CSM Campaigns

Oh, believe me, FW pilots would jump for joy all over the known universe if system upgrades were anything other than an LP sink that gets constantly drained by the bad guys. Having system upgrades count for SOMETHING would be a huge incentive.

You could add in things like towers owned by corps in militia getting a fuel bonus (akin to that for nullsec sov), or possibly an increased refine rate at those stations for militia members (say, +1% per system upgrade level, maxing at 55%? That'd make it worth upgrading right there). Not only production rate increases, but perhaps a small ME type modifier of 0.2% or 0.3% per upgrade level?

Any and/or all of these would immediately shift the production landscape in lowsec, at least as far as FW goes. Non-FW lowsec would still need something to be an additional draw for industrial types.

That'd be the style of thing that could happen yes, although ideally we go for something that offers its own unique but compelling benefit. The idea there would be to make the choice of where to do the thing (building, in this case) more a matter of tradeoffs and less a matter of straight "This is better in every way".



Well, part of me wants to tell you to buzz off because it's you, but it's a reasonable question. As with some other answers you've seen I, too, would need to catch up on interviews to really be sure, but at least so far those I can say I'm certain about are:

Sion Kumitomo. While I can make jokes about being contractually obligated to talk up my own Chief of Staff/Head Diplo this way, he does bring a perspective to the metagame side, the people side of "how" and "why" in EVE, that is pretty valuable and that I think has been lacking from the CSM at least since Mittani was on the council.

Steve Ronuken: In addition to being highly knowledgable when it comes to industry, he's a guru in the third party development world, which is expertise that has been lacking from the CSM since...possibly ever?

Sugar Kyle: Sugar brings with her the lowsec angle which (to sound like a broken record) is another viewpoint we've lacked this past year. She also has the added bonus of sounding a hell of a lot like Ali Aras and so if both are elected I'll find the resulting confusion during voice chats to be highly entertaining

Again, it's hardly exhaustive, those three happen to be the ones I think I'm most familiar with, Sion for obvious reasons and Steve & Sugar in no small part due to their recent appearance on DoW with me.

CSM9 Candidate Interview: mynnna
http://www.capstable.net/2014/03/25/csm9mynnna

I really liked the part of the interview and I'll quote the interview and a publicly published GSF update.




His reply?

This was an internal document meant to be posted on an internal forums. Whilst ignoring the fact that it was posted on a public forum and intended for a public audience.



Then he refused to apologize and agree with the statement! Then pretended that it was for internal propaganda yet it was published on a public manner.

Would you Mynnna like to publicly address this and maybe apologize for it?

Or do you agree with Mittens statement that the only one who matters on the CSM is you Mynnna. Which JUST so happens to be the Financial Advisor/Controllers for the most controversial group of players in the game. That, as you have also stated in your interview put your own agendas and gameplay ahead of the rest of the game when it comes to your CSM obligations.

Given how badly I stumbled around while answering the question it'd be easy even for someone starting from a neutral perspective to be unsure about what I was trying to say. Of course you have already made it abundantly clear that you're starting from anywhere but neutral, so you probably fancy it as a wonderful chance to twist the facts and grind your axe a bit. So let me more clearly restate what I said:

• The extent to which I agree with any of that is that there are some bloggers on the CSM.
• If you're seeking an apology for someone's actions, I suggest you start by asking them for it.
• Only a couple of other members of the CSM commented on the line at all and if they took offense, they didn't tell me about it.

The angle I failed to consider, which Hoots pointed out after the fact, was someone who has autism (really) themselves, or has a family member with it. I can understand and certainly wouldn't fault them for being offended at the way "autist" is casually thrown around in the eve community at large, and thinking to my cousin (who is autistic, albeit high functioning in no small part thanks to his mother's herculean efforts to raise him well and get grants & funding for educating his school on it) it makes me embarrassed to think about when I've used the term myself in the past. But as I said - if you want an apology, ask Mittani.


Nope. Did I fail to make that clear?


And now you're trying to twist things as much as possible. The question you're referring to was something along the lines of "Do you think there's a metagame advantage to having someone on the CSM" to which my answer was more or less "There's definitely value in having your playstyle represented on the CSM as it's a direct conduit to CCP and being able to look at at influence changes ahead of time to avoid unintended effects upon or better benefit that playstyle is valuable, but thinking that goes so far as to translate to being able to bring about change for your specific group or control CCP is laughable."

Look me in the eye and tell me with a straight face that you don't think that Mike Azariah hasn't explicitly looked at something for the benefit of highsec. That Ali Aras hasn't explicitly looked at something for the benefit of NRDS as a philosophy, that Ripard Teg hasn't explicitly looked at how to bring about benefit for small gang PvP, or that either Chitsa or James haven't looked at explicit benefit to wormholes, and I'll laugh in your naive face.

I'm not going to expect you, or the delightful paranoid above you, to take any of that as sincere. But then again, I wouldn't expect you to even if I'd more clearly disagreed with it and begged for forgiveness, either.

This is why the CSM is a joke and always will be. You people are elected to be the voice of the player base as a whole. Everyone just winds up in it for themselves!

This is the CSM!

So continue to push your agendas with your ignorance towards others who are not you!

By all means shape the game to suit your own personal goals. And ignore what the players actually want!



I wonder what category will you file the new CSM members under?

Autistic or fools?

Can you answer me that one with a straight face?

Good to know you are refusing to actually reply to my question.

I'll wait for you to get told what to say from Mittens.

If a certain play style is unrepresented on the CSM, for whatever reason, and a proposed change will dramatically effect them what do you do? I know you are a bloc candidate and you realistically don't have to do anything. I guess I am just curious. Low Sec was basically unrepresented(At least "officially") this term, if something came up that could have a potentially large effect on the low-sec player base do you let it go as "not your area of expertise" or search out as much information from those in the know as possible without breaking the NDA?

Wouldn't a simpler solution to this be to move moon mining to the surface via PI? Just allow the items from a moon to be sent to the parent planet and allow variable tax rates to be set for moon PI vs planet PI. This would allow for a more bottom up income and also increase the conflict drivers of shooting POCOs. You could still keep reactions in POS or move these also to the surface.

Moving reactions to the surface and allowing them to be attacked via orbital bombardment would be a great feature to incorporate a almost useless feature in game currently.

Honestly, by the time you've gone through the defensive SBUs, the TCU, the ihub, the TCU again, the ibub again, the station, the station again... adding another station to each station stage aint that big a deal. It's the timers that get you as much as anything.