The head of evil in New Eden wrote yet another piece. Looks pretty harmless. Some smug, some lies about the conspiracy to control HERO, excuses for betraying his Rus allies, business as usual in Hell, I guess. But at the bottom he was careless and instead of just ignoring/censoring a revealing comment, he answered it.
The commenter asked why renters are considered top-down income source, despite they operate the same way as the model bottom-up: ratting. In both cases Average Joe rats, gets taxed, the corp sends the taxed money to coalition level for services like SRP for the fleet defending the land where the ratting takes place. The only difference is that the money is called "rent" instead of "leveraging corp taxes on the megacorp". The commenter seems to be right.
His answer is "You, as a line member, have zero agency regarding that [top-down] alliance income" and "[bottom-up] directly ties the fortune and success of the line grunt to the alliance as a whole" and "Renters are actually even more top-down than a money moon, as moons must be serviced by logisticians and their products sold and then sent to the alliance wallet". This just seems dumb, as renter money must be farmed by the line renter guys and he learned the hard way that renters are quick to respond if they aren't treated well. His answer simply doesn't make sense. It's not propaganda, it's just honestly dumb.
The solution is that he honestly finds the question naive, because in his view, the "line member" doesn't include renters, despite they do exactly what line members do on the PvE front. He views renters not as humans, but as objects like moons or reaction farms. But why? Not because the renter is a PvE player, as he considers "provides a place for players with a non-PvP focus in an alliance" a benefit of bottom-up and also Goons are the biggest ratters in nullsec.
The renter is not considered human, because he isn't a Goon or at least someone who kissed the ring of the Goons. Therefore his well-being isn't considered, his effort isn't valued, he is just a bad mechanic that should be replaced by a "true" bottom-up method, one that relies only on Goons and not on these filthy things.
This shows that mutually beneficial cooperation with Goons cannot exist. PBLRD members went as far as one can go to cooperate with Goons. Yet they aren't even humans in their eyes. Besides total slavery, there is no way for you to make them consider you. This is as close to the idea "evil" as it can be.
PS: if idiocy could kill... oh wait, it can.
The commenter asked why renters are considered top-down income source, despite they operate the same way as the model bottom-up: ratting. In both cases Average Joe rats, gets taxed, the corp sends the taxed money to coalition level for services like SRP for the fleet defending the land where the ratting takes place. The only difference is that the money is called "rent" instead of "leveraging corp taxes on the megacorp". The commenter seems to be right.
His answer is "You, as a line member, have zero agency regarding that [top-down] alliance income" and "[bottom-up] directly ties the fortune and success of the line grunt to the alliance as a whole" and "Renters are actually even more top-down than a money moon, as moons must be serviced by logisticians and their products sold and then sent to the alliance wallet". This just seems dumb, as renter money must be farmed by the line renter guys and he learned the hard way that renters are quick to respond if they aren't treated well. His answer simply doesn't make sense. It's not propaganda, it's just honestly dumb.
The solution is that he honestly finds the question naive, because in his view, the "line member" doesn't include renters, despite they do exactly what line members do on the PvE front. He views renters not as humans, but as objects like moons or reaction farms. But why? Not because the renter is a PvE player, as he considers "provides a place for players with a non-PvP focus in an alliance" a benefit of bottom-up and also Goons are the biggest ratters in nullsec.
The renter is not considered human, because he isn't a Goon or at least someone who kissed the ring of the Goons. Therefore his well-being isn't considered, his effort isn't valued, he is just a bad mechanic that should be replaced by a "true" bottom-up method, one that relies only on Goons and not on these filthy things.
This shows that mutually beneficial cooperation with Goons cannot exist. PBLRD members went as far as one can go to cooperate with Goons. Yet they aren't even humans in their eyes. Besides total slavery, there is no way for you to make them consider you. This is as close to the idea "evil" as it can be.
PS: if idiocy could kill... oh wait, it can.
24 comments:
You are becoming ever more altruistic and left wing in your views, it rather suits you, aside from the Beck-isms.
I never thought I would read you arguing for social behaviour and utilitarianism.
You're overreacting a lot. He just meant renters aren't part of the CFC, therefore cannot be called line members working for all. From an alliance point of view, this is an external income, like moons.
Renting is a market transaction. You negotiate terms (or more likely the different landlords offer terms and you take the best one) and you both get something out of it.
The Mittani on the other hand rejects this market solution and accept only communism: you must be a member to take part in the exchange and must do so by blindly accepting the terms of the leadership.
I'm merely arguing against communism for a more free-market method.
@Next anon: just because it's external, it's still bottom-up, just like ores are coming from mining even if I never mined and buy my ores on the market.
According to the lore, there are NPC workers on the moon towers. According to The Mittani, renter players aren't different from NPC workers, just because they aren't in CFC.
I concur with the above anon that you seem to be reading too far into it.
It is a miniscule piece of the whole picture, of course. But it is a piece so miniscule that using just it alone to judge the whole picture is a very weak position to take.
