These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Jita Park Speakers Corner

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Issler Dainze for CSM7! Hear the bears roar!

First post
Author
Kusanagi Kasuga
Ferocious Felines
#81 - 2012-01-31 14:56:43 UTC
The Mittani wrote:
the 'vor party' is, but you're welcome to try to put words in my mouth lil anime-name alt


Fair enough.
I think that the idea of bloc-voting for Hi-Sec is the idea that this thread has right, and it's something that should be supported. The individual campaign that VoR is running, I don't know so much. But simply put, Hi-sec has no explicit candidate on the CSM, even Trebor (whilst my favourite candidate since DV left) is only hi-sec friendly, rather than a hi-sec advocate. Hi-sec needs a way to push back against the null-heavy bias in the CSM right now, a bias you (compliments where it's due) engineered to counter a previous anti-null bias on the CSM. We've still got an unbalanced CSM who does good things sometimes and other times craps on a whole section of the player base they do not understand, it's just backwards now.
Issler Dainze
Tadakastu-Obata Corporation
The Honda Accord
#82 - 2012-01-31 18:55:54 UTC
The Mittani wrote:
blocs predict a needed 2000 votes to get a single candidate on and thus aren't vote-splitting, if you try to run 3 candidates on a niche hisec ticket all you'll accomplish is diluting the voting pool for folks like trebor and meissa




I must be doing something right if I rated a visit from the king of Eve!

I'm not worthy, but still willing to make this effort!

Issler
The Mittani
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#83 - 2012-01-31 19:41:51 UTC
hisec does have a bloc candidate, that'll be kelduum, which will severely disrupt the attempt to organize non-aligned hisec votes among issler, t'amber, trebor and any other serious hisec person who throws their hat into the ring

the interests of goonswarm and eve uni are almost identical (newbies, newbies, newbies) so i'm looking forward to working with kelduum on NPE issues

anyway if you want to make this VOR thing go anywhere you'll need to have one candidate instead of three

~hi~

Hans Jagerblitzen
Ice Fire Warriors
#84 - 2012-01-31 20:33:15 UTC  |  Edited by: Hans Jagerblitzen
Issler Dainze wrote:


I must be doing something right if I rated a visit from the king of Eve!

I'm not worthy, but still willing to make this effort!

Issler


As if Mittens needs more of an ego boost Roll

CPM0 Chairman / CSM7 Vice Secretary

Zirse
Risktech Analytics
#85 - 2012-01-31 20:45:54 UTC
The Mittani wrote:
hisec does have a bloc candidate, that'll be kelduum, which will severely disrupt the attempt to organize non-aligned hisec votes among issler, t'amber, trebor and any other serious hisec person who throws their hat into the ring

the interests of goonswarm and eve uni are almost identical (newbies, newbies, newbies) so i'm looking forward to working with kelduum on NPE issues

anyway if you want to make this VOR thing go anywhere you'll need to have one candidate instead of three


Do you foresee butting heads with Kelduum given that CCP has stated that wardec mechanics are possibly on the agenda for the summer?
Issler Dainze
Tadakastu-Obata Corporation
The Honda Accord
#86 - 2012-01-31 20:51:06 UTC
So one thing to be clear about, the initial suggestion was three candidates. Also the idea of seeing who would be interested in joining the party as a candidate and then finding the best candidate(s) in terms of electability. If we need to reduce the slate to a single candidate to make sure we get someone on the CSM7 we will.

The final VoR candidate list does not have to include me, if stronger alternatives come along that would support the party platform I am very willing to step aside and put my support behind other candidates.

So I defintely am leading the charge for now but I hope we get some other candidates to join the effort and we end up with someone that can garner all the support of the unaligned high sec pilots and assure we have representation in the CSM 7.

I also reject the idea of a goon high sec candidate, as one of the important aspects of the group the VoR seeks to represent are the "litlle guys". We don't need a candiate from a major power block pretending to represent high sec and the interests of the smaller corps and independent players. One of the major reasons for me trying to get the party going was a direct reaction to the power block bias of the CSM 6.

