CSM Campaigns

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
13 PagesPrevious page12345Next pageLast page
 

Mike Azariah ---> CSMX

First post
Author
Blades of Grass
#41 - 2014-12-09 03:19:12 UTC
Hello Mike!

Just so that you know, I haven't forgotten about you. We just have been busy fighting in Catch. So to be completely fair and not make you feel excluded:

Good to hear that you have decided to run again.

As you are aware we at the Cap Stable Podcast interviewed you during your run for CSM9 and we wish to do the same this year for CSM10.

Here is our announcement: http://capstable.net/2014/12/01/council-of-stellar-management-x-call-for-candidate-interviews/

As we stated in the announcement, you can contact us to schedule your one on one interview via any of the following methods:

Email: podcast@capstable.net
Twitter: @CapStable
Or via our contact form

We look forward to speaking to you about your particular skill set and expertise in EVE Online and we hope you success in your candidacy.

Sincerely,

Lanctharus Onzo
Co-host & Writer of the Cap Stable Podcast
Military Director, Alea Iacta Est Universal

Executive Editor, CSM Watch || Writer, Co-host of the Cap Stable Podcast || Twitter: @Lanctharus

#42 - 2014-12-09 18:22:16 UTC
Mike Azariah wrote:
Man you ask think questions with a lot of layers.


I'm not so much interested in answers--which is why my questions are generally too big to answer--as I am in revealing thought processes. CSM strikes me as involving a strong analytical component, so I like to watch the candidates think.

Mike Azariah wrote:
As for the last part I wrote a huge paragraph and then realized I was tapdancing too close to my NDA boundaries for my own taste. But I can say in more general terms that a lot of commonly held beliefs of how things are in Eve are based on faulty premises.

But back to my key point. I do not want to ruin one space to benefit another. Each space should have its own draw and its own reason to be there.


I can't really argue against :NDA:, but it's a shame that I won't get to see that paragraph, given that it's what I was angling for. Still, I'm sure it's the best answer you can give, and it's tantalizing. I agree 100% with your key point.

Proud founder and member of the Belligerent Desirables.

I voted in CSM X!

Feyd Rautha Harkonnen
#43 - 2014-12-09 19:41:59 UTC
A vote for Mike is a vote for continuing down the road to nerfdom, and slow water-torture death of the non consensual conflict traditions EvE was founded on.

Mike offers the usual platitudes of every liberal social engineer to have haunted real world political circles, that he is all about the 'middle ground', 'whatever makes sense', or that he doesn't 'go to extremes'...while constitutions lay shredded, and freedom lays destroyed.

Any CSM or candidate that refuses to swear an oath to the EvE constitution, that they will never support any change that reduces player conflict, and will only embrace changes that increase player conflict, should be summarily removed from consideration. Mike does not subscribe to this pledge.

In past years EvE was defined by its HTFU nature, the non-consensual hard fit, the live or die by your wits ethos that made it special and different from WoW. Mike would take us down that WoW road while pretending not to, while espousing 'middle ground' platitudes. Yes, Mike is a 'nice guy'...while he is slitting EvE's throat and refusing to acknowledge he is doing it.

There is no middle ground between food and poison, just poisoned food.

Once you deem HTFU as the food keeping EvE alive, and nerfs the poison to one day kill it, there is no rationalizing a mixture of the two. One is good, one is bad, a middle-ground mix is where disingenuous evil lies.

A vote for Mike is a vote for Disneyland in hisec and making EvE into WoW, period; he would just go about it slower than more up-front carebear radicals, and then years from now perhaps say "I never intended for that to happen..', when all that is left is dust.

However, if you do want to turn EvE into a pansy dreamland disneyland of WoW in space, Mike is indeed your man.

F
#44 - 2014-12-10 03:50:41 UTC
Feyd Rautha Harkonnen wrote:
A vote for Mike is a vote for continuing down the road to nerfdom, and slow water-torture death of the non consensual conflict traditions EvE was founded on.

Mike offers the usual platitudes of every liberal social engineer to have haunted real world political circles, that he is all about the 'middle ground', 'whatever makes sense', or that he doesn't 'go to extremes'...while constitutions lay shredded, and freedom lays destroyed.

Any CSM or candidate that refuses to swear an oath to the EvE constitution, that they will never support any change that reduces player conflict, and will only embrace changes that increase player conflict, should be summarily removed from consideration. Mike does not subscribe to this pledge.

