Jita Park Speakers Corner

Personally, I think it's rather foolish to conflate 'effectiveness of the CSM as a whole' with 'success in implementing items X, Y, and Z off a list of the things I want'. The CSM does not have absolute control over what actually goes into Eve, all they can do is offer advice. Yes, you had a poll up. Yes, a few people voted on that poll. No, the things that got most voted for aren't actually up yet, even though it's been three months or so. Uh... you surprised? Have you paid any attention to what was happening during that time? To all the things that actually were happening, which were kind of important? Those things on which the CSM justifiably focused their attention?

It's by that standard that I deem the CSM effective. Sure, it'd be nice if some of the minor but irksome issues of Eve were resolved. There's still time, and given the new focus of the Dev team in general, it's likely that some of them will be addressed. Given that much of the reason why the Dev team cares about FiS in the first place can be traced to the CSM's efforts, if any of those issues actually do get addressed, credit goes to the CSM anyway. If it weren't for them, none of those issues would be addressed, and the winter release would be all about establishments and paying for more clothing options.

From the sounds of it, a crowdsourcing initiative would weaken you and your desire to make the players of Eve play the game the way you want it to be played.

I can see why you don't like it.

If you only want the game played your way, and want to force others to play it the way you want, then being the chair of a group that filters out players concerns and presents the "most important" ones to CPP would help you push your agenda.

A more open system of polling, or crowdsourcing in this case, would make it harder for one group to push their own agenda as the most important one.

Lengthy, obtuse polls that appeal to the spreadsheet demographic don't have anything to do with my ability to convince folks over a beer or two about my point of view.

But don't let that stop you constructing a conspiracy theory.

Please read my initial post. If you did, I doubt you understand it based on what you just said. The CSM may have gotten a few things moved on, but by and large this post is about how to best represent the entire player base, not just the handful of 0.0 organisations that it currently represents. Mind you, I am a 0.0 player who finds the CSM do push issues relevant to me. What I also see is a ton of hi-sec players (lame though I may find them) who have no voice in the game. If they get disgruntled and subscriptions go down, the reality of EVE will suck more for all of us, not just hi-sec players.

So I'm proposing that we have an ongoing poll rather than relying exclusively on the CSM. That's all this post is about. Please go back and read what I wrote the first time. This is not intended to be a CSM-bashing thread, nor am I whining about my pet issues not being taken care of by the CSM.



Yeah, that crowdsourcing option "Commitment to Excellence" was 100% a joke, but I'm pretty sure if ongoing crowdsourcing was well implemented, enough players would request dismissal of that option due to ineffability. In any event, you're now taking up a theoretical linguistic position on the word "crowdsourcing" which perhaps belongs in the realm of English professors but has little to do with the problems of EVE or the proposal I made.

In substance, you are talking about what has happened in the past (summer crowdsourcing) and it sounds like you're just wrapped up in the usual Jita Park politicking. How about weighing in on whether my proposal would work? Have you actually read my first post from front to back? Sorry if it's not perfectly clear. I'm not a career politician.



Again, you agree with me 100% but you refuse to admit that you agree with me. This must be what it feels like to teach kindergarten.



When powerful politicians are opposed to polling, it's difficult to not connect the dots between their agitated opposition and the power they hold. Call it a "theory" if you like, but it's "conspiracy fact" over 90% of the time. But since the only opinion you are willing to give is on something that happened three months ago and not on what I'm proposing now, perhaps your situation belongs in that <10%.

Still, I am not trying to appeal to "the spreadsheet demographic". I would think that getting to vote on your concerns appeals to each and every individual except those in power. I am suggesting that we use direct democracy in EVE instead of representative democracy, and we have yet to hear your clear thoughts on the matter.
-JM

Are you a Mittani alt? or just a lackey that falls in line when you're told...

The CSM is subjective, and pushes the game towards the way they want it. We need an objective measure of what the players want, not subjective players who get to choose what issues get presented to CCP.

Provide one example.

Absolutely. So if your argument is that CCP can't be trusted to create an effective and representative polling system, then fine, but state that unequivocally. However, there is nothing inherently dysfunctional with polling or anything that makes it a universally poorer system than representation.

I absolutely agree. I can understand the hesitancy because of the potential for abuse, but I think it's worth the risk because of how enormously disparate the player experience is. The CSM is great for having representative players there talking to devs and providing valuable feedback, and also for condensing the most pressing and thematic concerns into something that devs can use, but I don't think the CSM needs to be a medium for all those tiny little details that players know best and devs know best how and in what order to address.

And that's exactly why I did it.