These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
Previous page123Next page
 

How to Represent the Player Base Without Killing the CSM

First post
Author
Jehan Markow
Wu Si Yuan Luojishan
#21 - 2011-10-26 04:54:13 UTC
Skunk Gracklaw wrote:

Then why are people complaining so much about the CSM?



Read what's already been posted.

Once you've done that, you will see there are two answers:
1) CSM only got 14% turnout, a dismal failure. Even Myanmar gets better turnout in its elections.
2) Complaining about the CSM and whining that the CSM should go away is not the point of this thread, in case you didn't see the part of its title where it says "...Without Killing the CSM".

Point is, my proposal is something the CSMs could all work on that would provide real-time answers for CCP's questions that created the CSM in the first place. It's a simplistic idea, builds on the positives of a past idea, solves most of other peoples' complaints with the CSM, and moves us toward direct democracy while moving us away from its older bastard half-brother, representative democracy.
-JM
Endovior
PFU Consortium
#22 - 2011-10-26 04:57:19 UTC
Personally, I think it's rather foolish to conflate 'effectiveness of the CSM as a whole' with 'success in implementing items X, Y, and Z off a list of the things I want'. The CSM does not have absolute control over what actually goes into Eve, all they can do is offer advice. Yes, you had a poll up. Yes, a few people voted on that poll. No, the things that got most voted for aren't actually up yet, even though it's been three months or so. Uh... you surprised? Have you paid any attention to what was happening during that time? To all the things that actually were happening, which were kind of important? Those things on which the CSM justifiably focused their attention?

It's by that standard that I deem the CSM effective. Sure, it'd be nice if some of the minor but irksome issues of Eve were resolved. There's still time, and given the new focus of the Dev team in general, it's likely that some of them will be addressed. Given that much of the reason why the Dev team cares about FiS in the first place can be traced to the CSM's efforts, if any of those issues actually do get addressed, credit goes to the CSM anyway. If it weren't for them, none of those issues would be addressed, and the winter release would be all about establishments and paying for more clothing options.
The Mittani
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#23 - 2011-10-26 05:22:00 UTC  |  Edited by: The Mittani
Skunk Gracklaw wrote:
Jehan Markow wrote:
Skunk Gracklaw wrote:
The. Results. Were. Meaningless.

So few people voted that you can't point to the list and say "Durr Mittens only made it to number 14 on da list" and be taken seriously.


With only 10% as much turnout of the CSM elections, the results were pretty much meaningless.

Then why are people complaining so much about the CSM?



The CSM is powerless! Wait, the CSM has too much power! Wait, someone on the CSM blew up my mining barge - quick, to Jita Park!

Anyway, crowdsourcing is dumb. It's a buzzword attached to a simple poll, and CCP has nicely illustrated the danger of believing in buzzwords. It's nice that Trebor puts so much stock in crowdsourcing; if you like crowdsourcing and want to hear about it a lot, vote for Trebor for CSM7; he's a great rep and a hiseccer. And he loves his crowdsourcing.

Crowdsourcing! Like 'Excellence', perhaps if you say it enough times magic fairies will happen.

~hi~

Parsec Seti
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#24 - 2011-10-26 06:40:42 UTC
The Mittani wrote:
[

The CSM is powerless! Wait, the CSM has too much power! Wait, someone on the CSM blew up my mining barge - quick, to Jita Park!

Anyway, crowdsourcing is dumb. It's a buzzword attached to a simple poll, and CCP has nicely illustrated the danger of believing in buzzwords. It's nice that Trebor puts so much stock in crowdsourcing; if you like crowdsourcing and want to hear about it a lot, vote for Trebor for CSM7; he's a great rep and a hiseccer. And he loves his crowdsourcing.

Crowdsourcing! Like 'Excellence', perhaps if you say it enough times magic fairies will happen.



