These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Dev Blog: CSM 9 Results!

First post First post
Author
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#321 - 2014-05-12 07:44:01 UTC
Darin Vanar wrote:
Malcanis wrote:
Darin Vanar wrote:

Hi Mike,

I totally did not want to refer to you as a muppet...


And you made the right choice, because he simply achieved what people like you have been claiming is impossible. He's a hi-sec guy who got elected - and re-elected. I realise that you'd like to dismiss Mike's achievement, made as it was by working hard, campaigning with the eve playerbase, not being a terrible stupid sperglord and working as a useful member of the team - all the things that seem to be anathema to people who complain that they should just be given by right what others have put in effort to achive. But you can't, because there he is.

Man up, knuckle down and put some effort in. You might be surprised at what this gets you.

As for the rest of your screed, I don't give tuppence about what effect George Lucas had on some other game development studio. That anecdote is utterly meaningless, because the CSM nor the ordinary player is in a position remotely like that of George Lucas. The recod of what CCP did when they were in "lolplayers" mode compared to what they did when they took advice and consulted is plain to see. It's certainly plain to CCP, because they wouldn't spend what they do on the CSM if they didn't see a benefit.


Why would I want to undermine his achievement, and what are people like me? I'm pretty sure I don't represent any majority when it comes to the game. No, not even highsec. I don't even want to undermine the Goons achievement for voting as a bloc, you are taking a very aggressive approach towards me personally when I have no such agenda. I think they deserve to have representatives and I applaud their hard work. I comment about what I have observed and my feedback on how it can be improved about the CSM election. That no one else seems to be voting, etc.

Is there really no room on the CSM for some more diversity? Is some structure that mirrors real life possible? That's all I was trying to get across, whether or not I think CCP is adopting the right approach with this system itself.

I like Mynna because he/she seems to speak on behalf of others as well as the goons in her posts, which makes me see them take power with a certain amount of responsibility that is evident in reaching out to groups that may not be represented on the CSM. This makes me confident that CCP is getting at least good feedback regarding the general player base.

I think you are starting this CSM term on the wrong foot, personally. Might want to insert some diplomacy in your posts as opposed to being condescending towards a general amount of posters. Frankly, just some of your posts in this thread, are quite inappropriate for a CSM representative. Like the one referencing a "sloppy".

But there is still time to change, and start things off on the right foot.

And everyone can learn from the disaster that happened with LucasArts. What can happen to a studio with a very distinguished amount of IPs and very successful titles, just from being poorly managed. They weren't even poor by any standard. Everyone who is in the gaming industry, should take note of what happened there. It is ignorant to dismiss it all-together, when there are at least even slight parallels.


(1) I absolutely agree that diversity strengthens the CSM. Indeed My recommended voting list that was in my sig all during the first part of this year was specifically based on a diversity of experience. I recommended people from 0.0, hi-sec, lo-sec, W-space, industry people, blog people, PvP people, bloc people, CVA people etc. for exactly that reason. I also strongly argued against the people who tried to reduce diversity by campaigning to get people to not vote. But people who demand greater diversity and choice shouldn't then go on to complain that they have to read a large number of campaign threads, hmm?

(2) I like Mynnna too. He was an extremely useful and effective CSM8 member who it was a pleasure to work with, and I'm pleased to see him on CSM9.

(3) Here is an excellent example of assumptions displacing facts: I am at the end of my CSM term, not the beginning. One of the reasons I'm not running again is that I'm worn out and dispirited by people who cling to their misconcpetions about the CSM with heroic tenacity in the face of overwhleming facts and reason.

(4) I agree indeed that everyone can learn from the Lucas Arts example: it shows what happens when the people who make decisions about an entertainment product are isolated from the reality of the customer experience they are producing. CCP made an extremely smart move in allowing the CSM to evolve to its present utility and many of the dev teams find it to be of great value in developing EVE. A few teams choose to have less contact with player representatives, and it should come as little surprise to you that these are the ones who often tend to make the :derp: communications and decisions.

