These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Jita Park Speakers Corner

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
123Next pageLast page
 

CSM7 - Transparency: Where is it?

First post
Author
Poetic Stanziel
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#1 - 2012-10-10 20:57:43 UTC  |  Edited by: Poetic Stanziel
from http://poeticstanziel.blogspot.ca/2012/10/csm7-transparency.html

One of the favourite lines of CSM7, when they (or CCP) are faced with criticism is: "You don't know what's happening behind the scenes."

That's because there's a serious lack of transparency.

It would seem that, to CSM7, transparency is writing out a 165 page document on a three day meeting. That is the sum total of their transparency. The document is less about what CSM7 cares about, and more about what CCP is planning.

From the outside looking in, CSM7 seems to be nothing more than CCP cheerleaders. Criticise the direction in which CCP seems to be taking the game, rather than CCP explaining their position, defending their development, you have the CSM coming down on anyone daring to criticize their keepers. CSM7 is less a player proxy and more a buffer between CCP and the players. Call me crazy, but I'm pretty sure that's not the role the players want their CSM to play.

Devblogs on Retribution are starting to roll out. So, as each feature is announced and explained, the NDA on that feature is effectively dropped. It would be of immense value to the players to now learn where the CSM stands on those features. Where they very much agree with specific feature-sets, where they butted heads with CCP. Where they agreed and disagreed. That's transparency. Information on how CSM7 is actively trying to represent the players to CCP.

Again, from the outside looking in, it appears that CSM7 is more concerned with not pissing off CCP. Because, in their minds to piss off CCP is to anger CCP which might lead to less access to CCP down the road. I'm pretty sure we voted our selected representatives hoping they might have actual opinions, perhaps even strong opinions, on what might be bad and what might be good for this game. What use is having more access, if you're too afraid to speak your mind when presented with this increased access? So, you get to see things you might not otherwise have got to see, but if you have concerns about those things, being afraid to speak up about them, because you might offend someone, because you're afraid of blowback, well, that's not particularly useful at all.

CSM7 may in fact be butting heads with CCP. But, of course, we don't know what's happening behind the scenes. We're not privy and/or entitled. And that's a shame, because a few of these representatives ran on platforms promising to open up and reveal the process to their constituents. While NDAs are in effect, obviously they are hog-tied with respect to how much they can reveal. But the moment the NDAs become moot, we should be seeing lengthy articles on each new feature, the opinions on it from CSM7, where they agreed and where they disagreed.

It's of value to the players to know where their representatives stand. What has made them happy, what has made them sad about an upcoming expansion. Where they think CCP could have done better, where they think CCP has failed.

It can't all be puppy dogs and ice cream between CSM7 and CCP. Yet, from the outside looking in, that's exactly the fa├žade we're all presented with. A big unified front of "everything is working as intended and let's give CCP the benefit of the doubt. Bitching about stuff leads to nowhere good."

Actually, bitching lead to the cancellation of Incarna and a refocus on spaceships. Bitching has been very good for the players. I think we'd like to see where our representatives have spent some time bitching, because it would be disappointing to learn that it's all been lollipops.
Scatim Helicon
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#2 - 2012-10-10 21:14:09 UTC  |  Edited by: Scatim Helicon
In earlier CSMs, where interaction with CCP was largely confined to the Summits and the company pretty much ignored them for the remainder of the term, the CSM communicated loudly and frequently with the wider playerbase because that was the only party listening. Today the pendulum swings in the opposite direction - since chatting it up in secret with devs in the NDA-sealed skype channels is always going to be sexier than the plodding groundwork of public relations, that's the direction of communication CSM7 is naturally favouring.

Every time you post a WiS thread, Hilmar strangles a kitten.

