These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Time for the CSM to be Old Yellered

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises
Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
#41 - 2017-01-19 21:58:20 UTC
One thing about requiring _all_ discussion to be public (between the CSM and the rest of the player base). It has a chilling effect on what some people will bring up.

It's also naive to think it could happen. Someone sends me a message. How are you to know if I'm going to post it or not? Not all things are things which it's worth making public.

Not all the work is done in private. You address me in the forums, I'll answer in the forums (assuming I see it. There can be a lot of traffic to keep track of. I do try to keep on top of a number of the sections.) You address me on reddit, I'll answer there. I don't demand that everyone uses a single method to contact me. I make myself available on many.

Woo! CSM XI!

Fuzzwork Enterprises

Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter
Cearain
Plus 10 NV
#42 - 2017-01-20 01:14:35 UTC  |  Edited by: Cearain
Steve Ronuken wrote:
One thing about requiring _all_ discussion to be public (between the CSM and the rest of the player base). It has a chilling effect on what some people will bring up.

It's also naive to think it could happen. Someone sends me a message. How are you to know if I'm going to post it or not? Not all things are things which it's worth making public.

Not all the work is done in private. You address me in the forums, I'll answer in the forums (assuming I see it. There can be a lot of traffic to keep track of. I do try to keep on top of a number of the sections.) You address me on reddit, I'll answer there. I don't demand that everyone uses a single method to contact me. I make myself available on many.



No one is suggesting that "everything" be done in public. Its just everytime anyone wants to find out something about csm the response is almost to send an evemail and the information we get in any event is usually about the food since everything else is nda.

It's rare to see a discussion of substance conducted in public.

Anyway I raised several points against the CSM existing with the current NDA.

1) NDA is unfair to the players who don't get to learn about the game and make their economic plans. To deny csm players leak this information and use it for gain to themselves and their friends is just denying what has been proven.

2) NDA makes it pretty much impossible to see what candidates actually do after they are elected. The minutes are usually quite vague as to who raised what or said what. (one time there was even some drama because a fellow csm dared to say what another csm said at a summit!) I think we used to get transcipts of what was said. Unlike in real democracies where the government is transparent, the NDA makes it impossible to know who you should vote for.

3) And the other problem with csm not related to the nda is that there is no central place to find out what the csm is actually doing. Expecting players to scour the internet to find out what candidates are doing about a computer game is asking quite a bit don't you think?

4) CSM are very hard core players who for whatever reason can spend allot of there lives playing eve. This in itself means they are not going to be able to relate to most other players. So there will automatically be a considerable disconnect.

There are 4 seperate problems with the CSM and in my opinion good reasons to put it down - like old yeller as the op title suggests.

If the NDA is lifted that would be quite an improvement and I think it might be salvagable. But with the NDA it is destructive to the game.

Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
Borat Guereen
Doomheim
#43 - 2017-01-21 04:29:17 UTC
Cearain wrote:


It's rare to see a discussion of substance conducted in public.



Discussions of substance should be done during the campaign using the candidates' public threads, where they do not have to be under NDA and can answer your questions in their own way.

You can then judge if those candidates are worthy or not of your vote from their answers and what they say, as once they are elected, they have the power to represent you as it has been given to them.

...or you can not bother engaging the candidates, not vote, obey groups' consigns and get the candidates you don't really know anything about to represent you.

Candidate for CSM XII
Black Pedro
Mine.
#44 - 2017-01-21 09:52:52 UTC  |  Edited by: Black Pedro
Borat Guereen wrote:
Cearain wrote:


It's rare to see a discussion of substance conducted in public.



Discussions of substance should be done during the campaign using the candidates' public threads, where they do not have to be under NDA and can answer your questions in their own way.

You can then judge if those candidates are worthy or not of your vote from their answers and what they say, as once they are elected, they have the power to represent you as it has been given to them.

...or you can not bother engaging the candidates, not vote, obey groups' consigns and get the candidates you don't really know anything about to represent you.

This is largely true. The nature of the CSM means you really have to trust what people say given the largely secret nature of the work. Your vote has to be based on who the person is and what they say they believe and will do, not how they actually perform (which is only relevant for incumbents anyway). Of course, this sort of de-legitimizes the entire institution, but given they have no direct power anyway and are essentially just a privileged lobby and/or focus group, it probably doesn't matter.