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

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016

Frying Doom
#322 - 2014-05-12 09:18:10 UTC
Ok the basic FACTS on the CSM 9 election:

31,294 Votes Cast CSM9 Elections
49,702 Votes Cast CSM8 Elections
59,109 Votes Cast CSM7 Elections
49,096 Votes Cast CSM6 Elections
39,433 Votes Cast CSM5 Elections
21,158 Votes Cast CSM4 Elections
27,848 Votes Cast CSM3 Elections
20,112 Votes Cast CSM2 Elections
24,651 Votes Cast CSM1 Elections

So the CSM 9 elections are the worst elections since the CSM went to full year terms and the worst election results seen in 5 years.

Now while last year had, emails and pop-ups and blogs and all other kinds of advertising, this years fell short of that. However the CSM7 elections did not have much in the way of advertising for it as well. The CSM6 and CSM5 elections had a post that counted how things were going along the way but not much else, I think for those years there may have been an email but hotmail counted it as spam for myself during that period.

The new CSM, CSM9 is now representing an amount of eligible voters of below 10%, so effectively they are the minorities minority representatives. With the vote falling 18,408 from last year, a huge 37.04% drop in votes, this is also a drop of 27,815 votes (47.06%) from its all time high during CSM7.

As to the age of accounts voting that seems very similar to other years in percentage wise, this implies that it was not newer players that had not heard of the CSM before but everyone from every demographic who did not vote this year.

So while the elections were held at the same time as last year either a lot of people did not realize it was time to vote (I myself forgot but then was reminded when I logged in) or they chose not to vote.

Now I would like to point out that the voters this year and last year did not have the ability to abstain and they have never had the ability to dissolve the council, which is probably the only way you will ever know the players real feelings.

I would say congratulations to the successful members of CSM9 but in all honesty I think this will be more of a curse for you as you now probably represent the smallest percentage of the subscribers since CSM4.

So while advertising has been less over some of the CSM elections the voter turnout has not been this bad since CSM4, I personally feel the people have spoken or more specifically chosen not to.

Any spelling, grammatical and punctuation errors are because frankly, I don't care!!

Darin Vanar
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#323 - 2014-05-12 09:57:41 UTC
Malcanis wrote:

(1) I absolutely agree that diversity strengthens the CSM. Indeed My recommended voting list that was in my sig all during the first part of this year was specifically based on a diversity of experience. I recommended people from 0.0, hi-sec, lo-sec, W-space, industry people, blog people, PvP people, bloc people, CVA people etc. for exactly that reason. I also strongly argued against the people who tried to reduce diversity by campaigning to get people to not vote. But people who demand greater diversity and choice shouldn't then go on to complain that they have to read a large number of campaign threads, hmm?

(2) I like Mynnna too. He was an extremely useful and effective CSM8 member who it was a pleasure to work with, and I'm pleased to see him on CSM9.

(3) Here is an excellent example of assumptions displacing facts: I am at the end of my CSM term, not the beginning. One of the reasons I'm not running again is that I'm worn out and dispirited by people who cling to their misconcpetions about the CSM with heroic tenacity in the face of overwhleming facts and reason.

(4) I agree indeed that everyone can learn from the Lucas Arts example: it shows what happens when the people who make decisions about an entertainment product are isolated from the reality of the customer experience they are producing. CCP made an extremely smart move in allowing the CSM to evolve to its present utility and many of the dev teams find it to be of great value in developing EVE. A few teams choose to have less contact with player representatives, and it should come as little surprise to you that these are the ones who often tend to make the :derp: communications and decisions.


First off, thanks for the very eloquent response.

