How can you get votes if you don’t socialize much?
Why would you deliberately harm Mike, who is probably likely the single best candidate that’s actually running for the CSM?
This is something I’d like changed.
Nobody should be able to sit on the CSM for more than 2 consecutive turns.
After 2 turns they are barred from applying again for a further 2 or 3 years.
I dislike the fact that some players get elected time after time with practically no communication with the players on the forums and only pop up at election time.
It won’t stop the null block candidates getting elected, but at the very least we’d get some new faces.
1 Like
This is not how STV works…If people vote for both near the top of their list, if they want a candidate for highsec
2 Likes
This is a bad idea. I would rather have an experienced player who knows what they are talking about and represents a large portion of the playerbase, instead of just having a new person in for the sake of new.
A large number of CSM candidates, especially those running claiming high sec representation, all show to me a fundamental lack of game knowledge and experience. Even more so, they don’t understand what the job of the CSM is and often make outlandish claims like how they will remove cloaky camping, add damage caps on ship hulls, or magically get Concord to see into the future to prevent a gank.
I would rather someone be elected for CSM and stay on for multiple years that has the backing off major player groups because that’s where most of the players are. Forcing the CSM to cycle every 2-3 years serves no purpose but remove those who know what they are talking about.
I don’t, they become complacent, which is probably one of the reasons for not communicating on these forums.
Now, have you finished trolling new candidates, or have you no complaints whatsoever with the present members?
Yes I checked all your posts from when you suddenly appeared last month, you remind me of someone else that just deflected and questioned rather then give a straight answer or idea of their own.
BTW, most of the players are not in the major blocks, they’re in HS, a part of space this player is trying to represent.
1 Like
The forums are probably one of the worst places for “communication.” A brief overview of the forums shows that its primarily purpose is really for selling characters around. The next biggest chunk of posts are from carebears and krabs who demand that CCP make changes to the game that make it easier for them, while they refuse to improve their own skill at the game.
Have you ever taken the time to reach out to these candidates, rather than passive aggressively complaining that they don’t come to you? There are alliances out there with THOUSANDS of people who communicate via their internal forums, on their own websites, Discord servers, in-game Alliance and Corporation chat, social media websites, like reddit and facebook, and SO MUCH MORE.
The forums are tiny and often insignificant portion of the overall EVE Online discourse that’s had on the internet, mainly because it’s filled with nonsensical carebears who do nothing but whine and cry all day because they’re playing a pvp game they don’t even enjoy.
Sorry, I should have clarified, most of the players worthwhile to listen and talk to. And yeah, you see, the problem with only trying to represent high sec player is that many of these CSM candidates have zero knowledge about the game outside of their own personal gank losses. They don’t realize that the changes they are proposing will have massive ripple effects throughout the game, from high, to low, null, and wormhole space. PvP and PvE will all be affected.
But instead of taking the time to figure all of that out, ask for various input from different groups, these candidates do nothing but close mindedly believe they can change their own little tiny world at the expense of how it would impact everyone else’s.
Might I remind you one of the “suggestions” that this CSM made was about ganking (specifically, that people should be able “walk away” 50% of the time), when he himself admitted that he doesn’t have experience in ganking? How can he claim that he is “trying to represent” these people when he doesn’t even participate in the activity that he’s trying to change?
Has he considered how the game will change from both parties perspective? Or is he just coming at it from the scared carebear’s point of view because he’s too ignorant to properly fit his ship with tanking modules to survive a gank?
Hi!
Like I said, Friday was a rough 24 hours at work, so I’ll be back to normal business later on today.
But I will write some short things now.
1 Like
The plan should be greatly publicised.
1 Like
So very true!
Thanks for pointing that out to the poster.
1 Like
Thanks for taking the time to come to my Campaign Thread.
I would appreciate it if the debate about more general aspects of the CSM like duration of Candidates’ Terms did not explode here… this thread should be more about me and my fifth attempt to get elected!
(selfish I know!)
But I do appreciate the bumps!
2 Likes
I’m sorry, but from what I’ve seen of your stance, your responses, and your lack of knowledge, I don’t believe you are a candidate who deserves a spot on the CSM. If you took the time to learn more about the game and were able to address the many concerns with evidence and support your claims, I would have more confident.
However, as it stands, I hope you do not succeed in your campaign because you simply don’t understand enough to represent our players to CCP.
Yes.
No.
And tanking modules do not help to survive a gank. But I already covered that part in several past threads.
So, seeing as you are coming out strongly on things about ganking, and have derided my “experience” I have decided to research yours.
I went through the 70 pages of your zkillboard…
and this is the high sec “combat” that I found.
Dec 19 2017… ships lost to CONCORD (Velators, probably pulling?)
Oct 12 2017… ships lost to Sentry Gun
Oct 31st 2016… catalyst lost to CONCORD - looks like you ganked a Research Laboratory, with in total 5 T2 catalysts… although only one of the gankers (not you) did any damage.
Sept 11. 2016 ship lost to Sentry Gun
Apr 1st 2016 lost a Retriever (Mining whilst at war)
Jan 2nd 2016 lost a shuttle to someone in NPC corps…?
Sept 2nd 2015 lost a Helios (Faction war??)
Jun 26th 2015 - lost a helios to Npc (Faction war??)
