CSM Campaigns

You have until March 10th to vote for CSM X.

The CSM is a focus group that needs various strongly opinionated members with a good knowledge of the game and widely different points of views to be most useful to CCP. You also need CSM members that are active, dedicated and show it in the way they have campaigned and the work they put out. It is now up to you to select which of us will be part of CSM X.

CCP teams are the only ones making the final choices about the game. The most diverse feedback they can get from the CSM for future release, the best their choice will be educated by the various play styles in use, and the sand box will continue to offer play styles for a wide variety of players, sharing the same virtual universe, but with sometime opposing priorities.

The STV voting system ensures a reasonable degree of representation as long as you fill your voting ballot fully with 14 names. Filling it partially is wasting your capacity to fill the CSM with a diverse mix of members.

I have run my campaign to establish a clear base line about where I come from, with some fairly radical concepts that I explained. I believe this type of election should not be run with vanilla or populist concepts, and for that I will not be on the voting recommendations of most of the "popular" crowd. I only rely on you, voters with an independent mind and a wish to bring different voices to bear.

If I am elected I plan to model my activity toward my constituents in a way that will be similar to what Sugar Kyle and Corbexx have established during their tenure on CSM IX.

I want to thank those that have added me to their ballot recommendations:
- Gevlon Goblin, from the Greedy Goblin blog.
- Rixx Javixx, from Dramaganda blog

I also want now to endorse other candidates that I like, and will put on my own ballot.
- I am not going to endorse anyone that has previously been on the CSM, for the reasons you can read here, regardless of the quality of their previous service to the cause.
- As I wish to represent the independent players, I am not going to endorse candidates that are too obviously in position of leadership or official or surrogate representatives of already established large groups.
- I will not endorse candidates that were not able to generate at least 1000 views on their campaign thread. Being on the CSM requires efforts, and this is a bad start (I will make only one exception to this rule with Harek)
- From then I will endorse other candidates which I believe can bring something fresh to the CSM.

So here are the 13 other candidates that, with my name, you should consider for your ballot, to lessen the influence of the power blocks (I am simply using alphabetical order, their ranking in your ballot is up to you).
Ariete
Angrod Losshelin
Ashterothi
Chance Ravinne
Citriocini
Erika Mizune
Jayne Fillon
June Ting
Harek
Migui X'hyrrn
Lorelei Ierendi
Radu Lupescu
Sabriz Adoudel

Please vote, and vote fully!

I have discussed the reasons there..

tl;dr

- First I want to run on ideas I believe will make the game fairer for all, and be judged on these ideas, and not from the corps I have flew with or the state of my killboard. With me you get what you read on these forums, baseline statements that helps identify the points I will defend if I am elected.

- Not showing my main also ensures that I will not suffer from backlash in-game about ideas that I understand are threatening some players' influence over the game. Playing solo, my best defense is into this kind of secrecy.

- Running as an anonymous alt is also making a point about this particular aspect of my program. I have little reason to be the one linking my alts publicly, while anonymous alts remain a part of the game for all other players. If this change, I will be the first one to link all my alts to this account.

Hello there. Although you may not be a blogger or podcaster or some other kind of attention-seeker, you have my attention with your controversial though seemingly well thought out ideas.

However to secure my vote you will need to work harder.

1. You clearly have some passion about the game and a vision for it, but will you pledge to start some kind of blog / podcast / etc to provide regular updates to those who elected you?


2. I agree with you wholeheartedly about tools/mechanics that aid small groups and allow them to make an impact, and how they are invariably nerfed very hard every time a power-bloc heavy CSM wades in. How are you going to convince the CCP devs that small groups are important in EVE?


3. Something you should consider adding / thinking about to regarding your proposed EULA change: by restricting alts Chribba style, it solves one of the biggest problems in EVE: Someone spending their "off-time" in incursions, renter minin/ratting, or in freighter ganking on an alt to fund their "main" activities, without risking repercussions from any of those groups, which is why i like it. It also encourages the RPG aspect of the MMORPG. However it also makes it easier for someone to discover the alts of a famous or infamous player and harrass them to stop playing the game. How will you deal with this argument which I think will be presented to you?


4. Once players "can't hide" behind an army of alts, the war-dec mechanic suddenly becomes closer to one of its initial goals, a system for one group of players to settle disputes with another group of players. This could also increase the viability of Merc contracts. What changes would you like to see to war-dec mechanics regarding this?


