These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

CCP CEO SAYS CSM STRUCTURE MAY CHANGE DUE TO NULL-SEC SLANT

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Jaxon Grylls
Institute of Archaeology
#21 - 2011-10-21 18:07:39 UTC
"But some of my concerns right now relate to whether the CSM is maybe focused on a particular aspect of the game and I'm starting to get feedback from players that they worry the CSM is too pre-occupied by a certain playstyle."

YES! and about time too.

"Well, the message is that we have heard you and we are now taking action to be more aligned with the needs of Eve Online"

Good, at last!

This looks promising, I await with baited breath to see how CCP squre the circle of the CM. All in all very heartening.Big smile
Blastier
#22 - 2011-10-21 18:10:39 UTC
Can not like this enough like like like, **** you CSM
Jack Tronic
borkedLabs
#23 - 2011-10-21 18:11:56 UTC
LOL yes they can clearly remove the null sec slant by adding a high-sec pubbie slot.....which goons can still run for by having one of their high-sec mission runners apply and all voting for them. GOOD JOB CAREBEARS YOUR TEARS ARE DELICIOUS
Dunbar Hulan
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#24 - 2011-10-21 18:16:07 UTC
The Offerer wrote:
CSM is formed by a democratic vote system that includes those players who care about the game, decide to get familiar with CSM candidate's programs and cast a vote for one of the candidates. The current state of CSM is no one's "fault" but the players that didn't like Goons and haven't done anything in order to stop them from taking over CSM.

- If there's an interesting candidate that was from another alliance/corporation/faction that some of you liked, you should have voted for that candidate.
- If there was no suitable program offered by any candidate and a large mass of players agreed upon certain topics, then you should have presented your own candidate with a program that covers those specific topics that you all agree with.

Either way, the democratic system and freedom of choice between the CSM candidates is not flawed. The logic that abstention is not the same as saying that you don't care who gets to be in CSM is flawed.

P.S.> No, I won't say if I voted for a Goon or not. I'm only saying that the voting was fair and went in the best democratic spirit. If you don't like the current CSM, next time take a couple of minutes to review the programs of the candidates and cast your vote.


I'd rather talk directly to the Organ grinder and not the monkeys, but that's just me though.

 ** Manchester United - Paul Scholes= Genius**
Dalketh
DRRUSSEL
#25 - 2011-10-21 18:19:19 UTC
Jack Tronic wrote:
LOL yes they can clearly remove the null sec slant by adding a high-sec pubbie slot.....which goons can still run for by having one of their high-sec mission runners apply and all voting for them. GOOD JOB CAREBEARS YOUR TEARS ARE DELICIOUS


I don't think they have had any discussion on the how the populating of a better CSM would be done. I am sure though simpleton exploits would be taken into consideration. Roll
Blastier
#26 - 2011-10-21 18:21:04 UTC  |  Edited by: Blastier
The Offerer wrote:
CSM is formed by a democratic vote system that includes those players who care about the game, decide to get familiar with CSM candidate's programs and cast a vote for one of the candidates. The current state of CSM is no one's "fault" but the players that didn't like Goons and haven't done anything in order to stop them from taking over CSM.

- If there's an interesting candidate that was from another alliance/corporation/faction that some of you liked, you should have voted for that candidate.
- If there was no suitable program offered by any candidate and a large mass of players agreed upon certain topics, then you should have presented your own candidate with a program that covers those specific topics that you all agree with.

Either way, the democratic system and freedom of choice between the CSM candidates is not flawed. The logic that abstention is not the same as saying that you don't care who gets to be in CSM is flawed.

P.S.> No, I won't say if I voted for a Goon or not. I'm only saying that the voting was fair and went in the best democratic spirit. If you don't like the current CSM, next time take a couple of minutes to review the programs of the candidates and cast your vote.



Uh nullsec slaves are all told by their masters who to vote for. Massive plantations exist in nullsec which don't in high-sec but yet many more players are in high-sec but cannot be organized in the same way. So yes it is flawed, and you end up hearing from a minority of players who are inherently weak minded in the first place (are told what to do, where to farm, where to blob, where to spam forums ect.)

So the message of the actual player base doesn't come across.
Jaxon Grylls
Institute of Archaeology
#27 - 2011-10-21 18:22:40 UTC
Dunbar Hulan wrote:


I'd rather talk directly to the Organ grinder and not the monkeys, but that's just me though.


You know this is uncanny. I had exactly the same thought in exactly the same words when reading some posts the other day.

