Jita Park Speakers Corner

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
34 PagesPrevious page12345Next pageLast page
 

Trebor Daehdoow for CSM8 - The Proven Performer - http://bit.ly/vote-trebor

First post
Author
The Initiative.
#41 - 2013-02-21 21:54:16 UTC
Trebor Daehdoow wrote:


2) None of the other active CSMs decided to run again, and continuity between CSM7 and CSM8 will be important, particularly in light of (1).


I'd just like to re-emphasise this. Even if you don't particularly agree with Trebor's ideas, he will be immensely valuable because he has the experience and background knowledge that CSM8 will require to function with its full potential.

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

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016

Second Empire.
#42 - 2013-02-22 00:41:23 UTC
Two step wrote:
Trebor is thoughtful, thorough and hard working. Not having him on CSM8 would be a terrible thing for the community, and I fully support him. If my vote wasn't going to a wormhole candidate, he would have all my votes.


Couldn't have said it better myself, Two Step. I too will be voting for a wormhole candidate, but as I said on my blog last month, I think that Trebor's re-election is very important for the continuity of the CSM. If you are an unaffiliated voter or a highsec voter, a vote for Trebor is a good vote.

Author of Interstellar Privateer Shattered Planets, Wormholes and Game Commentary

Gallente Federation
#43 - 2013-02-22 00:54:42 UTC
Rhavas wrote:
Couldn't have said it better myself, Two Step. I too will be voting for a wormhole candidate, but as I said on my blog last month, I think that Trebor's re-election is very important for the continuity of the CSM. If you are an unaffiliated voter or a highsec voter, a vote for Trebor is a good vote.

Under STV, you don't need to choose. Vote for all the WH candidates you like (in the order you like them), then other candidates like me who you'd like to see on the CSM.

Come up with a list of 14 good candidates and tell your friends... Twisted

Private Citizen • CSM in recovery

Second Empire.
#44 - 2013-02-22 01:30:53 UTC
Trebor Daehdoow wrote:
Rhavas wrote:
Couldn't have said it better myself, Two Step. I too will be voting for a wormhole candidate, but as I said on my blog last month, I think that Trebor's re-election is very important for the continuity of the CSM. If you are an unaffiliated voter or a highsec voter, a vote for Trebor is a good vote.

Under STV, you don't need to choose. Vote for all the WH candidates you like (in the order you like them), then other candidates like me who you'd like to see on the CSM.

Come up with a list of 14 good candidates and tell your friends... Twisted

Heh, fair enough, Trebor. Then let me say it this way. Trebor will be highly ranked on my list behind the wormholers. Lol

Author of Interstellar Privateer Shattered Planets, Wormholes and Game Commentary

Minmatar Republic
#45 - 2013-02-22 01:32:44 UTC
I interviewed Trebor as part of the Crossing Zebras CSM8 Election Interviews. Listen to what he had to say here:

http://c-z.me/csm8trebor

www.crossingzebras.com

#46 - 2013-02-22 05:34:21 UTC
Listened to that interview - well done Trebor!

The new voting changes seem promising... You will win your voting turnout bet with the interviewer! If CCP is progressively listening more to the CSM and earlier in the design process, and the new voting process allows people to vote for candidates in order of preference rather than just one...well, easy money for you!
Gallente Federation
#47 - 2013-02-22 05:44:23 UTC
from http://poeticstanziel.blogspot.ca/2013/02/trebors-feather.html

Some people, such as Ripard Teg, discuss the importance of their being continuity between CSMs. This equates to representatives from a previous CSM being re-elected to the next CSM.

The only significant member of CSM7 that has decided to run for CSM8 is Trebor Daehdoow.

I ask, is this continuity really necessary? And if continuity is necessary, is Trebor the person to carry that torch? I've listened to the interview he just conducted with the estimable Xander Phoena, and I'd have to say no.

Let's talk about the continuity issue. It is well-known that there is a Skype channel for alumni CSM members. This channel exists for the exact reason to supply continuity between CSMs. If CSM8 wants information on, let's say, the stakeholder process, and where CSM7 left the process, they can simply query CSM7 members via this Skype channel. Which exists expressly for this purpose. There's no reason at all for Trebor to run on a continuity platform, because the mechanism to supply this continuity already exists. His platform is disingenuous. He suggests that if he isn't elected then continuity is lost. Which is a whole lot of bullshit.

