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.

There is more to EvE than just one issue.

Then Mittens is the candidate for you! He's the only one who hasn't tried to rally people around a single issue to get elected. People obsessing over a single issue is what made CSMs 1-5 so ineffective. It wasn't until CSM 6 that they decided to present a united front and actually got CCP to listen to reason.

Why anybody would want to go back to CSMs 1-5 where nothing got accomplished makes no sense.

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.

You don't campaign against one specific candidate if you want things to get done the way you want them.

You campaign for somebody.

Where is your wisdom now? You're so apathetic you won't even pick a candidate to support.

So what you do is encourage people to split their voites and help the guy you didn't want in there in the first place.

All in a thread purporting that the CSM should be abolished?

Genius.

I have voted. The priviledge of the ballot box affords non-disclosure.

I simply encourage people to vote not how to vote, already stated this.

I would have thought it obvious that a "stop apathy" position actually supported the democratic process of the CSM as its trying to encourage effective representation. As such its a view supporting the CSM electorate process and as such the CSM based on the results. Anyone with a modicum of intelligence could connect the dots on this one.

OK so you support the CSM...so you support Mittani.

Glad we cleared that up. It's a good thing for those modica of intelligences.

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.

1. High sec ice interdiction: Goons
2. Recent Hulkageddon: Primarily one Goon Corp
3. High Sec Incursion interdiction: Orchestrated by Darius III of Brick Squad and other null sec zealots (though I have no idea why they did, since most high sec incursion runners are alts of null sec players)

4. Current CSM made comments months ago about wishing to remove ABC ores from wormhole pockets

Bottom line, this CSM will be dominated even more by null sec power blocs, and just look at their track record

1. High sec ice interdiction: Goons
2. Recent Hulkageddon: Primarily one Goon Corp
3. High Sec Incursion interdiction: Orchestrated by Darius III of Brick Squad and other null sec zealots (though I have no idea why they did, since most high sec incursion runners are alts of null sec players)

None of these things have anything to do with the CSM. They are actions taken by individual corps or alliances.




Go read the actual minutes. It was CCP who brought up the idea of removing ABC ores from wormholes. Not the CSM.

The leader of the goons who sanctioned at least 2 of these 3 high sec attacks is the same guy leading the current CSM and is expected to lead it again. Yet you expect anyone to believe that he will suddenly leave that anti-high sec attitude at the door when it comes to plotting the future of Eve. Suuuurrrrre....we all believe that.

As for the ABC ores in wormholes, I read the minutes and the myriad posts about it months ago. Does not matter how you want to spin it, null sec blocs want to weaken anything to do with wormhole groups, and this was one of the ways you/goons/CSM targeted wormhole groups.

As for wormholers?

Another way we target them is with our points, webs, drones, and guns. Everytime they plop out of the little mirrored ball and into our space. We also deliberately collapse their wormholes after a vigorous spanking.

What's your point, TBH?

Wow, does anyone get trapped on their side of the wormhole when it collapses?

Chairman For Life Mittani is laughing at you.

Mittani is literally The Jesus.

I want to play a game, not to participate in electoral politics.

That "tool" wasn't developed by a disinterested third party and its results are not to be trusted.

Please keep in mind that Vote Match! is only intended to point you in the direction of which candidates might be good matches for you. You should still try to get to know more about several of your highest matches by checking out their forums threads, websites or talking to them ingame before deciding who gets your vote :)

I always try to make the statements as diverse and impartial as possible. I don't really know how candidates will vote so I don't see how I can try to skew people's decisions.

Additionally I posted requests for statements on both the official eve forums and failheap, and made the list based on that, the questions from last time and the CSM meeting minutes. I had my proposed 'final' list up for review on failheap for a while (I ended up changing some questions as a result of the feedback there). As such I feel I've gone sufficient lengths to ensure statements are as neutral as possible.

Also keep in mind that these statements exist to highlight the differences between candidates, not to give candidates a place to advertise their campaign positions. As such, some statements are intentionally designed to elicit polarised responses.

CSM's decisions veer back and forth from stupid to absurd, the recent "Titan Crisis" being a good example.