||During CSM 2 I got to be elected as an alternate. Meaning I got to vote and give input on other's ideas, but could put forward few of mine. My track record of both attendance and participation has been better than that of some of the elected members, as can be seen in the CSM meeting minutes.
During CSM 3 I was elected and served as Secretary of the CSM. An ungrateful and hard job, but communication is vital, and whatever few communication outlets we have we need to make full use of.
I served during CSM 4 as an purposeful alternate. There were term limits, so I couldn't get in as main then and I tried to get in as an alt so I could see the work initiated in CSM 3 completed in CSM 5. And that's what I've done.
In CSM 5 I was again elected as full member, and took a great part in calling CCP up on their bullshit, most notably with "Excellence", microtransactions (which we managed to succesfully overturn) and InCarna
Why should you vote for me?
Meissa is extremely analytical, well-versed in game mechanics and cause-and-effect of those mechanics, and able to express himself and his ideas very well.
His game knowledge is excellent and approach to presenting/supporting his opinions both in our internal forums and at Summits is very effective. So while he's one of the "quiet" CSM members, he contributes a lot of value.
-- Mynxee, CSM 5 chairwoman
(who also kindly included me in her list of people to consider voting for)
Meissa, despite not being a good or well known poaster is very dedicated, knowledgeable and, something which will be VERY important this time around, pretty impartial and balanced in his views (perhaps frustratingly so at times ). He's also a very nice chap and good fun on the lash for a Belgian.
-- Larkonis Trassler, CSM 3
(who named me as one of the 2 people to vote for)
he knows the part of eve that he plays really well and he makes sound arguments even if i dont agree with them, and i think you should vote for him
-- Mazzilliu, CSM 3 and 5
I have experience in just about every aspect of the game.
I've done and still do mining, exploration, Wormhole PvE and PvP, missioning in L4 and L5s, production of T1, T2 and T3 ships and modules, research and invention, trading, lowsec PvP, large 0.0 fleet battles, POS warfare, POS management, moon mining reaction chains, 0.0 plexing, stealing ice and ore from macrominers. I actually keep doing most of these activities even now.
I am unbiased and impartial. I don't favor any particular group.
Having taken part in alliance and corp battles and wars, I never have been foaming at the mouth raging over "hostiles". Making friends out of people trying to pod me is something I've done numerous times. Even after being sent back to a fresh clone and being deprived of my ships.
I had been a regular carebear for a long while before moving on to lowsec and eventually 0.0. Carebearing is a playing style I enjoyed and respect and, to some extent, still pursue. My current preference to the turmoils of war does not in any way affect my judgement as to what can be done to make the whole highsec experience more enjoyable for those of us that chose to live in empire.
While I don't roleplay much myself, my CEO was a member of one of the oldest RP corps in the game, and is well versed with existing backstory and the concerns of role players. While not personally affected by it, I realise that the past, present or future lack of coherence in the background RPers use to play the game can be a hinderance to their enjoyment of the overall game.
Despite being in a PvP alliance (in which I am known as a carebear despite my continuous involvement in fleets, damn them), I have no interests to serve, no special agenda and only want to help make the game more enjoyable, for each and every type of player.
No, really, I am not. Most of the time...
Real life experience in dealing with relationship to big companies.
I've had numerous dealings with large companies and have a built-in bullshit detector. Vague promises, unclear agendas and assurances that everything will be taken care of, maybe, someday, do not fly with me. Likewise, being overly aggressive is counterproductive. The goal being to get CCP to respond to the player's needs to the best of their ability. Managing a relationship like this one takes skill and leaving one's ego at the door.
Also, having dealt with CCP over the course of 4 CSMs (I'm the longest running member to date), I have learned how CCP functions, how to best present ideas and concepts so they actually make it into the game as opposed to the countless proposals raised by CSM members that eventually get turned down by CCP for technical, design or balance reasons. Wasting less of everyone's time is something I bring to the table.
With 25 years of programming background, I am in a great position to convey ideas and concepts in a clear manner to CCP so that the focus can be placed on workable solutions and not on endless talk about solutions that aren't.
For something like the CSM to work, the members must work together. That means reaching compromises within the CSM as well as with CCP. If marriage taught me one thing, it's the FULL meaning of the word compromise.
Last but definately not least, I love this game and want to make it even more enjoyable.
What would I focus on?
Getting the existing features to actually work.
These were my objectives for the past 4 elections, and you can see I've lived up to my promises:
Marketing and Programmers both like new features, bugfixes aren't nearly as much fun. The end result for us players is that we end up with fighting in space is still dysfunctional on many levels; corporation and POS management gives everyone terrible headaches; 0.0 fleet battles lagfest; warfare was dumbed down to "whoever has the more supercaps wins", leaving all non capital pilots twiddling their thumbs and small scale PvP warfare became unviable. Missioners have a very limited set of missions to do. Highsec wars are used to grief and nothing else. Factional Warfare is plagued with "internal piracy" issues. Some of these things are complex problems we see them working on (lag for one), some others aren't. It is my personal perception that the manpower allocation balance is tilted way too much towards the useless and the eye-candy at the expense of the meaningful to the rest of us. Getting new features for newcomers should definately not be neglected, but there is a huge amount of work to do to make existing features as interesting as they should be.
For CSM 6 I intend to keep pushing in that direction, CCP can never be encouraged enough...
Better the communication.
Tthe CSM as a whole is nowhere to be seen except in that dark corner of the forum where we lurk. While you can be certain the CSM actually does do work (as can be seen in that dark corner of the forum), the results of said work haven't been much publicized, and what has been wasn't terribly conclusive. For such a thing as the CSM to work, it has to be relevant to we, the playerbase, and not to the CCP or the CSM itself. Ask people in game what the CSM is and you only frequently get blank [virtual] stares. I'd like to change that.
Help CCP be more transparent and accountable.
There are many instances for which we, as players, have had reasons not to trust CCP. This lead to situations where few of us believe they're actually listening. For instance, CCP's claim that they're actually doing something about the macro miners that devalue our work. For issues like this, the boilerplate "the matter is being investigated" does not suffice. CCP has done some efforts in that direction, but needs to be thoroughly encouraged to go in that direction some more.
For some other issues, a simple timeline would eliminate most of the snickering and eye-rolling that unavoidably occurs whenever CCP says they will take care of issues. Their infamous "soon™" should get closer to a "soon" we all can agree with.
Trust has to be restored, and for that to be achieved, transparency and accountability are definately important.