His main reason for running? He feels that he's the only one that can further the stakeholder process. I'm pretty sure there will be capable enough people, elected for the first time, who can further that process without Trebor's assistance. He also would like the chairman's seat, because only he in the chairman's seat can ensure a smooth transition between CSM7 and CSM8. (Ignore that it's a position he's always coveted.)

He's also the dude who believes that if you vote for a candidate and that candidate is not elected, then that's a wasted vote. His ideas on voting reform are strange and indecipherable. His first suggestion was to disenfranchise large voting blocs such as Test Alliance and Goonswarm Federation. For some reason he feels that candidates who get hardly any votes, because they aren't desirable enough to attract votes, that they should somehow be given a better shot of making it onto the CSM. Strange, to say the least. He also states in his Xander interview that he has no regrets putting forth his anti-bloc voting reforms.

He's the guy who suggests that the wardec system should be consensual only. He suggests (with a knowing giggle) that CCP has run the numbers and supports his position. He feels there's nothing wrong with a much safer highsec if it retains more players, because that means more money, which means more development into other areas of the game, even if that means destroying one of the core concepts of EVE Online -- that one is never safe. He seems to support an ever-safe concept for highsec, simply because it would mean higher highsec player retention.

This guy is a slippery eel. These are positions he's never stood for in the past. He leaned this way somewhat during his CSM7 campaign, not all in his CSM5 and CSM6 campaigns. Yet, as it's become more difficult for him to find votes, he's shifted his views more towards that area of the electorate (the super carebears) who can get him elected. Granted, he's not backtracking once elected and not supporting their viewpoint, some credit to him for only being an eel and not a snake.

I hope to hell that Goonswarm and Test Alliance make sure that Trebor is nowhere on the ranked voting roll that they'll be giving to their members pre-election. The only way to decrease this dude's chances of getting onto the CSM, where he can continue with his damaging ideas, is for the blocs to not give him a single vote on the council.

I know I've said it's important to have varied voices on the council. But there's also going to far with that concept. Someone who would have no issue turning highsec into a PvP-free zone has no place on a council upon which he can voice that stupidity.

(And before a million comments come in. James 315 is not the opposite of Trebor. James does not suggest that highsec be turned into lowsec. He simply argues that highsec has become too safe.)

A CLEAN SLATE for CSM8. It rhymes. Does he really deserve a fourth term? Let's give somebody else a turn at the plate. Just say no to Trebor. Let's put the old goat out to pasture.

(And two days before the election, everyone set your CSPA charges to 1M ISK. So that his inevitable mass evemail costs him a bunch of money.)
Gallente Federation
#48 - 2013-02-22 12:40:22 UTC  |  Edited by: Trebor Daehdoow
You are welcome to your opinion, but I would suggest that people listen to the interview and make up their own minds if your account matches my actual positions.

To clarify some points:

* The CSM Alumni channel is a social channel, no serious business. And you can't ask questions if you don't know there's a question to ask.

* Ever active member of CSM7 vehemently disagrees with your opinion of me, in particular regarding the continuity issue. These are people I've been working with for a long time, some of whom disagree with me quite passionately about particular aspects of EVE.

* It would be silly of me to deny that I wouldn't mind being chairman, after all, I've done everything else on CSM, and I'm the only incumbent candidate. But what you failed to mention was that I also said that I wouldn't want to be chairman for the entire term.

* I am perplexed by your opposition to moving to a voting system that better approximates the wishes of the electorate, and believe you should do more research on this topic. Also, you misrepresent both my goals and motivations in starting the discussion last year. At the time, there was no prospect that CCP would change the actual ballot mechanic ("vote for one candidate"). I was interested in the question of whether the counting method could be changed to make the results more proportional without handing out even more voting power to high-information high-coordination groups (or reducing it from what it was in the current system, for that matter), so I came up with an idea and threw it out there.

The result of that discussion (and the subsequent one started by CCP Xhagen) was that CCP decided to put the resources into improving the ballot mechanic ("vote for up to 14 candidates in order of preference"). As such, I have no regrets about starting the discussion, it resulted in an improvement to the system -- a change, you will note, that is almost certainly to my electoral disadvantage, because under STV, I will not be the benefit of tactical voting ("I like X better than Trebor, but Trebor can get elected, so I have to vote for Trebor").

