These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Why CSM?

First post First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Felicity Love
Doomheim
#61 - 2013-11-26 00:39:42 UTC
Midnight Firestarter wrote:
The CSM in its current format is a crock of ****

70% of the people elected simply send out a Alliance mail and they vote. Its has nothing
to do with policies and what 's good they can bring to the game, its all about numbers.

Anyone who says it represents the gaming community, try Biomassing yourself as you are deluded.

CCP would be better to pick 10 Random Active corp CEO's.


I'd be in favour of a 50/50 mix.

50% elected as we do now, and 50% randomly chosen from the game at large (with a few qualifiers, like age of majority and some amount of experience with the game) who click a little box to submit their name to the random choice.

Personally, not interested. Been to Iceland. Nice sheep.

Blink



"EVE is dying." -- The Four Forum Trolls of the Apocalypse.   ( Pick four, any four. They all smell.  )
Good Posting
Doomheim
#62 - 2013-11-26 00:49:32 UTC
Isn't the CSM a popularity contest like in those american movies from the 80's? I never liked ball parties when i was a teen so why should i start now. CCP can biomass that crap or leave it as it is for all i care.
SmilingVagrant
Doomheim
#63 - 2013-11-26 01:04:09 UTC
Because the Dev's are clueless idiots when it comes to what the playerbase actually wants. See the time they thought we wanted fetching space scarves and erotic roleplay in space stations.
GetSirrus
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#64 - 2013-11-26 01:07:25 UTC
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
I bet you're one of those people who thinks that compulsory voting is actually a good idea.


been working in Australia since 1924, and just one of 19 countries that does have it.

why not have it within Eve?
ISD Suvetar
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
ISD Alliance
#65 - 2013-11-26 01:07:41 UTC
Hi,

I've moved your post to the Jita Park Speakers Corner forum, as it's the correct place to be discussing topics about the CSM.

Thanks.

[b]ISD Suvetar Captain/Commando Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs) Interstellar Services Department[/b]
Lady Areola Fappington
#66 - 2013-11-26 02:35:08 UTC
GetSirrus wrote:
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
I bet you're one of those people who thinks that compulsory voting is actually a good idea.


been working in Australia since 1924, and just one of 19 countries that does have it.

why not have it within Eve?


As it's been explained to me, people who don't vote in the CSM typically don't have much of a clue what the CSM is, or what they do. Further on, if they don't care enough to vote, they don't know what each candidate stands for anyway.

Basically, the voting would be treated like another chore to handle before logging in, like clicking through a EULA. It would just be "noise" in the voting box.

At worst, due to the vagrancies of RNGs building vote lists and people just clicking the first thing possible to get in game, you may end up with someone totally unqualified sitting on CSM.

7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided. --Eve New Player Guide
Varius Xeral
Doomheim
#67 - 2013-11-26 02:55:09 UTC
I'm not reading what i assume is a ****** thread, so sorry if this has been said.

Whatever the CSM was or was meant to be, it is now a popularity contest for lightly compensated play-testers. Personally I think it is a great idea, both as a method of playtesting and a PR stunt. I think CCP feels the same way, so too bad for you.
Boohoohoo.

Official Representative of The Nullsec Zealot Cabal
Ghost Phius
Tribal Liberation Force
Minmatar Republic
#68 - 2013-11-26 18:21:27 UTC
Winchester Steele wrote:
Ghost Phius wrote:
CCP does do a ton more interaction with it's community than other devs for sure. That however, does not erase T20, Greed is Good, SOMER etc...ignoring those incidents might shade the lens towards the rose colored spectrum.Cool



Am I the only one who really doesn't give a rats arse about this SOMER shite? Not saying it wasn't a little dodgy, but they stopped the process AT THE COMMUNITIES REQUEST. It's over, problem solved. Frankly, it is their game and had they been so inclined they could have told all the detractors to stick their complaints where the sun don't shine. But they didn't, instead they bowed to the will of the community and killed SOMER's RMT operation. I fail to see how that equates to a black mark against them.

On another note: T20 was a rogue dev who got dealt with internally (i.e. no longer any of our business) and frankly, greed IS not only good, but also totally natural, so whatever. P2W isn't however, and I think CCP learned that lesson pretty quickly.

