CSM Campaigns

Here is my campaign's platform.

One term limit for CSM members

The CSM is a group of elected lobbyists representing a faction or a play style. I support only one term for each CSM member, so that every term newer engaged members of the active community can help shape the discussions with CCP on the game we all share. My position has not changed much from last year, except for promoting having one vote per active player, rather than one vote per active account.

Develop exposure to lore in-game while continuing the efforts to support the new players experience better.

Continue developing the new player resources in an integrated way within the game, in line with the work that has been done in the past years, and develop the tools for new players to easily be exposed within the game itself to the latest Scope videos and lore happenings that shape the ongoing non-static storylines.

Encourage new ideas that would facilitate a nomadic life style.

With the introduction of citadels in the game, I’d like to promote having all current POS become Orca-style ships once they run out of fuel or are unanchored. All the POS’s online deployable would be automatically stored in their cargo bay. Such “towering” ship would have the capacity to travel in New Eden like an Orca does. The fuel bay of this ship/POS could only be filled inside a Station or a Citadel, and they could head back to be anchored near a moon and be onlined again. As such, they would become a truly nomadic asset with a built-in limited deployment time before they have to travel back again for refueling. It would allow existing POSes to smoothly transition to a role that is different from Citadels, without becoming extinct, provided the problematic shield can be replaced by the new tethering mechanic.

Support guerilla friendly features.
Guerilla is about wearing down enemies organized in larger numbers, and that have access to overwhelmingly greater forces.
In the same way that sov-holders value control over their region, guerilla tactics must provide a value for the efforts deployed to weaken stronger forces, without becoming overpowered when used by the larger groups themselves. Labeling guerilla tactics as “trolling” is part of their propaganda metagame geared at protecting their influence on the game.

Defend and promote new mechanics that could be effective guerilla tools, like siphons.

Today, siphons are mostly useless because the APIs are ratting them out within hours of their deployment. These are one-use only assets that are fairly costly, and end up totally inefficient to use by small ISK-strapped entities that are unlikely to have any moons themselves, while they are a more useful tool for larger well-funded groups (the opposite of its original design goal). We need to hold CCP to their own statements, and stop having API give out the location of new siphon.

The entosis ban on interceptors is yet another example where the null sec blocks actively work to limit the guerilla capabilities of smaller groups behind their lines. This issue was more about the nullification capabilities of interceptors. Instead of this ban, I would have defended, for example, making HIC bubbles negate nullification around gates.

A last example is the upcoming regeneration of entosis nodes. The existing powers want entosis to strictly be a sov taking feature, and are purposefully negating its potential use as a guerilla tool. I do acknowledge that the concept of regeneration of nodes is needed, but the current rate of regeneration that has been communicated and is to be deployed soon is way too rapid, making any use of entosis as a guerilla tactic useless. I would have lobbied to have this rate apply only to capital systems, and significantly increase the regeneration time according to the distance of the system to the capital system. By linking the regeneration time to distance from capital system, large groups controlling large portion of space would be more affected than smaller groups living in a few systems.

Add some amount of fog-of-war to existing out of game API data, and limit new API sources.

I would actively lobby to limit new API data that would replace in-game activity. API should not be providing too much Out of game information and allow large entities to be managed by relatively small groups of players with the largest out of game technical abilities. I’d also like to introduce some kind of in-game data privacy option. I support consensual watch lists or not seeing the destroyed modules in a kill mail unless the pilot opted in for this information to be publicly available.

Put bridging ships at risk

The capacity to bring in reinforcement by bridging ship to a cyno is a powerful tool against guerilla actions. Larger groups have the advantage of numbers to field stand-by response fleets. To make instantaneously reinforcement become a more difficult tactical choice for anyone using this powerful projection tool, I would lobby to have the bridging ship jump to the location with the bridged fleet once the bridge closes, without the possibility to prevent that jump.

Allow capital ships to cyno to any system’s sun in range.

The ability for all capitals to jump to a cyno is highly dependent of good cyno beacon infrastructures or cyno alts. For the more casual players that can’t afford multiple accounts, or the smaller groups, the use of capitals is limited by this lack of infrastructure. I would promote allowing capitals to jump to sun in systems in range (unless they are cyno-jammed), and prevent deploying any citadel within less than 1 AU from a system’s sun.