Dersen Lowery
The Scope
#3 - 2012-10-10 21:21:18 UTC
Scatim Helicon wrote:
In earlier CSMs, where interaction with CCP was largely confined to the Summits and the company pretty much ignored them for the remainder of the term, the CSM communicated loudly and frequently with the wider playerbase because that was the only party listening. Today the pendulum swings in the opposite direction - since chatting it up in secret with devs in the NDA-sealed skype channels is always going to be sexier than the plodding groundwork of public relations, that's the direction of communication CSM7 is naturally favouring.


And with CCP directly engaging the players, in General Discussion and Features & Ideas and elsewhere, it's not hard to argue that this is an attractive direction for them to be going in, in purely pragmatic terms.

Some of them might have learned that effective public relations is really hard, too.

Proud founder and member of the Belligerent Desirables.

I voted in CSM X!

Darth Gustav
Sith Interstellar Tech Harvesting
#4 - 2012-10-10 21:25:44 UTC
Transparency is a lofty ambition. Access and reasonable dialogue, though, would be almost just as nice.

I know getting a straight comment on this forum from a certain "High-sec CSM Representative" regarding valid issues was literally impossible. The only opinion I was ever able to garner was a philosophical one about the economics of happiness which was nominally unrelated to any of the issues I tried to address. I do not wish to launch personal attacks, but the evidence should be pretty apparent to anybody willing to look.

If we can't even get a CSM Representative to give a simple opinion about the unintended effects changes are having on Eve, how can we expect to be adequately represented? In the particular case I'm referring to, botting was among my concerns. Never was an opinion expressed by the CSM in question pertaining to botting in any way. Instead I got a boilerplate response, over and over: Essentially it can be summarized as, "These changes were not meant to address those issues."

One of the only routes of access we, as players, have to the CSM is through these forums. How disenfranchising it feels to be treated like a second-class player undeserving of even an opinion, I can tell you quite personally. I felt like this CSM Representative was telling me in no uncertain terms that I was not worth the relevant opinions, and that my playstyle made me an enemy by proxy.

That's not transparency. That is a brick wall.

He who trolls trolls best when he who is trolled trolls the troller. -Darth Gustav's Axiom

Issler Dainze
Tadakastu-Obata Corporation
The Honda Accord
#5 - 2012-10-11 06:14:28 UTC
Darth Gustav wrote:
Transparency is a lofty ambition. Access and reasonable dialogue, though, would be almost just as nice.

I know getting a straight comment on this forum from a certain "High-sec CSM Representative" regarding valid issues was literally impossible. The only opinion I was ever able to garner was a philosophical one about the economics of happiness which was nominally unrelated to any of the issues I tried to address. I do not wish to launch personal attacks, but the evidence should be pretty apparent to anybody willing to look.

If we can't even get a CSM Representative to give a simple opinion about the unintended effects changes are having on Eve, how can we expect to be adequately represented? In the particular case I'm referring to, botting was among my concerns. Never was an opinion expressed by the CSM in question pertaining to botting in any way. Instead I got a boilerplate response, over and over: Essentially it can be summarized as, "These changes were not meant to address those issues."

One of the only routes of access we, as players, have to the CSM is through these forums. How disenfranchising it feels to be treated like a second-class player undeserving of even an opinion, I can tell you quite personally. I felt like this CSM Representative was telling me in no uncertain terms that I was not worth the relevant opinions, and that my playstyle made me an enemy by proxy.

That's not transparency. That is a brick wall.


Since you are talking about me I was very forthright about answering you. The problem is that you couldn't accept that the question you asked was based on agreeing on how to evaluate the result of the barge change. I supported them and still do based on the concept that since I ran to make miners happier and they did I was glad that happened, the fact that you continue to single me out when all the CSM 7 supported the change shows pretty clearly your question was meant as some sort of troll/personal attack. I could have ignored you but I continued to try and get some resolution to your post.

As for what has been announced to date, I am very happy with what we know about crime watch, the new ships, the balancing that has been announced. Feel free to make specific asks on a feature by feature basis and I am happy to discuss within the limits of the NDA what I think about what we can expect.

