These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Is the CSM really beneficial? Or does it hurt more than it helps?

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Ice Poljus
#41 - 2012-06-01 12:36:20 UTC
Vicata Heth wrote:
Let's look at the roster of CSM members for CSM 6. These are the members of the previous CSM.


  • The Mittani: Goonswarm Federation (Chairman)
  • Seleene: Pandemic Legion
  • UAxDEATH: Legion Of xXDEATHXx
  • Trebor Daehdoow: Initiative Mercenaries
  • Killer2: Morsus Mihi
  • White Tree: Test Alliance Please Ignore
  • Vile Rat: Goonswarm Federation
  • Meissa Anunthiel: Rooks and Kings
  • Draco Llasa: Razor Alliance
  • Elise Randolph: Pandemic Legion (1st Alternate)
  • Prometheus Exenthal: HYDRA Reloaded (2nd Alternate)
  • Krutoj (3rd Alternate)
  • Two step: K162 Alliance (4th Alternate)
  • Darius III (5th Alternate)


Based on this list, of 14 total CSM members, at least 7 of them are members of a large sov holding alliance. Half of the CSM. Four of the alternate members are in non-sov holding alliances, and one is from a large sov holding alliance. This means of the 10 CSM members at the average meeting, 6 of them are from a large sov holding alliance. There is a reason behind this. They have the ability to easily encourage a large amount of players to vote for them.

Goonswarm Federation, Pandemic Legion, Legion Of xXDEATHXx, Test Alliance Please Ignore, and Razor Alliance all have their own agenda. They're all going to be fighting for their own agenda. This is not going to benefit the player base as a whole. Instead it's mostly going to benefit those alliances and associated coalitions. I could care less what they claim, just like politicians in the real world, it's all a line of bullshit so they can get the position and benefit their own interests. Goonswarm isn't going to fight for a change that nerfs blobs, and I doubt any of the members from the other 4 alliances are going to either.

It's cool you bring them out to Iceland for meetings and whatnot, I bet that's fun. But it doesn't serve the original purpose very well. There may still be a need for at least a few player representatives to let CCP know when something they're thinking about may have serious negative effects on EVE as a whole. None of the players want micro transactions, to be honest you don't need a CSM to tell you that, I'm sure you're already aware. However I think the focus should be shifted more towards CCP actively monitoring posts on the forums, chats in game, and even holding polls on certain issues. Instead of using a system that's failing miserably in the real world, why not try a system that isn't destined for failure?

I may be completely wrong, the CSM may be the best thing for EVE. However my opinion is that the CSM hurts EVE more than it helps, because it serves the large sov holding alliances for the most part, not the general player base. The CSM doesn't serve the average pilot looking for solo or small gang pvp, it doesn't support the miner looking to relax after work, and it doesn't support the alliance that's trying to claim it's first system in null. It serves the interests of the people who are on the CSM. Just like real world politicians don't serve the interests of the middle class, lower class, entrepreneur, husband, wife, mother, father, or anyone other than the politicians. The politician will feed you whatever you want to hear to get the position so he can benefit his interests. When it comes to major issues like micro transactions, it will serve the general player base. However, you don't need a CSM when it comes to issues like this. A forum post (and monitoring of the response to it by CCP employees), poll, and/or many other more effective methods would serve the players as a whole, instead of the members of the CSM.

I don't want to see this become another theme park mmo. However lately it's becoming more of a theme park mmo for me, because blobs and null sec politics (lulz) aren't fun for me. Small gang and solo pvp isn't really that available (I hear rumors that it's available in factional warfare, but that still feels too theme park for me). The only thing left for me to do lately is grind isk in the hopes that one day I will be able to spend it on ships to pvp in, when small gang/solo pvp in null/low sec becomes feasible again. Piracy also seems to be dead, because there is too much risk for a hauler, miner, mission runner, anomaly runner, or belt ratter to venture through low or null sec unless it's heavily defended, to justify the rewards. I don't see these issues as something the current CSM is going to fight to change, because it doesn't benefit the majority of them. However I have heard from quite a few people that these are issues they would like to see fixed. Whether the majority of the player base feels the same way, I do not know.

This is mostly my opinion which is based on the facts I have learned. I may be ignorant to some facts. I did make some blanket statements, use common sense. I understand there are exceptions to some of these blanket statements, and if you think I'm not aware of this or am trying to say otherwise, you're wrong. I know I repeated myself a lot. Repetition is the best way to drive a point home.