The bigger problem is how the body is established in the first place. A direct vote by the players is perfectly fair, but doesn't actually produce a body representative of the player base even if it is the best indication of the will of the players. This was especially highlighted this year by the skewed composition of CSM, but has always been a problem. This isn't unique to the CSM - elected governments have the same problem that organized groups like corporations and lobby groups have disproportionate access and power in government as compared to poorer, less educated and average individuals. It's just a fact that larger groups end up with a disproportionate number of representatives, even in the STV system.

For a government with real power, a direct vote is probably the only fair way to determine who is in control, but for a focus group that is suppose to cover the breadth of diversity of players in the game, is it really the best way? I have spent many hours each of the last few years reading threads and engaging with candidates, listening to interviews and making selections of people best capable of representing what I do in the game. I had 7 candidates on my ballot last year, and not a single one of them made the council (although several of them were very close) - I am completely disenfranchised. Now, you can say my candidates have to do something more to get elected or I play the game in some extremely niche way that doesn't merit representation, but the grossly unrepresentative and nullsec-heavy composition of the council points to a more systemic problem.

I am now completely apathetic about CSM. Many of the CSM members seem like good people who care about the game and work hard, but they do not represent me or how I play the game. Depending on how this year goes I may disengage completely. I'll do the minimum amount of research some time in March and make my selections, but I have no faith that someone who has experience in how I play the game will be elected. And I don't think I am alone given how voter turn-out has cratered over the last few years.

I really hope the revisions to the white paper hinted at by CCP Guard address some of these issues. Both the CSM and CCP need to decide what the council is really about, and if it is to represent the players as best as possible, something needs to be done to ensure the council is not just a redundant collection of players from the largest groups in the game. Organization and numbers should be what determines success in the game, but when it comes to establishing a channel to provide player feedback to the developers, really it has no place. Diversity should trump numbers to make the most useful focus group/communication channel for CCP.

The 8 Golden Rules of Eve

Why Do They Gank?
Borat Guereen
Doomheim
#45 - 2017-01-21 15:30:36 UTC
Black Pedro wrote:
...Diversity should trump numbers to make the most useful focus group/communication channel for CCP.


+1

CCP has taken a new step this year that will prevent players to troll the election with multiple alts to spead out independent votes even more. We will see how this plays out...



Candidate for CSM XII
March rabbit
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#46 - 2017-01-22 22:17:17 UTC
Jin'taan wrote:
EDIT: That said, I am looking for more ways to communicate. Would having a list of what - actively - all members of the CSM do in the game help? Would it be easier if I provided the weekly updates in audio format? Video format?

Maybe i'm completely off the way....

But maybe make a spreadsheet for every big 'expansion' (like already mentioned ECs):
Quote:
There was discussion
- their initial idea was: ......
- we raised concerns about: ....
(result we already know by what was actually implemented)

Quote:
list of every CSM member with their comments:
- what did i like in this
- what did i dislike and advocated for


Having these in one place will help to those players who don't spend their time browsing lots of external resources. It will give information for next voting: whos position this player supports and whos not.

I don't think having this posted AFTER expansion will have anything with NDA. But it will really solve "95% of what we talk with CCP about will never go public because of NDA".

The Mittani: "the inappropriate drunked joke"
Jin'taan
Be Nice Inc.
Prismatic Legion
#47 - 2017-01-23 00:21:52 UTC
March rabbit wrote:
Jin'taan wrote:
EDIT: That said, I am looking for more ways to communicate. Would having a list of what - actively - all members of the CSM do in the game help? Would it be easier if I provided the weekly updates in audio format? Video format?

Maybe i'm completely off the way....

But maybe make a spreadsheet for every big 'expansion' (like already mentioned ECs):
Quote:
There was discussion
- their initial idea was: ......
- we raised concerns about: ....
(result we already know by what was actually implemented)

Quote:
list of every CSM member with their comments:
- what did i like in this
- what did i dislike and advocated for


Having these in one place will help to those players who don't spend their time browsing lots of external resources. It will give information for next voting: whos position this player supports and whos not.

