CSM Campaigns

I didn't ask you to badmouth anyone, any individual member of the CSM past or present, or even any of the power blocs. I would like to learn more about your in-depth knowledge concerning power bloc agendas throughout recent history because that tells me and everyone else how in touch you are with the people you may be about to represent.

Even if a CSM member took an action that wasn't in Eve's best interests it may have been their belief that it was. Following a power bloc agenda may even be in the best interests of the game as well. I'd like you to bring these matters into the light for clarity's sake, without insult or lack of respect for those involved.

Do you believe that highlighting Eve-detrimental power bloc agendas is indeed in the majority's best interests? If the player base as a whole is informed of these details they can take assertive action when it comes to their vote ballot. They would be able to protect Eve Online from potential threats that they may not have otherwise known about.

Do the points of your response conflict with each other?

Xenuria, welcome to the CSM candidate list.

A pity you didn't announce sooner, as our deadline for candidate interviews is past, and I am frankly sitting here at 9:13 pm Pacific with a beer and shipping combat ships to our staging area.

I, do, however have a few related questions for you.

Do you consider the timing of this post appropriate and adequate, given that it went up just a few days before the election begins and given that there was no widespread public knowledge of you running prior to your name appearing appearing on the approve list of CSM candidates?

Then, additionally, do you feel it is appropriate for the community to hold CSM candidates up to public scrutiny? Would you agree or disagree that posting this late hinders the ability of either the community at large or media representatives to hold you to that public scrutiny?

I am looking forward to your remarks.


*adapted from an earlier post from my corp mate and podcast compatriot.

I would just like to point out. The only time I even hear anything of you is when you run for CSM.

I don't consider that a good quality for somebody that only appears to be part of the community when he wants to run for CSM.

Your platform has some generic info in there that does not say all that much. How do you and in what way represent me?

I think this could really be the year that we get to have Xenuria on the CSM. I'm looking forward to it.

I don't think it's hate.

I think it's Fear.

I am not going to some random blog to see what a person is about.

I really cannot take this seriously, therefore have to agree with others when they say you are simply trolling the process.

Okey doke, I suppose I'll have to read between the lines concerning my latest questions. That's fine. I drew those questions straight from your opening statements, because it was my belief that your platform would be the easiest structure for you to defend. Considering the atmosphere in the thread I can understand your unwillingness to grin and bear someone probing your platform for flaws. You've given me some brief answers and that's a lot more than I could hope to expect from certain other candidates.

There are others in the thread already giving up on you, but I've plenty of patience and respect for players willing to step up to the CSM plate. Few players would ever bother - it's a unique process for a niche game in a niche gaming genre, so when someone does volunteer I'm willing to listen to what they have to say.

I'm not fearful of you, I'm not fearful of your opinions and I'm not fearful of you being elected. Your intent is obviously to make change - you perhaps have some differing opinions and viewpoints than the other candidates running and those who have run before, and bringing those to the table in a serious fashion would only force the members that oppose your opinions to earn their stripes. You have some radical ideas that would add to the CSM workload, but that said your goal of logging communications for future use and reference isn't a bad idea - it simply needs further discussion.

I will drop my previous questions. Let me ask some new questions from an angle that you should have no objections to.

Hypothetical situation: You're aware of a player who utilizes what is occasionally considered a 'grief' mechanic: wardecs. Wardecs are the core of their playstyle and where they find the most enjoyment in Eve. Not only do they declare wars on corporations which a vocal percentage of the playerbase finds distressing and intimidating, this particular player imposes considerable disadvantages on themselves by warring against corporations solo. This makes their chosen playstyle challenging because they're almost always outnumbered, rewarding because they don't need to split loot, and frustrating because any nerf made to the wardec 'offender' by CCP this player feels exponentially.

CCP comes to you and states that they're currently working on changes to wardecs that benefit wardec 'defenders', because they feel this is best for the majority. They believe wardecs currently favour offenders and this should change so that there is balance between both sides. They want defenders to have more teeth in the conflict, so that there is less desire to dissolve their corporation and start over with a new corporation, avoiding the wardec entirely.

What do you have to say to CCP in this situation?