These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
123Next page
 

what do you people actually do?

First post
Author
Azirapheal
Hansa Mining og Industri
#1 - 2012-12-12 12:32:11 UTC
i honestly have no idea.

sincerely, me
Frying Doom
#2 - 2012-12-12 12:52:21 UTC  |  Edited by: Frying Doom
Azirapheal wrote:
i honestly have no idea.

sincerely, me

The Scope of the CSM

The purpose of the CSM is to represent society interests to CCP. This requires active engagement with the player community to master EVE issue awareness, understanding, and evaluation in the context of the “greatest good for the greater player base”. The scope of issues is restricted only to EVE, its ongoing development, and limited meta (out-of-game) issues which have direct relevance to the EVE universe. It is important to keep in mind that the CSM will not have formal powers within CCP, they will have a voice inside CCP.

http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/What_is_the_CSM

Old and out dated but gives you the idea

Any spelling, grammatical and punctuation errors are because frankly, I don't care!!

Zol Interbottom
Blimp Requisition Services
#3 - 2012-12-22 16:47:33 UTC
Frying Doom wrote:
Azirapheal wrote:
i honestly have no idea.

sincerely, me

The Scope of the CSM

The purpose of the CSM is to represent society interests to CCP. This requires active engagement with the player community to master EVE issue awareness, understanding, and evaluation in the context of the “greatest good for the greater player base”. The scope of issues is restricted only to EVE, its ongoing development, and limited meta (out-of-game) issues which have direct relevance to the EVE universe. It is important to keep in mind that the CSM will not have formal powers within CCP, they will have a voice inside CCP.

http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/What_is_the_CSM

Old and out dated but gives you the idea


so basically be the null/TEST/Goon lobby group? im guessing most people wont vote and the low sec powerhouses will push their members to vote

"If you're quitting for the 3rd time you clearly ain't quitting" - Chribba

minerboob
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#4 - 2013-01-09 12:41:40 UTC
Zol Interbottom wrote:


so basically be the null/TEST/Goon lobby group? im guessing most people wont vote and the low sec powerhouses will push their members to vote


Bingo! You nailed it!
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#5 - 2013-01-09 13:08:27 UTC
Zol Interbottom wrote:
Frying Doom wrote:
Azirapheal wrote:
i honestly have no idea.

sincerely, me

The Scope of the CSM

The purpose of the CSM is to represent society interests to CCP. This requires active engagement with the player community to master EVE issue awareness, understanding, and evaluation in the context of the “greatest good for the greater player base”. The scope of issues is restricted only to EVE, its ongoing development, and limited meta (out-of-game) issues which have direct relevance to the EVE universe. It is important to keep in mind that the CSM will not have formal powers within CCP, they will have a voice inside CCP.

http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/What_is_the_CSM

Old and out dated but gives you the idea


so basically be the null/TEST/Goon lobby group? im guessing most people wont vote and the low sec powerhouses will push their members to vote


*Does not vote

*Sulks when people who do vote get their candidates elected

*Responds by not voting next time

*Is hi-sec.

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016

Alekseyev Karrde
Noir.
The Network.
#6 - 2013-01-10 00:28:00 UTC
Malcanis wrote:
Zol Interbottom wrote:
Frying Doom wrote:
Azirapheal wrote:
i honestly have no idea.

sincerely, me

The Scope of the CSM

The purpose of the CSM is to represent society interests to CCP. This requires active engagement with the player community to master EVE issue awareness, understanding, and evaluation in the context of the “greatest good for the greater player base”. The scope of issues is restricted only to EVE, its ongoing development, and limited meta (out-of-game) issues which have direct relevance to the EVE universe. It is important to keep in mind that the CSM will not have formal powers within CCP, they will have a voice inside CCP.

http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/What_is_the_CSM

Old and out dated but gives you the idea


so basically be the null/TEST/Goon lobby group? im guessing most people wont vote and the low sec powerhouses will push their members to vote


*Does not vote

*Sulks when people who do vote get their candidates elected

*Responds by not voting next time

*Is hi-sec.