In past years EvE was defined by its HTFU nature, the non-consensual hard fit, the live or die by your wits ethos that made it special and different from WoW. Mike would take us down that WoW road while pretending not to, while espousing 'middle ground' platitudes. Yes, Mike is a 'nice guy'...while he is slitting EvE's throat and refusing to acknowledge he is doing it.

There is no middle ground between food and poison, just poisoned food.

Once you deem HTFU as the food keeping EvE alive, and nerfs the poison to one day kill it, there is no rationalizing a mixture of the two. One is good, one is bad, a middle-ground mix is where disingenuous evil lies.

A vote for Mike is a vote for Disneyland in hisec and making EvE into WoW, period; he would just go about it slower than more up-front carebear radicals, and then years from now perhaps say "I never intended for that to happen..', when all that is left is dust.

However, if you do want to turn EvE into a pansy dreamland disneyland of WoW in space, Mike is indeed your man.

F


An absolute bear would also say the same thing in reverse. If there's one thing I've learned about Mike in the 2+ years he's been a regular on Podside is that he doesn't deal in absolutes.

If you are a full blooded CODE adherent, interested in murder for murder's sake or a super bear who wants 100% safety. Mike is not the candidate for you.

He is the candidate for those who can respect a balanced and well-rounded perspective.
Caldari State
#45 - 2014-12-10 08:19:36 UTC
Some of your ideas would of been nice.

The last people i vote for are the ones with no ideas.
We have enough political figures like that.
#46 - 2014-12-10 18:07:29 UTC
Mike 'Balls of Steel' Azariah. You have my vote, oh gentleman and scholar.

[center]-_For the Proveldtariat_/-[/center]

Gallente Federation
#47 - 2014-12-10 19:37:58 UTC
Sugar Smacks wrote:
Some of your ideas would of been nice.

The last people i vote for are the ones with no ideas.
We have enough political figures like that.


What subject would you prefer? Eve is a huge place with lots of facets.

But maybe you misunderstand the purpose OF the CSM

We don't make the Roadmap. We don't design the game or demand new features. Instead we help CCP with ideas that they have and bring modifications or ideas from YOU the electorate. We may filter those ideas (face it, some ideas on the forums are bad) but it is not upon us to write all the great next new things as a council of players.

BEST way to see where I stand is to read the minutes of the CSM, I have served for almost two years so a lot of what I have said and thought is a matter of record. Or, if you have a particular cause . . . ask. I will answer as I did Feyd, above. Obviously he was not happy with my answer and I am ok with that. I say what I think, not what I think you want.

If reading the minutes is tl:dr then check out any number of podcasts (I do get about and hit a fair number of them) or wait for that interviews Lanctharus and others will be doing.

The Bowhead was NOT my idea, but I liked it and pushed for it. Damn glad to see it coming into the game.

You are electing a council to speak, for you, for the game as a whole.

m

Mike Azariah  ┬──┬ ¯|(ツ)

Affirmative.
#48 - 2014-12-11 11:19:44 UTC
You've been worth my vote in the past, and you remain so in the future :)

What you do for yourself dies with you, what you do for others is immortal.

Free weekly public roams & monthly NewBro new player roams!

Visit Redemption Road or join mailing list REDEMPTION ROAMS for information

EvE-Scout Enclave
#49 - 2014-12-11 15:32:25 UTC
Hi Mike!

Amazingly, I think I've checked "Like" on this thread more than any other, ever. Your ideas and mine seem to align quite closely.

Having said that, I'd like to ask you some questions I'm asking the candidates I'm seriously considering, if I could.

Space has become littered with abandoned POS structures. What is your position on getting rid of them? I'd like to see, perhaps, a orbital degrading mechanic once the fuel is gone. This, then would open up the moons for pilots that will actually use them. The current mechanic, of course, involves Wardec-ing a possibly abandoned Corp and then sitting there for an extended period of time blapping the structures. I think something better is quite possible.

EVE seems to be popularly seen as more than a game, perhaps moving into the hobby realm. I'm aware that some discussions have been held with regard to finding a way to bring a more casual player or a more casual play-style option into EVE. Would you advocate this? If so, how might this be done without fundamentally changing the nature of the game? Would it?