When most of csm is cfc then its bad when 1 goon is in its useless...
Vimsy Vortis
Shoulda Checked Local
Break-A-Wish Foundation
#42 - 2012-06-01 13:00:27 UTC
The CSM was great until CCP decided that the votes of 10,058 users don't count and those people don't get to be represented because its inconvenient for CCP.
Jarvin Xadi
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#43 - 2012-06-01 13:13:19 UTC
The CSM has never claimed to be impartial. They are all players, each with different visions of what they want from the game. If you disagree with their vision, then vote for candidates who do support your vision, or if none exist, become one yourself and (this is the important part) actively campaign to get players behind you. Ofc if you sit idle and wait for people to come to you the larger power blocks are going to have a greater influence, you need to mobilise that large number of people who currently do not vote.

The CSM is no longer the lame duck that it used to be, embrace that fact and you will not need to post this sort of thread.
Ana Vyr
Vyral Technologies
#44 - 2012-06-01 14:05:15 UTC
The CSM would serve the playerbase well if it actually represented the playerbase.
CCP Spitfire
C C P
C C P Alliance
#45 - 2012-06-01 14:17:40 UTC
Thread cleaned of offtopic posts and personal attacks. Please keep the discussion civil.

CCP Spitfire | Marketing & Sales Team @ccp_spitfire
Zyress
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#46 - 2012-06-01 15:23:05 UTC
I'm of the opinion that political hags are usually a waste of time a detriment to society
Zanza Mechonis
What is tax
#47 - 2012-06-01 15:26:32 UTC  |  Edited by: Zanza Mechonis
Okay OP what would you do if you were in CSM? I'd love to hear your well-educated, thought out, beneficial-for-everyone, and game understanding, well-built arguments.

I'm a diehard carebear, but I voted for a representative of a PvP alliance. After all, you don't see 300-man corps of miners, missioners, factional warfare guys, explorers, or incursion people do you? :/

"On the internet you can be anything you want... It's strange that many people choose to be stupid."
Vicata Heth
Sensible People
Sigma Grindset
#48 - 2012-06-01 17:34:40 UTC  |  Edited by: Vicata Heth
Vimsy Vortis wrote:
The CSM was great until CCP decided that the votes of 10,058 users don't count and those people don't get to be represented because its inconvenient for CCP.

I disagree with his. Mittani resigned from the CSM chair originally. Mittani did something that broke the EULA. If you look at the rules of the CSM, you can't break the EULA if you want to be on it

Jarvin Xadi wrote:
The CSM has never claimed to be impartial. They are all players, each with different visions of what they want from the game. If you disagree with their vision, then vote for candidates who do support your vision, or if none exist, become one yourself and (this is the important part) actively campaign to get players behind you. Ofc if you sit idle and wait for people to come to you the larger power blocks are going to have a greater influence, you need to mobilise that large number of people who currently do not vote.

The CSM is no longer the lame duck that it used to be, embrace that fact and you will not need to post this sort of thread.

Part of my point is that voting for candidates who would support my vision, or running for CSM myself, which is something I have no interest in doing, is very unlikely to be successful. All the major alliances have to do is shoot an email off to their mailing list asking their members to vote for x player, which is either in their alliance, or in their coalition most times.

Ana Vyr wrote:
The CSM would serve the playerbase well if it actually represented the playerbase.

Exactly, and getting it to represent the player base is unlikely unless major changes are made to either who can be on the CSM, or how the CSM is marketed. Perhaps even requiring that there be a member that is likely to represent each of the major play styles would help. This would still be open to corruption and lies, but it's a step forward. Another option is to actively advertise via in-game methods that CSM elections are under-way, and where to find the information. As well as advertising who is running for CSM, as well as their views. This would help remove some of the overwhelming power that the large power blocs have.


Zanza Mechonis wrote:
Okay OP what would you do if you were in CSM? I'd love to hear your well-educated, thought out, beneficial-for-everyone, and game understanding, well-built arguments.

I'm a diehard carebear, but I voted for a representative of a PvP alliance. After all, you don't see 300-man corps of miners, missioners, factional warfare guys, explorers, or incursion people do you? :/

I wouldn't run for CSM. And as my opinion is that the CSM is not more beneficial than it is un-beneficial, there is no point in me answering this question. There aren't large corps of miners because for one, mining isn't profitable enough anymore to be done by anyone but noobs, semi-afk people, and bots. On top of that it doesn't require the organization or resources to warrant a 300 man corp. Factional warfare has never seemed to be something that was extremely popular to me, so I would assume there aren't any major groups associated. There aren't large corps of incursion runners because being in a corp means you can get war decced, and if you have war targets getting into incursions isn't an easy task, and usually results in you losing your ship at least once when logi decides they don't want to rep you. However at one point there were large groups of incursion runners formed via in-game channels, to aid in preventing losses from griefers, and these groups had well over 300 active players in them.
Jafit
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#49 - 2012-06-01 23:35:09 UTC
No thats cool bro, you just skip over and ignore my post and continue thinking what you think. I understand. It's fine.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#50 - 2012-06-01 23:40:39 UTC
Vicata Heth wrote:
Ana Vyr wrote:
The CSM would serve the playerbase well if it actually represented the playerbase.

