These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

EVE Information Portal

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Dev Blog: CSM 9 Results!

First post First post
Author
Alekseyev Karrde
Noir.
Shadow Cartel
#341 - 2014-05-12 14:25:08 UTC  |  Edited by: Alekseyev Karrde
Malcanis wrote:
admiral root wrote:


Have you considered writing the bulk of the minutes before the meeting? Surely you already know what you're going to say and what parts of that you're willing to share with the playerbase? Just plug in the way each member "votes" and any comments they make - voila, instant minutes. Just add water CSM members.


Nope, doeosn't work like that at all.

Almost everything that's wrong with the minutes could be fixed if every team participating in the minutes made a commitment to getting their section turned around in a week.

Maybe that should be a requirement for getting your team a meeting slot with the CSM, since I hear summit time is in short supply these days Twisted

On awareness:

-More timely minutes: Sure the minutes shouldn't take thunder away from dev blogs but abuse people's anticipation of inside information to get them more widely talked about/read

-Log in popup: We had it every year but this one. All of my why...

-EVE Mail: Dolan tried it on a small scale with mixed results, but i think it's worth a second shot. Scale it up, do some A/B testing on subject lines to see what gets max response, and see if it helps

-This years CSM video was great. Do another one building off of it and promote it more.

-CSM and Fanfest: An abitious idea, but instead of the CSM Panel as it is let one of the CSM do a presentation on the main stage with clicker n everything (Think CSM Keynote) with a Q+A panel to follow.

-CSM and FanFest pt 2: Apparently there were tons of people *attending the CSM FF panel* that didn't vote. Next year when that Q is asked, scram/web everyone who raises their hands until they tell you why.

Alek the Kidnapper, Hero of the CSM

Benny Ohu
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#342 - 2014-05-12 14:30:04 UTC
Weaselior wrote:
Malcanis wrote:
Both.

Interesting, will your CSM tag stay on posts made while you were a CSM and not on subsequent posts? It's still on the top post portrait but not this post.

looks like
CCP Leeloo
C C P
C C P Alliance
#343 - 2014-05-12 14:35:41 UTC
Weaselior wrote:
Malcanis wrote:
Both.

Interesting, will your CSM tag stay on posts made while you were a CSM and not on subsequent posts? It's still on the top post portrait but not this post.

This is how it is supposed to work.

CCP Leeloo | Community Developer | @ccp_leeloo | leeloo@ccpgames.com

Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#344 - 2014-05-12 15:17:34 UTC
Weaselior wrote:
Malcanis wrote:
Both.

Interesting, will your CSM tag stay on posts made while you were a CSM and not on subsequent posts? It's still on the top post portrait but not this post.


It seems that it will.

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

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016

Two step
Aperture Harmonics
#345 - 2014-05-12 15:49:38 UTC
TheSmokingHertog wrote:
Is there a statistic of how many of fanfest attending accounts did vote? Blink


I ask this question every year to most of the people I talk to. My estimate is about 60% or so of FF attendees vote.

CSM 7 Secretary CSM 6 Alternate Delegate @two_step_eve on Twitter My Blog

Dinsdale Pirannha
Pirannha Corp
#346 - 2014-05-12 15:50:55 UTC
CCP Leeloo wrote:
Freelancer117 wrote:
@ CCP Leeloo

Does CCPgames feel that there is a correlation between the low Voter Turnout for CSM9 and the late releases of both the CSM8 Summer and Winter Minutes ?

Regards, a Freelancer

I agree on the fact that the CSM Minutes report is not efficient in its current format and as been discussed during the Fanfest, we will review how, where and when we post MInutes.

However, I don't think that low turnout is related to either report itself, or when it is being posted. From my point of view, a lot of players simply are not aware of the CSM's existence. Another significant problem is that people don't feel that CSM is important in any way and this is related to the last but not least important issue - accountability. It is hard to tell whether a CSM member is doing his job well or not.

Everything stated above is critical and requires immediate review and this is something I will look into as the new CSM coordinator.