Far from being the panderer you believe me to be, I saw a problem that I thought needed to be addressed, I took a lot of heat from vested interests for raising it, and the result was that something got done about it.

* I never suggested Wardecs should be consensual. I merely suggested that given all patches that kept getting added to the mechanic, perhaps there was something deeply wrong with it, and that CCP should take a look at the actual numbers with no preconceived notions about what the "right" answer is. I do this kind of thing all the time, it's a basic planning tool.

* Similarly, I never said Hisec needs to be safer. I said CCP needs to look hard at the numbers and make their decisions with those numbers in mind. They may support making Hisec safer, or perhaps creating a kiddy-pool subset of it. Or they may support the exact opposite, as James 315 believes. So long as they make the best possible decision, I'm fine with that -- the important point is that the right questions are being asked. And that is what CSM is all about.

* Finally, you somehow forgot to mention a topic I spent quite a bit of time discussing -- the need to make life better for newbies, "the seeds from which bittervets grow".

My approach to CSM is to apply skeptical and business principles to the tasks at hand, just as I do in RL. As a skeptic (I was one of the original supporters of James Randi's Million Dollar Challenge), I want the best data possible, and if that data conflicts with my position, then my position must change -- I base my decisions on facts, not dogma. And I always keep in mind that CCP is a business, and the best arguments to make are therefore often not philosophical ones, but business ones.

Instead of wasting your time launching these attacks upon me because you disagree with some of my positions, Poetic, you should instead be trying to convince me that issues that are important to you are ones that should be addressed by CSM and CCP, and that your positions on those issues are based on facts. For if you can do that, you will be able to enlist me as your champion.

Private Citizen • CSM in recovery

#49 - 2013-02-22 14:24:21 UTC  |  Edited by: None ofthe Above
Poetic Stanziel wrote:
from http://poeticstanziel.blogspot.ca/2013/02/trebors-feather.html

Some people, such as Ripard Teg, discuss the importance of their being continuity between CSMs. This equates to representatives from a previous CSM being re-elected to the next CSM.

The only significant member of CSM7 that has decided to run for CSM8 is Trebor Daehdoow.

I ask, is this continuity really necessary? And if continuity is necessary, is Trebor the person to carry that torch? I've listened to the interview he just conducted with the estimable Xander Phoena, and I'd have to say no.

...


I just listened to the interview and have to say Poetic, you are off your rocker again. Your terrible rant utterly misrepresents the man and what was said there. I am not sure why, but you've gotten it in your head that Trebor is bad and you are twisting all the facts and statements to try to prove your point. Who is the slippery one?

I urge anyone that is tempted to take your word for it to listen to the interview:
http://crossingzebras.com/post/43687167761/csm8trebor

I don't always agree with Trebor (hell Trebor doesn't always agree with Trebor, since by his own admission he takes positions at times to get people thinking out of the box) and not sure he'd be my first pick for chair. But he's run a business successfully, and has a track record of working well with people of diverse opinions. We could do far worse for that position.

PS - I think I agree with you Poetic, more often than I agree with Trebor's positions, but I think you are just dead wrong on this one.

The only end-game content in EVE Online is the crap that makes you rage quit.

#50 - 2013-02-22 18:38:52 UTC
Poetic Stanziel wrote:
from http://poeticstanziel.blogspot.ca/2013/02/trebors-feather.html

Some people, such as Ripard Teg, discuss the importance of their being continuity between CSMs. This equates to representatives from a previous CSM being re-elected to the next CSM.

The only significant member of CSM7 that has decided to run for CSM8 is Trebor Daehdoow.

I ask, is this continuity really necessary? And if continuity is necessary, is Trebor the person to carry that torch? I've listened to the interview he just conducted with the estimable Xander Phoena, and I'd have to say no.

Let's talk about the continuity issue. It is well-known that there is a Skype channel for alumni CSM members. This channel exists for the exact reason to supply continuity between CSMs. If CSM8 wants information on, let's say, the stakeholder process, and where CSM7 left the process, they can simply query CSM7 members via this Skype channel. Which exists expressly for this purpose. There's no reason at all for Trebor to run on a continuity platform, because the mechanism to supply this continuity already exists. His platform is disingenuous. He suggests that if he isn't elected then continuity is lost. Which is a whole lot of bullshit.

