CSM CSM CSM CSM
So the CSM election is underway. I haven’t covered it a lot. Then again I haven’t written a lot. I’m going to talk about two people. Mike Azariah and Ripard Teg. I’m endorsing one. I’m not endorsing the other.
The guy I’m endorsing? Mike.
PUT DOWN THE FLAMETHROWER.
TELL HANS TO RELEASE THE HOSTAGES.
There are reason.
I have no doubt that both are eminently capable at filling their place in the CSM. Both are intelligent, articulate, and dedicated. I don’t read as much of Mike’s blog as I do Ripard’s. It just rubs me the wrong way. I do keep an eye on it and look for “the point” if you will, but he just doesn’t capture my thought the way Ripard does. Ripard I read voraciously. Ripard also reminds me of someone. Mynxee. He has that same combination of knowledge, dedication, and sensitivity that drove Mynxee to ruin. She didn’t have a huge blog to maintain. She didn’t have the stakeholder role and the schedule that the CSM has. Ripard Teg in a CSM seat is EvE burnout times 20. I don’t think anyone can keep up the schedule Ripard has NOW. I really don’t. Add the CSM to it? Add the stress of trying to find things to write about without violating NDA. Now I have had some discussion with Hans that have convinced me that at least for every topic he’d lose, he’d gain insight that could well be invaluable for the community, that is, the muzzle would be relatively loose for someone like him, and that he’d compensate for it well by using his insight to write well about topics he can write about and using his new knowledge to contribute even more than he normally would.
I still don’t see him keeping up with the CSM, his blog, playing the actual game on occasion, oh and his real life job, family, friends, what have you. I just don’t. I’m not saying don’t vote for him. He’s eminently qualified. He’s completely capable. I just don’t think it ends well.
Mike offers a perspective of a casual, hisec player. The guy that logs in a couple times a week. Maybe undocks, maybe doesn’t. At the same time he has a deep understanding of the game, the meta-game, the mechanics, and social structures. He communicates well, he works very hard. I also don’t worry nearly as much about him burning out and exploding in a ball of fiery ennui. He may not contribute a lot to the discussion major issues confronting alliances with tens of thousands of players, but he does offer some perspective on the activities on the tens of thousands of unaffiliated players. Players like myself in the old days.
In general I agree with Hans voting list. *I* won’t be voting for Ripard. I won’t tell you not to vote for him, just that I’m not. I know it’s a big difference, but it’s something to consider.
There’s one other name I won’t have on my list. Roc. Now I have a better opinion of him than I used to, but frankly his biggest weakness is in the praise he links on his own video.
Committed to improving discussions and bringing player ideas to the table, even those he disagrees with.
-Ali Aras (emphasis mine)
I can argue strongly and well for ideas I support. I can argue articulately in favor of things I don’t have a strong opinion. I cannot argue as well on issues I disagree with. I couldn’t argue that, say, suicide ganking should be removed from the game. I also wouldn’t do it. It would violate my integrity on two points. First: I would be telling you something I believe is untrue. That weakens my standing and it means I am less effective because my detractors could say “Well how about all times you said suicide ganking was awesome, or when you blew up my mining barge you asshole!” To which I’d have to say “Be quiet I’m suicide ganking to get the taste out of my mouth.” The second part is that I could not portray myself as capable of arguing against that because someone who actually believes that suicide ganking is bad needs to be stopped. I would actually be sabotaging the efforts of the people who deserve good representation on their horribly misguided ideas. It’s possible Roc could argue better than me. In fact it’s likely. But if your biggest strength is the ability to argue for things you don’t believe in… no vote. Sorry, better luck next year. I suggest you tell me what YOU believe in, what YOU want to see. Then i’ll put you on the other side of the list.