These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Assembly Hall

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
123Next page
 

[CSM] December Summit - Future of the CSM

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Trebor Daehdoow
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#1 - 2011-11-23 16:23:07 UTC
Please discuss issues related to this session in this thread. We look forward to your comments and suggestions.

Private Citizen • CSM in recovery
Orakkus
ImperiaI Federation
Goonswarm Federation
#2 - 2011-11-23 17:26:06 UTC
Appears to be working as intended. Eve is back on track. CCP will make more money. More money means more Profit and investment into their other projects down the road.

He's not just famous, he's "IN" famous. - Ned Nederlander
Vertisce Soritenshi
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#3 - 2011-11-23 19:50:46 UTC
Orakkus wrote:
Appears to be working as intended. Eve is back on track. CCP will make more money. More money means more Profit and investment into their other projects down the road.

OMG...

So anyway...changes need to be made to the CSM to ensure more balance for who is represented in the overall community. I don't see how it is even possible.

CSM members...(No offense Trebor) should not be allowed to run if they have already been voted in and served on the CSM once or twice already.

Bounties for all! https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=2279821#post2279821
Drake Draconis
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#4 - 2011-11-23 20:09:06 UTC  |  Edited by: Drake Draconis
Vertisce Soritenshi wrote:
Orakkus wrote:
Appears to be working as intended. Eve is back on track. CCP will make more money. More money means more Profit and investment into their other projects down the road.

OMG...

So anyway...changes need to be made to the CSM to ensure more balance for who is represented in the overall community. I don't see how it is even possible.

CSM members...(No offense Trebor) should not be allowed to run if they have already been voted in and served on the CSM once or twice already.



Your a day late and a dollar short.

They lifted the restriction even under exterme protest and CSM now have unlimtied terms....you have a snow balls chance in hell in reversing that.

*Happened Last year....don't recall when or how or what but it was a dark day for CSM/CCP*

================ STOP THE EVEMAIL SPAM! https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=78152
Solo Player
#5 - 2011-11-23 20:53:45 UTC
Recently started to work as intended - by the players. As a leverage for players to get their views taken seriously by being legitimated, public, loud and focussed about it.

Still, could improve on its legitimacy by improving the election process. For example, reduce number of nominations to a more manageable number through some sort of primaries on the forums while making sure minority interests remain represented. RL politics have come up with quite a few ways to do this.
Also, make it easier and more attractive for players to vote. 50% participation would greatly add legitimacy.
Vertisce Soritenshi
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#6 - 2011-11-23 21:37:59 UTC
Free 5k Aurum for voting!

Only thing I can really think of without giving free ISK or PLEX and screwing the game over.

Bounties for all! https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=2279821#post2279821
StukaBee
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#7 - 2011-11-23 22:32:17 UTC
Vertisce Soritenshi wrote:
Free 5k Aurum for voting!

Only thing I can really think of without giving free ISK or PLEX and screwing the game over.


Free Aurum just means that of those people who don't currently vote, those who don't care enough about Aurum will continue to not vote, and those who want free Aurum will pick a name at random from the list (or just the first name at the top) so they get their payout. It might give the false impression of legitimacy but it wouldn't increase the number of informed or engaged voters.
Vertisce Soritenshi
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#8 - 2011-11-23 23:38:27 UTC
StukaBee wrote:
Vertisce Soritenshi wrote:
Free 5k Aurum for voting!

Only thing I can really think of without giving free ISK or PLEX and screwing the game over.


Free Aurum just means that of those people who don't currently vote, those who don't care enough about Aurum will continue to not vote, and those who want free Aurum will pick a name at random from the list (or just the first name at the top) so they get their payout. It might give the false impression of legitimacy but it wouldn't increase the number of informed or engaged voters.

This is true but there really isn't any way to "incentivise" voting without giving some kind of reward compensation. Unfortunately it will always lead to that outcome. I think CCP should work on the out of game and in game advertisements to help get the word out. Make it easier to see the information people are voting for and more information about the person and what they wish to accomplish as well.

Bounties for all! https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=2279821#post2279821
Abdiel Kavash
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#9 - 2011-11-23 23:46:34 UTC
Any sort of incentive for voting will only add random noise to the results.

