EVE General Discussion

That cuts it, I'm running for CSM 13 on the "HTFU you dumb MF'r" party ticket...

You could potentially get me onboard for such a system. Except I think I'd have half "at large" seats that would function exactly like the current system. Then the other half would be "specialist" seats for which you have to apply to CCP to be on the ballot. It might require a slight expansion of the CSM (to maybe 12-14 seats) to be viable. As you said, it's not perfect and it's not as democratic, but it gets all the various voices heard.

I think you may have misunderstood my objection. I don't agree with those examples in that I don't agree that they are examples of places where the CSM failed in a way that any kind of composition change would fix. They aren't an example of the CSM not functioning correctly, they're just things you don't like that CCP had valid reasons for, one of which went in and the other hasn't, at least not yet.

As for things like that graph, yes that graph doesn't say much, but that in and of itself is potentially instructive. Lacking more context at the moment though I can't really comment more on it beyond that I don't really think it illustrates anything useful here. At best it's one CSM trying to address a potential concern brought to him by other players.



It's a strawman. You've taken a clearly ridiculous potential case with a glaring flaw and tried to expand it to the current state of the CSM to illustrate why that flaw is still an issue. Except you've done it without any kind of consideration as to whether or not your example at all accurately models or takes into account the broader case. That's a textbook strawman argument.



So, again, what was the point of that argument? Your example did nothing to show that 10 people is too few, you've proposed no solution, and you have no magic number that will work.



I don't think CCP or the CSM are under any misapprehensions about their fallibility, but the CSM aren't worthless and they aren't an override button on CCP actions. Implying either of those, which is what your statement here seems to do, doesn't help.

Neither does disengaging from the CSM and declaring it worthless just because it's not doing what you specifically seem to want it to (apparently something involving the watchlist among, I'm sure, other things).

I can not think of a single potential or real problem with the CSM or any other representative group that doesn't get worse when the people they're representing cease to care about the representation in question.

Thank you for the compliment, I try though I don't always feel that I hit the mark.

I guess I disagree with you here in large part because I don't believe CCP are actually leaving anyone out. As I said before they read the forums, reddit, blogs, and other places people leave feedback either individually or in groups.

The problem here is, fundamentally, that CCP are in a Catch-22 of not enough dev time and if they speak to things too far in advance they risk either causing problems with player emotions (don't want people anticipating something that won't be touched for 2 years, they'll just feel disappointed at the wait) or risking having plans change and then the players feeling lied to.

It's pretty much impossible for CCP to have enough devs to give every area of the game the time and attention it wants. A certain other fantasy MMO with a budget and player-base many times the size of Eve and an overall simpler design space can't even manage to keep ahead of players devouring content, so it's unrealistic to expect Eve to.

I don't really have a solution for this but I don't think the CSM are the cause or even particularly culpable in the problem you're describing here. The issue is the realities of game development and that it's impossible for the priorities of CCP and their limited time and manpower to align with those of every group of players simultaneously.

I completely agree that CCP isn't leaving anyone out because they have no shortage of information from which to draw. However, I will argue that representation is a perception issue more than it is a functional issue. People need to feel their voices are being heard. Ensuring that a wider variety of voices have a seat at the CSM table isn't so that CCP can make a better product (I doubt it would matter much), but so that the player base who aren't currently represented feel like somebody is speaking for them. Perception doesn't have to reflect reality for it to be meaningful.

Well, that's one, I only need ilke 25,999 more!

Vote for me and we will go to the middle east Minmatar space and get all that Oil Spiced wine for ourselves!

That's exactly what it is. It is an example of a CSM member doing his best to bring concerns of the players to the summit after hosting a series of roundtables with players who engage in game play he has no experience in but also have no one else on the council to represent them with any experience. I salute the efforts of Jin'taan and some other members of CSM XI in trying to fill in the glaringly obvious gaps in the council's experience by talking to the players. It's no substitute for having someone with direct experience of these areas of game on the council, but it is something.

It's not even an argument, let alone a straw man. I did not set up a false point only to refute it nor make any conclusion. I pushed to the extreme a situation to highlight the fact I am sure you agree with that there is such a thing as under-representation, and that by changing the number of members of the council you increase the number of players that have representation. This is self-evident to anyone who considers the situation, but is made clearer with that thought experiment.