I realize this will be met with stony silence, but I will ask for posterity.
Why, for what appears to be the first time, was data not released by CCP that is sufficient to calculate the TQ subscription base.
As the new coordinator, it is clearly within your scope of work to answer this simple question.
CCP Leeloo
C C P
C C P Alliance
#347 - 2014-05-12 15:55:17 UTC  |  Edited by: CCP Leeloo
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:
I realize this will be met with stony silence, but I will ask for posterity.
Why, for what appears to be the first time, was data not released by CCP that is sufficient to calculate the TQ subscription base.

I thought that answer to this question is obvious. Because this blog has been released to provide information regarding the CSM9 elections, not regarding the amount of subscriptions on TQ.

CCP Leeloo | Community Developer | @ccp_leeloo | leeloo@ccpgames.com

Two step
Aperture Harmonics
#348 - 2014-05-12 15:58:25 UTC
CCP Leeloo wrote:
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:
I realize this will be met with stony silence, but I will ask for posterity.
Why, for what appears to be the first time, was data not released by CCP that is sufficient to calculate the TQ subscription base.

I thought that answer to this question is obvious. Because this blog has been released to provide information regarding the CSM9 elections, not regarding the amount of subscriptions on TQ.


I understand that, but isn't it important to measure and report voter turnout %? Perhaps by giving general guidance, within a 5% range?

CSM 7 Secretary CSM 6 Alternate Delegate @two_step_eve on Twitter My Blog

Mike Azariah
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#349 - 2014-05-12 16:00:16 UTC
This follows in the precedent set by Dolan. CSM is not to be a conduit of 'other information'. The minutes are not a sneak peek at what is coming next and a source for insider information. The election results are not a look at the CCP's current business success.

We represent you but we do not spy for you.

m

Mike Azariah  ┬──┬ ¯|(ツ)

Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#350 - 2014-05-12 16:09:37 UTC
CCP Leeloo wrote:
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:
I realize this will be met with stony silence, but I will ask for posterity.
Why, for what appears to be the first time, was data not released by CCP that is sufficient to calculate the TQ subscription base.

I thought that answer to this question is obvious. Because this blog has been released to provide information regarding the CSM9 elections, not regarding the amount of subscriptions on TQ.


And the percentage of eligible voters who did in fact vote is not relevent to the CSM process?

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

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016

Dersen Lowery
The Scope
#351 - 2014-05-12 16:40:26 UTC  |  Edited by: Dersen Lowery
Dalilus wrote:
I did not vote this year as the results were predictable and have no need to look at the results to assume who won. Winners: nullbears, lowsequers and Wholers. I bet NO ONE imagined what the results were going to be, Roll.


Low sec took your attitude last year. They had no-one on CSM. This year, they were so hellbent on getting someone on CSM that they now have two. There was nothing inevitable about that. There was certainly nothing inevitable about a two-year-old player, Sugar Kyle, rocketing into the CSM on a first-time bid with the third largest total of #1 votes. She went out and earned that.

This year, we "wholers" dropped the ball and barely got one person in. Given our performance on the previous CSMs, that was a genuine surprise.

Dalilus wrote:
Why vote to legitimize a CSM that is hellbent/will be hellbent on nerfing my highsec playstyle? No need to bulk up the number of votes cast by drone grunts with my own so their alliances can justify with a straight face keeping their BWAAAAAAmbulance making the rounds demanding content ONLY for themselves and then nerfing everything else because "players voted" and they won.


You realize that this is basically bloc propaganda, verbatim, to keep people like you from voting, right? The blocs want nothing more than for non-bloc voters to stay home. They've come out and said that outright. If you hate them so much, why are you doing what they want you to do?

We "wholers" sent people to CSM precisely to keep them from nerfing wormholes in ways that were better for them than for us, and we were largely successful in that effort. That's how you do it.

EDIT: As to the argument that CSM is a barrier between CCP and the players: How does that argument survive the simple observation that the lines of communication between devs and players have greatly broadened and deepened since CSM 7? There weren't always lots of stickied blue topics in Features & Ideas, you know.

