if we really can do something "real" or just fall into the laps of CCP and give them only what they ask for. Obviously, we must work within the rules of what CSM is "allowed" to do, or has authority to do. But our purpose is to act as a liaison between the players and CCP... in both directions.

If it isn't part of the "stated" agenda, I will push to make it part of the agenda to put at the top of the list... that the following needs to happen "in tandem":

Low sec space needs fixed once and for all. My idea is that the corp with the most POSes in a system be automatically granted "Defense rights" to defend that system at no interference from gate guns or station defenses. If there is no single corp with "the most" POSes, defense rights will be granted once a corp (or alliance) achieves that. These defense rights cannot be lost overnight. If the "balance of POSes" shifts, the defending corp will be given a period of one week to take necessary action to either protect themselves or to maintain the balance. AT THE SAME TIME... 0.0 space needs to be truly a player-controlled endeavour. NO MORE strange stellar anomolies coming to the rescue of a Titan about to be destroyed by an attacking force. No interference from CCP in the "balance of power" in 0.0. BOB "should" have been destroyed... and "could" have been destroyed. Yes, this would have made the Goons suddenly very powerful... but it would have been a "player-driven" event.

These two issues will not be difficult to achieve the 5% playerbase support, and it will be put up for discussion immediately... and the seven days' requirement will be met.

Arithron
Gallente
Gallente Trade Alliance
Posted - 2008.05.12 18:45:00 - [10]
 

Originally by: Breha Organa

If it isn't part of the "stated" agenda, I will push to make it part of the agenda to put at the top of the list... that the following needs to happen "in tandem":

Low sec space needs fixed once and for all. My idea is that the corp with the most POSes in a system be automatically granted "Defense rights" to defend that system at no interference from gate guns or station defenses. If there is no single corp with "the most" POSes, defense rights will be granted once a corp (or alliance) achieves that. These defense rights cannot be lost overnight.


Hmm, let me get this straight...you are campaigning for low sec to be changed (because there is something fundamentally wrong with it), and essentially control of systems to be given to corps which happen to be rich enough to have a few POS anchored?

Nice idea for rich corps that anchor POS to get free kill rights to any that enter their system...essentially 0.0 sec in low sec.

This helps the majority of players how exactly?

Take care,
Bruce Hansen (Arithron)

Breha Organa
Posted - 2008.05.12 19:45:00 - [11]
 

Originally by: Arithron


Hmm, let me get this straight...you are campaigning for low sec to be changed (because there is something fundamentally wrong with it), and essentially control of systems to be given to corps which happen to be rich enough to have a few POS anchored?

Nice idea for rich corps that anchor POS to get free kill rights to any that enter their system...essentially 0.0 sec in low sec.

This helps the majority of players how exactly?

Take care,
Bruce Hansen (Arithron)


I'll tell you exactly how, Arithron... My own corp is the best example of this. We're not "rich" but we had allies that had been in the game since its inception... who were "friendly" to us, allied in the fight to defend freedom on low sec... that corp had enough POSes in two dead-end 0.2 systems to have defense rights. They had a strict anti-piracy policy. If you were "neutral" you were welcome to come into the system, provided you didn't do anything hostile or aggressive toward anyone. We had an intel channel set up for anyone who wanted access to the riches of those two systems, and were willing to have "peaceful" dealings with the rest of us. Since there *is* very little support for policing low sec, our intel channel was designed to call up fleet ops whenever pirates "invaded" the area and destroyed an ally's ship. Four or five other corps were regularly sending ships to join in the effort to hunt down and destroy enemy ships.

This was extremely difficult and tricky when also dealing with gate guns and station defenses. The sovereign faction did not look kindly upon ships assaulting other ships, regardless of the reason. This needs to change... because without the ability to defend ourselves in low sec, there is very little reason to be there.

Goumindong
SniggWaffe
Posted - 2008.05.12 19:48:00 - [12]
 

The point he is trying to make is that Pirates will put down POS in order to gain those kill rights. It would turn low-sec into pos warfare.

Arithron
Gallente
Gallente Trade Alliance
Posted - 2008.05.12 19:56:00 - [13]
 

Edited by: Arithron on 12/05/2008 20:05:42
Quote:
We had an intel channel set up for anyone who wanted access to the riches of those two systems, and were willing to have "peaceful" dealings with the rest of us.


Seems like there are good reasons to be in low sec.

What benefits, apart from making a corp 'police' in a system with unlimited kill rights (not all, in fact few, corps will be as 'nice' as you suggest), do you think this change will have? Sounds like it will be an extension of Empire...I can't see the 'riches' staying for long...and what of pirate corps anchoring POS for control?

What is wrong with a dangerous area between player controlled space (0.0) and Empire ('Safeish space)? Why does it need defending in the first place? If you are proposing game-changing changes such as you are, what justifications do you give to change Low sec in the first place? What percentage of the EvE population do you think these changes will affect? How many players will be disadvantaged by these changes?

All these questions, I believe, need asking for such extreme proposals. Convince me, with reasoned arguments, why such changes are a) needed, and b) beneficial to the majority of players.

Take care,
Bruce Hansen (Arithron)

Goumindong
SniggWaffe
Posted - 2008.05.12 20:04:00 - [14]
 

Low-sec is supposed to be the send off before players move into 0.0 a place where newer players get accustomed to the harshness of 0.0 without the real kick in the butt it can often provide.

The real trick is to give the players who own the area a reason to clean the place up. Which is to say, let them reap tax benefits from all production in the region.

That being said. POS's are a bad way of regulating it.


 

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