It seems a given that CSM X and CCP will look at dealing with the SovNull question this term. Beyond that, from a gameplay perspective, what would you advocate as the next priority?

EVE players seem to be quite passionate about the game, yet it is said that the voting rate for CSM elections is lower than that of even the United States midterms. Does this diminish the validity of the CSM? What would you like to do to combat the voter apathy that we see and effectively educate the voters on the reality of what the CSM can effectively do?

Additionally, I am friends with a legally blind Capsuleer and someone else early in the thread brought up the issue of accessibility. You responded to him saying that you're active and you'll continue doing what you have done in the past. For those of us NewBros in the audience, could you please expand on that or give us some reference links if you have them?

Finally, and most importantly, do you like cats? :-)

Thanks so much!

-- Alan Mathison, Explorer & Industrialist, Star Tide Industries

Feyd Rautha Harkonnen
#50 - 2014-12-11 15:38:51 UTC
Urziel99 wrote:

An absolute bear would also say the same thing in reverse.

But EvE's traditions and original founding wasn't based on a 100%-safety mindset though was it Urziel? To the contrary, it was founded on HTFU.

Urziel99 wrote:

If there's one thing I've learned about Mike in the 2+ years he's been a regular on Podside is that he doesn't deal in absolutes.

If you are a full blooded CODE adherent, interested in murder for murder's sake or a super bear who wants 100% safety. Mike is not the candidate for you.

He is the candidate for those who can respect a balanced and well-rounded perspective.

'middle grounders' who don't believe in an overriding EvE constitution centered on HTFU are destroying EvE in slow paper cuts under the guise of such 'well rounded' BS platitudes. The point you are missing is that CCP is quite adept at slitting their own throats by themselves thank you very much, without our so-called player representatives giving them cover to do it!!

The player-CSM should be Gandalf on the f#ckin bridge, telling CCP "YOU SHALL NOT PASS!" whenever they go to implement any change that would decrease non consensual conflict from status quo.

Mike's middle-ground mindset however is like Gandalf saying "Ok, you Orcs are allowed to pass, perhaps only one or two Goblins too, but I sure won't let the Balrog pass..gosh no, look at how balanced I am guys!"

There is no middle ground between food and poison. Protect the damned sandbox, or at least be open and honest about your ultimate endgame of turning EvE hisec into WoW slowly over time, hoping people wont notice what your really about with your 'balance' self delusion.

We have noticed. The nerfs must stop. NO more. Focus on new content, instead of breaking existing mechanics that create conflict and renounce our HTFU traditions.

F
BadWrongFun
#51 - 2014-12-11 15:50:14 UTC
Feyd Rautha Harkonnen wrote:
There is no middle ground between food and poison.


Strictly speaking, this is not true. More often than not, whether a substance has toxic effects is a question of dosage, and possibly ambient pressure. It would be more accurate to say that there is only middle ground.


Gallente Federation
#52 - 2014-12-11 16:50:29 UTC
Alan Mathison wrote:
Hi Mike!

Amazingly, I think I've checked "Like" on this thread more than any other, ever. Your ideas and mine seem to align quite closely.

Having said that, I'd like to ask you some questions I'm asking the candidates I'm seriously considering, if I could.

Space has become littered with abandoned POS structures. What is your position on getting rid of them? I'd like to see, perhaps, a orbital degrading mechanic once the fuel is gone. This, then would open up the moons for pilots that will actually use them. The current mechanic, of course, involves Wardec-ing a possibly abandoned Corp and then sitting there for an extended period of time blapping the structures. I think something better is quite possible.

EVE seems to be popularly seen as more than a game, perhaps moving into the hobby realm. I'm aware that some discussions have been held with regard to finding a way to bring a more casual player or a more casual play-style option into EVE. Would you advocate this? If so, how might this be done without fundamentally changing the nature of the game? Would it?

It seems a given that CSM X and CCP will look at dealing with the SovNull question this term. Beyond that, from a gameplay perspective, what would you advocate as the next priority?

EVE players seem to be quite passionate about the game, yet it is said that the voting rate for CSM elections is lower than that of even the United States midterms. Does this diminish the validity of the CSM? What would you like to do to combat the voter apathy that we see and effectively educate the voters on the reality of what the CSM can effectively do?

