These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

EVE General Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

CSM Campaign who are you voting for?

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Katran Luftschreck
Royal Ammatar Engineering Corps
#281 - 2014-03-24 09:41:44 UTC
Malcanis wrote:
14% of the electorate voted.


Well now we know exactly how much the EvE playbase really lives in nullsec, now don't we?

Thanks!

http://youtu.be/t0q2F8NsYQ0
Alphea Abbra
Project Promethion
#282 - 2014-03-24 12:48:34 UTC
Katran Luftschreck wrote:
Malcanis wrote:
14% of the electorate voted.


Well now we know exactly how much the EvE playbase really lives in nullsec, now don't we?

Thanks!
No.

We are reaffirmed in our prior observation: That you and others are apparently incapable of understanding the CSM or basic election mechanics.

This is added to a host of other observations that point towards the conclusion that you're talking out of your rear end.
Seven Koskanaiken
Shadow Legions.
SONS of BANE
#283 - 2014-03-24 12:57:17 UTC  |  Edited by: Seven Koskanaiken
Nicolai Serkanner wrote:
Who are the CSM? I distinctly remember the Somer Blink affair. The CSM told us they would get into the bottom of it. I guess they are still trying.


This is my 4th CSM election and I still have no idea what the CSM is actually supposed to do, or what powers they actually have.

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

OK, apparently, this is supoposed to be the definition.

Quote:
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.


Still not very clear.

"in the context of the “greatest good for the greater player base”.

My reading of this is that candidates have to be aware off issues of all players, and all sec areas, so it makes the argument over buff this sec candidate or nerf that sec candidate pointless. IF CCP are following their own guidelines then anyone coming in as a single issue or single sec will/should just be ignored, making them a waste of time. So this argument over representation seems kind of moot.
Infinity Ziona
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#284 - 2014-03-24 12:58:31 UTC
Malcanis wrote:
Not every EVE player is eligible to vote. EG: accounts less than 30 (or was it 60?) days old.

Some of those 500k were also Serenity players, and therefore also disqualified.

14% of the electorate voted.

Additionally, the fact that you're essentially telling people to "Don't vote in the election because not enough people voted in the last election" is beyond satire.

The problem with the CSM is literally you.

I think its the general understanding that the CSM which was supposedly formed to represent the totality of players in the game actually is gamed by the alliances to only represent the alliances. Not voting is a smart move. Since its an entirely wasteful thing to do at this current point in time.

If however it was properly marketed and properly presented in-game that might change though the current domination by vote rigging with alliance alts would still likely result in a farcical representation of the playerbase.

CCP Fozzie “We can see how much money people are making in nullsec and it is, a gigantic amount, a shit-ton… in null sec anomalies. “*

Kaalrus pwned..... :)
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises
Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
#285 - 2014-03-24 13:05:47 UTC
Seven Koskanaiken wrote:
Nicolai Serkanner wrote:
Who are the CSM? I distinctly remember the Somer Blink affair. The CSM told us they would get into the bottom of it. I guess they are still trying.


This is my 4th CSM election and I still have no idea what the CSM is actually supposed to do, or what powers they actually have.



The CSM have no power. They cannot tell CCP to do anything.

Their purpose is to act as a sounding board for CCP's ideas, before they reach the rest of the player base. So they can say "No, that's insane, please take it back to the drawing board". or "That sounds kinda ok, but would be better if you did this"

They are also there to bring issues to CCP's attention, without requiring a 70 page threadnaught.


Now, they can also have pet issues, and being on the CSM gives them a little more access to developers to give them the elevator pitch for it. But they cannot force anything to happen.

Woo! CSM XI!

Fuzzwork Enterprises

Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises
Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
#286 - 2014-03-24 13:07:29 UTC
Infinity Ziona wrote:
Malcanis wrote:
Not every EVE player is eligible to vote. EG: accounts less than 30 (or was it 60?) days old.

