I would like to give a shoutout to Arion Yael for sending a well-written and comprehensive questionnaire to help him pick a CSM candidate, and with their permission, I am reposting it below:
Q: HighSec Structure Defense
What changes could help protect solo or small-corp industrial players from constant HighSec structure bashing without forcing them to pay billions for unreliable defense deals? How can this be balanced to support smaller players while keeping the bashing playstyle intact? Many players enjoy slow-paced, small-scale industry and want a few structures of their own but lack the power or community to defend them.
A: I think the best way to handle this as a CSM member is to talk to small groups who bring it up, and then present their concerns to CCP as an issue and have the game developers do their job to figure it out. That is how a lot of things go - devs are way more interested in being given problems to solve than having people doing their job.
Q: Cenotaph Ganking and CONCORD
Regarding the current use of Cenotaphs to gank freighters in HighSec, their damage-over-time effect continues even after CONCORD destroys the Cenotaph, effectively making CONCORD irrelevant in these encounters. What changes would you suggest to ensure CONCORD remains effective in 0.5–1.0 systems while still keeping Cenotaphs viable for the ganking playstyle?
A: Cenotaphs need a rebalancing in general for their power in wormhole space and other areas where they do too much damage. Luckily they are as of yet somewhat pricey which limits how much they are ganking. It is something that I will make sure is brought up, however, I am not entirely sure this warrants a change (yet), and I am generally favourable to ganking being something that can be done in EVE. I primarily feel like the Cenotaph does too much damage in a fight if left unchecked, which can be addressed in many different ways, whether it is dot time reduction, dot cycle time reduction, or something else.
Q: Seasonal Events (Crimson Harvest, Winter Nexus, etc.)
Events like Crimson Harvest and Winter Nexus are major motivators for players to undock, return to the game, and engage with the community. How would you advocate for introducing more seasonal in-game events like these, or do you believe the current frequency and variety of events are sufficient?
A: I enjoy seasonal events, and have advocated for the ones that we used to have being brought back on rotation (at the very least), instead of being turned into reasons to have sales, like the federation day and similar holidays. I think if we have more events, they would perhaps need to be less complex. I have also liked that CCP is willing to experiment with and add new events like the drifter crisis, and support that they continue doing so.
Q: Lore-Driven, Non-Seasonal Events
The Drifter Crisis was an excellent example of engaging, lore-driven content that encouraged fleet activity and community participation. How would you advocate for introducing more lore-focused, non-seasonal events like this, or do you feel such events already occur frequently enough?
A: See above. I am for them, they require more dev work, but I like the tie-ins to future expansions and more.
Q: Solo Player Content
Do you think the game could benefit from more true solo content—designed for a single character rather than multiboxing? If so, what types of activities or features would you like to see added to support solo players and make their experience more engaging?
A: I think one of the main places to focus on solo or content for smaller groups of players is expanding content that can be done in shorter game sessions. While I like abyssals and want them to continue existing, I am not advocating for an expansion into instanced content, but perhaps also content that requires more player input in terms of manually piloting or reacting to the environment. I think for improving content for solo players doing stuff that could reasonably be multiboxed, small optional reactions that would make a smaller amount of characters more effective per character compared to multiboxers might be good, like aiming mining lasers or something similar. People who have more characters would still be able to do the content and would make more per character added, just not quite as much as if they were actively playing.
Q: SOV Upgrades and Exploration
With the recent addition of SOV upgrades—particularly the exploration upgrade—do you think this undermines the core idea of exploration by promoting site farming, or does it serve as a valuable conflict driver? How would you address the effects these upgrades have had on explorers’ profitability and gameplay in other regions?
A: I think that sov upgrades promoting many different types of content is fine, even exploration, but the pendulum might have gone too far in the direction of having a huge amount of sites, devaluing the items. I think a lot of explorers enjoy the “wow” factor of getting a big drop once in a while (which there is definitely less of now), and it will have to be revisited, probably more than once, to get the balance right. Rigs being cheaper is nice, but not at the expense of a core part of a playstyle.
Q: Small Corps in NullSec
What ideas or changes would you suggest to help smaller corps or alliances establish and maintain a presence in nullsec without relying on major blocs or being quickly crushed by larger powers?
