EVE General Discussion

I hadn't found this in my google search and brief skimming of the forums/associated wiki pages. Thank you for actually pointing out the facts instead of claiming I was wrong (which I already admitted that I likely was), or personally insulting me. I was aware of the whole Mittani scandal, which is why I made it clear that I wasn't sure if my list of the CSM was current or not, as Mittani was on CSM 6.

Since there is so many SOV holding guys there....

I will run for the little guy in HIGHSEC. That's right, who am I... I am nobody, somebody that flies around in highsec enjoying myself even among the turmoil that the minority seems to suffer from, how do people get selected, by being somebody in EVE.

It is as simple as that. People in highsec are hardly as organised or as willing to come together to form some sort of united front to have them self heard on the CSM. There is to much disagreement between the highseccers.

So what do you do.... whine on the forums, the minority is always the loudest.

Why not come together and actually participate in making a change instead of whining for change?

Ignoring the terrible inaccuracies and using a very out of date list of CSM members, I shall attempt to address your concerns.

1. Nullsec alliances dominate the CSM - True. In nullsec we are required to pay attention to the community of the game and its ongoing development. Also our basic playstyle requires some level of organisational infrastructure. Nullsec alliances are therefore naturally going to produce candidates and vote. Conversely a highsec playstyle does not require any form of organisation or awareness of the game or its community, you can get to the point of happily doing level 4 missions in a marauder without ever having to engage with another player or read a dev blog

2. CSM members have their own adjendas - True, it is in our best interests to be on the CSM, because some time ago the CSM was dominated by highsec entities, and they decided that it would be a good idea to remove jumpbridges from the game, and CCP said okay. There was a backlash and a compromise was struck where you can only have 1 JB per starsystem. We in nullsec then woke up to the fact that the CSM has power to influence our way of life, and we'd better make sure it doesn't end up in the hands of those who think they know better. Because I think its fair to say that nullsec players have a broader experience of the game than people who have never left highsec.

3. - The CSM should have player representation - What? CSM members are players, elected by players. CCP should listen to what people post on the forums? Are you completly insane? No. I'd rather have a democraticly elected CSM go through effort to be elected to represent our interests than the meandering ramblings of some uninformed forum sperglord who, for example, can't even find a current list of CSM members on which to base his rant against the CSM, or who just lost his hulk and decided to whine on the forums about how he didn't realise that Eve was a PvP game.

4. The CSM serves only large nullsec alliances - False. The current CSM are guided by what is in the interests of the game as a whole, not just their own alliances. For example if you read the CSM meeting minutes, pretty much the whole CSM wants to nerf Technetium, because everyone acknowledges that it's stupid. This is despite the CSM mostly consisting of major Technetium holding alliances and who earn TRILLIONS of isk per month from holding Technetium. There's also widespread support for doing something to nerf supercapitals, despite large sov holding alliances being the ones that have the most supercapitals. So there are many clear examples where the CSM wants action that is good for the game as a whole, not just themselves.

5. I'm bored with Eve and it's the CSMs fault that I can't find anything fun to do right now - Get out.

The list of members isn't wrong. It just isn't current. If you look at the top of the page, where I stated the list was for CSM 6. There's a reason for that.



I already presented these arguments in my OP. You have yet to argue that I'm wrong about anything other than whether CSM 6 is the current CSM or previous. My argument is that the CSM is very similar to current politics in that we elect someone to represent us, and that someone usually doesn't end up representing us, but rather representing themselves.

**** it, I don't even meet the prerequisites of Diplomacy I, but I try to act like a civilized person for this one post.

Small issues, like the fact that you don't even know who the CSM is? Ok, let's forget that minor detail and continue with the rest of your arguments, which are based on wrong facts. I mean like we had anything better to do.

CSM benefits the EVE community as a whole, because it acts as a sounding board for CCP developers to discuss ideas face-to-face. This supplements the direct feedback CCP gathers from the playerbase via forums, petitions, Fanfest and periodical surveys. It's a known fact that live discussion with real people is an efficient way of discussing, we simply communicate better face-to-face.

Being on the CSM offers no benefits to it's members, it's a volunteer task that involves a fair bit of extra work. Trip to Iceland is just like any other business trip, if you consider it as a reward of any sort you probably haven't logged much air miles in your job.



I work for an NGO that works in close co-operation with members of parliament, meet politicians and read theirs and others blogs and follow how they vote and what they suggest in the parliament. These people literally live as they preach, and work to fulfill their campaign goals which are aligned with their voters ideals. Obviously, just like any representative organ, there are people full of it, populists and outright criminals among serious people. It is your task as a voter to judge their words and actions, and vote who you believe has spine and represents your views best. Cynicism doesn't take you, or the world, anywhere but to a permanent state of apathy.

CSM is no different. In the age of the internet, it's easy to keep yourself up to date with what they are doing and contact them. There's a whole forum section where you can discuss things with them, along with direct contact infos of the members.

Anyway your post was so completely over the top and laden thick with ridiculous prejudices that I find discussing with you rather pointless. Believe what you like, disregard the facts and keep spouting nonsense.

Agreed. Most of my time in EVE is spent in null sec. Most of my time in EVE is also spent engaging in PvP.



Agreed, as with the previous paragraph, living in null sec requires a higher awareness of what's happening in the game. It also requires more knowledge of the game's mechanics, so someone in null sec is definitely the ideal candidate for the CSM, if not the only candidate that isn't going to cause major problems to the game. This is part of what I think is the problem. There is little voice for the rest of the community. Nullsec is not the only community in EVE, nor is it the largest. Just like EVE is not a PvP game, but a sandbox, and nullsec is not the only place you can go in EVE.



Of course CCP needs to apply common sense when listening to the ramblings on the forums. Obviously it isn't a good idea to eliminate non-consensual PvP from high sec, but we don't need a CSM to tell CCP that, they already know. EVE is not a PvP game, EVE is a sandbox, and PvP is part of that sandbox, indeed it is a large part, but it is not the game.



I don't claim the CSM serves *ONLY* large nullsec alliances. I claim that it for the most part serves large nullsec alliances. I don't claim to have any evidence of this either. My argument is that fundamentally the CSM is flawed, because the most likely candidates to get elected will be from large nullsec alliances. And they're going to serve the interests of large nullsec alliances. Supercapitals aren't a major issue in my eyes. My main gripe is blobbing. Blobs are fine, but that really seems to be the only option when it comes to PvP combat. I don't find blobbing fun, in reality the only person that's actually thinking in blobs is the FC. The rest are just locking targets and shooting the primary while hoping they don't get called primary themselves. And I don't see any of the CSM making a major effort to change this. This is the kind of PvP the large sov holding alliances seem to like. Which is fine, it's a sandbox, there's plenty of room for every play style. But I would like to see room for my play style too. And I'm not the only person who would like to see more available small gang/solo pvp options that aren't bait. I don't see the CSM fighting for that change with the way it currently works. Like I said, I did make blanket statements, and I understand there are exceptions. I know the CSM does things that benefit the community as a whole. But if it doesn't benefit them, they aren't going to fight for it, no matter how much the community wants it. And voting someone else who will fight for what the other side wants into the CSM is pretty unlikely because of the previous points.



This isn't my claim at all. I still find ways to enjoy the game, otherwise I wouldn't be playing it, whether I'm able to play for free via plex or not. I just want to see other options available that aren't currently available, and the CSM isn't likely to fight for.

You as well as a few others are engaging in reductio ad absurdum. It's the logical fallacy of extending someone's argument to ridiculous proportions and then criticizing the result, and I do not appreciate it. I don't claim to speak for everyone. I do claim that others have expressed the same opinions as myself. And not silently either, there are forum posts asking for more small gang/solo pvp, more high sec content, more pve content, etc etc. Some of which I don't even care about. I could give a rats ass about mining. But I still think mining should at least be profitable, and in it's current state the risk vs reward of mining just isn't worth it. Unless of course you're using botting software. I don't care much about pve, however everyone has to pve at some point to make isk. I would like to see pve become more challenging if anything. Currently it's so repetitive and mind numbingly boring it's ridiculous.

I'm also fully aware of how real life governments get into power. And in the current state of real life governments, the most powerful (or wealthy, because wealth brings power), are the most likely to get the position. All they have to do is tell the masses what they want to hear, and spend a ton of money on campaigns. The middle/lower class which is actually the majority has almost no voice, because the politicians are not middle/lower class. The only thing stopping the highly powerful from outright raping the masses, is a revolt. And if you keep people dumb enough, and make changes gradually over time, they're not likely to revolt. It's only when you make major changes that hurt the masses and/or provide proper education that people will revolt.

These same similarities are in the CSM, with exception to dumbing people down, because you can't really do that in eve. However the most powerful alliances are the most likely to get a candidate of their choosing voted into csm.

CCP Hilmar has even confirmed what I'm saying to some extent.



In other words the CSM is mainly focused on null sec. The reason for that? Well the majority of the CSM members live in null sec and rarely leave.

Because clearly there's been a lot of changes made in high and low sec lately. And the majority of players who play in high/low sec are happy with it's current state. Also you've been engaging in abusive ad hominem in the majority of your replies to this thread.

Greetings capsuleer Heth,

Please elect a candidate of your choosing then.

Regards,

Shian Yang

Crucible removed insurance payouts for ships lost to CONCORD, bad for suicide gankers. Escalation removed drone poop thereby vastly decreasing the value of rats in like 5 nullsec regions in an attempt to unfuck the mineral market and make mining a viable activity for humans rather than bots. Some time ago the quality attribute was removed from mission agents, and now all agents have the same rewards, suddenly Motsu isn't the only mission running system in the game and there are dozens of effective quality 20 level 4 mission agents all over highsec. How are these things not colossal buffs to highsec?

Complaining about nerfed incursions? Well don't worry they nerfed all incursions, we don't run them in nullsec anymore either.

You complained before that the risk/reward of mining isn't worth it? In highsec? Protip for those who are being affected by Hulkageddon: don't mine in an untanked exhumer you colossal publord. Mine in a battleship, mine in groups, pay attention, use logistics cruisers, the only reason highsec mining is risky is because you're watching a movie instead of playing the game.

What's so hard about life in highsec? The worst thing that can happen to you is that someone comes along and ninja salvages your stuff while you impotently try to shoot the wrecks to gain a spiteful pyrrhic victory, or someone flips a can and you ignore the great big warning popup that tells you about how criminal flags work. Or oh no! a wardec! Oh wait I've never left the NPC starting corp, I can't be wardecced.

Meanwhile in nullsec we deal with risk of ship loss constantly, every time we jump, every time we rat in a belt or anomaly or try to make money in any way. Someone enters local you'd better be aligned to your safe POS or a station before that stealth recon uncloaks and lights a cyno in your lap. and enjoy the 30 jumps you have to do to get a replacement ship fitted up when you inevitably lose your current one. All this while making less money than we would doing missions. So please do forgive me if I have little sympathy for the highsec publords in their officer fit Golems running level 4 missions in complete safety complaining about how hard their little highsec lives are.