These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Jita Park Speakers Corner

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

So why is 20% of the game's population representing the entire CSM?

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Frying Doom
#21 - 2012-08-03 03:24:54 UTC
Its easy just make everyone vote before they can log in.
As EvE players are notoriously lazy about voting and would probably just click who ever is on the top of the ballet, we would need to have a good pvp tournament in the battle royale style to decide positions on the ballet.

Oh and only joking, my tinfoil hat is in the wash atmBig smile

Any spelling, grammatical and punctuation errors are because frankly, I don't care!!
Dersen Lowery
The Scope
#22 - 2012-08-03 03:40:08 UTC
Frying Doom wrote:
Its easy just make everyone vote before they can log in.
As EvE players are notoriously lazy about voting and would probably just click who ever is on the top of the ballet, we would need to have a good pvp tournament in the battle royale style to decide positions on the ballet.

Oh and only joking, my tinfoil hat is in the wash atmBig smile


That is the problem with forcing the issue, though: I don't think that "I'll vote for whoever, just let me into the damn game" serves the idea of democracy any more than non-participation.

Ideally, anyone too apathetic to inform themselves on the candidates is also too apathetic to vote. If the CSM want to be taken seriously--and, if the latest minutes are any indication, they do, and more importantly, the players should want them to--then the fewer empty/LOL/random votes there are, the better.

Proud founder and member of the Belligerent Desirables.

I voted in CSM X!
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#23 - 2012-08-03 07:48:37 UTC
Frying Doom wrote:
Its easy just make everyone vote before they can log in.
As EvE players are notoriously lazy about voting and would probably just click who ever is on the top of the ballet, we would need to have a good pvp tournament in the battle royale style to decide positions on the ballet.

Oh and only joking, my tinfoil hat is in the wash atmBig smile


How dare you discriminate against my CSM candidate alt, Aardvark A. Andrews in this way!

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
rodyas
Tie Fighters Inc
#24 - 2012-08-03 08:36:36 UTC
Malcanis wrote:
Frying Doom wrote:
Its easy just make everyone vote before they can log in.
As EvE players are notoriously lazy about voting and would probably just click who ever is on the top of the ballet, we would need to have a good pvp tournament in the battle royale style to decide positions on the ballet.

Oh and only joking, my tinfoil hat is in the wash atmBig smile


How dare you discriminate against my CSM candidate alt, Aardvark A. Andrews in this way!


Mintrolio, never forget.

He never would have forced you to go into null sec.

Signature removed for inappropriate language - CCP Eterne
Vera Algaert
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#25 - 2012-08-03 12:25:03 UTC  |  Edited by: Vera Algaert
Cyprus Black wrote:
I'm pretty sure nullsec population is a tad lower than 20%. Didn't CCP say at fanfest that it's around 15% ?

*edit* stupid iPhone auto misspeller.

keep in mind that you are talking about characters, not players.

I consider myself a 0.0 player and currently 5 of my 11 characters are in 0.0 (which is unusually high for me, usually I have 3 characters in 0.0 but I needed to move some additional cyno alts recently to keep logistics manageable).

.
Mocam
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#26 - 2012-08-04 08:36:09 UTC
A few thoughts.

"Special interest groups" - not that special, only those that have expressed an interest in being represented. We all were given the right to vote here, some exercised it - others did not.

Your metrics are somewhat accurate but... 70% of characters in highsec - 30% elsewhere. For each player with a focus "elsewhere" you probably have 1 highsec alt -- that puts it at 60% of the players interest not in highsec, 40% in highsec.

Where you miss is on the assumptions that 20% have full representation while the rest go without - that is inaccurate and checking who's on the CSM will show this to be the case.

As such, I'd assess this to be a "learning time" for you. Learn about alts and where the players who control them would focus their interests.
Frying Doom
#27 - 2012-08-04 10:05:32 UTC
In all seriousness we probably have the best balanced CSM we have ever seen with candidates from right across the spectrum being represented.

Frankly we have never had a group of people who were this balanced since the CSM became more than just a PR tool for CCP. If the Minutes just produced are any example of the quality of work and thought they are putting in we will probably have a very good year.

Personally I would like to see this continue in the years to come but unfortunately certain groups will probably prevent this from happening and we will just end up with a one sided CSM again.