A: Other than the “projection” answer, which I think only addresses part of the problem, I think there is way too much space work in the game to enjoy running a small group unless paperwork and middle management is a part of your space fantasy. More QOL and easier management of roles, structures and more would make it easier for people to enjoy playing the game AND leading by example for a group. While risk management for promoting people is a cool part of EVE and EVE history, more granular roles to let people outsource and delegate more would make the life for small groups better.
Q: CSM Structure and Representation
If you had the opportunity to restructure the CSM, how would you approach it? For example, would you set limits on the number of seats per security band, reserve a minimum number of seats for certain areas of space or gameplay types, or implement other measures to ensure fair representation? How would you balance broad representation with effective decision-making?
A: For CSM voting reform, I think the problem lies in that the game has no definition of a particular type of player, making this a very hard issue to solve. Big null blocs have the power to get 1-2 guaranteed players in, and therefore if they were limited by security bands, they would run their secondary candidates as wormholers or lowseccers or whatever else. I think increasing voting engagement from other areas of space through incentives is good, and I think a lot of the big bloc candidates are a bit bland - they also often do not campaign at all, because they don’t have to. If more people voted, they’d have to put in more effort. Some Bloc candidates also care a lot more about non-null issues. Ariel Rin is primarily a 3rd party dev candidate, I am primarily a new player candidate, etc
Activity requirements for campaigning and being in the CSM would also be something I want, if done right (real life should still come first). Candidates who are guaranteed to get in because of their big followings don’t really have to engage with the communities, and even if they don’t do very much while on the CSM, they can still easily run again and win.
Q: Botting and Input Broadcasting
Regarding issues like botting and input broadcasting, how would you suggest CCP adopt a faster and more proactive approach to detect, prevent, and penalize these behaviors while maintaining fairness for legitimate players?
A: More people working for Team Security would be good. I am not in favour of automatic systems to detect and ban players (opening investigations is better), but rather have a more robust interface for players to report bots, giving some light feedback (“we looked into them and they were banned/not banned”), and deterrents for mass-reporting your enemies.
Q: AWOXing
How do you think CCP should handle or mitigate AWOXing, and are there ways to discourage it while preserving the social and strategic dynamics of the game?
A: Awoxing in general is a fine part of the game. In the context of FW I think an entire overhaul of the standings system is needed, and perhaps be more ok with removing players with a history of awoxing from their militias, especially younger characters. I think people with a lot more FW experience than me have been thinking about this a lot longer than I have, and have more strong opinions. It is being worked on, though.
Q: FOBs and Autothysian Lancers
What are your thoughts on the removal of FOBs and Autothysian Lancers from HighSec? Was this decision justified from a gameplay perspective, or was it an overreaction to player complaints?
A: I would not have removed or recommended removing FOBs and lancers, and rather have a warning for shooting lancers in highsec that can be turned off and a high-sec AI overhaul for FOBs before doing something like that. Now they need an overhaul anyway, since they are really annoying lowsec players. It also removed activities for more experienced highsec players, and public FOB fleets, which was a good way for new players to make money.
Q: Expansion Cadence and Development Focus
Regarding CCP’s commitment to two “expansions” per year, do you think it would be better to focus on one major annual update for quality-of-life and UI improvements, paired with one true expansion, or does the current two-expansion model serve the game better?
A: The two-expansion model is much better and it is easier for the CSM to slot stuff in as well. If we only did 1-2 updates instead of 4, it would slow down the iterative process, lead to longer periods of meta stagnation, and be slower to introduce quick fixes and QOL improvements. It is also easier to fix a mistake from an expansion in a major update, rather than having to wait.
Q: Overhauling Legacy Content
How would you suggest CCP approach a major overhaul of existing content—such as missions, COSMOS, and DED sites—to improve and refresh what’s already in the game, rather than focusing primarily on adding new content?
A: While I am generally interested in overhauling old content to some extent, some of it can probably be replaced and rebuilt faster than it can be fixed. I think a lot of issues in EVE development come down to proper allocation of dev resources, and that is a primary concern in this question. A wormhole expansion might be better than reworking COSMOS missions, for instance. Bigger and more popular systems definitely deserve the attention, like DED sites, missions, POSes and more.
