These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

How effective is CSM? Time to get rid of it?
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#41 - 2012-01-22 00:32:59 UTC
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
How does a democratic vote do anything but further strengthen the powerblocks whose votes resulted in the current CSM?


Last I checked, powerblocs don't get to vote for CSM candidates. Accounts do. People run accounts. Some people tend to work together to achieve goals.

The fact that I'll bet on the team with two guys over the team with one guy any day of the week is simply how the world works.

Anyway, the CSM elections are pretty much the freest* democratic process I've ever seen everywhere.



*Free != Fair != Protective of the Minority != "Nice"

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#42 - 2012-01-22 00:48:31 UTC
RubyPorto wrote:
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
How does a democratic vote do anything but further strengthen the powerblocks whose votes resulted in the current CSM?


Last I checked, powerblocs don't get to vote for CSM candidates. Accounts do. People run accounts. Some people tend to work together to achieve goals.

The fact that I'll bet on the team with two guys over the team with one guy any day of the week is simply how the world works.

Anyway, the CSM elections are pretty much the freest* democratic process I've ever seen everywhere.



*Free != Fair != Protective of the Minority != "Nice"

That would be the same as a powerblock. The rest is semantics. Alliance, powerblock, people working together, it's all the same thing. Point being, if they have the ability through numbers to place their desired candidates into the CSM, giving them the ability to directly promote their views in another form gives the same result. I'm not saying anything is wrong with the current CSM, what I am saying is that abolishing them and moving to a system querying individual account holders for their views does nothing to change what the majority votes for.
Caldari Acolyte
Shark Enterprises
#43 - 2012-01-22 01:00:43 UTC
KrakizBad wrote:
Caldari Acolyte wrote:
Case in point, certain CSM's are advocating for futher SC nerfs simply because their Alliance/ Coalition can't defeat other Alliances in SC fights. They can't field enough or their SC pilots suck or won't commit. Sc's are fine as is.

Sorry we accidentally your space. Did you use your SC to defend it?


No apology required, i'm in the south and have nothing to do with said conflict. BTW CAOD is that way----> lets stay on topic.
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#44 - 2012-01-22 01:04:21 UTC
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
RubyPorto wrote:
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
How does a democratic vote do anything but further strengthen the powerblocks whose votes resulted in the current CSM?


Last I checked, powerblocs don't get to vote for CSM candidates. Accounts do. People run accounts. Some people tend to work together to achieve goals.

The fact that I'll bet on the team with two guys over the team with one guy any day of the week is simply how the world works.

Anyway, the CSM elections are pretty much the freest* democratic process I've ever seen everywhere.



*Free != Fair != Protective of the Minority != "Nice"

That would be the same as a powerblock. The rest is semantics. Alliance, powerblock, people working together, it's all the same thing. Point being, if they have the ability through numbers to place their desired candidates into the CSM, giving them the ability to directly promote their views in another form gives the same result. I'm not saying anything is wrong with the current CSM, what I am saying is that abolishing them and moving to a system querying individual account holders for their views does nothing to change what the majority votes for.


In that case, we agree.

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon
Andski
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#45 - 2012-01-22 01:08:00 UTC  |  Edited by: Andski
If you don't want a nullsec-focused CSM, why don't you make a serious effort to organize like-minded players into voting for candidates that represent you? Is that too much work, or are you blaming CCP and the CSM for your own lack of charisma and initiative?

The issue is clearly not the CSM being ineffective, it is them focusing on a part of the game that doesn't interest you, or them pushing for changes that are detrimental to the way you play the game.

Twitter: @EVEAndski

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths."    - Abrazzar
Caldari Acolyte
Shark Enterprises
#46 - 2012-01-22 01:50:14 UTC  |  Edited by: Caldari Acolyte
Well in any event, i propose removing CSM's from the game and useing referendum for the player base itself to determine game direction, issues, quality. etc. This will remove bias, personal agenda from effecting game direction, balance, quality. I would advise everyone agreeing with this to start contacting CCP directly.
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#47 - 2012-01-22 02:03:52 UTC
Caldari Acolyte wrote:
Well in any event, i propose removing CSM's from the game and useing referendum for the player base itself to determine game direction, issues, quality. etc. This will remove bias, personal agenda from effecting game direction, balance, quality. I would advise everyone agreeing with this to start contacting CCP directly.


We had that before the CSM. We still have that. It's called the forum, and it pretty well sucks for that purpose.

