CSM Campaigns

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Sugar Kyle for CSM9

First post First post
Author
#201 - 2014-03-31 17:16:20 UTC
Sugar Kyle has had the most impressive interviews of all the candidates so far. She brings new ideas to the table and a different perspective from the other candidates. She has my vote.
The Red Skull
#202 - 2014-04-01 01:11:27 UTC
As a resident of Molden Heath and often a victim of the corporation she's in, I can honestly say she's an excellent candidate, she has seen my struggle as a solo pilot and the thing I am trying to do in MH. She listens and she cares, and isn't pushing some sort of agenda for personal gain.

+1,000,000,000 for Sugar Kyle
You have my vote.
Good Sax
#203 - 2014-04-01 15:34:39 UTC
Sugar Kyle,

What is your position on CCP taking in-game disciplinary action against players for things they do outside of the game on privately-owned blogs, message boards, and Teamspeak servers?

\m/ O.o \m/

"You're a freak ..." - Solecist Project

#204 - 2014-04-01 18:32:16 UTC
Ssabat Thraxx wrote:
Sugar Kyle,

What is your position on CCP taking in-game disciplinary action against players for things they do outside of the game on privately-owned blogs, message boards, and Teamspeak servers?



I believe that it is the responsibility of CCP to follow up on incidents reported to them. Each, potential TOS or EULA breaking incident should involve CCP looking at the incident to decide what, if any, disciplinary action should be taken.

Member of CSM9 and CSM10.

Good Sax
#205 - 2014-04-01 18:39:47 UTC
Sugar Kyle wrote:
Ssabat Thraxx wrote:
Sugar Kyle,

What is your position on CCP taking in-game disciplinary action against players for things they do outside of the game on privately-owned blogs, message boards, and Teamspeak servers?



I believe that it is the responsibility of CCP to follow up on incidents reported to them. Each, potential TOS or EULA breaking incident should involve CCP looking at the incident to decide what, if any, disciplinary action should be taken.


I agree. That wasn't my question. Sad

Do you feel the CCP can hold me accountable in game for something I do outside of the game?


\m/ O.o \m/

"You're a freak ..." - Solecist Project

#206 - 2014-04-01 18:46:30 UTC
Ssabat Thraxx wrote:
Sugar Kyle wrote:
Ssabat Thraxx wrote:
Sugar Kyle,

What is your position on CCP taking in-game disciplinary action against players for things they do outside of the game on privately-owned blogs, message boards, and Teamspeak servers?



I believe that it is the responsibility of CCP to follow up on incidents reported to them. Each, potential TOS or EULA breaking incident should involve CCP looking at the incident to decide what, if any, disciplinary action should be taken.


I agree. That wasn't my question. Sad

Do you feel the CCP can hold me accountable in game for something I do outside of the game?




If that action violates the TOS or EULA after CCP investigates the incident.

Member of CSM9 and CSM10.

Good Sax
#207 - 2014-04-01 18:52:40 UTC
Sugar Kyle wrote:
Ssabat Thraxx wrote:
Sugar Kyle wrote:
Ssabat Thraxx wrote:
Sugar Kyle,

What is your position on CCP taking in-game disciplinary action against players for things they do outside of the game on privately-owned blogs, message boards, and Teamspeak servers?



I believe that it is the responsibility of CCP to follow up on incidents reported to them. Each, potential TOS or EULA breaking incident should involve CCP looking at the incident to decide what, if any, disciplinary action should be taken.


I agree. That wasn't my question. Sad

Do you feel the CCP can hold me accountable in game for something I do outside of the game?




If that action violates the TOS or EULA after CCP investigates the incident.


OK, just so I understand your position, CCP's TOS extends outside of the game and into my personal life as well?


\m/ O.o \m/

"You're a freak ..." - Solecist Project

#208 - 2014-04-01 19:17:52 UTC
Ssabat Thraxx wrote:
Sugar Kyle wrote:
Ssabat Thraxx wrote:
Sugar Kyle wrote:
Ssabat Thraxx wrote:
Sugar Kyle,

What is your position on CCP taking in-game disciplinary action against players for things they do outside of the game on privately-owned blogs, message boards, and Teamspeak servers?



I believe that it is the responsibility of CCP to follow up on incidents reported to them. Each, potential TOS or EULA breaking incident should involve CCP looking at the incident to decide what, if any, disciplinary action should be taken.


I agree. That wasn't my question. Sad

Do you feel the CCP can hold me accountable in game for something I do outside of the game?




If that action violates the TOS or EULA after CCP investigates the incident.


OK, just so I understand your position, CCP's TOS extends outside of the game and into my personal life as well?