Exactly, and getting it to represent the player base is unlikely unless major changes are made to either who can be on the CSM, or how the CSM is marketed. Perhaps even requiring that there be a member that is likely to represent each of the major play styles would help. This would still be open to corruption and lies, but it's a step forward. Another option is to actively advertise via in-game methods that CSM elections are under-way, and where to find the information. As well as advertising who is running for CSM, as well as their views.
All of that is already happening.

…and there's still that nagging question of whether there are any actual examples of them not representing the player base already.
Barbara Nichole
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#51 - 2012-06-01 23:55:28 UTC
The CSM does not fairly represent at least 80% of the player base..

  - remove the cloaked from local; free intel is the real problem, not  "afk" cloaking -

[IMG]http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a208/DawnFrostbringer/consultsig.jpg[/IMG]
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#52 - 2012-06-01 23:56:42 UTC
Barbara Nichole wrote:
The CSM does not fairly represent at least 80% of the player base..
…and you base this claim on… what, exactly?
Frying Doom
#53 - 2012-06-02 00:08:49 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Barbara Nichole wrote:
The CSM does not fairly represent at least 80% of the player base..
…and you base this claim on… what, exactly?

It is actually true they probably don't.

This being due to the fact the 80% were to lazy to vote.

Any spelling, grammatical and punctuation errors are because frankly, I don't care!!
Mara Pahrdi
The Order of Anoyia
#54 - 2012-06-02 02:22:14 UTC
Vicata Heth wrote:
Part of my point is that voting for candidates who would support my vision, or running for CSM myself, which is something I have no interest in doing, is very unlikely to be successful. All the major alliances have to do is shoot an email off to their mailing list asking their members to vote for x player, which is either in their alliance, or in their coalition most times.

So basically you're just mad at the CSM and it's members for getting the results of their effort raised. An effort you're not willing to raise yourself.

Remove standings and insurance.
DrWilsonPhD
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#55 - 2012-06-02 02:39:02 UTC
So the OP's main complaint is that CSM works like a real modern political system where the groups with the biggest following get the biggest representation? Preposterous.
Vicata Heth
Sensible People
Sigma Grindset
#56 - 2012-06-02 02:48:24 UTC  |  Edited by: Vicata Heth
Mara Pahrdi wrote:
Vicata Heth wrote:
Part of my point is that voting for candidates who would support my vision, or running for CSM myself, which is something I have no interest in doing, is very unlikely to be successful. All the major alliances have to do is shoot an email off to their mailing list asking their members to vote for x player, which is either in their alliance, or in their coalition most times.

So basically you're just mad at the CSM and it's members for getting the results of their effort raised. An effort you're not willing to raise yourself.

I'm not mad at the CSM or it's members at all actually. At no point did I personally attack any of the CSM members or even their views. I'll assume you made this unfounded argument because you have no actual logic to apply here. I play a video game for the enjoyment that comes from it. I'm willing to put a bit of effort into ensuring that enjoyment. But this is a video game, not a job. I do not intend to turn it into a job, because that would ruin the enjoyment of it. I don't find the politics that is the CSM fun, nor do I find being the middle man between a game development company and it's players fun. Therefore I'm not very inclined to run for CSM.


DrWilsonPhD wrote:
So the OP's main complaint is that CSM works like a real modern political system where the groups with the biggest following get the biggest representation? Preposterous.

If someone brings up a concern/opinion they have, surely they're just whining or complaining. They couldn't possibly be looking to see what others' views are on the topic. This is largely the basis for my argument, yes. This system doesn't work effectively by any means in the real world, and I see no indication that it would be any different in a sandbox mmo.

I guess constructive debate where the position is attacked rather than the person is a foreign concept on the internet.
EnslaverOfMinmatar
You gonna get aped
#57 - 2012-06-02 04:04:06 UTC
No Way! That's Great...
*chuckles*
WE'VE LANDED ON THE MOON!

Every EVE player must read this http://www.eveonline.com/background/potw/default.asp?cid=29-01-07
Vicata Heth
Sensible People
Sigma Grindset
#58 - 2012-06-02 04:14:10 UTC  |  Edited by: Vicata Heth
Jafit wrote:

Crucible removed insurance payouts for ships lost to CONCORD, bad for suicide gankers. Escalation removed drone poop thereby vastly decreasing the value of rats in like 5 nullsec regions in an attempt to unfuck the mineral market and make mining a viable activity for humans rather than bots. Some time ago the quality attribute was removed from mission agents, and now all agents have the same rewards, suddenly Motsu isn't the only mission running system in the game and there are dozens of effective quality 20 level 4 mission agents all over highsec. How are these things not colossal buffs to highsec?