Some folks have stated that the next expansion seems light. I think part of that is that a lot of what we are going to see is the "same" stuff we have now, but having it behave differently. So not as clear as the "new shiny" many expansions have provided.

So feel free to ask about specifics. You'll get an answer from me, even if you choose to try and frame it as not answering because you were trying trying to get some "specific" answer to "trap" someone into saying something you think you want to use to affect the next election.

CSM 7 is being very transparent, you are just using some bizarre filter to pretend we aren't engaging the community.

Issler
Scatim Helicon
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#6 - 2012-10-11 06:39:48 UTC
Issler Dainze wrote:
Feel free to make specific asks on a feature by feature basis and I am happy to discuss within the limits of the NDA what I think about what we can expect.


This illustrates my post above fairly well.

In earlier CSMs, there were of course NDAs in place as well to restrict discussion, but since CCP was barely communicating in any depth with the CSM those restrictions were pretty much irrelevant - the CSMs couldn't really break their NDAs unless they were really trying and were essentially free to communicate openly.

Every time you post a WiS thread, Hilmar strangles a kitten.

Poetic Stanziel
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#7 - 2012-10-11 06:53:32 UTC
Issler Dainze wrote:
CSM 7 is being very transparent, you are just using some bizarre filter to pretend we aren't engaging the community.
Appearing on a podcast is not necessarily transparency.

Telling some podcast guy that "we spend a lot of time on Skype" is not transparent. What are you talking about? What did you agree with? What did you disagree with? With the NDA for Retribution beginning to fall by the wayside (devblogs should invalidate NDAs, because the info is now out in the open), the CSM should begin detailing their opinions on the new features, the good and the bad, especially where they told CCP there would be problems, etc.

That gives us a fuller picture of how well each CSM member actually understands the game and their area of interest, and how well they are representing the playerbase.
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#8 - 2012-10-11 06:59:00 UTC
It's here: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=161013&find=unread

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016

None ofthe Above
#9 - 2012-10-11 07:02:23 UTC  |  Edited by: None ofthe Above
I give CSM7 a fair amount of credit. I am pretty impressed with several of their members.

But I have to say some of this rings true to me, and echoes opinions I've held and even expressed.

I too have a concern that it is easy getting sucked into being buds with the devs. (Which is great to a degree, but tell them when they are walking off a cliff! Yell at them if you have to.)

Which would seem to be why the CSM wasn't so quick to pick up on the issues with the Unified Inventory. (Although also mitigating was there was a lot else going on at that point in time that seemed more likely to be disaster at first glance.)

I do appreciate Hans' more recent posts, but yes I agree: It would be helpful as the NDAs lift if we could here more about what happened behind the scenes.

The only end-game content in EVE Online is the crap that makes you rage quit.

Poetic Stanziel
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#10 - 2012-10-11 07:05:02 UTC
That's not transparency. That's just them talking about themselves.
Poetic Stanziel
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#11 - 2012-10-11 07:08:43 UTC
None ofthe Above wrote:
It would be helpful as the NDAs lift if we could here more about what happened behind the scenes.
As much as most of us would love that to happen, it probably won't. CSM doesn't want to criticise CCP openly, because then CCP will cut them off. (Or so they think.) The CSM is neutered with this fear.

Oh sure, they'll tell us they've disagreed with CCP, but without knowing on what they disagreed, it's an empty statement. An easy statement to make, if you don't have to back it up.

We never got this sort of pandering when The Mittani was in charge. CSM8 needs a strong capable leader again.
None ofthe Above
#12 - 2012-10-11 07:11:45 UTC
Poetic Stanziel wrote:
That's not transparency. That's just them talking about themselves.


Sure it probably has room for improvement, but you give them no credit for that?

Shirley, you jest.

The only end-game content in EVE Online is the crap that makes you rage quit.

