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 2: This Post
Mynnna was of particular interest to me as he is the official Goonswarm candidate. Goonswarm have always been an interesting entity to me and I am very pro their way of adding content to the game. Furthermore the pedigree of their past candidate in mind, and his famous ousting from the CSM, I was very hopeful we might see his prodigy running for this CSM (at least a political prodigy if not a drinking one).
Mynnna is not the Mitanni, not by a long shot. He was clearly out of his element being given tough questions and switched between seeming incompetent and flippant at regular intervals. I just didn’t get the feeling he was taking this seriously, which is a big turn off for me. Perhaps it didn’t help that he was the first X-Z interview given and he didn’t really know what to expect, but even considering its not a great start.
Furthermore I am very worried about his stance on the topic of Moon mining. Or to be more specific Goonswarm’s standing on the subject. Mynnna himself talked a perfect game around the subject; verbally ticking all the boxes on the subject. However, I really couldn’t shake the feeling that behind the words, he is there not to represent the players, but to represent the Goons. Now I like goons but I don’t want any CSM member who is merely a mouthpiece for a Coalition/Alliance. I believe his term goals would merely be to protect Goonswarm’s best interests and not to stick with his manifesto. Please don’t think this is just hating on Goons, its not. I Would say the same were he the candidate for any ISK top heavy Nullsec entity. Add to this Mynnna’s lack of political savvy and seemingly blasé attitude and I’m not pinning a rosette to my jacket.
[Edit 2/4/13] I’ve also warmed a bit towards Mynnna these days, having actually been looking for more of his views. His Mittani articles make good sense and I am starting to think that his interview with Xander was a mix of a bad day and being the first in the firing line. He’s still not Mittans but honestly it was pretty unfair of me to make that comparison.
Mike talked a lot of good sense which I found my head bobbing to. The only point where I felt he stumbled was around his advocacy for nerfing suicide gankers. His reasoning was leaky as a colander and I felt that Ripard made a much better case. Mike seems like a fair gent who is campaigning for better communications and as a hard worker for the group. He also wants to improve the CSMs understanding that CCP is a business.
That last point I disagree with a litle. I believe that in the relationship between CCP and the CSM, the CSM brings the player view and CCP brings the business view. That counter interest is actually what makes the relationship work; with each side working from their angle to, generally, work out a good middle ground for both sides. If the CSM turns more business orientated that balance could fall over.
Unfortunately despite representing everyone and talking a very good talk, Mike simply doesn’t represent me.
This is going to be a short one, purely because I cant find any holes to pick. Marc came across great and made a lot of sense. However as a Lowsec candidate he doesn’t represent me. Very interesting views he had on Lowsec, and I saw no issues with his postulation on what needed fixing in Nullsec. That’s said I feel that Low sec had its time in the last two patches; its Nullsec’s turn now.
Final thought is that of all the candidates who “Don’t represent me”, Marc is the one I am most comfortable with being on the CSM.
I have to admit that I was looking forwards to this one having been familiar with James315’s history. However I enjoyed it for reasons completely different to the ones I was expecting. If I am honest I was expecting James to be a complete troll, waging into the interview under a banner of Lolz. But actually he came in with a very interesting and reasonable set of points.
I agreed with a lot of his thoughts on the safety of Highsec and the need for some changes around the balance between Null, Low and High. This said there are far more points I don’t agree with. I do not agree with Safe Highsec being the cause of the Blue Doughnut. I do not agree that drastic nerfs need to take place (I think this can be done more subtly, and in a balanced way). The real contention point is that on Alliance funding: James infers that the balance between Alliance and Pilot income is just fine and should be simplify elevated so both get more. He also infers that Moon Goo income is just fine as it is. I could not disagree more. An interesting and fun candidate, but not one for me.
Another good well reasoned candidate who I think makes a lot of sense for the wormhole consistence. That’s not me though. I felt that James had some good points of view, and I also felt he was likely a very good source of opinion for new player experience. I also felt that he might have been a little deluded around the concept of teaching CCP the game. Even if what he says is true, how will he teach them? Night classes? Still a good solid candidate
Another very interesting candidate, Hunter is running on a Dust 514 platform. Unfortunately although I agree that we should work to integrate our communities together I do not agree that we should thus share a CSM with Dust; at least not without major changes to the CSM’s structure (increasing it’ssize, and setting seats for each game). I believe that the CSMs job is to convey eve online players concerns and feelings on eve online features to CCP. Giving players of a different (free to play) game the ability to vote on ourCSM would majorly dilute the influence the CSM has worked so hard to get. Potentially we could end up being marginalised on the CSM by dust candidates. I believe that a Council of Planet Management is a good idea, and I believe that the CSM and CPM should work closely together, perhaps with one member sitting on each others boards.
With Hunters primary platform not fitting my thoughts I am afraid that his secondary platform (Nullsec, which is even more important to me) doesn’t really fit much better. I do not agree with his views on capital changes and firmly believe that we need to fix the current Capital issues before we start adding new ones (of dubious inception) into the mix. I also don’t agree with his opinion’s on delayed local. I feel that Nullsec residents have already extensively discussed this issue within our community and that we have shown that simply delaying local is not enough of a solution, more work needs to be done. If I am honest my first thought on hearing this part was “Another wormhole player who wants null to the W-space, yawn”. Lastly I do agree with his opinions on making stations destructible , if not for exactly the reasons he is siting. For the record Dust members hired to cap stations is one of the best original ideas I have heard so far.
Now that I have gotten through a good chunk of the interviews I am starting to see some common themes and issues. Firstly there seem to be two categories of candidates in my view. Nice guys who talk the good talk, but don’t really represent my views at all; and players who shouldrepresent me directly, with whom I just have no trust. Of course there are exceptions and grey areas on this.
Furthermore, perhaps its just the random sample I have had so far, but there is an extraordinary amount of candidates running solely on the platform of “I am a hard worker” and “I want to aid communication”. That’s great, and they are really important things for the CSM to work towards, but if every one I have listened to were elected in the conversation at their inaugural meeting would look something like this:
CSM1: Ok guys what’s our key aim for the year?
CSM2: I don’t know, but we should communicate on it!
CSM3: YES! And we ALL need to work really really hard!
CSM4: I certainly will, but what will we work hard on?
CSM5: Just one second I’m communicating our confusion with the players
CSM6: Sorry what am I working hard on again?
OK that’s a major exaggeration, but the number of people running on these points is above the proportion I am interested in. Furthermore there are too many candidates who represent “Everyone”. Now I think a few of these in the CSM is a great thing, but what I really look for is a good middle ground. In this search I am looking for a candidate who closely represents my opinions and feelings on subjects which I think are important. I want that representative to be open minded and sensible, but any candidate who says they represent every one equally is, in my opinion a bad vote. I have a lot of opinions, and a lot of conflictions, just in my own mind; So unless that CSM member is going to sit down for a few days with me and really thrash out how I feel on subjects, they are not representing me at all; they are representing the collective. I would like to remind people that the “Collective” think that Darius III is a good representative…
For one reason or another I have still only found one candidate who has struck this balance, and indeed only one who I was interested enough in to send questions to. I really don’t want to just have one person to rely on, so I really hope I’ve just had a bad sample so far. Never the less, the search goes on.