CSM XI Voting Endorsements


As the campaigns for CSMXI are developping, and more public data is available, I will copy here the names and campaign pages of the other candidtaes that I will recommend voting for for CSMXI. A full ballot should have 14 candidates names on it to take full advantage of the voting system. If you like my platform, put me first on your ballot, and order these other candidates in the order that fits you best.

Go check their campaign thread and give them a serious consideration.

1/27 - Uriel Paradisi Anteovnuecci
An excellent Cap Stable interview, and I believe that the CSM XI needs to have a lore and in-game event representative.

1/30 - Joffy Aulx-Gao
A strong candidate having the support of one of the best known low sec pirates group, led by Rixx Javix. As a player who is confined to a bed or a wheelchair he can also bring some good insights to CCP for their user interface.

2/16 - Jintaan
A great interview and a clear focus toward the interest of the provi bloc and the NRDS play style.

2/16 - DoTooFoo
An independent candidate, industrialist, solo players with a focus on low class WH lifestyle.

2/16 - Vic Jefferson
A voice from NS that does not necessarily represent the interest of the larger groups, and advocates clearly for a balanced CSM with only three NS representatives (which sounds right).

2/16 - Diana Olympos
Experience in Null sec with small groups as an ex-PFR as well as current member of mercenary coalition will give a good voice to small to medium sized NS and mercs groups.

2/16 - Nikolai Agnon
A great interview from a Low Sec Faction Warfare focused candidate, with some side of API and PVE interests.

2/18 - Toxic Yaken
Representing the Dark Side of High Sec, with a focus on fixing wardecs and bounty hunting

2/22 - Utari Onzo
A Logi FC specialist and capital triage player that is both RP oriented and flying in Null Sec

2/22 - RF Gneaus Crassus
HS player that is part of big haul in New Eden and non-PvPer. He considers (rightly so) than HS ganking is more like PVE than PVP

2/22 - Lorelei Ierendi
I have three HS picks for this year as I believe HS needs attention quickly after Citadel. I had Loreli on my ballot last year, and another euro-player representative of HS will round up my votes in that area.

2/22 - Capri Sun KraftFoods
He is the closest of a NS bloc candidate I am willing to endorse. I hesitated between Gorski Car and him, but I'll go for a smaller group (TISHU) over an established powerhouse (PL) anytime. Of course I disagree with his stance about removing Aegis sov.

2/27 - Xavier Azabu
The choice was tough for this last entry into this endorsement post. Steve Ronuken will not need any independent votes as all the blocs are already going to make him their independent vote. Commander Aze was on my short list but he supports Sion's suggestion of CSM driven focus groups which would be a terrible nepotistic thing for the game. A few others were close but I settled for Xavier, as a WH and PVE centric candidate, that can also speak Japanese.


Check these other CSM XI analysis resources

- Vote Match

- Mike Azariah post

- Cap Stable Analysis shows 1, 2, 3, 4

- Eveoganda endorsement

- Jakobs Eve checklist 1, 2, 3

- EveNT CSM XI interviews

- Declaration of war Roundtables 1, 2

- XeX endorsements

- I'd be remiss if I did not link Gevlon CSM XI post. He supported me last year. I disagree with his approach this year, instead I believe we should not put any null sec bloc player in our ballot if we deem ourselves to be independent. But he still holds an interesting viewpoint on the CSM.

You can check what I was supporting last year, even if some of my thoughts have evolved since then.
I am still working on my platform for this year, and should have the high level items up within a few weeks.

I am far from being an expert on high sec wardecs, so I will not delve into details of current rules I am not familiar enough with, as I mostly operate outside of high sec.

This said, there are some principles I strongly believe in that would educate any input I could provide to possible changes.

- The game is a sandbox for all play styles. If the wardec mechanics cause highly risk adverse players to stop playing until the war is over, it is not a good system.

- Low risks should always mean low rewards, and the highest rewards should always come when competing against other players.

- High sec players should be able to create social groups without opening themselves to wardecs.

