Jita Park Speakers Corner

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Nathan Jameson for CSM8 - Communication, Diversity, and Wormholes

First post
Author
Minmatar Republic
#41 - 2013-02-02 22:48:27 UTC
SojournerRover wrote:

I was on the Talocan United board and worked closely with you and your leadership and I will not be voting for you.


Nathan, what is your platform on Suiciding in POS shields ?

Because ... err ... no reason really, just wanted to ask.
No Response
#42 - 2013-02-03 05:27:51 UTC  |  Edited by: Nathan Jameson
Skogen Gump wrote:
SojournerRover wrote:

I was on the Talocan United board and worked closely with you and your leadership and I will not be voting for you.


Nathan, what is your platform on Suiciding in POS shields ?

Because ... err ... no reason really, just wanted to ask.


Depends on if I'm assaulting or defending.

Heh heh heh.

In all seriousness, though, I'm also of the mind that disallowing self-destructing inside POS shields would be good for the wormhole environment. For one, if I was invading, I'd like to see some sort of concrete result on the killboard, instead of screenshots and cool-story-bro's. Also, if I was defending, I'd prefer to go down in GLORIOUS COMBAT, even if it destroyed my killboard for that month, simply because at least it showed I never gave up. I think my favorite story of a null-sec eviction from wormhole space (-A-?) involved the defenders dropping their shields, locking each other up with remote rep, and fighting to the bitter end. That takes balls, and those are the sorts of people we want in wormhole space.

It would definitely shake things up. I can see two direct repercussions of this change.

First, there would be a few months of upheaval, where the larger groups would go around and kick over a lot of the smaller groups, just to see what fell out of the POS shields. The larger groups would probably also poke each other a bit, but not before the isk farmers and loot pinatas. Would this be good for the game? I'm unsure; it may create paying subscriptions, it may drive them away. It would, at least, be a large-scale conflict enabler that many in wormhole space are asking for.

Second, and this is less certain, there might be a stronger coalescing of "power blocs" as null sec groups or other farmers gain friends to help them defend their assets. No longer would simple self-destruction be enough of a deterrent to most invasion, and we may find that unless a pilot is in a large group or has big friends, he's better off in high sec. I don't know how likely this sort of reaction is, but this change may be more harmful than helpful to wormhole space if it turns it into a modified null sec.

At the end of the day, however, I prefer to shake things up and see where the pieces fall, instead of maintaining the status quo. I also like prompting people to be competent and take precautions, instead of coasting through the game on an assumed safety net.

http://www.wormholes.info

Tactical-Retreat
#43 - 2013-02-03 09:04:30 UTC
Nathan Jameson wrote:

At the end of the day, however, I prefer to shake things up and see where the pieces fall, instead of maintaining the status quo. I also like prompting people to be competent and take precautions, instead of coasting through the game on an assumed safety net.


That's the spirit !

However, I would be careful not to give high-class wormholes more reasons to evict lower classes (i.e no self-destruct) because it would ruin the power-to-small-corporations specificity of wormholes.

Signature Tanking Best Tanking

[Ex-F] CEO - Eve-guides.fr

Ultimate Citadel Guide - 2016 EVE Career Chart

No Response
#44 - 2013-02-03 09:32:25 UTC
Altrue wrote:
Nathan Jameson wrote:

At the end of the day, however, I prefer to shake things up and see where the pieces fall, instead of maintaining the status quo. I also like prompting people to be competent and take precautions, instead of coasting through the game on an assumed safety net.


That's the spirit !

However, I would be careful not to give high-class wormholes more reasons to evict lower classes (i.e no self-destruct) because it would ruin the power-to-small-corporations specificity of wormholes.


Yes, this has occurred to me as well. One of the biggest benefits of wormhole space is that smaller corporations can get a foothold and thrive. We don't want to create a greater vacuum between the very powerful and the single-pilot corporations.

http://www.wormholes.info

No Response
#45 - 2013-02-03 19:45:58 UTC
Caldari State
#46 - 2013-02-03 23:47:40 UTC


Wow thats really nice blog. The stakes are high!!

Burn the land and boil the sea You can't take the sky from me

No Response
#47 - 2013-02-04 09:47:32 UTC
Chitsa Jason wrote:
Wow thats really nice blog. The stakes are high!!


Thank you, mate. Smile Best wishes towards you and your own campaign as well!

http://www.wormholes.info

Amarr Empire
#48 - 2013-02-04 21:55:18 UTC
+1 for Nathan and free-da-hat movement :D

now where are those black carribean pirate ones...
Ivy League
#49 - 2013-02-05 01:21:46 UTC
Sir, you have my vote.
CODE.
#50 - 2013-02-05 11:06:28 UTC
Nathan Jameson wrote:
My newest post further explains my platform, along with the relationship between a memorable position and the role of the CSM.

