Jita Park Speakers Corner

first in a riveting topic that will consume more of the summit's time then the EVE/Dust link, industry, ship balancing and nullsec combined

Is this a revisit of the white paper?

m

i'm against this. politicians are to advance the agendas of their constituents.

i'm struggling to understand how paying the CSM, in whatever form that may be, will benefit the player base.

By stakeholders, it doesn't mean that the CSM will be paid, but rather that they have an influence on the goals of each expansions, such as how to change the Sov system, how to help CCP keep veteran players, while trying to get new players in EvE and try to keep CCP from making mistakes. The CSM Representatives are messengers, councilors and auditors, they provide suggestions and feedback to CCP that came from players and tell CCP when they are going the wrong way.

what worries me is that stakeholder by every definintion i know of means that when things go good, you get the rewards, when they go bad, you suffer the penalties. you are a stakeholder, akin to a stockholder or shareholder.

in the most benign sense we're all stakeholders. in this sense, the CSM are already stakeholders and the CSM already wield influence.

so we must then be talking about something over and above what already exists or this topic wouldn't exist.

how do you stake someone over and above what already exists without paying them in some fashion? if you don't pay them, any input they have remains amatuer. there is no accountability to CCP or to the CSM without it. you can't have a contract without an exchange of goods.

idk, i'll be interested to see what this is. but i'm standing by my original statement. i would hate to see these guys get paid.

ok, but then you've already confirmed my suspicions, although i'm not sure what qualifies you to make such an assertation or to speak for everyone in EVE sans myself.

nevertheless, according to you, a stakeholder does get something in exchange for being on the CSM. when you get something in exchange for a good or service, it's called a payment.

and i don't like that.

to be fair, i'd like it more if i were on the CSM though. but at least i trust me.

To the guy that keeps rambling on about 'payment' - there is ample information out there about what the CSM is and is not for you to not be making bad posts like you are.

Also, random thought - I actually have been paid to work on this game. I can tell you that as an unpaid player volunteer 'stakeholder' I feel I've been able to ~influence~ the overall direction of the game more in the past two years on the CSM than I ever did as a dev when I was just another worker bee in game design. I guess that is a form of payment / reward, but it's certainly not monetary.

Just be prepared this time

Reading in the meeting minutes how you were fumbling around and grasping for straws when Unifex asked (paraphrased) "Many in the company would not like to see a more influential CSM, they complain that you get to criticize everything they do while having no personal skin in the game. Why should I do it anyways?" was disappointing to say the very least.

You aren't just some random focus group that exists purely by grace of CCP, you are the democratically legitimized representatives of all of CCP's EVE customers.
I have no idea how you could forget that during the summer summit but this is at the core of any argument that could justify your existence and influence.

The "you only represent your own special interests and not the interests of the playerbase at large", "X of Y representatives are from large 0.0 alliances", "most people never vote in CSM elections anyways", ... discussions are important and necessary. But it is crucial to realize that these discussions - although they happen on public forums that CCP has access to - are in scope strictly kept between you and the community.
Whenever you deal with CCP you have the full backing of the EVE community and speak as their mouth-piece.

Make a case for the CSM as representatives of the community, please resist the temptation to make case for yourself instead.
(Negative example: "You should give the CSM more influence because... well, I am a really experienced EVE player and everyone tells me that my ideas about game design are pretty cool. Your developers simply don't know how much great input on their work I could give them... CCP would profit so much from giving me the CSM more influence! ... btw I'll leave a copy of my résumé at the reception" - this is how the CSM comes across in its weakest moments, don't do that).

This is easily the most important summit topic so please treat it that way when preparing for it.

Because having more then one boss is fun and people should look forward to it.

Wow, never knew CMS hit CCP so hard, I knew the players did, but suppose I am just to use to hearing the opinion of the nice CSM members.


Don't worry CSM, us players will just respond most harshly to CCP for awhile, till they think you guys are no big deal and actually nice people to be around. Anything to support stakeholdership.

lol. i own 2 companies and have been involved in building 2 more.

pretty sure i know what a stakeholder is. in the literal sesne.

also, the CSM don't fully represent the EVE community. they barely represent the majority of their groupie constituents pursuing self-interest.

stakeholders? please.