I've looked on the market and you know what? I can't find arse-licking listed as a skill anywhere. Must be reserved for the exclusive use of the Goons.Big smile
Lady Sophie Asphyxia
DECOMMISSIONED
#28 - 2011-10-21 18:23:58 UTC
The CSM is great in principle, and to a certain extent, in practice too. The people who have been voted in do have significant knowledge of the game and it's various aspects, and several of them are also keen and good debaters who are able to get their views across and steer the game in the direction that they and their voters want.

The problem is the vast majority of players (who are unfortunately the vocal minority when it comes to speaking out on the forums) don't get to have their views heard, or even represented to a proportionate degree.

My own personal opinion would be to maintain the current method of voting and CSM formation (after all it is up to people to vote for who they want - we all get the same chance and the ability to review everybody's manifesto), however, I believe the CSM/CCP should be there to put forward and generate ideas and potential game changes, which are then voted on by the playerbase via an in-game voting system (preferably at the log in character selection screen to avoid interfering with gameplay). The ideas could then be prioritised in order of popularity.

To ensure everybody is represented there should be some kind of weighting to ensure null, low-sec etc ideas can also move forward.

I also hope that one of these many CSM must go topics can stay in General Discussion to ensure maximum exposure (after all this is an important enough topic surely?) instead of being moved to speakers corner.
Killstealing
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#29 - 2011-10-21 18:25:24 UTC
Dalketh wrote:
Jack Tronic wrote:
LOL yes they can clearly remove the null sec slant by adding a high-sec pubbie slot.....which goons can still run for by having one of their high-sec mission runners apply and all voting for them. GOOD JOB CAREBEARS YOUR TEARS ARE DELICIOUS


I don't think they have had any discussion on the how the populating of a better CSM would be done. I am sure though simpleton exploits would be taken into consideration. Roll

"more votes" is hardly an exploit
Kronos Hopeslayer
Incredible.
Brave Collective
#30 - 2011-10-21 18:32:33 UTC
Typical socialist bs... Only support democracy when it suits your specific needs. If the "people" are upset about the choices made by the current CSM then by all means vote someone who represents your needs in the next election.



Tear Miner
Doomheim
#31 - 2011-10-21 18:34:28 UTC
Gheng Kondur
Serva Fidem
#32 - 2011-10-21 18:38:10 UTC  |  Edited by: Gheng Kondur
While I personally would like a better balance on CSM, the fact is that this was a democratic process and most people I know in hi sec never voted for anybody.

The blame is therefore with those who didn't vote, not the process.

If those who are engaged with the game and want to change things and bother to stand and vote are all null sec, that's who we will get.

Yes some credible candidates are needed, and as with any democratic system you are more likley to vote for the person you think will do the least amount of harm, but unless somebody chooses to stand and people in hi sec vote for them, those who care about the game and can be bothered to vote from null sec will be over represented on CSM.

As for those who are currently there, they represent what they know and the people who voted for them. Nothing wrong in that
Cidwm
Doomheim
#33 - 2011-10-21 18:38:33 UTC
I wonder what would happen if the CSM did vanish, or the goons only got 1 seat (or none)... wonder how long they would endure without the extra intel and preperations they have been getting from CSM information... of course, can't prove any of this and this is just speculation but ina thread that says soemthing that could upset the goons and Mittani's grasp on eve i would have thought more goons would have posted in the defence on the CSM staying as it is
Josie Starshine
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#34 - 2011-10-21 18:42:03 UTC  |  Edited by: Josie Starshine
Kronos Hopeslayer wrote:
Typical socialist bs... Only support democracy when it suits your specific needs. If the "people" are upset about the choices made by the current CSM then by all means vote someone who represents your needs in the next election.





If you are one player with one account and can make one vote but I am one player with eight accounts and can make eight votes... how democratic is that?

(Just an example. I only have one account, as well.)
SMT008
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#35 - 2011-10-21 18:42:09 UTC
Blastier wrote:


So the message of the actual player base doesn't come across.


The funniest thing is that they don't even WANT to pass a message. If they did, they would have voted for someone.


Ok let's do something else.

In order to promote peoples running for the CSM, let's allow those peoples to send one or two EVEmails to each and every toon in EVE before the elections. How cool is that ?

The main problem with electing a CSM dude in Highsec is that there is no global channel or something. Random highsec pubbies don't read forums. But if you send them an evemail, they'll read it. And it's basicly the only way to spread the word.

In nullsec alliances, well, they have their own forums, mumble/TS channels, jabbers and so on. Spreading an information doesn't take long/is possible. In highsec, except shouting in Jita's local 24/24, peoples can't hear you or won't even care.

Allow every candidate to send ONE global evemail and it's all good.
gargars
Willco Inc.
#36 - 2011-10-21 18:44:33 UTC
Kronos Hopeslayer wrote:
Typical socialist bs... Only support democracy when it suits your specific needs. If the "people" are upset about the choices made by the current CSM then by all means vote someone who represents your needs in the next election.