Some of those 500k were also Serenity players, and therefore also disqualified.

14% of the electorate voted.

Additionally, the fact that you're essentially telling people to "Don't vote in the election because not enough people voted in the last election" is beyond satire.

The problem with the CSM is literally you.

I think its the general understanding that the CSM which was supposedly formed to represent the totality of players in the game actually is gamed by the alliances to only represent the alliances. Not voting is a smart move. Since its an entirely wasteful thing to do at this current point in time.

If however it was properly marketed and properly presented in-game that might change though the current domination by vote rigging with alliance alts would still likely result in a farcical representation of the playerbase.



The only rigging possible is: have more people who vote than anyone else. The STV system means that the people who vote get representation.

Woo! CSM XI!

Fuzzwork Enterprises

Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter
Angeleh
Silverflames
#287 - 2014-03-24 14:02:34 UTC
Malcanis wrote:
Not every EVE player is eligible to vote.


Just because a player was deliberately kept from voting, does not make them represented in CSM.

So it seems you are verifying that less than 10% of the players are represented in CSM, even though you are not providing any source of your numbers.
La Nariz
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#288 - 2014-03-24 15:31:46 UTC
The biggest concern of the next CSM is how to nerf highsec, so I am naturally one of the most qualified people to do the job.

This post was loving crafted by a member of the Official GoonWaffe recruitment team. Improve the forums, support this idea: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&find=unread&t=345133
Mario Putzo
#289 - 2014-03-24 15:32:53 UTC
Nobody because **** the CSM it is a waste of space. (in space)
Nick Bete
Highsec Haulers Inc.
#290 - 2014-03-24 16:52:10 UTC
None of them. It doesn't matter.

VOTE WITH YOUR WALLETS. Don't try engaging the phony CSM with your grievances. TAKE REAL ACTION THAT CCP WILL NOTICE. UNSUBSCRIBE. Only through declining player numbers and revenues will CCP ever take your concerns seriously.
Krackie
Segmentum Solar
#291 - 2014-03-24 16:52:33 UTC
I for one will be voting for our new insect overlords.

Bo Jangles of EN24
Darek Castigatus
Immortalis Inc.
Shadow Cartel
#292 - 2014-03-24 18:32:46 UTC
Nick Bete wrote:
None of them. It doesn't matter.

VOTE WITH YOUR WALLETS. Don't try engaging the phony CSM with your grievances. TAKE REAL ACTION THAT CCP WILL NOTICE. UNSUBSCRIBE. Only through declining player numbers and revenues will CCP ever take your concerns seriously.



You first.

Oh wait I forgot your not just an idiot and a troll but a massive hypocrite as well.

Pirates - The Invisible Fist of Darwin

you're welcome
Salvos Rhoska
#293 - 2014-03-24 18:47:59 UTC  |  Edited by: Salvos Rhoska
Ballot should include the following options:
(-) "Mickey Mouse"
(X) "Dissolve Council of Stellar Management"

PvE v PvP <> Old School Exploration <> CODE Licenses <> CODE Special Agent
Winchester Steele
#294 - 2014-03-24 21:44:46 UTC
Nick Bete wrote:
None of them. It doesn't matter.

VOTE WITH YOUR WALLETS. Don't try engaging the phony CSM with your grievances. TAKE REAL ACTION THAT CCP WILL NOTICE. UNSUBSCRIBE. Only through declining player numbers and revenues will CCP ever take your concerns seriously.



Sorry, what am I supposed to be angry about? Game seems to be fine to me. I mean there is always balancing to do, and I'd like to see more risk and less reward, but overall I think this game and the devs who made it are spot on.

Do you even know why you are typing in caps? Maybe you should unsub and go play a game better suited to your delicate sensibilities.


Anyhow, my vote is for Psychotic Monk primarily, and then anyone who's platform includes unf*cking POS's.

...