I think though we largely agree. There is a number of council members that would provide "complete" coverage of the playerbase, at least to the first approximation of general professions, activities and sectors of space in Eve. That number might be impossibly high and unwieldy for the council, but it does exist, and if the number is less than that then there are players who go unrepresented. Again, a simple fact. I see no solution to it, but that doesn't mean players and play styles are going unrepresented on the CSM unless you assert that 10 is enough and the current council is proficient in all areas of the game. That might be where we disagree as I think that at least this year, 10 was not enough as even 14 was not enough last year.

To each their own I guess.

Fair enough but here we are. Why should anyone care about a institution that either has no power and is just a collection of the space powerful pretending that they do, or really does have power but contains no one that represents them or their playstyle year-after-year? It's why the CSM keeps sliding into irrelevance (well that and the self-serving leaks, in-fighting, and self-interested lobbying that was the staple of pre-CSM11 councils). The problem gets worse and worse as more players stop caring and more power (real or pretend) becomes concentrated around those who have the most votes, which happens to be nullsec organizations.

I agree it isn't healthy, productive and doesn't bode well for the future of the CSM or the game in general, but it is what we have.

You can tell people they should care, but as the last two years showed either you can't make them, or even if you do there are not enough of them to surpass the number of votes the 5th or 6th largest nullsec entity can muster.

Don't worry though, I'll still spend a few futile minutes and send my votes the way of someone who can represent what I do in-game once a year. I'll also still talk to CSM members who show an interest in engaging on subjects outside their experience. But none of that means I have any confidence that the current sov nullsec CSM can as effectively represent me or a large collection of other players as well as a more diverse CSM could.

The CSM isn't just a PR gag though, it's an actually functional body and we have plenty of examples small and large through the years where they've given valuable feedback to CCP on upcoming changes and ideas.

Just stuffing more people into it for appearances sake and at the expense of its functional role doesn't help anyone and would likely diminish the value of the body from CCP's perspective.

---

I think there might be a number that you or I would be satisfied with but I find it highly unlikely we would come up with the same number. Generally speaking the number any given player would be satisfied with is going to be "One for every area of the game I am invested in + 1" but only if all of them agree with the player's general viewpoint or approach to that area of the game. Can't have those heretics representing Factional Warfare/Low Sec/Null Sec/High Sec/Miners/Gankers/Jita spam alts!

The problem is a pretty fundamental one to any group, "Human subcultures are nested fractally, there's no bottom."



Because none of this is actually true or in any way represents how the CSM actually works or what it does?

Seriously, that's rapidly becoming my default response to anyone with any questions or criticism of the CSM. Go learn what it actually does and how it actually works. Read the minutes, talk to the members or at least read their posts, and stop thinking of the CSM as surrogate Game Designers.

They're there to give CCP feedback on ideas. They don't have override power, they don't represent just their interests or the interests of their alliance, and they're certainly not making any kind of meaningful decision that impacts their groups that doesn't get filtered through a dozen different other places.

As I've seen several previous CSMs say, getting onto the CSM with a platform saying you're going to go on and advocate for your little area of space does basically jack-all if CCP aren't already working on it.

If I were to put the CSM in D&D terms it would be something like "Grants a 2% bonus against developer induced gameplay accidents".

I've come to respect your opinions quite a lot, but you're simply wrong here. Nobody is calling the CSM a PR gag, but its value isn't only in the functional benefits it provides (which are substantial). It also serves the psychological purpose of giving the players a voice with the developers. Suggesting that such a role is a gag is actually what diminishes the CSM's value. So if a significant percentage of the player base feels disenfranchised, then it's losing a substantial amount it's potential value. Giving people a voice (especially when it's non-binding) is never a bad thing.

I fully support your functional assessment. My point is that the value of the CSM also involves a psychological element. That's not a gag - that's the way our brains are wired. Leaders understand that people need to be heard - even if the answer is no.

i mean if you wanted to say "look the null blocs dominate the csm!!!!!!" you would, uh, show the winners and what bloc they represent

not the initial votes, which are noisy and fairly useless without knowing where votes flow to, or a big bar chart of names without even alliances tagged

it is a fair bet that someone who thought that graph had any relevance to anything about the csm probably doesn't have any keen understanding of any part of it besides that they're very mad they're not on the csm