Jita Park Speakers Corner

I can't think of any good way to ensure that a plurality of gameplay styles is elected, without somehow getting the completely disengaged, generally uninformed high-sec players to somehow do a 180 and start voting. That can happen, it's just not easy. People complaining about the CSM being slanted toward null-sec are in effect complaining that it's too hard to beat them. EVE University is a high-sec organization that will almost certainly get a candidate elected this upcoming election cycle, and though I doubt I will agree with all of their viewpoints, at least I feel sure that their opinions will not all be hyperbolic crap.

How about you answer his question instead of changing subjects and talking past him?

Zim you have more experience than i do and have been gracious enough to answer my questions. I like to learn things from players with more experience then me because the alternative is learning everything the hard way.... not my first choice.

I am not so self indulgent as to think i know everything so even in the midst of a spirited debate i might ask your more experienced perspective on something i want clarity on. If the facts prove my positions are not correct then i am not afraid to change and evolve.

Winning an argument is often easy gaining knowledge is a better option for me when it's available.

Nope, not even slightly, mostly because I haven't noticed that happening. I think that the CSM are far too aggressive in pushing their own agendas when they have no idea whether the degree of focus they are demanding for their own, limited field of interest contributes to Eve becoming better overall and I think it's long past due for CCP to realize that they can stop apologizing for t20 now and go back to running their own game.

Also, I'm not sure what you think a parliamentary democracy is, but you're wrong. Most of them don't work the way I describe either. But if 85% of the playerbase isn't voting, it's because none of the candidates on offer make them want to, either because they have no contact or connection with those people (which makes them bad representatives) or because they simply are not wanted (which still makes them bad representatives).

Since there's no representative in the CSM who has my trust or carries my views, the only person that can speak for me, is me and I don't see any benefit from having the CSM. In fact, I believe the CSM is causing CCP to behave in a manner detrimental to its own interests. But I'm not demanding everything my own way, I'm just chipping in my viewpoint so whoever is collecting the stats for what players want, knows to add one to the "no CSM" side. So please Mr. Geraci, stop being so defensive and just deal with that fact that it's true - not every player wants what you want.

In summary, for me:

Eve before CSM 1: Awesome
Eve since CSM 1: Meh
Desire to have CSM no matter who is on it: 0%

We're still waiting.

The reason nobody voted is because most high-sec players are goof balls that don't read the forums, don't think the CSM matters, don't know much about eve game mechanics aside from their very limited fields of interest, and only sometimes read the eve news as they log in. They don't vote in real life, let alone in a video game. They're casual beyond caring, and effectively amateurs at EVE. By contrast, all of the CSM candidates up there right now have experienced wide swaths of the game and have a much more holistic view of the game than you give them credit for.

Like what? None of us has any clue what has you mad other than the implementation of a basic democracy.

Okay, so you're mad about nothing. Why didn't you just say so?

Oh right, you're a troll. kk

List of CSM Resolved Issues

The above is the list of items the CSMs have brought to fruition.

As stated in my previous post, the number of those issues I personally care about is 2.

The number of them I think needed the intervention of a CSM is 0.