So I look forward to hearing more from this CSM and hope there attempts to work more closely with CCP in producing a better game bear fruit.

Once again Thank you for all the hard work, the minutes were brilliant.

Any spelling, grammatical and punctuation errors are because frankly, I don't care!!
MotherMoon
Tribal Liberation Force
Minmatar Republic
#28 - 2012-08-05 00:47:37 UTC
the CSM repersents 100% of people who play eve, and give a **** about the games future. pure and simple.

People who don't care, don't vote. thus the csm is representing 100% of the community,. not 20%.

http://dl.eve-files.com/media/1206/scimi.jpg
JonnyRandom
#29 - 2012-08-05 02:37:32 UTC
Then here's another though I want to bring up:
What if some players really are voting by not voting? What if the lack of votes is a sign that many players either don't care about the CSM, or don't put much faith in it, thinking it to be too ineffective or a PR farce that was that set up by CCP as damage control after that incident.

What if, by not voting, some players are saying (directly or indirectly) that they put their full trust in the developers of their favourite game?
Tarryn Nightstorm
Hellstar Towing and Recovery
#30 - 2012-08-05 04:32:45 UTC  |  Edited by: Tarryn Nightstorm
JonnyRandom wrote:
We know that the game's population is split something like 70% hisec, 10% low sec, 20% null-sec. Something like that, the exact figures are not important.
Yet it seems that the CSM is composed entirely out of representatives of big alliances in null-sec. So the CSM which is the voice all of Eve's population represents only 20% of the game's population... Shocked

I know there have been talks with CSM of how to bring more people into nullsec? But why are people that already live in nullsec trying to find ways to bring hi-sec into null-sec? Seems kind of backwards to me. I'd rather people like myself, that live in hi-sec, had more influence in finding ways to make null-sec more attractive to us.

That's just 2 thoughts I wanted to bring up... not sure if this has been discussed or not before.


Hans Jagerblitzen is not a nullseccer, nor his alliance. Actually the furthest thing from that that still involves PvP.

Aleksyev Karrde is not a nullsecer, nor is his alliance, although they do jobs in nullsec. But that's what professional mercenaries do.

Two Step is a wormholer, a "holie," as they're sometimes called. (Which, aside from their -1.00 security rating, is about as different from known-space zerosec as it's possible to get.)

Kelduum Revan is the CEO of Eve University -- funny, I don't see them having any sov' anywhere according to DOTLan.

Issler Dainze and her alliance are definitely not nullsecers.

0/10.

Next!

E:

Weak troll is weak, this is so six months ago!

Star Wars: the Old Republic may not be EVE. But I'll take the sound of dual blaster-pistols over "NURVV CLAOKING NAOW!!!11oneone!!" any day of the week.
Frying Doom
#31 - 2012-08-05 08:22:21 UTC
JonnyRandom wrote:
Then here's another though I want to bring up:
What if some players really are voting by not voting? What if the lack of votes is a sign that many players either don't care about the CSM, or don't put much faith in it, thinking it to be too ineffective or a PR farce that was that set up by CCP as damage control after that incident.

What if, by not voting, some players are saying (directly or indirectly) that they put their full trust in the developers of their favourite game?

Then for them I would give the same advice as I would for someone in reality who did not vote when some useless politician got in.

Suck it up and support someone closest to your own philosophy eg. grow a pair or bend over and take it without bitching.

Any spelling, grammatical and punctuation errors are because frankly, I don't care!!
Alphea Abbra
Project Promethion
#32 - 2012-08-05 10:30:48 UTC
Frying Doom wrote:
JonnyRandom wrote:
Then here's another though I want to bring up:
What if some players really are voting by not voting? What if the lack of votes is a sign that many players either don't care about the CSM, or don't put much faith in it, thinking it to be too ineffective or a PR farce that was that set up by CCP as damage control after that incident.

What if, by not voting, some players are saying (directly or indirectly) that they put their full trust in the developers of their favourite game?

Then for them I would give the same advice as I would for someone in reality who did not vote when some useless politician got in.

Suck it up and support someone closest to your own philosophy eg. grow a pair or bend over and take it without bitching.

