CSM Campaigns

Hello all,

I am writing today to announce my decision to run again for CSM, having arrived home from the last Summit happy that I've done as I set out to do there. I feel as though I have both achieved and learnt a lot within CSM XI, and hope that you will consider me for re-election, so that I can continue to work with CCP as a representative of the community.

What Are My Goals?

My goals are – probably to no surprise to those who know me – nothing to do with specific changes. I don’t see that as a major part of the duties of the CSM, and I’ve attempted to correct that belief where I can. It is in my view, the job of the CSM to first and foremost investigate what the fundamental problems are, then to present this to CCP.

But, what I wish to do within my second term is much the same as I have already done;

- Promote iteration on stagnant features
- Provide consistent, neutral communication & transparency from the CSM
- Ensure that as many points of view are brought to the table in discussions
- Argue for an increase in balancing velocity
- Continue to drive the CSM-CCP relationship in a positive direction

And, if you vote for me, these are the things I will continue to work on.

What Have I Done?

The strongest of arguments come with evidence, so I would like to simply share what I have done in CSM 11 towards these goals,

I have taken attendance (with the aid of The Judge) on almost every CSM meeting that occurred during CSM 11’s term, to ensure that people are able to see what their representatives are doing, and hold them accountable. It should be noted that this is not the be-all end-all of metrics, but it is a step towards transparency in the CSM.

Alongside this, I have consistently produced a fortnightly CSM update, which has evolved as time has gone on from a very basic stating of discussion topics, to a more fleshed out attempt to archive what we are doing as best as possible within the NDA, providing a catalyst for community discussion with us on various topics of interest.

I also direct – along with other members of the CSM – the Quarterly Review, wherein every member of the CSM is given a platform to answer various questions and ensure that they are kept in touch with the community.

I have over the course of my term, also put together a series of roundtables addressing topics that I felt the CSM simply lacked – at the current time – the knowledge to fairly portray to CCP. This includes two roundtables on Hisec Ganking from both the aggressor and defenders side (the recordings of which were kept confidential upon the wishes of both parties), Wardecs (co-led by Toxic Yaken) and the New Player Experience. In addition to this I also ran a PvE Townhall, and participated in Noobman’s excellent Wormhole Townhall. I also suggested, ran and provided a final consensus from a Nullsec Content Creators Focus Group.

I have also been able to write and podcast extensively, taking a less neutral tack when discussing my own opinions on upcoming changes or problem areas within the game. A good example of this would be my “Safeties off, Gloves off” article, which I believe had an impact on the overall implementation of Alpha Clones, seeing as it highlighted the issues with the ‘X Omega + 1 Alpha’ argument that the community was making at the time in the context of Hisec Ganking.

I was heavily supportive of Hyde’s stance on Balance Frequency, and – as shown in the 1st CSM summit notes – was heavily involved in the discussion around not balance particulars, but CCP’s incredibly slow rate in dealing with problem ships within the meta, which leads to what I term a calcification of the meta, where something is so strong for so long, that every counter is explored, known, and solved. After this point, the meta grows stale, and quite frankly, boring.

I consider the rewrite to the whitepaper involving CSM 11, as opposed to CSM 10 who were mostly excluded from the proceedings, a key indicator of the trust and co-operation that we were able to bring to CCP-CSM relations this year. And all of CSM 11 were crucial in achieving that, so I cannot take much credit here, but I’d like to note it at least.

Unfortunately, I am not at liberty to say what things I’ve worked to highlight to CCP in terms of stagnant features, due to my own squeamishness at the edges of the NDA, and the sad reality that simply nothing may come of my efforts, as it may not be something CCP are able to fit into their schedule, or justify addressing from a business perspective. However, I would hope that my fellow CSM 11 members will be able to vouch for me addressing a wide range of topics with the intent of starting meaningful conversations with CCP on them.

Reserved for Q&A/Endorsements.

Super strong endorsement for my podcast cohost, favorite 0.0 war analyst, and tireless community rep Jin'taan

You had me at Hello

quality memer

Strong candidate that'll rank high on my vote

You did good works in the last CSM Jin, You can count on my vote again this year.



Confidentiality still standing, I'm curious if the conversation went something like this...

Aggressors: "We should be able to because we want to, buying people is fun and makes us happy! CCP need to give bullies more reward for their efforts"

Defenders: "Help, we don't understand why anyone would want to be a bully"

Was their any resolution from the round tables?

Definitly a +1 from me. You did awesome work

As some one who arguably saved jin and tonics life once I will 100% vote for him.

This was the reason I actively seperated them, actually, I was able to draw things that both parties agreed on. Specifically that perma-bumping was overall not a great mechanic, and that a timer for it would be (as much as the exact time would be debated) overall a positive gameplay experience change, even if they disagreed with the philosophy behind it.

Both sides also understood that there was an issue with information availability, with Gankers feeling that if there were more of a general understanding of how it worked as an activity, people wouldn't be as heavily negative towards it. Gankees and anti-gankers also felt that this information assymetry lead directly to a feeling of dissatisfaction that also was unfairly weighted towards newer players.

One specific change brought by both sides that I felt was worth escalating to Team Genesis was a one time warning for newer players undocking with a large amount of worth in assets in a T1 Industrial, as it's not immediately apparent that one can be killed in hisec. It would be simple to do, and help prevent a lot of 'bad feeling'.

I gleaned a lot more from this, but these roundtables in general are a way of me representing the interests of people who I think aren't brought to the table effectively on the CSM, especially when I see a possibility of said interests being addressed by CCP. See the PvE Townhall in the conclusion stages of the Shadow of the Serpent event for another example of ensuring that my own views are not unrepresentative of the playerbase before talking directly with CCP.