CSM Campaigns

I told myself that I'd wait till the official announcement, before putting up this post, but eh, it's at least the right year.

I'm Steve Ronuken, your friendly neighbourhood industrialist, and the proprietor of https://www.fuzzwork.co.uk (and evebloggers.com, evelexicon.com and a site I really need to finish and get out for the NPSI community. It'll happen this year.) On the side, I do a little missioning, exploration, and trading (when CODE. aren't blowing up my freighter. )

This is my fourth CSM election, and I'm hopeful, with your help, the third time I get elected.

Before I get into the rest of this post, I wanted to address a question about CSM X. Yes, the relationship with CCP has been somewhat damaged. Which is a real shame, both CCP and players of Eve prosper, when communications flow freely. However, I'm not as bitter as some people have become (evidenced, in part, by me running again). I'm also not of the opinion that the CSM has to change structurally to fix things. Or that the CSM should be replaced by focus groups.

Focus groups are a great idea. Sugar and Corbexx have run some very productive ones, which have given very useful information to CCP. However, focus groups are best suited for things which are long running. The CSM is really handy for those questions where you just need a quick answer, from a wide selection of player groupings. Where you want both an insiders and an outsiders viewpoint. Focus groups are slower (you have to form them) and, by nature, more focused on specific topics.

As far as I'm concerned, electing a bunch of politicians to the CSM is missing the point of it. Someone who rarely logs into Eve isn't a suitable candidate. Leaders are fine, but you want a number of subject matter experts. From FCs, to missioners, to wormholers, to industrialists (see what I did there? )


Anyway, I'm not going to make you a bunch of campaign promises. Any candidate who says "I'll change Eve this way" is badly misguided as to the role of the CSM. Yes, we can make suggestions, play at junior game dev (I know I have) but that's all it is. playing. CCP doesn't have to listen on that, the only value being to give them some ideas, for when they get back round to that system.

What I will say is, I support the following things.

• Making information available to players, to allow them to make more informed choices. See my site for some examples.
• Remembering the solo player. That's not to say everything has to be available to solo players. But they should always be considered. (see below for a definition of solo)
• Industrialist lives matter.
• Miner lives matter. (I'd like to see more options in mining. but this is rolling into junior game dev territory)
• Highsec matters. It's where most people start off, and many stay. Nullsec has its place, and should have a few unique twiddly bits, but they shouldn't come from crippling highsec.
• All sec spaces matter. They're different. They should remain different. And no one space is more important than any other. There should be reasons to go day tripping into lowsec and wormholed (where you become content for the people who live there) There should be reasons to control areas of nullsec. Bob is no laughing matter in wormholes.
• All ages of players matter. From Newbies to Veterans. Eve doesn't have an End game. And it should stay that way. And while the NPE needs work (and always will, tbh, until we get AIs to walk everyone through stuff till they're comfortable) that doesn't mean that everything for Vets should be ignored.
• PvE and PvP are equally important. Dull PvE leads to players who fund their PvP with it, getting bored and walking away.
• PvP and PvE should be more similar. More variety, and having to use PvP style fits when missioning/running anoms. The concept of a PvE fit rubs me the wrong way.
• Third party development - (added because people bugged me to, on #devfleet) I'm one of the primary sources for the static data export many sites depend on. I run a site which appears to be pretty popular. I'm deeply plugged into that community, of third party developers, many of whom make their tools freely available regardless of affiliation. As such, I have a very good grasp on what they want, and what I should advocate for on their, and your, behalf.

Anyway, if you have any questions, ask away :D








Solo Player: A player who, while engaging with the rest of Eve, does it on their own terms, without being beholden to larger organisations. See me for an example.

Steve does good hard work and has no equal on the CSM, I'll be voting for him again this year.

Moon mining isn't exactly passive. There can be a bunch of work shifting stuff around to create value. And they should require defence.

The should is the key word there, because you end up with diplomats working out agreements not to attack each others moons and so on. Grrr, diplomats. Ruining people's fun.

I'd prefer to see moon mining moved to a somewhat more active process, allowing for disruption, even if that's not taken to the point of destroying the thing doing it. So being able to raid and get some of the output (more active than a siphon)

Vote for him, if not top of the ballot then top three.

He has my undiluted support.

m

What new information do you expect to give to CCP in your third term? You have already had a couple years to share with CCP. What value add do you continue to have for the CSM as opposed to some random new person who might have novel opinions to share with CCP?

I.e. What fresh ideas are you bringing to the table, or is CCP so hard of hearing that you need to keep saying the same things you said for the last few years?

Should the improvement of high sec, if CCP plans any, be related to changes that are not based on simply adding new ways of earning ISK ?

See you are making a basic assumption that we 'bring things' to CCP. We do now and again but Steve has excelled at being cooperative with CCP api/crest and the technical sides of Eve. He also is great at anaysis of industrial changes but he is in constant communication with the devs few of you even know of.

He is not 'done' and I doubt he ever could be. Losing him would be a real blow to the CSM/CCP dynamic.

Vote for Steve.

m

Yes.

Old content should be revisited, and revamped every so often, as technology becomes available to do so. Like reworking missions to use the new AI, and be more procedurally generated. For example.

I've voted for Steve in every CSM election since I joined EVE. I don't agree with everything he believes, but he communicative with the player base (like Mike is), he works hard, and he knows quite a bit about his own EVE niche. He seems to have a genuine love for EVE.

Not to mention, we share a love for abs.

I have been waiting for this thread, just to say that I fully endorse Steve for CSM XI.

He never fails to impress with his technical ability and a willingness to try and understand anything he doesn't already know. As to the relationship with CCP, I feel he is one of the guys that will keep it going in the good way should he be successful in re-election.