Eve needs people. Eve especially needs women. Real women who don't talk about raping asteroids and other such stupid crap as occurs in this game constantly. Eve needs people who won't worship corp theft, betrayal, and general sandbox bullying.

Yet there are a number of good CSM candidates who wouldn't remove those elements of gameplay. They have the strength to endorse a more philanthropic and holistic approach to the "fun of EvE" and also to promote it in multiple areas as opposed to simply a selfish approach catering to a limited set only.

I actually see a number of good new candidates this year like Hans as an example that would offer a more balanced opinion to issues. That and I see a number of level headed members of the current CSM 6 capable of a better understanding of whats better for EvE in the main than Mittens blinkered approach to meta-win politics.

Read my link blogged I provided it explains my stance as to why I have these opinions.

Otherwise there has been significant debate on various topics in the CSM forum surrounding this years elections which can be used to form an "informed" choice about candidates.

[quote=Grumpy Owly]The main reason why the current members of the CSM have attained and appear to believe they can retain power is simply due to using their members to power bloc voting members from their null sec alliances.

As such the numbers and views show that a vast number of players are not interested in voting and thus whilst you may be blissfully unaware, your interests may not be being fully supported.

Chance are that if you are an industrialist, moreso a miner, a member who plays in high sec, low sec or worm hole space then your interests may be being neglected by the current CSM.

I wont tell you how to vote, but I would like to urge you to possibly research the issues further on the EvE forums but most importantly I would urge you to Vote in CSM 7 this March.


Considering the Mittani's Representation:

"One interesting stat to look at quickly might be the level of apathy or representation Mittens has.

According to his own reported figures in the last election he got 5k+ votes, keeping things simple and being generous lets make this 6k. According to CCP there are approx 745k active players. So assuming they are all even maxed out with 3 chars this means roughly (745k / 3) = 248k active accounts at least.

As such it means that the representation of active accounts based on the previous Mittani electorate at best is about:

(6 / 248) * 100 = 2.4 percent.

As such it is hardly a convincing figure that he does in fact unequivocally represent the player interest, far from it." - Delici Feelgood

It also means that it would take very little in terms of representative votes opposing the Mittani to easily re-address any power afforded to him through his bloc voting methods.

You have only provided a specific portion of the blog. Missed off a number of supporting points.

You have only provided a specific portion of the blog. Missed off a number of supporting points.

I was using a previous citation from CCP Diagoras to forumlate a figure based on maxed out accounts as can be seen from the link.

But if I use your figure (if you can provide the citation) it makes the representation of Mittens position even worse reducing it to approx. 1.6%.

There is more to EvE than just one issue.

So interesting that you now collectively support the works as the whole of the CSM 6, yet my objections are leveled or intended to be leveled at one candidate.

Here's an interesting opinion on the efforts of Mittens where as a result there seems to be more than one aspect of apathy or laziness that might need to be prevented as a result for CSM7.

For those interested and thinking your overwhelmed by the volume of candidates or amount of debate.

There is a useful tool called Vote Match that can help to look at significant points and views the candidates may have.

You may still want to look at details further and ask specific questions of the candidates of course, but it may help as a tool to narrow down candidates to a shortlist to research.

Last time the phrasing of the questions left a lot to be desired. Some issues were impossible to agree with without saying you thought they were the most important thing while others you could just agree needed attention. If I were feeling uncharitable (as I was last year) I'd say that this was an attempt to skew people's decisions towards certain candidates. Have you fixed this?