*owned

Alek the Kidnapper, Hero of the CSM

Milton Middleson
Rifterlings
#7 - 2013-01-10 02:22:11 UTC
Tell me about these lowsec powerhouses.
Zol Interbottom
Blimp Requisition Services
#8 - 2013-01-10 03:46:36 UTC
Malcanis wrote:
Zol Interbottom wrote:
Frying Doom wrote:
Azirapheal wrote:
i honestly have no idea.

sincerely, me

The Scope of the CSM

The purpose of the CSM is to represent society interests to CCP. This requires active engagement with the player community to master EVE issue awareness, understanding, and evaluation in the context of the “greatest good for the greater player base”. The scope of issues is restricted only to EVE, its ongoing development, and limited meta (out-of-game) issues which have direct relevance to the EVE universe. It is important to keep in mind that the CSM will not have formal powers within CCP, they will have a voice inside CCP.

http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/What_is_the_CSM

Old and out dated but gives you the idea


so basically be the null/TEST/Goon lobby group? im guessing most people wont vote and the low sec powerhouses will push their members to vote


*Does not vote

*Sulks when people who do vote get their candidates elected

*Responds by not voting next time

*Is hi-sec.


i only just started playing, i have no had the chance to vote against the nullbabbys

"If you're quitting for the 3rd time you clearly ain't quitting" - Chribba

Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#9 - 2013-01-10 07:56:24 UTC
If you've been playing long enough to call people "nullbabbys" then you've been playing long enough to know why the CSM has the members it does and to take your factslapping like a man,.

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016

Alphea Abbra
Project Promethion
#10 - 2013-01-10 22:11:45 UTC
I'm not sure what an updated count would be, but from the contact list I'd wager that this is the rough makeup* of CSM members:

High: 1 (Issler)
Low: 1 (Hans)
NPC 0.0: 2 (Aleks & Meissa)
SOV 0.0: 6 (The rest)
WH: 1 (Two step)
General: 2 (Trebor & Kelduum)

*This is a list made on what I either know of the members OR where they/their alliance live. It doesn't take into account that CSM members might actually know something about the game outside where their core electorate probably resides.

I don't try to take away that the null-block on the CSM is more than half of the members, but maybe, just maybe, that has something to do with null-sec generally being better organised and having a network & contacts to actually run an effective campaign?
People who think that the CSM should have more representatives dedicated to high-sec issues could organise themselves and run that campaign.
Null did it, low did it, WH did it.
HS did it with Issler, so stop whining and start doing it again instead.

I honestly find it pathetic that there is a "group" (2) of people who think that those (1) who participate in group activities should be punished because their (1) group cohesion makes their (1) group more effective at group activities than those (2) with no group to begin with ...
Chances are, they (1) had the same resources as you (2), they just utilised theirs (1).

Why don't you?
ground ctrl
Goose Swarm Coalition
#11 - 2013-01-10 23:16:10 UTC
The problem with the null bloc votes is that an alliance will just say "vote for this guy" and the alliance sheep will do that en mass. The person they are voting for doesn't need to even say what he actually wants to do with the game. Perfect example was mittani. He posted nothing about what he actually wanted to do with the game (other than keep jump bridges) and herds of cfc voted him in.


BTW I am not saying there is anything we should/can do about this. I am just saying it happens.


Alphea Abbra
Project Promethion
#12 - 2013-01-11 01:38:17 UTC
ground ctrl wrote:
The problem with the null bloc votes is that an alliance will just say "vote for this guy" and the alliance sheep will do that en mass. The person they are voting for doesn't need to even say what he actually wants to do with the game. Perfect example was mittani. He posted nothing about what he actually wanted to do with the game (other than keep jump bridges) and herds of cfc voted him in.


BTW I am not saying there is anything we should/can do about this. I am just saying it happens.