Not trying to crap on you specifically, but it appears to me that at the end of the day CCP has a pretty awesome track record when it comes to dealing with these "scandals". Just because they don't immediately say "how high?" when the forum whiners say "jump" doesn't make them an irresponsible company, no matter how hard the sperglords on Eve-o try to convince us otherwise.



IDK I don't think you are the only one that does not care about SOMER, but you say that as if you or anyone else not caring matters in the big picture or somehow changes the lack of integrity shown by CCP in the situation...it does not.

CCP has shown instances where integrity was not on the table at all, ie. a lack of integrity. No amount of doing the right thing erases this fact and living with the aftermath of those scummy integrity lacking dcisions is just par for the course.

They are not worse than EA for sure, but that does not automatically give them a pass when they do something stupid. The measure is stupidity/lack of integrity/hubris as Hilmer put it in his lengthy apology where he "acknowleged" this very fact.

Holding CCP to the fire to contine in the spirit of his letter is not a bad thing no matter how many white knights show up to the castle burning.Twisted
Captain Ravanor Eistiras
Doomheim
#69 - 2013-12-30 02:29:02 UTC
mynnna wrote:
Kara Trix wrote:
Been playing this game since May 2011

I remember the little CCP president rant issue.

But can't see why we need to give any gamer or small group of gamers any influence over this games design.

They absolutely don't speak for me.

I would rather have a REAL customer service relationship with the publishers that I have a voice rather than an Over the Top gamer who is far too interested in their own personal agenda than to promote mine.

REMOVE THIS FEATURE and fix the relationship... Give each player a voice, be it small...it's still their voice!




I said this in a podcast, and I'll say it again here.

Interceptors have nullification because of something that a player suggested.

Interdictor's bubble launcher functions the way it does now because of something a player suggested (that a few of us on the CSM then brought to CCP's attention, incidentally)

If you have an idea, visit the features & ideas suggestion and post it. And incidentally, CCP is taking player suggestions for future personal deployable structures right now, in that very forum.

And frankly, devs are all over the forums posting, especially near patch time when they're looking for feedback. See that "Dev Posts" button at the top of the forum? Try it out sometime.

Basically, if you think there's "no relationship", I think it's your fault.


e: And incidentally, highsec is better represented on the council than pretty much ever before, thanks to Mike Azariah. If you have issues you want brought to CCP, you could also evemail him directly.
/
so CCP need CSM'S to run back and forth with what players suggest on these forums?
i thought ccp just read the suggestions themselves?
ionageman TOG
security services
#70 - 2013-12-30 04:50:00 UTC  |  Edited by: ionageman TOG
seems to me.. the bigger the alliance the more chance of getting elected to csm...

voting has never been a garentee of democracy.. politicians do as they like. always have.

as for ccp needing csm to speak for my wants / needs.

what the hell is wrong with them reading forums.. like everybody else.

if eve is to survive .. we need a voice. csm doesn't speak for me.

why not a public vote on any major changes.

do away with politicians all together. this is the computer age after all.
Yosef Brinalle
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#71 - 2013-12-30 05:24:22 UTC
mynnna wrote:

Note name of corporation - PVE Corporation. A cursory examination of the OP's eveboard shows exceptionally high standings with various highsec corporations. This suggests that the OP is a highsec carebear type who does not feel represented.


CSMs openly showing contempt for a significant portion of the the games money paying customer base. Excellent marketing strategy if you are marketing to masochists. I do not doubt EVE's viability. But sometimes I wonder if CCP shoots itself in the foot (or allows others to do it for them in this case) when it comes to increased profitability. Well, that is CCPs call to make.
Captain Ravanor Eistiras
Doomheim
#72 - 2013-12-30 11:13:32 UTC
ionageman TOG wrote:
seems to me.. the bigger the alliance the more chance of getting elected to csm...

voting has never been a garentee of democracy.. politicians do as they like. always have.

as for ccp needing csm to speak for my wants / needs.

what the hell is wrong with them reading forums.. like everybody else.

if eve is to survive .. we need a voice. csm doesn't speak for me.

why not a public vote on any major changes.

do away with politicians all together. this is the computer age after all.