I was one of the people who had 20 browser windows opened and comparing/reading the essay of each candidate before (carefully) weighing the order I should put them in. This took a long time, and the only time I came to a campaign thread to share some of my thoughts, about the results is when I found out that I was one of those 200 people that seemed to vote for the russians. I was shocked to see how powerful the bloc vote was and how I seemed to be (one of the very few) not in a voting bloc. Since it was my first CSM election, I had a different impression of how the votes would go down. I knew there would be strong, focused voting, but I didn't realize the extent of it until I read those results.

I asked myself, why didn't more people vote? How can we improve this.
If this is a pattern (of not voting), can we can change it? I even suggested offering a T-shirt you can display in game with some silly "I voted on CSM10" or something logo.

Some candidates I just didn't select because they didn't tell me a lot about what they wanted to achieve, and I correctly identified those as party candidates and only briefly read their much shorter entries. So I voted for things like what made sense to me out of their platforms, to get an idea of what they were aiming for, and things like fixing spider tanking, that stood out to me, and seemed to make sense, so I voted for that. And there was this long and passionate post from another russian about how they were willing to work hard, and all the changes they were going for, like making all space equal. I liked that ambition! And, making all space equal sounded great! So I voted for that, and so on.

I couldn't have been the only one, but really only 200 people voted for them? That's sad. :(

You guys seem well versed in what you are doing on the CSM panel and I'm glad for that, and I'm frankly relieved that at least someone campaigned for some more diversity beforehand. I'm sorry things didn't exactly pan out like that.

Well, don't give up, this is going to be an interesting year, we'll need vets before we can get diversity. :)

Yeah, the Lucas example, is more of a cautionary tale than anything. I don't feel now, that the CSM has a disruptive effect on CCP but like I said, my outsider opinion matters less.
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#324 - 2014-05-12 10:07:13 UTC  |  Edited by: Malcanis
The bloc vote isn't powerful though. It's a pretty tiny fraction of the total eligible voters, about 2 or 3% I think.

It's just that the non-bloc vote was even weaker.

The "blocs" have only one single advantage: they're willing to work together and place faith in their leadership's choice of voting list. This allows the individual bloc voter to vote a full slate with reasonable confidence that people who have his interests in mind have chosen the correct list. Thus his individual invested effort can be kept low, and his perceived reward kept high.

There is nothing, absolutely nothing stopping other players in EVE doing the same, save that they're not willing to communicate with each other or work together.

Also with respect to the diversity of the CSM9 slate: what do you think is missing?

We have, to my knowledge:

2 lo-sec people (Sugar Kyle, Major Silva)
3 hi sec people (Mike Azariah, Steve Ronuken, Mangala Solaris)
3 science/industry people (Mynnna, Sugar Kyle, Steve Ronuken)
3 new player people (Ali Aras, Sugar Kyle, Matias Otero)
2 community people (Xander, DJ Funkbacon)
1 PvE person (Mike Azariah)
5 0.0 sov people, including 1 non bloc (Mynnna, Progodlegend, Sion, Corebloodbrothers, Xander)
1 W-space person (corbexx)
1 3rd party app person (Steve Ronuken)

And the CSM9 members could probably add several more specialised areas of expertise in addition to what I have hastily compiled there.

EDIT: The "0.0 sov people" could actually be broken down further; mynnna is a trade/industry specialist, Progod is a fleet commander, Sion is a diplomat, Core is from CVA (non bloc) and Xander is a low level grunt member - so each brings a widely different and useful perspective.

Likewise the industry slate has 1 0.0 person, 1 lo-sec person and 1 hi-sec person. Ideal!

Likewise the hi-sec slate has 1 science & industry person, one PvE person and 1 PvP person. Not seeing a problem here.

"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.
#325 - 2014-05-12 10:28:36 UTC
Darin Vanar wrote:


I asked myself, why didn't more people vote?


Why indeed?

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

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016

CCP Leeloo
C C P
C C P Alliance
#326 - 2014-05-12 10:50:25 UTC
Freelancer117 wrote:
@ CCP Leeloo

Does CCPgames feel that there is a correlation between the low Voter Turnout for CSM9 and the late releases of both the CSM8 Summer and Winter Minutes ?