I don't think having this posted AFTER expansion will have anything with NDA. But it will really solve "95% of what we talk with CCP about will never go public because of NDA".


I do something akin to this in my weekly reviews here, however it talks more about things going forwards, with the exception of my Quarterly Reviews, which come very close to what you talk about :)

The real issue here however, is that not every CSM member is willing or able to (time wise) to communicate at that level constantly with the public. If you want to see that, I'd suggest voting for those who are willing and able to communicate, and put it first in their agenda. Ask candidates if they'd be willing to do this, etc.
Cearain
Plus 10 NV
#48 - 2017-01-23 03:06:36 UTC  |  Edited by: Cearain
Borat Guereen wrote:
Cearain wrote:


It's rare to see a discussion of substance conducted in public.



Discussions of substance should be done during the campaign using the candidates' public threads, where they do not have to be under NDA and can answer your questions in their own way.

You can then judge if those candidates are worthy or not of your vote from their answers and what they say, as once they are elected, they have the power to represent you as it has been given to them.

...or you can not bother engaging the candidates, not vote, obey groups' consigns and get the candidates you don't really know anything about to represent you.



Yes I agree that should be done at that time.

Of course we all know that at least half the csm are just appointed by the null sec coalition that they represent and no they don't know much about what they want to do with the game. Half the time they can just say "Im not a game designer" and avoid any questions of substance. But the null sec alliances do know that getting someone from their alliance on the csm so their leadership can find out what is going to happen in the future is good for their alliance. So of course they will vote to have their leadership to be able to see what other players can not.

But lets set aside this issue of allowing large alliances to cheat for now. (although I see no one has actually addressed this issue) There is still the problem of actual normal players trying to find out if any candidates actually followed up on their promises. Players like me have voted for csm and then found it impossible to see what that candidate did with respect to the promises they made. So it should hardly be surprising that players are disenchanted and the voter turnout is so low.

For a democracy to actually work the people doing the voting have to see that the people they are electing are actually doing some of things they were elected to do. That clearly doesn't happen here and with the current nda it never can.


Black Pedro wrote:

This is largely true. The nature of the CSM means you really have to trust what people say given the largely secret nature of the work. Your vote has to be based on who the person is and what they say they believe and will do, not how they actually perform (which is only relevant for incumbents anyway). ..


Yes of course we may not even know the person's real name. I am not even sure if we can find out if the person has been repeatedly convicted of fraud. So good luck basing your vote on who you think the person really is.

Jin'taan wrote:

I do something akin to this in my weekly reviews here, however it talks more about things going forwards, with the exception of my Quarterly Reviews, which come very close to what you talk about :)

The real issue here however, is that not every CSM member is willing or able to (time wise) to communicate at that level constantly with the public. If you want to see that, I'd suggest voting for those who are willing and able to communicate, and put it first in their agenda. Ask candidates if they'd be willing to do this, etc.


It would be easier if we just had the transcripts of the meetings. But then again this nda prevents this.

The same nda that allows null sec alliances can make huge amounts off the market by being informed of changes well before the rest of the playerbase. Of course the rest of us normal players find it impossible to compete with that.

Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
Borat Guereen
Doomheim
#49 - 2017-01-23 06:47:42 UTC
Cearain wrote:

But lets set aside this issue of allowing large alliances to cheat for now. (although I see no one has actually addressed this issue)


I believe I do in many ways, including just by running and pointing out loudly the cheat tactics they are using.

This year, a new rule has been edicted by CCP, players must run with their most well-known alt, which will avoid the multiplication of fake alts that ran in previous campaigns and caused a spread of independent votes across decoys.
This is a progress.

I have also called out loudly that CSM process is not a democracy but a plutocracy as long as each account gets a vote, instead of each player. The new rules above gives me hope that CCP will also address the issue, as they obviously seem to be able to identify alts from the same player. This would turn the tables on the larger groups, those whose players are most likely to be able to plex dozens of accounts from the money they make behind the meat-shield protection and ISK farming of their brainwashed followers.

