Thursday, April 4, 2013

Voting for CSM8 and Endorsements

CSM8 voting is finally open for business! The first round of voting is over. Nearly all of the candidates received the 200 votes needed to make the final ballot. Among those eliminated were some dyed-in-the-wool carebear candidates, so I'm happy about that. Turnout for the first round of voting was dreadfully low, but that may be a result of voters assuming that the candidates would easily clear the 200-vote hurdle. Hopefully turnout for the real vote will be much higher. Due to the drop in people running, there will be 31 candidates fighting it out to win 14 seats. In other words, 45% of the candidates will win.

Here's the link to the page where you can vote. You'll need to log into your account at that website to cast your ballot. Remember that if you own multiple accounts, you can cast multiple votes.


As you can see from the sample picture above, you select your candidates in order of preference through drag-and-drop. As you fill each row, another will appear, and you can vote for up to 14 candidates. If you're feeling lazy, you can vote for just one, or a few candidates.

It's impossible to predict how someone will perform (or not perform) on the CSM once elected. It's fair to say that some CSM members will pleasantly surprise us, while others will prove to be disappointments. Putting those caveats aside, here's a guide to help you select candidates for the CSM.

CANDIDATES TO VOTE FOR

Psychotic Monk is running on a highsec PvP platform. He favors emergent gameplay, which roughly translates into killing carebears for fun. If you support Psychotic Monk, I would strongly recommend that you place him in the #1 position on your ballot, as he's not a member of a large alliance and will need all the votes he can get.

Malcanis understands that risk/reward is badly broken, and I look forward to seeing him make that case on the CSM. I imagine he'll be diplomatic in the beginning, but over time, will allow his abrasive personality to shine through as he deals with carebears on the CSM.

Mynnna is very aware of the brokenness of the current highsec/nullsec dynamic. He's considered the foremost expert on the EVE economy, and is probably one of only a handful of players whose expertise CCP may defer to. Mynnna has also donated billions of isk to the New Order, which suggests he's not opposed to emergent gameplay in highsec.

Chitsa Jason is the best of the wormhole candidates, from what I've seen. For those of you who are voting a wormhole slate in the top 5 spots, I would encourage you to put Chitsa in the top position.

To fill out the remainder of your ballot, the following candidates are also highly qualified, have not bought into the carebear agenda that I'm aware of, and stand a reasonable chance of winning a CSM seat:

Kaleb Rysode
Banlish
Kesper North
Sort Dragon
Sala Cameron
Cipreh (also a wormhole candidate)
Awol Aurix
Artctura
corebloodbrothers
Mangala Solaris

CANDIDATES NOT TO VOTE FOR

Given that 45% of the candidates will win CSM seats, several of the following will end up on the CSM anyway, but the only way you can express your dissatisfaction is by filling up your ballot with people who aren't them. These are the worst of the worst:

Trebor Daehdoow, who is running for reelection, has proposed boosting EVE subscriptions by getting rid of non-consensual wardecs--which he refers to as a nothing more than a "griefing mechanic". Simply disgusting.

Ripard Teg loves to waffle, but not enough to prevent airing out some dreadful views about the game. He's "undecided" on whether to outlaw non-consensual wardecs, but has gone on the record in favor of "isk tanking" (more on that later), and favors nerfing the suicide ganking of certain industrial ships. Because ganking hasn't been nerfed enough yet.

Mike Azariah is also on the record in favor of nerfing suicide ganking. Ridiculous.

Nathan Jameson is probably the worst of the wormhole candidates. I get kind of a Ripard-esque vibe off of him. I hope I'm wrong, but why take the chance?

riverini made headlines last time he ran, because he thought CCP's top priority should be Incarna and clothing removal.

The following candidates must be considered "bad" because they favor "isk tanking". This is a severe nerf of suicide ganking in which a ganker must not be able to inflict damage greater than the value of his own gank ship, or must not be able to make a profit on ganking under any circumstance. This discredited view of ganking ignores the extreme variance of ship EHP when tanked or untanked, the extreme variance of gank cost when using different numbers of gankers, and the extreme variance of loot potential. It also assumes gank victims have no responsibility to defend themselves or avoid attack:

DaeHan Minhyok
Greene Lee
Korvin

MOTIVATION TO VOTE

I still haven't seen signs of CCP's promised get-out-the-vote hooplah, so I suppose I'll need to take matters into my own hands. A feast for the eyes:


Now do your duty and vote. Here's the link again, in case you don't want to scroll up. Every vote counts.

53 comments:

  1. MS Paint makes for fantastic propaganda, I feel invigorated already.

    Anyway, while Nathan Jameson does smugpost a little, I don't know why you're seeing a Ripard vibe. I'd also love to see a source for Daehan's 'isk tanking' missteps. The amount of derp on his blog makes me believe you, but a source would be nice, considering he has somehow ended up on the CFC official voting guide.

