That was said to someone else.
You don’t even play the game Biade.
More of the same.
I don’t know the guy and never played with him personally. I dislike his corp/alliance.
But that doesn’t mean he is wrong. You do understand you can like what someone says and dislike their organization at the same time…right?
Poor guy is suffering from Brisc Derangement syndrome.
You are still off topic. You have not brought any argument to “prove me wrong”, so i will repeat it for as you seem to lose your focus very easy from the topic (who it’s not, by the way, to prove our worthy and prowess).
So… this was a rushed change, meant to “fix” the stalemate in the new abyssal 1 vs 1 instances, not to balance caldari EWAR ships.
All their focus was on nerfing ECM mechanic so it cannot be used anymore in 1 vs 1 engagements. Balancing Caldari ewar line of ships was obviously not a priority, neither a issue who need to be addressed as a coherent approach.
So all this “ECM balance” endeavor had the main purpose to make ECM not interfere with 1 vs 1 Abyssal instances.
If it was anymore possible to be done something for the crippled Caldari EWAR ships, is not a matter of importance, and was postponed for a later iteration… Which as we saw, was more a cosmetic overhaul than a really relevant and useful balance.
When you start with a pure conjecture no one can prove you wrong. Because it’s clear you are engaging in speculation. And once your argument is based entirely on speculation it cant be debated because it’s now into the realm of pure belief.
It couldnt be that ecm was a poor mechanic that has been complained about constantly.
My concern wasn’t so much that they changed ECM (though it made it useless in the one instance I would use it). My concern is with the nature of the change.
As you point out this has been a long standing problem, with a correspondingly long time to develop a fully thought out change. What we got was a fudge that doesn’t even address the underlying mechanic. The goal was to kill solo ECM (probably because of abyss arenas as others have mentioned), with no regard for the collateral damage to every other use of ECM outside lafge fleet combat.
The problem here is that the more fudge fixes you add to a system, the harder it becomes to maintain. Each fudge adds additional ‘special cases’ that need to be catered for in any future change.
If these supposedly quick easy fixes are the future direction of EvE development, they will rapidly make the old spaghetti code look like a light training exercise.
I also dislike the design by ‘feels’ approach. If we take this to it’s logical conclusion, all changes will by made according to what feels bad to large groups of people. This naturally pushes all changes in favour of already large groups, making it ever harder to operate outside of them.
And you haven’t brought any experience to “prove yourself right”
Someday you must train and use logic, is much more powerful into drawing correct conclusions than authority bias 
These forums would all be a lot simpler if folks used their mains to,post under.
Well ECM solution feels like putting roadspikes to every street to solve speedeng problem in a village.
Btw where is the bulk of playerbase celebrating this change ?
These blob alliance use capital ships that are not effected by ecm. Stop being jealous. The ecm changes are garbage, but not because of the reason you mentioned.
Did you mean to attribute that quote to me?
They’d also be a lot simpler if folks debated the merits of an argument, rather than the merits of the person making the argument. But, the Eve playerbase being what it is, we’re far too toxic for that.
Killboards and alliance tags don’t make words mean different things. They just fallaciously make readers more or less inclined to agree or disagree with them.
If Neil Armstrong had said the Earth was flat, we wouldn’t assume his argument to be true. The same is true were he to say it is round. We could of course debate whatever merits he based his argument on, but as someone who has seen Earth from orbit, he is certainly an “authority” on the subject… far more so than the rest of us. None the less, his qualifications do not make his argument more or less truthful.
Pick any well-reasoned subject that you choose to bring up as a CSM, and instead imagine you advocate for it on a market alt. Does the well-reasoned argument you made become less factually valid?
Of course one can say “you don’t know what you’re talking about”. But that’s a barb to throw at someone while you tear their argument apart. Not as a way to ignore a reasoned argument.
I’m not speaking for or against the string of replies that spawned this comment, merely pointing out the error in such a position.
It’s not error. I need to know the experience of the person asserting knowledge of a subject. I can tell, looking at a killboard, whether that person has experience to back up the argument they are making, or if they are merely sharing an uninformed opinion.
It’s one of the reasons why guys in the military have their ranks and medals on their uniforms - you can tell, at a glance, the guy’s resume, where’s he been and done, and how good at his job he has been.
If a guy throws out opinions about wardecs, but has none on his KB, he’s not talking from experience. If somebody spends all their time in highsec and is complaning about nullsec, he’s not talking from experience.
It helps having that background when you have to read everything everybody says.
Such a position is understandable, but has it’s limitations. It’s also quite wrong, since the concept of a “main” really only pertains to individuals who pile up the majority of game functions under one character. How do you define a “main”? Is it the first character created? Is it the character with the most SP? Is it the one most frequently logged in? Or is it the one most frequently used, which is wholly separate from logging in?