Regards, a Freelancer

I agree on the fact that the CSM Minutes report is not efficient in its current format and as been discussed during the Fanfest, we will review how, where and when we post MInutes.

However, I don't think that low turnout is related to either report itself, or when it is being posted. From my point of view, a lot of players simply are not aware of the CSM's existence. Another significant problem is that people don't feel that CSM is important in any way and this is related to the last but not least important issue - accountability. It is hard to tell whether a CSM member is doing his job well or not.

Everything stated above is critical and requires immediate review and this is something I will look into as the new CSM coordinator.

CCP Leeloo | Community Developer | @ccp_leeloo | leeloo@ccpgames.com

Sephira Galamore
Inner Beard Society
Kvitravn.
#327 - 2014-05-12 11:04:38 UTC  |  Edited by: Sephira Galamore
CCP Leeloo wrote:
Another significant problem is that people don't feel that CSM is important in any way and this is related to the last but not least important issue - accountability. It is hard to tell whether a CSM member is doing his job well or not.

I think that is the reason for the low w-space vote turnout e.g.
From reading the wh forums and other sources, many w-space dwellers seemed to think "our WH CSM reps didn't do anything for us", maybe "all they did was get us SMA drops" and "still no modular poses, no corp role changes, no C4 changes, no Black Hole changes".
What is easily overlooked is that mostly CCP decides where they are going and CSM is councelling them on that.
Now it's up to 'our' CSMs to make sure w-space and consequences concerning us aren't missed / overlooked. Combined with the NDA, I imagine it's really hard to show what good work you did, when you aren't allowed to talk about the s**tty ideas you stopped in their tracks / made sure they accounted for w-space.
admiral root
Red Galaxy
#328 - 2014-05-12 11:06:55 UTC
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:
Said it before, will say it again. Mandatory suffrage.


I mis-read that as "mandatory suffering" - you have that effect. Big smile

Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:
I wonder what has changed in the past 12-18 months?


Your post count has increased. Twisted

No, your rights end in optimal+2*falloff

admiral root
Red Galaxy
#329 - 2014-05-12 11:21:00 UTC
CCP Leeloo wrote:
However, I don't think that low turnout is related to either report itself, or when it is being posted... Another significant problem is that people don't feel that CSM is important in any way and this is related to the last but not least important issue - accountability. It is hard to tell whether a CSM member is doing his job well or not.


That the minutes don't show who was in favour or opposed to things (they used to, by the way) means that, in some small part, they are directly related to low turnout. When we finally get Pyschotic Monk elected we certainly want to know if he then goes insane with the power and starts supporting further nerfs to suicide ganking.

Have you considered writing the bulk of the minutes before the meeting? Surely you already know what you're going to say and what parts of that you're willing to share with the playerbase? Just plug in the way each member "votes" and any comments they make - voila, instant minutes. Just add water CSM members.

No, your rights end in optimal+2*falloff

CCP Leeloo
C C P
C C P Alliance
#330 - 2014-05-12 11:32:26 UTC
admiral root wrote:

Have you considered writing the bulk of the minutes before the meeting? Surely you already know what you're going to say and what parts of that you're willing to share with the playerbase? Just plug in the way each member "votes" and any comments they make - voila, instant minutes. Just add water CSM members.

It still doesn't show the attitude, effort, approach and all those pretty things. It is important to know not only what your CSM member did, but also how. I am thinking about something more visible. Maybe shorten summaries (that people will actually read). Maybe...video report? There are many options that we may consider. I won't give any promises, all I can say is that the current format of Minutes must and will change.

CCP Leeloo | Community Developer | @ccp_leeloo | leeloo@ccpgames.com

Freelancer117
So you want to be a Hero
#331 - 2014-05-12 11:35:34 UTC
CCP Leeloo wrote:

- From my point of view, a lot of players simply are not aware of the CSM's existence.