Issler
Kusanagi Kasuga
Ferocious Felines
#87 - 2012-01-31 21:11:49 UTC
Hi-Sec deserves more than one candidate, really. It's a major part of the game.
W-Space deserves at least one candidate, and low-sec NEEDS one.
Mara Rinn
Cosmic Goo Convertor
#88 - 2012-01-31 21:29:25 UTC
Kusanagi Kasuga wrote:
Hi-Sec deserves more than one candidate, really. It's a major part of the game.
W-Space deserves at least one candidate, and low-sec NEEDS one.


The players deserve the representatives they vote for. I will not be voting for any of the current CSM simply because they flat out refused to communicate with the player base. No minutes, no crowd sourcing (one attempt with no followup doesn't count), no filtering of F&I, no filtering of Assembly Hall, no reporting of where particular issues lie on the list of priorities. I don't care which "bloc" you represent: as long as you commit to regular communication with the player base about the basic process of the CSM (i.e.: minutes of meetings at the very least) you'll appear on my shortlist.

I will not be stuck watching in horror as the null sec CSM who know nothing about the rest of the game encourage CCP to pursue foolish ideals of "burn it all down" (which only means the biggest fleet of super caps will own everything) and "let super caps dock" (which only means that more people will fly super caps due to the perceived freedom of leaving them at any time). This CSM understands nothing of game design and balance. None of them are worthy of representing the players on the CSM.

As despicable and worthless as he is, The Mittani is right on one count: presenting more than one candidate will simply dilute your vote. Get a candidate in, and when you see that you got more than enough votes to support two candidates, put two candidates in for the following session. The only way The Mittani will not get CSM Chair is if we have very few hisec/carebear candidates, and an order of magnitude more players actually vote. More players voting for fewer candidates means more votes per candidate.

Non-block representatives don't have the luxury of being able to coordinate which of their subjects will vote for which candidate. We have to be more motivated and more informed than the bloc voters (thankfully, it's not hard to be more informed than null sec drones, it just required effort).
Hans Jagerblitzen
Ice Fire Warriors
#89 - 2012-01-31 21:38:08 UTC
Mara Rinn wrote:
The only way The Mittani will not get CSM Chair is if we have very few hisec/carebear candidates, and an order of magnitude more players actually vote. More players voting for fewer candidates means more votes per candidate.


This would be a very effective strategy for empire voters. Given that The Mittani will win a council seat regardless, along with a strong likelihood of the remaining 6 seats being filled with incumbents, empire voters could instead focus on taking away his chairman seat as check and balance to the Goon's power.

CPM0 Chairman / CSM7 Vice Secretary

Scatim Helicon
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#90 - 2012-01-31 21:51:32 UTC
Single issue candidates are a pointless approach to take unless you can be confident that CCP will be heavily focusing on that particular issue during the upcoming CSM term, or unless you're charismatic enough to bend CCP to your will.

Every time you post a WiS thread, Hilmar strangles a kitten.

Indahmawar Fazmarai
#91 - 2012-01-31 22:01:39 UTC
Houm, probably Issler is the one working harder for a candidacy. I was challenged earlier to become candidate, but that's nothing I will do. I am old and smart enough to know I don't have the kind of skills needed for such a task.
I picture myself as either a right hand or a thinking head to aid the guy with the charisma and the social skills, but never the guy in open light.

So, putting it short, if Issler forwards, I will vote him unless he does something that scares me.

BTW, mobilyze people against someone is a hard trick to pull and usually backfires; voting against Mittani or nullsec blocs should not be the strategy. People should vote for what they will get, more hisec, WiS, lowsec, mining, you name it.

In fact, we should NOT talk at all about nullsec: there's the whole damned CSM6 to do so.

When WE talk about THEM, then THEY become the hot topic and nobody talks about US...
Zirse
Risktech Analytics
#92 - 2012-01-31 22:02:11 UTC
Mara Rinn wrote:

As despicable and worthless as he is, The Mittani...



You do realize you're just enabling him.

I'd love for the highsec crowd to come out and vote, I just don't see it happening. I get the feeling people are upset only because of two reasons.

They're just realizing now that they're in a minority when it comes down to 'people who care about the csm.'

They fail to see past the rhetoric and talking points of people who enjoy a good troll. At the end of the day, anyone who runs for the CSM is doing it because they want to make EVE better.

