EVE General Discussion

The whole concept of CSM is a tad naive. When, like others have pointed out, that each person can vote more than once .

I won't vote because it's entirely irrelevant to anything, I won't complain on who wins because it's entirely irrelevant. Change in a profit driven thing such as this will happen when folks vote with their wallet, and not a minute before.

I'm not convinced CSM had really very much to do with Crucible, though I am sure a few would shoulder the burden of credit in any case.

It's rather pathetic to believe any real power or responsibility comes with being a CSM. For a game. On the computer. Over the internet.

Vote if you want to. Abstain if you want to. It really only matters to yourself anyway.

There's the snag. A game such as this has the longevity factor to nurse or the game dies and everyone plays "something else"
Yes, it's a computer Internet game - that's describing it in its most simplistic form. If there's no evolution of this game, it dies like many others before it. It cannot be left up to just the developers of the game to come-up with new, fresh content, or fixing existing content in whatever form. Players give feedback - those that give a damn anyways - and the developers may or may not act on the feedback.

In many cases they do act on the feedback but as is often the case in life, the baby is thrown out with the bathwater in the rush to do things the way they see as being correct. There has to be a governance formed by players who have a vested interest in this game. They are the people who push for changes and push for feedback. Take the CSM out of the equation and you are left with Developers who will do what they alone think is the right thing to do, no matter how wrong their player base tells them that they are. Refer recent events leading up to and immediately after Incarna.

You seem to be an intelligent person, yet your comment comes across as very short-sighted. The CSM do not have total power and I know for a fact that many of their worst suggestions have been summarily shot-down by CCP, period. Yet without the CSM, the players who love this game would not see half of the content they play with now. It's a driving force, not a decision maker nor a game breaker, but like toast without butter, this game would be that much blander without the CSM.

Pretending for a second that this is both feasible and desirable:

That does nothing to solve your problem. Assuming everything is proportionate to EVE's universe you'd still have roughly the same number of disinterested highsec voters and more interested nullsec voters. All this would do is perhaps turn individual bloc candidates into general nullsec candidates.

Regardless, good luck explaining to every new player that they are part of a randomly selected group of people who can only vote for certain candidates in elections that are far too needlessly complex-- for no other reason than 'internet spaceship politics are serious business.'

Has anyone considered that "highsec disinterest" is because of the current system. It's being used as a reason to maintain the status quo when in fact it could be the cause.

The fact that it's an idea not yet implemented means that, by definition, it's a potential alternatives. To be implemented, it needs to be judged a good idea. The way to determine that is (to start with) to see if it survives the most cursory attempts to destroy it, to see if it would serve the same (or a more desirable) social goal as the current system, and to see if it is feasible to implement. I'm not saying I'm the judge, I just have fun proctoring and writing the test.

So far, your ideas (you bring them up, they're yours, own them, hiding behind "They're only ideas" is ridiculous) have failed to stand up to the most cursory attempts at abuse, you have failed to show that they serve the same (or a more desirable) social goal, and (though I think several of them are) you have yet to show that they are feasible to implement (and that is your job, as they're your proposals).

Hisec apathy is caused by the lack of incentive to work together in a coherent group. I wouldn't be surprised if BTL Pub or TDF were to put together a consensus candidate and take a seat for the incursionbears this year, since incursions have given hisec incentive to work together. I'm not sure if that candidate will hold views that I agree with, but that's how Democracy works.

Actually, the environmental factors affecting voter participation are fairly well established in the real world. When people are less confident in their security (physical and financial), they are more likely to vote. Look at the US's flagging voter participation and compare it to turnout in South Africa after the fall of Apartheid, or Iraq and Afghanistan more recently; despite some danger (mitigated by outside promises of protection [specific fear of physical harm does reduce turnout, ofc]), the fact that the people felt that their continued safety relied on the correct outcome made people politically active. In the US, as people become safer and more secure in their lives (a trend that's been true since WW2), voter participation has declined. (I like parentheticals a lot, can you tell?)
tl;dr for the last paragraph: Safety reduces voter participation. HiSec is safe. HiSec's safety reduces voter participation.

I'm flattered. Seriously, I am.

I see all these threads about how bad the current CSM is but I still haven't seen one single reason how they have hurt the game.

I've been accepting that premise without evidence, because insisting on evidence of that just invites a mass whine-in (like a love in, but higher pitched and more nasal).

I believe the major complaint is The Mittani and Darius III's suicide ganking campaigns. The Mittani's occasional scam comes up on occasion, as does every little damn thing anyone in GSF does.

The thing that get's glossed over is that in EvE, we call all that shit "Content"

Who cares?

CSM serves some purpose I'm sure, but it doesn't have any real influence on this game.

For us (CSM included), EVE is just a game. For CCP, EVE is their livelihood.