# Running for CSM next year: **URL:** \ **Category:** CSM Campaigns\ **Created:** [September 21, 2018, 10:35am UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/running-for-csm-next-year/108072 "2018-09-21T10:35:23Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 1\ **Showing post:** 1469
**Author:** ![Arrendis](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/arrendis/32/432594_2.png) [@Arrendis](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Arrendis)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2018, 9:09pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/running-for-csm-next-year/108072/1469 "2018-09-27T21:09:46Z")
> [@Salvos\_Rhoska](#): > > I dont have to prove it to run for CSM. No, you certainly don’t. You do, however, have to prove it if you want to make a claim and be considered to be arguing in good faith, as opposed to (as you currently appear) arguing speciously with no actual evidence behind your pre-drawn conclusions. You appear to be arguing in bad faith, and repeating spurious claims that you cannot back up, and the truth of which you have no interest in knowing or demonstrating. > [@Salvos\_Rhoska](#): > > How many dissatisfied players reagarding CSM there are out there, and can I reach them, or will they vote for me to change CSM, will be determined only in the election itself, as is the same for any other CSM candidate on any platform. This is very true, but your active claims, your _stated position of supposed fact_, asserts that you have already determined that number. In short, it is dishonest to make that claim without evidence. And now, let’s turn back to the other issue. Please refute the following, including your logic and supporting evidence, if you can: > [@Arrendis](#): > > Additionally, only one CSM per Corp/Alliance is a hollow, toothless idea. It’s obvious who you aim that idea at, but let’s take a moment and look at the actual CSM landscape _right now_ . > > Right now, there are 10 CSM. Of them, 7/6 are not in the same Corp/Alliance. 4 are members of the same Alliance, and 3 of those, in fact, the same Corporation. If your plan to limit that Corp/Alliance to 1 member were active… _they could just move_ . > > For the moment, let’s set aside movement _during_ a term, and just look at the easy case. You’re pretty clearly aiming this bit at the Imperium, and Goonswarm, but if we look at the Alliances in the Imperium, LAWN, Bastion, and TNT have no CSM members. So it’d be child’s play to move 3 people into different Alliances to evade your hollow, ineffectual limitation. > > Please note that that was Alliances, not Corps. If we were just shuffling people between of corps, CONDI has enough corps to make that a no-brainer. Judge could go to Amok., Innominate stay where he is, and Aryth could be shuffled into ASCEE cuz that’d be hilarious and cruel (to both him and ASCEE). > > But that’s just moving them _before_ they’re elected. At least one CSM member has changed Alliance twice this term. (Do you know which one? It was kinda publicized if you were paying attention.) Three of the current CSM changed their Alliance during the course of the previous term (including one of the ones now in the same Corporation as 2 others), _while two of them were on the CSM_ . > > At no point do the functions and terms of CSM membership imply that a candidate is pledging to represent _their Corp/Alliance_ to CCP. With that in mind, how would you propose keeping such a move from happening? Do you plan to insist that players not be allowed to change Corporation while they’re on the CSM? Is that even remotely sane? If a CSM member’s corporation failscades during their term, they end up locked into a 5-man corp that can’t do anything because the CEO and 3 other players all quit? > > What if they got _kicked out_ ? Can the corp CEO not kick someone out of corp because they’re on the CSM? > > 6 are (now) members of the same Coalition, a distinction that has _absolutely no official imprimateur from CCP_ . There is no in-game support for Coalitions. There is no forum designation of coalitions. CCP’s developers are not expected to track Coalition membership. Without that, there’s no way to really police ‘which Coalition are you in?’ This is especially true when you consider that each prospective CSM member designates which of their accounts and alts they wish to identify with. > > The nullsec spy game depends, to large extent, on being able to operate without having your alts identified, including by hostile spies. Spies often use VPNs and other smokescreens to disguise their IP addresses and other tell-tale indicators of linked accounts. The organizations that use these spies are well aware of these methods, and train their spies in their use. It would be child’s play to train their CSMs in such things as well (assuming the CSM in question isn’t already familiar with them). CCP’s stance on doxxing prevents them from revealing a player’s alts, which would make it difficult for them to say ‘Oh, no, Salvos can’t actually serve even though you voted him in, he has an alt in CONDI’. > > And that doesn’t even get into the plan we openly acknowledged we’d use when CCP was talking about limiting Alliance sizes: ‘Goonswarm 1’, ‘Goonswarm 2’, ‘Goonswarm 3’… And then answer the question I posed at the end of the original instance of that text: > [@](#): > > So… how do you propose enforcing this idea in a way that has _any_ actual effect? --- _[View the full topic](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/running-for-csm-next-year/108072)._