Or if youGÇÖd rather something more tangible, look at the CFCGÇÖs war machine. ThatGÇÖs what I helped build.

This man talked to me for a while about Eve one time, and what he said made sense.

Also, I'm in NCdot so I guess we're supposed to be enemies or something? F**k that noise; he'll be high on my ticket.

You bring experience. But how are the skills of dividing a map and managing sixty or sixty thousand subordinates relevant to the role of CSM?

It's impossible not to be impressed by those qualifications. But I wouldn't hire Donald Trump as a secretary, no matter how essential the position was to an organization.

If I vote for you, will you promise to make CFC leadership stop using these ******* dumbass siegefleets?

I want to fly a real ship.



oh **** you're responsible for it aren't you

okay undo it we have caps now

Why dol you want to be on the csm?

I think it important to have someone on the CSM who is familiar with the complex interactions of people, events, and mechanics that serve to give nullsec its distinct flavor. That and, as many others have said, EVE as a game is at a place that legitimately worries me as a player. Since I enjoy fixing things and helping other people fix things, I figure that perhaps my first hand knowledge of what drives alliances in nullsec will prove to be a useful asset in making the game better for everyone, goons included.

You're essentially asking a space politician why he is standing for an election.

Matching the right people with jobs they enjoy doing and that we need done, making sure people have the tools they need, ensuring follow through, building consensus, that sort of thing. Perhaps you see the role of CSM differently than I, but I'm quite certain that such skills will be useful.

Just to make sure I'm understanding this correctly... it sounds like you're running primarily as the metagame representative. (In the very broad sense that, for example, Mynnna is primarily the market representative.) Is this impression wildly off-base?

Also, is there anything in particular that you'd like to speak to about what worries you about the place EVE is in? You may be running more as someone with a skillset and a set of experiences than someone with an agenda, but that doesn't mean you don't have opinions going in. As someone with a high level of respect for the CFC bureaucracy, I'm interested to know what you think and how you arrive at those conclusions.

Possibly. Not sure. Might be asking a large dog why he's barking so loud. I don't know Goon politics in the slightest. Were you elected before?

1. With all of your CFC related time commitments, do you have the time to devote to being on the CSM?

2. Even without breaking the NDA(I don't think you would but alot probably do.), how could you possibly not let that information influence your dealings in the proverbial "Smoky back rooms"?

2. Bias control and information custody is something I'm required to do already, even without legal threats. And I don't particularly want to be known as "that guy who broke the NDA." That's the kind of blow a reputation doesn't recover from, so even if you don't think I'd do the right thing for the right reasons, I've got plenty of reasons to do the right thing just out of self interest.

Interesting stuff

My intent was to imply that I don't think you are going to break the NDA. Maybe I did not imply hard enough. I, probably naively, assume that you wouldn't even run if you weren't sure you could resist the temptaion to talk. I suppose my real question is, do you have the willingness to recuse yourself from Coalition or Diplomatic talks if your CSM knowledge would color your decisions?

Having identified the issues regarding the stagnation of nullsec. do you have any ideas or opinions on how to breathe new life into nullsec and sov?

In general, there are two major lines of thought on this. The first is that coalitions are ruining the game. The second is that EVE itself is broken.

[...]

The problem then is rooted in mechanics, incentives, and risks. The mechanics set a prohibitively high bar for the entry of more new players into 0.0. There's no real incentive, save ego, to hold space. The risks are simply too high to justify the gamble, given the rewards. This sets up a self perpetuating cycle of n+1 where the big get bigger, and the small are either assimilated or bulldozed.

I'm curious as to what you mean here. What kind if situation do you envision where CSM knowledge might create a conflict with diplomatic talks?

As a present CSM, you know that stuff, you weep internally, and you don't let it affect your decisions at all.

I've done that too, but that risks giving away more than making the decision does. It's compartmentalization, same as anything else-- God, you want an example of that, just look at independent CSM campaigning! Everyone wants you to have an opinion on different areas of space and different aspects of balance in the game. Some of those are being looked into and worked on by CCP right now, and yet, those of us who're re-running explain how we think such-and-such should be changed and how we thing balance in so-and-so works.

Anyways, I'll let Sion post on his own thread, I just thought I'd chime in with the present-CSM perspective, as it's something I've actually had to deal with.

Coming from that point-of-view, what would your major concerns and/or wishes be that you would express during a hypothetical meeting where CCP present you their vision for new space that can be reached via player-built stargates?

Any number of admittedly unlikely but possible situations. When moon goo was switched around, presumably the CSM knew about it before anyone else did or maybe they plan on releasing something that majorly promotes "Farms and Fields" and you end up in an alliance or coalition planning discussion involving whether to expand territory or consolidate it. Maybe not be perfect examples but hopefully you get my point. You would have access to information that could directly benefit your Corp/Alliance/Coalition and even if you don't spread that info, it could still effect your stance in those decisions. Hopefully that was a little clearer. I am afraid that I am struggling to find a super coherent way of expressing my concern.

Any number of admittedly unlikely but possible situations. When moon goo was switched around, presumably the CSM knew about it before anyone else did or maybe they plan on releasing something that majorly promotes "Farms and Fields" and you end up in an alliance or coalition planning discussion involving whether to expand territory or consolidate it. Maybe not be perfect examples but hopefully you get my point. You would have access to information that could directly benefit your Corp/Alliance/Coalition and even if you don't spread that info, it could still effect your stance in those decisions. Hopefully that was a little clearer. I am afraid that I am struggling to find a super coherent way of expressing my concern.

It's a problem I solved by just saying "yes" to every question I'm asked about what CCP are doing.

Don't you think that if 12 out of 20 CSM's are basically from the same squad (CFC), that might impact on the changes that are going to be put through since the other 8 can never overrule you on decisions being put to CSM vote by CCP?

As Mike said, it's 14 rather than 20. The CSM does not vote on the things CCP brings to us, we each give our own feedback. This often involves talking amongst ourselves and explaining our point of view in an effort to gain consensus, but the other thirteen are free to agree or disagree or ignore you as they see fit.

Plus by my count there are currently only five CFC members running for election anyway...

Jack "Jack Gates" Gates hasn't put in his ticket, he runs on the ticket of "Guys I need this."

I've been on the bad end of Sion's gaze in times past, all I can say is he's fair, honest and looks at things at any angles you request of him.

There really isn't a better qualifier for a CSM member in my mind.

You got my vote.

As Mike said, it's 14 rather than 20. The CSM does not vote on the things CCP brings to us, we each give our own feedback. This often involves talking amongst ourselves and explaining our point of view in an effort to gain consensus, but the other thirteen are free to agree or disagree or ignore you as they see fit.

Sion:

I appreciate your thoughtful responses and respect your position and leadership within the Eve meta game. However . . .

1. If CCP puts forth Null Mechanics which can potentially destabilize the current Coalition based meta game would you support those changes for the good of the game or would you oppose those changes in order to preserve Goons place in the Coalition pecking order.

2. Since Null mechanics have brought Eve to the position where large organized groups control the systems and smaller newer players are not capable of surviving alone, do you support changes that would allow more diversity in the null sec region.

3. As a comment, the current renter system is in fact the only way that a budding organization can get their feet wet in null. Once renting however the organization is bound by certain rules that favor the owner and ensure that no renter alliance can become "too powerful". Would you change null sec mechanics to disincentize renting space.

4. What specific ideas do you have to change null sec mechanics if any?

5. What specific ideas to change null sec mechanics do you support?

6. Finally, you profess that you are not mechanic driven, but instead are more focused on the people aspect of the game. How would you change people's out looks on the game in a way to create more interest in living in null sec?