These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

EVE General Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

The CSM – Council of Sov. Management.

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Retar Aveymone
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#101 - 2017-04-20 23:08:17 UTC
Vic Jefferson wrote:

Oh, this is something we could chew on for years. I think a balanced CSM would look like this, assuming 10 seats:

3 Sov Null
1 Lowsec FW
1 Lowsec non-FW
1 High Sec Antagonist
1 NPC null
1 Industry specialist
1 Wormhole enthusiast
1 NPSI specialist


do you know what automatically allocates seats based on the proportional number of those people in the game?

a voting system that gives one vote per person and is designed not to waste votes

a single transferable voting system, as it were
Sonya Corvinus
Grant Village
#102 - 2017-04-20 23:21:14 UTC
Vic Jefferson wrote:
Oh, this is something we could chew on for years. I think a balanced CSM would look like this, assuming 10 seats:

3 Sov Null
1 Lowsec FW
1 Lowsec non-FW
1 High Sec Antagonist
1 NPC null
1 Industry specialist
1 Wormhole enthusiast
1 NPSI specialist


Curious, why would sov null get three given it's a minority in the game? Only 15% of people live there.
Retar Aveymone
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#103 - 2017-04-20 23:24:40 UTC
Sonya Corvinus wrote:
Vic Jefferson wrote:
Oh, this is something we could chew on for years. I think a balanced CSM would look like this, assuming 10 seats:

3 Sov Null
1 Lowsec FW
1 Lowsec non-FW
1 High Sec Antagonist
1 NPC null
1 Industry specialist
1 Wormhole enthusiast
1 NPSI specialist


Curious, why would sov null get three given it's a minority in the game? Only 15% of people live there.

the survey taken each year where every character has a chance to identify the playstyle and characters they most identify with despite where their moneymaking alts are based shows, far and away, that it's sov null

you might have heard of it, it's called the csm elections
Zarek Kree
Lunatic Legion Holdings
#104 - 2017-04-20 23:25:28 UTC  |  Edited by: Zarek Kree
Retar Aveymone wrote:
do you know what automatically allocates seats based on the proportional number of those people in the game?

a voting system that gives one vote per person and is designed not to waste votes

a single transferable voting system, as it were


Yet that's not what we see on the CSM. The CSM is a measure of organization - not representation. I don't know the statistics, but does anybody doubt that the vast majority of players live in highsec? The fact that they aren't an organized block doesn't mean they aren't a significant part of this game. They'll NEVER garner the votes that nullsec gets as a matter of course, yet they continue to be where most players reside.
Sonya Corvinus
Grant Village
#105 - 2017-04-20 23:28:06 UTC
Retar Aveymone wrote:
the survey taken each year where every character has a chance to identify the playstyle and characters they most identify with despite where their moneymaking alts are based shows, far and away, that it's sov null

you might have heard of it, it's called the csm elections


CSM as it is today doesn't do much of anything, outside of sov null alliances asking their members to vote a certain way.

so again, given only 15% of people live in sov null, why should they get three votes in that proposed system?
Soel Reit
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#106 - 2017-04-20 23:30:28 UTC
cuz mittens said so Roll
Retar Aveymone
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#107 - 2017-04-20 23:33:05 UTC  |  Edited by: Retar Aveymone
Zarek Kree wrote:
Yet that's not what we see on the CSM. The CSM is a measure of organization - not representation. I don't know the statistics, but does anybody doubt that the vast majority of players live in highsec? The fact that they aren't an organized block doesn't mean they aren't a significant part of this game. They'll NEVER garner the votes that nullsec gets as matter of course, yet they continue to be where most players reside.


this is a stupid opinion idiots have been wrapping themselves in a cuccoon with ever since stv was first implemented when it was proposed, explicitly, as a way to defeat the sov menace of having seats on the csm and whoops, sov null keeps getting the seats because thats what the voters want

the fact that highsec can get maybe one guy on every year proves what we've told you all along: most of those highsec characters are null alts because highsec is where the money and logistics are

STV means the only organization you require is to vote, it is extremely difficult to figure out how to vote tactically and it gives slim, if any, additional voting power. non-stv systems reward organization much more because you need to figure out how to vote tactically. literally the only organization required is "hey you should vote", and huh, despite people constantly agitating highseccers to vote they keep not having any votes

you keep trying to spin this as a conspiracy that the voting system is keeping you down but stv is an irl voting system deliberately designed to avoid that. you keep losing, which means there's only one explanation: despite your firm belief that you are the Representative Of The Silent Majority, you're not
Retar Aveymone
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#108 - 2017-04-20 23:41:22 UTC
under first past the post you must have a bloc, because if you don't vote for someone who wins your vote is wasted so you all have to agree ahead of time on the Official Ballot