I cannot comment on whether what you’re doing out of game relates to the Eve TOS or EULA. The TOS and EULA are related to your Eve accounts. If a player performs an action outside of the game that violates the TOS and EULA inside of the game CCP will be responsible for deciding whether they want to take action.

Member of CSM9 and CSM10.

#209 - 2014-04-01 19:36:09 UTC
Currently lowsec anomalies are in a strange place. The majority of anomalies require more than just a simple t1 cruiser but still ultimately give less than belt ratting does. The higher end lowsec anomalies such as hubs tend to require a bc and still don't give anything notable, its not as consistant as belt ratting and you actually make more doing missions/exploration using the same ship.

Do you feel there are any problems with lowsec anomalies and if so what do you feelpotential ways of fixing them would there be?
Good Sax
#210 - 2014-04-01 20:03:09 UTC
Sugar Kyle wrote:
[quote=Ssabat Thraxx]

OK, just so I understand your position, CCP's TOS extends outside of the game and into my personal life as well?



Quote:

I cannot comment on whether what you’re doing out of game relates to the Eve TOS or EULA. The TOS and EULA are related to your Eve accounts. If a player performs an action outside of the game that violates the TOS and EULA inside of the game CCP will be responsible for deciding whether they want to take action.


OK, I don't want to be accused of trolling, so I'm going to just give up on trying to get a straight answer from you. Ive tried 3 times now and all you've given me is doublespeak. I mean seriously, look at your last reply.

I'm asking this question of all the candidates I'm considering voting for because it's an issue of utmost importance to me. I feel so strongly about it that this year I am one of those proverbial "single issue voters." I've heard a lot of good things about you from people I respect (I must admit that prior to that I had been unaware of your blog,) so I wanted to get your take on the issue in the hopes of finding 1 more candidate to vote for.

Really, though, your refusal to answer IS an answer, and it's not the one I was looking for.

Best of luck.




\m/ O.o \m/

"You're a freak ..." - Solecist Project

#211 - 2014-04-01 20:11:49 UTC
Ssabat Thraxx wrote:


I'm asking this question of all the candidates I'm considering voting for because it's an issue of utmost importance to me. I feel so strongly about it that this year I am one of those proverbial "single issue voters." I've heard a lot of good things about you from people I respect (I must admit that prior to that I had been unaware of your blog,) so I wanted to get your take on the issue in the hopes of finding 1 more candidate to vote for.

Really, though, your refusal to answer IS an answer, and it's not the one I was looking for.

Best of luck.


Thank you for your questions.

Member of CSM9 and CSM10.

#212 - 2014-04-02 12:48:40 UTC
Viceorvirtue wrote:
Currently lowsec anomalies are in a strange place. The majority of anomalies require more than just a simple t1 cruiser but still ultimately give less than belt ratting does. The higher end lowsec anomalies such as hubs tend to require a bc and still don't give anything notable, its not as consistant as belt ratting and you actually make more doing missions/exploration using the same ship.

Do you feel there are any problems with lowsec anomalies and if so what do you feel potential ways of fixing them would there be?


The current state of low sec anomalies reflects that the PvE system in Eve has not caught up with the changes in the game. Low sec anomalies are not worth doing because the time investment vs the potential reward are not in balance. There are plenty of anomalies for a player to complete and a bit of attention will go far.

Some ideas:

-Anomalies can give more ISK through having more NPC ships to kill
-Better quality NPCs instead of more NPCs semi-overseers specific to the anomalies or some type of tag rat
-Improve the spawning inside of them. Having two ships spawn 100k from the last two ships while you chase them down to have another two ships spawn 70k off in a third direction is ridiculous.
-Improve the rate players receive escalations. We will chase content all through space for a potential drop. More escalations get us out chasing the end of the rainbow more. More ships moving through space are ships that can engage in PvP.
-LP tokens redeemable for small amounts of Concord LP

Drone anomalies need a complete reworking and something added to them to make them worth doing. With the tweaks to the integrated and augmented drones a small amount of drones with the proper components could spawn in the drone anomalies outside of the drone regions. Alternatively, they could escalate into the drone regions giving more players reason to venture into this space.

Also, the drone DED complexes that spawn are crying out for faction items specific to drones such as faction Drone Damage Amplifiers and faction Omnidirectional Tracking Links and everything else drone related which would help them them to become as attractive as the other faction sites.

Member of CSM9 and CSM10.

#213 - 2014-04-03 00:15:15 UTC
I have removed a rule breaking post and those quoting it. Please keep it civil people!

The Rules:
4. Personal attacks are prohibited.