well like the CSM said above it seems thats what they do, run back and forth with our ideas to CCP instead of CCP accually reading the forums which i really hope isnt the case as we wouldnt really know what ideas arn't proposed to the dev's that might be just what eve needs, don't get me wrong i like the csm role but if they seriously think thats there only service acsm provides and there above comment is the only arguement to keep the csm going then they just slammed a nail in the coffin so to speak as im sure pilots dont want csm's saying we are here because that guy over there had a really good idea and we told the boss about it which helped us look good.
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises
Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
#73 - 2013-12-30 16:41:43 UTC
holy thread necro Blink

Anyway:

The current voting system, that was introduced with the CSM 8 election, offers a fairer system than the previous system did.

The main reason for this is that your vote, as long as you're voting for 5 or so people, is unlikely to be wasted, unless you're only voting for the joke candidates that sometimes stand.

Yes, the alliances have the 'benefit' that they can pass out voting lists.

That benefit, really, is just that they have a more active voting segment. The organisation, as long as your voting for more than a single candidate, is handled by the way the votes cascade down. Your top candidate is eliminated, as you're the only person that liked them? No problem, your vote cascades down at full value to the next person on your list.


If you want an example of what this can do:

I stood for election to CSM 8. If the CSM had been 18 (iirc) people, I'd have been on it. I'm not part of a coalition, let alone a large one.

(If you're wondering why I said it that way, it's one of the quirks with the system. you can't just count votes, due to the way the cascade happens. I was eliminated in (iirc) the 4th to last round of eliminations.


Yes, I'm standing again. You should do what my Alliance says. I'd prefer the full version, but at least follow the Ticker.


Hopefully, this time round, CCP will do a little more advertising that the elections are on, rather than the last minute mail that was sent out.

Woo! CSM XI!

Fuzzwork Enterprises

Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#74 - 2014-01-02 12:35:35 UTC
Dasola wrote:
Josef Djugashvilis wrote:
Crumplecorn wrote:
The CSM speaks for the majority so what you are essentially saying is that CCP should listen to you over the majority.

Unless you are a game designer at CCP, this does not hold true.


The CSM speaks for and represents the majority of those who voted, to infer from this that they speak for the majority of players is pure speculation on your part.



Good point, those that voted. Witch is what? Less then 10% of subscriptions of this game.

In any democracy that low vote turnout would mean re-election in a month. Yeah, really democratically chosen representation.

No wonder they drive just power blocks interest to be richer and more in power. They don't need to care of those 90% that did int vote. 90% that their message did int appeal.


It was 14%, IIRC.

That means, by your own analysis, that the "power blocs" only controlled 14% of the vote.

The people you're whining that are "unrepresented" could outvote the so-called power blocs 6 times over if only they could be arsed to stop whoring LP for 10 minutes and vote.

If they don't care enough to do even that, if they have so few problems that it's not with a few minutes of their time to express a wish to participate even so briefly, then why should any space-politician be interested in what they want? Why wouldn't we concentrate on representing those who do have problems, who are invested enough to participate, who are interested enough that they care about the game.

Can you point to a single prior example of you showing any interest in EVE other than fattening your personal wallet and stopping your personal ship getting shot at?

No?

Then why should I or anyone else give two ***** about you?

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

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Snow Axe
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#75 - 2014-01-02 12:59:05 UTC  |  Edited by: Snow Axe
Malcanis wrote:
Then why should I or anyone else give two ***** about you?


You shouldn't, unless you give a **** about seeing the percentage of people that actually give a **** about the CSM grow in any way. Can't say I blame you if you don't, but you should probably consider dropping the high and mighty "HOW DARE YOU NOT VOTE" act in that case.

"Look any reason why you need to talk like that? I have now reported you. I dont need to listen to your bad tone. If you cant have a grown up conversation then leave the thread["
Silvetica Dian
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#76 - 2014-01-05 20:07:45 UTC
Kara Trix wrote:
Been playing this game since May 2011

I remember the little CCP president rant issue.

But can't see why we need to give any gamer or small group of gamers any influence over this games design.

They absolutely don't speak for me.

I would rather have a REAL customer service relationship with the publishers that I have a voice rather than an Over the Top gamer who is far too interested in their own personal agenda than to promote mine.