...

..to further expound upon my platform and candidacy, I will be representing the common man–the “little guy.” I will remember the big voices of the game, the “end gamers” who need something new to shoot at with their Loki-Moros’s.


Oh lord. So your "platform" is that you represent everyone? You cannot represent two contradictory views at the same time when it comes down to making hard decisions and taking a stand.

I'll leave you with a quote from a person far wiser than me, I feel it represents your candidacy in this thread perfectly:
James 315 wrote:
Beware the candidate who tells you about how much experience he has in this game, or how much he knows about it. Beware the candidate who tells you how hard he'll work, or how well he gets along with others, or that he's still forming his opinions on the issues, or that he can believe two contradictory things at the same time. Those are the candidates who are telling you everything in the world except what they'll actually do if you send them to the CSM.

The problem with the blank slate candidate is that you never really know what you're voting for. Even when they do offer you a few bullet points here or there about what they supposedly believe, you can't trust it. If a candidate is willing to manipulate voters by hiding his views, he'll be just as willing to manipulate the voters by misrepresenting his views. [source]
Gallente Federation
#51 - 2013-02-05 13:57:56 UTC
Nathan Jameson wrote:
Seleene wrote:
What do you know about the Talocan?


Not as much as I'd like. The content team at CCP hasn't had a lot of need to develop their story, sadly.

Here's what I can point out so far:

Talocan History
Talocan Technology
A rather interesting Talocan Static Gate guide
Unfinished research into their Drives
Study of the Devil's Dig site in the Okkelen constellation
Some of my own Fiction about their culture

They seem to be an interesting blend of Caldari and Minmatar themes. They are similar to the Caldari, with references to missiles being made in one of the Talocan sites and shield-based technology being reverse-engineered from drops in the Okkelen constellation. At the same time, their nomadic nature harkens strongly to the Thukkers of the Minmatar, even if we don't know why they were traveling.


You might want to add this to the list as well.

Talocan ships

Stills works in progress, and with so little info available I doubt I'll be adding a lot more, but I'm still working on it.

In this dark void we are like brilliant stars, holding within us both the creative and destructive power to bring a new dawn upon worlds or plunge them into eternal darkness.

No Response
#52 - 2013-02-05 14:14:06 UTC  |  Edited by: Nathan Jameson
@Singular Snowflake

Perhaps you're misinterpreting the message in my writings so far, or they were poorly worded. If elected as as a member of CSM based on a "wormhole vote," it is my JOB to represent everyone within wormhole space. I will not pretend otherwise.

At the same time, I do have clearly formed ideas, positions, and goals if I'm elected to the CSM. My focus will be on the smaller, lower-tier corporations in the C1s to C4s, as I stated in my blog. Repeating in full the paragraph you selectively quoted:

http://talocanunited.com/csm wrote:
Therefore, to further expound upon my platform and candidacy, I will be representing the common man–the “little guy.” I will remember the big voices of the game, the “end gamers” who need something new to shoot at with their Loki-Moros’s. But I will especially remember the multitude of smaller CEOs and pilots who only wish to for role management to be easier for growing their corp. Or for a more developed backstory for the Sleepers they shoot day-to-day. Or for a new tier of Destroyers to be developed that they can manufacture in the depths of space. [italics added for emphasis]

On one hand, I am assuring the C5-C6 corporations that I will not be representing the "little guys" at the expenses of their own unique needs and desires (and indeed, the majority of my own alliances lives in C5s). But I do have a specific voter demographic in mind.

I hope this helps clear up your concerns. And best wishes in your own personal search for the best high-sec representative.

http://www.wormholes.info

No Response
#53 - 2013-02-05 23:01:05 UTC
My newest blog post is up:

The Delicate Dance of Politics

In which I name-drop my two favorite politicians of all time.

http://www.wormholes.info

#54 - 2013-02-06 17:26:22 UTC  |  Edited by: SojournerRover
Skogen Gump wrote:
SojournerRover wrote:

I was on the Talocan United board and worked closely with you and your leadership and I will not be voting for you.


Nathan, what is your platform on Suiciding in POS shields ?

Because ... err ... no reason really, just wanted to ask.



What is your opinion on hiring small corps to attack your own corps to teach them how to PVP better?

What is your opinion on putting spies in alliance corps to keep an eye and take over the towers and force the CEO out if a bad word is said about the management style?