And removing Bias, Personal Agenda from game direction? Who do you propose read, implement, and filter said proposals? CCP? They got Biases and Personal Agendas too. Judging from this summer, the management's biases and personal agendas don't line up very well with the player base's agenda.

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon
Sundarpants
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#48 - 2012-01-22 02:15:46 UTC
Man, everyone opposed to the CSM keeps banging on about having some survey/poll/questionaire as it would better represent our views.

Well we HAD that, doesn't anyone remember? It was a long list of lost of individual issues with the game, where we had a certain number of points to alot to the issues in order to tally up what the playerbase saw as most important.

I can't be the only one who remembers this. If only I could find it
Lady Spank
Get Out Nasty Face
#49 - 2012-01-22 03:09:10 UTC
The CSM does a pretty damn good job of coordinating themselves.

Before you high sec people cry too much about not being represented, remember the last person you collectively voted for... Ankhesentapemkah (spellling). You can't even pick a sane person to represent your important high sec concerns.

(ಠ_ృ) ~ It Takes a Million Years to Become Diamonds So Lets Just Burn Like Coal Until the Sky's Black ~ (ಠ_ృ)
KrakizBad
Section 8.
#50 - 2012-01-22 03:12:37 UTC
Caldari Acolyte wrote:
KrakizBad wrote:
Caldari Acolyte wrote:
Case in point, certain CSM's are advocating for futher SC nerfs simply because their Alliance/ Coalition can't defeat other Alliances in SC fights. They can't field enough or their SC pilots suck or won't commit. Sc's are fine as is.

Sorry we accidentally your space. Did you use your SC to defend it?


No apology required, i'm in the south and have nothing to do with said conflict. BTW CAOD is that way----> lets stay on topic.

Then don't straw man bullcrap.
Tian Nu
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#51 - 2012-01-22 03:17:37 UTC
Lady Spank wrote:
The CSM does a pretty damn good job of coordinating themselves.

Before you high sec people cry too much about not being represented, remember the last person you collectively voted for... Ankhesentapemkah (spellling). You can't even pick a sane person to represent your important high sec concerns.


I lold

I was under impresion that Darius was representing (**** that sound crips) hi sec bears Cry

Father O'Malley about Darius III begging for whelp: “Hows that working out for ya ? I make it 02:21 and all I see is you begging Riverini to get numbers and trying to recruit from the incursion public channel.”
Lady Spank
Get Out Nasty Face
#52 - 2012-01-22 03:22:36 UTC
He is representing balance. Something greedy guts incursioners can't abide

(ಠ_ృ) ~ It Takes a Million Years to Become Diamonds So Lets Just Burn Like Coal Until the Sky's Black ~ (ಠ_ృ)
Caldari Acolyte
Shark Enterprises
#53 - 2012-01-22 03:35:09 UTC
KrakizBad wrote:
Caldari Acolyte wrote:
KrakizBad wrote:
Caldari Acolyte wrote:
Case in point, certain CSM's are advocating for futher SC nerfs simply because their Alliance/ Coalition can't defeat other Alliances in SC fights. They can't field enough or their SC pilots suck or won't commit. Sc's are fine as is.

Sorry we accidentally your space. Did you use your SC to defend it?


No apology required, i'm in the south and have nothing to do with said conflict. BTW CAOD is that way----> lets stay on topic.

Then don't straw man bullcrap.

U mad bro? don't take it out on me if raiden & Co. bitchslaped you alliance, again i live in the south.Blink
Spineker
#54 - 2012-01-22 04:19:33 UTC
it should have never been created to start with. It is biased dishonest and nonsense. I have to deal with BS politics in my life everyday without my game being a corrupt pool of toxic scumbags supporting their own personal interest.
KrakizBad
Section 8.
#55 - 2012-01-22 04:22:04 UTC
Caldari Acolyte wrote:
KrakizBad wrote:
Caldari Acolyte wrote:
KrakizBad wrote:
Caldari Acolyte wrote:
Case in point, certain CSM's are advocating for futher SC nerfs simply because their Alliance/ Coalition can't defeat other Alliances in SC fights. They can't field enough or their SC pilots suck or won't commit. Sc's are fine as is.

Sorry we accidentally your space. Did you use your SC to defend it?


No apology required, i'm in the south and have nothing to do with said conflict. BTW CAOD is that way----> lets stay on topic.

Then don't straw man bullcrap.

