Jita Park Speakers Corner

I'm going to seriouspost a bit. For the record, I'm voting for Mittani. You can talk about how I'm manipulating the votes now and am a terrible goonie.

I also posted something similar in the Xenuria thread, but that's no longer a place for decent people and this is relevant to a broad audience.

First, a brief history of the CSMs. CSM1-5 was irrelevant. CSM6 was relevant and changed the game. A lot of dudes have noticed this and gotten all excited about the perceived newfound power and are running for CSM without realizing that the power was always there, what CSM6 did was apply a new methodology.

First, lets look at the perceived way in which the CSM implements an idea

Candidate gets elected -> Candidate proposes ideas -> CCP listens and implements idea.

This is what CSM1-5 thought and they failed. This is what CSM6 did.

Candidates got elected -> Candidates create a consensus platform -> CSM presents ideas as a mostly united front -> CSM applies pressure to CCP -> CCP listens -> CCP considers idea, backing for idea, and other pressures -> CCP implements or ignores idea.

So what was the methodology?

First, CSM6 applied ideas in a consensus fashion. While candidates may try to distinguish themselves by emphasizing how they are different, or, worse yet, by mocking their opponents, the only ideas that have a chance of getting implemented are ones with a broad appeal amongst CSM members. When a candidate mocks the Mittani or Nullsec members, they're showing they're ignorant of this process and will probably be rendered irrelevant.

I'll put it simply: A candidate that cannot play nice with the rest of the CSM is irrelevant, even if they get elected.

B-b-but the Mittani mocks lots of people!

You're right. He mocks people who he doesn't have to work with. Darius III already showed he's irrelevant. Most of the candidates this election are irrelevant. He's very cordial to actual members of the CSM who can he can coordinate with, even if their platforms differ from his.

B-b-but... we can throw out all the nullsec candidates!

No, you can't. If you think that, you're betting on miracles while this is about realpolitik. Stop reading now because you're wasting your time.

Note I did not say that your candidate must agree with every other candidate's ideas to be effective. A good candidate has an excellent understanding of the mechanics surrounding their idea, why they are flawed, and has a solution that can be implemented that will have a strong, positive effect on both their pet mechanic and the game as a whole. They need to make the other candidates care. In addition, they must be able to care about and discuss other people's ideas. If they are a sperger who refuses to think outside of their favorite hugbox, then they're useless.


The second reason CSM6 was effective was they were able to exert media pressure. Ideas that require genuine effort from CCP and go against the existing direction of the company must have a broad enough appeal they can be presented to a wide audience who will be invested in them. We've seen that a lot of media pressure is required just to get CCP to stop doing stupid things, if you want them to start doing a smart thing that'll require devoting resources (ie piles of money), then you damn well better be able to pressure them on it. If the idea sounds like something a small subsection of EVE will approve of, but no one else will care about, then it has no chance of being presented unless it's minor, and if it is minor you're better off just bringing it up to existing CSM members than running on it. Note that this section also requires coordinating with other CSM members. See how important playing nice is?


The third reason the CSM was effective was that immediate steps could be taken on their ideas during their tenure. While not all of their ideas were implemented, many of them could have been and many of them, such as titan balancing, anomaly changes, refocusing on ships in space, and hybrid balancing were. Consider whether the ideas proposed by the candidate can be implemented within a 9 month or less time frame. If they cannot, the candidate ends up looking ineffective. If the candidate looks ineffective, they don't get elected again. If they don't get elected, the idea's advocate is gone and CCP shuffles the idea to the backburner. This is the story of CSM1-5.


The final reason I'll cover is that CSM6 remembered they are a focus group, not game developers. They emphasized or de-emphasized existing directions of development within the company rather than creating new ones. They also presented their ideas in a way that existing developers would care about them and would be able to incorporate them into existing projects. Hiring new people is expensive, and starting new major projects is more expensive. Before going nuts over WiS, remember that many of the WiS devs were just fired with the deprioritization of WoD and WiS, as it is, is currently in the pre-alpha stage. Creating a massive, multiplayer world inside ships and stations, not even considering the additional difficulties of WiS PvP, requires multiple developers and a large bloc of time that probably isn't there.


So anyways, don't waste your vote, don't be a dumb candidate.

While it's really entertaining to see white supremacists and other comedy candidates run, creating a strong, cohesive CSM with experience in all areas of the game is better for everyone.

I'm surprised you didn't mention anything about the number of votes:

"Quite frankly, I think the threshold for getting into the top 7 is going to be higher, perhaps 2900 or even 3000. This is because the nullsec power blocs will focus their voting in order to try and guarantee they get at least 5 out of the 7 slots."

"It is simply this: unless you can honestly say that you have 1000 votes locked up and in the bag, running for CSM just increases the voting power of the organized blocs. You need to have a constituency behind you already."

I've not yet decided how my 7 votes (I can probably also direct every vote of our small corp) will best be served, not that it will matter.