I haven't decided who I'm voting for yet, but if he generates sufficient nerd rage I will probably vote for Mittens.
Seleene
Body Count Inc.
Mercenary Coalition
#93 - 2012-01-31 22:07:28 UTC
Mara Rinn wrote:
The players deserve the representatives they vote for. I will not be voting for any of the current CSM simply because they flat out refused to communicate with the player base. No minutes, no crowd sourcing (one attempt with no followup doesn't count), no filtering of F&I, no filtering of Assembly Hall, no reporting of where particular issues lie on the list of priorities. I don't care which "bloc" you represent: as long as you commit to regular communication with the player base about the basic process of the CSM (i.e.: minutes of meetings at the very least) you'll appear on my shortlist.


There's no denying that CSM6 could have done a better job overall. However, this CSM and any that follow are not organized along the lines of the old way of doing things where they had regular 'formal meetings' and actually voted on proposals and recorded the votes and threw spoons at each other, etc... We got on Skype, hashed out strategies for various issues and executed plans in one-tenth the time of the old way of doing things. The old way is GONE. It's not coming back because it was grossly inefficient for actually getting **** done.

I cannot speak for other CSM's (in)ability to talk to players, but I try to answer every eve-mail I've gotten over the past year on CSM issues. I've gone on EVE Radio, talked to whoever asked for my time when I had time. I've blogged about every summit I've been to in detail, along with all the other major events of the past year. I don't blog often but when I do, I try to make it informative and worth your time and I make it a personal policy to at least try to take even frothing at the mouth rage freaks semi-seriously. It may not qualify as 'regular' communication but it's often better than 'official' information channels as well.

Mara Rinn wrote:
I will not be stuck watching in horror as the null sec CSM who know nothing about the rest of the game encourage CCP to pursue foolish ideals of "burn it all down" (which only means the biggest fleet of super caps will own everything) and "let super caps dock" (which only means that more people will fly super caps due to the perceived freedom of leaving them at any time). This CSM understands nothing of game design and balance.


I'm willing to wager I have a pretty good understanding of both, including a fair idea of how my former co-workers prefer to phase things in over time versus the random ~awesome~ idiocy that plagued so much of CSM6's term. You are also WAY over-simplifying and out-right ignoring statements, blogs and forum posts that several CSM's including myself have put out clarifying some of the things you are upset about.

Mara Rinn wrote:
None of them are worthy of representing the players on the CSM.


Obviously I disagree, and not just for myself. You can't throw a blanket at 14 people (yes, CSM 6 is actually FOURTEEN players) and say this. It's just ridiculous and makes you look radical and spergy m8.

Mara Rinn wrote:
IAs despicable and worthless as he is, The Mittani is right on one count: presenting more than one candidate will simply dilute your vote. Get a candidate in, and when you see that you got more than enough votes to support two candidates, put two candidates in for the following session. The only way The Mittani will not get CSM Chair is if we have very few hisec/carebear candidates, and an order of magnitude more players actually vote. More players voting for fewer candidates means more votes per candidate.


For better or worse, Mittens is probably going to be the CSM7 Chair. Unless he's caught on film literally grilling live kittens for his puppy to eat, it's pretty much a done deal. I was the #2 vote getter in the last election by a fair margin and Mittens still had over 1200 votes more than I did. He's got too much organization and too many people that his particular 'style' appeals to, not to mention Goons will not be splitting their vote this time around.

If you want a seat at the table, you are going to have to focus hard and not dilute your potential votes. Even if you succeed, you also need to find someone that not only represents your interests but also has the social skills to communicate those interests effectively to both his/her fellow CSMers AND CCP as well. Food for thought. v0v Smile

2004-2008: Mercenary Coalition Boss

2007-2010: CCP Game Designer | 2011-2013: CSM6 Delegate & CSM7 Chairman

2011-2015: Pandemic Legionnaire

2015- : Mercenary Coalition Boss

Follow Seleene on Twitter!

The Mittani
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#94 - 2012-01-31 22:35:26 UTC
Mara Rinn wrote:

As despicable and worthless as he is, The Mittani...

Non-block representatives don't have the luxury of being able to coordinate which of their subjects will vote for which candidate. We have to be more motivated and more informed than the bloc voters (thankfully, it's not hard to be more informed than null sec drones, it just required effort).


your posts make ron paul look entirely reasonable

~hi~

The Mittani
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#95 - 2012-01-31 22:39:45 UTC
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:
Mara Rinn wrote:
The only way The Mittani will not get CSM Chair is if we have very few hisec/carebear candidates, and an order of magnitude more players actually vote. More players voting for fewer candidates means more votes per candidate.


