CSM Campaigns

That second video is not me.

cant tell if trolling, or literally drinking Xenuria's kool-aid in preparation for the mothership

I don't have alts, also; nice jaw line.

It's Aram, he doesn't drink kool-aid, although he may have more wicked motives than trolling.

Now, this #LaughGate thing intrigues me, but I won't click the YT-links because last time I watched a Xenuria video, I had bursts of laughter and bursts of depression (In his videos, Xenuria does come across as sincerely deluded, it's eerie!), so can anyone provide a transscript or a summary?
Thanks!

Thus thread has gotten interesting again. :popcorn:

All you need to know is Xenuria runs every year, this year is actually tame somewhat for a Xenuria platform.

If I recall in previous years the big topics was the lack of crossdressing for toons and a "gender gradient" for every possible nonbinary gender in character creation, because apparently EVE couldnt be complete without shemales and such silly things. (like seriously, future world where people can eb put into clone bodies 40 times a day from pewpew, and someone thinks there would still be transexuals, rather than people just opting to swap their body?)

either way, long story short, lightly trolling Xenuria with cold hard logic-based questions is a tradition, because the holes he digs are both deep and hilariously awkward

*edit* also, was kinda sad the thread petered out, was having fun those couple weeks it was always up on the first page

well, pointing out faults with the intention of gaining a reaction out of the target is the essence of trolling, and pointing out the basic flaws and other such silly things in your posts at least gets you to participate in your own CSM thread, because lord above knows you sure dont post to answer legitimate campaign concerns.

The unfortunate fact is that it was not necessary to troll your thread. You were asked legitimate questions and completely failed to answer them adequately.

The reasons I asked questions was honest curiosity after the name-scratch incident; I wanted to know if perhaps there was something legitimate you had to say about the game that people felt threatened by. Against my better judgement I put you to the scrutiny of critical thinking and I am sorry to say you were found wanting - and not just a little bit; you were BADLY wanting.

To your credit you did make some effort to refine what you had to say initially, but that rapidly petered out and I quickly found you A) were unable to explain why the problems you wanted to solve were actually problems, much less needed solving urgently B) what other merits you might have - your sole answer was "I'll do what needs doing" which is at best tautological and at worst an admission of total incompetence by virtue of not having the foggiest idea WHAT might need doing and C) eventually ceased responding altogether except for continued attempts to get people to quit "trolling your thread".

If you run again next year, I will ask similar questions only because of the faint hope I have that you might learn and improve - I am always pleasantly surprised when someone recognizes flaws in their position and behavior and revises them, and it inspires me to know that this does happen occasionally. I am not optimistic in your case however, because A) it's a rarity that people can critically examine themselves and B) you seem to have startling misconceptions about the process you are engaging in that you would need to address before you could remedy your platform.

First, elections necessarily involve the candidate getting subjected to attacks and criticism - "trolling" and part of the test of a candidate is how they respond to this. Asking people politely to please stop (your tactic) is somewhat better than taking the bait and ranting at them while frothing at the mouth, but it creates the appearance that you are afraid of their questions and are trying to dodge them - because the best troll will add a healthy dose of legitimate question to their trolling. They are just as capable of being polite as you are, and they mostly were. The ultimate effect was that you came across like Erotica 1 trying to pretend to be polite and professional while scamming the **** out of someone. Disregarding the legitimacy or lack thereof of his/her behavior, the fact is that this tactic might work when trying to troll someone else, but it doesn't work very well when you are trying to get someone else to vote for you. You do not have the leverage on these people that Erotica 1 did in the bonus room, and I daresay it is unwise to come across that way to people you want to vote for you. In other words, your veneer of politeness came across as insincere and a smoke screen for an inability to address inherent flaws in your ideas.

Second, the ideas themselves. The CSM is an advisory council, in a video game, and one where underhanded behavior is expected, if not entirely the point of playing. The problems you cited would be a serious issue in a real election; they are not in this one. In fact, they might not be problems at all, and trying to "fix" them could actually irreversibly damage player interest in the process.

Excessive control by nullsec blocks (and for that matter, the influence of carebears and other boogeymen) is really not a problem - while some CSM members may be drama queens, foolish, silly, unresponsive, or lacking in perspective, for the most part being even-handed, articulate, and intelligent is necessary to get elected and ultimately the CSM does not want to give advice, nor does CCP want to take it, if it destroys the entertainment medium we all enjoy. Trying to push a video game ideology at the expense of the game's continued commerical success is simply never going to be a viable path, and so therefore running AGAINST that is tilting at windmills.

Furthermore, some of the problems, like "buying accounts to stuff the ballot box" are so impractical on the face of it that trying to "fix" them seriously calls into question your grip on practicality. The CSM, again, has no actual power. Vote-buying of the quantity needed to significantly influence the election would never be economically practical. You are unlikely to convince people to vote for you to put a stop to behavior that is unlikely to occur in the first place. The same thing with term limits - while there are occasional people with more than 2 terms, the lack of pay, time invested, and effort of being a CSM mean the vast majority of people have had enough after 1 or 2 terms.

In summary, your problems amount to that you treat this election like it's a real election in areas where it's inappropriate to do so (concern over corruption that isn't actually a problem in this context) and don't treat it like one where you should (you try to shut people up, when people never respond to that well in a candidate. People remain people regardless of the context). You seem to basically have the entire thing 180 degrees out of line.

This went on rather longer than I intended, but again, everything is quite sincere. I don't really expect you to seriously consider this, but if you DO, and give your candidacy an overhaul you might actually convince people to vote for you if only because you will have demonstrated open-mindedness and willingness to learn from mistakes.

This isn't that difficult.

If you are not trolling and actually want to know the answers to the questions these upstanding forum posters have been posting than read the first post of the thread.

As a tactic, constantly asking the same already answered questions is ineffectual. You just come off as desperate when doing it.

I hope you like crow.