Jita Park Speakers Corner

Static lists come with a sense of obligation. CCP doesn't want to be told what to do by their players, they want to be able to get input on THEIR ideas from the players without having to deal with the sheer amounts of noise that forums generate. Part of this process is the CSM having an opportunity to "guide" CCP, in either subtle or obvious ways.

If all they wanted was a player-created To-Do list, they'd code one and save themselves 7 plane tickets and accomodations twice a year. Not going that route suggests they want something quite a bit more open-ended than that.

Artctura gets it.

I think this obsession with electing specific reps for specific issues is simply too short-sighted and too much of a gamble. CCP is both capable of hiring experts in their field to guide the nitty gritty of design (as they've done by bringing CCP Fozzie on board), and they're also quite capable of hiring someone or tasking someone to operate a poll to rank issues in terms of raw popularity.

The CSM plays a much more important role in being able to speak to the more abstract ideas of player motivation and what players value in a game like EVE compared to other games on the market. CSM members need to be able to talk with players and derive from the enormous sea of responses an understanding of what exactly drives their behavior, be able to assign a real value to the various things CCP decides they may or may not want to work on. This kind of empathy and emotional intelligence is something that a game designer or data analyst may not be able to provide, and it also is a skillset that can be held by any individual, regardless of the area of gameplay they may be an expert in, or the region of space they call home.

If the discussion surrounding voting reform (or the lack thereof, if deemed unnecessary) ventures too far down the rabbit hole in trying to match features to be worked on with CSM reps that have experience in those areas, we've missed some of the point. Diversity in representation is good for having a broader connection with the playerbase, but if we stop there we've sold ourselves short and wasted. That diversity is only valuable if the elected candidates are insightful and persuasive enough to make use of that connection to begin with.

Just out of curiosity - when was the last time you contacted your representatives about your concerns? You do realize that there are highsec representatives on the sitting council, don't you?

Whether they follow through and support you isn't anything you can control. But you CAN use your time and effort to at least let us know how you feel, and it would be far better spent than posting in a thread complaining about a null-dominant CSM during one of the least bloc-"controlled" councils in recent history.

Hans, a better question is "When was the last time you contacted ANY representatives". The CSM, while each person comes from their respective part of the game, exists to represent everyone. If I go to Seleene about an issue that I think affects me, I shouldn't be dismissed just because it doesn't affect him.

If Seleene chooses to ignore it, or act differently, that is his prerogative, but he is there to represent me. And if no one talks to him and opens discussions, nothing will ever happen. Sometimes, one very well written letter to a single member of the CSM from a single individual will be more powerful then the results of any poll. The classification of CSM members into "High Sec, Low Sec, Mission Runners, Industrialists and so on" is bad.

There are no high sec representatives on the CSM. There are player representatives who live in high sec. Understand the fundamental differences between those two statements. The job of the CSM isn't to further your own goals with the developers. It's to further the playerbase's goals with the developers.

Does someone have a link to a guide to reading broken English and understanding inconsistent ideas? Thanks in advance.

You missed the role of null sec alliances is not to be sold of for peanuts a month to a trader.

It is up to persons interested in making a difference to run for office and show intelligence and charisma fitting of a CSM member. The disproportionately small representation of high security space is not the fault of null security alliances; at kindest, their disenfranchisement can only be blamed upon themselves. Less kind: they've proven incapable of organizing themselves into meaningful political forces for seven straight years. .[/quote]
2008 to now is 7 years crap I need a new calendar.

But really the small number of people in hi-sec who vote is more due to the nature of Hi-sec compared to Null. In Hi-sec you do not need a large alliance to survive, so the players do not form into those kinds of groups. Also players with less time on their hands will generally stay in hi-sec, so less time for them to browse the forums.

What you mean the way he is against the things that CCP Xhagen has stated he will not be doing.

To be honest I kind of ignored Hans's posts as they were after all is said and done. Kind of like campaigning after the voting is finished, kind of pointless.

I'm not sure if the specific representatives comment is directed at me, but I did not try to equate issues with candidates. I'm saying the CSM is unnecessary; it's the issues that matter. The CSM elections need to be divorced from gathering player feedback; thus my comment "I think that whatever is eventually decided should address a fundamental issue with the general concept of the CSM: conflating game issues with representation on the CSM."

I'm sorry, Hans, but the idea that "CSM members... derive... an understanding of what exactly drives [the players'] behavior" is ridiculous. Neither you nor the other CSM members are experts or anything vaguely resembling the professionals in this field. None of you are really in a position to know what most of the player base thinks or feels, as evidenced by the fact that there were 20k voters vs. 400k subscribers and, despite the many-paged forum threads, the relatively limited number of individuals involved in CSM conversations. To your own point, if CCP needs that kind of expertise they hire experts. Which, in my opinion, is exactly what they should do and why they need to turn their back on the idea that the CSM is even vaguely representative of the player base. They should hire the experts and gather real data. I suspect they've actually begun doing exactly that, and that's the reason for this thread. (Long time players don't often get to see the surveys going out to new accounts, but the questions being asked are getting much more interesting, even including things like whether or not Jita spam should be stopped.)

That isn't to say that there isn't any value in having the CSM. A group of dedicated, "professional" players that serves as a sounding board, focus group, and play testers has a lot of value.

The Features and Ideas subforum has jumped light years ahead of the CSM and its conversations. CCP has obviously committed itself to direct communication and solicitation. Players can communicate with the devs, and it cuts out the middle man. There isn't some politician rebutting every idea with some long-winded, self serving argument that essentially calls the player ignorant. When the devs reply directly it's usually to note that something is beyond their capabilities, to clarify specifics, or to narrow the scope of the discussion.

Bottom line: Players shouldn't have to engage in space politics to get a better game. It's beginning to look like we won't have to either.

I will admit you like the others have not started to act like politicians until recently when asked who should be on CSM8. That showed try political style to not even be half way through the term when members of the CSM stated to back stab the people you are working with or are Poetics claims on this matter untrue? So sorry Hans I did not think in the other thread you were here for political games but maybe you failed to read them.

And yes Xhagen's mind is amendable to change so how about instead of telling us you don't want things that Xhagen has already said will not occur you could relate some new ideas or tell us how you would like to see the things he has agreed too fleshed out.

Yes more transparency would be great and it would also allow us to see if the claims by some members about others are true or not.

Lets face it Darius III could be a really hard working member (I seriously doubt this) and if the other CSM members disliked him they could easily decide to tell us he is just slacking off all year and we would have nothing but D3's word otherwise and things like the summit minutes but that is about it.