From the sounds of it, a crowdsourcing initiative would weaken you and your desire to make the players of Eve play the game the way you want it to be played.

I can see why you don't like it.

"Welcome to you're doom!"

Skunk Gracklaw
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#25 - 2011-10-26 07:08:18 UTC
Parsec Seti wrote:
From the sounds of it, a crowdsourcing initiative would weaken you

How so? A poll of players concerns could be a valuable tool but the way it was done made it into a joke.
Parsec Seti
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#26 - 2011-10-26 13:55:04 UTC
Skunk Gracklaw wrote:
Parsec Seti wrote:
From the sounds of it, a crowdsourcing initiative would weaken you

How so? A poll of players concerns could be a valuable tool but the way it was done made it into a joke.


If you only want the game played your way, and want to force others to play it the way you want, then being the chair of a group that filters out players concerns and presents the "most important" ones to CPP would help you push your agenda.

A more open system of polling, or crowdsourcing in this case, would make it harder for one group to push their own agenda as the most important one.

"Welcome to you're doom!"

Elise DarkStar
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#27 - 2011-10-26 14:07:32 UTC
I don't see how polling is going to be harmful, unless you automatically assume that it will be used improperly. It's a tool like anything else.
The Mittani
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#28 - 2011-10-26 14:21:16 UTC  |  Edited by: The Mittani
Parsec Seti wrote:
The Mittani wrote:


The CSM is powerless! Wait, the CSM has too much power! Wait, someone on the CSM blew up my mining barge - quick, to Jita Park!

Anyway, crowdsourcing is dumb. It's a buzzword attached to a simple poll, and CCP has nicely illustrated the danger of believing in buzzwords. It's nice that Trebor puts so much stock in crowdsourcing; if you like crowdsourcing and want to hear about it a lot, vote for Trebor for CSM7; he's a great rep and a hiseccer. And he loves his crowdsourcing.

Crowdsourcing! Like 'Excellence', perhaps if you say it enough times magic fairies will happen.



From the sounds of it, a crowdsourcing initiative would weaken you and your desire to make the players of Eve play the game the way you want it to be played.

I can see why you don't like it.


Lengthy, obtuse polls that appeal to the spreadsheet demographic don't have anything to do with my ability to convince folks over a beer or two about my point of view.

But don't let that stop you constructing a conspiracy theory.

~hi~

Parsec Seti
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#29 - 2011-10-26 15:43:12 UTC
The Mittani wrote:
[

Lengthy, obtuse polls that appeal to the spreadsheet demographic don't have anything to do with my ability to convince folks over a beer or two about my point of view.

But don't let that stop you constructing a conspiracy theory.


No conspiracy theory needed when you admit to what people are complaining about.

The vast majority of Eve players don't get a trip to CCP to have a beer or two with them to convince CCP to push the game toward their play style.

Polls need not be lengthy or obtuse. It sounds like you are afraid of objective measures, and would rather continue with the politics and the meta-game of the CSM. Players don't want part of their monthly fee going towards you and the CSM if it's simply a chance for you to convince folks of your agenda over a beer or two.

"Welcome to you're doom!"

Jehan Markow
Wu Si Yuan Luojishan
#30 - 2011-10-26 17:20:44 UTC  |  Edited by: Jehan Markow
Endovior wrote:
Have you paid any attention to what was happening during that time? To all the things that actually were happening, which were kind of important? Those things on which the CSM justifiably focused their attention?

It's by that standard that I deem the CSM effective. Sure, it'd be nice if some of the minor but irksome issues of Eve were resolved.


Please read my initial post. If you did, I doubt you understand it based on what you just said. The CSM may have gotten a few things moved on, but by and large this post is about how to best represent the entire player base, not just the handful of 0.0 organisations that it currently represents. Mind you, I am a 0.0 player who finds the CSM do push issues relevant to me. What I also see is a ton of hi-sec players (lame though I may find them) who have no voice in the game. If they get disgruntled and subscriptions go down, the reality of EVE will suck more for all of us, not just hi-sec players.