Additionally, I am friends with a legally blind Capsuleer and someone else early in the thread brought up the issue of accessibility. You responded to him saying that you're active and you'll continue doing what you have done in the past. For those of us NewBros in the audience, could you please expand on that or give us some reference links if you have them?

Finally, and most importantly, do you like cats? :-)

Thanks so much!


In reverse . . . I have a Maine Coon watching me answer so Yes, I like Cats. (She is a big cat, don't want to cross her)

Legally blind is a tough one as there IS going to be a limit where the Video in video game will be hard to get around but I fight for UI ability to enlarge text. Icons that are easily distinguished. And consideration of people with red/green colour blindness. This is something near and dear to me as my own vision begins to fade. A lot of it comes down to having bigger clearer fonts and multiple clues as to what is going on so if you miss one another might catch.

Does low voter turnout diminish our validity? That depends on what you consider the measure of validity. Those of us who get elected SHOULD try their best to represent the players regardless of whether they were elected by 5% or 75%. There is nothing in the White Paper that says we can do a half-assed job if the voter turnout is low. I do what I can to promote the election (well especially since I am in it) and hit the streets calling for not just votes for me but voting in general. I have high hopes that CCP will do more to promote the election this year. BUT 2 things are beyond my reach. First. It is in large blocks best interest if the voter turnout is small. Then the weight they swing can be more easily brought to bear so do not expect a lot of groundswell support from the larger alliances to 'get the vote out' Oh they will work hard, internally, but not with the population as a whole. Secondly, I am one voice. If you want to see a greater voter turnout then join in, help get the word out and get corp mates, fleet chat, posts on the forums, twitter, whatever . . . do your part to educate your neighbour on the issues, the candidates, that there even IS a bloody election. The community as a whole needs to step up their game and not just look at the 30+ candidates and ask . . . 'well why didn't you do more?'

http://static.squarespace.com/static/5183c058e4b065e39b3de2ee/t/5442ee20e4b0b8e2e81f9f48/1413672513331/NewEVEStratPlan.png this shows where CCP plans on going. The new star systems and stargate potential make the lore and player in me giddy. But I do not want to rush the soc/corp/alliance materials to get through to it. That stuff needs to be done right so it holds up for a good long time.

I AM a casual player (except when I start running away with some project or another) It IS possible but I want to see more tools to facilitate that. The NPSI fleets are a great example of casual play as is RvB. Most PvE is broken up into small manageable chunks, sadly most of them are boring small manageable chunks. THAT I would like to see fixed.

Ah, POS's. I answered you in reverse order so I could save the best for last. Yes, we need a new mechanic for 'dead sticks in space' I am 100% behind a decay of the abandoned defenses over time so that missing fuel day by even a week doesn't mean you have lost it but if months pass someoene can come along and remove the POS without having to grind it to oblivion. Hacking would be one option, a descending price for Concord to remove as time goes by would be another. Literally have it towed into an impound lot. This would mean that the 'taker' doesn't get the loot pinata and a returning player may still reclaim his materiel. WH space is littered with old POS's as is highsec. Yes, we need a mechanic to replace the structure grind for old dead sticks.

Sorry about the wall of text but you asked a lot of questions

m

Mike Azariah  ┬──┬ ¯|(ツ)

Gallente Federation
#53 - 2014-12-11 17:04:32 UTC
Feyd Rautha Harkonnen wrote:

Mike's middle-ground mindset however is like Gandalf saying "Ok, you Orcs are allowed to pass, perhaps only one or two Goblins too, but I sure won't let the Balrog pass..gosh no, look at how balanced I am guys!"

F



Isn't that what Gandalf did? I mean seriously, he fought the big bad.

But that is aside from the point, I am fairly sure I will not be getting you vote, Feyd and I am still OK with that. If you think that I am trying to make highsec totally safe you are wrong but if you are supporting someone who wants to remove Concord from the game so that Highsec loses all safety then you are wrong again.

You talk about balance like even the word leaves a bad taste in your mouth.

It shouldn't. It is what makes this game viable. It is what keeps both the predators and the prey coming back to the same watering hole.

Oh toss about words like WoW and Disneyland all you like . . . making them the evil in the distance but please don't do it too loudly where CCP can hear because both of those ventures are multi BILLION dollar companies. I am happy, here, with Eve being a more balanced (theres that word again, here, have a mint to get the taste out) game with PvP and PvE and every blend of them in between. It is not black and white, it is not 50 shades of grey, it is all the colours visible and invisible.

