EVE Forums

Capture Portrait
  • Date of Birth: 2012-07-29 17:04
  • First Forum Visit: 2012-09-10 01:34
  • Number of Posts: 57
  • Bounty: 0 ISK
  • Likes Received: 132


Security Status 0.0
  • Caldari Provisions Member since
  • Caldari State Faction

Last 20 Posts

  • sold in EVE Marketplace

    transfer starting ! waiting 10 hour, Engoy.

  • sold in EVE Marketplace

    JitaGodess wrote:
    Isk and account details sent, Please confirm receipt, and acknowledge when transfer begins.


    okey isk reaserv me need 30 min and i starting transfer

  • sold in EVE Marketplace

    Skills Here

    Good perfect logist pilot

    B\O 11 bil

  • WTS Prfect Scimitar\Logist Pilot 17.3 kk SP in EVE Marketplace


  • WTS Prfect Scimitar\Logist Pilot 17.3 kk SP in EVE Marketplace


  • WTS Prfect Scimitar\Logist Pilot 17.3 kk SP in EVE Marketplace


  • WTS Prfect Scimitar\Logist Pilot 17.3 kk SP in EVE Marketplace


    Good Engineering
    Good Targeting
    Good Logist

    price 13bil

  • WTS 9mil focused Scimitar Pilot (Logi V) in EVE Marketplace

    You have chosen to transfer the character CliveWarren to the account named ******************. We are currently processing this transfer. The character you are transferring will remain on your account, but will not be playable until the transfer automatically completes.If you did not initiate this character transfer, please file a petition to Customer Support.If you have any questions, you may browse the EVE Knowledgebase or email support@eve-online.com and one of our customer support representatives will be happy to assist you.

  • WTS 9mil focused Scimitar Pilot (Logi V) in EVE Marketplace

    Done, send the isk and i'll start the transfer

    edit: Isk recieved, just need the account name to do the transfer

  • WTS 9mil focused Scimitar Pilot (Logi V) in EVE Marketplace

    For sale. Was going to be used with incursions (and ran some) but grew weary of them.

    http://eveboard.com/pilot/CliveWarren (pass: 525)


    Min Cruiser V
    Logi V
    Shield Emissions V
    Perfect Cap skills
    Drones V/Scout Drone V
    Shield Operation V
    Shield Upgrades V
    Advanced Target Management IV

    Positive wallet, no kill rights. 1 Bonus remap available. Located in Jita.

    7b B/O

  • Changing CSM Votes: Standpoints of the CSM in Council of Stellar Management

    Alekseyev Karrde wrote:
    It was answered by roughly page 25 of the original thread (by me anyway), you just kept repeating the question till no one, including and especially us, wanted to talk about it anymore. .

    You might want to re-read your posts around those pages because you never actually answered the question, you just did the whole "This is just Trebor's idea, but this discussion is really important!" thing that you flavoured with that wonderful "But guys you lost Mittani's 10k votes! Why are you so upset about this :(" canard that fooled absolutely nobody.

    This is of course after you and Hans had already trolled anyone who had a problem with Trebor's suggestion by the 2nd page (Seleene followed up on that by like page 10-15). Nobody had legitimately answered the question at all until Hans in this very thread. I'm sure you feel that you actually answered the question, but really you just tried to deflect it into conversation about something else and then resorted to even more trolling when that didn't work.

    It doesn't much matter anymore, as CCP Xhagen's thread has some actual discussion going (largely because it didn't start off with a crackpot power grab disguised as a political system). That said, if you and other CSM's still think that you had nothing to do with that thread exploding the way it did, then you've got some serious interpersonal communication issues you should work on fixing sooner rather than later.

  • Isk for the CSM in Council of Stellar Management

    Frying Doom wrote:
    But don't primaries generally mean you vote twice? We can barely get people to vote once.

    That's why I said you play with the idea. It's also why I said literally ANY idea, including leaving things as-is, is significantly better than charging volunteers for the right to volunteer.

    You're good at recognizing problems - you just need to work on coming up with solutions that aren't straight out of Crazy Town

  • Isk for the CSM in Council of Stellar Management

    Frying Doom wrote:
    Such as?

    Working to create a primary system would be a start. STV-ish systems would go a long way with minimizing the impact of no-hoper candidates as well.

    Anything is better than charging volunteers for the right to be able to volunteer though.

  • Isk for the CSM in Council of Stellar Management

    Frying Doom wrote:
    I would be worried about having people on the CSM that could not get a mere 2 Billion is. I prefer 2 Billion if preference to 5 billion as it is a hurdle but still a small one but it will limit the number of joke candidates.

    The CSM members are supposed to be people who know how the game works over all or in a specific area but as they all require isk to function, I believe isk is a reasonable measure of success.

    It's not a matter of having 2 billion, it's a matter of being able to spare 2 billion just to become a candidate.

    This is a volunteer position at the end of the day. Having players pay to become that is just cynical and wrong. There's other ways you can reduce joke/no-hope candidates without doing this.

  • The voting reform discussion in Council of Stellar Management

    I think talking about specific voting systems is getting way too ahead of ourselves. If effort is expended into anything RE: CSM elections, it should be primarily geared towards increasing awareness and trying to (a) make sure people know about the CSM and (b) determining if they want any part in the process.