I expected a bit more out of a post titled "Evil reveals himself" :(
As for the content of MIttani's message, i don't actually find it objectionable. In dealing with renters, he is not dealing with every individual line members of the renter corps. He is dealing with renter corps as summary entities. The renter is not considered human because he is a corp.
Or are you saying that Mittani (or in this case anyone at all in an alliance CEO position) should be altruistic and care about the game-lifes of every single human affiliated with his every single business partner? I find this expectation unrealistic at best.
You do realize that a "real" bottom up solution would provide a means for the renters to break the yoke of rentership and take space for themselves because it would be physically impossible to "work" the amount of occupied territory that the alliances currently hold?
You also realise that both the N3 and PL think of renting in precisely the same way?
You also realise that not once does Mittens refer to or even imply that his renters are sub-human - merely (and correctly) that they are not CFC members?
You do also understand that Mittens' desire for a "farms and fields" style sov nulsec complies fully with your desires and belief that the wealth of individuals should equal the power of the alliance?
Seems as though you are posting just to be a contrarian.. and a a factually inaccurate one at that.
@Maxim: an in-alliance corp is also not a human but a corp and the alliance and especially coalition leadership doesn't treat them individually but as corps and alliances.
The point is that he doesn't recognize an obviously bottom-up system because its basic worker is not in CFC. In other words, he sees no difference between the renter human and the NPCs working on the moon tower.
@Anonymous: renters don't WANT to break rentership. If they wanted to, they wouldn't rent but try to apply to sov-holder groups. They are PvE oriented and happily pay for the protection of the landlord instead of having to fleet up themselves and fight enemies.
The Mittani on the other hand rejects this market solution and accept only communism: you must be a member to take part in the exchange and must do so by blindly accepting the terms of the leadership
because he knows, through the bitter and hard lessons of 8 years playing the game that in the bubble that is eve online space communism is proven to work effectively. This brand of organisation consistently out performs attempts at capitalist ideology because at it's core Eve is a game that deals with interactions and a common *social* goal.
There have been attempts in the past to run capitalist space empires...it has never ever worked.
Wrong! Renters are the living capitalism. Instead of being in any society, they engage in mutually beneficial market transaction with the landlord. They have no bonds with the landlord, they are just here for the space access and give nothing but rent.
In other words, he sees no difference between the renter human and the NPCs working on the moon tower.
It seems that you do not understand what bottom up income is, which is surprising since he described it in his post. It's not bottom up if the "bottom" you are talking about aren't receiving the funds back down the line. The CFC doesn't pay renters SRP or anything, so their income is not bottom up. The rental income also doesn't scale with the renting corps wealth.
In the simplest terms, a renter is simply paying the CFC for a service like any other service agreement, while a CFC line member is taxed, and the CFC uses the income from both streams to pay for it's members public services.
The renter cannot receive SRP since he is not flying PvP. The landlord captured the land, and the landlord fights enemies trying to take it.
The renter does not want to PvP. therefore he wants to rent. He does not want to CTA etc.
The part underneath your quote says
"Bottom Up Income: Alliance income flows through an alliance taxation mechanic, like the corp tax mechanic. This does not presently exist."
the important sentence is "this does not currently exist"
"Top Down Income:.....This is the status quo across all alliances, and there is no other method of alliance income to speak of."
So, all alliances, not just goons have this mechanism.
You (and Mittens) both need CCP to implement a method of isk to flow from the bottom up.
The renter cannot receive SRP since he is not flying PvP. The landlord captured the land, and the landlord fights enemies trying to take it.
How does that change the fact that a renter is paying for a service, and is not a line member? Simple question: have you read the clear description of bottom up and top down income, and do you understand it? It would probably be handy if you tried to write exactly what it is you define as bottom up and top down so we can understand your point of view.
If the alliance line members are earning isk and feeding some of it up the line, that's bottom up income (which is good, since the wealth of the alliance is controlled by the wealth of the members, and I know from your previous posts about PVE groups in alliances this is somethign you support). If the alliance members are not, and the income source is coming from somewhere else into the alliance coffers, that's top down (which is bad, because this is controlled by the leaders who can filter as much or as little down to the line members as they want).
The way you are looking at it, is that if a person is "working the land" so to speak, then the isk they pay for their rent is coming from a peasant and it's bottom up. But almost all isk in the game comes from "working the land", therefore in your eyes all income anyone gets is bottom up.
Basically the guy asking the question has no idea what he's talking about, and thinks that bottom up means PvE is at the bottom, PvP at the top and PvE grinding up to PvP players is bottom up. He's wrong.
Bottom up is when line members farm it, it's taxed and moves up.
Renters are line members, just not the members of your alliance. But it doesn't make them less line members or their taxed income less bottom-up.
Bottom up is when line members farm it, it's taxed and moves up.
Renters are line members, just not the members of your alliance. But it doesn't make them less line members or their taxed income less bottom-up.
What? You just said it yourself: "line members farm it, it's taxed". Paying for a service is not tax. They pay their set fee and that's that.