    ReplyDelete
  2. "In case you don't want to scroll up again"

    This is why James is so influential. He knows Eve players to the core.

    ReplyDelete
  3. We will vote as you command, Supreme Protector. o7

    -Galaxy Pig, Chicken, and Mule

    ReplyDelete
  4. Well damn, with such an inspirational portrait of our Supreme Protector in this post, how could I resist voting for those candidates. +1 vote for all of those dudes

    ReplyDelete
  5. Didn't Mynnna use a exploit to obtain a lot of isk for the goons through faction warfare? So exploiters are ok but botters are not? But that's ok as they fund the New Order isn't it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That isk was removed along with the LP used to generate it. The real winners were the guys who's buy orders were filled at 25% of real market value. Which unfortunately was not Goonswarm.

      But facts are tough.

      Delete
    2. Not only did they warn of this exploit beforehand they also turned themselves in. Bobbins, try and not be you for awhile.

      Delete
    3. But the fact remains that James 315 actively supports a player who used an exploit to gain 5 trillion isk. Do you support the exploiters? The isk was removed by CCP due to the fact it was gained illegally by an exploit.

      Here is the gloat post before CCP took the isk.
      https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=124145

      5 Trillion Iskies taken by CCP it is no wonder the goons feel so poor. I wonder how much that is in cash terms?

      Delete
    4. Anonymous 08.35
      But there are so many of you, anonymous.
      'Those same five players reported the issue to us after using it themselves for about two weeks.' - CCP Sreegs

      Two weeks is not beforehand is it anonymous 08.35 and definitely not in line with the rules.

      Delete
    5. Aryth: "I had actually reported the issue to CCP in it's first form 2 weeks ago. They have known to some degree what we have been doing for quite some time. I assume the first hotfix to cargo drops were a part of that."

      So yes, they reported it beforehand. They then reported it again saying "no really, this is seriously broken we made 5 trillion isk", at which point Sreegs stepped in and reverted the 5T isk, then rewarded them with a huge stack of Plex under the plex for bugreports policy..an amount of plex worth much less than 5T isk.

      Get your facts straight.

      Delete
    6. Technically AFK mining is an exploit too so you supporting anyone who could potentially make highsec safer and thus easier for AFK mining is also supporting exploiters.

      Directly from the EULA:

      You may not use your own or any third-party software, macros or other stored rapid keystrokes or ~other patterns of play~ that facilitate acquisition of items, currency, objects, character attributes, rank or status at an accelerated rate when compared with ordinary Game play. You may not rewrite or modify the user interface or otherwise manipulate data in any way to acquire items, currency, objects, character attributes or beneficial actions not actually acquired or achieved in the Game.

      Delete
    7. @anonymous 10.02
      'We'd argue that there was no exploit (unlike things in the past like the Ferrogel dupe), merely an intended mechanic stretched to a legitimate extreme, but we're clearly biased.'

      - Corestwo

      So you expected to keep the isk. If they players hadn't reported it they would have been banned. Yes banned. As per 'Because the players made efforts to inform us about the issue their accounts will remain in good standing.' - CCP Sreegs

      I must leave it here i'm afraid too much nullsec crying :( for me.

      @La Nariz
      5 trillion isk normal gameplay?????? CCP thinks not, do you?
      5trillion = 5,000,000,000,000 isk

      LOL Mining at an 'accelerated rate'. Do you actually play eve mining is one of the must slow ways to accumulate wealth in eve.

      Delete
    8. BobbinsHasAnEchoApril 5, 2013 at 5:38 AM

      "This is my last word on the subject. "

      "Apart from this one :)"

      "I must leave it here"

      Delete
    9. This is the Internet equivalent of the carebear stare.

      Bobbins is yellowboxing us with his cargo fit internet orca.

      Delete
    10. Yes it is an 'accelerated rate' because the person is not at the keyboard and is mining while not playing EVE. Strange how similar that is to botting, where a player mines without playing EVE.

      Delete
    11. Using the same rationale, market trading is also "accelerated" and similar to botting as the person isn't t the keyboard whn making ISK. Actually it's even worse as you don't even have to be logged in!

      Delete
    12. @La Boca: What's your point? Or are you just pointing out the vagueness of CCP's rules for amusement?

      Delete
    13. I'm pointing out that there are even worse offenders (i.e. market traders) when using the above rationale that people here use as justification for hating on miners.

      I thought that was obvious. The not quite so obvious (but still pretty damn obvious) implication is that a lot of people here using the above justification are just masking their deep irrational hatred of miners as their are worse offenders.

      Do you understand now Mr/Mrs Anonymous?

