Jita Park Speakers Corner

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
43 PagesPrevious page1234Next pageLast page
 

Malcanis for CSM 8 Vote till you drop

First post
Author
The Initiative.
#21 - 2013-01-12 06:37:05 UTC
mynnna wrote:
I've never seen Malcanis' highsec proposals before, but now that I have, I'd support them when (if (who am I kidding, when)) I run for CSM myself. It's a pretty good approach.


Thanks! It's a true compliment to get an endorsement like that.

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016

Goonswarm Federation
#22 - 2013-01-12 07:09:56 UTC
Malcanis for Chairman :V

Twitter: @EVEAndski

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths."    - Abrazzar

Mercenary Coalition
#23 - 2013-01-12 10:37:11 UTC
Hell yes. Very happy to see this.

2004-2008: Mercenary Coalition Boss

2007-2010: CCP Game Designer | 2011-2013: CSM6 Delegate & CSM7 Chairman

2011-2015: Pandemic Legionnaire

2015- : Mercenary Coalition Boss

Follow Seleene on Twitter!

#24 - 2013-01-12 12:41:48 UTC
I imagine my opinion won't be popular here, but I feel I must tell you that I cannot support you.

I assume you're able to take constructive criticism. My reason is that I do not believe you speak for all of the players of Eve. I think some of your ideas ("manifestos") are tailored to how you personally would prefer to see Eve evolve rather than how it has and what others would prefer. If you can't put your personal bias aside, then my vote would be to cast a vote for someone I know will not support my personal beliefs about Eve.

I don't agree with your high-sec proposal other than to say, yes, it has evolved into more than just a new player area. There's nothing wrong with this, and it doesn't need fixing. Why can't you just accept not everyone wants to play the game the way that you do? I do not understand this ongoing debate. How are you inconvenienced by the way high-sec is now when you have so much more of the game at your disposal, where presumably you enjoy spending your time anyway?

Also, rather ironic that someone made a comment in that very proposal about you running for CSM7 and you quickly shot it done with an insult. I'm glad you have people supporting you, and perhaps you'll get the job. If you do, I wish you the best of luck. Please remember, you're there not to serve just your personal interests. You're there to serve the best interests of Eve, and that means taking a step back and seeing what Eve is, where it's going, what will grows its player-base, and not what you believe it was once meant to be, and how to get it back there. As if that were even possible.
The Initiative.
#25 - 2013-01-12 13:28:54 UTC
rswfire wrote:

Also, rather ironic that someone made a comment in that very proposal about you running for CSM7 and you quickly shot it done with an insult...


At the time I was coping with the news that my father had been diagnosed with cancer. Making the commitment to run for CSM was not something I felt able to do at that juncture.

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016

The Initiative.
#26 - 2013-01-12 13:35:51 UTC
rswfire wrote:
I imagine my opinion won't be popular here, but I feel I must tell you that I cannot support you.

I assume you're able to take constructive criticism. My reason is that I do not believe you speak for all of the players of Eve. I think some of your ideas ("manifestos") are tailored to how you personally would prefer to see Eve evolve rather than how it has and what others would prefer. If you can't put your personal bias aside, then my vote would be to cast a vote for someone I know will not support my personal beliefs about Eve.


It's not possible to 100% represent the views of "everyone in EVE", and I'm not even going to pretend that I'm going to do so. I'm quite open about what my game philosophy is. It's no secret. Of course I think I'm right. If I thought I was wrong, I'd think something else, and then I'd be right again. This is what is called "having an opinion". I did my level best to construct the hi-sec manifesto to accomodate people who don't play the way that I do. In fact the whole point of the manifesto was to cast aside old habits of thought about hi-sec players (ie: bias) - invcluding the habits that those very players had grown into themselves - and to try and make a realistic, non-judgemental analysis of the situation. See the piece I wrote called The Big Lie for my further thoughts along those lines.

If you have a differing view of what hi-sec could become, then by all means, nail your own manifesto to the door and let us have a look at it. Will you be able to cast aside your own "bias" and make it "represent everyone"? I think when you try, you'll find it's rather harder to do than it is to demand.

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016

#27 - 2013-01-12 13:41:30 UTC
Looks promising, I do like your Hi Sec proposals and a rework of the wardec system in particular.
The Initiative.
#28 - 2013-01-12 13:49:00 UTC
Dyvim Slorm wrote:
Looks promising, I do like your Hi Sec proposals and a rework of the wardec system in particular.


You might note that the manifesto was actually written in late 2011, before Inferno and Retribution were released.

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016

#29 - 2013-01-12 13:52:09 UTC
Malcanis wrote:
rswfire wrote:
I imagine my opinion won't be popular here, but I feel I must tell you that I cannot support you.

I assume you're able to take constructive criticism. My reason is that I do not believe you speak for all of the players of Eve. I think some of your ideas ("manifestos") are tailored to how you personally would prefer to see Eve evolve rather than how it has and what others would prefer. If you can't put your personal bias aside, then my vote would be to cast a vote for someone I know will not support my personal beliefs about Eve.