- Another significant problem is that people don't feel that CSM is important in any way and this is related to the last but not least important issue - accountability. It is hard to tell whether a CSM member is doing his job well or not.

- Everything stated above is critical and requires immediate review and this is something I will look into as the new CSM coordinator.


- With any (internet spaceship) politician it is hard to keep a tab on all of them every week, in order to see If what they Say is what they Do (vote).
Maybe some ISD coverage of the CSM in a monthly Report could be another start to bring more elaborate awareness to the Capsuleers.
This is next to a timely publication of a(ny) CSM Minutes this term please Cool

- From my point of view the game is pretty old now as an mmo, 11 years congratulations, and a lot of players have heard about the CSM in some form during their subscription time.
The low Voter Turnout could be a result in a misrepresentation of the view the current Capsuleers have about the CSM.
Perhaps CCPgames could reinforce the fact that the CSM members are representatives and like a Senior Producer "reviews" the game's development.

source: source: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mA-7d27_0xQ#t=5m20s

- Good luck, you have only 44 weeks left and if you need ideas or opinions, there are still a lot of ex-CSM members about that are still under NDA.

Regards, a Freelancer

Eve online is :

A) mining simulator B) glorified chatroom C) spreadsheets online

D) CCP Games Pay to Win at skill leveling, with instant gratification

http://eve-radio.com//images/photos/3419/223/34afa0d7998f0a9a86f737d6.jpg

http://bit.ly/1egr4mF

Kethry Avenger
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#332 - 2014-05-12 12:26:57 UTC
CCP Leeloo wrote:
admiral root wrote:

Have you considered writing the bulk of the minutes before the meeting? Surely you already know what you're going to say and what parts of that you're willing to share with the playerbase? Just plug in the way each member "votes" and any comments they make - voila, instant minutes. Just add water CSM members.

It still doesn't show the attitude, effort, approach and all those pretty things. It is important to know not only what your CSM member did, but also how. I am thinking about something more visible. Maybe shorten summaries (that people will actually read). Maybe...video report? There are many options that we may consider. I won't give any promises, all I can say is that the current format of Minutes must and will change.


I actually thought the last set of minutes was one of the best written. Good length, and information that was shared was clear.

If you wanted to have some more visible way to show who favored what, sure but I don't think the time that would take to implement would be worth the information gained.
Jenn aSide
Soul Machines
The Initiative.
#333 - 2014-05-12 12:52:38 UTC
admiral root wrote:
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:
Said it before, will say it again. Mandatory suffrage.


I mis-read that as "mandatory suffering" - you have that effect. Big smile


It would be mandatory suffering, for Dinsdale lol, as his devious plan to get more people (he incorrectly thinks are) like him on the CSM backfires totally.

Mandatory suffrage would mean that ignorant solo/casual/high sec players would simply click whatever button needed to get past the mandatory voting window in order to play the game they pay for (resulting in lots and lots and lots of wasted votes). Meanwhile, the non-high sec players with alts forced to vote would take an extra 1 minute to vote for their "bloc" candidates, strengthening the "cartels" hold on the CSM.

The most delicious irony of this whole discussion is watching Dinsdale trip completely over Malcanis' Law.
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#334 - 2014-05-12 12:56:46 UTC
admiral root wrote:


Have you considered writing the bulk of the minutes before the meeting? Surely you already know what you're going to say and what parts of that you're willing to share with the playerbase? Just plug in the way each member "votes" and any comments they make - voila, instant minutes. Just add water CSM members.


Nope, doeosn't work like that at all.

Almost everything that's wrong with the minutes could be fixed if every team participating in the minutes made a commitment to getting their section turned around in a week.

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

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016

Benny Ohu
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#335 - 2014-05-12 13:09:34 UTC
Malcanis wrote:
admiral root wrote:


Have you considered writing the bulk of the minutes before the meeting? Surely you already know what you're going to say and what parts of that you're willing to share with the playerbase? Just plug in the way each member "votes" and any comments they make - voila, instant minutes. Just add water CSM members.