      Delete
    14. Trading is designed that way to allow the market determine the rate of revenue. So it does not violate that clause in the EULA. You obviously did not get your space law degree from space Harvard. Mining on the other hand is not designed to be AFKed, feel free to prove me wrong with a devblog quote, hence AFK mining is against the EULA.

      You obviously did not get your space law degree from space Harvard like I did.

      Delete
    15. A trade bot was recently caught and punished by CCP, as re was using a custom website with the in-game browser to send multiple API commands per click.

      Kelduum at Eve-Uni got tarred a bit by his acts when he handed his ISK to the Uni just before he was banned.

      So yes, CCP is monitoring station traders for botting behavior.


      But you can be certain that, once DUST 541 is fully integrated with EvE Online walk in stations, that there will be a JAMES 315/DUST 541 unit stalking and killing Jita station spinners.

      Delete
    16. @La Boca:

      "I'm pointing out that there are even worse offenders (i.e. market traders) when using the above rationale that people here use as justification for hating on miners."

      La Nariz destroys your argument with one obvious retort. To fill in his retort, market trades which happen while you are afk, happen when someone else actively presses a button. Always at least one of the two people in a transaction have to be logged in--requiring both to be logged in would mean that people who didn't play at the same time of the day could never trade with each other. To avoid this, CCP created a market system where one of the two posts a price, and the other person fulfills it later while ATK. The person who presses the button can be anywhere, in space, mining, doing anything. The person who's not at the computer only gets or recieves items in station, never at a POS or in space. This distinguishes it from AFK mining, in which the miner, who's not AFK by design but through exploiting, receives items in space while in his ship that's also in space. I'm sorry that you weren't able to understand these multiple important distinctions.

      Secondly, still on the same point, even if we grant your point that there are worse offenders...so what? That is completely irrelevant. Do you go up to people fighting against throat cancer, telling them that they are idiots because lung cancer is worse than throat cancer? So what, they are volunteering their time to fight against cancer, of the type of their choice. If you want to volunteer for lung cancer instead, go right ahead. Totally irrelevant.

      "The not quite so obvious (but still pretty damn obvious) implication is that a lot of people here using the above justification are just masking their deep irrational hatred of miners as their[sic] are worse offenders."

      This is completely irrational. A. As above ,you're wrong about there being worse offenders. B. Even if you were right, your conclusion doesn't follow from your assumptions. It's not just about efficiency, it's also about fun and personal choice. C. Even if we were robots programmed to do the most efficient thing not the thing we want to do, an efficient analysis wouldn't just include which offense is worse, but which offense is most possible to fight against. As Agent Trask points out, you can't kill people who don't leave the station ever.

      Three fatal errors in your argument, any of which make one wonder why you bothered.

      Delete
    17. No. Your 1st point is irrelevant as the person MAKING the isk is still afk, or in the case of the market trader, not even logged in. Can you even read what the sheeple are bleating about on minerbumping.com? Hint:the clue is in this thread. AFK ISK MAKING. ffs, are you purposefully acting like a retard?

      Your 2nd point. It's basically, yeah there are much worse offenders, but we will go after those who aren't the worst offenders. This makes you look like retards. Going after the most UNimportant cause is kool yeah. Seriously, makes you look like incompetent fools who are trying to justify hating miners. That doesn't come as a surprise really.

      Your 3rd point is obviously made upon false assumptions that I've just debunked. In the same vain I could make a 4th retort based upon BS just like you have, but that would make me look a just as silly as you, which I am clearly not, so I won't.

      Delete
    18. @La Nariz
      Mining is not designed to be atk. It is so boring that it is surely designed to be afk. Any idiot can see that. Maybe 0.05% would choose to mine for enjoyment atm. Yup, that's your argument blown out of the water! Mining is designed to be afk, no doubt about it. Making assumptions and using them as justification is such fun! (this might be lost on you, La Nariz).

      Delete
    19. @La Boca:

      You've run out of valid arguments, which has left you with two options:

      A. Resort to action in game. This isn't a simple task, as most of the New Order ships are suicide boats meant to die already. If you were ingenious, however, you'd find a way. Since you're not, you've resorted to:

      B. Inept insults, like a typical rebel miner.

      *yawn*

      Delete
    20. The irony and hypocrisy of your last reply is truly amazing. I'll take it as a sign of defeat from you seeing as it's a reply wholly aimed at attacking me and not the valid arguments I've made which you've failed to address.

      Delete
    21. You are incorrect, where did you even get your space law degree from a box of space cracker jax? I challenge you to cite one CCP source stating that mining was designed to be AFK. I'm sure you'll see its impossible see the case of CCP Sreegs vs. botters.

