CSM Campaigns

Hi folks,

I am running again this year for the CSM, to represent all those that play the game outside of the reach and domination of the "establishment" of New Eden. Freedom fighters, rebels and guerilleros of New Eden, I am your candidate.

The PLooNS have dominated CSM XI, with a Null Sec centric majority of members belonging from the Goons and/or Pandemic Legion. These groups weight on the game we all share by pushing rules that favor maintaining their hold on New Eden. They use their influence to alter the rules of the game to their benefit, and I am running to provide a counter point to their influence within the CSM.

I have been playing since 2009, and played solo for half the time I have been in New Eden.

Like many new players attracted by the PvP aspect of this game, I headed to Null Sec quickly after I started playing, went through a training corp that funneled me in one of the largest coalition of the time, Northern Coalition. I did not find the game-style of blobbing and TiDi fleet fights very compelling, and I got tired of paying taxes and be just another DPS provider in their fleets. I was not ready to recruit others to beef up my personal income on their taxes and game-play time either.

So I went solo, I left the big alliances, played in Low sec for a bit then quickly moved into an empty C2 wormhole, doing PI and sleepers sites mostly. After a year and a half or so, I established contacts with players from a larger corp that were in a budding alliance, called Insidious Empire. I decided to return to play with a larger group to check it out again. After a few months, this group decided to join the goons, and soon thereafter the B0tlords accords were signed by the power players of Null Sec. This was too much for me, and I left the goons to return to my solo play-style. I returned in a C3, and built my first capital, while harassing larger Null Sec groups from Wormhole space, thanks to my NS static.

I also ran for CSM XI and CSM X to combat the influence of established power group working to protect their incomes. I was a big fan of the announced siphons mechanic, that got nerfed to uselessness even before being launched by the CSM. This is what prompted me to run for CSM, to try to counter the voices of the power-players trusting the CSM seats to the benefit of their own play-styles that I did not share.

I also started creating the concept of the Minarchist Revolution and decided to help the Minarchist Space Project, to establish a Minmatar Null Sec bloc while differentiating ourselves from the corrupt Minmatar Republic. I did some flying for the Minmatar Faction Warfare, and even if not very active, I am proud to have been in one of Minmatar Faction Warfare best corp at the time where Minmatars won all systems in the FW zone.

With my other characters, I fought with MOA against the goons before World War Bee became a thing, and I am now helping defend Tribute against the invasion of PanFam. Like Brave before, Pandemic Legion wants to take CO2 down so as to not let competing groups grow enough to become a menace to their imperialistic hegemony and their ISK making operations across Null Sec.

I fight in New Eden for Freedom and against the "establishment" and its corruptions.

I believe the CSM is a lobbyist group, where so far all the places have been trusted by those players representing Null Sec and the older power-players, the master puppeteers of New Eden. I believe other play styles and newer players who did not sell their souls as lobbyists for the established powers need to be represented to help defend features that would not benefit only the power-players playstyle. They want each of us to pay them rent, taxes and I am a prime example of a player that does not accept that.

The CSM must have independent voices that can balance the voices of the PLooNS when they want to alter new game features to their benefit. One example are the siphons that could have hit passive ISKs moon mining income with an active gameplay, the CSMs never denounced the API that was ratting them out. Previous CSMs have tainted multiple rules designed to curve the influence of the larger groups. The rapid regeneration of entosis nodes even in systems the owners do not actively occupy is an example of such corruption that previous CSMs have brought to new rules. More recently, the limitation of the game of Alts to Omega clones only is another scandalous meddling to prevent newer players, and more casual players, to develop multiple accounts like most power-players do. Instead they want to funnel these new players and more casual players to join them, so they can continue to accumulate wealth and power to prevent the rise of new powers. This is the real reason of the current war in Tribute against CO2, which is nothing other than a war to protect their established interests, much like kicking Brave to the curve was a few years back.

This is why I run for CSM XII, to give a voice to those that do not have one.

.. reserved ..

... you are also the main API lobbyist in the CSM, which likely makes you biased against my API fog of War agenda too at the very least.

I did not count Gorski, as his previous participations before CSM XI were done midterm, through replacement. Last year was the first year he was elected from the get-go.

You can find here more details about my position on siphons in my frist campaign, including a post by CCP clearly stating that siphons were not to be detected by API. If the knowledge that siphons would be detected, and that was a technical necessity, I am sure other discussions could have been held to balance the siphon differently.
I am not going to focus more on those this year as passive moon income only has a few months left anyway. Still, I do hope the concept of active gameplay siphoning passive income will exist in the future, as this is a design that by its nature would affect more the larger and richer entities of the game to the benefit of the smaller ones.