Jun 24th 2015 NPC losses
May 10th 2015 looks like a fun brawl with Corpmates, probably to relieve boredom of High Sec…
Have you ever ganked anything? It doesn’t look like it. Maybe that is why you are unhappy with my hopes to have a 50% chance of surviving a gank? Because you never managed to gank anyone in your very few tries?
Or been ganked? Does not really look like it?
Or do you have an alt that ganks… just as I have “powerful friends in null sec” that will avenge my gank losses?
Now that you have talked a lot, it would be great if you could let us know your experience in the matter…
2 Likes
Please explain how your idea will impact both the ganker and the gankee, since you claim that you have considered how the change will work from both perspectives. 
I do have (had) alts in the past. However, the biggest draw that I take from these series of questions is something concerning. This is not behavior that I expect from a potential CSM member. While I appreciate the time it took you to go through “70” pages of my zkillboard history, I would actually have liked to see you spend that time and effort providing me with the evidence and statistic support for your claims, like I have asked above.
This just goes to show me that you don’t possess either the evidence to support your claims, nor a mental fortitude. Instead, you are currently personally attacking my character based on information provided by a 3rd party service, to try and attack my credibility. Very CSM like.
Instead of trying to attack this character, I think it would be more professional, if you took the time to provide some evidence to support your claims. I am a little concerned, because it seems like you are focusing so much on asking these questions in an attempt to dismiss genuine questions and concerns that a voting member of the EVE Online community.
Is the point you are trying to make “Because your character Scoots, specifically, has not engaged in high sec ganks, you are not allowed to ask questions about it”? Because if that is the case, then I direct that question back at you, as the CSM candidate.
I appreciate the attempt, and the time you took to try and undermine my questions. But at the end of the day, these are questions raised by a member of the EVE Online community. And if you would rather attack and attempt to mock the zkb of a member of the EVE Online community, all while dodging questions.
This just further goes to show that you are unfit for the CSM. It is probably a good sign that you have failed to achieve a CSM position these past several years.
1 Like
Lorelei has been involved in High Sec Ganks, on both sides. People interested in a more gank-centric CSM Candidate should vote for the one running.
1 Like
Still waiting.
BTW, I think Lorelel might make a decent CSM member.
3 Likes
What is your opinion about mining in high sec and the afk play style that is created from the current system of mining?
What is your opinion on static ice anoms? Currently they can be timed and hoovered by multi box miners, without a small player or corp able to participate mining the ice belt. Are you alright with this system?
What is your stance on moon mining and the fact that some players are allowed to “steal” a players moon ore? How would you combat that scenario?
1 Like
Please stop trying to derail the thread. This is not a thread for complaining about current CSM members and I have avoided addressing your point because it would be off topic to the discussion at hand. You are trying to pull a “whataboutism” and divert the topic of discussion away from the main point at issue.
Don’t feed the trolls! 
So do I. But like I said in my first post… at least running to get the issues out there… is a worthy cause.
I find it lamentable that every year the gankers (or wannabee gankers) come here as if they are scared that I could actually do something to them… (check out my previous threads for the fun… my favorite was the CSMX thread… there at least there was some discussion!)
2 Likes
Thank you for stopping by my thread!
Kind of sucks. I am kind of fearing that the more aggressive NPCs/Pirates are the Devs’ way of trying to force us to sit there and stare at the screen in case something happens.
I seem to remember having said that I think it would be fun if the ice popped up in random systems in a constellation (or some other defined multi-system area). It probably wouldn’t be too long before the bots get programmed to move around… but it would at least spread the activity about a bit.
I think I have said some things about this before…
I like moon mining in high sec. I don’t like people stealing “my” ore.
The CONCORD mechanics (and NPC corporations) protect the thieves.
The current state of wardec/corporation mechanics means they can steal my ore… I cannot really do anything about it… and they don’t need to pay taxes!
The only way to combat people stealing my ore atm is to gank them… or pay people to gank/bump/harass them until they find an easier ore to steal.
That is … ironic… that the current game mechanics are trying to force me to gank in order to protect my livelihood.
As to how I would combat that scenario??? I have no sure ideas, because I do not know enough about the programming to suggest a feasible solution. BUT:
The Athanor that spawns my ore belongs to my corporation.
Why not make it so that, when “on grid” with the asteroids spawned by my Athanor…
the “owning” corporation (my corporation, but not my alt corporation or my friends corporation) is exempt from the normal CONCORD response to high sec aggression?
I could then defend my ore.
Anyone that wants to stop me defending my ore could wardec me (I have to have a structure (Athanor) in order to be able to have ore… to defend… so in order to “moon mine” I have to be wardeccable).
People would not be able to hide in NPC/invulnerable corporations and steal my ore.
Probably this kind of advantage would require paying a license fee to CONCORD or the Empire involved… but it would mean that I at least theoretically could do something to defend my claim. The people trying to steal my claim had the possibility to fight me for it.
But like I said… I am not sure how much of a challenge that would be for the programming.
2 Likes
This is wrong, very wrong. Whether a gank succeeds or not should be based solely on how well each of the involved parties plays the game, not chance based (other than the chance based way in which weapons work already).
Suicide ganking is just like normal PvP, with the only difference that the ganker has a limited amount of time available to succeed before being killed himself. Why should the ganker artificially fail at least 50% of the times regardless of how well he does it or how badly the victim fits and flies his ship, and still face 100% guaranteed death himself? Why should suicide ganking in high sec, but not (non-suicide) ganking in low sec, have such an arbitrary failure rate? Makes no sense.
9 Likes