His main reason for running? He feels that he's the only one that can further the stakeholder process. I'm pretty sure there will be capable enough people, elected for the first time, who can further that process without Trebor's assistance. He also would like the chairman's seat, because only he in the chairman's seat can ensure a smooth transition between CSM7 and CSM8. (Ignore that it's a position he's always coveted.)

He's also the dude who believes that if you vote for a candidate and that candidate is not elected, then that's a wasted vote. His ideas on voting reform are strange and indecipherable. His first suggestion was to disenfranchise large voting blocs such as Test Alliance and Goonswarm Federation. For some reason he feels that candidates who get hardly any votes, because they aren't desirable enough to attract votes, that they should somehow be given a better shot of making it onto the CSM. Strange, to say the least. He also states in his Xander interview that he has no regrets putting forth his anti-bloc voting reforms.

He's the guy who suggests that the wardec system should be consensual only. He suggests (with a knowing giggle) that CCP has run the numbers and supports his position. He feels there's nothing wrong with a much safer highsec if it retains more players, because that means more money, which means more development into other areas of the game, even if that means destroying one of the core concepts of EVE Online -- that one is never safe. He seems to support an ever-safe concept for highsec, simply because it would mean higher highsec player retention.

This guy is a slippery eel. These are positions he's never stood for in the past. He leaned this way somewhat during his CSM7 campaign, not all in his CSM5 and CSM6 campaigns. Yet, as it's become more difficult for him to find votes, he's shifted his views more towards that area of the electorate (the super carebears) who can get him elected. Granted, he's not backtracking once elected and not supporting their viewpoint, some credit to him for only being an eel and not a snake.

I hope to hell that Goonswarm and Test Alliance make sure that Trebor is nowhere on the ranked voting roll that they'll be giving to their members pre-election. The only way to decrease this dude's chances of getting onto the CSM, where he can continue with his damaging ideas, is for the blocs to not give him a single vote on the council.

I know I've said it's important to have varied voices on the council. But there's also going to far with that concept. Someone who would have no issue turning highsec into a PvP-free zone has no place on a council upon which he can voice that stupidity.

(And before a million comments come in. James 315 is not the opposite of Trebor. James does not suggest that highsec be turned into lowsec. He simply argues that highsec has become too safe.)

A CLEAN SLATE for CSM8. It rhymes. Does he really deserve a fourth term? Let's give somebody else a turn at the plate. Just say no to Trebor. Let's put the old goat out to pasture.

(And two days before the election, everyone set your CSPA charges to 1M ISK. So that his inevitable mass evemail costs him a bunch of money.)


Pretty much this. I'm not interested in seeing the "Treborization" of EvE Online. I've already had that experience in Ultima Online.

The Tears Must Flow

#51 - 2013-02-22 18:54:52 UTC
None ofthe Above wrote:
Poetic Stanziel wrote:
from http://poeticstanziel.blogspot.ca/2013/02/trebors-feather.html

Some people, such as Ripard Teg, discuss the importance of their being continuity between CSMs. This equates to representatives from a previous CSM being re-elected to the next CSM.

The only significant member of CSM7 that has decided to run for CSM8 is Trebor Daehdoow.

I ask, is this continuity really necessary? And if continuity is necessary, is Trebor the person to carry that torch? I've listened to the interview he just conducted with the estimable Xander Phoena, and I'd have to say no.

...


I just listened to the interview and have to say Poetic, you are off your rocker again. Your terrible rant utterly misrepresents the man and what was said there. I am not sure why, but you've gotten it in your head that Trebor is bad and you are twisting all the facts and statements to try to prove your point. Who is the slippery one?

I urge anyone that is tempted to take your word for it to listen to the interview:
http://crossingzebras.com/post/43687167761/csm8trebor

I don't always agree with Trebor (hell Trebor doesn't always agree with Trebor, since by his own admission he takes positions at times to get people thinking out of the box) and not sure he'd be my first pick for chair. But he's run a business successfully, and has a track record of working well with people of diverse opinions. We could do far worse for that position.

PS - I think I agree with you Poetic, more often than I agree with Trebor's positions, but I think you are just dead wrong on this one.


