“You peak CCPs interest by presenting a fully fleshed out idea with associated cost/benefit analysis.” – I’m not sure where you learned that from, but that is not true.
“If you include something in your campaign platform, expect to defend it from players who are critical.” – Yup. I’ve been replying to everyone here.
“thought through” is a straw man
Yes, by saying that you have not done the work yet and saying that it actually likely won’t happen (admitting defeat before you even fight).
Learned from what actually gets changed in the game. The changes that the CSM have pushed had a ton of documentation and presentation to CCP. The most recent I would say were all the FW changes after Uprising and before Havoc.
When you answer that you have not actually done work because CCP might say no (see below), you are saying that you have not thought things through.
all CSM candidates
Fighting against toxicity is a strong case, as it comes with the territory of gaming -everywhere-
However. How would you handle a hypothetical stalemate wherein both parties are believe the other to be toxic, but only one party can really be telling the truth.
But then again, truth is based on the perspective of the perceiver.
How would you handle this?
I’d review screenshots.
What if it’s alleged the screenshots are photoshopped and fake?