CSM 10 Canidate Watch - Who is for and who is against our gameplay

Voting Starts today, PLEASE VOTE no matter who you choose!
Last day to vote is 3-10-2015

(Work In progress)
- Questions I posed to the CSM 10 Candidates
http://pastebin.com/yubTB4sR
- Sources are direct emails if no direct source is given, else I will link articles or podcasts etc.
- I am the Judge and Jury in this particular thread, but if you think I am off base with a candidate please chime in, i'll likely change my decision with a good argument.

For Multiboxing

Angrod Losshelin
Supports all current multiboxing and looks to advocate for multiboxing in the CSM. Source His CSM post and various podcasts.
https://forums.eveonline.com/default...24&find=unread
Also see - http://pastebin.com/Vne8j73w
--
Aeon Boirelle
"This may lose me a few votes, but I believe that CCP was a little hasty in the way they tried to solve the issues that IS boxer was creating. And despite all the predictions in the forum post for it, I have yet to see a significant drop in plex price, or a better profit margin on industry. I have however noticed an decline in user online activity in the recent months, and a decrease in the value of deadspace modules which affects the income of High and Null alike. I believe that CCP should re-address this issue to come up with a solution that better addresses the problems at hand."
https://sites.google.com/site/csmwir.../aeon-boirelle
Extended response here - http://pastebin.com/it8D7kbx
--
Soelent
(Putting him on the side of FOR Multiboxing, with an * next to his name. Long response, good answers but might be swayed for more restrictions)
http://pastebin.com/LtH2tcic
--
Sion Kumitomo
"As I said in my thread, I'm not writing out individual essay questions in evemail. However, as far as multiboxing goes, I have no problem with it at all."
--
Lyonic
"People should be aspiring to having multiple accounts. Whether for extra mining power, extra ratting power, eyes, cyno's etc. If someone wants to pay for say 5 or so accounts and use a programme to control them all then I dont really see the problem. The real problems lie with highsec."
--
Ryan Farmern
(I've been told in this thread he's supportive of multiboxing, but I awaiting his response to my questions).
--
Alyxportur
(He's against Input Duplication but everything else he's solidly in our corner. I am giving him hesitant approval.)
"My overall opinion: Multiboxing is an asset to EVE and should never be completely removed."
Entire response - http://pastebin.com/jdrFn3pn
--
Xander Phoena
Pushed for input duplication removal. Source Capstable Podcast Interview. However he contacted me over twitter to say that "My position is 100% the same as Alyxportur fwiw."
Therefor, I have placed Xander into the "For Multiboxing with an * Column" and offered for him to provide further clarification on other things like VFX and Round-Robin. Considering his push to get Input Duplication banned while on CSM 9 and since round-robin and VFX can be used instead (with very similar results) I am not yet convinced he will also be for them and JUST against ID. I have offered him a chance to clarify his position which I hope he will take me up on.
http://capstable.net/2015/02/21/xander-phoena/
--
Tora Bushido
"After listening to the "Open Comms Show" I've changed my mind. I think you are correct to say that there are many other ways people have an advantage on the other players (plex, websites, etc). Input Duplication and other tools are just one of them. If you want to ban one, you should ban them all. And since I do not want to nerf Eve to death, I rather keep them all."
Sent via email
Re: http://show.gamingradio.net/2015/02/...-not-dead-yet/
(Conversation starts around 1h 45m?)
--
CCP Pelgio
(he's not running OFC, but I find his commentary spot on) :
"This is more or less CCP’s stance on multiboxing, if you filed a ticket asking if you can multibox, in a nutshell it says that CCP will never sanction or authorize use of a third party program because we don’t have control over the feature set. That’s why there might be some confusion because there is a sort of grey area. We will action on it if […] This is the stance outlined on the third party policy page on our website. So this is the amount of accounts we have flagged […] ISboxers will frequently contact us because it is a grey area […] We have stats on what ISboxers are doing […] but there’s no standard ISboxer. Peligro's edit: Refer to http://community.eveonline.com/suppo...partypolicies/

...So that’s input duplication right? Whether or not that’s a breach of section 6-b is a bit of a grey area, it’s not clear cut. I don’t see us sanctioning it though, but it is something I’d like input from you guys on.