NB.
As a note I have little sympathies for CODE. and what it stands for.
"fighters" preying on high sec farmers that are not looking for a fight has never ranked very high on my own scale of values, and is certainly not guerilla, which involves fighting stronger forces.

Forgetting changes you would advocate for, what experience do you bring to the csm that is not covered by the current members?

The upcoming Patch notes includes the following:
"The API no longer makes any attempt to fake the quantity of materials being stolen by siphon units."

if, like me, you value the ability to wage guerilla warfare in the game, especially against the richests of the richest, i.e. moon holding entities, go add your voice on this thread

You are as free to not like my platform and not vote for me, as I am free to develop the reasons why this item is on my platform.
So if you have any interest about thje reasons that this is part of my platform, here are the details:

Is the gaming field in Eve Online truly fair today as the power of a player is multiplied exponentially by the number of unrelated accounts one has?

This was very visible with the thankfully now banned input broadcasting, where fleets of bombers handled by one player could destroy a gang of numerous players with a single coordinated bomb run, or locust mining fleet could empty a site in mere minutes to the dismay of local residents with a more casual approach to their gaming hobby. They were not alts of the same accounts, but different accounts organized to operate at the same time. In that case, they gave away their anonymity to multiply exponentially the effect of one player on the game.

The community as a whole started seeing that as an abuse two years ago, while it had been accepted for many years before. But as it started being more visible, as more players saw it working for some and duplicated the trend, this created a snowball effect that could not be ignored anymore. Gone is the very visible input broadcasting, because it became too obvious, but it also clearly showed that some players could afford many many accounts....

... and there are still today many ways that are not as visible to influence the game with a lot of anonymous different accounts and only one player behind them. From corps infiltration by "clean" alts, to non-productive cloaky campers that block in-game activity for local residents, to trading manipulated by alts of the same player, the power of multiple anonymous accounts is very much around, but it is not visible.

My goal with this point of my program is to cast a light on it, and continue the cleaning process for a fairer gaming field to all players that the input broadcasting ban started. Multiple anonymous account is, simply put, a subtle form of pay-to-win.

Removing the anonymity does not mean preventing players from having multiple accounts, as I believe this is truly a staple of Eve, but it will change the impact on the game that these extra alts can bring to the same player.

All activities in Eve are designed around risk versus rewards. Anonymous alts is all rewards with no risks. Where is the difficulty in the spy game today? you are not working to turn another player, but you are adding a new account and having a real easy, no risk involved, run at a group of players in their corp that have no other way to protect themselves than not recruiting anymore...

What is the difficulty and the risk of sending a cloaky alt for weeks around, totally anonymously so that the recipients can't even know who is behind it and retaliate in other ways? A cloaky alt does not produce anything for the game, and has a no-risk opportunity to jump those that ignore the cloaky camper at the first opportunity. Why being afraid of retaliation against other productive alts?

The tenants of this type of play are the worst and most hypocritical carebears of the game, wanting to wield significant influence with multiple anonymous pilots, and wield an influence that has little risk involved. It is not about the number of accounts, it is about their anonymity hence my proposition to change the EULA accordingly.

I am only talking about the anonymity of alts, not the anonymity of players. Only CCP should know the players' names behind the accounts, of course.

The last point I am adding from my last year post on this very subject is that I also believe the mere presence of anonymous alts stiffles the development of new organizations, as the most recent players are condemned to either only play with real life friends, or join already existing power blocs and the ease of infiltrating rising groups is only benefiting the already established powers.

I only mentioned "one term" in my platform because I do understand that the current one year term would not be the best with a limit of one term for CSM members, for the reasons you point out.

I also support an increase of the term for CSM to two years, keeping one election every year for half of the members so that the older members can still help the newest members every year. This was already part of my platform last year on that subject.

My main point is that being elected only once will keep in check a non-CCP employee individual's influence over the game we all share, and allow other voices and faces to rise up. As younger players become vets, there is no shortage of talents in the player base to represent a community that evolves each year.

I see Alts from the same account the same as alts from different accounts. Like you do point out though, they are less likely to help directly as you can't fly both at the same time, but they are still able to bear influences without much risks.