It's not possible to 100% represent the views of "everyone in EVE", and I'm not even going to pretend that I'm going to do so. I'm quite open about what my game philosophy is. It's no secret. Of course I think I'm right. If I thought I was wrong, I'd think something else, and then I'd be right again. This is what is called "having an opinion". I did my level best to construct the hi-sec manifesto to accomodate people who don't play the way that I do. In fact the whole point of the manifesto was to cast aside old habits of thought about hi-sec players (ie: bias) - invcluding the habits that those very players had grown into themselves - and to try and make a realistic, non-judgemental analysis of the situation. See the piece I wrote called The Big Lie for my further thoughts along those lines.

If you have a differing view of what hi-sec could become, then by all means, nail your own manifesto to the door and let us have a look at it. Will you be able to cast aside your own "bias" and make it "represent everyone"? I think when you try, you'll find it's rather harder to do than it is to demand.


I can appreciate what you're saying. I really can. There are two diverging topics here though.

1. I've read many of your posts; not just the ones about high-sec. You don't exactly come across as someone who is professional and polished. Well, until now. And you just don't strike me as someone who has my interests at heart, and that's okay. I hope people spend the time to really research all of the candidates and choose whomever is best for them. I shouldn't say you should support everyone's ideas; that's obviously not possible. The point I was trying to make is that a good representative does their best to support a middle ground whenever possible. I don't know that you would do that. I just don't see that in your posts.

2. I don't think high-sec is broken. I've yet to see any reasonable argument that it is. It doesn't need to be changed. It is an area of space that has evolved in its own right. What is so wrong with that? From my point of view, as I've shared once or twice now in other posts, you guys just want to turn high-sec into low-sec or null-sec. For what purpose? How does high-sec affect you? If you like life in low-sec or null-sec, then spend your time there and enjoy it. Allow us to enjoy high-sec the way that it is. I've been recruiting people into my corp for about a month now, and some of them leave to move onto low-sec and null-sec because that is what interests them. I support that. So it can't be that "everyone will stay in high-sec unless you force them out of it." You actually proposed that; never be allowed to enter 1.0 space again after leaving it! That's insane to me. High-sec is "mostly secure" but it still has its risks. And that to me is realistic. In the known universe, where there are other species, they most assuredly have huge swaths of space that are more secure than others. That is realistic to me. Eve does not have to be PvP for everyone, all the time. And if you limit it to that, you will be limiting the enjoyment many of us will have, and we'll leave. If that's what you want, then keep proposing that. I'm just not sure it will work out for the best interests of Eve.

I don't want to rain on your parade or troll your forum. I'm not going to do that. I really didn't even want to write a reply, but I felt it was necessary given your response. Good luck in your candidacy.
#30 - 2013-01-12 13:53:34 UTC
Malcanis wrote:
Dyvim Slorm wrote:
Looks promising, I do like your Hi Sec proposals and a rework of the wardec system in particular.


You might note that the manifesto was actually written in late 2011, before Inferno and Retribution were released.



Indeed but still relevant
The Initiative.
#31 - 2013-01-12 13:58:22 UTC
rswfire wrote:


I can appreciate what you're saying. I really can. There are two diverging topics here though.

1. I've read many of your posts; not just the ones about high-sec. You don't exactly come across as someone who is professional and polished. Well, until now. And you just don't strike me as someone who has my interests at heart, and that's okay. I hope people spend the time to really research all of the candidates and choose whomever is best for them. I shouldn't say you should support everyone's ideas; that's obviously not possible. The point I was trying to make is that a good representative does their best to support a middle ground whenever possible. I don't know that you would do that. I just don't see that in your posts.


There are some issues where I would support a middle ground. There are others where I am not willing to compromise an inch. I disagree that a good representative always compromises, because apart from anything else, that outlook is extremely easy to game. Why would you vote for someone who doesn't believe in any issue enough to stand firm over it?

rswfire wrote:

2. I don't think high-sec is broken. I've yet to see any reasonable argument that it is. It doesn't need to be changed. It is an area of space that has evolved in its own right. What is so wrong with that? From my point of view, as I've shared once or twice now in other posts, you guys just want to turn high-sec into low-sec or null-sec. For what purpose...?


You have radically misunderstood my aims. The entire point of my manifesto was not to "turn hi-sec into null", but to turn hi-sec into an area of the game that supports hi-end play, instead of being a starter area whose population has outgrown the original conception. Hi-sec should absolutely be different from 0.0 and even lo-sec, and I made (or thought I'd made) that extremely clear.

Can you highlight for me the specific part that led you to believe that I want to turn hi-sec into null? I've been thinking of updating the manifesto, and it would be very helpful of you to assist me to avoid such misunderstandings in future.