    The first part to this is to really reach out to the playerbase to make sure they even know about this:

    - Eve-mails to every character and E-mails to every account annoucing CSM landmark events, i.e. Candidacy period is opened, voting has started, here's the results, CSM summit is happening, CSM minutes are here. That sort of thing. Nothing terribly invasive or frequent, but enough to make sure as many people are in on this as possible.

    - Client splash screens. This can be done for all of the above, and when it comes time to vote, perhaps in-client voting options? "I wish to vote now", "I wish to vote later", "I abstain from voting", and "What is this all about?" or something like that. IMO, it's important to make sure this isn't forced, just a convenience option. Forcing people will just result in button mashing to get into the game, which helps nobody at all.

    The next step is to create as welcoming an environment for the new participants as possible:

    - Ditch the Assembly hall and turn Jita Park Speakers Corner into *the* CSM forum. Assembly Hall is an awful, outmoded idea that not only comes off as a stuffy clone of Features & Ideas, but it paints the wrong image of what the CSM is even for. They're an advocacy group, not a dictaphone for the players' ideas.

    - Encourage far, far more CSM participation in this new, single CSM forum. One of the sources of outrage of the debacle known as the Voting Reform thread was due to the CSM's near radio silence on the forums before that, so the impression was "they came out of the woodwork for THIS?". JPSC is a dead zone right now, and I'd be willing to bet a large part of that is due to the basically zero CSM participation in any of the discussions that actually happen. Change this and I'd be willing to bet it'd actually become populated, as opposed to just the "Frying Doom Argument Sanctuary" that it is now.

    Once the above is done, wait an election, see what kind of data you get (abstains vs new voters vs straight-up ignores etc), and then we can have a discussion about voting systems with either (a) the new players or (b) knowing that there won't be many new players. Until that point, talking about it just turns the CSM into even more of a closed system than it already is.

    Obviously, none of this is a guarantee of anything. It might be entirely ignored or completely ineffectual. I think the ideas themselves are good representations of the directions we need to go if we actually want more participation in the CSM at all, both from a candidate and player POV.

  • Changing CSM Votes: Standpoints of the CSM in Council of Stellar Management

    Seleene wrote:
    2.) I don't see the word 'penalty' anywhere in the draft. As a general question though, no.

    3) Reduce (but not eliminate) the advantages held by highly organized voting blocs. In the previous election, for example, one voting bloc did extremely sophisticated exit-polling; if they had chosen to use this information to efficiently split their votes, they could have won 3 of the top 7 positions on the CSM.

    So is this the part where you quote me and say it doesn't use the word penalty so you're still right, or is it back under the pile of coats for an afternoon cuddle/cry with Hans?

  • Changing CSM Votes: Standpoints of the CSM in Council of Stellar Management

    Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:
    CliveWarren wrote:
    "at a minimum" doesn't leave any room for discussion.

    Sure it does, and you did discuss it. Lol

    All you have to say is "Sorry CSM, we don't agree with your requirements and we would like to achieve different objectives with any attempts electoral reform". Many of you said this specifically. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure Trebor never once said such feedback would be invalid, and neither has any CSM member since than.

    I'll go through this point-by-point even though I know you're just being intentionally obtuse:

    - Trebor makes a proposal that is quite hostile to one specific group of players (and makes no attempt to hide this)
    - Said group of players object to the hostility and other aspects of his proposal
    - CSM Alekseyev starts the "tinfoil" accusations, you continue the same trend on the next page (we're only at Page 2 here)
    - The pertinent question ("why is disenfranchising a group of voters acceptable?") is asked ad nauseam and is either ignored or dismissed as tinfoil by every CSM active in the thread

    If those are the makings of a discussion to you, seek help.

    The even shorter version: Trebor's proposal started hostile, and when the group it was hostile towards objected, they were met with derision and dismissal from every CSM that posted in that thread.

    The short, short version: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OGp9P6QvMjY

  • Changing CSM Votes: Standpoints of the CSM in Council of Stellar Management

    That's an awful lot of words without even answering the one question that has been asked so many times it's going to become burned into our memories.

    Also I like how your family emergency left you with no time to answer questions but juuust enough time to stop in the original thread and troll everyone that didn't agree with you.

  • Changing CSM Votes: Standpoints of the CSM in Council of Stellar Management

    Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:
    Yes, I understand, but that is not what Trebor said in his post. He said that the CSM believes that "these would be good requirements for a voting system", not "proposals that fail to meet these requirements shall not be discussed in this thread and will not be presented to CCP". You are implying a form of attempted censorship that was never there. Everyone is free to disagree with those objectives for any reason they want and advocate something different.

    No, what he said was, and I quote "The CSM believes that any new CSM voting system should, at a minimum:"

    "at a minimum" doesn't leave any room for discussion, especially when one of those "at a minimum" clauses is a direct attack* on a very specific group of players. The reactions of the entire CSM response in that thread only reinforced this idea.

    You can argue all day and all night about whether or not his proposed system would accomplish reducing GSF power. Bottom line is, the intent was clearly there.

    * Just because you don't think it's an attack doesn't mean it isn't.

  • Changing CSM Votes: Standpoints of the CSM in Council of Stellar Management

    Cede Forster wrote:
    and i think we all agree that this is not okay, right? right

    Most of the posters in this thread are. Hans kind-of-sort-of is. Trebor thinks it's just fine. That leaves 11 CSM members, 3 of which were very active in the orignal thread, that haven't weighed in. Don't expect this issue to go away until they do that at minimum.