Nope, doeosn't work like that at all.

Almost everything that's wrong with the minutes could be fixed if every team participating in the minutes made a commitment to getting their section turned around in a week.

oh, the csm tag's gone

do you mean csm or ccp when you say 'every team'?
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#336 - 2014-05-12 13:25:29 UTC
Both.

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

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016

Dinsdale Pirannha
Pirannha Corp
#337 - 2014-05-12 13:46:12 UTC
Jenn aSide wrote:
admiral root wrote:
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:
Said it before, will say it again. Mandatory suffrage.


I mis-read that as "mandatory suffering" - you have that effect. Big smile


It would be mandatory suffering, for Dinsdale lol, as his devious plan to get more people (he incorrectly thinks are) like him on the CSM backfires totally.

Mandatory suffrage would mean that ignorant solo/casual/high sec players would simply click whatever button needed to get past the mandatory voting window in order to play the game they pay for (resulting in lots and lots and lots of wasted votes). Meanwhile, the non-high sec players with alts forced to vote would take an extra 1 minute to vote for their "bloc" candidates, strengthening the "cartels" hold on the CSM.

The most delicious irony of this whole discussion is watching Dinsdale trip completely over Malcanis' Law.


I already stated that the cartels would game any voting system to ensure that the migration of the vast majority of high sec wealth generation to null sec continues.

But with mandatory suffrage there is a chance next year that some players might actually take the time to read what each lobbyist stands for, considers what has happened to the game in the past 2 years, and act with a conscience and self-preservation and vote to weaken the null sec cartel's control of Eve and its direction. Under the current CSM appointment system, it won't happen.

It is likely too late though. The Rubicon, quite literally, has been crossed.
Kronos in mythology was the first Titan, who overthrew his father, and ruled over the Golden Age.
I am sure that the meaning of that name not lost on CCP management when they selected it.

They think (or have been coerced) that destroying the game for so many will some how usher in a new Golden Age for Eve and CCP. That, of course, is pure hubris and idiocy.

The next 12 months will prove very interesting indeed. Not fun, but interesting.
admiral root
Red Galaxy
#338 - 2014-05-12 13:53:27 UTC  |  Edited by: admiral root
Malcanis wrote:
admiral root wrote:


Have you considered writing the bulk of the minutes before the meeting? Surely you already know what you're going to say and what parts of that you're willing to share with the playerbase? Just plug in the way each member "votes" and any comments they make - voila, instant minutes. Just add water CSM members.


Nope, doeosn't work like that at all.

Almost everything that's wrong with the minutes could be fixed if every team participating in the minutes made a commitment to getting their section turned around in a week.


I didn't want to make any assumptions seeing as I don't know what goes on (I forgot I was posting on the Eve forum:P). If this is the case then it seems that it would be the best way to fix things.

No, your rights end in optimal+2*falloff

Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#339 - 2014-05-12 14:08:43 UTC
Well for the Winter summit, CCP LogiBro basically transcribed the discussions, which was awesome although he must have had white hot wrist tendons by the end of the 3rd day. So the minutes were 80% done by the time we'd flown home. The time delay was

1) CSM review Logibro's work and compare with our notes to make sure nothing important was missed, incorrectly attributed or changed. We add in some perspective stuff, typically to expand a little on why someone said this or we asked about that and so on. This part was done pretty quickly.

2) Waiting for the teams involved to sign of on their relevent sections of the minutes. Since the minutes are released as a single document, the whole thing has to wait for the slowest responder. This part took effing ages.

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

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016

Weaselior
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#340 - 2014-05-12 14:10:00 UTC
Malcanis wrote:
Both.

Interesting, will your CSM tag stay on posts made while you were a CSM and not on subsequent posts? It's still on the top post portrait but not this post.

Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Pubbie Management and Exploitation Division.