...But at the same time, if he makes a mistake that mistake is replicated 40 times, or if he disconnects. We have some stats […] bombers are pretty popular, but the biggest portion is mining. So if you skip to the next one […] Botting accounts get caught pretty early now, the average age now is […] Some people use it because of cpu optimization too, they just use it to run ten windows and don’t use the other options at all. Stealth bombing lends itself to ISboxing pretty well, and is popular amongst suicide gankers too. ISboxers die a lot, they aren’t elite pvpers"

http://cdn1.eveonline.com/community/...nutes_2014.pdf

Grey Area Response

June Ting (Slightly in the "For" Column?)
(Advocates for changing to mechanics it seems)
"Please see my responses in https://forums.eveonline.com/default...02#post5313102 as to multiboxing and alts."
--
Suzy RC Mudstone (Slightly in the "For" Column?)(Unfair to state he is against all multiboxing, seems ok with input duplication ban but might draw the line there.)
http://pastebin.com/9D72H7pL
--
Vaari (Slightly in the "For" Column?)
(Semi on the fence) : "I have no opinion on input duplication. If they allow efficient botting or give advantage in battles, im against them,
OF course with no number limitations.
CCP brotherhood say many things. He stated his ideal world, but in my ideal world would not be pirates. Utopia is utopia and will never be reality.
I dont know enought of this matter to have my own opinion."
--
Janwa Resh
(He's against Input Duplication but for limited macros. Is a programmer. Seems for multiple account usage to an extent but I can't really decide where he fits in.)
https://forums.eveonline.com/default...71#post5516471
--
Chance Ravinne
(He's a word smith, excellent at marketing and certainly a politician when it comes to tough questions. Reading in-between the lines I am gonna place him in the Grey zone but I am almost certain hes "Against" all forms of multiboxing. Sadly his other speaking points would make him a great candidate, its with a heavy heart I place him in the Grey / Against column.)
http://pastebin.com/A6x80Ze5

Against Multiboxing

CoreBloodBrothers
Pushed for input duplication removal. Source CSM 9 Summer Minutes.
"We felt with isboxer we where talking too a wall, but CCP came around bigtime. I hate isboxer bomberwings."
http://cdn1.eveonline.com/community/...nutes_2014.pdf
--
CivilWars
Response from emailed question list - "I oppose input broadcasting as much as I oppose spam mails."
--
Commander Aze
"good question and no I don't support key duplication across accounts. I think it promotes a play style that one person can be their own fleet. Removing from the true multiplayer aspects t of the game. Sent via mobile phone so this might not come out well. Thank you commander aze"
--
Aiwha
(incredibly insightly commentary, he's highly recommended)
"Its bad. Its gamebreaking. You should stop doing it."
--
Jenshae Chiroptera
(confusing statements but he's pretty much against most current forms of multiboxing)
https://forums.eveonline.com/default...13#post5437013
but then writes
"If you can ALT+Tab then control your characters, that is fine and ...... maybe some very specific instances of mapping keys from one keyboard to another computer or client but they would be keys unique to each client and this would then cut down the available keys per client for each one you run; reducing possible commands, not having timed broadcasts and having an inherent cost to benefit ratio."
--
Sabriz Adoudel
(Against Input Duplication, "advanced" keyboards, ISBoxer, Autohotkey and anything else that "provides significant in-game bonuses to people based upon their computer hardware"
Full Response here - http://pastebin.com/KjprzAyy

Ryan Farmern is our CEO and has good knowledge of multiboxing in Eve. My vote is for him x 12 before my accounts expire.

Holy Christ I hate politics

Polarizing....constituents....hmph my only love for politics is Kevin Spacey in house of cards

That forum post is enlightening

I like his style, and for usual reasons the vast majority of idiocy in that forum post wants to see him burn

At this point, as far as I can tell, aside from the few multiboxers who are still holding a grudge on ccp for input duplication changes, the rest have (hopefully) accepted CCP's stance on input duplication and now just want more....guidance? A clear communication that multiboxing manually won't suddenly spawn drop banhammers

The complete lack of ccps communication has a feeling of impending doom

First time ive voted in CSM, will vote for him when my accounts get unbanned if I bother resubbing

I'm trying to find other candidates who support multiboxing / using isboxer etc.

No one mentions in their CapStable interviews. I'll start reaching out directly to people.

I personally want them to roll back the input duplication ban AND/OR provide very clear answers to what is allowed and not allowed. The feature set for ISBoxer is extremely well documented, it would be very easy for them to say what is and what isnt allowed.

Furthermore, why CCP wont let player's share their responses from GM mails is completely ridiculous.

pretty big update, a few CSM candidates responded plus I digged through NosyGamers CSM Wire and found a few more.
https://sites.google.com/site/csmwire/

https://sites.google.com/site/csmwir...tweenccpandcsm

oh the irony

added a few more candidate responses

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bugme143

https://sites.google.com/site/csmwir...tweenccpandcsm

oh the irony

---

So you could say her position has...evolved?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by shadowandlight

I'm trying to find other candidates who support multiboxing / using isboxer etc.


I personally want them to roll back the input duplication ban AND/OR provide very clear answers to what is allowed and not allowed. T
Furthermore, why CCP wont let player's share their responses from GM mails is completely ridiculous.

