Assembly Hall

This is an issue I saw raised not too long ago on another website but I think it is a fair one. The whole point of the CSM (if I'm right) is for the players to have other players who go to CCP and act as a springboard for ideas? Is that correct?

So let's say I really like candidate XYZ because he's running on a platform of just add more ships and more niches of ships. I vote for him as do enough people to get him elect. Then in CSM 11, CCP decides new ships isn't in the plans for a new year and they are going with plan B instead. Candidate XYZ is now a member who is really lacking in expertise. Maybe we were fools to vote for him, I mean who needs new ships with cool graphics when null sec empire management is the big issue. However, if we knew CCP gave zero craps about adding new ships during CSM 11, we could have voted on someone who knew more about the needs of alliances in null sec.

So before we vote in a CSM election (CSM 12 at the earliest I guess because of the timing) shouldn't we the players know what is or isn't on the table before we vote? Wouldn't that help us get a better idea on who is or isn't a good candidate?

That's a topic I'd like someone in the CSM to bring up to CCP. What are the issues that CCP is going to act on in the upcoming year so we know who we should be bloody voting for?

If CCP is going to be adding 10 new classes of ships, I'm going to care a lot more than if CCP is concerned with the feng shui of 100+ ship fleets in the upcoming year. If CCP is only going to focus on null alliances in 16, well I can't be bothered to vote for anyone because I don't really give a crap about null alliances either way. I'd also at least have an idea who to vote for or not based upon whatever their stances are. So if it's the 10 new classes of ships year I know XYZ is at least worth looking at. If it's the feng shui of fleet arranging, I need to look at someone else. The key to a good karma fleet is getting your feng shui in order. Putting your logi to the west on a tuesday is just asking for a butt whipping and I'd hate for CCP to screw that up.

Thank you for replying. I guess lobbying for changes was the wrong way to put it. Still, if it is about giving feedback and advice to CCP, shouldn't we have some idea what CCP is up to for the next year so we can better make sure the people we elect have the right experience? I mean I know a few people are going to get in because of null sec so let's go with that. If half the people get elected for their knowledge of null sec, but they aren't really all that great with non-null sec matters (just an example), and CCP turns it's focus to all things high-sec, half the CSM wouldn't know what they are talking about.

So yes, I think you are right in that we should look for people with deep knowledge in a few things or broad experience all over, that's still a bit of a gamble either way. The guy you vote for may not be able to help out much if he's deep in a few things however if he knows a little about everything he might have some advice to give, but he won't be the expert that you'd really want in there.

My thought process on changes goes something like this:

1) How can I abuse the crap out of this for my own gain?
2) If I can abuse this new change, why is this bad for everyone as a whole?
3) How can this be improved upon so people can't abuse the crap out of it?