Greedy Goblin

Wednesday, February 18, 2015

CSM 10 recommendations

The CSM election season is upon us and you should vote! If someone told you that CSM is useless, you should stop listening to Sion Kumitumo!

There are awful lot of candidates because lot of people want to be on CSM, some for good reason, most are not. At first you can see the "rejection table" where you can see every candidate a quick decision, mostly rejected. Some, of course are not, they will be discussed below. The source of the candidates is CSM wire. The 6 quick judgments:
  • Troll: he didn't put any effort into his introduction or it's full of dumb jokes. He is either trolling or clueless.
  • Populist: he has no agenda, he just want to listen to you and serve you and make everything for you. He'll either be inactive on CSM or he has a secret agenda.
  • Evil: he is in CFC or other evil group.
  • Document of shame: he signed the document of shame, the joint venture of CFC and ratting bot leaders to remove conflict from New Eden. Most probably was drafted to battle Phoebe, using NDA-breaking CSM info, damaging CCP trust in CSM.
  • Harmless: decent list of proposals, though probably everyone else propose the same. He looks harmless. I wouldn't vote for him, but wouldn't ask you to do the same.
  • Passed: he deserves further discussion, see below.
Name Affiliation Quick decision
Aeon Boirelle Nulli Tertius Evil (multiboxers)
Aiwha Nulli Secunda Populist
Alyxportur Kadeshi Harmless
Angrod Losshelin Some minor WH group Evil (multiboxers)
Ariete Sleeper Social Club Harmless
Ashterothi Hydrostatic podcast Passed
Bait'er De'Outlier Some corp Troll
Bam Stroker Pandemic Legion, Eve Down Under Passed
Bane Cortex Some minor WH group Harmless
Bobmon Pandemic Legion, EN24 Document of shame
Borat Guereen His own tiny corp Passed
Cagali Cagali Brave Newbies Harmless
CatanaFleet Red Some corp Troll
Chance Ravinne Some small group Troll
Citricioni Dead Terrorists Troll
commander aze Serenity Initiative Harmless
corbexx No Holes Barred Document of Shame
corebloodbrothers Proviblock Document of Shame
Cycule The Kadeshi Populist
Cagali Cagali Brave Newbies Harmless
Dadrom RAZOR Troll&Evil
Decimat Draconia Advent of Fate Troll
DaReaper Some small group Troll
Dave Korhal Brave Collective Harmless
DomanarK Black Legion Harmless
Doudou Lachatte Some group Troll
Endie von Posts Goonswarm Evil
Erika Mizune Deepspace, Eve Radio Passed
Erweb Maken Infinity Space. Troll
FistyMcBumBardier The Camel Empire Troll
Gorga Nulli Secunda Populist
Gorski Car Verge of Collapse Harmless
Harek Some corp Troll
Harry Saq Get off my lawn Evil
Janwa Resh NPC corp Harmless
Jayne Fillon Spectre Fleet Document of Shame
Jenshae Chiroptera The volition cult Passed
June Ting Of Sound Mind Document of Shame
Justin Amalastoner Some corp Troll
Kasken Some corp Troll
KaziKai Some corp Troll
Khador Vess RvB Evil
Klapen Some group Troll
Leelo dallasmultipas Some group Troll
Lorelei Ierendi His own corp Passed
Lyonic Appetite 4 Destruction Harmless
Malis Caretia Some group Troll
Manfred Sideous Pandemic Legion Document of Shame
Michael Laloush NPC corp Troll
Migui X'hyrrn TEST Document of Shame
Mike Azariah Higsec corp Passed
Miralissa Issa Some group Troll
My name isJeff Some group Troll
Nervon Some group Troll
Norjia Blacksteel Some group Harmless
NSA Bivas NC. Troll
Perosteck Neuchatel Some group Troll
Moudib Amarr FW Troll
PantsuFan Skeleton Crew Populist
Psianh Auvyander Suddenly Spaceships Populist
PsychoBitch Dark Taboo Troll
Purinpu Bloodline. Populist
Radu Lupescu Push Industries Passed
Raiealatar NPC Corp Troll
Roban Crause NPC Corp Troll
Ryan Farmern Explicit Alliance Troll
Sabriz Adoudel CODE Evil
Sion Kumitomo Goonswarm Evil
Soelent FCON Evil
Sort Dragon Darkness Document of Shame
Soul Crusher Some group Troll
Starbuck Keikira Sanctuary of Shadows Troll
Steve Ronuken His own corp Passed
Sugar Kyle Snuff Box Passed
Suzy RC Mudstone Goonswarm Evil
Thoric Frosthammer Get of my Lawn Evil
Tiberius Zol Some group Harmless
Tora Bushido Marmite Collective Passed
UAxDEATH Legion of xXDEATHXx Troll
Vaari Silent Infinity Harmless
Trinkets friend Some group Troll
Vic Jefferson Goonswarm Evil
Xander Phoena Pandemic Legion Document of Shame
Xenuria Gallente FW Troll