None ofthe Above
#13 - 2012-10-11 07:26:34 UTC  |  Edited by: None ofthe Above
Poetic Stanziel wrote:
None ofthe Above wrote:
It would be helpful as the NDAs lift if we could here more about what happened behind the scenes.
As much as most of us would love that to happen, it probably won't. CSM doesn't want to criticise CCP openly, because then CCP will cut them off. (Or so they think.) The CSM is neutered with this fear.

Oh sure, they'll tell us they've disagreed with CCP, but without knowing on what they disagreed, it's an empty statement. An easy statement to make, if you don't have to back it up.

We never got this sort of pandering when The Mittani was in charge. CSM8 needs a strong capable leader again.


Sums up my concerns pretty well.

Not sure I am dying to get The Mittani back, there were a lot of negatives to his leadership as well, but I do certainly agree that the current CSM doesn't understand what The Mittani could do with the figurehead position, or perhaps considers it beneath them. Courthouse called it "soft-power". I had a few arguments about this with Hans and a few others dating back to the election even, when they were saying the chair was a meaningless position that had no power.

The standard response to this would be "See you even say its a figurehead position, of course it has no power." It doesn't come with power or influence. It comes with the opportunity to create it.

I see this happening to an extent. The CSM's stakeholder project could lead to something truly remarkable. But if they sacrifice the ability to be critical... the ability to take a stand when something is going horribly wrong... then what good is it? On that point I think we agree, Poetic.

The only end-game content in EVE Online is the crap that makes you rage quit.

Poetic Stanziel
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#14 - 2012-10-11 07:59:03 UTC  |  Edited by: Poetic Stanziel
None ofthe Above wrote:
Poetic Stanziel wrote:
That's not transparency. That's just them talking about themselves.
Sure it probably has room for improvement, but you give them no credit for that?
Some credit. They try harder than anyone (other than The Mittani) did on CSM6. But the substance of the podcasts ... it's just them trying to make themselves look good so that they're in a good position for CSM8.

So they talk a lot. I don't want CSM reps who simply talk a lot, especially self-serving yammer. I want CSM reps who are willing to explain to the players where they agree with CCP and where they disagree with CCP. I want CSM reps who will talk about that.
rodyas
Tie Fighters Inc
#15 - 2012-10-11 08:36:57 UTC
Yeah, in the spirit of transparency , what did the CSM think of the newest dev blog?

Personally I think it is too much for CCP Guard to sneak to close to other CCP devs, even with camoflage. Guard was obviously hacking in that video.

Also which CSM member told CCP to hire more hot women for their company? I think I smell a CSM 8 chairmen already.

Signature removed for inappropriate language - CCP Eterne

Snow Axe
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#16 - 2012-10-11 13:55:08 UTC
rodyas wrote:
Yeah, in the spirit of transparency , what did the CSM think of the newest dev blog?


They'll be happy to sort of tell you as soon as they've decided which way the winds are blowing. Of course, by "they" I mean "the 3 or 4 of them who can be assed enough to post here", and by "tell you" I mean "link to a 3 hour masturbatory podcast".

"Look any reason why you need to talk like that? I have now reported you. I dont need to listen to your bad tone. If you cant have a grown up conversation then leave the thread["

Akrasjel Lanate
Lanate Industries
#17 - 2012-10-11 14:41:19 UTC
Yea, everyone would want an inside knowledge about upcoming changes(and benefit from them ?) before they will be know to the masses

CEO of Lanate Industries

Citizen of Solitude

Darth Gustav
Sith Interstellar Tech Harvesting
#18 - 2012-10-11 17:04:13 UTC  |  Edited by: Darth Gustav
Issler Dainze wrote:
Darth Gustav wrote:
Transparency is a lofty ambition. Access and reasonable dialogue, though, would be almost just as nice.

I know getting a straight comment on this forum from a certain "High-sec CSM Representative" regarding valid issues was literally impossible. The only opinion I was ever able to garner was a philosophical one about the economics of happiness which was nominally unrelated to any of the issues I tried to address. I do not wish to launch personal attacks, but the evidence should be pretty apparent to anybody willing to look.