5. Lo-sec, hi-sec, and w-sec, tends to be where most smaller groups hang out, AFAIK. hi-sec and wormholes already get a lot of attention in CSM X. What changes would you like to see most in lo-sec to encourage activity there as well as make it more fun and interesting, especially with regard to FW.


6. In my opinion, new players are the lifeblood of EVE. What changes would you like to see to encourage new players into the game and not just stuck running missions for a few months before finding the game boring and unsubbing? Where do you stand on new players and how important do you think considering new players (and how to involve them) is on the priority list? You mention you have little experience in hi-sec, yet that's where almost all players begin playing. How did you start in EVE and what do you plan to do to learn more about hi-sec and the other activities you say you don't do?


7. You say that you are a PVPer yet you have posted your campaign on a character that only has 2 depots lost in a 1.0 system, and which was created in September 2014. Why are you hiding behind such an alt if you have played for 5 years? You can excuse me for finding this somewhat hypocritical. I'm sure. Tell us a little more about what you have been doing for 5 years in the game.

Thanks for reading, and I hope you have a chance to reply before the coming elections,

--
Fang

Yes, I will.. What Sugar Kyle and Corbexx have done for their tenure for CSM X is my model I will strive to duplicate for those that elected me.


I will do my best to bring out the arguments read on the forums by the tenants of this play style, on the topics that will come up, and condense those for CCP. This active involvement plus the clear axe of my campaign, if I am elected, means that CCP will know I am speaking for a segment usualy under represented on the CSM. In the end CCP is responsible for the balamces they want for the game, it will be my duty to make sure they receive the proper feedback. This said, I am confident that they know solo players are also a group to not ignore, as CCP Seagull has mentioned solo players a few times already since she became the executive producer.


Yes, there is a clear risk of in-game retaliation with public alts, which as you know one of the reasons I run under this currently allowed anonymous alt system because of the threats my radical ideas for CSM X can bring to my assets. I believe such a measure would effectively affect the way players choose to behave with their different accounts under such a risk, and will decide on their own if the risk of undertaking specific actions from various accounts that can link back to the same player will be worth it, much like a PVPer decide of the risk when engaging a combat, or a trader risk their ISKs in the markets....
After all, if one get harassed to that degree, he or she has the same tools to see who is doing it too, and respond in kind, and everyone will still be free to diversiy their alts accordingly. Right now, utilising anonymous alts is an activity that does not fit on the risk versus reward approach that most of the other activities in Eve are designed around.


I would have to read more about this from all sides before committing to a response. War-dec is not a very high priority item for solo players. The only thing I have already heard, and that I do support, is that a player corp with no fixed assets has no reasons to be war-deccable, which is something I would support.


Getting involved for the minmatar faction and help turning the tides in factional warfare against the Amarr is next on my to-do list in game. I have no personal experience with it at the moment, and once elected would have to read about it and practice more in that area to be able to present ideas toward the goal you describe for low-sec.

to be continued...

I do not think pointting anyone is really useful, but at the same time, I do believe that if the EULA was going to be changed in such a way there should be at least a few months long period where everyone should have a chance to sell some of their characters before public alts become a thing, so as to protect the aspect of the image they want to project to everyone.

+1 for Borat

Working with him at Chao3, I can attest that he is a hard worker, and very passionate about the game.
He would be a great independent CSM representative.

Borat Guereen, why do you refuse to take a public stance for or against The New Order way in high Sec?

Here you are quoted as saying you won't take stance on High Sec ganking but you did say you are your corp will donate money to fight against it. Kinda flip flopping, are you for high sec ganks or against??

Seems to be a good public topic that could sway a voter either way so I would like to know for sure.

This idea is totally half baked. First, 'anonymity' isn't a problem. It's a core feature.

Besides, the changes that you have proposed would fail to do what you suggest they would do. Many, many players use multiple accounts. Showing other players which characters exist on the same account wouldn't "give everyone a clear view of the persons behind this new group" at all. Unless, of course, you are proposing that we should know everybody's alts all of their accounts?

It's a bad idea and I didn't vote for you.

Even if I do support introducing some kind of fog of "metagame" war for kilboard data, by introducing a pilots' s data privacy option in-game ,I am fully behind the point of this article from Rupert Foulmouth

As I was scouring the interwebz, I found an endorsement I did not know about.... It was very sekrit indeed!

Thanks Rixx Javixx for putting me on your groot, and best luck for your application(s)!