After filtering out the inacceptables, I've read the forum topics of the passed candidates. Not just their intro post, but their answers too:
  • Ashterothi: exploration content focus. If you like exploration, support him! It's not really my field.
  • Bam Stroker: community building focus. "NPSI communities, Incursion communities, lore and RPing groups, players from the same city or timezone, forums, Twitter" and player gathering support. Definitely not my cake, but an interesting one.
  • Borat Guereen: his focus is the solo and very small group player, the least supported group, despite the most populated group. No one else even try to represent them, but want to "save" them and make them play with "friends". Maybe electing him would change that.
  • Erika Mizune: nullsec industry platform. While it's clearly an important thing, it's not a controversial one. I mean no one would say "make industry boring". CCP tries to make it better, just can't. Telling them to try harder probably won't help.
  • Jenshae Chiroptera: lots of interesting suggestions, anti-ganking focus but a bit chaotic posts, showing lack of expertise that is needed working on the CSM.
  • Lorelei Ierendi: highsec and anti-ganking focus. Supports the "no wardec, no structure" corp idea. This is a central problem in highsec, something I wrote a lot about: if you leave NPC corp, you get no reward but lot of risk and this means than smart players don't do it, so they create no content for others. His posts are well-written, definitely worth supporting.
  • Mike Azariah: CSM9 member, highsec focus. Honestly, without knowing his previous CSM terms, I'd mark his post "troll", for no effort. He did OK job on CSM and he isn't working for the Goons, that's more than most CSM can say. So he is OK. Is "OK" enough for your vote?
  • Radu Lupescu: hauling and higsec focus, anti-ganking. Well-written posts and he is in a major hauler group, so does know what he's talking about.
  • Steve Ronuken: CSM9 member, industry and third party app focus. As one of the biggest third party developers, he could help a lot to CCP with CREST and related things. He will be a great asset. But why should you burn your vote to give this asset to CCP? This is where I'm not convinced.
  • Sugar Kyle: despite everyone knows her, she provided a great introduction and answered every question in detail and professionalism. She is definitely the best candidate. But there are certain tactical concerns that we have to consider.
  • Tora Bushido: good posts, he is probably the most knowledgable man about highsec mechanics and would be a great help to CCP about designing proper balance. Unless he yet again goes buttmad, gets himself fired, breaks NDA and causes enough damage to make the whole CSM idea terminated. If you want CSM10 to be the most famous, he is your man. If you want a CSM11 to exist, not.
Before we form the list, the tactical concerns: the voting happens with STV which is better than any other to deal with multiple preferences, but still problematic. To see the problem, let's see the following election:
  • 40% of the people want Adam the most and Betty as second best
  • 35% of the people want Cindy the most and Betty as second best
  • 25% of the people want Dave the most and Betty as second best
Who should win? Betty. Who wins? Adam, because Betty is eliminated first round. If you want your candidate win, you should give him #1 position. For the same reason give #2 position to your second preference, and so on.