This would be a very effective strategy for empire voters. Given that The Mittani will win a council seat regardless, along with a strong likelihood of the remaining 6 seats being filled with incumbents, empire voters could instead focus on taking away his chairman seat as check and balance to the Goon's power.


if you think that the source of my power and influence comes from the title rather than social skills, i don't even know what to say

~hi~

The Mittani
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#96 - 2012-01-31 22:52:26 UTC
Zirse wrote:

Do you foresee butting heads with Kelduum given that CCP has stated that wardec mechanics are possibly on the agenda for the summer?


i suspect that expansion will be planned and done for by the time csm7 takes office, so no

i'm not a fan of the dec-shield loopholes in the current system

~hi~

Indahmawar Fazmarai
#97 - 2012-01-31 22:54:32 UTC  |  Edited by: Indahmawar Fazmarai
BTW, what I find interesting is how the CSM6 no longer pretends to represent *all* players... apparently those who bother to talk, only do so to claim "Hey, good luck making yourself heard, we are not going to fukking care of you non-nullsec sukkers".

But then...

If I am right and I fail, then there will not be any EVE left for me to play...

If I am wrong, then there will not be any EVE left for me to play...

And in any case, I am not paying this game any longer. Lol
Seleene
Body Count Inc.
Mercenary Coalition
#98 - 2012-01-31 23:23:19 UTC
Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote:
BTW, what I find interesting is how the CSM6 no longer pretends to represent *all* players... apparently those who bother to talk, only do so to claim "Hey, good luck making yourself heard, we are not going to fukking care of you non-nullsec sukkers".]


Seriously, who are you talking about?

2004-2008: Mercenary Coalition Boss

2007-2010: CCP Game Designer | 2011-2013: CSM6 Delegate & CSM7 Chairman

2011-2015: Pandemic Legionnaire

2015- : Mercenary Coalition Boss

Follow Seleene on Twitter!

Scatim Helicon
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#99 - 2012-01-31 23:23:47 UTC
Seleene wrote:
Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote:
BTW, what I find interesting is how the CSM6 no longer pretends to represent *all* players... apparently those who bother to talk, only do so to claim "Hey, good luck making yourself heard, we are not going to fukking care of you non-nullsec sukkers".]


Seriously, who are you talking about?


the voices in his head

Every time you post a WiS thread, Hilmar strangles a kitten.

Hans Jagerblitzen
Ice Fire Warriors
#100 - 2012-01-31 23:38:21 UTC
The Mittani wrote:
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:
Mara Rinn wrote:
The only way The Mittani will not get CSM Chair is if we have very few hisec/carebear candidates, and an order of magnitude more players actually vote. More players voting for fewer candidates means more votes per candidate.


This would be a very effective strategy for empire voters. Given that The Mittani will win a council seat regardless, along with a strong likelihood of the remaining 6 seats being filled with incumbents, empire voters could instead focus on taking away his chairman seat as check and balance to the Goon's power.


if you think that the source of my power and influence comes from the title rather than social skills, i don't even know what to say


Dont' worry, I don't.

"Check and balance" was not the best choice of language. No doubt you will leave your mark on the council regardless of whether you hold seat #1, or seat #14, and nothing in the CSM structure explicitly gives more authority to the number one seat.

I think the reason that we hear so many frustrated players is simply a matter of demographics. The Goons are essentially a minority group within the entire player base, yet you claim hold over the council. A great number of players might have more faith in the CSM to represent a majority interest if they had a figurehead that actually represents "the average player". Regardless of whether or not your decisions have actually benefited the majority of players, there is no question that it was your voter bloc that put you there, moreso than any populist rhetoric you have used and will no doubt use again.

Ultimately, only the empire voters can decide for themselves whether they believe that you truly care about voicing their ideas to CCP, or whether they see your time on the council as a natural extension of the meta-gaming and lust for power you have become infamous for. If voters decided to challenge your seat (and had a candidate capable of doing so) they couldn't strip you of power but they might be able to restore some of the council's reputation as a truly representative body.




CPM0 Chairman / CSM7 Vice Secretary