These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Jita Park Speakers Corner

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

CSM7 Summit Topic: CSM White Paper

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Two step
Aperture Harmonics
#1 - 2012-05-17 21:15:43 UTC
CSM White Paper - A meeting with the CSM managers on the current state of the CSM and what the future holds.

The intent here is to discuss possible changes to the structure of the CSM, especially the officer positions and possible election changes. If people have suggestions, we would love to hear them!

CSM 7 Secretary CSM 6 Alternate Delegate @two_step_eve on Twitter My Blog
Hans Jagerblitzen
Ice Fire Warriors
#2 - 2012-05-17 21:33:31 UTC  |  Edited by: Hans Jagerblitzen
The CSM has transformed so much in the past year (arguably for the better) and has more direct lines of communication with CCP than ever before. Unfortunately, it means the documentation in the white paper is far from accurately describing how the CSM actually operates and even the electoral process has changes significantly since the white paper was last written. It's high time we get this updated so that the community is completely clear on the policies and procedures going into the next election!

Thanks for sharing your thoughts about what YOU'd like to see in the CSM of the future!

CPM0 Chairman / CSM7 Vice Secretary
Xorv
Questionable Acquisitions
#3 - 2012-05-17 22:45:02 UTC  |  Edited by: Xorv
I believe one of the main things EVE players would like to see is very clearly the positions each CSM member takes with CCP. No more "CSM thought idea X was bad, and "CSM suggested change Y would be a great idea" I think I can speak for everyone in saying we want to know specifically which CSM(s) said these things. If there's disagreement within the CSM lets also hear that. Basically more transparency.

Some CSM members are good in that they elaborate in their own blogs, but not all, and not on every important or controversial issue that comes up between the CSM and CCP.

On another issue that I'm sure will come up. A huge NO, to any idea of forced voting or giving rewards for voting for the CSM. If people care they will vote, and that requires no additional reward. There's no benefit to EVE or it's community in making or enticing those that don't care or are ill-informed to vote.
None ofthe Above
#4 - 2012-05-17 23:51:08 UTC
In addition to updating the whitepaper to cover the elimination of alternates, and perhaps updating procedures covering some of the corner cases...

I would like to see the Chairmanship be elected like any other officer from the delegates, just as it was this year.

That would remove the voting block need for overwhelming victory and provide for the CSM to pick someone that actually represents someone who can do the job well, with the people that will be working with them.

The only end-game content in EVE Online is the crap that makes you rage quit.
Mara Rinn
Cosmic Goo Convertor
#5 - 2012-05-18 07:24:13 UTC
None ofthe Above wrote:
That would remove the voting block need for overwhelming victory and provide for the CSM to pick someone that actually represents someone who can do the job well, with the people that will be working with them.


What is more likely to happen in that case is for null blocs to vote into or more candidates and dominate the CSM (and thus the ears of CCP). Having a directly elected chairman means they can have their little ****-waving contest without overly representing their politics in the CSM.

Of course it would be nice if more players would participate, and each player only got one vote, but that is just my opinion.

Day 0 Advice for New Players
Snow Axe
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#6 - 2012-05-18 08:00:44 UTC
None ofthe Above wrote:
That would remove the voting block need for overwhelming victory and provide for the CSM to pick someone that actually represents someone who can do the job well, with the people that will be working with them.


I don't think that giving the CSM something to draw dividing lines amongst themselves straight away is a good thing. There's a time and place for it (i.e. this year, where the vote was borne out of necessity), but overall, the way it worked before was the best. Besides, the role of chair has zero actual powers, so it doesn't make a huge difference who actually holds the title.

That said, RE: the idea of voting blocs backing one member for "overwhelming victory" - wouldn't non-affiliated people prefer that? Would you rather, for example, have seen the CFC divide our support among 2-3 candidates and put them all on the council with ease? Is it not better to just have one member with a ton of votes and leave space for 13 other voices instead?

"Look any reason why you need to talk like that? I have now reported you. I dont need to listen to your bad tone. If you cant have a grown up conversation then leave the thread["
Killer Gandry
The Concilium Enterprises
#7 - 2012-05-18 08:36:08 UTC
Most important:

Remove the need for giving real life details out to the playerbase.
That is something which should only concern CCP.

We have already seen several times that the playerbase can't handle too much information.
Snow Axe
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#8 - 2012-05-18 08:42:30 UTC
Killer Gandry wrote:
Most important:

Remove the need for giving real life details out to the playerbase.
That is something which should only concern CCP.