Eve is hard because it lacks simplicity and guidance in the form of handholding. Eve is fun for those same reasons.

So you won't vote for someone who wants a balanced game. Fine.

I am still running.

How did the last 2 CODE candidates do? Oh yeah . . .

m

Mike Azariah  ┬──┬ ¯|(ツ)

#54 - 2014-12-11 17:52:02 UTC
Yet again the man that is Mike throws his hat into the ring of CSM elections and it's followed very strongly by all my votes.

Mike was a strong candidate for me last year being that we share similar play styles and being a fellow "Carebear" Lol.

Now to the man behind the avatar: I met Mike at Fanfest on Sindel's not-a-charity-dinner along with a few other current CSM members and what a lovely bloke! He's very down to earth, enthusiastic and keen to not only share his experiences but also to listen to what you have to say. Then things got a little blurry with drink and pub crawls (pic or it didn't happen Mike? Very well: https://twitter.com/CEOMCMXD/status/471344330503110656)!

A great bloke, awesome to talk to and again, he gets my votes and a strong push from me to my corp mates.

Go get 'em Mike!
#55 - 2014-12-11 18:15:54 UTC
I've seen discussion about an all-new POS replacement that wouldn't require hanging at a moon, and furthermore wouldn't require that only one could hang at a moon. It's been a while, but it stuck in my head.

This seems like it would simultaneously make the dead-stick phenomenon much worse at the same time that it would take away the real problem, which is a dead stick occupying a valuable space that a live stick could have instead.

I'm asking because I once explored a C2 with a whole bunch of dead sticks, and it was like coming across an abandoned town. All these ruins of boldly named corps with ambitiously optimistic descriptions, hanging silently in space. It was cool. The last tower I found in the system still had a force field around it. I like that. Ruins and ghost towns and abandoned houses are cool parts of the landscape, especially when there's only enough left to make you wonder what once happened there.

Proud founder and member of the Belligerent Desirables.

I voted in CSM X!

#56 - 2014-12-11 18:22:10 UTC
I don't think I will vote for you this time. Reason? If there was no CSM tag next to your picture I would have no idea you still are in CSM.

Invalid signature format

Gallente Federation
#57 - 2014-12-11 18:57:49 UTC  |  Edited by: BeBopAReBop RhubarbPie
Mike Azariah wrote:
BeBopAReBop RhubarbPie wrote:
Mike, what would you like to see done to increase interactions between players in high security space, both in terms of forcing players to work together, and having them work against each other?


I want to see the tools for social groups strengthened, mailing lists enlargened. I would really like to see an entirely new set of mechanics for people who hang together for specidc things (like CODE, Bombers Bar, Redemtion road, mining fleets, mission teams and incursions to focus on the hisec sort of thing). Grouping is the glue that makes this an MMO and we need to keep working on the tools that help that.

But I DO take issue with your wording of the question. We should never have to FORCE folks into groups or interactivity. There are people perfectly happy to play solo, to be the lone wolf hunter or the quiet single industrialist. There is nothing wrong with that and we shouldn't punish them for that style of play. Casual players face this the most since often they have limited game time to be online or odd hours and so they find it difficult to be reliable in a social group and they self isolate.

tl:dr So I want CCP to develop the tools to facilitate interaction but I do not want to force it.

m

I appologize for my wording, but you also didn't fully answer the question. I can only assume that you oppose changes that put players in conflict in high security space? Is this correct?

To be clear, I want a strong advocate for highsec pve players on csm, but I do not want that to be at the expense of conflict drivers. High sec pve is in a sorry state right now, and the same content design is still running around from over ten years ago. The burners are a step in the right direction, but are poorly implemented by being included in current level 4 queues. The difficulty precludes using them to introduce newer players to frigate combat, and for players that enjoy the missions, a large startup investment into battleships is required.

The extreme repetition of missions is another issue, and the fact that missions are still essentially "go here, kill target" leads to very little diversity of gameplay between different missions. Add on the dry and immobile mission agents, and you have an experience not worthy of a game going on 12 years of success.

Founder of Violet Squadron, a small gang NPSI community! Mail me for more information.

BeBopAReBop RhubarbPie's Space Mediation Service!

Gallente Federation
#58 - 2014-12-11 19:15:23 UTC
Schmata Bastanold wrote:
I don't think I will vote for you this time. Reason? If there was no CSM tag next to your picture I would have no idea you still are in CSM.


