[Editors note] Sorry for rushing out two in a row, but I wanted to be ready to release a summary post tomorrow to coincide with the start of the Voting period for CSM 8!
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 shortlist of 7 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. Later I will narrow this down too my Chairman of Choice, for whom I will declare my support (for the very little it is worth). My I’m is to find a candidate who represents me the best. For the record I will be casting a vote for each of my top 3, and an extra vote for the Chairman of Choice.
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 6: This Post
Mangala is a PvP candidate, and I am doing him a favour by opening my impression of him with this; because his official platform is a very general one. But lets face it, what platform could Mangala of RvB fame be running on? Mangala talked a good talk in his interview, but he did worry me a little with a slight lack of political savvy (as emphases by his platform bungle). Perhaps calling it lack of savvy is misleading, because looked at another way, I could say that Mangala is quite honest in what he says; is that a good thing? I’m not so sure. I agree with a lot of things Mangala has to say on highsec, but I as I have stated before I am really not sure how well he could represent my area of the game. That said, I would prefer to see Mangala in the CSM than a lot of other people.
Kaleb is part of the Goonswarm diplomatic core, and as such has a good Nullsec history. He is currently campaigning as a communications expert to ensure that the CSM communicates well. I cant be bothered to explain again why this is a bad thing, so I wont; needless to say it counts against him in my standings. Xander argues that his platform is very similar to Ripard Teg’s but here I disagree: As I understand it Ripard is running as a communications expert, who has some very strong views on the game and its way forwards. Kaleb is just running as a communicator, and makes a point of not expressing any views. While we are talking about Ripard, we need to discuss another, rather unfortunate, part of Kalebs interview, and that is the amount of time he spend pissing on other people. Let me quickly list the people Kaleb went out of his way to explain were wrong/stupid/bad:
- CSM 7 as a whole
- Hans Jagerblitzen in specific
- Two Step in specific
- Ripard Teg
- And an inference aimed at Trebor
Two key points here, every time a CSM candidate degrades someone else, the candidate doing the slandering is degraded in my eyes twice as much. No matter how valid the point (they weren’t particularly), or how well argued(they were just rude), the fact that Kaleb would rather slant someone else than discuss why he is better doesn’t sit well with me.
His views however seem pretty good: sov is boring, less titans please, keep the titan jump range, happy with titan roles and lets have better Nullsec industry base. I was a bit confused when he used the open mic at the end of the industry to try and sell me his Senior year course, at whatever learning establishment he works, instead of his eve knowledge, but hey, if I had “built a nuclear reactor on my desk” I’d want to tell every one two I guess. All in all some good views, but the amount of time he spend slandering people, mixed with a terrible platform put me off a lot.
Banlish is the primary test candidate, and also the author of the Outpost Update. He has a wide history in eve and it has furnished him with a very interesting attitude. He seems to be laid back and strait talking, while retaining political awareness, and as a result I like him a lot. He showed quickly that he had a great grasp of the issues facing Nullsec, both in sov and in industry, and did so without waffling. He also showed a lot of political savvy by declining politely to talk about the last CSM, and producing a very catching and effective slogan for his campaign “Less Clicking More Ass Kicking” which didn’t feel forced or cheesy at all. He has very similar views to myself and despite being a block candidate I felt myself trusting him a lot.
Awol is the second Test alliance candidate but comes up very short in my view behind Banlish. He has some similar views to me, but came across as not a great political speaker, and a t one point pretty much stated than Banlish is a better candidate, and that he might not have run if he had known Banlish was running. He showed an arrogance in his position which Banlish, who is far safer in his votes, did not; and completely messed up his telling of the Two Step POS incident. I think however that the most telling part of this interview was the question “what would you have the developers develop if you were in charge”: Awol didn’t pick a politically popular thing, nor did he go for a big change: He decided that he would have CCP make his life easier, by developing a better in game browser, great, thanks buddy.
Its good I am ending on this one as I don’t really know what to make of it. At first I thought it was an April fools joke by Xander, but the community site confirms
that Apricot is a candidate. It was a good pseudo interview and was very cleverly done, if a little short. Most of the things it talked about where Highsec based and very much role-play, neither of which will earn a vote from me.
No summary this time, I’m saving it all for the concluding post tomorrow.