Jita Park Speakers Corner

Only some people were interested in running for some of the positions. Those are the only people that are listed.

Thanks for the clarification.

The CSM should be under scrutiny every term, there should never exist a CSM body that is content to do nothing.

Regarding the 10,058 duders who have no CSM rep, I do have good news. In CSM 6 Mittani and I agreed on practically everything. So I gotchu~

So that means you'll be advocating ~death2allsupercaps~, right?

Unironically, yes. Both Mittani and Vile Rat were professionally awesome bros amongst bros on the CSM and our views on the game line up pretty close believe it or not. If you have an idea/issue/whatever that you'd otherwise bring up to one of them, you can feel free to hit me up. Or you can hit them up and they can hit me up, w/e yo

Novel suggestion, but why don't you involve the electorate in discussions regarding constitutional changes? After all the "law of the land" I'm assuming is designed to help best serve the players not the CSM?

I don't want to just be informed of what you propose to change.

As such I simply hope CCP isn't allowing the CSM to rewrite the constitution as per their own interests. Especially without player involvement or appropriate referendum? Whilst I recgonise some things could do with improving, the allowance of the CSM to rewrite the law needs to ensure player/electorate involvement.

For instance if CCP and CSM advocate lobbying as the only official method of communicating with CCP through the CSM, then the process of public discussion, collections of as many views and public accountability will simply go out the window. And whilst I recognise that some antiquated systems might not be fully utilised at present, e.g. AH it doesn't mean that the players shouldnt have official open discussions on development with CCP. The idea of the blog discussions could be promoted further to ensure as much voiced opinion on the matter is collected whilst still affording decision or advocacy on those views as appropriate, without the CSM being weighed down by antiquated policies. This especially after the CSM had made efforts to encourage more of these open discussions with CCP following the incarna issues.

Please consider these political motivations carefully, as it could be seen to make the CSM ineffectual from peoples perspective if they forget who put them there or include them effectively in the political process.

(off topic)

When will the new CSM get their CSM badges?

The problem with this idea is it takes the isolated small holding nature of wspace into the suck that is Null Sec. Most w-space folks are in w-space because they don't want to live in NS. This would put all of wspace at the mercy of the various NS alliances, and drive a lot of people out of the game. All in the name of being able to crack the handful of fortress C6 systems which are nearly impenetrable.

In light of Jester's blog , which, if those concerned aren't aware of they should take the time to read, I would like to invite those CSM members who have yet to do so, or who would like to say more, to go on record here to candidly explain their reasons for casting their votes as they did.

Two Step tells us that "one of the major changes CSM 7 will be making is to try to communicate with the player base in more depth and more often." The controversy surrounding the results of the internal officer election has primarily been fuelled by a failure of those involved to consider that the electorate may deserve an added degree of transparency in relation to this process and its outcome, which could only come through each of the delegates taking the time to post here, in the appropriate place, as to the reasons for their voting decision, specifically in regard to the position of Chairman and Vice Chairman. Only this can allay the existing concerns about possible backroom deals, coercion and go at least some way to helping everyone understand how you each made the decision to ignore the popular vote (which has a precedent for determining the right to the chair and was for a candidate who to appears to be held in nothing short of the highest regard by all) in spite of the discussed implications of this.

The dissent echoed by many of us who care deeply about this has received what amounts to rather patronising and ignorant handling by some of the CSM in recent days, having been labelled as "nonsense", "stupid drama", "a big bloody deal" and "tin-foiling" in apparant lack of respect for the legimatacy of the concern, which was given a very articulate and reasoned voice by Jester, one of this community's widely respected commentators. This hasn't done the CSM as a whole any favours and has only fuelled a boomerang of increasing anger in response.

As I am largely responsible for the blog being written, due to writing to Jester with my concerns about the 'whitewash' that I perceived, I feel it is only right to take the time to invite the necessary communication here, that, only which, can serve to resolve this issue without it dangerously undermining the CSM should it continue to be treated with flippancy and disregard.

Nice troll, with the added benefit of avoiding the question.... In your blog, you stated that you had pretty strong feelings about this.



Have you, in fact, given up on the idea of introducing broken null-sec mechanics into WH's?

Thanks.