Candour @Brisc_Rubal , an increasingly rare quality these days. Well played!
If there is such a Glioblastoma within the CSM, then send in the surgeons to remove both it and all of it’s tendrils - Surgical Strike 2.0 [1].
Or, to put it another way: If CCP want the CSM to truly inspire confidence, they should firmly remind any any all such self-serving members of their broader obligations and request - where such individuals are demonstrably unable to refrain from endulging in any such bias - that they stand down at the next CSM cycle. If unable to do either, they should be delesected by CCP and barred from any re-election and suitable measures instituted to ensure that, as best as is possible, any and all such individuals are unable to take the role of puppet-master-general after future election cycles [2].
[1] A rather poor attempt to put my argument is some manner of current context.
[2] Reform, top-down. (Quite how I had the nerve and audacity to write that I’ll never know. Shame on me! )
There is no way to break up these big groups. They existed before there were in-game mechanics, they’ll exist even if those in-game mechanics are taken away. This is barking up the wrong tree.
And with one sentence, you have completely destroyed any credibility you may have had with me.
This is nonsense. Pure, tin-foil hat nonsense.
Imperium News runs ads and pays for content, but the amount of revenue is tiny - there’s a reason why it’s called the “multi-dollar media empire.” For the most part, the revenue it brings in covers the continued operations of the site, not making anybody money. As for all of the auth and other tools, they are funded by donations and out of Innominate’s pocket, as far as I am aware.
Everyone who plays this game has spent far more money on it than they ever could hope to receive by selling a couple of coffee cups and maybe a t-shirt. I have easily spent tens of thousands of dollars on this game over the years and I’m not running any alliances. These types of “follow the money” conspiracy theories are just flat out nonsense.
They’re not going to do that. They can tell when somebody’s being self-serving, but there’s nothing stopping a representative for pushing things that benefit his group or his game play. Some, like Olmeca, would argue that player reps can ONLY do that, because they don’t have the ability to be unbiased. I think that’s nonsense, but he’s convinced.
The only thing they can’t do is be personally self-serving - they can’t use the information they’re provided to personally benefit themselves. That’s what will get you kicked and banned.
But advocating a change that benefits your group more than others? Well, hey. That’s politics. I don’t like it, I went out of my way not to do it, and I think others should do the same thing, but that’s a question of morality, not legality, and there’s nothing requiring them to be better than their base instincts.
From my point this is exactly the right tree. I’m perfectly fine with entities not able to see correct info about mails, transactions, alts, accounts and other ingame history/activity of their members.
It’s not really that hard for spies to infiltrate these groups as it is. Not sure why removing functionality that has a benefit for players would help further that along, honestly. It takes ten seconds to create a fake email account, register a new, clean account and go from there.
Then why don’t you scrap API requirements, if it’s useless against harm anyway? At some point you have to trust people with rights to scale your organization. If this can be limited to people you personally know, the maximum size of the organization is limited.
Because the API requirements provide other benefits to players. We’ve got auth tools that help me get a better snapshot of my character than in-game tools do, and I like having that functionality. Providing these end points lets third party developers do cool things.
Again, even without them, big groups will still be big. And, as I keep explaining, big groups are not inherently bad. They’re not for everybody, but that doesn’t mean they’re bad.
I agree in that any such change is highly improbable - even if desirable.
As for Olmeca, if that truly is a proposition held, then the logic is flawed to the point of being absurd. It is, as you say, nonsense.
And you’re right, that is politics - and it’s the type of politics that, in real life and in numerous democratic institutions, has caused many a controversy and ultimately resulted in numerous changes for the better.
I think, any democratic system needs to be capable of self-reflection and change. Stagnation, either in game or in the wider meta (including the CSM, it’s role and it’s functions), is always going to be a negative. Perhaps I’m just a reformer at heart.
Thanks for the reply btw. You appear to have made a not inconsiderable effort to communicate hereabouts. I think perhaps you should be educating some of the apparently absent CSM members in the art of conversation and debate.
Without diminishing return on size, they are bad. The other option would be to make sure the more members work together the less efficient it will be, e.g. diminishing return on more fleet members, more logis, more space, more dense usage, more ratting, etc.
There must be a way to break the n+1 game, without making things boring. Maybe introducing more special roles in fleets, so more people’s skills matter. Not having 90% F1 pushers solving the problem.
The point I was making was that while you claim not to care about the direction of the game, and you’ll just go elsewhere if they do something you don’t like, you’re here commenting on the forums in a thread about the CSM. That’s not the behavior of someone who is completely checked out and doesn’t care what happens to the game.
There are plenty of ways to beat N+1, but keep in mind this is a fundamental premise in real life as much as it is EVE. Bring more forces to bear than the other guy is fundamental military policy and has been forever.
You’ve provided anecdote and conspiracy theory. I’m co-host on the top show on Imperium News on twitch. You know how much money I’ve gotten from Twitch donations? Zero.
You don’t know what you’re talking about. INN is the only twitch/news provider that is affiliated with a specific in game group. None of the others are. There are no ads on INIT’s forums, for instance. None on Goons, either. The cost of a 5,000 person dedicated mumble server, for instance, is significant.
I’ve seen no evidence, despite being inside for years, that what you’re saying is even remotely accurate. It’s all tin-foil hat nonsense.
Paying people doing EVE stuff outside the game for isk has long been a permitted activity and isn’t rmt because no real money is involved. Paying someone isk for an EVE news story is fine.
That said, your usual tinfoil isn’t as far wrong as normal on the topic of real earnings from sites.
True (and called attrition warfare). The problem to a large degree is it’s the only winning type at present with little to no room, mechanics, or incentive to use other forms–such as risks taking maneuver warfare. War in Eve is more like Western Europe circa ~1917, when it would be a lot more fun to play a game like North Africa ~1943. i also agree with the others that perfect and instantaneous intel (from APIs to local), as well as current asset safety (no meaningful risk), contribute to the stagnation.
)