The problem with the null bloc votes is that an alliance will just say "vote for this guy" and the alliance sheep will do that en mass. The person they are voting for doesn't need to even say what he actually wants to do with the game. Perfect example was mittani. He posted nothing about what he actually wanted to do with the game (other than keep jump bridges) and herds of cfc voted him in.


BTW I am not saying there is anything we should/can do about this. I am just saying it happens.

The problem with the null bloc votes is that an alliance will just say "vote for this guy" and the alliance sheep will do that en mass. The person they are voting for doesn't need to even say what he actually wants to do with the game. Perfect example was mittani. He posted nothing about what he actually wanted to do with the game (other than keep jump bridges) and herds of cfc voted him in.


BTW I am not saying there is anything we should/can do about this. I am just saying it happens.

He actually ran on the platform where he specifically said he would not address what he wanted changed in game. He ran on the platform that he would be a bastard. If you can translate what that would mean for in game changes then good on you. Pull up his campaign thread if you don't believe me.

Even when ccp had the emergency summit because it was bleeding subscriptions due to lack of development in spaceships and pay to win and memos telling the players to f-off, you will see that he didn't even push for more development of in space eve in at that summit - read the csm report from that summit if you don't believe me. He was so pro ccp it was sick. He even said something like "nevermind that memo."

After that summit It wasn't until the playerbase made it so obviously clear that eve needed work on the in space game that ccp basically would have to shift gears anyway that he then started supporting that - very late. And of course he claimed credit for that even though it was more the players that pushed that through despite the csm.

Yeah it might help if you actually look at what happened, instead of just inventing history.

I don't know what you meant the rest of your post destroys my argument. What candidate from a big alliance ever put forward a set of specific or even general changes that they wanted to ccp to implement.

The Only csm candidate that ever did this and won on that sort of platform was Hans.

So yes their entire purpose is pretty much to give input about the development of the game.

That is why it is silly when people run and say vote for me because I am your alliance leader and don't say what they actually want to see happen with the game. But that is how it is done.

Actually what was funny is if you read what mittani wrote you would think the csm was some sort of managment position. He was saying how he was going to reorganize ccp and what not. No one cares about csms managment ideas. They are elected because they play a computer game and ccp wants input on how the game should be developed. They don't care if someone on csm likes their team based management system.

Of course people like mittani and other alliance leaders often do not have very good ideas on how eve should be developed but they still like the spotlight and trip to iceland - so they tell people like you they are not going to tell you anything about their ideas for the game because they are not devs. People in big alliances vote for them anyway because they are used to doing what they are told.

Like I said the only one I saw who really ran on a campaign where he actually said what he wanted ccp to do with this game was Hans.

There were a number of threads that I could not spot among the massive amount of other candidacy-threads, various CSM discussions and older threads (As well as probably a few candidacy-threads bumped up among newer ones).
Those I did not find with a cursory glance:
Seleene.
UAxDEATH.
Hans Jagerblitzen.

Or perhaps candidates should just tell people what they want to happen to the game, and then let people vote for them, or not, based on that. That would be better than just voting how their alliance leader tells them. But for many null sec sheep that is too much to ask.

Or perhaps candidates should just tell people what they want to happen to the game, and then let people vote for them, or not, based on that. That would be better than just voting how their alliance leader tells them. But for many null sec sheep that is too much to ask.

Did you read Mittanis csm 6 campaign post? Is it not exactly as I describe?

I tell you that null sec sheep will vote for whoever they are told even if that person doesn't tell them what they want to happen with the game. I say mittani did this as a case in point.

You say I have no proof.

I say read what he wrote when he ran for the evidence.

You refuse and just say my claim is drivel. I can't force you to read the evidence if you are intent on being a drooling zombie supporing your brave leader, but that doesn't mean there is no evidence.

I looked it up on eve search. It is even more ridiculous than I remember it.

http://www.eve-search.com/thread/1473855-0/page/1

I like that if I wanted to, I could agree with your point about The Mittani, rescind those few lines, and still have decimated your argument, leaving you with an empty hat and a bill to pay... Nice attempt, now could you please stop dodging?

(I'll look up the finer details about The Mittani's CSM 6 and 7 campaigns and respond to that tiny and non-essential part of the argument when done. The stuff I said about him was from memory, so perhaps I'm slightly off on that one.)

I looked it up on eve search. It is even more ridiculous than I remember it.

http://www.eve-search.com/thread/1473855-0/page/1