If we can't even get a CSM Representative to give a simple opinion about the unintended effects changes are having on Eve, how can we expect to be adequately represented? In the particular case I'm referring to, botting was among my concerns. Never was an opinion expressed by the CSM in question pertaining to botting in any way. Instead I got a boilerplate response, over and over: Essentially it can be summarized as, "These changes were not meant to address those issues."

One of the only routes of access we, as players, have to the CSM is through these forums. How disenfranchising it feels to be treated like a second-class player undeserving of even an opinion, I can tell you quite personally. I felt like this CSM Representative was telling me in no uncertain terms that I was not worth the relevant opinions, and that my playstyle made me an enemy by proxy.

That's not transparency. That is a brick wall.


Since you are talking about me I was very forthright about answering you. The problem is that you couldn't accept that the question you asked was based on agreeing on how to evaluate the result of the barge change. I supported them and still do based on the concept that since I ran to make miners happier and they did I was glad that happened, the fact that you continue to single me out when all the CSM 7 supported the change shows pretty clearly your question was meant as some sort of troll/personal attack. I could have ignored you but I continued to try and get some resolution to your post.

As for what has been announced to date, I am very happy with what we know about crime watch, the new ships, the balancing that has been announced. Feel free to make specific asks on a feature by feature basis and I am happy to discuss within the limits of the NDA what I think about what we can expect.

Some folks have stated that the next expansion seems light. I think part of that is that a lot of what we are going to see is the "same" stuff we have now, but having it behave differently. So not as clear as the "new shiny" many expansions have provided.

So feel free to ask about specifics. You'll get an answer from me, even if you choose to try and frame it as not answering because you were trying trying to get some "specific" answer to "trap" someone into saying something you think you want to use to affect the next election.

CSM 7 is being very transparent, you are just using some bizarre filter to pretend we aren't engaging the community.

Issler

Please give quotes showing how you answered my specific questions. You didn't answer anything until I let up and said I only wanted an answer about the value added to mining by the changes. You commented on the philosophical value of happiness rather than any sort of informed comment about the actual in-game value of mining as a profession.

You can NOT quote where you answered my original questions, because you simply didn't.

Thanks for being so interested now though. Roll

[edit]
Issler Dainze wrote:
As for ice prices, markets work, if miners aren't happy with the prices they have the freedom to do something else with their time.


Also, speaking purely objectively, your insistence that miners adapt to ever-lowering prices by not mining is an admittance that mining lost value because of these changes. If you don't believe me, try to put yourself into a new miner's shoes, just getting ready to be able to harvest ice. The value will soon be negligible. That miner will find his training time wasted and be forced to do something else in the future so that some greedy miners can mine gank-free (and attention-free too, AFK-style) for a while until it becomes obvious that's probably going to be problematic. The only alternative is to take a pay cut every day until prices bottom out, at which point pay cuts are no longer possible due to game mechanics.
[/edit]

He who trolls trolls best when he who is trolled trolls the troller. -Darth Gustav's Axiom

Proclus Diadochu
Mar Sarrim
Red Coat Conspiracy
#19 - 2012-10-11 17:25:12 UTC
Poe, they come out with verbatim (save NDA material) transcripts from the meetings, they do townhalls, Dev's are communicating more, and CSM are even personally emailing back replies to any and all reasonable emails and questions to them. Case in point, Trebor and Twostep have replied to questions I have asked them about with thorough clarity and full support to discuss if required.

What more do you want from a video game?

Minister of High Society | Twitter: @autoritare

E-mail: [email protected]

My Blog: http://diogenes-club.blogspot.com/

The Diogenes Club | Join W-Space | Down The Pipe

Poetic Stanziel
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#20 - 2012-10-11 18:17:55 UTC
I'd like to see their opinions on the latest bounty/killright devblog.

Their opinions on the suspect flag being applied for activating a killright, for instance.
123Next pageLast page