If only one of the player has given his API to his corp/alliance, the killmail will be reported no matter what the other player choses. A killmail has to be reported manualy only if neither player belongs to a killboard driven group, which most groups are nowadays. So the odds of a kill not uploaded are really low...



I am not talking about removing the spy meta. Spies, betrayals and scams are part of Eve because they are also a part of our social construct, and Eve is as much a sci-fi experience as a social one.

The only thing I am pointing out is that there is no drawbacks in the game for having a spy account, and this is the most risk free activity in the game.

My suggestion would introduce a minor economic drawback to not chosing to link one account to the same player's other accounts, and leave to each player the decision to link their account together, with a litttle economic incentive to do so.

CCP Stated that they were going to make siphons undetectable, and changed the API to reflect this, players then just modified their setups (If I remember rightly you simply piped your income into a second silo, and it displayed the real amount) CCP realised that it was either going to be a game of cat and mouse with 3rd party devs, or a scenario where they just had to chop that section of the API out. So they admitted defeat, and just revealed the true stats.


That's still an opt-in system, you choose to be in a corp, and that corp chooses to add it's key to a killboard. You say that most corps are, but that doesn't change the fact a group, if they're so worried about the free intel this provides, can simply opt not to.


This would be an entirely new system, which isn't really the territory of the CSM to drive. Not to mention this does nothing to address the so-called "problem" of unrelated accounts, as the person can just choose to eat whatever "economic drawback" you have in mind. Even in the case of my alts which actively fly together and I have no problem with people knowing are related, I'd opt to not have an actual ingame trail linking them, and that's an opinion I imagine a large percentage of players share.

No.

As I said, I believe CSM members are elected lobbyists, and the CSM should represent a wide variety of play-styles.
If I get elected, because this idea is on my platform, it will mean that there is enough players that are interested by it for CCP to consider it seriously.

After that, implementing or not is strictly their decision.

There are precedents of CSM members 'making feature come to fruition' in the past, like lobbying CCP to reduce the connections between WHs and Null Sec to limit more the ability of Wormholers to mess with the Null Sec empires, a PLooNS-centric agenda item.

True. What I am saying is that this fundamentally changed the usefulness of the siphons, and their design should have been revised, but did not because nobody in the CSM cared, as they were mostly representing the player base that would be most impacted by a more efficient siphoning mechanic.



Your agument is specious. When you enter a corp and most alliances today, you *have* to give APIs and you have no options to opt out of feeding killboards if you want to stay.



This is all I am asking, an option with a carrot.
On my previous campaigns I approached this with a stick mentality, which was wrong.
There is no way to address the problem of unrelated accounts, other than encouraging a minor positive economic benefit for those that chose to link their accounts together, that the scammers could not benefit from.

I am very familiar with mechanics related to Null Sec and Wormholes, and PvP in general. I started playing in 2009 and I spent half of this time playing in each of these areas.

I am less familiar with life in Low Sec and High Sec.

I do not make ISKs from trading, mining, producing, scamming, moonmining, taxing, salvaging, ransoming, incursions, PI, missioning, stealing, PVE or FW farming, hauling and I plex my accounts.

My play-style is mostly detached from the large alliances and blocs, and my alliance helps solo players and micro-corps toward a more independent play-style, for those interested.

You say you have all of this experience—started in 2009, was in NC., did a lot in NS, lived in wormholes, etc. However, do you have any evidence of this experience? Your corp history doesn't show it; and your killboard certainly does not show you have much experience with the game, either. You must be posting on an alt, then. But for all we know, unless you share that info, you could be someone completely different. At the very least, we don't have any evidence you are qualified in the gameplay mechanics you say you are.

Here is one advantage of public killboards: they allow people to see what sort of experiences you have, which is especially useful for things like running for CSM.

Ironically, your stance against public killboards conflicts with your goal of running for the CSM as well as your goals for the CSM. Killboards, for one, let us see the pilot's experience. One of your goals is “Better expose the influences of older players.” Except you don't do that by making certain intel less public and making it harder to validate the claims players make about themselves or who they are and making it easier to hide in-game activities. That's like saying you want to hold the government more accountable, and then proposing to remove all oversight and eithcs committees.

As a side note, I like this new requirement for CSM XII candidates

"If you control a character that is well known in the EVE community, CCP may require you to run under that identity and not one of an alt or a lesser known character."

This alt is my well-known alt.
Like I mentioned before starting campaigning for the play-style I like best, none of my other alts were known..

in fact I did play for years without any real awareness of the larger community (I am not a "social"), until the siphons and the ESS got released, and their features made useless by the nerf of waste and API ratting for the siphons and for the ESS, their design intent negated by placing them in anomalies with no risks to the defenders.
These are the reasons I decided to get more involved to defend the game features that could have helped develop my prefered play-style further.

I also assumed that I could not be the only lurker out there with this kind of play-style.