I can see your point.... but the purpose of the council is to bring the concerns and ideas of the entirety of EVE to CCP's attention, not a popularity contest easily won by whichever corp or alliance can command the most votes with little or no effort.

Unfortunately that is the way the voting system that is in place is working, especially this last time around.

Null sec has huge alliances to survive. This also meant thousands of votes with no effort. It's flawed.
The Offerer
Doomheim
#37 - 2011-10-21 18:45:03 UTC  |  Edited by: The Offerer
Lady Sophie Asphyxia wrote:

My own personal opinion would be to maintain the current method of voting and CSM formation (after all it is up to people to vote for who they want - we all get the same chance and the ability to review everybody's manifesto), however, I believe the CSM/CCP should be there to put forward and generate ideas and potential game changes, which are then voted on by the playerbase via an in-game voting system (preferably at the log in character selection screen to avoid interfering with gameplay). The ideas could then be prioritised in order of popularity.

To ensure everybody is represented there should be some kind of weighting to ensure null, low-sec etc ideas can also move forward.

I also hope that one of these many CSM must go topics can stay in General Discussion to ensure maximum exposure (after all this is an important enough topic surely?) instead of being moved to speakers corner.


I still don't see what is wrong with the current system:

- Players post ideas in "Features & Ideas" and "Assembly Hall" sections of the forums. Anyone can do it: 0.0 players, pirates, miners, highsec players, hard-core gamers, casual players,...

- The important topics and topics with enough support are then gathered by the CSM and presented in one big crowdsourcing event list.

- CCP advertised for days that list on the log-in screen of the game and even put banners to remind/inform players that they have a chance to decide which ideas will have priorities.

- The weighting comes naturally from the playerbase itself. If players are relatively happy with the state of one of the aspects of the game it's logical to have less improvement ideas posted for that particular aspect of the game. You can not force an equal number of ideas when one part of the game is horribly broken and forgotten by the devs for years.
Dalketh
DRRUSSEL
#38 - 2011-10-21 18:48:50 UTC
Cidwm wrote:
I i would have thought more goons would have posted in the defence on the CSM staying as it is


Thread barely an hour old lol.....
Raeloth Draenor
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#39 - 2011-10-21 18:50:00 UTC
Josie Starshine wrote:
Karadion wrote:
Josie Starshine wrote:
Only way to fix the CSM system is to remove it, period. Goonswarm and pets will just endeavor to exploit whatever new CSM structure is introduced. Smoke & mirrors.
And if it is removed. "Only way to fix Eve Online is to remove Goonswarm / ban them all. Goonswarm and pets will just endeavor to exploit whatever shortcomings this game has."

Slippery slope.


Your statement does not invalidate mine though. Goonswarm is a known entity with a known agenda and there is nothing wrong with that.

The problem is when you use the CSM as a means to subvert all of EVE Online to that agenda while 'pretending', as a CSM member, to have EVE Online's best interests at heart .


And you have proof that this is what the 2 Goon CSM members are doing? And of course we also have to accept the totally implausible premise that Mittens and Vile rat are also able to brainwash and control the majority of the CSM into blindly following their agenda?

These threads are starting to become even more rediculous. FFS I'm a "pubbie" as they call it and even I'm getting tired of the rhetoric. If you think you can do a better job, then put up or shut up. Otherwise, please just shut up.
Deucalion Ex Mortis
Doomheim
#40 - 2011-10-21 18:50:19 UTC
SMT008 wrote:
Blastier wrote:


So the message of the actual player base doesn't come across.


The funniest thing is that they don't even WANT to pass a message. If they did, they would have voted for someone.


Ok let's do something else.

In order to promote peoples running for the CSM, let's allow those peoples to send one or two EVEmails to each and every toon in EVE before the elections. How cool is that ?

The main problem with electing a CSM dude in Highsec is that there is no global channel or something. Random highsec pubbies don't read forums. But if you send them an evemail, they'll read it. And it's basicly the only way to spread the word.

In nullsec alliances, well, they have their own forums, mumble/TS channels, jabbers and so on. Spreading an information doesn't take long/is possible. In highsec, except shouting in Jita's local 24/24, peoples can't hear you or won't even care.

Allow every candidate to send ONE global evemail and it's all good.



HOLY CRAP an goon that is making sense.. I swallowed my tongue, help!

But may I suggest having a little more respect for your fellow gamers, half the problem the CSM are having right now is they throw words like “puddie”, and “nub” around while talking about issues that concern everyone in game. If you showed some respect people may just start agreeing with you more. In game and on local fine but not in a discussion concerning the future of CSM, Eve, and CCP.