Yeah, personally I think Poetic only has really one point left, that could still be valid.

The guilt trip one. where we have to feel bad Trebor didn't get elected since we all suck so bad, and the CSM will obviously fail without him there to guide it. I was impressed he would step down from the chair and mostly just take the chair to help and guide the new CSM though.

But I do like voting strings free and don't want to vote out of obligation really. Seems like people are trying to make us feel obligated to vote for him, just so things work out well for them. Kind of hard to enjoy, hopefully its something that gets worked out.

Signature removed for inappropriate language - CCP Eterne

Gallente Federation
#52 - 2013-02-22 19:34:37 UTC
rodyas wrote:
Yeah, personally I think Poetic only has really one point left, that could still be valid.

The guilt trip one. where we have to feel bad Trebor didn't get elected since we all suck so bad, and the CSM will obviously fail without him there to guide it. I was impressed he would step down from the chair and mostly just take the chair to help and guide the new CSM though.

But I do like voting strings free and don't want to vote out of obligation really. Seems like people are trying to make us feel obligated to vote for him, just so things work out well for them. Kind of hard to enjoy, hopefully its something that gets worked out.

This is exactly the kind of tactical voting quandary that STV eliminates. You don't have to vote for me out of obligation, or vote for me instead of another candidate because you think I stand a better chance of being elected, or not vote for me because you think I'm a lock and everyone else will vote me in.

Just pick the candidates you like, put them in the order you like them, and vote. If your favorite candidate doesn't get elected, your votes will transfer to your alternate choices. If he gets more votes than he needs, some of your voting power will transfer to the alternates. As long as one of your candidates get elected, your vote counted, and counted fully.

Want your vote to count for more? Encourage other people to vote in the same way as you did.

Private Citizen • CSM in recovery

Gallente Federation
#53 - 2013-02-22 20:24:04 UTC
Malcanis wrote:
Trebor Daehdoow wrote:
2) None of the other active CSMs decided to run again, and continuity between CSM7 and CSM8 will be important, particularly in light of (1).
I'd just like to re-emphasise this. Even if you don't particularly agree with Trebor's ideas, he will be immensely valuable because he has the experience and background knowledge that CSM8 will require to function with its full potential.

Bullshit. There's an alumni CSM channel for this express purpose. If CSM8 wants to know where CSM7 left off with the stakeholder project, they can ask any of the CSM7 candidates about it on that Skype channel.
The Initiative.
#54 - 2013-02-22 20:40:08 UTC
Poetic Stanziel wrote:
Malcanis wrote:
Trebor Daehdoow wrote:
2) None of the other active CSMs decided to run again, and continuity between CSM7 and CSM8 will be important, particularly in light of (1).
I'd just like to re-emphasise this. Even if you don't particularly agree with Trebor's ideas, he will be immensely valuable because he has the experience and background knowledge that CSM8 will require to function with its full potential.

Bullshit. There's an alumni CSM channel for this express purpose. If CSM8 wants to know where CSM7 left off with the stakeholder project, they can ask any of the CSM7 candidates about it on that Skype channel.


I'd rather rely on a more concrete contact. I think at this stage we will have to agree to disagree.

"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
#55 - 2013-02-22 22:27:09 UTC
Malcanis wrote:
Poetic Stanziel wrote:
Malcanis wrote:
Trebor Daehdoow wrote:
2) None of the other active CSMs decided to run again, and continuity between CSM7 and CSM8 will be important, particularly in light of (1).
I'd just like to re-emphasise this. Even if you don't particularly agree with Trebor's ideas, he will be immensely valuable because he has the experience and background knowledge that CSM8 will require to function with its full potential.

Bullshit. There's an alumni CSM channel for this express purpose. If CSM8 wants to know where CSM7 left off with the stakeholder project, they can ask any of the CSM7 candidates about it on that Skype channel.
I'd rather rely on a more concrete contact. I think at this stage we will have to agree to disagree.
Like go to their house, eat dinner with them, go bowling afterwards?

Whether they're on the CSM or an alumni, you'll communicate with them the same way. There's no appreciable difference. One Skype channel is no more concrete than another.
The Initiative.
#56 - 2013-02-22 23:10:56 UTC
What if these alumni just decide not to bother? They have no responsibilities, no accountability, no access to the CSM forums after they've left. Come now, it's a useful backup, but it's no substitute for the real thing. If you weren't so caught up in your own rhetoric, you'd be the first to point out that weakness.