I keep hearing that there is this huge angry mob that's upset with the current CSM but I have to see even a single example of what they did wrong during their term.

Can you provide one?

Firstly my point was about candidate stances, not "mob" rule.

But seeing as you bring it up. I doubt CSM 6 did anything wrong, for their own personal interest.

This is why we see a number of threads regarding the neglect to various interests and the selfish representaion associated from certain members. Or the contencious points of the CSM7 campaign. In fact this year's election campaign is so peacefull and serene there is absolutley no concerns being raised at all. Are you joking? Please tell me you are, I can try to have a sense of humour about this.

However just to emphasise my own personal stance I'm not too displeased with the majority of CSM6, just certain members like the current Chairman as an example.

How about this one.

CSM convenes as usual ->
CSM talks for hours on end CCP falls asleep ->
months later in an unrelated feature that CSM didn't even know was happening CCP fucks up totally ->
CCP comes to CSM to go "wtf happened we accidently our game" ->
CSM creates perception they fixed issue ->
CCP fixes issue ->
CCP decides to release feature at later date with better marketing ->
idiots perceive CSM has power ->
Broken-minded Mittani followers take advantage of that and create perception everyone should keep voting mittani to continue this great power.

Show me why then it invalidates the feelings of dislike with certain aspects of the CSM, even if you confirm thses as opinions, which suprisingly enough is quite relevant to a campaign.




Interesting that you see pointing out selfish interests as being a big baby. I would say the immaturity and childishness lies in those unable to justify such flagrant bias like spoilt brats expecting treats all the time.

I'd say grow up of course and debate the issues, but then the point would be lost I guess.




So CSM are not candidates then if your going to be extremely literal about it?

Anyhow just saying that is really is no real suprise that propoganda is being used, its not news to anyone. Doesn't have to mean all bad at all either, propoganda is a recognised way of representing views in a specific way or for specific purposes in some cases despite its normal negative conotation.




So you agree that bars are being set low. Fair enough. Perhaps for good reasons in some cases, but I'd kinda like to have a CSM that doesn't adopt a less than pro-active and enthusiastic view to the future of EvE development.

Also don't change the subject. Mittens can be who he likes IG and play how he likes, I'm bothered about CSM repsonsibilities here and the future of EvE. But I guess if you don't want to take that seriously I'll have to exercise my voting to someone who will, the main point of an election of course. But you have done nothing but confirmed my worst fears about how the Mittani sees EvE progressing.

The bastard eats all the bacon.

What's my prize?

I'm calling you a big baby because you're getting so whiny about favoritism. I'll explain this real simple. When a lot of people in EVE have a common agenda, they vote in a candidate that supports that agenda. That candidate then, in turn, pushes the agenda of the people who voted it in. A candidate has no obligation to represent all EVE players just because he or she is elected, their only obligation is to support the agenda of their constituency. You have no leverage at all if you aren't a member of that constituency. It works this way in real life too. I'm calling you a big whiny baby because you think you're owed something when you're not.

The basic assumption of the CSM is that if something is important, then enough people will rally around it to get a representative elected. If something isn't important, then no representative will be elected for it.



I'm saying in the past all people did was use propaganda to get elected. No previous CSM as a whole used propaganda, much less media, to actually push their agenda through to CCP. I don't know how to make this any more clear.





This isn't rocket science. Vote for whoever you want. Point out anywhere in my original post where I say to vote for Mittani other than the place where I say I, personally, am voting for Mittani. The only agenda I push is that it's a good idea to vote for people who are mature and sensible enough to work together so things actually get done, because if you vote for spergy people who don't play nice with others your agenda gets marginalized and everything else gets slowed down, so in the end no one benefits. You're one of those nuts that see a goon conspiracy in everything and that, above all else, is why I've been mocking you.

As for the bar being set low, I think redirecting the focus of CCP back to spaceships and time dilation in were great accomplishments that really improved the game. Hell, I'd say the redirection of EVE away from World of Darkness alpha testing was the most important thing done for the future of EVE in a long time.

It's not rocket science no, but where have I said or does it say the Mittani own exclusive rights on negociation, where does it say that I think other candidates as being impotent or not showing suffcient capabilities to do this. This is not the exclusive right or unique skill set of the Mitttani. But its seems he wants the copyright to this in his campaign it seems.

As such I see it that you have a view that being mature enough to consider other players and their interests as a weakness to progression, whereas I see it as a strength. Selfish interests will likley end up with certain areas of the game having a represented bias of importance and as such will neglet others. Whereas showing sufficient accomodation for numerous interests and solutions that doesn't exclude anyone from a design point will help EvE overall.

If anything simply going for the easy selfish option rather than thinking things through with the big picture in mind for me takes more capabilties, design standards, commitment to everyone and shows a much better level of intellectual capacity. This is of course before we start talking about using political power in the wrong way as a meta-weapon for winning EvE.