EVE General Discussion

Because the majority of people on the forums need to whine about something, and they figured CSM would be a good target

Tip:
Using words such as "toxic", "stupid" or "Epeens" to describe groups of people only shows your lack of objectivity on the matter. This is equivalent of raising your voice during a debate simply because you feel this will somehow make your point more valid. It doesn't.

That being said, I have to agree with the OP that the CSM is an elected committee. You can/should be mad about highsec not promoting group unity instead of not being represented. Highsec appeals so much to the risk-free soloer it should be re-dubbed EVE Offline. Every change proposed to fix this is also met with so much hate nothing ever seems to get implemented. Highsec has changed very little in 3 years based on my observations.

EVE is a MMO; makes sense actual united groups are represented. If your ideas are so much better than the ones currently proposed on the CSM, feel free to run for CSM next election and you might get enough support to get it - provided you actually have something to put on the table other than your ragequit papers.

And before you can formulate a snappy comeback - no, I do not like playing in huge corps or alliances. Small-to-medium size corporations is what I prefer yet I will vote for the representative who reflects my ideals about EVE the most, regardless of system security preference.

Suggest you re-read your own posts then where you originally claim to read things "with care" and then contradict yourself later that you didnt read it all as you didnt care.

As such I'd quit trying to act the diplomat and bore us with the irrelevant political opinions you have and face the truth your a hypocrit whose opinion can't be trusted.

Mad yet bro?

Some people in the CSM brought their in game morals onto the floor. They ran on a platform that they would support the people that voted for them but attempting to deliver on that promise is bad for the whole.

A CSM should have a code of conduct they agree to designed by a player base subcommittee and approved by a 2/3 vote of the majority. They should be simple principals. Something like this.

They should recognize that the whole is greater than the parts and most important.

Each man or woman should answer only to their own conscience and only after they feel they have been as fully informed on a subject as possible by every means possible.

Subcommittees should not restrict inclusion from people outside that subcommittees area so that a more well formed set of ideas are able to be presented.

Subcommittees only advise but the main body also respects their work. Both tend to yield to each other to try to work toward the whole.

people or committees are not to sell out to pressures inside or outside of the game.

CSM should have a small budget available for ancillary expenses, possibly from anonymous gamers instead of CCP for ancillary expenses so they are not swayed by non-anonymous sources.

CSM should not use social networking or public debasements of CCP to accomplish its ends, once again, the whole of the game and its reputation are above all.

CSM members would be internally governed by themselves but with respect to each other to serve on these or other agreed upon codes of conduct but answerable in a civilized manner to the players.

None of this should clash with CCP's own guidelines

Have you tried leaving your station lately and exploring any of this content before?

I believe that there are a couple of statistics that were shown on the old forums shortly after the last CSM election.


Well, first of all you can't really get a fair number out of the member count on the alliance list in-game. That member count does not differentiates in-account alts and old people that no longer play the game, whose accounts are inactive. And while you can get that number from null-sec alliances, you can't even make the same guess out of high-sec players because they are either members of one-man corps to avoid NPC taxes, members of group-of-friends corps or - as it is with most of them - members of NPC corps. There is no "Big High-sec alliance" because theres no need for one.

Now, the claim that high-seccers are a silent majority while null-seccers are a vocal minority is made because the high-sec population is much higher than the null-sec population. There are graphs that prove this claim and i'll go get a few later on.


However, what you see in these forums are mainly null sec players and/or veterans that already participated in all aspects of the game.

And the fact is that to survive in null-sec you need to be part of a group. There are small groups and big groups, but no successfull lone soul in null-sec. And high-sec is different.. its a place where people can do almost everything alone without ever "holding a palaver" with other people.

Also, being in null-sec takes a little more dedication to the game than living in high-sec, therefore you have groups of people that care enough about the game to read dev blogs, participate in forum discussions and.. you guessed.. participate in CSM elections.

It's not really the topic at hand, but I'd just like to point out that it is possible to solo in null. You have to be a little tricky, but it is doable.

This is bullcr4p.

In my country lobbysts are forbidden.

Do you know what happens? That everything related to certain categories of interests is handled under-hand and shadowy way and in the end we get all sorts of stupid laws without even knowing the groups that promoted them.

Lobbysts are a transparent mechanism to show who are those sons of a beetch.

Removing the transparent mechanism, you still have those those sons of a beetch, they will just be hidden and manipulate worse.

Don't forget:

EVE IS REAL!!!

[/cynicism]

The one WH member, buy the way, is not even a full candidate, but an alternate, who didn't get to go to the meeting because they already had a quorum with the "real" candidates (IE, no-one got sick, bowed out at the last second, or just didn't show up.).

See my sig--says it all.

So the CSM are giving input and feedback about stuff they don't understand and shouldn't be giving feedback on. Well this is definatly a big issue with the CSM, but it isn't new.

And it has already been estabilished that the advantages behind having the CSM outweight the issues with it. People need to remember that the feedback provided by the CSM is not final, and if CCP goes forward with something that passes through them but doesn't fly with the community as a whole, they will read what you have to say on the forums.

I don't believe i ever saw a feature that wasn't welcome by the community, but still got implemented because "The CSM said it would be ok to do it".