CSM has made it clear that it is a large contributor to the problems with Eve, and the structure of an election by players is slanted toward older players from big player blocks in an obvious way. I want to play a game, not to participate in electoral politics.

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

I don't care whether CCP replaces CSM with something else or not. I'd recommend a board made up of people who tried the game and left it after a few months. They might be able to help guide the game in a healthy direction. As it is, CSM is dominated by people who want more of the same or who want the game to favor their empires and their styles of play.

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. The present CSM will never see that,

CSM has made it clear that it is a large contributor to the problems with Eve, and the structure of an election by players is slanted toward older players from big player blocks in an obvious way. I want to play a game, not to participate in electoral politics.

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

I don't care whether CCP replaces CSM with something else or not. I'd recommend a board made up of people who tried the game and left it after a few months. They might be able to help guide the game in a healthy direction. As it is, CSM is dominated by people who want more of the same or who want the game to favor their empires and their styles of play.

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. The present CSM will never see that,

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.

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. The present CSM will never see that,

Take all that away, and what the hell would be left???

All the stuff you mentioned is what keeps a lot of the current players around. Without the inherent drama, EVE would be be a boring grind-ridden MMO like all the others.

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.

Thankfully none of them are going to be elected.

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.

So you're saying you think Titans should be able to blap logi's and HICs?

Because that's what it sounds like you're ******* saying.

I don't think there's anything balanced about that.

But your random and wildly contradictory thoughts are duly noted.

There is more to EvE than just one issue. But i guess this is the kind of "blinkered" opposition we have come to expect.

Personally I'm not a Titan Pilot, and I see the issue surrounding the ploriferation of supercapitals as something that needs to be addressed before it gets out of hand of course. Wether the approach taken here to the null sec issues surrounding this is the best one I can't really judge. But there is more to EvE than just Titans even though it is topical.

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

Your point. You don't have one.

I want to see examples, because you still aren't making any sense beyond terribly vague generality.

Name a position that Mittani has taken that isn't balanced...since you seem to know what issues we're talking about and I obviously don't.

CSM has made it clear that it is a large contributor to the problems with Eve, and the structure of an election by players is slanted toward older players from big player blocks in an obvious way. I want to play a game, not to participate in electoral politics.

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

I don't care whether CCP replaces CSM with something else or not. I'd recommend a board made up of people who tried the game and left it after a few months. They might be able to help guide the game in a healthy direction. As it is, CSM is dominated by people who want more of the same or who want the game to favor their empires and their styles of play.

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. The present CSM will never see that,

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 mean this crap?



So you're taking Mittani's representation, which you fudge with pretty poor maths, and equating that to him having an unbalanced position?

Please tell me you've got more than this? Please tell me that you actually have some kind of facts?

Otherwise this looks like blind libel.

[Edit: You also encourage your readers (indirectly, through your incredible wishy-washyness) to split their votes, further ensuring that Mittani will win. You really are a bright, bright star!]

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

Your willingness to enlighten us is overwhelming.

How will the apathetic masses ever thank you?

I'm not going to hold a gun to anyone's head. I'm simply presenting information.

It's up to the convictions of the individual to support something and that is a personal choice.

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

By the way, it's ~370k active accounts. Not 745, not 248. There is no way of knowing how many active players there are.

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%.

Which really makes your advice stink all the worse, now, doesn't it?

I mean you could have stepped up and opposed him. You could have rallied the troops around a centrist candidate.

Yet you did nothing, and continue to do nothing but qq about representation.

Do you understand how monumentally fail this looks?

Not really if I'm trying to encourage voting in an effort to reduce apathy. By maintaining a view of not encouraging or suggesting specifically who to vote for, it leaves it as a personal choice. This freedom of choice encourages a view to participate and not feel prescribed as to how people should vote. This to me actually helps with the apathy issue imho.

I feel confident that the candidates propoganda (good or bad), debates, manifestos and discussions with interested parties in their campaign threads provides the outcome of support as a result, although bloc voting issues will be apparent. The only stance I have which is obvious and has been for some time, is I don't support Mittens candidacy. But this is the motivation behind why I view it important to address the apathy of course.

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.