These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

NULL whiners mantra is getting tedious... and CSM lacks HI SEC representation

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Frying Doom
#421 - 2012-09-02 22:04:31 UTC
"Oh, and the fundamental question remains: what's the problem with the current representation?"

How can it possibly be representative of the players when so many of the players are not represented, so there wants are unknown.

The players need further education, their is only harm to small interest groups not to the game, as the game would benefit by having more players involved.

Any spelling, grammatical and punctuation errors are because frankly, I don't care!!
Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#422 - 2012-09-02 22:06:59 UTC
Frying Doom wrote:
You sound like a school teacher, we tried to educate them, but it didn't work so we gave up.

CCP are covering literally all angles they can of making sure people know what the **** the CSM is, and why it should be in their interest to vote. I've seen absolutely no suggestion from you which would have any effect whatsoever over and beyond what CCP are already doing.

Frying Doom wrote:
As I have said over and over, trying to educate the masses does no harm to anyone but small interest groups.

Yes, you keep saying "educate the masses", and we keep telling you that CCP have done virtually everything they can do, short of getting someone to punch them in the face repeatedly until they say "I understand what the CSM is".

And there's something to be said for realizing when you're beating your head against an impenetrable wall of willful ignorance. You're advocating getting a headache.

Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home.

RIP Vile Rat
Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#423 - 2012-09-02 22:09:46 UTC
Frying Doom wrote:
How can it possibly be representative of the players when so many of the players are not represented, so there wants are unknown.

Their wants are "I don't give a ****", because they've either specifically decided to not vote, or they've willfully ignored literally the fucktonne of information through the myriad of different channels which has been utilized to get as many of the players to actually vote.

Frying Doom wrote:
The players need further education, their is only harm to small interest groups not to the game, as the game would benefit by having more players involved.

There's no need to further educate the players.

Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home.

RIP Vile Rat
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#424 - 2012-09-02 22:11:08 UTC
Frying Doom wrote:
How can it possibly be representative of the players when so many of the players are not represented
Because location is not representation. Issues being brought to CCP's attention is representation. Are any issues left by the wayside?

Quote:
The players need further education
Unlikely given the massive response rate the election have already.
betoli
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#425 - 2012-09-02 22:15:39 UTC
So perhaps there are better questions to ask.

If the players (lets assume) are educated as much as possible.... but the player base is still not represented properly.

  • Should we have a CSM at all, if it presents a biased and unrepresentative view?

  • Is the CSM actually less effective because CCP know that its unrepresentative of the people who actually pay their bills?

  • If the CSM know that they badly represent HS, newer players etc - as they must as they can see the stats - why do they not appoint representatives of those communities? Such an appointee would obviously not be on the CSM itself, but would be a visible go-to person for people of that demographic. Surely this would be better than pretending to know and care about aspects of the game that they don't participate in.

  • As others have raised the 'election model', perhaps people should stand for posts rather than to be a part of the hegemony? Should we have a indy rep, a pvp rep, a HS rep, a LS rep, etc? Players can then see how well CSM members represent the cause they are supposed to, as well as see whether candidates are likely to represent that cause (Vote James315 for mining minister!!!!).

    • Lord Zim
    Gallente Federation
    #426 - 2012-09-02 22:22:52 UTC
    Why do you assume the CSM has a "biased view"?

    Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home.

    RIP Vile Rat
    Abel Merkabah
    Caldari Provisions
    Caldari State
    #427 - 2012-09-02 22:24:10 UTC
    When does CSM voting start? Did I miss it?

    James315 for CSM 8!
    Paul Oliver
    Doomheim
    #428 - 2012-09-02 22:35:14 UTC
    I like the idea of having "offices" based on the different aspects of gameplay, and electing qualified people to those particular positions versus just having this CSM thing be a popularity contest that it would seem doesn't represent certain elements of the EVE community. 
    Its good to be [Gallente](http://dl.eve-files.com/media/1209/QEQlJ.jpg).
    betoli
    The Scope
    Gallente Federation
    #429 - 2012-09-02 22:37:24 UTC
    Lord Zim wrote:
    Why do you assume the CSM has a "biased view"?