We have already seen several times that the playerbase can't handle too much information.


If this isn't the first change made to the White Paper, then something is drastically wrong.

"Look any reason why you need to talk like that? I have now reported you. I dont need to listen to your bad tone. If you cant have a grown up conversation then leave the thread["
Atum
Eclipse Industrials
Quantum Forge
#9 - 2012-05-18 13:08:49 UTC
Changes I'd like to see:
- Elimination of tenure/term limits. Granted, some multi-term members are good and do a (somewhat) ok job of representing me, but at the same time, a number have proven to be looking out only for their interests specifically, not the interests of the sandbox as a whole.
- Changing some of seats to represent dedicated play styles. Currently, everybody is elected "at large." I'd like to see reps devoted specifically to mission running, high sec, low sec, industry, etc. What kind of improvements might we see if recognized experts are installed in their seat... eg Chribba in industry, Seleene in merc warfare, Wollari in UI+API, Sir Molle in "How to lose everything you've spent years building while getting hitched, moving to a new country, and going on your honeymoon." (Sorry, mate, your lieutenants sucked)
- More power to slam the brakes on Really Bad Ideas(tm). I'm looking at you, Incarna/NEx!!!
- Removal of real info from voting... I don't need to know if I'm voting for a German, a Brit, or a Yankee. I just need to know if I'm voting for someone who will represent me best.
- Space reserved to add more (I haven't had my morning coffee yet)
Orisa Medeem
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
#10 - 2012-05-18 16:19:47 UTC
I posted my suggestion on a different thread, but I think it's relevant to this topic.

Two turns for CSM election

:sand:  over  :awesome:
None ofthe Above
#11 - 2012-05-18 17:21:21 UTC  |  Edited by: None ofthe Above
Snow Axe wrote:
None ofthe Above wrote:
That would remove the voting block need for overwhelming victory and provide for the CSM to pick someone that actually represents someone who can do the job well, with the people that will be working with them.


I don't think that giving the CSM something to draw dividing lines amongst themselves straight away is a good thing. There's a time and place for it (i.e. this year, where the vote was borne out of necessity), but overall, the way it worked before was the best. Besides, the role of chair has zero actual powers, so it doesn't make a huge difference who actually holds the title.

That said, RE: the idea of voting blocs backing one member for "overwhelming victory" - wouldn't non-affiliated people prefer that? Would you rather, for example, have seen the CFC divide our support among 2-3 candidates and put them all on the council with ease? Is it not better to just have one member with a ton of votes and leave space for 13 other voices instead?


There are pros and cons to this of course. Am aware that it's conceivable that it could lead to attempts to stack the CSM. But still I think its a good idea to allow the CSM to choose its own structure and leadership. It has to function and a weird vote result could lead to something non-functional. How would you feel if someone vehemently anti-goon swept the election, but was not an effective leader? I could think of a few examples candidates last year that would be a mess. (Presuming you guys actually managed to offend enough people to accomplish such a thing, as it seems to be your collective goal some days.)

The only end-game content in EVE Online is the crap that makes you rage quit.
None ofthe Above
#12 - 2012-05-18 17:22:16 UTC
Killer Gandry wrote:
Most important:

Remove the need for giving real life details out to the playerbase.
That is something which should only concern CCP.

We have already seen several times that the playerbase can't handle too much information.


Yes, and of course this.

+1, supported

The only end-game content in EVE Online is the crap that makes you rage quit.
Hans Jagerblitzen
Ice Fire Warriors
#13 - 2012-05-18 17:40:30 UTC
Mara Rinn wrote:
What is more likely to happen in that case is for null blocs to vote into or more candidates and dominate the CSM (and thus the ears of CCP). Having a directly elected chairman means they can have their little ****-waving contest without overly representing their politics in the CSM.

Of course it would be nice if more players would participate, and each player only got one vote, but that is just my opinion.


It would be silly to try to meta-game for the Chair position, though some might. The Chairman really just calls meetings, takes attendence, and kicks people's asses that are being lazy and not posting or contributing anything. He keeps the team together and on track. The position has nothing to do with actual "power" or influence on CCP, its not like his word is stronger than that of someone elected to the 14th position.

And yes, I'm speaking to how the CSM actually operates, not just how its *supposed* to operate.

CPM0 Chairman / CSM7 Vice Secretary
Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc.
Khimi Harar
#14 - 2012-05-18 17:59:34 UTC
Do what politicians in the real world fears and actively work against .. transparency.