stv means that's not necessary. many of our members (quietly, if they know what's good for them) diverge from the Official Ballot but it doesn't matter

highsec doesn't need to organize, they just have to vote for highsec candidates but lo and behold, nobody ever does. because highsec is mostly bots, null alts, the criminally illiterate, and good, upstanding people like gankers. and even the gankers: good, upstanding, organized people can't get enough votes to get someone on. the criminally illiterate are best filtered out by a voting system that requires them to read in order to vote, and lo and behold the null alts vote the same way their null mains do

everyone has this sincere belief that we work some magic to make stv work for us. we don't. we just vote. if highsec was voting but their poor organization was depriving them of representation, you'd see it in the results. they're not. nobody likes highseccers, even people with alts in highsec.

sorry. you are an unloved minority with precisely the political power your numbers have earned you. those are the facts, as evidenced by the twelve most comprehensive surveys of the views of eve players, the csm elections
Retar Aveymone
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#109 - 2017-04-20 23:44:04 UTC
oh, i forgot option three

option three is that there are a sizable amount of highsec players, but they too loathe other highsec players and hope to one day become one of those strong, virile nullsec men and women and vote their hopes and dreams instead of their slovenly and wretched existence
Cade Windstalker
#110 - 2017-04-20 23:50:24 UTC
Zarek Kree wrote:
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.



Sorry, I didn't literally mean to imply that you were calling the CSM a PR gag, but I have seen literally half a dozen people use words to that effect to describe their views on the CSM in the last month or so. I slipped into speaking more generally without specifying, my apologies.

I'm also not diminishing the PR and psychological effect the CSM has on the playerbase, I just think the functional aspect should take precedence in making decisions about it. CCP clearly seem to agree or they wouldn't have changed the CSM the way they have in recent years.

I don't dispute anything you say here, I just don't think the CSM is the solution to giving smaller groups a voice. Maybe hiring and/or appointing a dev to liaison with different areas of the game in a way the CSM and/or most devs don't? Might work, but you still run into the "I want one too" fractal groups problem and I wouldn't wish that job on my worst enemy... okay maybe on them, but you get the point. Dealing with players in that kind of capacity is mentally exhausting.

Black Pedro wrote:
Exactly. They are there to give feedback on ideas put to them by CCP, but how can they do that if they have little or no experience of certain aspects of the game important to me?

I am glad you feel there are people on the council who can give constructive feedback on what you do in the game. I don't. Maybe I am wrong, although all the evidence and interactions I have had point in this direction. There are some earnest and hardworking people on the council, but none I feel can actually represent the things I do regularly in the game from any direct experience and there haven't been any for a long time.

I think I have spent enough words on this subject and my point is clear. The CSM may work for you, but is clearly not the most useful avenue for my views and concerns to be conveyed to CCP given the lack of representation. More importantly, I have no actual solution to make the problem better so there is no point in complaining about it. I'll just stick to the forums and other channels as you suggested before. It seems to have worked in the case of the MER and it might again next time something inevitably slips by the CSM.


Eh, it's less that I feel that my play-style is well represented on the CSM, some parts are and some aren't, and more than I have a bit of faith in the people who get on there to have the best interests of the game at heart, especially combined with the experience and knowledge of CCP's devs.

Then again my views on the game and its general state are a bit odd for a player, so there's that.
Zarek Kree
Lunatic Legion Holdings
#111 - 2017-04-20 23:50:56 UTC
Retar Aveymone wrote:
[this is a stupid opinion idiots have been wrapping themselves in a cuccoon with ever since stv was first implemented when it was proposed, explicitly, as a way to defeat the sov menace of having seats on the csm and whoops, sov null keeps getting the seats because thats what the voters want

the fact that highsec can get maybe one guy on every year proves what we've told you all along: most of those highsec characters are null alts because highsec is where the money and logistics are

STV means the only organization you require is to vote, it is extremely difficult to figure out how to vote tactically and it gives slim, if any, additional voting power. non-stv systems reward organization much more because you need to figure out how to vote tactically. literally the only organization required is "hey you should vote", and huh, despite people constantly agitating highseccers to vote they keep not having any votes

you keep trying to spin this as a conspiracy that the voting system is keeping you down but stv is an irl voting system deliberately designed to avoid that. you keep losing, which means there's only one explanation: despite your firm belief that you are the Representative Of The Silent Majority, you're not


Just so that I'm clear, are you actually arguing that most players live in nullsec and that highsec is just where their alts hang out? I think you'd be hard pressed to support such a position with objective facts. But if you have some, I'd be interested in hearing them.