Agreed these are some of the good changes for the overall player base that happened. Where they a result of the CSM's actions, or would these changes have been made without the CSM even existing?

Jafit wrote:

Complaining about nerfed incursions? Well don't worry they nerfed all incursions, we don't run them in nullsec anymore either.


I ran incursions for a couple weeks while that ISK faucet was still wide open. However I've never complained about them getting the nerf bat. Actually even during the two weeks I ran them, I still felt they needed a nerf because the risk was too low to warrant the reward, and the ISK that was entered into the economy as a result had a negative impact on the game as a whole.

Jafit wrote:

You complained before that the risk/reward of mining isn't worth it? In highsec? Protip for those who are being affected by Hulkageddon: don't mine in an untanked exhumer you colossal publord. Mine in a battleship, mine in groups, pay attention, use logistics cruisers, the only reason highsec mining is risky is because you're watching a movie instead of playing the game.


I didn't complain actually. Why would I complain when I don't mine? Personal attacks will surely help your argument. Mining in a battleship is a feasible option, however this lowers the ISK/hour of a profession that already nets a very low amount of ISK/hour. Mining in groups won't really help. If you're a ganker in Goonswarm and are looking for some hulks to gank, what's better than a bunch of them in the same belt? I know I'd be calling my buddies in to get in on some of the tears if I wasn't already in a fleet. Because of the low reward of mining, both in entertainment value and ISK, paying attention makes it an un-worthwhile endeavor. Because of the low reward of mining for a solo miner, it is even less worthwhile to bring logistics along for the joy. The only reason people mine in high sec at all (and I think this is the same for null sec mining as well) is because you can be doing something else while mining.

Jafit wrote:

What's so hard about life in highsec? The worst thing that can happen to you is that someone comes along and ninja salvages your stuff while you impotently try to shoot the wrecks to gain a spiteful pyrrhic victory, or someone flips a can and you ignore the great big warning popup that tells you about how criminal flags work. Or oh no! a wardec! Oh wait I've never left the NPC starting corp, I can't be wardecced.


I never claimed life in high sec was hard. Actually I prefer a challenge if anything, easy games aren't fun games for me. This whole paragraph has nothing to do with the OP to be honest. I'm not arguing that high sec needs to be made easier, or harder, I'm arguing that the CSM is not effective in it's intended purpose.

Jafit wrote:

Meanwhile in nullsec we deal with risk of ship loss constantly, every time we jump, every time we rat in a belt or anomaly or try to make money in any way. Someone enters local you'd better be aligned to your safe POS or a station before that stealth recon uncloaks and lights a cyno in your lap. and enjoy the 30 jumps you have to do to get a replacement ship fitted up when you inevitably lose your current one. All this while making less money than we would doing missions. So please do forgive me if I have little sympathy for the highsec publords in their officer fit Golems running level 4 missions in complete safety complaining about how hard their little highsec lives are.


I find this quite funny. I actually found nullsec to bring a higher reward, with lower risk than low sec, and sometimes high sec. Large power blocs and their standings/intel channels are the reason for this. If you're losing ships while running anomalies in nullsec, then you obviously weren't paying attention to intel, local, or d-scan. It's funny you would make this statement, because two paragraphs ago you were saying that miners wouldn't die if they paid attention. If you're ratting in nullsec you should be actively aligned to a safe POS or station. If you are, and are monitoring intel and local, no ship will be able to land on you before you have plenty of time to press the warp button and enter warp. That being said, the only option left for a recon to light a cyno in your lap, is if they're a cloaky neut, and you shouldn't be ratting with cloaky neuts in system to begin with. In my experience, in a good ratting system in nullsec, anomalies net more ISK/hour than level 4 missions by far. Even more so if you're using a carrier. And anomalies are not even close to the only income options available to you in nullsec. In high sec an officer fit Golem is only more safe than it would be in nullsec if the player is paying attention just as they would be in nullsec. The only issues with ratting in nullsec with an officer fit Golem are getting it into friendly territory, and awoxers.

1/5 paragraphs were relevant to the OP, by the way.
EVE Roy Mustang
Doomheim
#59 - 2012-06-02 04:41:16 UTC
well Goons and Test are effectively the same thing... Dunno about razor
EVE Roy Mustang
Doomheim
#60 - 2012-06-02 04:46:48 UTC
Roime wrote:
Please refrain from personal attacks. Spitfire


7 likes.... guess it was a good one