So I'm proposing that we have an ongoing poll rather than relying exclusively on the CSM. That's all this post is about. Please go back and read what I wrote the first time. This is not intended to be a CSM-bashing thread, nor am I whining about my pet issues not being taken care of by the CSM.

The Mittani wrote:

The CSM is powerless! Wait, the CSM has too much power! Wait, someone on the CSM blew up my mining barge - quick, to Jita Park!

Anyway, crowdsourcing is dumb. It's a buzzword attached to a simple poll, and CCP has nicely illustrated the danger of believing in buzzwords. It's nice that Trebor puts so much stock in crowdsourcing; if you like crowdsourcing and want to hear about it a lot, vote for Trebor for CSM7; he's a great rep and a hiseccer. And he loves his crowdsourcing.

Crowdsourcing! Like 'Excellence', perhaps if you say it enough times magic fairies will happen.


Yeah, that crowdsourcing option "Commitment to Excellence" was 100% a joke, but I'm pretty sure if ongoing crowdsourcing was well implemented, enough players would request dismissal of that option due to ineffability. In any event, you're now taking up a theoretical linguistic position on the word "crowdsourcing" which perhaps belongs in the realm of English professors but has little to do with the problems of EVE or the proposal I made.

In substance, you are talking about what has happened in the past (summer crowdsourcing) and it sounds like you're just wrapped up in the usual Jita Park politicking. How about weighing in on whether my proposal would work? Have you actually read my first post from front to back? Sorry if it's not perfectly clear. I'm not a career politician.

Skunk Gracklaw wrote:
Parsec Seti wrote:
From the sounds of it, a crowdsourcing initiative would weaken you

How so? A poll of players concerns could be a valuable tool but the way it was done made it into a joke.


Again, you agree with me 100% but you refuse to admit that you agree with me. This must be what it feels like to teach kindergarten.

The Mittani wrote:
Lengthy, obtuse polls that appeal to the spreadsheet demographic don't have anything to do with my ability to convince folks over a beer or two about my point of view.

But don't let that stop you constructing a conspiracy theory.


When powerful politicians are opposed to polling, it's difficult to not connect the dots between their agitated opposition and the power they hold. Call it a "theory" if you like, but it's "conspiracy fact" over 90% of the time. But since the only opinion you are willing to give is on something that happened three months ago and not on what I'm proposing now, perhaps your situation belongs in that <10%.

Still, I am not trying to appeal to "the spreadsheet demographic". I would think that getting to vote on your concerns appeals to each and every individual except those in power. I am suggesting that we use direct democracy in EVE instead of representative democracy, and we have yet to hear your clear thoughts on the matter.
-JM
Skunk Gracklaw
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#31 - 2011-10-26 17:26:29 UTC
Parsec Seti wrote:
If you only want the game played your way, and want to force others to play it the way you want, then being the chair of a group that filters out players concerns and presents the "most important" ones to CPP would help you push your agenda.

So you are basing all these lame arguments on the assumption that The Mittani wants everybody to play the game exactly the same way he does? I hope I'm wrong because that's pretty stupid.
Parsec Seti
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#32 - 2011-10-26 18:42:15 UTC
Skunk Gracklaw wrote:
Parsec Seti wrote:
If you only want the game played your way, and want to force others to play it the way you want, then being the chair of a group that filters out players concerns and presents the "most important" ones to CPP would help you push your agenda.

So you are basing all these lame arguments on the assumption that The Mittani wants everybody to play the game exactly the same way he does? I hope I'm wrong because that's pretty stupid.


Are you a Mittani alt? or just a lackey that falls in line when you're told...

The CSM is subjective, and pushes the game towards the way they want it. We need an objective measure of what the players want, not subjective players who get to choose what issues get presented to CCP.

"Welcome to you're doom!"