Ralph King-Griffin
New Eden Tech Support
#295 - 2014-03-24 22:12:25 UTC
Infinity Ziona wrote:
Not voting is a smart move.

Not something I'm accustomed to hearing.

Murderers of Negotiable Motivations

=]|[=
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#296 - 2014-03-24 22:37:50 UTC
Infinity Ziona wrote:
Malcanis wrote:
Not every EVE player is eligible to vote. EG: accounts less than 30 (or was it 60?) days old.

Some of those 500k were also Serenity players, and therefore also disqualified.

14% of the electorate voted.

Additionally, the fact that you're essentially telling people to "Don't vote in the election because not enough people voted in the last election" is beyond satire.

The problem with the CSM is literally you.

I think its the general understanding that the CSM which was supposedly formed to represent the totality of players in the game actually is gamed by the alliances to only represent the alliances. Not voting is a smart move. Since its an entirely wasteful thing to do at this current point in time.

If however it was properly marketed and properly presented in-game that might change though the current domination by vote rigging with alliance alts would still likely result in a farcical representation of the playerbase.


How do you reconcile that with the (apparently) hi-sec people consistently arguing that hi-sec people shouldn't vote and the (admittedly) nullsec people strongly arguing that they should?

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

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#297 - 2014-03-24 22:38:39 UTC
Infinity Ziona wrote:
[quote=Malcanis] Not voting is a smart move.


Goonswarm thanks you for supporting it.

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

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Marsha Mallow
#298 - 2014-03-24 22:42:32 UTC  |  Edited by: Marsha Mallow
Infinity Ziona wrote:
I think its the general understanding

Yeah, no don't speak for the rest of us. Tah.

Infinity Ziona wrote:
that the CSM which was supposedly formed to represent the totality of players in the game

A lot of whom are scrubs, so god I hope not. Democracy = he who shouts/strokes loudest wins. Although you are making an impressive effort.

Infinity Ziona wrote:
actually is gamed by the alliances to only represent the alliances

Which are frequently run by screamers who explode in a big ball of outrage whenever anyone other than Garth or Mittens touches them.
Look at them all waving their tiny tittle hands about for some attention.

Infinity Ziona wrote:
Not voting is a smart move. Since its an entirely wasteful thing to do at this current point in time.

Signed. Just suck that lemon. I will vote on your behalf for the candidate likely to entertain you the most. Then you can really have some ranting fun. That monument is basically mine btw, my name(s) will be all over it along with a handful of other players. ~Controlling your game~

Infinity Ziona wrote:
If however it was properly marketed and properly presented in-game that might change though the current domination by vote rigging with alliance alts would still likely result in a farcical representation of the playerbase.

Somewhere, in a land far, far away, some Viking devs heard this, debated whipping out the longboats, then thought "nah, lets just nerf something". And then they clinked meadglasses and lol'd.

Ripard Teg > For the morons in the room:

Sweets > U can dd my face any day
Mario Putzo
#299 - 2014-03-24 22:44:46 UTC
I am voting for myself! Even though I am not running. My alternate ballot votes are undecided at this time.
Toshiro Ozuwara
Perkone
#300 - 2014-03-24 22:45:39 UTC
Seven Koskanaiken wrote:
Still not very clear.

"in the context of the “greatest good for the greater player base”.

Politics is necessarily ambiguous.

Seven Koskanaiken wrote:
My reading of this is that candidates have to be aware off issues of all players, and all sec areas, so it makes the argument over buff this sec candidate or nerf that sec candidate pointless. IF CCP are following their own guidelines then anyone coming in as a single issue or single sec will/should just be ignored, making them a waste of time. So this argument over representation seems kind of moot.

Politics always devolves to special interest groups. It is impossible to represent everyone at all times. I'd say it's impossible to represent anyone other than yourself for any meaningful length of time, but no sense in being too philosophical.

It didn't take long to locate the tracking beacon, deep inside the quarters for sleepin' They thought they could get away Not today, it's not the way that this kid plays