      Delete
  6. From where I stand, it wasn't even an exploit. They manipulated the market in a way that made them oodles of ISK. You win EVE.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 'I don't really want to say just yet, but basically if you know you're using a system in a certain way in order to gain massive resources, whether you're taking advantage of a design flaw or not and whether we classify it as an exploit or not we're still well within our rights to fix the glitch. I'm not going to comment on what we do or don't do at this point because I don't prejudge the results of investigations.' - CCP Sreegs

      No they CHEATED at eve. Mynnna the 'eve economic expert' would probably tell you of what effect a group of players generating trillions of isk unchecked would have on the eve economy. Hint it is not good and would certain not benefited the game!

      This is my last word on the subject.

      Delete
    2. Apart from this one :)
      'The people who sought to benefit from this exploit will receive no gain from this system. Because this was essentially a system where you could print LP, even if ISK was provided as an input, it is classified as an exploit.'
      - CCP Sreegs

      Delete
    3. According to that characterization, tech moons are an exploit. CCP can call things whatever they want, and if their definitions aren't internally consistent, people will reject them. I.e., it wasn't an exploit, but CCP treated it as one anyway. As players, we're then presented with the choice to keep playing or not...if they continue to make inconsistent definitions like that, I'd stop playing. If it's a rare thing, I can forgive it.

      Delete
    4. Like what others have said they reported it before they did anything. Then when CCP took their sweet time, they went ahead and showed CCP how broken it really was, and then told them about it; again. All I'm getting from you is that your desperately reaching to sling some mud at someone who actually did the right thing by showing CCP the problem, multiple times. Whereas you and many other Eve players would have kept the money and hoped no one noticed. Amirite? Maybe you're just mad cause they figured out an exploit, warned CCP about, CCP at first didn't really do anything, they went ahead and used it to show CCP the problem, then got rewarded for it where you did nothing except complain.

      Delete
    5. Like I said ... this is bobbins giving us the carebear stare.

      Keep yellowboxing us with that orca, bobbins.

      Delete
  7. Khoda and I have cast our five accounts' votes as per your recommended list. The new voting system and interface makes the process far more time consuming than it used to be. In previous election cycles, I'd have been able to vote all accounts in the time it takes to vote one with the new system.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Yes, I know, which is why I think it's a good thing CCP nixed it, but it was still awesome.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Thank you for the rundown of the candidates, James.

    I have taken my four accounts, and voted for your "Who Not To Vote For" list.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Lol, you got pwned. In his real list, the "who not to vote for" list is actually who we vote for in the New Order.

      Delete
    2. Right.

      I double-checked all candidates and what they're running for.

      And in the end, what the hell do I care? My accounts are up for expiration in 3 weeks.

      Delete
    3. check, you don't care, which is why you researched all candidates, and you researched all the candidates but still think that James is responsible for your vote. 0/10 trollfail

      Delete
    4. You are correct. I do not care.

      But I would still laugh as James vision of Eve slowly fades into nothingness.

      All hail the theme park.

      Delete
  10. As long as the worst possible candidate, Ripard Teg doesn't make it in I will happy. Riverini would probably be really bad csm as well, but I really dislike ripard

    ReplyDelete
  11. you know what you should have done is to feature random CSM candidates that you don't mind winning in your "not to vote for" column... i'm certain many miners would just vote exactly against your wishes.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Retard Teg and Trebor are guaranteed to make it in, and since CCP themselves now decide which CSM members are the most "important" and which to listen to, I fear they'll default to these two because they're aligned with CCPs recent trend of themeparking

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. All hail the glorious themepark! It is coming whether you want it to or not!

      Delete
  13. I can't wait to see the delicious tears of naudi piwates when Ripard AND Trebor get in, quite comfortably.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Many thanks I was wondering who else to vote for. I had already decided on Ripard,Mike,Trebor and Riverini but I'll add in Nathan on the basis of your recommendation.

    As for psychotic monk - I would have voted for him on the basis of past knowledge and indeed his earlier comments recorded on minerbumping - no less, that he only shot ships that didn't fire back and didn't gank miners. However he has now dropped whatever moral stance he had and thrown his lot in with you - even making his own suicide ganking alt. So I'm afraid no votes for Psychotic from me.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Both of my votes have been cast for Psychotic Monk!

    ReplyDelete
  16. Thank You James, God bless you for the suggestions. I was really confused about who to vote, but as always.. you bring light where is darkness. Hope is not a problem that I put Ripard Teg first on the list and Mike Azariah the last. I still believe that CSM 8 will suck without you, but the sugestions you made here will save EVE from a total collapse.

    Than You again!

    ReplyDelete
  17. I hope we get the CSM we deserve this year.

    And get it good and hard.

    ReplyDelete

Note: If you are unable to post a comment, try enabling the "allow third-party cookies" option on your browser.