Nariya Kentaya
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#33 - 2011-10-26 19:35:24 UTC
Elise DarkStar wrote:
I don't see how polling is going to be harmful, unless you automatically assume that it will be used improperly. It's a tool like anything else.


the whole point is that "polling" can be used to skew results in your favor even more.

for example, i take a pole to see what the most favorite color of all time is, i have 4 choices
red
green
blue
yellow


your favorite color is purple, but you can't pick that, in fact, if you vote at all it will be for one of the 4 colors I thought was improtant enough to list, results would eb EVEN more skewed if i confused some players by not using standard names, such as Emerald, Azure, Gold, and Crimson (believe it or not, alot of people dont know what the common emerald looks like)

basically, what topics you choose and how you phrase them can horribly skew the results in favor of one thing or another, its a common political tactic.
Skunk Gracklaw
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#34 - 2011-10-26 19:35:46 UTC
Parsec Seti wrote:
The CSM is subjective, and pushes the game towards the way they want it.

Provide one example.
Elise DarkStar
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#35 - 2011-10-26 19:54:58 UTC
Parsec Seti wrote:
We need an objective measure of what the players want, not subjective players who get to choose what issues get presented to CCP.


Hahaha again with this "objective" and "polling" bullshit. Polling is no more or less objective than representation. You can argue which one is a better system in this particular instance, but neither is unequivocally a superior method of collective action.

I'd love to know where this idea that surveys are some kind of science came from. It is a dangerous misconception.
Elise DarkStar
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#36 - 2011-10-26 19:57:47 UTC
Nariya Kentaya wrote:
the whole point is that "polling" can be used to skew results in your favor even more.


Absolutely. So if your argument is that CCP can't be trusted to create an effective and representative polling system, then fine, but state that unequivocally. However, there is nothing inherently dysfunctional with polling or anything that makes it a universally poorer system than representation.
Two step
Aperture Harmonics
#37 - 2011-10-26 20:23:52 UTC
I disagree with the chairman of the CSM on crowdsourcing, and the OP needs to realize that the crowdsourcing was done *entirely* by Trebor. CCP did publicize it, but he did all the work. The value of the crowdsourcing is as more data on what issues are annoying players currently, but there are a large number of things that aren't on the crowdsourcing list that are still important. When CCP goes into crazy, "lets fix everything" mode like they are now, looking at the crowdsourcing results is an important clue as to where they can get the most bang for their buck.

CSM 7 Secretary CSM 6 Alternate Delegate @two_step_eve on Twitter My Blog

Elise DarkStar
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#38 - 2011-10-26 20:33:52 UTC
Two step wrote:
When CCP goes into crazy, "lets fix everything" mode like they are now, looking at the crowdsourcing results is an important clue as to where they can get the most bang for their buck.


I absolutely agree. I can understand the hesitancy because of the potential for abuse, but I think it's worth the risk because of how enormously disparate the player experience is. The CSM is great for having representative players there talking to devs and providing valuable feedback, and also for condensing the most pressing and thematic concerns into something that devs can use, but I don't think the CSM needs to be a medium for all those tiny little details that players know best and devs know best how and in what order to address.
The Mittani
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#39 - 2011-10-26 20:34:53 UTC
Threads like threads inspire me to ask:

Do you guys like bitcoin and Ron Paul, too? The focus on 'objective' polls and an obsession with systems and rationality...

Completely non-troll question. The concept of rationalism still holds a grip on much of American politics, so there's a lot of faith in 'objective polls' and such in some quarters.

~hi~

Trebor Daehdoow
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#40 - 2011-10-26 23:30:43 UTC
Two step wrote:
When CCP goes into crazy, "lets fix everything" mode like they are now, looking at the crowdsourcing results is an important clue as to where they can get the most bang for their buck.

And that's exactly why I did it. Twisted

Private Citizen • CSM in recovery

Previous page123Next page