Proud founder and member of the Belligerent Desirables.

I voted in CSM X!

Weaselior
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#352 - 2014-05-12 16:50:12 UTC  |  Edited by: Weaselior
Mike Azariah wrote:
This follows in the precedent set by Dolan. CSM is not to be a conduit of 'other information'. The minutes are not a sneak peek at what is coming next and a source for insider information. The election results are not a look at the CCP's current business success.

We represent you but we do not spy for you.

m

Not to put too fine a point on it, but Dolan's philosophy led to a 40% drop in turnout so I think it should be pretty high on the list of things to reconsider.

Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Pubbie Management and Exploitation Division.

Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#353 - 2014-05-12 17:08:10 UTC
Weaselior wrote:
Mike Azariah wrote:
This follows in the precedent set by Dolan. CSM is not to be a conduit of 'other information'. The minutes are not a sneak peek at what is coming next and a source for insider information. The election results are not a look at the CCP's current business success.

We represent you but we do not spy for you.

m

Not to put too fine a point on it, but Dolan's philosophy led to a 40% drop in turnout so I think it should be pretty high on the list of things to reconsider.


Correlation is not causation. Are you going to blame the drop from CSM7 to CSM8 on Xhagen?

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

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016

Gospadin
Bastard Children of Poinen
#354 - 2014-05-12 17:40:03 UTC
I find it fascinating that discussion of the meta surrounding CSM elections is more interesting than actually logging in.
Mike Azariah
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#355 - 2014-05-12 17:48:53 UTC
Gospadin wrote:
I find it fascinating that discussion of the meta surrounding CSM elections is more interesting than actually logging in.


qft

The meta is always better because we are not dependent on ai or programming limitations

m

Mike Azariah  ┬──┬ ¯|(ツ)

Dirk MacGirk
Specter Syndicate
#356 - 2014-05-12 18:38:54 UTC
CCP Leeloo wrote:
Freelancer117 wrote:
@ CCP Leeloo

Does CCPgames feel that there is a correlation between the low Voter Turnout for CSM9 and the late releases of both the CSM8 Summer and Winter Minutes ?

Regards, a Freelancer

I agree on the fact that the CSM Minutes report is not efficient in its current format and as been discussed during the Fanfest, we will review how, where and when we post MInutes.

However, I don't think that low turnout is related to either report itself, or when it is being posted. From my point of view, a lot of players simply are not aware of the CSM's existence. Another significant problem is that people don't feel that CSM is important in any way and this is related to the last but not least important issue - accountability. It is hard to tell whether a CSM member is doing his job well or not.

Everything stated above is critical and requires immediate review and this is something I will look into as the new CSM coordinator.


+1 on that Leeloo. Even for those of us who believe strongly in the CSM concept, it is very difficult to provide evidence of its value. Minutes are nice, but the delay only compounds the difficulty in trying to determine what the CSM did behind the wall of redacted material related to the NDA. I don't blame the NDA. It's just a barrier to the kind of transparency needed to know what CSM members did (or did not do) on our behalf.

And yeah, better education for players who don't even know it exists.

We'll never get past the players who don't care to educate themselves. No reason we should expect some of these people to be any different in a video game than people are in real life. Some people just don't care and will never be part of the process and we have to be willing to live with that.
Dalilus
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#357 - 2014-05-12 20:45:11 UTC
Dersen Lowery wrote:
Dalilus wrote:
I did not vote this year as the results were predictable and have no need to look at the results to assume who won. Winners: nullbears, lowsequers and Wholers. I bet NO ONE imagined what the results were going to be, Roll.


Low sec took your attitude last year. They had no-one on CSM. This year, they were so hellbent on getting someone on CSM that they now have two. There was nothing inevitable about that. There was certainly nothing inevitable about a two-year-old player, Sugar Kyle, rocketing into the CSM on a first-time bid with the third largest total of #1 votes. She went out and earned that.