What is your opinion on talking to a corporations directors to undermine the CEO's of corporations?

What is your opinion on asking the corporations of an alliance to chip in real cash to buy the Alliance leader a computer?

What is your opinion of an alliance leader that is never on comms?

What is your opinion of an alliance that has to work with another large alliance to blob with a 100 pilots against an 8 man active corp.?

How many more small corps in C1's to C4's are going to be evicted? (considering your track record) and how long will the continuos undermining to anyone who will listen go on?

I was on the Talocan United board and worked closely with you and your leadership and I will not be voting for you.

If the rest of the WH community wants this kind of representation where two faces are the norm then just let me say you have been warned.

Am I hurt? No
But I am still mad. Bewhaaaaa

[b][u]ROVER[/u] (REDRUM)[/b]

#55 - 2013-02-06 18:19:16 UTC
Singular Snowflake wrote:
Nathan Jameson wrote:
My newest post further explains my platform, along with the relationship between a memorable position and the role of the CSM.

...

..to further expound upon my platform and candidacy, I will be representing the common man–the “little guy.” I will remember the big voices of the game, the “end gamers” who need something new to shoot at with their Loki-Moros’s.


Oh lord. So your "platform" is that you represent everyone? You cannot represent two contradictory views at the same time when it comes down to making hard decisions and taking a stand.

I'll leave you with a quote from a person far wiser than me, I feel it represents your candidacy in this thread perfectly:
James 315 wrote:
Beware the candidate who tells you about how much experience he has in this game, or how much he knows about it. Beware the candidate who tells you how hard he'll work, or how well he gets along with others, or that he's still forming his opinions on the issues, or that he can believe two contradictory things at the same time. Those are the candidates who are telling you everything in the world except what they'll actually do if you send them to the CSM.

The problem with the blank slate candidate is that you never really know what you're voting for. Even when they do offer you a few bullet points here or there about what they supposedly believe, you can't trust it. If a candidate is willing to manipulate voters by hiding his views, he'll be just as willing to manipulate the voters by misrepresenting his views. [source]

[b][u]ROVER[/u] (REDRUM)[/b]

No Response
#56 - 2013-02-06 18:30:18 UTC
Can't be influential without making a few enemies. Blink

We've already thrown-down in game, so I have no need to start another war on the forums. Thanks for your input, Rover. I noticed you are getting more eloquent and diplomatic in your posts lately. Honest compliment. Cool

http://www.wormholes.info

CODE.
#57 - 2013-02-06 21:07:54 UTC
Nathan Jameson wrote:
Can't be influential without making a few enemies. Blink

We've already thrown-down in game, so I have no need to start another war on the forums. Thanks for your input, Rover. I noticed you are getting more eloquent and diplomatic in your posts lately. Honest compliment. Cool

Is this another example of your "communication"? You could at least answer some of his questions, for example
SojournerRover wrote:
What is your opinion of an alliance leader that is never on comms?

might be interesting bit of information for the potential voters, are they voting for another absentee CSM member like Issler?
Gallente Federation
#58 - 2013-02-06 22:19:51 UTC
No Response
#59 - 2013-02-07 01:35:28 UTC
Singular Snowflake wrote:
Nathan Jameson wrote:
Can't be influential without making a few enemies. Blink

We've already thrown-down in game, so I have no need to start another war on the forums. Thanks for your input, Rover. I noticed you are getting more eloquent and diplomatic in your posts lately. Honest compliment. Cool

Is this another example of your "communication"? You could at least answer some of his questions, for example


I am not going to waste my time responding to baseless accusations. If someone is going to point the finger, they'd better bring something better to the table than delusions filtered through paranoia. Like actual evidence. THEN we have something concrete to talk about.

http://www.wormholes.info

Ember Sands
#60 - 2013-02-07 02:40:57 UTC
Singular Snowflake wrote:
Nathan Jameson wrote:
Can't be influential without making a few enemies. Blink

We've already thrown-down in game, so I have no need to start another war on the forums. Thanks for your input, Rover. I noticed you are getting more eloquent and diplomatic in your posts lately. Honest compliment. Cool

Is this another example of your "communication"? You could at least answer some of his questions, for example
SojournerRover wrote:
What is your opinion of an alliance leader that is never on comms?

might be interesting bit of information for the potential voters, are they voting for another absentee CSM member like Issler?


I am quite happy to say that Nate is usually on comms if he is at his computer. His door is open for anyone that has an issue or concern and he will do whatever it takes to see that the issue is resolved in a manner that appeals to everyone. Nathan works very hard to make sure that his alliance is always running smoothly.
Forum Jump