This is a series of posts which contain my opinions on the interviews given to Crossing Zebras podcasts by CSM 8 candidate members. The posts contain only my impressions and thoughts after listening to the interviews given and reading any linked material. As such they should not be used to base your votes upon. The interviews are an excellent listen, and I highly encourage any voters to take the time to form their own thoughts and opinions on who they should vote for. This is simply a public airing of my own personal selection process for a CSM candidate of my heart.
Although I am only interested in candidates of certain sub sections of the game (of which I am a constituent) I have decided that it is only fair to listen to all of the candidates interviews as you never know when their will be some crossovers into sections I am interested in. My end goal of this series is to have a ranked list of my top 14 candidates who I would like to see on the next CSM which will be announced once I have posted all of my notes on the interviews. My aim is to find a candidate who represents me the best. For the record I will be casting all of my votes for candidates in the order of the list this series produces.
Finally I would like to take the time to thank Xander Phoena for doing these interviews. They are without doubt some of the best journalism around the CSM election process I have seen to date. The questions were hard but fair, and I felt that he really dug into what was important for the voter. Considerable time and effort has clearly gone into research and preparation. Well done Xander. Furthermore if you are looking for a more subjective and neutral breakdown of the interviews you should look to Poetic Discourse for Stanziel’s overview of the subject.
The full list of my thoughts can be found labelled: Impressionable
and consists of 6 parts:
Part 4: This Post
Another Nullsec candidate, and one who has is part of a smaller Nullsec alliance, and specifically one with a history of nomadic tendency’s. Kesper has some great goals which match really well with mine: Specifically the concepts of breaking up stagnation in Nullsec. He also shows a good understanding of the greater picture of how things effect the game and the meta game. I’d go so far as to say that I agree with every policy which he puts forwards during the interview. My only real gripe with Kesper’s platform is that according to him, he is mainly running on a worker/Cohesion platform. It beats me why someone with so many good opinions and ideas would concentrate on running on the idea of facilitating other’s ideas. I believe that the CSM should all be working hard and all be working on their cohesion: the concept that we should need a specific member who is doing that is kind of wrong. This said I believe that Kesper is a good speaker, as well as showing a fine grasp of politics. With this and the very similar views we hold Kesper has scored very high on my personal rankings.
Before I start looking a Malcanis more seriously, I need to point out that I am not exactly convicted that he isn’t a secret alt of CCP Unifex, attempting to get a seat on the CSM. To my ear they certainly sound very similar!
Anyway onto a more serious matters. Malcanis is another Nullsec player, horary. Much like myself Malcanis believe that Highsec has seen to much attention and that Null needs a bit of love. Hallelujah, I couldn’t agree more. Malcanis is running on the platform that CCP should be fixing what they said they were fixing in dominion. Seriously, is this secretly my alt as well? Its not all perfect however, Malcanis has some strange views on communication. He has made it abundantly clear that the only form of communication he sees a valid is that of the official forms. Now I can kind of see the logic in this one, as the official forms are exactly that, official. It is also unlike a blog built around the concept of discussion. However I do not believe that the forms should be the only, or even the main form of communication for a CSM member, and furthermore I believe that a Blog is a key part of communication for any CSM member. Aside from this little blip I do feel that Malcanis is a very good CSM candidate.
Monk came across to me as a kind of James514 light, which I think is a good thing. My only real issue with this is that I believe Highsec has had enough love for now, so see no need to vote on a candidate for it. I agree that is a bad fact that CCP restricts its staff from partaking in ganking and other nefarious Highsec activities. But I just cant see on which side the game is imbalanced. The gankers are always telling us that Highsec is too safe, but at the same time I see James315 and his crew constantly ganking billion ISK ships and boasting about it. On the flip side it is undeniable that most nullsec players have a Highsec alt for money making purposes but does that mean its too profitable, or just convenient? Monk certainly has some crossed wires around the concept of the “Sandbox” as well: In his opinion the sandbox means that any player can instantly become what ever they want. To me the sandbox is about giving you the tools to attempt to do what you want. A Carebear should be able to attemptto play solo, he may not succeed, but he can try. A ganker can try to stop all Highsec alts, he may not succeed, but he can try. The balance is making sure that any two opposing goals have an equal chance of succeeding. I would also argue that eve has a far better sandbox than Minecraft: In my opinion a better sandbox is one which has more factors affecting your aspirations. Picture for a second a game in which you simply type in up to a paragraph of text on what you want, and the game renders it for you. That is a very boring sandbox. Minecraft is much better than this, but it still only presents environmental blocks to your goals. Eve on the other hand gives us not only environmental, but also social and economic hurdles/opportunities, thus making it the better sandbox. I am starting to think that you know a feature is balanced when both sides are complaining in equal amounts, at the moment I think Highsec is pretty much like this. With an area I don’t really think needs any more changes, and opinions I don’t agree with Monk is pretty far of my ideal candidate.