---

Can't comment on the input duplication since it is completely CCP's choice and they have no reason to facilitate that change back for us

However, the clear answers is mandatory

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ughmahedhurtz

So you could say her position has...evolved?

---

Nah, I was just laughing at her going on and on about "being more in contact" and then looking at what they did to FunkyBacon (tl;dr: created separate skype room without him and then blamed him for not "being there").

Also: Aeon is an incursioner (From Helix, IIRC) and might be a multiboxer. It's been a while since I've seen him in-game, so I may be wrong.

updated a few posts (Xander for instance has stated he is for everything EXCEPT Input Duplication, so assuming that doesnt mean he's against VFX and Round-Robin I have in the "For" column with an *.

I'd point out that Corbexx is relatively for multiboxing.

I was, and still am, personally in agreement with CCP's removal of input duplication, as the shenanigans that can be done escalate pretty quickly. He agrees with me on that, is a pretty good friend, and has always been very open minded in terms of multiboxing.

He recognizes that we're just people who play the game, like everyone else. We both agree that people shouldn't be running 40man incursions solo with something that doesn't resemble eve at all, but there's nothing wrong or broken with people playing multiple accounts in much the same way as everyone else.

I'm not sure how voting is going this year, but he's definitely gonna be one of my top picks / vote.

Except Bikkus sunk massive amounts of ISK and time into his setup, so why are we punishing him for that? Shall we also punish titan pilots who can take a carrier off the field with the push of a button? A single group of talos or catalysts will render a site's work wasted for him. For any VG boxer, a catalyst or talos fleet will stop the ISK income for a day, and if they catch a ship, they'll render two days wasted. For the multibombers, they're on the record stating that defensive bubbles will stop them from a bombing run. For the multiminers, again, catalysts are the source of income disruption. We shouldn't be punished because someone doesn't want to hop into a Talos or Catalyst.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bugme143

Except Bikkus sunk massive amounts of ISK and time into his setup, so why are we punishing him for that? Shall we also punish titan pilots who can take a carrier off the field with the push of a button? A single group of talos or catalysts will render a site's work wasted for him. For any VG boxer, a catalyst or talos fleet will stop the ISK income for a day, and if they catch a ship, they'll render two days wasted. For the multibombers, they're on the record stating that defensive bubbles will stop them from a bombing run. For the multiminers, again, catalysts are the source of income disruption. We shouldn't be punished because someone doesn't want to hop into a Talos or Catalyst.

---

The amount of isk invested has absolutely nothing to do with whether something should be nerfed or not - the point is you shouldn't nerf things too far when you're doing the nerfing.

Counterpoint? Supercaps.

Titans. Back in the day, they had DDs that could target everything, they could be tracking fit and blap almost anything off the field, especially if it was moving in a straight line with no transversal. This was before t2 siege, so they were also the highest dps ships in the game bar none.

Supercarriers - Before fighterbombers were nerfed, they shot actual missiles. With a few target painters on your target, you could use your fighterbombers to apply nearly 8k dps and 120k alpha almost 100% onto nearly any target in the game.

Both of these were incredibly broken things. If you don't believe me, watch the first seven minutes of https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mw4lWgEaEIc especially the wyvern footage.
CCP ended up nerfing Titans into being completely useless EXCEPT for their one broken ability - DD, which are now only used in no risk gank situations, or for the once a year massive lagfest because no other weapons BESIDES DD work in such hi lag situations. This effectively turned the game into the boring blue blobfest we have today, since the only remaining tactic was the one goons already used - bring the biggest blob of subcaps to the field or fuck off.

Supercarriers were nerfed into uselessness as well, until very recently when they were rebuffed a bit so you could do some things with fighters.

When CCP nerfed Titans, there were several hundred in the game. Between PL and Raiden, we had almost half of the active titans in the game iirc. Collectively, that massive collection of military hardware worth >30 trillion isk(very low estimate, not counting inactives, and this is just those two alliances TITANs - forget the supercarriers) was nerfed into complete uselessness overnight.

No matter how much time or isk Bikkus sunk into his setup, it wasn't even close to the amount of time and isk sunk into the pre-nerf supercap fleets.

The point is - instead of outright banning multiboxing, or isboxer, and making his entire setup 100% useless, much like CCP did in the case of supers, they only gave it a soft nerf - to input broadcasting. There is nothing wrong with this, much like there'd be nothing wrong with CCP objectively looking at titans, preserving them as an antiblob weapon, but removing the more broken/stupid things like jump bridge or DD from them.

CCP's removal of input broadcasting was very measured, showed quite some restraint, and as we've proven since - it hasn't killed multiboxing, nor has it crippled/effected anyone beyond the lazy, incompetent, or those pushing things a little too far.

Most of us adapted, and are continuing much as before without issue.

