CSM Campaigns

Hello there, I'm Fawlty7, CEO of Tactically Challenged the corp and Tactical Supremacy the alliance. You may also know me as the eternal birthday boy.

A bit about me:

I began playing EVE in 2009 at the age of 14. I am now 22 and haven't taken a single break yet. I have played this game through the period of life where peoples' personalities are developed and they are shaped into who they grow up to be. I feel like this gives me an interesting perspective of how much a game like EVE can shape someones life, especially younger players. I also hail from Australia, that desolate timezone that is AUTZ where for the past 8 years where I have had to create content out of a very quiet and much more barren EVE.

In the time I have been playing I have lived in highsec, lowsec and nullsec. I've done mining, ratting, exploration, pvp, fleet commanding, fleet coordination, logistics work, pos work, sov mechanics, capital warfare and many other aspects of the game. My skills and expertise reside in fleet command and organisation as well as general pvp and sov mechanics and the things that go with them such as citadels, towers, entosising etc. I have also organised and attended many real life player meet ups and events, including venturing to Iceland in 2014.

My position:

In the time I have been a fleet commander the meta for the game has changed more times than I can count and the nerf bat has been used so brazenly that leaves players with their last 3 months of training no longer viable. Skill extractors help to alleviate this but it is not a great solution to this issue. When one meta rises above the rest, the creation of potential counter plays is a more ideal outcome rather than the nerf bat approach.

Since starting and running a corporation and alliance it is clear that the alliance system especially needs an overhaul. As a leader I feel like there is very limited options available that come with that power. There are no real options or hard coded game mechanics that the alliance executor can push onto member corporations, it is all done outside the base mechanics. An expansion on options such as voting to force tax rates alliance wide or direct taxing from the alliance to corporations. These are several potential changes that could shake up alliance mechanics.

While the current state of sovereignty mechanics does make it easier for small alliances to potentially get a foot in the door, the current mechanics still make it easy for a much larger entity to push a smaller one out. I believe there needs to be more defensive bonuses for alliances holding sovereignty, it makes sense that people should have to fight tooth and nail to push long standing residents out of an area. Citadels are also an emerging mechanic that has presented potential issues, especially for smaller alliances and their ability to counter them being placed by hostiles within owned space and their subsequent removal. Obviously I understand this is a new set of features but I believe it is important to develop them correctly as soon as possible.

Those are the primary topics I feel strongly about and believe I have the experience to contribute positively to the CSM with. I am more than happy to answer questions about anything people are curious about my views on. Lastly the CSM is a communication line, not a place for my personal wishes to be granted, so while I feel strongly about these topics it's not about forcing this at them, more about representing how these changes can benefit the game overall and enhance players experiences.

I can be contacted in-game on Fawlty7 or on the following mediums:

Twitter: https://twitter.com/fawlty8 (Not a typo it really is @fawlty8)
Discord: Fawlty7#8214

I've known Fawlty for years and he's been one of the most dedicated and prolific content creators in the AUTZ. He's respected by all sides in any conflict and although he's young he's already got a better head on his shoulders than most people I know who are much older. He's a seasoned EVE player, too, having handled more responsibility and gained more experience than the vast majority of EVE players ever will.

I'm happy to endorse Fawlty and he'll probably be #1 on my ticket.

P.S. Happy birthday.

<3 for the endorsement man, means a lot.

Timezone tanking from my perspective has 2 points, direct and indirect. For example, my alliance is 99% AUTZ, therefore we play outside the majority of the games time. Simply by playing in our timezone we are "timezone tanking", in that case it isn't deliberate so much as its unavoidable.

On the flip side, there is always the option for groups to time their structures or sov based on their enemies prime time. This leads to interesting situations and opportunities. A lot of groups love to time their stuff for, funny enough, AUTZ because it's so dead. It provides people playing in that timezone opportunities to have something to do. Overall I don't think there's anything wrong with making your enemy come up with new ways to counter your actions.

My current responsibilities are what give me the experience to run for CSM in the first place. If elected I would have to take a step back from some of them but the ones that I am passionate about and what keep me wanting to login and run for CSM in the first place will still be very much a part of my game time.

Compared to timezone tanking, DT tanking is a much more deliberate use of a specific mechanic. Especially for us in the AUTZ DT tanking has removed so many possibilities for content and possible chances of changing the landscape of regional power bases. So many groups use the safety net of DT to get away with actions that within any other timezone would end terribly. I feel that at the very least, DT tanking completely removes that timezone's ability to have a major impact in certain situations. I feel that a change of some form should be introduced that at least reduces the removal of risk for anyone attempting to use DT as a safety net. Be that the addition of persistent aggression timers or removal of DT entirely.

+1

Agreed on all accounts Vote Fawlty

I like Fawlty7 he is a p.good dude.

Having known of, then met Fawlty many times, I am confident in his ability to confront issues head on, and be frank, open and honest when it comes to addressing any and all issues.
For some of you who may have known Fawlty years ago and have had no interaction with him since - his experience (both within eve and without) have given him a unique and wise perspective.
That is to say, he has grown immensely in leaps and bounds into the level headed man he is today.

Fawlty would make an excellent addition and valued contributions to the CSM, and you, as a voter, would miss out if Fawlty were not a part of the CSM.

For what it means Fawlty7 has the Peoples Diplos endorsement. Having though only known Fawlty for the past two years, I think without his initial leadership back in the main AUTZ squad in goons that made the game so fun for me I would have likely not stayed within the game.

From getting to know him initially in-game to meeting him in reality he is indeed a strong leader and is not scared to let his opinion be heard.

Through all the things TIKLE has so far gone through, the fact that the alliance still stands and even after out multiple sov-evictions, most members of the alliance stayed through it all, to which I believe is a strong example of Fawlty's leadership.

+1 Here.

+1

You get my vote, the CSM would benefit from having you there as would we the players.

The CSM would benefit greatly if Fawlty7 would join.

I've followed him since 2011/2012 ever since joined the CFC. He's an excellent and skilled FC, a great leader, lots of fun and trolls and he makes people happy.

I endorse Fawlty7 for the CSM XII. You'll have a vote from each of my accounts, mate. O7.