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 1: This post
First up: Xenuria. I gather there is some history with this character, none of which I have encountered, however he seems very keen to distance himself from that drama in this attempted run on the CSM. Xenuria himself comes across very well, however there were some issues with communication which troubled me.
Firstly he seemed inconsistent with his character; which may sound like an odd concern to begin with. But my issue is that to be an effective CSM candidate you have to be passionate about the area of the game for which you intend to run (especially if you have limited yourself to a single policy candidacy). Xenuria however has purposely distanced himself from his character, and is running for something his character (and by extension he) does not really seem passionate about. In a lesser note I also felt that the answers given during the interview were a bit stock and “Give the people what they want”. I never got a feeling of dedication or exuberance at the chance to be a conduit to CCP.
The platform itself is also a bit of an issue with me. Running on a Risk vs Reward basis is a very interesting concept. But to me there is only really one major point or RvR which I feel needs major attention, and this is the subject of moon mining. Given that Xenuria has shown no interest in this area, nor any history or understanding of it; I do not feel confident giving him a part in the solution of this issue.
In summary Xenuria seems like a nice person, but the chosen platform just doesn’t sit well with me. Further more I get a gut feeling that should Xenuria get a vote, we would note hear much from him post election (this is unfounded but still my opinion).
Unforgiven Storm is a very interesting candidate, and one I wish we had more like. He is running as a grunt i.e. Not a bloc supported candidate, yet he is still very clearly involved in the 0.0 life. He is also very passionate person about his chosen platform: industrialism.
I really like this candidate but unfortunately the industrialist area is not one I feel I consider my self a constituent of. If we had a 0.0 soldier candidate with as much passion for fighting as this man has for industrialism, he would have my vote.
Sadly Unforgivien has put himself too firmly behind the POS (which I do feel is important, but not important enough for its own candidate). My other concerns with him are the unfortunate issues of time commitment (which are out of his control) and that he has a tendency to give solutions rather than show interest in facilitating finding one as a group; we are not looking for Nicky Knowitall, but instead searching for Emma Enabler. Sadly I don’t think he will make it onto my shortlist and I am a 0.0 fighter constituent with a holiday home in finance. I do however hope the industrialists might consider him as worth looking at.
Roc has been a very interesting candidate for the CSM and in my mind I am pidgin holing him as running for the position of Trebor (seriously that is my own doing, he never even eludes to this slightly himself). Roc is running as a completely apolitical platform, and I really respect that. He is not campaigning on the strength of his history, or on his knowledge of any particular area of the game. Instead he is looking to use his tenacity and drive to better represent the player base. From the interview (and indeed having ready his blog for a long time now) I believe that these are not unfounded claims on his personality.
I do believe that the CSM does need a handful of people who do not have an agenda, who can drive the CSM train to its destination. Roc has shown that he has a great idea of what the CSM is, and I really do think that he could be a great driving force behind furthering the CSM’s agenda, what ever that maybe. I think he could be onto a winner with me
Ripard was a very verbose interviewee and I think that this is a good thing. Especially when it appears that the centre of your campaign is based around the concept of communications. It seems to me that Ripard has a very good grasp on communications and how the CSM could improve in this area. However, and this maybe simply because the interview didn’t touch on the areas I am most interested in; I really feel that I need to know more about how Ripard intends to act on the CSM.
Do I agree with him on the core of his campaign? Absolutely. But I know from his blog that he has a wealth of experience and opinions of many subjects which I too am passionate about, and I really need to know which if any he considers important within his role as a CSM member. Much like Mittens ran with the TiDi feature, I want to know that Ripard is going to run with other aspects of the game.
Will I give him a vote based on his communication platform? I don’t know, not without him showing that he intends to put effort into other areas of the CSM as well. I think Ripard is likely to be within my top 7, but it really depends on any future broadcasts of his others areas which will drop him in or out of my top 3.
[Edit: since penning this section Ripard has replied to some questions I sent him on his candidacy. This will be something I do for any candidates which I am on the fence over or for which I want to know more. We’ll see how this affects my feelings on the campaign in the final post on this subject]
Liquid democracy is a core component to Night Beagles platform, and I am afraid that I disagree with the very premise. I agree that the current system of CSM voting is not perfect, but the concept of players voting for all proposed changes just doesn’t sit well for me. Furthermore it worries me that players can be “Represented” by others. I would bet that within moments of this system being implemented 90% of the 0.0 alliances would have vote “Representation” as part of the requirements to join and this would actually remove power from the players.
I feel that Night Beagle is a nice chap, and I applaud trying to fix the voting system. However from his comments on not wanting to communicate, I get the feeling that he is simply a man trying to bend the system to his preference rather than the majorities. I am afraid that he does not represent me in any displayed way, to the point where I found this interview a little painful at points.
Nathan is the first wormhole based candidate which I have heard from and initially I was very pleased with his stand. Although I do not consider myself a wormhole constituent, they are my brothers in terms of being combat pilots. This means that if a Wormhole candidate had some good views on PvP in general it would have no problem voting for them on that basis.
Nathan talked a bit about some of the specific issues around living in wormholes and around alliance/corporation management. Although he didn’t talk about PvP much, I felt that he was a good solid wormhole candidate it is unlikely that he will be on my shortlist as he didn’t seem all about the PvP. I also had a big concern about his commitments to the CSM. At one point during the interview he talks about stepping back from his dutys as alliance leader and letting his directors take control. When pressed however has admits that if he had to pick the alliance would come before the CSM in his priorities. This worries me a lot. Alliance go through a LOT of drama
, and it really isn’t inconceivable that a drama or emergency which required his attention might happen during the next year. Lets say for example two of his main directors had a lovers tiff and cause major issues in the alliance. Would we lose our wormhole candidate? Sounds to me like we would…