Tuesday, February 25, 2014

CSM Elections Loom: Thoughts On Endorsements

So, elections for Council of Stellar Management are looming and candidates are announcing their intention to stand for election in the Jita Parks forum. Once more I'm looking at the candidates and trying to determine who I will endorse for election, but this time I'm considering the step of actually denouncing someone's suitability for CSM election.

I was raised in a "can't say anything nice, don't say anything at all" home and while I think it has some merits I've come to realize as I've gotten older that sometimes you need to speak up and tell people what they don't want to hear. Not nice things, but things that will make certain people angry.

In previous elections, I never had strong opinions against any candidates so it was sufficient to simply put my endorsements forward and carry on. This time, however, there is one I think has a chance of getting elected and yet is such a bad fit for being on the CSM that I think I should speak up.

On the other hand, am I letting personal opinions / personality conflicts create bias against a person that might actually be a good or great CSM representative? Should I keep quiet and let others decide for themselves?

Sigh, its going to be a long election cycle.


  1. If you think that a candidate is unsuitable, you should say that. You are making endorsements, so you have accepted your level of influence (what ever it may be) on the results of the election. Being critical of the candidates, including saying if one person is a poor choice for the position, is neither that far nor radical from what you have done already. People "[keeping] quiet" and "[letting] others decide for themselves" is why poor candidates are chosen; the CSM has a history of this. However, in the past couple of years, the quality of candidates because they are being scrutinized more closely. Trust yourself that you will provide a reasonable argument that is supported with evidence and strays from personal attacks. Being modest as opposed to humble about your ability to do that is detrimental.

  2. If yer not gonna say "Not him/her because :whatever:" then you shouldn't say "Yes, him/her because :whatever:"... It's a blog, a personal opinion publishing platform, say whatever you want, we all have the right to read or not, to listen or to ignore.

    The only rule I hold myself to is, not letting it get 'personal'. If you have reasons other than "I know him and he's a DICK!", reasons you feel the playerbase might need to know... for or against, why hold back either as long as it's about the betterment of the GAME and not 'personal' in nature.

    PS and I know, I know I could have picked a better metaphore than "He's a DICK!" Being a dick in EvE? Hell, that got Mittens the CSM Chair now dint it? =]

  3. I'm probably the worst person to give advice on this subject, but I'll throw in my .02 ISK anyway. Just be true to yourself and everything else will work itself out.

  4. Eve's a game and I think you're overthinking it if you're too anxious to say what you think.

    But from an efficacy point of view never mention people you don't like. The system, as we saw with Banlish last year, is very heavily weighted towards first choices. All of Test voted for Banlish, as well as most of the CFC. But none of us put him first as we were given a vote order by our coalitions. So despite being the bloc candidate of what was then the game's biggest alliance he didn't even scrape into 14th place.

    So if you name and shame someone controversial like Gevlon Goblin or James315 you make it more likely that 10% of people will take the polar view and put them first. Because that's how people are, tell us the world is round and there'll be some who insist it's flat just because.


AddThis button