I'm not suggesting that the CSM is some kind of a conspiracy. I think CCP instituted a perfectly reasonable voting system to get player representation. I think it does a reasonably good job. I'm simply arguing that it structurally disenfranchises a significant percentage of the player base and can be improved with minor modifications - specifically designating a handful of seats that are reserved for functional interests that are otherwise not represented because they aren't as organized as the nullsec alliances. That's hardly an irrational or unreasonable view.
Retar Aveymone
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#112 - 2017-04-21 00:23:50 UTC
Zarek Kree wrote:

Just so that I'm clear, are you actually arguing that most players live in nullsec and that highsec is just where their alts hang out? I think you'd be hard pressed to support such a position with objective facts. But if you have some, I'd be interested in hearing them.

I'm not suggesting that the CSM is some kind of a conspiracy. I think CCP instituted a perfectly reasonable voting system to get player representation. I think it does a reasonably good job. I'm simply arguing that it structurally disenfranchises a significant percentage of the player base and can be improved with minor modifications - specifically designating a handful of seats that are reserved for functional interests that are otherwise not represented because they aren't as organized as the nullsec alliances. That's hardly an irrational or unreasonable view.

That's what the voting data shows. Nullsec people keep winning, in the one test where people are incentivized to select the person or playstile they most identify with. Where an alt happens to be does not.

There is no structural disadvantage null has. You do not need organization to vote in STV. That's a myth people keep spouting because its either that, or admit reality. People take as their base assumption most people are highseccers, but the vote totals keep not bearing that out, so they assume the vote totals are wrong. But voting systems are very well studied and understood. There is no silent majority of highseccers. You don't need organization to vote in STV. You pick the people you like, that's it. You do not need to know which ones have which amount of support so you can properly allocate your voting power strategically, like you do in many other voting systems. You just vote.

The one edge case is if highseccers were still spreading their vote among so many candidates that none can ever get a quorum and votes keep expiring unused but I have analyzed every single vote register and never seen anythign of the sort. The sole case where a ton of people lost their voting power was when provibloc told everyone to vote corebloodbroothers iirc and no one else, so their excess votes all poofed.
Jenn aSide
Soul Machines
The Initiative.
#113 - 2017-04-21 00:37:45 UTC
Sonya Corvinus wrote:
Retar Aveymone wrote:
the survey taken each year where every character has a chance to identify the playstyle and characters they most identify with despite where their moneymaking alts are based shows, far and away, that it's sov null

you might have heard of it, it's called the csm elections


CSM as it is today doesn't do much of anything, outside of sov null alliances asking their members to vote a certain way.

so again, given only 15% of people live in sov null, why should they get three votes in that proposed system?


Not "people" characters. 15% of characters live in null. and because of things like intel and cynos, null players are most likely to have alts. If ever ynull player only has 1 alt, we are close to 1/3rd of the people playing EVE.

And I have more than one alt...

Which is all moot, nothing is stopping anyone from voting. CCP even puts these big flashy "CSM voting is now open" pop up in the notifications thing. And still you can't get High Sec folks to vote. Too bad we can't talk real life politics here, because there is a RL correlation about people who will complain all day about stuff then not vote....
Zarek Kree
Lunatic Legion Holdings
#114 - 2017-04-21 00:40:00 UTC  |  Edited by: Zarek Kree
Zarek Kree wrote:
Just so that I'm clear, are you actually arguing that most players live in nullsec and that highsec is just where their alts hang out? I think you'd be hard pressed to support such a position with objective facts. But if you have some, I'd be interested in hearing them.


Retar Aveymone wrote:
That's what the voting data shows. Nullsec people keep winning, in the one test where people are incentivized to select the person or playstile they most identify with. Where an alt happens to be does not.


Nevemind...many of your points are valid, but as long as you insist that the voting totals represent the actual player base totals, then you're not somebody to be taken seriously. This is an example of somebody arguing their position to the point of absurdity.
Sonya Corvinus
Grant Village
#115 - 2017-04-21 00:41:12 UTC
Jenn aSide wrote:
CSM as it is today doesn't do much of anything, outside of sov null alliances asking their members to vote a certain way.

so again, given only 15% of people live in sov null, why should they get three votes in that proposed system?


Not "people" characters. 15% of characters live in null. and because of things like intel and cynos, null players are most likely to have alts. If ever ynull player only has 1 alt, we are close to 1/3rd of the people playing EVE.

And I have more than one alt...