This face I’m posting with, is arguably my main. It’s my third character created, with the second-most SP of this account, and the most frequently used. I log in with more hours in-game with the industry alt and my scouting alt, than I log in with this character.
With alts to handle different things, I decided a long time ago that this would be my forum “main”, and only. Having this be my face on the forums is no different than having a dedicated hauling alt, and should be recognized and respected as such.
If, instead, you meant to say something of a more reasonable position of “I wish people would post opinions with the characters relevant to the discussion”, well okay. That would be more reasonable. However, I’m not sure the forums even allow that anymore. I don’t know, I haven’t tried, but I remember CCP telling people when we moved to these forums that you could only pick one character (per account) to post with. If that’s true, what you’re wishing for simply isn’t feasible.
It’s also a direct violation of people’s privacy and security. If I had some sort of strong opinion on the state of freighters and freight shipping (spoiler alert: I don’t), you’d seem to want me to post with the character that flies a freighter. Except that’ll draw undue attention to that character and whatever freighting plight they happen to be in, making them even more vulnerable. It’s much the same when people actually do take to the forums to complain “I shouldn’t need a webbing alt to secure my freighter’s transit in highsec”. If posted with that freighter character, you’ve just put a big target on your back and identified a huge weakness you have. Why do you think so many people on the forum goad others into “post your killmail” or “post with your character that got ganked”? It’s because that free intel is highly valuable, and individuals have every right and every incentive to keep those details away from others.
So if I needed to complain about some aspect of nullsec, you’d expect me to post under a different character I might not be able to (if the 1-character per account rule is real), or reveal alts and/or draw attention to problems I don’t want to get worse.
Worse yet, you can always find more excuses to dismiss the arguments even after those conditions are met. If I complain about nullsec and post with a nullsec character, there’s nothing stopping you from dismissing the discussion based on, “Oh well you aren’t on many killmails, so you don’t have a lot of experience out there”. I fly logi 75% of the time, if I’m on killmails I’ve done something wrong. “Oh well you seem to only fly small gang, we’re talking big fleet battles”. “Oh you’re part of that big alliance, so nullsec is too safe for you anyway”. “Oh you’re part of that tiny fragmented alliance, you guys suck and don’t know how to play the game, that’s your problem”.
This is the problem with being dismissive on some arbitrary line in the sand; it doesn’t instill trust that you won’t just dismiss on other grounds. We only have your word on that. In the end, it doesn’t matter the mountains of experience a person does or doesn’t have, you’re probably going to match their opinion against whatever personal experience you have in the matter, and the plethora of other competing opinions on the matter. A person’s experience that they can prove should come in at the end of such considerations, to give greater weight to their opinions when all else is equal and the discussion is at a stalemate, not at the beginning to dismiss them.
I have multiple characters across multiple accounts, but this is the persona I’m known for, it’s the one I ran under, it’s the one most players see me playing and know it’s me, and they can look at my killboard or google the name and they’ll find plenty of stuff to show them that I’m not just a random forum alt talking about things I have no direct knowledge of.
Thus, literally everybody has me at a disadvantage because they know me and I don’t know them. Before I waste my time going down the rabbit hole with somebody, I want to know that I’m not wasting my time with a troll, somebody who doesn’t play the game anymore, etc.
Killboards are about the only way to show that, and I know they aren’t perfect, especially for activities that don’t require kill mails. But they’re about the only data we have, so I like to have it.
And yes, people will be dismissive regardless, but at least for me, I use it as a rule of thumb, especially when somebody is being belligerent out of the blue.
As for intel - that’s a risk folks should have to take. 
Fair enough.
Out of topic, irrelevant, useless digression.
As it was pointed out, stick to the subject and relevant arguments, the appeal to authority is just an well know judgement error and a cognitive bias.
Why are you insist so much on that, is your position so unsustainable just by pure logic and valid argumentation? To bad…
PS: This is my “main” and the only forum “alt” so you will need to be content with that
Not an appeal to authority - it’s simply being able to determine credibility based on experience. Not saying “I’m right because,” it’s simply my way of determining what value to place on someone’s opinion.
Blah blah, your are captive in the same logical error, “some point of view matters as much as the point of origin is an authoritative figure”.
Focus instead on arguments, not on judgment shortcuts good just for some lazy minds, the kind who let others to think in their place just because they “know better”.
Go pick up a copy of “The Death of Expertise” by Tom Nichols.
Haha, the same pattern. “read X, he know better, i don’t even need to use my own logic or bring arguments”. It was just funny if this kind of thinking was not the origin of the sheeple mentality who leaded to so many horrific things…