Now there is an opposite problem: there are 2 seats, 100 voters, so to win the election, one needs 34 votes. Your favorite is Adam, who is also the favorite of most, and will win in first round with 50 votes. Then every ballot that had Adam at #1 loses 68% of its power (since it was used to vote for Adam). So you placed 0.32 vote on Betty, your second preference. If you voted for "Betty, Adam", instead of "Adam, Betty", Adam would still be elected and Betty would get a full vote instead of 0.32. So if you believe that your #1 candidate will be elected anyway, place him behind.

Finally, in the CSM election, there is a second round: electing the two permanent seat holders. This means that everyone who has chance to win permanent seat and you support him more than the Goon candidate should be on your ballot. Otherwise your ballot will be fully exhausted in the decisive turn when only 3 people are standing. I'm not making this up, check the CSM9 election data: "3 candidates remain, 18936 votes", despite 31294 votes were cast. The rest of them simply didn't contain any of the last 3 standing: Ali Aras, Sion Kumitomo and Steve Ronuken. I don't doubt that this will happen again! Don't be among the casters of the lost votes!

Sugar Kyle, the best candidate will get in anyway, must go behind all the candidates you want The "OK-ish" and the "boring but permanent-chance" candidates (Mike and Steve) must be on the end of your ballot. So my voting order is:
  1. Lorelei Ierendi
  2. Borat Guereen
  3. Jenshae Chiroptera
  4. Radu Lupescu
  5. Sugar Kyle
  6. Erika Mizune
  7. Steve Ronuken
  8. Mike Azariah
I'll be happy if one of 1-4 will get in. Two? Unlikely but possible. Sugar will get a permanent seat. Last 2 will likely get in.

Update: Migui X'hyrrn commented that he support the Document of Shame. One less candidate to vote on.

40 comments:

NoizyGamer said...

Well, you might be getting too cute if you want to see Sugar elected. A couple of null sec blocs did that in the CSM 8 election they had their candidates crash and burn. That's how Sort Dragon got in and no TEST candidates win.

Foo said...

CCP/CSM are changing their structure a little for CSM 10.

No more 'permanent' seats or free tickets to fanfest, but more CSM at each of the summits.

Twice a year we host CSM summits. Summit can last up to 5 days and up to 10 members of the CSM will fly to CCP headquarters in Reykjavik, Iceland to participate in person. The rest of the CSM will join the summit remotely.-CCP Leeloo

https://mikeazariah.wordpress.com/2015/02/01/ooc-44-csm-campaign-threads/

I however advocate more 'straight forward' voting. If you are voting for an otherwise strong candidate, your own vote will be passed to your lower preferences with greater weight. If you are voting for an otherwise marginal candidate, your (successful) vote will be consumed (either in part or in full).

Provi miner said...

Not positive but core didn't sign he was consulted and they slapped his nam on that. As I recall convo him he will tell you. As I remember he said the ideas were worth exploring but the final letter he never saw and would have not signed it.

Anonymous said...

Check Gorski's Corp history. Isn't he "Evil" too?

W said...


This link of evil was on Ashterothi's forum post:

"A few years back I also wrote for The Mittani.com, focusing on analysis and Faction Warfare."

Ashterothi is too risky for a pass in my book.



Exploration does not need much work.

just + logic - luck

Anonymous said...

Code. Is not evil. We are here to help.

Gevlon said...

Former mistakes can be fixed. Simply writing for TMC a few times won't make you evil.

@Provi Miner: if my name shown up somewhere I didn't sign, I'd write a forum post announcing that it's a scam. Or contact EN24. He might didn't want to sign explicitly but doesn't mind his name there.

Amyclas Amatin said...

So your top two are essentially anti-ganking?

Gevlon said...

Yes. The most problematic land is highsec where you are best playing solo and avoiding contact with others.

EVE most needs highsec cooperative play options.

Also grief-ganking (when the target has nothing, you just gank him for tears) must be made much harder.

Anonymous said...

Not sure how you came to some of those conclusions. Commander Aze should definitely be a Troll/clueless, Psianh is actually running a really good campaign, and Tora should be in the "Evil" category, as he's echoing what goons want for highsec and I have it on good authority that he's going to be on the goon ballot.

Other than those, pretty good reccomendations

Gevlon said...

Why on Earth would want Goons non-wardeccable highsec corporations? That would be the worst thing for them since Phoebe.

Have you even read Tora's posts?

Anonymous said...

"Why on Earth would want Goons non-wardeccable highsec corporations? That would be the worst thing for them since Phoebe.

Have you even read Tora's posts?"
Yes, have you? The social corps he suggests would be a replacement for NPC corps, which work in exactly the same way as NPC corps do now. So everything they can do is already possible and does get done by many players in highsec anyway. It's a non-change.

But what else he wants isn't. He wants evil in highsec, he wants more ganking, he wants a nerf to carebear play, he wants dreadnaughts which would be great for, i don't know, taking down pocos perhaps?, he wants the removal of facpo. All in all, his ideas would be great for goons, which is why he's going to be on their ballot.

Gevlon said...

That non-change would be the biggest change in EVE since its start, despite it's technically indeed a non-change.

It would allow PvE players to cooperate for mutual goals. If they don't have to fear wardecs, good players can join and invite and teach lesser players.

Then "carebears" wouldn't be isolated. In unity there is force. Currently who would escort a freighter or fight back gankers? After the change, his corpmates would.

But above all, the information needed to defend yourself would be available. Remember, social people learn mostly from their "friends". A lone social will never learn the simple moves to protect himself. In a carebear corp, he'd be taught to not bling, to tank his ship, to orbit the asteroid and so on.

Make this change and ganking would be gone and done.

Anonymous said...

"Make this change and ganking would be gone and done"
Uhhh, no, not quite. People already socialise in channels and such. If they were antisocial before they'd just be in their own social corp once they got kicked out of an NPC one.

Nevertheless, when the goon ballot is out and leaks you'll see his name right on there, since overall his ideas are a massive benefit to goons and code.

Anonymous said...

Bane Cortex is clearly a troll!
He has never won a battle in w-space, yet has a w-space agenda.
Even the name is a combination of 2 know w-holers, bane nucleus and corbexx .
He never even tried to show up for townhall or other csm discussions.

Gevlon said...

Highsec solo players aren't anti-social, just clueless and maybe socially inept. In a usual game, they just join a guild and do as told. Guilds are lead by good players.

In EVE there are no corps they can join. Every corp is either PvP-corp or a failcorp. No good player will start a PvE corp in fear of wardecs.

Change this and PvE corps with cooperation and teachings emerge.

Amyclas Amatin said...

Do you really want more protection for high-sec players, or are you just taking their side because goons gank them?

Gevlon said...

I don't want more protection. They already have the same protection in NPC corps. I want highsec players to be able to form groups. Maybe I start my own corp which I obviously can't do while it can be wardecced.

Anonymous said...

"Highsec solo players aren't anti-social, just clueless and maybe socially inept. In a usual game, they just join a guild and do as told. Guilds are lead by good players."


No, they usually do questing, then join PuGs or LFR, or do crafting, or do the group stuff that you can join solo (GW2, Rift), or do housing (EQ2), or do solo trading (AA)

The number of solo players in MMOs is much higher than you think

mugg said...

Multiboxing is evil now?

Gevlon said...

@mugg: http://greedygoblin.blogspot.hu/2014/05/to-farm-or-not-to-farm-for-casuals-and.html

Anonymous said...

I don't get your "document of shame"

A pile of nullsec groups which have historically been willing to tear one and others' throats out, who are comprised of people who are EXPERTS at sov mechanics and sov warfare (from commanding fleets to managing mega coalitions), band together with the CSM (which is mostly symbolic) to make certain reasonable demands on CCP.. That is that:

1) You can't keep space unless you occupy and use it... meaning alliances will become necessarily smaller. Yes space will become more valuable but it wont be able to be managed or controlled in the way that it currently is by even the largest of entities because they wont be able to hold occupancy of all the systems (go flying through goon space in a cloaky tengu and checkout just how deserted large chunks of it are)

and

2) That every region has some NPC 0.0, to allow the foundation of neutral trade hubs and provide a place for people like your pirate friends to raid out of.

This is not terribly controversial..and it's not even a new idea. Occupancy based sov has been floated around by players and devs alike for a long time. This is a group of people who play in 0.0 saying "we'd like an occupancy based model and not some new convoluted thingy that will likely be as broken as dominion is".

Further, some of the people you've called out for signing it have zero vested interest in null politics. Corbexx for example fights for a wormhole corp. A wormhole corp which loves shooting things to bits and killing goons and nullbears is amongst their favourite sports.

I fail to see how this is contrary to any of your goals:
1) it opens up space for more groups to play. Even very small groups
2) it provides a mechanism for solo industrialists to ply their trade
3) it gives pirates a springboard to raid from
4) it *drives additional conflict* (more groups = more fights).

I'm very confused by your position here.

Gevlon said...

My postion: http://greedygoblin.blogspot.hu/2014/10/class-struggle-in-eve-online.html

Migui X'hyrrn said...

Hello,

I appreciate that you took your time to review and comment on each candidacy.

However, I was in the jabber room where we discussed the Occupancy based sov agreement and had my then CEO to sign it.

It is as well part of my Platform.

So I demand to be included in the Document Shame category or whatever is it called.

Thanks,
Migui

Anonymous said...

Any person who would announce that they should be on the "red" lists for supporting something when you at first have them set green should be green, as they are far more trustworthy than the rest of the Eve Community. Also add in that his ability to bring better content for the Spanish Community. Far more to gain than lose by supporting some document that won't exist here soonish.

Gevlon said...

@Anonymous: he didn't say he regretted supporting the Document of Shame, he merely wanted to prevent some chatlog leak (everyone has enemies).

I don't care how trustworthy and honest he is if he is, if he honestly want to turn EVE into space-WoW.

Lorelei Ierendi said...

I am honored to be appearing on this list.

There have been some comments here about the anti-ganking, and about the situation in High Sec.

If people would actually read my thread, https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=386664 they would see that I am not a rabid "stop ganking at all costs" person.

I don't want to highjack Gevlon's comments with my campaign. I just want to say that he is very correct, in that High Sec has many problems that need to be sorted out!

As far as "anti-ganking" goes.... I very much believe that whatever gets done to try and save us care bears... the ganking community is knowledgeable and dedicated enough to overcome it (how long did it take them to develop "hyperdunking"?).

If you read my thread, you might also notice that I am trying to push hard for more information for new players (the High Sec community that can most easily be reached).

If you have any constructive comments or discussion, please come on over to my thread and take part!

MoxNix said...

I say vote Sugar #1 so she gets the first permanent seat instead of a goon.

Gevlon said...

@Monix: I say you read up how STV works. Hint: for permanent sear, her position doesn't matter on the ballot as long as she is on it and before the Goon.

Chris Hugman said...

Well it looks like i am "Harmless" which is mostly true as wormholes are not scary at all most of the time.

There are many things that need to be fixed through out New Eden. Hopefully the sovereignty changes will be more be actually using space rather than planting flags.

Foo said...

@Gevlon. I remind you of my above comment. There will *not* permanent seats in CSM 10.

I also well understand STV. My opinion is that advice on strategic voting is *harmful* to your cause.

My best advice is place your #1 candidate at #1 and fill every preference.

Discourage your opponents supporters from voting, anfro and encourage your op if *they* must vote.then encouragevthem not to fill in preferences.

I have seen the kind of result that gevlon is attempting to finesse in 2 elections (out of about 50). However in one of them the strategic voting backfired causing him to lose.