The only way to encourage responsible voting is to promote the CSM and make people widely aware of what it is and what it does. Propaganda and campaigning by the candidates, and the idea that we can change the course of this game, is what brought many people in 0.0 alliances to vote for CSM6, not getting free stuff.
Goose99
#10 - 2011-11-24 03:40:23 UTC
Make voting mandatory... like creating a portrait. Can't log into game until you vote.Lol
StukaBee
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#11 - 2011-11-24 08:14:16 UTC
Goose99 wrote:
Make voting mandatory... like creating a portrait. Can't log into game until you vote.Lol


Same problem as giving away Aurum above:

Stukabee wrote:
It might give the false impression of legitimacy but it wouldn't increase the number of informed or engaged voters.
Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#12 - 2011-11-24 09:32:47 UTC
Goose99 wrote:
Make voting mandatory... like creating a portrait. Can't log into game until you vote.Lol

"oh god, what's this? I can't play my game until I pres butan? JUST SHOW ME A BUTAN AND I WILL PRES I NEED MY ICE MINING FIX!"

Yep. This suggestion won't help, no matter how many times guys like you put this forward.

Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home.

RIP Vile Rat
Goose99
#13 - 2011-11-24 17:15:14 UTC
Lord Zim wrote:
Goose99 wrote:
Make voting mandatory... like creating a portrait. Can't log into game until you vote.Lol

"oh god, what's this? I can't play my game until I pres butan? JUST SHOW ME A BUTAN AND I WILL PRES I NEED MY ICE MINING FIX!"

Yep. This suggestion won't help, no matter how many times guys like you put this forward.


What you're afraid of is just the opposite - that the ice miners would actually read the short description and run down goon candidate.Lol
StukaBee
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#14 - 2011-11-24 23:19:21 UTC
Goose99 wrote:
Lord Zim wrote:
Goose99 wrote:
Make voting mandatory... like creating a portrait. Can't log into game until you vote.Lol

"oh god, what's this? I can't play my game until I pres butan? JUST SHOW ME A BUTAN AND I WILL PRES I NEED MY ICE MINING FIX!"

Yep. This suggestion won't help, no matter how many times guys like you put this forward.


What you're afraid of is just the opposite - that the ice miners would actually read the short description and run down goon candidate.Lol


How would a bot know who to vote for?
Cygnet Lythanea
World Welfare Works Association
#15 - 2011-11-24 23:25:46 UTC
You do realize that bots have evolved quite a bit from the old days. The trick is to leave them in IRC channels for a while so they start to learn english and then have them listen in say, Minmater channel here in game, and pretty soon you'll have them wandering around mining ice and spouting 'LOL l2p noob!' 'Can i haz yur stuff?' and posting their considered opinions on how awesome goonswarm is in the forums.
Bomberlocks
Bombercorp
#16 - 2011-11-25 01:04:56 UTC
The CSM, or at least part of it, has done a good job at reporting to the players this term. Two Step, Trebor and Seleene in particular come to mind.
Tahna Rouspel
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#17 - 2011-11-25 04:24:56 UTC
I think the CSM did a good job. It didn't feel like there was any bias towards a certain part of the game in the arguments. I just hope the next CSM will take into consideration all parts of the game in the future as well. I would hate to see Null sec get all the income and wormholes and low sec miss-out despite being equally as dangerous.
Evei Shard
Shard Industries
#18 - 2011-11-25 05:18:40 UTC
Keep the CSM, but give users an easily visible bright red "vote on Eve related issues' button right next to where their character selection is. Let the players decide at the screen if they want to be involved where the game goes, instead of having to hear about second or third hand, or, worse yet, stumbling onto the forums to find out about it.

People don't need the stuff forced on them, but they need the option to do so clearly in front of them, specifically so they know that they have that option in the first place.

More player interaction directly with CCP at a level that provides CCP with raw data to work with (instead of having to pay someone to read through the endless repeating threads on the forums).
Less CSM manipulation.

Profit favors the prepared
Xorv
Questionable Acquisitions
#19 - 2011-11-25 06:59:26 UTC
Seems to be working better than it ever has since I've been following EVE. Granted it's dominated by people from Null Sec alliances, but I'd rather have them representing me than someone voted in by players that are forced to vote. If players can't take the time to inform themselves and vote, well I'd rather they had no say at all tbh.
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#20 - 2011-11-25 08:41:42 UTC
Trebor Daehdoow wrote:
Please discuss issues related to this session in this thread. We look forward to your comments and suggestions.


I trust you will strongly resist any proposals for "reserved seats" for specific so-called 'consituencies'. Special treatment is not a way to improve the credibility of a democratic process.

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

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
123Next page