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016

#32 - 2013-01-12 14:03:59 UTC
Malcanis, do you really want to keep engaging me? Like I said, this is your candidacy thread and I'm not here to troll it. There shouldn't be a bunch of back-and-forth between you and I here. If you really want my opinions, I'll put them in an evemail and send them to you. As for your first point, I'm happy to concede that. I hope that you make it very clear which issues you would compromise on, and which you would not. Also, your thread is far newer than I realized when I first posted; you're obviously just ramping up.
The Initiative.
#33 - 2013-01-12 14:08:27 UTC
I'm quite happy to discuss with you here, because other potential Malc-voting players might have similar concerns. If someone is thinking "Well I would vote for Malcanis, if only he didn't want to turn hi-sec into 0.0" then this is my chance to earn their vote - even if I don't get yours.

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016

The Initiative.
#34 - 2013-01-12 14:13:41 UTC
My "non compromise" issues are basically player freedom and player interaction. So proposals like "I want to be able to hire NPC escorts" will always get 100% opposition to me.

Compromise issues are stuff like ship balancing. EG: I might want to see the Eagle reworked into a fast hit-and-run role lke the Vagabond, but I'd be willing to accept a rework of medium railguns that made it a worthwhile sniper (although admittedly it's very hard for me to imagine how that would work, but that's a different thread).

So bascially, "philosophy" stuff doesn't get compromised on; mechanics stuff can be approached more flexibly.

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016

#35 - 2013-01-12 14:16:11 UTC
Malcanis wrote:
I'm quite happy to discuss with you here, because other potential Malc-voting players might have similar concerns. If someone is thinking "Well I would vote for Malcanis, if only he didn't want to turn hi-sec into 0.0" then this is my chance to earn their vote - even if I don't get yours.


Malcanis, like I said before, I didn't just read your manifesto. I read your posts. Here's one you write a few days ago.

Malcanis wrote:
*Does not vote

*Sulks when people who do vote get their candidates elected

*Responds by not voting next time

*Is hi-sec.


It's pretty clear to me you have a low opinion of those in high-sec. Care to retract that? For reference, it was posted here:
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=2435748#post2435748

Also, you suggested in your manifesto that no one be allowed to re-enter certain parts of space that were too secure. That sounds to me like someone who wants to turn high-sec into low-sec.
The Initiative.
#36 - 2013-01-12 14:39:45 UTC  |  Edited by: Malcanis
rswfire wrote:
Malcanis wrote:
I'm quite happy to discuss with you here, because other potential Malc-voting players might have similar concerns. If someone is thinking "Well I would vote for Malcanis, if only he didn't want to turn hi-sec into 0.0" then this is my chance to earn their vote - even if I don't get yours.


Malcanis, like I said before, I didn't just read your manifesto. I read your posts. Here's one you write a few days ago.

Malcanis wrote:
*Does not vote

*Sulks when people who do vote get their candidates elected

*Responds by not voting next time

*Is hi-sec.


It's pretty clear to me you have a low opinion of those in high-sec. Care to retract that? For reference, it was posted here:
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=2435748#post2435748


I have a low opinion of those who expect results to be handed to them when they haven't even tried to gain them for themselves. That specifically includes people demanding special privileges for "hi-sec" CSM candidates (despite the fact that no robust definition of what a "hi-sec" candidate is ever advanced). That's not every player in hi-sec - as I have repeatedly confirmed, I keep characters in hi-sec myself. Numerically speaking I am more of a high-sec player than a 0.0 player.

I have a similar low opinion of players in lo-sec, 0.0 and W-space that want things handed to them. They don't tend to talk much about the CSM though.

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016

The Initiative.
#37 - 2013-01-12 14:41:12 UTC
rswfire wrote:

Also, you suggested in your manifesto that no one be allowed to re-enter certain parts of space that were too secure. That sounds to me like someone who wants to turn high-sec into low-sec.


The specific idea was the the new player spawn systems should be restricted in this way, to allow new players to run the tutorials and learn basic game control skills without interference. I think that this could be done without instantly turning The Forge into Curse.

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016

Gallente Federation
#38 - 2013-01-12 15:23:29 UTC  |  Edited by: fukier
Malcanis wrote:
Varius Xeral wrote:
Who?


Could you expand on your question. Ideally, include some nouns.



The Who?

hmm i like you might activate an alt just to vote for you...

edit:
Sorry to hear about your dad... hope he is better now
At the end of the game both the pawn and the Queen go in the same box.
The Initiative.
#39 - 2013-01-12 16:19:11 UTC
fukier wrote:
Malcanis wrote:
Varius Xeral wrote:
Who?


Could you expand on your question. Ideally, include some nouns.



The Who?

hmm i like you might activate an alt just to vote for you...

edit:
Sorry to hear about your dad... hope he is better now


He's fine now :)

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016

#40 - 2013-01-13 03:51:30 UTC
Good. I think you have the potential to do well. Having also read a lot of the stuff you've posted, I would say you're not extremely biased for or against any particular area/style of play in this game...and have some pretty good (*gasp!*) opinions.
43 PagesPrevious page1234Next pageLast page
Forum Jump