Q: Unfinished Ship Lines
Several sub-capital ship lines remain incomplete. How would you propose CCP finish these lines, from frigates through battleships, to ensure all ship classes are fully developed and balanced?
A: I don’t think there is a pressing need to finish all the ship lines at a particular speed. Having various “gaps” doesn’t detract from the game, and slowly introducing them to coincide with expansions, in-game events, tournament tie-ins and more is a good way to get there over time. While making new ships is a seemingly low-effort type of content to add to the game, I am often surprised by how negative the community is to it being done, thinking that they could get a systems-overhaul instead of an Angel dread, for instance. I think new ships should be added sparingly, maybe two out of three expansions or so. At the same time there is a lot of room for balancing existing but seldom-used ships to make something old new again.
Q: Bridging the Gap Between New and Veteran Players
How would you help new players bridge the gap with veterans, given the high skill point requirements for many popular ships and activities, and the significant financial advantages older players already hold?
A: One of the main ways to lessen the gap between new and old players would be to rework the “necessary” skills in the game in form of the magic14, perhaps giving them as a part of the NPE or activities available to newer players (properly balanced in the context of skill extraction and reimbursement of old players, ofc). I have campaigned on this for three years, and also had some success advocating it to CCP (although this is bound to take time, as it probably requires a larger look at skills in general). Keeping the mineral price index in check and making ships generally more affordable compared to the time it takes to earn them is good for new players, as is increasing the income generated by the newest players for the simplest task. A level 1 mission pays an order of magnitude less than just doing 3 jumps and getting an AIR reward, which I think is a bad way to balance things. I think a new player should be able to afford a ship by farming for it in roughly the time it takes to train to use it properly, with notable exceptions for prestige ships and highly specialized ships.
Q: New Player Accessibility and Retention
Many new players lack the “slowburn” mindset and feel that much of the gameplay they want is blocked by skill point or financial barriers. How would you address these challenges to make EVE more accessible, attract new players, and improve long-term retention?
A: New player accessibility and retention is a huge topic and probably too large to answer in some bullet points, and I have spoken a lot on the subject in interviews, but I will try to summarize a little bit. I feel the main problem with being a new player in EVE is that game play sessions are often very long in order to get something meaningful done, with few options for shorter sessions. Finding a wormhole and exploring, finding a meaningful fleet fight outside of FW, going to a local trade hub and fitting a ship to mine, etc, are all things that take new players quite a lot of time, and might not be done in 30m or an hour or even two hours, depending on what kind of time they have. We need a lot of reasons to undock and do stuff and die that feel meaningful. Dying needs to be recovered from a bit faster as well; new players do not get introduced properly to clones, and replacing the first ships they lose to various PVE activities can take a very long time.
There should also be more short to medium term goals to work on, that are explained to new players a bit better. Spending a week to get 5% more CPU feels underwhelming. Spending a month to get into a new type of frigate that they don’t know how to use properly yet is also underwhelming. Putting players in touch with people who can put this more into context will help them, and letting progression be measured in more ways than skills and ISK is a good place to start.
Putting players in contact with corporations (and have a lot more variety of corporations) is something we need for the game. Funneling everyone into the big null blocs is a good way to give them structure at the expense of choice, and they should be exposed to more ways of playing the game from the get go. There are tons of issues to fix with corporation recruitment and advertising. One of them is to allow non-English-speaking corps the ability to recruit in their language. The extra language support (not localizations) that was announced at Fanfest is something I lobbied for, as one of my alliance’s Czech corps has to resort to recruiting by anchoring mobile depots in highsec.
Q: Projection and Mobility in NullSec
Projection is a key issue. While owning space should provide travel benefits, the current scale of projection often disrupts other nullsec groups and even lowsec or faction warfare gameplay. How would you address projection to keep advantages for SOV owners while preventing instant, low-effort responses across vast distances?