By being part of the same "stable" or "family", by having alts publicly linked together with a simple EULA change, you will have to be mindful of your actions, which in turn will define your true loyalties. Your "family" can bear the consequences of the choices you make in game, whereas right now, you can create an alt (even from the same account) that is totally disconnected, and make a decision that will "sacrifice" an alt but has absolutely no bearings on your other alts.

Let's take the example of an hypothetical (or is it?) President Mc Scrooge, a Titan pilot. Let say this player has used his Titan and lost it stupidly, then sold his character. The player did the mistake, and the Titan pilot still ended up in the character bazaar, then used by someone else, possibly unaware of the consequences of such a bad killboard rep.
With my platform, this player would not have been able to get rid of the stain of losing a Titan. Losing a Titan is part of his history, but he avoids the consequences of his mistakes by using the anonymous alts system. As I am pointing out, anonymous alts do not fit the risk versus reward that is the staple of Eve Online.
This is but one minor example.

Those that have the means to pay multiple accounts carry a hidden influence that is disproportionate in the game, and linking alts publicly will only curtail it and force players to be responsible for their actions and their choices.

If you chose to join goons with one character, why would you then be able to join another organization that is actively trying to fight goons influence and curtails it, if not for spying and when the right moment come be in the position to reduce all significant efforts deployed to nothing? This is not difficult to do, and there is no risks involved. If your spying alt is caught, you as a player do not suffer any consequences nor ill-will. You are shielded by your anonymous alt, and just start or buy another one.

This game is as much a science fiction experience than a social one. Except that anonymous alts provide more advantage to the already established power groups to maintain their grasp on the game without much risks.
Now turning a player, like goons did with Corbexx after he ran as a WH independent, is the stuff of true legends. Corbexx being a public figure will live with that forever. A player that decides to burn a spy alt during a critical battle has no chops, unlike Corbexx, as he is not putting any risks on his true assets.

Like ISBoxing, anonymous alts is a system that could be accepted before, but needs to be looked at again, which is why I am bringing it up as part of my guerilla platform, because foremost, it stifles true attempts to upset the current politics.

There would be exceptions to the EULA like ISDs or Devs being able to bypass it, as there are internal controls already for them.

I am a role player, have been for many years, both DMing and playing D&D and many other RPGs. My characters are all part of New Eden with different storylines (You can read more about one of those here)

I do understand that a player would like to be part of the goon empire and part of MOA and part of PL at the same time. They can have content at any time of the day and the year, with any ship types... The current system of anonymous alts allows that. The problem is that it drives the psychology of the game toward the blue donut, and the new players are being sold on something that will never happen: a non-staged large scale conflict driven Sci-Fi Universe.

Power players that can so easily have so many hands in so many pots have established interests that they are not likely to upset anymore. Or if they will it will be on staged fights with no real losers, or chosen winners. Many are those that have been lucky enough to rise to their position because they started the game earlier than the others, before the power consolidations happened.

For the more recent players, they are stuck only playing with friends they can trust in real life, or join one of the established groups. And those will not allow a new group to rise to threaten their interests. They may encourage spin off (Code, PFR, Signal Cartel,...) but those are not independents entities, they remain controlled by the same clique. They are just staged content and/or conflict drivers.

So forcing players to reveal their true loyalties by making their alts publicly linked will at least give the younger players a chance to build something that can become with time and efforts a real challenge for the established interests. It will also remove the NSA-like cancer that are full APIs. It will be risky to not comply with the EULA and use alts to infiltrate, rob or destablize rising powers, unless another player can effectively be turned into a spy, and could (why not) become double-agent (but it won't be as easy or safe for power players to use anonymous alts to keep their grasp on all aspects of the game)

Thank you, I believe the CSM is a group that should represent a range of players from the sandbox as wide as possible, and the best way to demonstrate what you believe in is to tell on your platform what you would advocate for.

There is a new interview of CCP Leelo about the CSM that is worth reading. She highlights that "Each CSM delegate has their own agenda and opinions. Often they don’t match not only our point of view, but even the point of view of other delegates and the community."