The Mittani is actually one of the worst examples of the problem you try to point out.
Whether you like and/or agree with what he said and/or the way he said it, he did certainly state a number of things he'd try to change, or at least influence, whether that be very specific issues or broader agendas.
I don't know if you've noticed, but very few of ANY style CSM representatives tend to be "no-names" within their on corporation, alliance or power-structure. Several of the current (primary) 0.0 representatives are CEOs, and alliance executers running is pretty heard of.
That's not voting as sheep - although that might be an underlying reason elsewhere - but empowering your corporation, alliance or powerstructure through voting in those already in leadership & trust positions to the CSM.
If S2N's alliance exec. decided to run for CSM, I'd know what he's capable of doing, I'd know whether I agree with his views or not, I'd know a whole lot about him. Furthermore, since I'm a member of both the same corp and alliance as him, I would probably not be here if I viewed him negative. The cards are already stacked towards me viewing him positive and my desire to further our common agenda would probably heavily influence my vote(s).
I hope that part is clear to you.

Secondly, if it did happen that a person runs for CSM and has the ability to rally several thousand sheeps behind them, would that not speak volumes about their capabilities? If their base is so loyal and so confident in their candidate that no external campaign is necessary for a place at the table, would that not show as clear as day that the person represents a group of EVE players and can speak on their behalf (As intended with the CSM)?
I hope that part, too, is clear to you.

Now, at last, I'll show you where the last part of your premise is flawed:
Null-blocs cannot force their members to vote a certain way. If a member of Goonwaffe in Goonswarm Federation voted for Issler the HS-candidate and not for Mittani the GSF candidate, they had no way of knowing, and they had no way of forcing that vote in the first place.
What a null-bloc could do was kicking everyone whom they could not make absolutely sure voted for that candidate, but let me reveal something to you: That would not be a null-bloc, since there'd be no bloc afterwards.

We're left, then, with null-blocs having to either amass so many loyal, content (In their own leadership) and motivated members that they'd vote for whoever the leadership endorses, OR we have a regular candidate who has varying degree of support from their existing connections.
Neither of these are problematic in any way.

Your turn.
ground ctrl
Goose Swarm Coalition
#13 - 2013-01-11 14:58:51 UTC
Alphea Abbra wrote:
ground ctrl wrote:
The problem with the null bloc votes is that an alliance will just say "vote for this guy" and the alliance sheep will do that en mass. The person they are voting for doesn't need to even say what he actually wants to do with the game. Perfect example was mittani. He posted nothing about what he actually wanted to do with the game (other than keep jump bridges) and herds of cfc voted him in.


BTW I am not saying there is anything we should/can do about this. I am just saying it happens.



The Mittani is actually one of the worst examples of the problem you try to point out.
Whether you like and/or agree with what he said and/or the way he said it, he did certainly state a number of things he'd try to change, or at least influence, whether that be very specific issues or broader agendas. ...


He actually ran on the platform where he specifically said he would not address what he wanted changed in game. He ran on the platform that he would be a bastard. If you can translate what that would mean for in game changes then good on you. Pull up his campaign thread if you don't believe me.

Even when ccp had the emergency summit because it was bleeding subscriptions due to lack of development in spaceships and pay to win and memos telling the players to f-off, you will see that he didn't even push for more development of in space eve in at that summit - read the csm report from that summit if you don't believe me. He was so pro ccp it was sick. He even said something like "nevermind that memo."

After that summit It wasn't until the playerbase made it so obviously clear that eve needed work on the in space game that ccp basically would have to shift gears anyway that he then started supporting that - very late. And of course he claimed credit for that even though it was more the players that pushed that through despite the csm.
Benny Ohu
Chaotic Tranquility
#14 - 2013-01-11 15:32:50 UTC
the special 2011 summit wasn't about eve's future or dev direction you should check it out

it's a planned meeting you don't just get to shout at people about whatever topic
ground ctrl
Goose Swarm Coalition
#15 - 2013-01-11 15:48:39 UTC
Benny Ohu wrote:
the special 2011 summit wasn't about eve's future or dev direction you should check it out

it's a planned meeting you don't just get to shout at people about whatever topic


Bringing up an issue does not mean shouting.