Steve is a Lowsec and Faction Warfare candidate, as well as running on a Third part developer stand. I should point out that I believe that FW has had more than enough attention in the past few years, and doesn’t need any major content patches aimed at it. Steve also came across during his reasoning for running as a little bit of a selfish candidate. He stated that he felt that he could communicate his views to CCP better than another candidate could. Now that’s fine, and that’s why he is running, but why should I vote for someone who is running to better their communication with CCP? Even worse, Steve is running on a general platform which included balancing Highsec and Nullsec as well as fixing industry. Let me clarify my incredulity here, Steve has never joined a large corporation (and certainly no alliance), and he never fought in Nullsec, but he believes he is qualified to help CCP fix Nullsec? I’m sorry, but I can see no reason to vote for him over a player with direct contact with the areas I am interested in seeing fixed. Sorry Steve, but no.
Ali Aras is running on what is as far as I have seen so far a very unique platform: improving new player involvement in Nullsec, and I love it. She had some great views on the game, as well as showing that she understood how Nullsec works along with how to help newer players get into it. We also had a lot of similar views on the topics of importance for Nullsec. Ali did fall a little in my opinion when she went down the route of only having time for the people who she considers her “constituents” I believe that a CSM member should make time for any eve player. However I hope that I read that section of the interview incorrectly. All in all I really like Ali as a candidate, although I still think that new player introduction to Nullsec is a lesser point of interest than fixing Nullsec in general as a result she is not my favourite candidate, but defiantly high in my rankings.
Another controversial one. Although I abhor racism in any form, I do believe if giving any man the opportunity to try to argue his point. As such I was a little disappointed with the way that Xander handled the end of the interview, it came across as a little unprofessional. Moving onwards to Revedhort himself: Fon Revedhort is a small gang and solo PvPer who wants to concentrate on improving this area of the game. This is good, but not my priority for the next CSM. This is not the core reason why I will not be voting for him. The key reason is this: Every aspect of Fon Revedhort (right down the pseudo German sounding name) seems to be aimed at bringing his real world beliefs into the game. Everything right down to the analogies which is chooses to use seem designed to slip his racist views into eve. If Revedhort were spouting all the same views as me, and was making a good effort of proving that his real life beliefs wouldn’t interfere with his role in the CSM, I might consider him for a candidate; but it is clear to me that this is not the case. I have stated at the top of these posts, that the views I write in here are my own and should not influence anyone’s voting directly at any point. This is the one instance where I will go against this: I strongly advise not voting for this candidate. I encourage all voters to listen to the interview to make up their own minds still, but I cannot in anyway encourage anyone to vote for someone who not only has what are, in my opinion, twisted views on racial equality: but also seems intent on bringing those views into our game. Please do not vote for this candidate.
I’ve found this set of interviews much better than some of the other groups so far. With the arrival of some Nullsec candidates who really seem to be on my wavelength. Its great to see my 14 votes begin to form into a cohesive list. I have also noticed that there is a clear way to tell if a candidate is politically savvy or not. Its simple: When asked “what are the key successes and failures of CSM 7” a savvy candidate, when talking about failure will empathises that its impossible to see all ramifications of CSM 7 within the NDA. They will also make a point of discussing the “Perceived” lack of communication. That is the sign of someone who not only understands how the CSM system works, but also doesn’t want to eat their words next campaign season…
Please also note that I have update the blurb on the start of these interviews to reflect the new STV vote system.