Running for CSM next year:

[Salvos_Rhoska]

@Annah_Tsero

I don’t have to answer

Fine.
Dont answer.

I would have no problem having a drink with you.

[Mingja]

@Salvos_Rhoska

Odd, since thats what Ive been doing this entire time.

Odd, I don’t see that happening anywhere in this thread.

[Salvos_Rhoska]

@Mingja

Would he actually engage in a discussion with them (or players, for that matter)

This is what I would and will do.

@Mingja

So far, I don’t see that he has the ability to do just that.

Odd, since thats what Ive been doing this entire time.

@Mingja

Having discussions.

Ive had more discussions with more players on this forum than anyone else.

[Salvos_Rhoska]

@Mingja

@Salvos_Rhoska

Odd, since thats what Ive been doing this entire time.

Odd, I don’t see that happening anywhere in this thread.

That is odd.
Its almost as if you are blind to claim that.

Selective reading or cognition, perhaps?
Or just trolling?

[Noragen_Neirfallas]

Not even a Multi Dollar campaign fund…

[Salvos_Rhoska]

@Lucas_Kell

Any independent CSM candidate offers this.

False.

Also, whom is an “independent CSM candidate” as you refer to?

@Lucas_Kell

What Salvos is campaigning for is the end of the CSM, which will give you no options to have independent representation to CCP.

False.

Im campaigning for change to CSM, and failing that, disbandment, for my voters whim agree with my platform that CSM is not fulfilling its function as intended.

@Lucas_Kell

The reason there’s a group of them is so that there’s a variety of opinion, and STV helps make sure there is more of a balance of views.

In which my opinion will also stand, for balance.

[Salvos_Rhoska]

@Noragen_Neirfallas

Not even a Multi Dollar campaign fund…

What is that supposed to mean?

[Mingja]

@Salvos_Rhoska

Ive had more discussions with more players on this forum than anyone else.

Care to define what you think a discussion is?

Because:

@Salvos_Rhoska

And that will be immediately gamed by people setting up alt corps/alliances specifically for that player to ensure they abide by this rule.

That’s fine.
All subsequent CSM business will nonetheless have to be run on that character, and it will be unable to join another Corp/Alliance that currently has a seated CSM with its tags.

This is what you appearantly call “argumentation”.

Which was later answered with:

@Brisc_Rubal

Which is again meaningless. It’s simply a paperwork regulation that will be ignored in practice.

Which you answered with:

@Salvos_Rhoska

It is not meaningless and means that CSM will be not officially or practically associated with a Corp/Alliance with another seated CSM, and thereby all transfers benefits to that character as CSM will be traceable.

Also means Corp/Alliances will only be able to field one candidate to move to a seat, per year. If there are more than 1 candidate with that Corp/Alliance tag, only the one that gets the most votes will get a single seat on CSM.

You are not understanding/thinking through the repercussions.
Take some time and ruminate on it.

Which was refuted with:

@Brisc_Rubal

there is nothing, under this philosophy, of a larger group like the Imperium putting out a ballot with a list of names, each person being in a different corp/alliance, and still winning races the way they have in the past.

As I said, it’s a book keeping thing, not something that is a substantive barrier to reducing any specific outside group’s electoral effectiveness. Whether I’m in INIT or in the Brisc Rubal Alliance, my voters and my friends will still vote for me, regardless of whatever tag I’ve got on.

Which was ‘magically’ refuted with an:

@Salvos_Rhoska

That does not invalidate the proposed change.

You have not presented any argument of significance, other than “Because I think so”.

So no, I don’t think you do. Unless you could maybe elaborate on that, which you still haven’t, after being asked a dozen times.

[Salvos_Rhoska]

Looks like discussion with players to me.

[Brisc_Rubal]

Right after this video, I ran two marathons.

In the same day.

Prove me wrong.

[Mingja]

@Salvos_Rhoska

Looks like discussion with players to me.

So, you do consider “Because I say so” an argument, even when the facts presented strongly indicate that you are wrong?

For context: fact’s are:, the game already provides the means to circumvent your proposed restrictions. Fact is: many players have used corp switches to their advantage already and there is 0 reason to assume they will stop doing that.

[Salvos_Rhoska]

@Brisc_Rubal

Right after this video, I ran two marathons.

In the same day.

Prove me wrong.

You are just digging yourself deeper, and stacking lies upon lies.

[Jonah_Gravenstein]

@Salvos_Rhoska

Selective reading or cognition, perhaps?
Or just trolling?

Irony.

Not just a metallic taste.

[Salvos_Rhoska]

@Lucas_Kell

Oh, and just FYI, I personally would not have a drink with you. That’s not because we’re “enemies”, I just don’t tend to go out for a drink with random people from the internet, particularly if they’ve repeatedly shown signs of unhealthy behaviours that could lead to stalking and harassment. It’s simply a risk I’d rather avoid.

I would have a drink with you, despite me thinking exactly the same you posted above, about you.

Its just a game. Did you forget that?

[Salvos_Rhoska]

@Mingja

So, you do consider “Because I say so” an argument, even when the facts presented strongly indicate that you are wrong?

Wrong about what?

What facts?

[Annah_Tsero]

RL is not a game…

[Noragen_Neirfallas]

It’s a dig at goons Multi Dollar media empire that has really just become an eve thing however in that video the other guys said he contributed a dollar something to his campaign (which is likely the price of a choclate or can of soda or even the spare change in his pocket) so I said ‘Not even a multi dollar Campaign fund’

[Jonah_Gravenstein]

Obligatory Grrr Goons.

[Mingja]

@Salvos_Rhoska

Wrong about what?

What facts?

Scroll up. It’s only 4 / 8 posts above you. Since you don’t have the courtesy to repeat your statements, I won’t have the courtesy to repeat my questions.

[Brisc_Rubal]

@Dantelion_Shinoni

At least Salvos offers an option for those who indeed do not like the CSM being metagamed for political influence.

This is an option that deserves to exist, the CSM could benefit from someone having a seat and making sure suggestions and mechanics are not used in a political way.

I like the CSM and wouldn’t want to see it disbanded, but I can get behind someone making sure mechanics and patches are fair.

The biggest problem here is that it operates from a false assumption. The CSM is not being metagamed for political influence - at least, not any more.

Regardless of where my in-game loyalties may lie, I would have absolutely put my foot down if I thought that anybody was suggesting things that were designed solely to benefit their own playstyle or in-game interests.

I have no patience for that, and I’m not going to sit and let it happen without saying something. What I saw in Iceland at the summit was ten players from different interests and areas of the game all working together to fix problems and address concerns that players have, because they all love the game and want to see it succeed.

Period. If there was any nonsense, I would be the first one decrying it. There was none.