U mad bro? don't take it out on me if raiden & Co. bitchslaped you alliance, again i live in the south.Blink

Oh noes, lost some ships defending the brand new region we just took in 20 days. Cool
Nyssa Litari
Doomheim
#56 - 2012-01-22 04:38:04 UTC
Atticus Fynch wrote:
Who exactly do they represent and how do they speak for the rest of us?

I have yet to receive any surveys or questionaires from them asking what I, as a player, think.

Are they a truely respresentative body or just the body with the biggest mouth? So big they have psuedo-celebrity staus and get free trips to Iceland.

How often do you post in the Assembly Hall? There's a whole forum dedicated to giving player feedback to the CSM.
Spineker
#57 - 2012-01-22 04:46:50 UTC
Nyssa Litari wrote:
Atticus Fynch wrote:
Who exactly do they represent and how do they speak for the rest of us?

I have yet to receive any surveys or questionaires from them asking what I, as a player, think.

Are they a truely respresentative body or just the body with the biggest mouth? So big they have psuedo-celebrity staus and get free trips to Iceland.

How often do you post in the Assembly Hall? There's a whole forum dedicated to giving player feedback to the CSM.


They don't represent anyone but their alliances. Get real. They say exactly what they are told to.
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#58 - 2012-01-22 05:05:14 UTC
Spineker wrote:
Nyssa Litari wrote:
Atticus Fynch wrote:
Who exactly do they represent and how do they speak for the rest of us?

I have yet to receive any surveys or questionaires from them asking what I, as a player, think.

Are they a truely respresentative body or just the body with the biggest mouth? So big they have psuedo-celebrity staus and get free trips to Iceland.

How often do you post in the Assembly Hall? There's a whole forum dedicated to giving player feedback to the CSM.


They don't represent anyone but their alliances. Get real. They say exactly what they are told to.


Most of them are the Leaders/In the Leadership of their respective alliances. Who exactly is telling them what to do? And what, praytell, would the alliances use to keep them in line? The ear of a CSM is probably more valuable than a CSM who quits the alliance and is pissed at the leadership of said alliance.

Alliances are merely groups of people working together for a common interest. If you want a different composition in the next CSM, band together a group of people to populate the CSM with different people. Out of ~200k subs, ~40k peaks each day, there's certainly room to topple a chairman who won with ~6000 votes.

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon
Spineker
#59 - 2012-01-22 05:22:27 UTC  |  Edited by: Spineker
RubyPorto wrote:
Spineker wrote:
Nyssa Litari wrote:
Atticus Fynch wrote:
Who exactly do they represent and how do they speak for the rest of us?

I have yet to receive any surveys or questionaires from them asking what I, as a player, think.

Are they a truely respresentative body or just the body with the biggest mouth? So big they have psuedo-celebrity staus and get free trips to Iceland.

How often do you post in the Assembly Hall? There's a whole forum dedicated to giving player feedback to the CSM.


They don't represent anyone but their alliances. Get real. They say exactly what they are told to.


Most of them are the Leaders/In the Leadership of their respective alliances. Who exactly is telling them what to do? And what, praytell, would the alliances use to keep them in line? The ear of a CSM is probably more valuable than a CSM who quits the alliance and is pissed at the leadership of said alliance.

Alliances are merely groups of people working together for a common interest. If you want a different composition in the next CSM, band together a group of people to populate the CSM with different people. Out of ~200k subs, ~40k peaks each day, there's certainly room to topple a chairman who won with ~6000 votes.



LMAO you bore me. We all know it is broken you can continue to defend it. Leaders? Really? leaders of what binary code? My boss is a leader CSM are a joke. Corps and Alliances are worse than a day watching Kardashians reality TV
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#60 - 2012-01-22 05:34:03 UTC
Spineker wrote:



LMAO you bore me. We all know it is broken you can continue to defend it. Leaders? Really? leaders of what binary code? My boss is a leader CSM are a joke. Corps and Alliances are worse than a day watching Kardashians reality TV


I defend Democracy. You find me something better, prove to me that it is, in fact, better, and I will put you in for a Nobel Prize.

Leadership: "process of social influence in which one person can enlist the aid and support of others in the accomplishment of a common task"

Look at an alliance. A person (the "Leader") has "enlisted the aid and support of others" (the membership) "in the accomplishment of a common task" (Sov, CSM Chair, WHs, whatever) through "a process of social influence" (Find a way through which an EvE player can be coerced? Me neither.)


As far as Drama, that's called "Social Activity" that shit happens in real life just as much, if not more than it happens in EvE/Other MMOs.

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon