CSM Nine Voting

The voting for CSM 9 is on.  I was going to just ignore it, so far as this blog goes, but then I felt that since I was going to make the effort, however minimal, to figure out a vote, I might as well post my ideas on it for you to consider.

Still, before getting into the mud here, I want to discourage you from voting.  Yes!  In your face, Democracy!  I'll just quote myself here:

I disagree with the idea that low voter turnout is a problem. It is not. Voters are ignorant. Most players do not read blogs, do not read forums, have little sense of the history of EVE and no understanding of game design. I will grant that we cannot know who knows what; and that therefore everyone should potentially be allowed to vote. But neither should we encourage people with little to no information about the CSM race to vote. Mandatory voting is a terrible idea, even worse in EVE than in the real world.

Of course, you, dear reader, do at least read blogs.  Or at least you read blog.  Still, you may be as hopelessly ignorant of the current CSM9 candidates as, well, I am.  Or even more ignorant.  And why not?  Nobody is paying you to play EVE.  So don't be ashamed to not vote.  Voting when you know nothing should be seen as a shameful act, not praiseworthy.  (Me, I know just enough to be dangerous.)

What are my criteria for candidates?  Well, first of all I feel that all areas of the game should be represented on CSM.  Of them, I feel nullsec is overrepresented while lowsec and highsec are not enough.  Veterans are represented by the nature of the thing, and newbs hardly at all.  Beyond that, I care about whether the CSMs will work.  So far as I can tell there is a lot of work to do, and of course the work gets done on a volunteer basis.  I don't really care as much what their specific "policy" opinions are; so far as I can tell the CSMs are practically never used as junior game designers.  Rather, they are used as sanity checks.  Will the players revolt if we do X, Y or Z?  Are features P and Q a good way to address problem R?  If we implement feature F, is there a glaring stupid exploit waiting to happen?

TLDR!!  OK, enough yapping Von, just tell me who to vote for.  Right.  Here goes.  My voting list in order.

1. Sugar Kyle
2. James Arget
3. Mike Araziah
4. Ali Aras
5. mynnna
6. Steve Ronuken 
7. Psychotic Monk
8. Matias Otero 
9. Proclus Diadochu 
10. Asayanami Dei

Not TLDR!  WLRM!!  Gimme more mind-numbing "analysis"!  Here's my reasoning (such as it is) for my slate.

1. Sugar Kyle - this candidate is the reason why I am bothering to vote.  It comes down to this: I like her.  I judge only by her writing and two webcasts, but she is quite charming and in my opinion, would grace the CSM.  Oh, you want some reason reasons?  (What use, reason, I might ask?)  As you will.  Sugar writes a lot, and will replace Jester as the communicator via whom us blog-reading players learn about what the CSM is doing.  Sugar is very approachable and listens well (or fakes it well enough).  Sugar mixes the two halves of the game admirably: she does industry and runs a lowsec trade hub, and likes it.  And she is a flashy-red pirate and flies spaceships and blows people up (and gets blown up), and she likes that, too.  Sugar represents directly a poorly-represented constituency, lowsec.  She also is very interested in and attuned to the needs of newbies.

So anyway, go vote for Sugar, who probably needs it.  And then there are these other people...

2. James Arget - I am sad to say that I know nothing of the wormhole candidates.  But James is CSM8, so he is at least electable.  So, good enough.  We need a couple wormhole guys on CSM.

3. Mike Araziah - Incumbent, represents highsec.  We need that.  Also, works hard.

4. Ali Aras - Incumbent, works hard.  Communicates.  Generally sensible, even if she is sadly ignorant about the horribleness of the Z-arrow in scanning.

5. mynnna - Smart guy in spite of his annoying lowercased triple-n-ed name.  Every time I see him post I think: this is a mind to reckon with.  He posts a lot.  He is a Goon and thus part of the overrepresented nullsec bloc, and thus also almost certainly does not need my vote, nor yours.  But I think he deserves a nod, and the nice thing about the voting scheme CCP is using is you can put in guys like this who are certain to win anyway without diluting your vote.

6. Steve Ronuken - CREST is coming, and this guy develops apps.  You know: EFT, EVEMon, that sort of thing.  I use apps, you use apps, everyone who plays more than a month uses them.  CCP can't do everything, and won't do everything.  And they probably shouldn't anyway; they'd break stuff.  We want apps to be good, and we need a CSM who can push CCP on them from a position of knowledge.  Also, represents highsec.

7. Psychotic Monk - Keep EVE dangerous, full of psychos scammin' and gankin' and killin'.  This is the guy for that.

8. Matias Otero - Brave Newbies guy, included because I think he will be sensitive to the plight of newbies.

9. Proclus Diadochu  - wormhole guy.  I know nothing, other than he has shown up on a couple other lists of people I read, and so as a simple matter of bandwagoning to get represented, wormhole people should vote for him.  (Talk about voting in ignorance!)

10. Asayanami Dei - another wormhole guy.  See #9.