Not providing prefences to less bad candidates also will normally work in favour of your 'evil' block.





Psianh Auvyander said...

Hey thanks!

NoizyGamer said...

Gevlon said, "@Monix: I say you read up how STV works. Hint: for permanent sear, her position doesn't matter on the ballot as long as she is on it and before the Goon."

Gevlon, you may have read how the STV works, but I don't think you understand how it does. You are getting way too cute with your picks. Doing what you are doing is what TEST did in the CSM 8 election and they wound up getting no one elected.

Sugar is a low sec candidate. Last year's turnout was 31K. If the vote turnout returns to the 60-70K range, then her block of support may not be big enough to ensure she gets elected, even if she's expanded it.

I will guarantee one thing. She doesn't have the support to be one of the top 2 candidates. Low sec is not that big.

Foo said...

That's what I get for commenting on a mobile screen instead of a real device.

The garbled bit should have been :

Discourage your opponents supporters from voting, and if they must vote, then them not to fill in preferences.

Not providing preferences to less bad candidates also will normally work in favour of your the largest 'them' block. (in this case Gevlon's evil list)

Gevlon said...

@Foo, Noizy: We aren't sitting in a vacuum here. We had a CSM9 with the following initial talley:
4314 "Sion Kumitomo"
2944 "corebloodbrothers"
1915 "Sugar Kyle"
1692 "Steve Ronuken"
1655 "progodlegend"
1521 "Ali Aras"
1453 "Matias Otero"
1418 "Mike Azariah"

Assuming that Sugar, Steve and Mike has problems to be re-elected is extreme, especially if we consider that Ali and Matias aren't running again.

The difference between CSM elections and real world election is the lack of parties. In real world if there are 5 "left-wing" and 5 "right-wing" candidates, ballots with 2 left and 3 right are extremely rare. This case suggesting your voters to pick candidate A of "left wing" automatically means less picks for all other "left-wing" candidates.

In CSM9 I ran extensive analysis to identify such parties and found only very weak connections outside the Goon block:
http://greedygoblin.blogspot.hu/2014/05/csm9-election-analysis-rewrite.html

Sion-Mynnna was 65% support, Mynnna-Sion was 72%. On the other hand the strongest connection from Sugar was to Ali Aras with 19%, which means that very different ballots supported Sugar.

My followers are just a fragment of them, so there is no danger of Sugar losing large amount of losses. TEST failed with Sort Dragon, because they had no hope to get votes to TEST candidates outside of TEST.

Of course there can be extremities, like awful lot of new voters, all Goons, when Sugar doesn't get in. I'm aware that putting her behind increases the chance of such disaster. But the highsec anti-ganking candidates have low chances without my support since practically no other community figure cares for highsec (except for ganking). Getting just one from 1-4 in would be a huge success and worth the few % risk of losing Sugar.

99smite said...

Well, I like Lorelei's thread and the work of Seve Ronuken.

Can't care about WH alliances that rape smaller entities and certainly do not want to have 0.0 lobbyists that perpetuate afk/passive mooon harvest income...

So there are my two candidates, maybe Mike as third, but so far, the 0.0 representatives as well as the w-space representatives have not performed in a way taht I would even give the slightest fuck about them.


Anonymous said...

I'm glad you plugged Borat. Solo play is non-represented.

Thoric Frosthammer said...

As a newly anointed "EVIL" CSM candidate, I would like to thank you for this honor. I was only hoping to make it into the "Slightly Naughty" list for this, my first attempt at candidacy. I wanted to let you know I did receive my official EVIL cat and moon laser today, and I'll be performing the sacred "Blofeld Ritual" and shaving my head for satan tonight.

Thank you again, its an honor just to participate.

-Thoric Frosthammer.

Anonymous said...

June Ting document of shame?

idgi

Gevlon said...

Her name is clearly on it: http://www.themittani.com/news/null-deal-statement-sovereign-00