    1. Human nature.
    2. Their sampling of others opinions isn't (and can't be) unbiased, but cenrtic around their own community and contacts.
    3. Vantage point - how can (say) a collection of vets who know game mechanics inside out have a perspective on the experience of a new player experiencing recent game content?
    4. Attention bias towards the parts of the game they play.

    All of those things stem from a collection of people who play a similar aspect of the game with others who play the same aspect of the game. It wasn't an accusation of malicious self interest, it was an observation of imperfect representation.

    Interested in your views on the other things as well as the one you focussed on..... ?
    Lord Zim
    Gallente Federation
    #430 - 2012-09-02 22:45:25 UTC
    betoli wrote:
    Lord Zim wrote:
    Why do you assume the CSM has a "biased view"?


    1. Human nature.
    2. Their sampling of others opinions isn't (and can't be) unbiased, but cenrtic around their own community and contacts.
    3. Vantage point - how can (say) a collection of vets who know game mechanics inside out have a perspective on the experience of a new player experiencing recent game content?
    4. Attention bias towards the parts of the game they play.

    All of those things stem from a collection of people who play a similar aspect of the game with others who play the same aspect of the game. It wasn't an accusation of malicious self interest, it was an observation of imperfect representation.

    Interested in your views on the other things as well as the one you focussed on..... ?


    And how do you assume your ideas will make for a better representation than is already the case?

    Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home.

    RIP Vile Rat
    Abel Merkabah
    Caldari Provisions
    Caldari State
    #431 - 2012-09-02 22:48:54 UTC
    betoli wrote:
    Lord Zim wrote:
    Why do you assume the CSM has a "biased view"?


    1. Human nature.
    2. Their sampling of others opinions isn't (and can't be) unbiased, but cenrtic around their own community and contacts.
    3. Vantage point - how can (say) a collection of vets who know game mechanics inside out have a perspective on the experience of a new player experiencing recent game content?
    4. Attention bias towards the parts of the game they play.

    All of those things stem from a collection of people who play a similar aspect of the game with others who play the same aspect of the game. It wasn't an accusation of malicious self interest, it was an observation of imperfect representation.

    Interested in your views on the other things as well as the one you focussed on..... ?



    I think you misunderstood with that like. I was being serious.

    When is CSM voting? I've been busy with work, so is this something going on now, or did I miss it?

    James315 for CSM 8!
    betoli
    The Scope
    Gallente Federation
    #432 - 2012-09-02 23:02:27 UTC  |  Edited by: betoli
    Lord Zim wrote:
    betoli wrote:
    Lord Zim wrote:
    Why do you assume the CSM has a "biased view"?


    1. Human nature.
    2. Their sampling of others opinions isn't (and can't be) unbiased, but cenrtic around their own community and contacts.
    3. Vantage point - how can (say) a collection of vets who know game mechanics inside out have a perspective on the experience of a new player experiencing recent game content?
    4. Attention bias towards the parts of the game they play.

    All of those things stem from a collection of people who play a similar aspect of the game with others who play the same aspect of the game. It wasn't an accusation of malicious self interest, it was an observation of imperfect representation.

    Interested in your views on the other things as well as the one you focussed on..... ?


    And how do you assume your ideas will make for a better representation than is already the case?


    Stop meta-debating. If you have no opinion STFU. I only asked questions, I did not make any assumptions or claims as to whether answering yes to any of them would help. I don't know whether its your intention or not, but your manner on these boards appears to suggest you want to stifle discussion, not participate in it or add meaningful contribution.
    Lord Zim
    Gallente Federation
    #433 - 2012-09-02 23:09:33 UTC
    betoli wrote:
    Stop meta-debating. If you have no opinion STFU.

    I'm curious, since the current CSM has people who are very involved in a lot of various aspects of EVE, and they all seem to be balancing eachother out well enough, so I'm curious as to why labelling someone "the hisec guy", "the lowsec guy" etc, and only allow them to have an opinion on whatever constitutes being a "hisec guy", "lowsec guy" etc. I'm also curious what would make someone "an indy rep" vs "a PVP rep", and why one person can't be both.

    I mean, I do large fleet fights in nullsec, in hisec I do manufacturing, PI, mining and some missions. What gaming aspect would I be allowed to represent, under your rules?

    Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home.