Out of curiosity, whom do you know to be on the CSM and how did you find out?

It could be argued that I am one of the more outgoing CSM members this season. Between forums, podcasts, blogging, twitter, what medium were you looking for, direct mail?

m

Mike Azariah  ┬──┬ ¯|(ツ)

Gallente Federation
#59 - 2014-12-11 19:30:23 UTC
BeBopAReBop RhubarbPie wrote:

I appologize for my wording, but you also didn't fully answer the question. I can only assume that you oppose changes that put players in conflict in high security space? Is this correct?

To be clear, I want a strong advocate for highsec pve players on csm, but I do not want that to be at the expense of conflict drivers. High sec pve is in a sorry state right now, and the same content design is still running around from over ten years ago. The burners are a step in the right direction, but are poorly implemented by being included in current level 4 queues. The difficulty precludes using them to introduce newer players to frigate combat, and for players that enjoy the missions, a large startup investment into battleships is required.

The extreme repetition of missions is another issue, and the fact that missions are still essentially "go here, kill target" leads to very little diversity of gameplay between different missions. Add on the dry and immobile mission agents, and you have an experience not worthy of a game going on 12 years of success.


No worries, layered questions seem to be the theme on this campaign and I appreciate it when you try again if I seem to miss the question the first time.

*Highsec should not be made 'safe'

*It also should not be a free fire zone where the predators have all the advantages.

Those two statements together should tick off a few people because they seem to think I need to believe in one or the other. If you want, for example, to know how I feel about wardecs then go back to the Declarations of War roundtable from last year. I don't want them removed, I just would like them to make sense. Conflict is an accepted part of Eve. but that does not mean it always have to have all the advanatages given to the hunter nor is all conflict done with guns and missiles.

Yeah, I have a blog called a missioneer in Eve and still consider myself a carebear. PvE content is a part fo the game some may scoff at but a lot of folks play that aspect and it deserves attention as well.

m

but it shouldn't be safe or predictable for either side.

Do missions need a lot of love? Yes. Was I happy with Burners and want to see more? Yes. An I tired of rescuing that damn damsel? Yes. Would I like there to be more dynamio missions with a range of possibilities so Eve survivbal cannot give you a wlakthrough? Hell, yes. Have I asked for missions that see the kind of ship you have and give you missions made for the ship? Yup

Mike Azariah  ┬──┬ ¯|(ツ)

Feyd Rautha Harkonnen
#60 - 2014-12-11 19:32:06 UTC
Mike Azariah wrote:

...
But that is aside from the point, I am fairly sure I will not be getting you vote, Feyd and I am still OK with that. If you think that I am trying to make highsec totally safe you are wrong but if you are supporting someone who wants to remove Concord from the game so that Highsec loses all safety then you are wrong again.
...
How did the last 2 CODE candidates do? Oh yeah . . .

Your mistakenly taking my position to extremes Mike. I would never support 'removing CONCORD'.

Here's the thing, and I hope you can get where I am coming from on this, and why I am so vehemently calling BS on the 'balance' claims...

For the last three years CCP has already been implementing a pogrom of nerfing hisec, in the minds of many content creators this has already swung the scales of balance well into the nerfdom side of the equation.. (lets call this a -10 condition from status-quo HTFU zero..).

No really, I am not making this up, look here.

Now, my problem with you Mike (like Ripard Teg before you) is that you refuse to acknowledge that already present shift in the scales to -10, and you just look at each new additional nerf proposed by CCP and nod sagely saying 'that sounds balanced', in a vacuum...

...the problem Mike, is that real true balance would be to seek to tip the scales back from that pre-existing -10 nerfdom to HTFU zero, and implement some buffs to non-consensual conflict in hisec (ostensibly by closing wardec dodging mechanics, etc)

Now this -10 condition has been mentioned numerous times, so at this juncture it must be willful ignorance on your part, thus invalidating your claims of 'balance'. Thus we see revealed another Ripard Tegian carebear, seeking to nerf the hell out of hisec, while seeking moral cover under the BS guise of 'nice guy being balanced'.

Protect the damned sandbox, undo the damage already done to conflict creation. THAT would be real balance Mike.

F
13 PagesPrevious page12345Next pageLast page
Forum Jump