This year, we "wholers" dropped the ball and barely got one person in. Given our performance on the previous CSMs, that was a genuine surprise.

Dalilus wrote:
Why vote to legitimize a CSM that is hellbent/will be hellbent on nerfing my highsec playstyle? No need to bulk up the number of votes cast by drone grunts with my own so their alliances can justify with a straight face keeping their BWAAAAAAmbulance making the rounds demanding content ONLY for themselves and then nerfing everything else because "players voted" and they won.


You realize that this is basically bloc propaganda, verbatim, to keep people like you from voting, right? The blocs want nothing more than for non-bloc voters to stay home. They've come out and said that outright. If you hate them so much, why are you doing what they want you to do?

We "wholers" sent people to CSM precisely to keep them from nerfing wormholes in ways that were better for them than for us, and we were largely successful in that effort. That's how you do it.

EDIT: As to the argument that CSM is a barrier between CCP and the players: How does that argument survive the simple observation that the lines of communication between devs and players have greatly broadened and deepened since CSM 7? There weren't always lots of stickied blue topics in Features & Ideas, you know.

Frying Doom
#358 - 2014-05-12 21:59:15 UTC  |  Edited by: Frying Doom
Malcanis wrote:
CCP Leeloo wrote:
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:
I realize this will be met with stony silence, but I will ask for posterity.
Why, for what appears to be the first time, was data not released by CCP that is sufficient to calculate the TQ subscription base.

I thought that answer to this question is obvious. Because this blog has been released to provide information regarding the CSM9 elections, not regarding the amount of subscriptions on TQ.


And the percentage of eligible voters who did in fact vote is not relevent to the CSM process?

This just comes down to the fact they have refused to let out any figures since February 2013. CCP get worse every year in its belief that stuffing its head in the sand on issues will help them.

I wonder how long it will take CCP to realise business as usual just is not working for them.

Any spelling, grammatical and punctuation errors are because frankly, I don't care!!

Omarosas
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#359 - 2014-05-12 23:03:36 UTC
Quote:
Eligible voters had cast 31,294 votes, meaning that the number of votes cast this year is significantly lower than for CSM 8. We feel that this is due to a lack of awareness about the CSM’s form and function within the community


Because CSMs did not do anything about some of the worst game material added to eve the past year. At least that's why I did not vote.
Frying Doom
#360 - 2014-05-13 00:37:54 UTC
Dersen Lowery wrote:

EDIT: As to the argument that CSM is a barrier between CCP and the players: How does that argument survive the simple observation that the lines of communication between devs and players have greatly broadened and deepened since CSM 7? There weren't always lots of stickied blue topics in Features & Ideas, you know.

Good communication, good communication is not a one way street. CCP has less to do with its player base than any other game I have seen. Lets us take F&I
[Kronos] Mordu's Legion 17 pages 3 developer comments.
First is the announcement

Second is the statement "Adjusted OP to reflect that missile damage bonuses are all per level.
Fozzie putting together a blurb on where the BPCs will come from and I'll update OP with that soon. Short version is that they will be available for Mordu's Legion LP as well as off new NPCs in low sec."

Third is "The lock range limitation on the Garmur is very intentional. It may actually not be enough to keep it from being too powerful but it was a tradeoff that helped justify how strong the ship is otherwise.
OP updated with details on how to get these things."

The third part might be considered communication, just.

Yes the CSM does act as a barrier from CCP actually having to listen to its playerbase and respond appropriately, not just in actions but in basic communication skills.

But they do not really communicate, we have not gotten to the point that for all intents and purposes they are now communicating with the representatives of less than 10% of their players. And why, because the CSM has proven its self to be a poor communicator of the actual players wishes and desires, as well as more often acting as a mouth piece for CCP and not the players it supposedly represents.

Hell look at Malcanis, he went into the CSM to get 0.0s problems fixed but nothing can be done because of the road map and this is what the 4th different road map so far and they only ever seem to do up a new one when it has been shown they are failing at introducing the last one.

Any spelling, grammatical and punctuation errors are because frankly, I don't care!!