    RIP Vile Rat
    betoli
    The Scope
    Gallente Federation
    #434 - 2012-09-02 23:28:34 UTC
    Lord Zim wrote:
    betoli wrote:
    Stop meta-debating. If you have no opinion STFU.

    I'm curious, since the current CSM has people who are very involved in a lot of various aspects of EVE, and they all seem to be balancing eachother out well enough, so I'm curious as to why labelling someone "the hisec guy", "the lowsec guy" etc, and only allow them to have an opinion on whatever constitutes being a "hisec guy", "lowsec guy" etc. I'm also curious what would make someone "an indy rep" vs "a PVP rep", and why one person can't be both.

    I mean, I do large fleet fights in nullsec, in hisec I do manufacturing, PI, mining and some missions. What gaming aspect would I be allowed to represent, under your rules?


    I would think you should be able to stand for whatever aspect you want - it would be up to the electorate to make their minds up whether you were the best person to represent :insert gameplay choice:. If I were voting, I would assume a jack of all trades was less desirable than someone who has all their eggs in the same metaphoric basket - but thats purely personal opinion.

    But OK. Your earlier question: We are striving for improved representation of demographics: I believe that creating specific role posts would encourage voters to think about whether a candidate really represented that position. I think that because I believe the majority of players don't meta-game. There would be nothing to stop a null sec player standing for office as a high sec rep, however if they did, and won it, it would highlight (both to the player base and to CCP) that the CSM system was flawed in the way that's been discussed ad-nausium in this thread. Therefore if the representational model is flawed, then under this model, it would become transparently, embarrassingly, and indefensibly, obvious beyond debate. That would be so undesirable that I suspect no one would try it on, and there would be a lot of pressure from everyone (CCP, other CSMers, and players alike) to maintain the credibility of the institution.

    Assuming that were the case, then representational balance is acheived by CCP specifying the number of posts in a proffesion domain according to their understanding of the player distribution - that doesn't need to be (and couldn't be) perfect it just needs to improve on the current **** poor distribution of representation:demographic.
    betoli
    The Scope
    Gallente Federation
    #435 - 2012-09-02 23:29:59 UTC
    Abel Merkabah wrote:

    I think you misunderstood with that like. I was being serious.


    I think you misunderstood why I liked it ;-)
    Abel Merkabah
    Caldari Provisions
    Caldari State
    #436 - 2012-09-02 23:32:33 UTC
    betoli wrote:
    Abel Merkabah wrote:

    I think you misunderstood with that like. I was being serious.


    I think you misunderstood why I liked it ;-)




    lol...lot of misunderstanding going on here...lol...I thought you liked it because it supported your argument or went against the people who was arguing with you.

    I had no intent of that. I just thought the people arguing about CSM would be able to provide me with the information.

    I guess I was wrong on that part...

    James315 for CSM 8!
    Keen Fallsword
    Skyway Patrol
    #437 - 2012-09-02 23:34:44 UTC
    Frying Doom wrote:
    "Oh, and the fundamental question remains: what's the problem with the current representation?"

    How can it possibly be representative of the players when so many of the players are not represented, so there wants are unknown.

    The players need further education, their is only harm to small interest groups not to the game, as the game would benefit by having more players involved.


    OMFG Bro this is VIDEO GAME !!! Maybe you playing it too much ? Recently ? ....
    Nexus Day
    Lustrevik Trade and Travel Bureau
    #438 - 2012-09-02 23:44:56 UTC
    The community is represented by those whom represent themselves as part of the community.

    In other words, if you don't speak up you usually don't get a vote.
    betoli
    The Scope
    Gallente Federation
    #439 - 2012-09-02 23:54:44 UTC
    Nexus Day wrote:
    The community is represented by those whom represent themselves as part of the community.

    In other words, if you don't speak up you usually don't get a vote.


    Training GobShite and Arrogance to level 5 as we speak. Shocked
    James Amril-Kesh
    Viziam
    Amarr Empire
    #440 - 2012-09-02 23:58:48 UTC
    betoli wrote:
    Nexus Day wrote:
    The community is represented by those whom represent themselves as part of the community.

    In other words, if you don't speak up you usually don't get a vote.


    Training GobShite and Arrogance to level 5 as we speak. Shocked


    What's arrogant about what he said?
    He's right...

    Enjoying the rain today? ;)