Its interesting that you should suggest shouting because at that point the players (other than the csm) were indeed shouting for more in space development time. Mittani was still pretty much deaf to it though.

It was an emergency summit that was called because ccp was dropping subscriptions. You should address the cause of that. And the cause of that was obvious to almost all the players except the csm who never even seemed to mention it. I already checked it out. Maybe you should.

Mittani did eventually get the drift but it was not until later. He rode the wave he did not create it.
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#16 - 2013-01-11 16:34:22 UTC
ground ctrl wrote:
The problem with the null bloc votes is that an alliance will just say "vote for this guy" and the alliance sheep will do that en mass. The person they are voting for doesn't need to even say what he actually wants to do with the game. Perfect example was mittani. He posted nothing about what he actually wanted to do with the game (other than keep jump bridges) and herds of cfc voted him in.


BTW I am not saying there is anything we should/can do about this. I am just saying it happens.




No one who has ever actually been in an alliance believes this. The idea is frankly laughable.

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016

Alphea Abbra
Project Promethion
#17 - 2013-01-11 17:15:36 UTC
ground ctrl wrote:
Alphea Abbra wrote:
ground ctrl wrote:
The problem with the null bloc votes is that an alliance will just say "vote for this guy" and the alliance sheep will do that en mass. The person they are voting for doesn't need to even say what he actually wants to do with the game. Perfect example was mittani. He posted nothing about what he actually wanted to do with the game (other than keep jump bridges) and herds of cfc voted him in.


BTW I am not saying there is anything we should/can do about this. I am just saying it happens.



The Mittani is actually one of the worst examples of the problem you try to point out.
Whether you like and/or agree with what he said and/or the way he said it, he did certainly state a number of things he'd try to change, or at least influence, whether that be very specific issues or broader agendas. ...


He actually ran on the platform where he specifically said he would not address what he wanted changed in game. He ran on the platform that he would be a bastard. If you can translate what that would mean for in game changes then good on you. Pull up his campaign thread if you don't believe me.

Even when ccp had the emergency summit because it was bleeding subscriptions due to lack of development in spaceships and pay to win and memos telling the players to f-off, you will see that he didn't even push for more development of in space eve in at that summit - read the csm report from that summit if you don't believe me. He was so pro ccp it was sick. He even said something like "nevermind that memo."

After that summit It wasn't until the playerbase made it so obviously clear that eve needed work on the in space game that ccp basically would have to shift gears anyway that he then started supporting that - very late. And of course he claimed credit for that even though it was more the players that pushed that through despite the csm.

I like that if I wanted to, I could agree with your point about The Mittani, rescind those few lines, and still have decimated your argument, leaving you with an empty hat and a bill to pay... Nice attempt, now could you please stop dodging?

(I'll look up the finer details about The Mittani's CSM 6 and 7 campaigns and respond to that tiny and non-essential part of the argument when done. The stuff I said about him was from memory, so perhaps I'm slightly off on that one.)
ground ctrl
Goose Swarm Coalition
#18 - 2013-01-11 17:25:11 UTC
Malcanis wrote:
ground ctrl wrote:
The problem with the null bloc votes is that an alliance will just say "vote for this guy" and the alliance sheep will do that en mass. The person they are voting for doesn't need to even say what he actually wants to do with the game. Perfect example was mittani. He posted nothing about what he actually wanted to do with the game (other than keep jump bridges) and herds of cfc voted him in.


BTW I am not saying there is anything we should/can do about this. I am just saying it happens.




No one who has ever actually been in an alliance believes this...


Yet it happens.

