Jita Park Speakers Corner

is not something that's going to happen. I'm not going to run for the CSM, but I am for the CSM, and I'm going to vote in it, and so should you. Here's why, and also how:

Whether you like it or not, the CSM is a primary channel that CCP uses to communicate with the playerbase. CCP get a small group of players with some level of accountability (including signing an NDA) with whom they can build a working relationship over a useful time period. Even if you personally don't think the CSM is the best solution, you should still vote in the elections if you want your views represented in that channel.

Additionally, the more people who vote in the election, the more weight and influence the CSM will have with CCP. It's much harder to handwave away a representative group that 50 or 60% of your paying customers chose than one that 5 or 6% did. If you think the CSM should have more power, then complaining about how powerless it is on the forum isn't the correct solution. Voting is.

If you don't like the way that the CSM operates at all, then crying about it on the forums will not, alas, change a damb thing. Find a candidate who agrees with you that the CSM should operate differently, and get him/her elected.

If you just like to **** on anything that anyone does because you're that kind of person, vote for an obvious troll candidate like Xenuria. It'll make plenty of people mad and Xenuria happy. Or stand as a troll candidate yourself, split the troll vote and make Xenuria mad too. Both are fine options.

Remember that there's nothing useful about cheap cynicism. Just dismissing the CSM out of hand "because everyone knows" that it's corrupt/useless/rigged/ (regardless of the lack of evidence) is simply conceding the battle before you've even tried to win.

Essentially, whatever your opinion of the CSM is, the correct response is to participate. There is literally no downside to voting.


When you're choosing who to vote for, try and make an effort to analyze their campaign. Reflexively voting for people purely on the basis that they're "high sec" or "null sec" or "a missioner like me" of whatever is an open invitation to getting votescammed by a fast talking egomaniac with no other agenda than to get herself elected and be important.

If a candidate makes assertions, consider if those assertions are testable. Are they just sweeping "everybody knows" rumours with no evidence? Do they contain actual numbers that can be checked? Are they willing to provide specific examples which can be independently verified?

If a candidate makes promises, consider whether they'll be in a position to fulfill those promises. Being a CSM doesn't mean that CCP will automatically change your pet issue to the way you'd like it. Candidates who campaign on a promise to make Caldari Navy Invulns have a lower tag cost or increasing the targetting range of your favourite interceptor and other microlevel stuff like that are either hopelessly naive about the CSM or they're simply telling you whatever you want to hear to get your vote, knowing full well they can't deliver.

Finally, remember that the EVE character is not the person. You're voting for the player, not the character, still less his corp or alliance. If a candidate has a platform you like, then it doesn't matter a bit that he's in an alliance which kicked you out of your space last year: he's still the right choice. If a candidate is make vague unfocused promises and poorly referenced assertions, then even if he's your corpmate, you should kick him to the curb (remember: you can always lie to him and tell him that you were one of the 4 guys who voted for him)

So: vote. Encourage your corpies and alliance mates to vote. Get your friends to vote. Vote.

Since you felt the need to officially announce that you are not running for CSM, am I right to presume that you have been approached by numerous people who wanted to see you in the next CSM?

I am a little disappointed but I accept your decision to keep your hands clean and stay out of the dirty politics.

Just one question: your Highsec-manifesto really got me hooked and I think it could be one of the most important ideas for 2012 when CCP will focus on "war". From talking to the other guys that wanted you to run for CSM- are there any current candidates who share a similar vision?

Hell, I will give you a 'like', Malcanis, even if you want it or not, but I am not too fond of the CSM construction.

CSM is turning into a direct lobby organization and is THE new meta-gaming tool. And I dislike meta-gaming. I disliked it when it was having devs on Messenger and I dislike it now. Though, I can understand the need for CCP to have a player interest group to probe ideas with but there need to be a solid wall between the CCP devs and the CSM members and not the bud buddying that is going on right now. I do not want to hear about Stoffer being a "bro" or about former CSM members getting hired by CCP.

I sadly cannot come up with a better construction for player feedback than the CSM but I would vote for the complete dismantle of CSM any day than the current situation.

First of all, I'd ask why you want to build walls that we've worked hard to tear down?

Secondly, and I'm not being sarcastic here, what's wrong with making friends?



Well, Stoffer was a bro to a lot of people long before he was hired at CCP... which also leads into your second point. CCP is literally filled with former players (ummm... Hi!); I have no idea what the actual numbers are, but it's probably one of the most heavily staffed 'former player' companies in the industry. It's kinda hard not to hear about that...?



The current situation? If you are upset about the current makeup of the CSM, as Malcanis says, vote. Get other people to vote. It's not a perfect system, but it is certainly better than nothing.

You are right, there is no "current" situation because is have been going on for a very long time.

And it is understandable too; we should all benefit (CCP and players) for having developers that are close to the players and do "play the game" themselves. The alternative is companies like Blizzard who keep the two firmly separated while CCP has always tried to be closer to their audience and have received a lot of positive feedback doing this.

But, there is a balance here and what I am objecting against is that it has started to tip. I really should not have to pull out the T20 incident as example of what happens when developers get a little too friendly with small group of players. But even before that there were incidents with BoB members having CCP developers on personal emergency call lines and all that jazz. Stuff people have seem to forgotten about now but which is slowly creeping back in.

I know I am objecting to people being "friends" which might appear ridiculous, but unless CCP can manage to be friends with everybody investing in their game I would advice them to refrain from trying to befriend a small lobby group which is using the friendship to push through their personal agendas. Sometimes a professional distance is required.

"Why can't we all be friends?" I could say, and by that I mean ALL of us.

EDIT: Btw. I got the "Mr. Science and Trade Institute" stamp on me from some BoB director when I brought up this very same issue back then. So ya, have not forgotten.

I would have voted for you.

Potential motivator Malcanis, shame it's in a less active sub forum about the issue.

This is an example of what is nowadays called "truthiness". It's an unsupported assertion that sounds true, but when examined closely, has no actual evidence to back it up. It's a meme that's been widely spread by people with a personal interest in making it be true, and of course it gains plenty of traction because it correlates well with what goes on in our RL national politics.

In fact it's a fine example of the kind of analysis I urge you to perform when selecting yourself CSM candidate to vote for.

Is it testable?
Has a specific assertion been made or is it just a vague "everybody knows"?
Can you cite specific examples?
Does the evidence support the accusation?

Greetings Malcanis,

I respect your decision not to stand as a candidate for the CSM. It's somewhat dissapointing though as you obviously have the necessary talents and attitude. Your manifesto on Highsec is nothing short of brilliant and if you truly do not stand as a candidate, I really hope that someone who does, and gets elected to the CSM, embraces your Manifesto.

EvE is losing good talent if you do not stand as candidate for the CSM.

Be that as it may, I'm hoping that you change your mind, but if you don't, well at least there's always a voice of reason in the quagmire of all the forums.

o/

Such lovely compliments! Say more nice things!

The thing about the manifesto that I am most pleased with was that it generated a large amount of (mostly) constructive discussion and resulted in a lot of further good ideas and suggestions from people across the spectrum of playstyles. I hope the whole thread, not just the OP, has an influence on the way the game develops and the way its players perceive it.