The more the public knows of how things work, the less inclined the elected and their puppet-masters (read: CCP) are to misbehave. Combine with swift action when (not if, when Smile) someone do misbehave and Bobs's your uncle/aunt.

Otherwise keep doing what you are doing, participate actively in the various debates springing up all over the place. The "get involved' shtick is probably the best thing that CSM6 did if you ask me .. was very situational prior to the Kardashian-of-Eve took the reigns (OMG! Praise for Mittens! /faceslap)
engjin
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#15 - 2012-05-18 18:55:14 UTC
Atum wrote:

- Changing some of seats to represent dedicated play styles. Currently, everybody is elected "at large." I'd like to see reps devoted specifically to mission running, high sec, low sec, industry, etc. What kind of improvements might we see if recognized experts are installed in their seat... eg Chribba in industry, Seleene in merc warfare, Wollari in UI+API, Sir Molle in "How to lose everything you've spent years building while getting hitched, moving to a new country, and going on your honeymoon." (Sorry, mate, your lieutenants sucked)


If there was a large pool of good candidates then maybe but right now I strongly disagree. I would rather have a player that has a broad knowledge of game mechanics but is running because they are focused on a certain area 'at large' than a person who hasn't left high sec but is the "Mission" guy on the CSM.

CSM 6 and 7 at least are made up (generally speaking) of a very knowledgeable group of people who I think genuinely want the overall game to improve. The debate is how to do that. With the null bloc thing everyone keeps bringing up, multiple CSM members have said multiple times that if one attempts to modify a mechanic in their interest they would get laughed out of the room.

What does need to be done is greater participation from the player base in the whole process from elections to feedback in venue's such as this.
Atum
Eclipse Industrials
Quantum Forge
#16 - 2012-05-18 19:10:41 UTC
engjin wrote:
If there was a large pool of good candidates then maybe but right now I strongly disagree. I would rather have a player that has a broad knowledge of game mechanics but is running because they are focused on a certain area 'at large' than a person who hasn't left high sec but is the "Mission" guy on the CSM.

CSM 6 and 7 at least are made up (generally speaking) of a very knowledgeable group of people who I think genuinely want the overall game to improve. The debate is how to do that. With the null bloc thing everyone keeps bringing up, multiple CSM members have said multiple times that if one attempts to modify a mechanic in their interest they would get laughed out of the room.

What does need to be done is greater participation from the player base in the whole process from elections to feedback in venue's such as this.

But that's the thing... we have a hugely disproportionate population of null-sec people on the CSM, while the majority of the EVE population lives in high-sec. Now granted, a LOT of these "people" are probably research/trade alts, but not all. We've had people on CSM for years who *claim* to support the interests of miners (Issler being the most recent who comes to mind), but until the drone poo nerf a couple weeks ago, not a single thing had been done to any part of the mineral acquisition system since the introduction of exhumers. Ice mining is still a miserable experience. CSM 6/7 might include knowledgeable people, but if all their knowledge and experience is centered around sov warfare, grid fu, and meta gaming, what good does that do the rest of us?
Mike Azariah
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#17 - 2012-05-23 22:31:34 UTC
Break it down into parts.

1) history and justification are nice and do a great job of setting the stage for what the CSM was, once. It could do with a historical update to reflect the changes that have happened as stakeholder status was achieved. NDAs were broken and players removed.

2) Some of the basic rules of the White paper no longer seem to apply, regularity of meetings, minutes etc are gone and in their place comes the new communication paradigm of town-hall meetings and blogs.

With the loss of regular meetings we also lose the checks and balances that help identify or even remove a non-performer in the CSM This does need to be addressed as it was an issue for some in the last campaign.

I don't think that electing people to specific seats will work but perhaps making more of a cabinet AFTER the elction would. Minister of Faction war, secretary in charge of hisec industry. Give each member portfolios and make them the goto person for that specific aspect of the game. They have a say in the meetings but the electorate would have somoen to connect with specific issues. One very talented/experienced player might wear more than one hat but I would presume that most of the people elected have done more than one thing.

3) The White paper has changed and aspects change every year. Each CSM builds on the foundations laid before and so the rules shift, the paper needs to almost be a topic at every summit, if only to make sure that it is still applicable with the lates bacthc of elected representatives.

m

Mike Azariah  ┬──┬ ¯|(ツ)/¯