This, and in case of EVE CSM elections where it's ridiculously easy to get on the ballot, you can also run yourself if no other platform is what you want to see elected.
Mara Pahrdi
The Order of Anoyia
#33 - 2012-08-05 14:42:08 UTC
JonnyRandom wrote:
If you had read the thread, you'd see that I am looking for two things:
1. Is this an issue that needs to be addressed?
2. How can this issue be addressed?

1. No.
2. Doesn't need to.

And before you ask: I'm a hisec dweller and voted with all my accounts.

Remove standings and insurance.
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#34 - 2012-08-05 19:06:29 UTC
JonnyRandom wrote:
Then here's another though I want to bring up:
What if some players really are voting by not voting?


They could have voted for Darius who ran on a fairly explict "do nothing" platform. I'll repost something I wrote at the time of the election:

Malcanis wrote:

Whether you like it or not, the CSM is a primary channel that CCP uses to communicate with the playerbase. CCP get a small group of players with some level of accountability (including signing an NDA) with whom they can build a working relationship over a useful time period. Even if you personally don't think the CSM is the best solution, you should still vote in the elections if you want your views represented in that channel.

Additionally, the more people who vote in the election, the more weight and influence the CSM will have with CCP. It's much harder to handwave away a representative group that 50 or 60% of your paying customers chose than one that 5 or 6% did. If you think the CSM should have more power, then complaining about how powerless it is on the forum isn't the correct solution. Voting is.

If you don't like the way that the CSM operates at all, then crying about it on the forums will not, alas, change a damb thing. Find a candidate who agrees with you that the CSM should operate differently, and get him/her elected.

If you just like to **** on anything that anyone does because you're that kind of person, vote for an obvious troll candidate like Xenuria. It'll make plenty of people mad and Xenuria happy. Or stand as a troll candidate yourself, split the troll vote and make Xenuria mad too. Both are fine options.

Remember that there's nothing useful about cheap cynicism. Just dismissing the CSM out of hand "because everyone knows" that it's corrupt/useless/rigged/ (regardless of the lack of evidence) is simply conceding the battle before you've even tried to win.

Essentially, whatever your opinion of the CSM is, the correct response is to participate. There is literally no downside to voting.


When you're choosing who to vote for, try and make an effort to analyze their campaign. Reflexively voting for people purely on the basis that they're "high sec" or "null sec" or "a missioner like me" of whatever is an open invitation to getting votescammed by a fast talking egomaniac with no other agenda than to get herself elected and be important.

If a candidate makes assertions, consider if those assertions are testable. Are they just sweeping "everybody knows" rumours with no evidence? Do they contain actual numbers that can be checked? Are they willing to provide specific examples which can be independently verified?

If a candidate makes promises, consider whether they'll be in a position to fulfill those promises. Being a CSM doesn't mean that CCP will automatically change your pet issue to the way you'd like it. Candidates who campaign on a promise to make Caldari Navy Invulns have a lower tag cost or increasing the targetting range of your favourite interceptor and other microlevel stuff like that are either hopelessly naive about the CSM or they're simply telling you whatever you want to hear to get your vote, knowing full well they can't deliver.

Finally, remember that the EVE character is not the person. You're voting for the player, not the character, still less his corp or alliance. If a candidate has a platform you like, then it doesn't matter a bit that he's in an alliance which kicked you out of your space last year: he's still the right choice. If a candidate is make vague unfocused promises and poorly referenced assertions, then even if he's your corpmate, you should kick him to the curb (remember: you can always lie to him and tell him that you were one of the 4 guys who voted for him)

So: vote. Encourage your corpies and alliance mates to vote. Get your friends to vote. Vote.





"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Scatim Helicon
State War Academy
Caldari State
#35 - 2012-08-06 21:20:25 UTC
Explicitly highsec candidates have a poor record when it comes to effectiveness, activity, and sanity.

Every time you post a WiS thread, Hilmar strangles a kitten.
Frying Doom
#36 - 2012-08-07 01:16:09 UTC
Scatim Helicon wrote:
Explicitly highsec candidates have a poor record when it comes to effectiveness, activity, and sanity.

Unlike previous Null sec candidates and there huge egos and questionable sanity.