Which is all moot, nothing is stopping anyone from voting. CCP even puts these big flashy "CSM voting is now open" pop up in the notifications thing. And still you can't get High Sec folks to vote. Too bad we can't talk real life politics here, because there is a RL correlation about people who will complain all day about stuff then not vote....[/quote]

And in spite of all that, null is still a minority part of the game. So one more time, why should a region with 15% of the accounts get 3x as much representation? We all know they are the "hardcore" players (which isn't true, but it's what nullsec thinks), which is the answer to that question. Is that really a good answer?
Sitting Bull Lakota
Poppins and Company
#116 - 2017-04-21 01:26:46 UTC
Just adding as others have that the CSM isn't a government or development consultant group. They're a consumer focus group for CCP to float their latest steamer by to see what kind of a reaction it gets.

It's neat that we get to vote for the members. It's also neat and totally within EvE's themes that the CSM gets gamed by player blocs. It follows that it would be totally against EvE's themes for CCP to step in and regulate who can be nominated, how many seats must go to such and such playgroup, or implement harah regulations to discourage player coalitions (whose 1000 man shenanigans make the headlines) from organizing to "blob the CSM."

You want a seat on the council?
Get organized.

Shame on you for wishing for big daddy CCP to intervene.
Cade Windstalker
#117 - 2017-04-21 02:00:02 UTC
Sonya Corvinus wrote:
And in spite of all that, null is still a minority part of the game. So one more time, why should a region with 15% of the accounts get 3x as much representation? We all know they are the "hardcore" players (which isn't true, but it's what nullsec thinks), which is the answer to that question. Is that really a good answer?


Based on my personal experience and what others have told me about how and why they play I think it's more to do with engagement.

Someone who just logs in every day to shoot red crosses on their own and doesn't really engage with the rest of the game much probably also isn't going to engage with the CSM voting.

Similarly you're going to see more people willing to put themselves forward as candidates and better able to get their name out if they're very invested in and keyed into the game.

I've had a lot of people tell me over the years things along the lines of they don't have the time or the energy for Null/WHs/ect so that's why they're in High Sec. I've also seen similar things out of mission runners, Incursioners, Eve Uni teachers and staff, and similar groups that tend to have a more relaxed expectation of time and energy investment compared to a Null group that may have activity requirements or even just someone renting out there that needs to make enough ISK every month to pay the bills.

There's nothing particularly special about Eve having these lower engagement players, every game has them, they just stand out a little more around issues like this.

Most of them probably don't actually care who is even on the CSM.

As for how many of those players there actually are in the game, only CCP knows that, but based on activity numbers that are available to players and some of CCP's comments about ship use, mission running, and different playstyles I think it's probably quite a bit higher than most people figure.
Querns
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#118 - 2017-04-21 03:19:56 UTC
Sonya Corvinus wrote:

15% of characters live in null.


Irrelevant. Most of my characters live in highsec. They all vote straight GSF ticket.

You can't draw a meaningful conclusion from where characters are located, because characters don't vote based on their location. They vote based on their owner's identity and preferences. Location may be weakly correlated with identity, but it damn well isn't causing it.

The CSM election results show that an overwhelming number of folks identify as 0.0 players. Thus, nullsec is the most important part of the game.

This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
Frostys Virpio
State War Academy
Caldari State
#119 - 2017-04-21 03:40:25 UTC
Zarek Kree wrote:
Zarek Kree wrote:
Just so that I'm clear, are you actually arguing that most players live in nullsec and that highsec is just where their alts hang out? I think you'd be hard pressed to support such a position with objective facts. But if you have some, I'd be interested in hearing them.


Retar Aveymone wrote:
That's what the voting data shows. Nullsec people keep winning, in the one test where people are incentivized to select the person or playstile they most identify with. Where an alt happens to be does not.


Nevemind...many of your points are valid, but as long as you insist that the voting totals represent the actual player base totals, then you're not somebody to be taken seriously. This is an example of somebody arguing their position to the point of absurdity.


Nobody cares about those who do not vote. Out of those that care enough to vote, the majority identify itself with null-sec candidate. There could be millions upon millions of high-sec players but if they do not vote, they would still lose. Why should someone represent them if they can't even be bothered to vote?

Or maybe HS is mostly NS alts like some people are theorizing.
Frostys Virpio
State War Academy
Caldari State
#120 - 2017-04-21 03:42:44 UTC
Querns wrote:
Sonya Corvinus wrote:

15% of characters live in null.


Irrelevant. Most of my characters live in highsec. They all vote straight GSF ticket.

You can't draw a meaningful conclusion from where characters are located, because characters don't vote based on their location. They vote based on their owner's identity and preferences. Location may be weakly correlated with identity, but it damn well isn't causing it.

The CSM election results show that an overwhelming number of folks identify as 0.0 players. Thus, nullsec is the most important part of the game.


Another point that makes this 15% stats irrelevant is that nobody should cry about not being represented if they can't even put in the effort to vote... Even if we forget about all the NS player alts in HS, if the HS player don't vote, they deserve to never be represented.