I also look forward to read the upcoming white papers that will clarify CCP's position for the CSM. It is written by the new team at CCP overseeing the CSM process, which so far, unlike the previous team, do not have given any impressions that they were favoring certain groups of players over others.

Cearain wrote:

There is still the problem of actual normal players trying to find out if any candidates actually followed up on their promises. Players like me have voted for csm and then found it impossible to see what that candidate did with respect to the promises they made. So it should hardly be surprising that players are disenchanted and the voter turnout is so low.


I do not think this one can be addressed easily. It is also happening in RL (for example Obama mentioned he wanted to close Guantanamo when he ran the first time and yet 8 years later...)

I would advocate for having CCP publishes all the comments received from CSM members on each features once a feature is released to the public, with of course the possibility to veto anything for internal business reasons.
CCP can also totally bypass the CSM feedback for reasons of their own and this is totally their right.
They also have to make decisions based on business income and payment. For example, even if I do not agree with their approach about limiting login for alpha clones, it may also be driven by income-based reasons that can't really be discussed in public.

Cearain wrote:

The same nda that allows null sec alliances can make huge amounts off the market by being informed of changes well before the rest of the playerbase. Of course the rest of us normal players find it impossible to compete with that.


A well known exploit of CSM members, and the reasons larger groups issue bloc-votes to their brainwashed minions to make sure they have people in.

Also the reasons why we need independent candidates, and have independent players that do vote to not include any of the PLooNS candidates on their ballots. They will have enough votes from their bloc-votes as it is.

I do believe that independent players are more numerous than PLooNS players, the problem is that they are less likely to keep informed about the CSM and committed to voting.
This can only be fixed by independent players raising awareness for this to change, and not being discouraged...

Candidate for CSM XII
Cearain
Plus 10 NV
#50 - 2017-01-23 12:47:10 UTC
Borat
Thanks for the response but I am not sure we are quite on the same page. I'm talking about csm simply violating the Nda for their own gain or leaking the nda to others for their alliance. Ccp has had proof players have done this in the past. Despite the fact that it would be next to impossible to catch someone if they even a bit smart about it. Now the candidates barely hide that they will use csm and nda to help their alliances in the future.


Aryth:

"What happens when you put the long term planner on the CSM and seeing the long term plans.

Good things for us that's what."

This is what he said before he was on csm. So it's clear Ccp knows this is happening yet they allow him to stay on? It's hard to be so naive to think he is the only one.

It seems to me that giving some players advance information about how the rules of the game will change and not others is just fundementally unfair. How can anyone compete in the market when insider trading is allowed to a privileged few?

I don't think letting a few more independent candidates on csm is going to change this. The nda or csm itself must go.

Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
Borat Guereen
Doomheim
#51 - 2017-01-24 02:53:05 UTC
Cearain wrote:


It seems to me that giving some players advance information about how the rules of the game will change and not others is just fundementally unfair. How can anyone compete in the market when insider trading is allowed to a privileged few?

I don't think letting a few more independent candidates on csm is going to change this. The nda or csm itself must go.


This is a very fair point.
Others independent players like Gevlon Goblin or Luobote Kong have called for simply dissolving the CSM last year.

My position is as long as the CSM exists and I play the game because I continue to believe it can truly be a sandbox for diversified play-styles, I will actively participate to the campaigning and express my opninion publicly and as loudly as I can and avoid being dragged to the funnel toward the PLooNS play-style.

Candidate for CSM XII
A Good Poster
Doomheim
#52 - 2017-01-24 13:56:14 UTC  |  Edited by: A Good Poster
Borat Guereen wrote:
Cearain wrote:


It seems to me that giving some players advance information about how the rules of the game will change and not others is just fundementally unfair. How can anyone compete in the market when insider trading is allowed to a privileged few?

I don't think letting a few more independent candidates on csm is going to change this. The nda or csm itself must go.


This is a very fair point.
Others independent players like Gevlon Goblin or Luobote Kong have called for simply dissolving the CSM last year.

My position is as long as the CSM exists and I play the game because I continue to believe it can truly be a sandbox for diversified play-styles, I will actively participate to the campaigning and express my opninion publicly and as loudly as I can and avoid being dragged to the funnel toward the PLooNS play-style.