Not to mention that they aren't line members at all, which is why they don't receive SRP, spoils of war, etc, and don't have to do anything the coalition wants, like fight on the front line. They simply pay for a service. Are you a Marmite and MOA line member because you pay for them to wardec people?
They are line members of their own renter corps. The renter corp has bottom-up income and uses this income to pay for a service.
If you insist on looking on alliances, then The Mittani is evil for a different reason: he wants only corps like his own to be in nullsec and wants CCP to eliminate the renter corps which are homes of 1/3 of the Sov-null population.
They are line members of their own renter corps. The renter corp has bottom-up income and uses this income to pay for a service.
Perhaps they do, but that's their income, not the CFCs income. To the CFC that's top down, much like someone buying their moongoo.
If you insist on looking on alliances, then The Mittani is evil for a different reason: he wants only corps like his own to be in nullsec and wants CCP to eliminate the renter corps which are homes of 1/3 of the Sov-null population.Does he? It seems like the current state of null means that only alliances like his can own space in null and everyone else has to rent off of alliances like his. Looks to me like the changes he wants to to make the ownership of space more accessible to people who can't form up 4000 people at the drop of a hat.
He's not exactly my favourite person in the world, but a lot of what he says in these latest posts makes sense. It seems to me like you want a reason to hate him and call him evil, so you'll twist anything he says to that end.
"Bottom up is when line members farm it, it's taxed and moves up."
Yes, and as Mittens says....this would be through an alliance tax method, like corp tax.
Is there an inbuilt alliance level tax function?
This is what mittens is saying, there is NO bottom up methods available at the moment ingame
@Gevlon
[ quote ] The point is that he doesn't recognize an obviously bottom-up system because its basic worker is not in CFC. In other words, he sees no difference between the renter human and the NPCs working on the moon tower. [ /endquote ]
I don't see how that is a problem, really. Mittani is not responsible for basic workers of other alliances. Therefore it makes sense for him to obfuscate this basic worker. This alone hardly makes him "evil". If this is "evil revealing its face" than i submit to you that all top managers everywhere are evil, because they "reveal their faces" like that all the time.
The argument that people deal with corps in their own alliances and not with basic workers in their own alliances would make sense. However, an alliance leader can still make the choice to treat his alliance as "bottom-up", thus taking (or at least feigning) interest in grunts of his alliance. And if he does it with his alliance exclusively, i really don't see it as a problem.
Rereading Mittani's original linked post, i really get the distinct feeling that when he said that he was a "much bigger fan of bottom-up systems", he meant from the point of view of his own alliance.
If you try to consider his words from some universal point of view - like you are trying to - then the whole notion of "top-down" makes exactly zero sense. There is no alliance-operated property that doesn't require grunt input to operate in the game. Therefore there is no way for any alliance at all to "spoonfeed ISK to grunts" without taking ISK from grunts in the first place.
The "top-down" situation is thus best described as a situation where a game entity exploits the work of grunts of other game entity to benefit its own. In that regard, alliances enjoying rent benefits are very much top-down.
He wrote an article about how to better the whole EVE, while paying no regard to players outside his alliance. It's the old "problem of hats".
There is an universal definition of bottom-up and top-down: time-limited vs resource-limited.
Moons are resource-limited. If new moons were added, people would jump on them. Only those with power (on top) can access the few ones. If CFC would double its member-hours but not its land, their moon income would remain the same.
Ratting income is limited by time spent ratting by the "bottom" guys. If members would rat twice as much, the ratting tax income would double.
I agree that the whole thing is similar to resource-limited and time-limited systems.
I can also see how in case of limited resources the very access to these resources becomes something an alliance can own and provide to its members in a "top-down" "spoonfeeding" fashion. In that case, access to ratting/mining spaces within a renter alliance is definitely a "top-down" thing.
I can't agree with the impression that Mittani was talking about Eve as a whole when answering that email. My personal interpretation of the last segment of his post was that he wasn't talking about Eve as a whole in that part.
Good lord....
If I, as a CFC coalition member rat (I don't, I hate it), then I pay taxes to my corp which is eventually used for various things *alliance*. This is bottom up income. No doubt.
Renters are not part of the CFC. The CFC does not collect isk as above, instead they charge the renters a flat fee for the systems that they rent. How the renter corps/alliances get the money to pay the rent the CFC gives not one turd about. Could be a reaction fund farm, taxes on ratting, or maybe lots of invention. Or even all of the above. From the CFC's perspective it is top down. Money comes into the CFC's wallet in a big fat lump sum, not in itty bits from the various line members.
So you are being deliberately obtuse here.
[quote]Ratting income is limited by time spent ratting by the "bottom" guys. If members would rat twice as much, the ratting tax income would double. [/quote]
Derp.
Yes, this is true.
But where you fall flat on your face is that rental income would not change. At all.
Rental income is a flat fee irrespective of the amount of ratting that is done.
@Steve: Goonies are not part of N3. So Goonies ratting gets no money for Vince. So Goonies ratting isn't an income at all.
Hint: if you talk about game mechanics, you have to talk about playstyles and not player groups.
Post a Comment