Commonly known as flaming, personal attacks are posts that are designed to personally berate or insult another forum user. Posts of this nature are not beneficial to the community spirit that CCP promote and as such they will not be tolerated.


5. Trolling is prohibited.

Trolling is a defined as a post that is deliberately designed for the purpose of angering and insulting other players in an attempt to incite retaliation or an emotional response. Posts of this nature are disruptive, often abusive and do not contribute to the sense of community that CCP promote.

ISD Ezwal Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs)

Affirmative.
#214 - 2014-04-03 14:58:59 UTC
Ssabat Thraxx wrote:
What is your position on CCP taking in-game disciplinary action against players for things they do outside of the game on privately-owned blogs, message boards, and Teamspeak servers?
I'd like to point out that an account ban is _not_ an ingame disciplinary action.
It is CCPs decision to restrict/deny their service to a customer.

An ingame disciplinary action would be taking ISK or items, as they do with ISK buyers, or overly emergent players that find and use exploits.
Good Sax
#215 - 2014-04-03 15:50:40 UTC
Sephira Galamore wrote:
Ssabat Thraxx wrote:
What is your position on CCP taking in-game disciplinary action against players for things they do outside of the game on privately-owned blogs, message boards, and Teamspeak servers?
I'd like to point out that an account ban is _not_ an ingame disciplinary action.
It is CCPs decision to restrict/deny their service to a customer.

An ingame disciplinary action would be taking ISK or items, as they do with ISK buyers, or overly emergent players that find and use exploits.


Well, to put it perhaps more clearly, what I'm interested in is if the candidates believe the TOS and EULA apply to things said or done outside of the game in private.

That said, I believe I understand Sugar Kyle's position, so let's not derail the thread Big smile

\m/ O.o \m/

"You're a freak ..." - Solecist Project

#216 - 2014-04-05 15:19:02 UTC
#217 - 2014-04-05 16:09:50 UTC
I've learned quite a bit about this game we all enjoy from Sugar's blog. From the minute she announced her candidacy I knew she would be at the top of my list. She is articulate (just read her replies here), intelligent, and charismatic. :-)
#218 - 2014-04-06 14:31:48 UTC
Abla Tive wrote:
I invite all CSM 9 candidates to tell me the number of hours they spent in the last month leaning on a mining laser F1 button.
Also, some indication of the percentage of their time spent mining.


In the last month since running for CSM? Two hours picking up some minerals to finish off a flight of fighters I was cooking. Another three when I went to review the tutorials.

I gas mine booster gas in the available region my corporation is deployed to. I always have a gas mining venture in my deployment stack.

Last year I mined and built an Orca just because I wanted to. However, since ore anomalies no longer need to be scanned down I tend only to mine in low sec in snatch and grab situations. I used to do those ore anomalies in a Mackinaw. I still have several low sec Mackinaws and Retrievers from that time. My main industrial alt can fly Rorquals but I have no need to buy one.

Currently, it is more effective for me to buy minerals in high sec and ship them to low to build hulls or do compression for my capitals than it is for me to mine in low sec for the quantity of Ore I need for my production lines. That type of situation is one I’d like to change and why I’m thinking up ways to increase viability of tasks such as mining in low sec.

Member of CSM9 and CSM10.

Snuffed Out
#219 - 2014-04-06 23:08:04 UTC
Snuff Box endorses Sugar Kyle for the Council of Stellar Management

After examining the candidates who have identified themselves as low sec supporters, Snuff Box has concluded that the one candidate who best represents the interests of all low sec residents is Sugar Kyle. She blends a significant PvP skill set with an ability to build thriving communities as evidenced by her successful public market in Bosena. She also is a POS owner, a booster manufacturer, and occasionally a Faction Warrior and low sec PvE player.

Her Bosena market deserves special recognition. Not only does it serve the needs of an
entire region of low sec, eliminating the need for low sec citizens to shop in high sec,
it has fostered the growth of a population that could not live in low sec full time
without her market. Her business model, which she has named "The Cult of Reasonable
Prices," brings Jita prices to pilots who live far from Jita, and it has resulted in the
local high sec markets having to drop their prices, so she's done good work for the high
sec pilots as well.

No other candidate captures the spirit of low sec space as well as she does. Beyond all
that, she has significant experience in various high sec vocations.

Snuff Box heartily endorses Sugar Kyle's campaign for a seat on CSM 9, and we recommend that you give her candidacy serious consideration.
Gallente Federation
#220 - 2014-04-07 14:02:11 UTC  |  Edited by: Trebor Daehdoow
I am happy to endorse Sugar for election to the 9th Council of Stellar Management! Good luck at the polls!

Private Citizen • CSM in recovery

Forum Jump