What? Are you serious? Who even cares? How is anyone supposed to take anything you say seriously anymore after you've written things like this? http://i.imgur.com/tLdUTuE.png You don't even know how to describe what this alleged "PLooNS" style is beyond "hopefully it can get me votes".

Please just stop and fold your thread.
Borat Guereen
Doomheim
#53 - 2017-01-25 00:21:07 UTC
A Good Poster wrote:


What? Are you serious? Who even cares? How is anyone supposed to take anything you say seriously anymore after you've written things like this? http://i.imgur.com/tLdUTuE.png You don't even know how to describe what this alleged "PLooNS" style is beyond "hopefully it can get me votes".



oh, we know exactly how to describe the "PLooNS" style. it has been communicated here.

I do stand by by the message I wrote on the topic you refer to, as long as it is read after listening to the passage I mentioned, and my follow up comments are also read.
Sorry if you don't like it, but as far as I know free speech is still a thing....

Candidate for CSM XII
A Good Poster
Doomheim
#54 - 2017-01-25 13:15:20 UTC  |  Edited by: A Good Poster
OK but you've linked me to a dress-up post that makes circular reference to that term with a sensationalized chant that's a neat fiction, I guess, sort of, but contains basic game inaccuracies and doesn't actually explain anything that players can meaningfully work with.

Also who's "we"; are you running to share a seat with your spouse or something
Tetsel
House Amamake
#55 - 2017-01-27 17:15:46 UTC
Mark Marconi I would totally vote for you for CSM if you want to disband it from the inside.
CSM is only a PR stunt and is not preventing CCP from ignoring accurate feedback (see battle rorqual & hisec citadels lagfest).

Loyal servent to Mother Amamake. @EVE_Tetsel

Another Bittervet Please Ignore
Andski
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#56 - 2017-01-28 16:37:28 UTC
Cearain wrote:
The same nda that allows null sec alliances can make huge amounts off the market by being informed of changes well before the rest of the playerbase. Of course the rest of us normal players find it impossible to compete with that.


I don't doubt that things like this have happened before, but you'd be pretty dumb to leak NDA privileged information even in private chats. Logs get leaked all the time.

Twitter: @EVEAndski

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths."    - Abrazzar
Cearain
Plus 10 NV
#57 - 2017-01-30 15:54:03 UTC
Andski wrote:
Cearain wrote:
The same nda that allows null sec alliances can make huge amounts off the market by being informed of changes well before the rest of the playerbase. Of course the rest of us normal players find it impossible to compete with that.


I don't doubt that things like this have happened before, but you'd be pretty dumb to leak NDA privileged information even in private chats. Logs get leaked all the time.


I am thinking many people could actually just use a telephone. Sure that could be recorded as well, but that is actually criminal in some jurisdictions.

But lets set aside those cases where ccp has proven people just break the nda in order to gain advantage. And lets set aside all those cases where people likely got away with it because they did it in an halfway intelligent way that ccp couldn't prove a case against them. Let me ask whether the csm gains an advantage even if it is within the rules.

So lets say you are on csm and you see the information ccp is kicking around for citadels, (or faction war lp stores or reprocessing changes or etc etc.) long before everyone else. So you have say you have a month to think about how this will impact the market. So you have all this time to think about which items will increase in value quite a bit and which will decrease in value quite a bit. So then you say to yourself the minute ccp makes this public I will buy or sell all of x and/or tell all my alliance mates my thinking so they can do the same. Since it is after it is made public is there a violation?

I mean as normal player without this advance information I read a dev blog I try to understand what the devs mean by certain ambiguities in the dev blog. And it might take a week or a month get some of this answered. But if I were on csm I might already know those answers. Plus there is just allot more time to process the information for csm members and CCP is there to answer any questions they have. So they can just skim the dev blog and be like "yep its just like I thought" and then go buy out jita in minutes. Or have their alliance mates buy out jita (assuming they themselves can't) in minutes.

I mean csm members can talk about stuff once it is public right? So what prevents that? And how could anyone who is kept in the dark relative to csm members realistically hope to compete?

Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
Tattoo Bob Onren
Doomheim
#58 - 2017-02-14 04:12:23 UTC
It is time for the CSM to go away! I acknowledge the hard work and dedication of the past/current CSM members. However I look at the CSM as just another customer in the great EVE ONLINE restaurant. I am a meat eater in that restaurants, the CSM are sophisticated vegans or gourmet dinners. ( Null sec blocks/ giant alliance cartels or even real life nationals! )

Now when CCP burns my steak I want back the ability to speak out to CCP (cook) directly!! I do not need the aforementioned vegans and gourmet patrons speaking for me!!! I am a high security player who does not want nor need the drama of a mega group! Most players are similar to me! I PAY EVE ONLINE to entertain me, not the CSM!!!! I cannot help but think EVE ONLINE management is tied up entertaining or listening to the CSM members with their agenda or their “ideas! “

I want EVE ONLINE to start making new missions! Perhaps without having to check with the CSM they could come up with a surprise or two to make game play interesting again. ( I was so into the amarr throne crises and suddenly bunk!!! Maybe a sudden jovian incursion! Who knows??? )

I think EVE is in real trouble right now and if EVE wants to escape the fate of star wars galaxies, the sims online ect ect. Eve needs to put professional back in charge of development and game play! Now is not the time for a bunch of well meaning amateurs to be in charge! Most CSM members most likely have an agenda anyways! Also I cannot help but think it will help EVE ONLINE real life bottom line!!!!!

I recommend EVE put a mandate called CAPTAIN DUNZEL up for election to the CSM. Captain Dunzel would represent a NO more CSM VOTE!!!! We have seen Britexit/Donald Trump in democratic elections. Let see what happens when pilots are allowed ALL OPTIONS to improve their game play!

I am an ALT.
Theodoric Darkwind
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#59 - 2017-03-07 00:20:32 UTC
Given that CSM input was most certainly listened to in regards to citadels/ECs and the mining changes I think they are most certainly still quite useful. Citadels have been probably the biggest change to the game in recent years and have opened up all sorts of new gameplay possibilities and content generation, the mining changes have also been a major source of content (usually in the form of shiny Rorqual killmails :) )
Social Injustice Warrior
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#60 - 2017-03-08 12:17:04 UTC
Theodoric Darkwind wrote:
Given that CSM input was most certainly listened to in regards to citadels/ECs and the mining changes I think they are most certainly still quite useful. Citadels have been probably the biggest change to the game in recent years and have opened up all sorts of new gameplay possibilities and content generation, the mining changes have also been a major source of content (usually in the form of shiny Rorqual killmails :) )



Bingo, you just showed exactly why the CSM does not need to exist. The CSM paved to way to promote a certain type of game style. PVP is wonderful. But so is mining and missioning. PVP should of course sometime be non consensual. War declarations, ganking and other issues. But now EVE via the CSM has decided to give a competitive advantage to larger players and group play beyond market forces. As the EVE subscription numbers continue to freefall I understand EVE ONLINE'S desperate bid to retain and recruit players.

EVE ONLINE needs professional management . EVE ONLINE does not need a bunch of well meaning amateurs getting in the way. EVE needs to build new missions, new stories that promote fantasy and enjoyment. Creating and to promote player bosses to pay homage too ( CSM members) does not encourage working people to want to check out EVE. Let me boiled it down some more. Most people log on EVE ONLINE to escape their boss infested lives! Now I forced to join up with a large group so I have a fighting chance to enjoy EVE???? So then new plaers can be BOSSSED around by 20 something ???? Are you seriously??? You want people to pay to bossed around????

I have multiple industrial toons that have now been exposed as suckers. Really glad I spent all that time just to watch it all be snipped away by the CSM. The subscription numbers have shown I am not alone as people terminal log off forever.

I call upon EVE ONLINE to take charge and rebuild their product. New missions, new ships and new objectives are far more needed then worrying about entertaining the CSM !!!! I call upon EVE ONLINE to take the entire CSM concept to the players. I would vote if an option would be NO MORE CSM!!!! The CSM was created in response to a player called Klugsman cheating with a CCP employee. Klugsman clearly wanted an advantage just like the CSM!

Clear away the old guard and put the individual player and give the creative juices of CCP that created EVE back in charge.