You could always do something with titans (bridges, clone vat bays) and supercarriers (skynet fighters / repping, remote ECM bursts). Just because people were too chicken to use them doesn't mean they were useless. CCP gave people the tools, and people refused to use the tools.
Just like multiboxing. CCP didn't magic-away Catalysts and Talos, people just refused to use them, and instead whined on the forums and cried in petitions.

Unless you missed it, CCP did basically ban multiboxing. Rollover, round robin, running fast enough with videoFX, are all being banned by GMs, CCP refuses to say anything, lied to us when they said they'd have a sit-down, and certain CCP and CSM members are on the record for stating that they want to ban actual multiboxing / multiple accounts per person.

What's Corbexx position on Round Robin, Rollover and VFX?

also BTW, your voting is saved when you login / logout of your accounts... so voting will be pretty easy....

NO MATTER WHO YOU VOTE FOR, please go out and vote! This is an important election for 0.0 Sov, WH mechanics and Multiboxing

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by shadowandlight

What's Corbexx position on Round Robin, Rollover and VFX?

---

So far as I know he shares my beliefs that Round Robin/Rollover might be "shenanigans" that CCP might take offense to.

People are welcome to do em, but they might be against CCP's intentions. He's generally live and let live as far as multiboxing goes.

He definitely agrees with me that VFX multiboxing is perfectly fine and should remain perfectly fine - he supports that continuing to be in the game, and for multiboxing to continue being a potential thing for people to do so far as I know.

inb4 "one client one person"

The OP needs to add Ryan Farmern to the list for multiboxers. I guarantee he is more supportive of multiboxing than anyone on the list. He runs what was once a multiboxing corp.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pinotnoir

The OP needs to add Ryan Farmern to the list for multiboxers. I guarantee he is more supportive of multiboxing than anyone on the list. He runs what was once a multiboxing corp.

---

copy, ill track down his thread and also send him the list of questions.

Quote:

---

From: Tora Bushido
Sent: 2015.02.26 13:44
To: ShadowandLight


After listening to the "Open Comms Show" I've changed my mind. I think you are correct to say that there are many other ways people have an advantage on the other players (plex, websites, etc). Input Duplication and other tools are just one of them. If you want to ban one, you should ban them all. And since I do not want to nerf Eve to death, I rather keep them all.


Tora

---

Re: http://show.gamingradio.net/2015/02/...-not-dead-yet/
(Conversation starts around 1h 45m?)

Ryan's response on multiboxing ... I'm not sure he's the best candidate for MB'ers to rally around...

Quote:

---

Yes I do support multiboxing.


However, the broken part of multiboxing is overuse of combat.


If you want a mining fleet, you should be able to jetcan, assist drones, dock/undock without worrying about a ban.


But doing bombing runs (or any other pvp) or breaking the economy running incursions should be not allowed when using IS Boxer, everything else I think is fine.

---

Quote:

---

breaking the economy running incursions

---

[Citation Needed]

As for bombing waves, how many times do we have to tell these guys that THE BOMBER-BOXERS THEMSELVES SAID THAT DEFENSIVE BUBBLES ARE THEIR #1 ENEMY??? They said right on the forums that defensive bubbles will make them not bomb.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by shadowandlight

Ryan's response on multiboxing ... I'm not sure he's the best candidate for MB'ers to rally around...

---

I asked him about it. Guess he had a change of heart or he is trying to do politics. I really don't know. I am going to take a break from the game because of the changes. It's just not fun being so restricted on what I can and cannot do.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bugme143

[Citation Needed]

As for bombing waves, how many times do we have to tell these guys that THE BOMBER-BOXERS THEMSELVES SAID THAT DEFENSIVE BUBBLES ARE THEIR #1 ENEMY??? They said right on the forums that defensive bubbles will make them not bomb.

---

ISboxer is great at exacerbating the problem areas within the game. The problem isn't multiboxing incursions and bombers, but the game mechanics themselves.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EaTCarbS

ISboxer is great at exacerbating the problem areas within the game. The problem isn't multiboxing incursions and bombers, but the game mechanics themselves.

---

I'd buy that for a dollar if people (corebloodbrother) would talk about the game mechanics themselves and try to fix them instead of finding a scapegoat with which to pin everything on.

I'm curious to know if these people like Commander Aze know that it's easy to be your own fleet even without isboxer.

It's like these people never played in the olden days before these tools were produced.

So CoreBloodBrothers is a CSM. It doesn't look good for multiboxers.

well sadly no one we wanted on the CSM made it, but with 75 candidates and the power of large voting blocs made that a huge challenge to being with.

Here's the candidates who made it

https://i.imgur.com/0qkEyxe.jpg

That all said and done, there are a few people I know for sure are either indifferent or in-favor of multiboxing (Sion being probably the most prominent of that group).

Well I'm not surprised as the core null blocks control the CSM.

>.>
<.<
*flees the angry mob*