A: I have spoken at length about projection for much of the last year elsewhere, and because of the many differing opinions on the CSM, what we end up ultimately advocating probably will come from a longer discussion at the summit. Personally I think projection needs to have less flexibility, and fewer instant options. I have advocated for drifter wormholes to require being scanned, I think perhaps in addition to whatever other issues we have with ansiblexes, they need to be fewer in number. We did ask for more changes to the ansiblexes that we didn’t get, and we can bring them up again this year. I think it is ultimately way more OK to plan a fleet for later in the week and be able to get there, than it is to see a cap fight half-way across the universe and get there in a short time in order to crash the party. I am way more in favour of pre-staging assets and getting clones ready, than I am having the universe feel small.
Q: Industry, Mining, and Resource Gameplay
Mining, exploration, PI, and industry are the foundation of all other playstyles. How would you make these activities more enjoyable and address the impact of Metonox Moon Drills on HighSec and Low/NullSec mining? Would you change the fact that wormholes only have R4 moons—and if so, how?
A: I am not a huge industry and mining person in general, but I would love for more industry to be feasible and available in wormholes. I am not very knowledgeable about highsec moon drills, but the cost of operating moon drills is currently being iterated on, and I hope that might have some fruitful results. I think reworking mining waste and having more gameplay choices during actual mining would be good from a gameplay perspective.
Q: Toxicity and Community Conduct
In light of recent player actions against AO, do you think CCP should take a more active role in addressing toxicity within the game (including associated platforms like Discord or Reddit)? How can CCP distinguish between in-game conflict and real-world harmful behavior such as racism, sexism, or homophobia?
A: For policing toxicity, I understand that CCP’s jurisdiction doesn’t go far beyond their official spaces, even if I would have liked to see more be done to combat the ideology of AO, and certain other members of the community. I personally find the interface for reporting toxic behaviour in the game to be very clunky to use, and I wish that part was improved first and foremost. I think certain of the rules in EVE are also very selectively applied when it comes to toxic behaviour, names and similar issues. Toxicity in gaming is probably an issue we have to deal with forever, and constantly help each other be better and call out those who are not.
Q: Candidate Motivation and Representation
As an EVE player involved in many activities—mining, hauling, exploration, DED sites, missions, nullsec fleets, events, community leadership, and wormhole operations—why do you believe you are the best candidate to represent me and my community? How would you ensure fair advocacy for all EVE players, not just your areas of expertise? What motivates you to run for the CSM, and why do you play EVE?
A: For hauling, exploration, missions (I have an extensive missioning history), nullsec fleets, community leadership and wormhole operations I would consider myself a very qualified candidate to represent you. I respond to all messages and spend the time to understand your issues, but if I think another CSM will be more knowledgeable, I’ll get you in touch with the best person. I think getting more people to vote will increase the advocacy for all EVE players. I recommend doing what you have done, and see who puts in the effort to talk to you. Good CSM candidates will take the time to answer you and your community and advocate for you, or find you someone who will.
Ariel Rin is someone whose opinion I trust on mining. I can’t remember anyone in particular who has spoken a lot about exploration of DED sites, but wormholers are often good at a lot of the parts of exploration. For nullsec fleets I also recommend Zintage. For events I would recommend Drake Iddon (he loves taking the drugs) and Oz (who cares about the economic impact). For community leadership, Kshal Aideron. For wormholes, Mick Fightmaster is as good as it gets.
I am motivated to run for the CSM because I enjoy the community interaction and I feel like I have a positive impact on the game. I play EVE because it has become a huge part of my life and I enjoy spending time with friends (and my SO) doing so, and because there just is no other game like it that speaks to what I enjoy in gaming.
Q: Finally, please summarize your platform in seven words or fewer.
A: New players, undocking, community interaction, balance, QOL
He puts in the work, making full use of the position he was elected to. I know that he spends a lot of time on checking in with other communities, not just passively offering that people can DM him if they want to. After this summer’s major update, Dujek spent the entire day glued to the keyboard checking in with these communities, collecting their feedback. Dujek also has a remarkable ability to find common ground with people, and I know (in a general sense) that a number of dedicated skeptics have been convinced over time.
…and may the best will win ofc 
)
I’ve already asked all the CSM20 candidates before you’ve posted. 
make an effort and read replies of those who answered 
The one