REMOVE THIS FEATURE and fix the relationship... Give each player a voice, be it small...it's still their voice!




representational democracy has always been flawed like this and anarchy is indeed a better system.
+1 for moving to an anarchist system everywhere asap

Money at its root is a form of rationing. When the richest 85 people have as much wealth as the poorest 3.5 billion (50% of humanity) it is clear where the source of poverty is. http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jan/20/trickle-down-economics-broken-promise-richest-85
Darek Castigatus
Immortalis Inc.
Shadow Cartel
#77 - 2014-01-08 00:03:46 UTC
Snow Axe wrote:
Malcanis wrote:
Then why should I or anyone else give two ***** about you?


You shouldn't, unless you give a **** about seeing the percentage of people that actually give a **** about the CSM grow in any way. Can't say I blame you if you don't, but you should probably consider dropping the high and mighty "HOW DARE YOU NOT VOTE" act in that case.


Its not about growing the number of people who care, its about doing the best they can for the people that have already shown they do. If people cant be invested enough in the game to pay attention to making it better thats not the CSMs fault or their problem and it still doesnt change the fact the CSM is going to pay way more attention to people who actually engage with them than to people they never see or hear from unless theyre whining about something.

If you want to have a say and have it taken seriously then make the damn effort to do it properly, and that starts with voting.

Pirates - The Invisible Fist of Darwin

you're welcome
Snow Axe
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#78 - 2014-01-08 04:27:42 UTC
Darek Castigatus wrote:
Its not about growing the number of people who care, its about doing the best they can for the people that have already shown they do.


These aren't mutually exclusive.

I'm certainly not saying they have to go to extreme lengths to try to convince people to vote or anything. Just saying that getting all exclusionary with crap like "you didn't vote? WELL **** YOU" and reinforcing just about every negative politician stereotype is probably not helping anything either way.

"Look any reason why you need to talk like that? I have now reported you. I dont need to listen to your bad tone. If you cant have a grown up conversation then leave the thread["
buyer Bedala
Doomheim
#79 - 2014-01-08 04:50:54 UTC
Crumplecorn wrote:
The CSM speaks for the majority so what you are essentially saying is that CCP should listen to you over the majority.

Unless you are a game designer at CCP, this does not hold true.

This assumes that everyone votes. Most players probably don't even know about elections. Large alliances who can organize voting drives have a disproportionate amount of power

Now, unlike a government. the CSM has no real power, so this is only a real issue if CCP thinks that the CSM is representative of the Eve community.
Josef Djugashvilis
#80 - 2014-01-08 10:36:55 UTC
Malcanis wrote:
Dasola wrote:
Josef Djugashvilis wrote:
Crumplecorn wrote:
The CSM speaks for the majority so what you are essentially saying is that CCP should listen to you over the majority.

Unless you are a game designer at CCP, this does not hold true.


The CSM speaks for and represents the majority of those who voted, to infer from this that they speak for the majority of players is pure speculation on your part.



Good point, those that voted. Witch is what? Less then 10% of subscriptions of this game.

In any democracy that low vote turnout would mean re-election in a month. Yeah, really democratically chosen representation.

No wonder they drive just power blocks interest to be richer and more in power. They don't need to care of those 90% that did int vote. 90% that their message did int appeal.


It was 14%, IIRC.

That means, by your own analysis, that the "power blocs" only controlled 14% of the vote.

The people you're whining that are "unrepresented" could outvote the so-called power blocs 6 times over if only they could be arsed to stop whoring LP for 10 minutes and vote.

If they don't care enough to do even that, if they have so few problems that it's not with a few minutes of their time to express a wish to participate even so briefly, then why should any space-politician be interested in what they want? Why wouldn't we concentrate on representing those who do have problems, who are invested enough to participate, who are interested enough that they care about the game.

Can you point to a single prior example of you showing any interest in EVE other than fattening your personal wallet and stopping your personal ship getting shot at?

No?

Then why should I or anyone else give two ***** about you?


Dear Malcanis, if you had put more effort into actually doing stuff on the CSM and less time hard-man posting on the forums, perhaps folk would stop laughing at you.

Again, I ask you, what have you actually done on the CSM since fools like me voted for you?

I did ask you this in another thread, but you have yet to answer.

This is not a signature.