Any spelling, grammatical and punctuation errors are because frankly, I don't care!!
Dersen Lowery
The Scope
#37 - 2012-08-07 01:32:31 UTC  |  Edited by: Dersen Lowery
Malcanis, quoting himself:

Quote:
When you're choosing who to vote for, try and make an effort to analyze their campaign. Reflexively voting for people purely on the basis that they're "high sec" or "null sec" or "a missioner like me" of whatever is an open invitation to getting votescammed by a fast talking egomaniac with no other agenda than to get herself elected and be important.


I want to expand on this a bit, because as any CSM member will tell you, and as the summit report makes clear, CSM do not set the agenda. They comment and respond to CCP's agenda. They can ask CCP for things, and they can bang their drum through the communications channels, but it's CCP's game. What this means is that the main value that "the sov null candidate" or "the wormhole candidate" brings is the ability to help CCP work through those aspects of the game when they come up. But what if they don't? To be useful, every CSM candidate should have a pretty broad experience of the game.

There is another reason to demand a broad experience of the game: EVE is a single-shard universe with a single economy. Null sec dwellers and low sec dwellers alike depend heavily on high sec industrialists and logistics pilots, even if those pilots are their own alts. High sec dwellers depend on null sec dwellers for minerals for T2 production, and on null sec and low sec for a steady supply of eager shoppers. I'm sure there's a lot I'm missing, because I haven't been here that long myself, but you get the idea. And when you advocate for your own side, you have to make sure you account for the way everyone in the game is interconnected, or the idea that seems good to you and your particular style of play could backfire terribly.

Proud founder and member of the Belligerent Desirables.

I voted in CSM X!
Katarina Reid
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#38 - 2012-08-07 07:43:34 UTC
I vote for null sec CSM members. I live in low sec atm with 2 characters(2 accounts). I have 13 characters(9 accounts) in high sec. So which box do i fit in to?
knobber Jobbler
State War Academy
Caldari State
#39 - 2012-08-07 12:07:16 UTC
JonnyRandom wrote:
We know that the game's population is split something like 70% hisec, 10% low sec, 20% null-sec. Something like that, the exact figures are not important.
Yet it seems that the CSM is composed entirely out of representatives of big alliances in null-sec. So the CSM which is the voice all of Eve's population represents only 20% of the game's population... Shocked

I know there have been talks with CSM of how to bring more people into nullsec? But why are people that already live in nullsec trying to find ways to bring hi-sec into null-sec? Seems kind of backwards to me. I'd rather people like myself, that live in hi-sec, had more influence in finding ways to make null-sec more attractive to us.

That's just 2 thoughts I wanted to bring up... not sure if this has been discussed or not before.


Because that 20% can be bothered to short **** out.

70% of the game doesn't know any mechanics past clicking on an NPC and shooting at it and then how to talk to a mission agent. I don't want those 70% having any part of that discussion about game mechanics. That 70%, other than a few are just not interested in the game past there own solo experience. Null sec is not a solo experience in general and its meant to be tougher. Besides, all I hear is excuses not to come to null sec by pubbie care bears. High sec is to easy so people won't leave.

There is no excuse, I was a pubbie carebear once then I toughened the f*ck up, had a tea spoon of concrete and joined the dark side and actually learnt about EVE past shooting a rock or little red dots which don't fire back all that much. Its much more fun and I get to troll people without much original thought!

Null sec doesn't want high sec to come to it; Its more like null sec wants:
To be able to fully exist in null sec without high sec, to do everything you need to exist in null sec, in null sec itself.
To be get new players in from high sec, to lose that risk aversion and participate in the greatest player driven content generator of any game going, save second life but pretend I never said that last bit.
To control the CSM because null sec residents generally have a much better understanding of most of the games mechanics than a dude who's spends his entire EVE career in a Navy Raven playing advanced Space Invaders while masturbating to pictures on fukung.net (ok, so most of null sec also is fapping away to porn links in local).
To laugh an Xenuria and that chubby Mexican when they run for CSM.
Anslo
Scope Works
#40 - 2012-08-07 15:52:26 UTC
There shouldn't even be a CSM. This game is full of trolls and psychos looking for easy ways to screw everyone and each other over. Meta-gaming galore.

[center]-_For the Proveldtariat_/-[/center]