"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
#57 - 2013-02-22 23:37:37 UTC  |  Edited by: Poetic Stanziel
Malcanis wrote:
What if these alumni just decide not to bother? They have no responsibilities, no accountability, no access to the CSM forums after they've left. Come now, it's a useful backup, but it's no substitute for the real thing. If you weren't so caught up in your own rhetoric, you'd be the first to point out that weakness.
I know all about the alumni channel. Most of the ex-CSM hang around the process as much as they can, because they're addicted to the process. There's little chance you wouldn't find a "retired" CSM who wouldn't want to give his two cents again.

It'll probably get pretty annoying that Hans, Aleks, Seleene, and Two Step won't leave you alone, won't stop giving you all their "helpful advice". So, escaping the alumni channel is the problem, not finding anyone in there to talk too.
The Initiative.
#58 - 2013-02-22 23:42:30 UTC
Poetic Stanziel wrote:
Malcanis wrote:
What if these alumni just decide not to bother? They have no responsibilities, no accountability, no access to the CSM forums after they've left. Come now, it's a useful backup, but it's no substitute for the real thing. If you weren't so caught up in your own rhetoric, you'd be the first to point out that weakness.
I know all about the alumni channel. Most of the ex-CSM hang around the process as much as they can, because they're addicted to the process. There's little chance you wouldn't find a "retired" CSM who wouldn't want to give his two cents again.

It'll probably get pretty annoying that Hans, Aleks, Seleene, and Two Step won't leave you alone, won't stop giving you all their "helpful advice". So, escaping the alumni channel is the problem, not finding anyone in there to talk too.


What if I want to ask them about an NDA matter?

"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
#59 - 2013-02-22 23:52:56 UTC  |  Edited by: Poetic Stanziel
Malcanis wrote:
Poetic Stanziel wrote:
Malcanis wrote:
What if these alumni just decide not to bother? They have no responsibilities, no accountability, no access to the CSM forums after they've left. Come now, it's a useful backup, but it's no substitute for the real thing. If you weren't so caught up in your own rhetoric, you'd be the first to point out that weakness.
I know all about the alumni channel. Most of the ex-CSM hang around the process as much as they can, because they're addicted to the process. There's little chance you wouldn't find a "retired" CSM who wouldn't want to give his two cents again.

It'll probably get pretty annoying that Hans, Aleks, Seleene, and Two Step won't leave you alone, won't stop giving you all their "helpful advice". So, escaping the alumni channel is the problem, not finding anyone in there to talk too.
What if I want to ask them about an NDA matter?
Since all you're concerned about is continuity, the only NDA matters that will concern you are the one's that happened before your term started ... which means CSM7 and CSM8 are free to discuss them. Any NDA matters that are CSM8 only, well those aren't continuity issues, thus no need to be discussed with CSM7.
Plucky Adventurers
#60 - 2013-02-23 00:36:27 UTC  |  Edited by: Two step
Poetic Stanziel wrote:
Malcanis wrote:
Trebor Daehdoow wrote:
2) None of the other active CSMs decided to run again, and continuity between CSM7 and CSM8 will be important, particularly in light of (1).
I'd just like to re-emphasise this. Even if you don't particularly agree with Trebor's ideas, he will be immensely valuable because he has the experience and background knowledge that CSM8 will require to function with its full potential.

Bullshit. There's an alumni CSM channel for this express purpose. If CSM8 wants to know where CSM7 left off with the stakeholder project, they can ask any of the CSM7 candidates about it on that Skype channel.


The issue with that, and indeed for any handoff, is that according to the NDA, once CCP stops providing us with new material we cannot be told about new things from CSM8. So they cannot ask us about something that they have been told in a meeting, for example.

I think this is a pretty big issue, and have asked CCP Xhagen to look into having a lot more overlap between CSMs, but it isn't clear if that will be happening this time.

But please, tell me more about the Alumni channel that I am in 24/7 and you are only theorizing about...

CSM 7 Secretary CSM 6 Alternate Delegate @two_step_eve on Twitter My Blog

34 PagesPrevious page12345Next pageLast page
Forum Jump