It happens every time a large alliance puts up a candidate.
ground ctrl
Goose Swarm Coalition
#19 - 2013-01-11 17:30:27 UTC
Alphea Abbra wrote:
ground ctrl wrote:
Alphea Abbra wrote:
ground ctrl wrote:
The problem with the null bloc votes is that an alliance will just say "vote for this guy" and the alliance sheep will do that en mass. The person they are voting for doesn't need to even say what he actually wants to do with the game. Perfect example was mittani. He posted nothing about what he actually wanted to do with the game (other than keep jump bridges) and herds of cfc voted him in.


BTW I am not saying there is anything we should/can do about this. I am just saying it happens.



The Mittani is actually one of the worst examples of the problem you try to point out.
Whether you like and/or agree with what he said and/or the way he said it, he did certainly state a number of things he'd try to change, or at least influence, whether that be very specific issues or broader agendas. ...


He actually ran on the platform where he specifically said he would not address what he wanted changed in game. He ran on the platform that he would be a bastard. If you can translate what that would mean for in game changes then good on you. Pull up his campaign thread if you don't believe me.

Even when ccp had the emergency summit because it was bleeding subscriptions due to lack of development in spaceships and pay to win and memos telling the players to f-off, you will see that he didn't even push for more development of in space eve in at that summit - read the csm report from that summit if you don't believe me. He was so pro ccp it was sick. He even said something like "nevermind that memo."

After that summit It wasn't until the playerbase made it so obviously clear that eve needed work on the in space game that ccp basically would have to shift gears anyway that he then started supporting that - very late. And of course he claimed credit for that even though it was more the players that pushed that through despite the csm.

I like that if I wanted to, I could agree with your point about The Mittani, rescind those few lines, and still have decimated your argument, leaving you with an empty hat and a bill to pay... Nice attempt, now could you please stop dodging?

(I'll look up the finer details about The Mittani's CSM 6 and 7 campaigns and respond to that tiny and non-essential part of the argument when done. The stuff I said about him was from memory, so perhaps I'm slightly off on that one.)



Yeah it might help if you actually look at what happened, instead of just inventing history.

I don't know what you meant the rest of your post destroys my argument. What candidate from a big alliance ever put forward a set of specific or even general changes that they wanted to ccp to implement.

The Only csm candidate that ever did this and won on that sort of platform was Hans.
Alphea Abbra
Project Promethion
#20 - 2013-01-11 19:29:21 UTC
ground ctrl wrote:
Yeah it might help if you actually look at what happened, instead of just inventing history.

I don't know what you meant the rest of your post destroys my argument. What candidate from a big alliance ever put forward a set of specific or even general changes that they wanted to ccp to implement.

The Only csm candidate that ever did this and won on that sort of platform was Hans.

Did you read my post? I'm asking because right now it seems you only read the fraction you replied to.

First: They (The CSM) should not state "I want feature X implemented and feature Y replaced with feature Z", since the CSM is not developers. I'm not sure if you got it, but they're representatives.
So now, with that we can look at a candidate with a proper way of determining if they have "wants" or desires for changes, and whether they in their candidacy thread gave such promises. Going back to those candidate threads (For the CSM7 election) I could find, here are those that feature various forms of "reform desire":
Two Step - WH.
Elise Randolph - 0.0.
Trebor Daehdoow - General.
Kelduum Revaan - General / E-Uni (A link to his extended views are in that post).
Greene Lee - 0.0.
Issler Dainze - HS.
Darius III - 0.0.
Dovinian - 0.0.
Alekseyev Karrde - now 0.0, back then mercenary.
The Mittani - 0.0.
Meissa Anunthiel, although the OP contains less of the "reform desire", the thread does.

There were a number of threads that I could not spot among the massive amount of other candidacy-threads, various CSM discussions and older threads (As well as probably a few candidacy-threads bumped up among newer ones).
Those I did not find with a cursory glance:
Seleene.
UAxDEATH.
Hans Jagerblitzen.

I would like you to read those, take a step back, think, think HARD, and think again.
When you've done so, come back here. I'll be waiting for when you rescind your points.

The one about The Mittani as well, at least for the CSM7 election.

Ball!
123Next page