Jita Park Speakers Corner

The kind of response I would honestly expect. "Well, if you don't like it, -you- do something about it"

That's not my job. Had I the means to do so, I probably would but I am in no way responsible to be the sole proprietor of being the CSM's watch dog - and even then what would it account for? Creating a polling website and shitting out votes from the people who didn't stack in the names that head their alliances wouldn't solve anything, a CSM member who isn't representing is still going to be in there blabbing off about changes that benefit his alliance and saying that "the players want this".

With all of the talk about a system that can be abused, especially in that one statement: "CCP dragged their heels on it claiming that it could smack of favoritism and/or be gamed to death" is EXACTLY what this post is about to begin with. They're experiencing the same caution and wariness that I feel we all should - hell, we can't implement a system of approval for our representatives yet we can't stop a vast majority of players from voting for their corp-mate for the exact same reasons.

Where's the line get drawn between catering to the elected individual, who was voted in based on numerous people who simply want to advertise their party rather than the ideals they stand for, and removing those that obviously are not representing the entire community and only their own interests?

One CSM member is notorious for this. It seems the only time you see him on the forums is when he's saying "no" to something he disagrees with and then offering absolutely no explanation or one that is half-assed. I'll reflect back to the debacle with the war dec changes requiring a price of allies in which he (paraphrasing) said it was because no-one wanted to get locked into an alliance. That's an entirely credible (and I'm being entirely sarcastic) reason from someone who's specialization doesn't even concern high-sec where war decs occur en masse.

To say that War Decs ruined the Mercenary community is entirely true, but to apply "costs" on the allies that act solely as an ISK sink for the defender (who is already probably not wanting to be at war in the first place) isn't the right way to get your point across. The only thing that accomplished was discouraging allied warfare, attackers being caught off guard by just how many people they were going after (yanno, because that never happens in real life), and making CONCORD's wallet exponentially thicker.

Why should I value the opinions of someone who does not even play in the space that the gameplay features they comment on occur? Why should I not be able to speak up on that? Why should someone who obviously did not perform to a high degree besides playing to their interests have such a coveted role when there are far more worthy candidates who didn't have the backing of 'x' alliances at the time?

The entire system is ripe for abuse and instead of acting on it we have:

A.) "I'm listening, you come up with an idea."
B.) "If you want it, do it yourself."
C.) "This idea will never work."

We'll never get anything accomplished so long as we keep running around in circles. At this rate, the CSM is just a shiny little forum banner on your avatar that says you've been to Iceland and saw things that no-one else has.