Jita Park Speakers Corner

CSM being skewed towards 0,0 and maybe low-sec is totally fine imo since it fits perfectly well with the vision CCP repeatedly expresses of Eve. High-sec missionrunning is not what makes Eve unique – it's mainly the stuff found in 0,0 and low sec space.

I would be uncomfortable with more than 1 high sec missionrunning representative being included in the CSM, tbh.

Whatever CCP's vision for EVE, the reality is that 80% of toons are resident in hisec (per QEN), which means 80% of CCP income comes from hisec players. CCP *needs* to know what these players want, or it risks alienating them and killing the golden goose that allows the rest of EVE (their vision) to exist.

I'm not saying I want a carebear hisec CSM; I'm saying I think a more representative CSM would do a better job of helping CCP develop EVE for the benefit of all players.

Yup, I admit I didn't vote in the last CSM election. At the time things seemed to be moving along nicely in EVE and I just wasn't interested in what I thought was behind the scenes politics that didn't affect my gameplay.

Since then there's been a *lot* of political stuff going on (Monoclegate, CSM summit, CCP refocus, nullsec design goals, Goonswarm's war on ice miners) which has made me realise that yes CSM and feedback to CCP does matter, which has made me think about whether the current structure works and if there might be a better way - hence this thread.

Regardless of whether CSM structure changes or stays as is, I will definitely be voting in the next elections.

"goonie"

get out

there is nothing constructive about your thread, soz m8

Hello, second dumb CSM thread of the day!

Over 70% of the people who voted saw their vote go to a representative who was elected. That's pretty god damb representive.

Those who didn't bother to vote perhaps weren't represented as well, but I don't see why we should worry about that. If they feel badly done by there's another election in a few months, and this time they can bestir themselves to actually make the effort to click a button on a web page.

That said, I don't understand all the fuss: none of the rabble-rousers has yet been able to give a concrete example of CSM misconduct other than "I don't like goons and 2 of them are goons so they MUST have done something bad even if I don't know exactly what it was."

Personally I suspect the whole thing comes from the sudden realisation that the CSM does have value and it does have an effect, and those who decided that they were too cool to be fooled are suddenly clamouring that they want a slice of the influence pie after all.

Well guys, CSM7 will be your big chance.

You forgot the rest of the quote Mittens.

The CSM is representative ... it's representative of the people who actually voted ...

As far as I can tell individual CSM members have been doing a pretty good job of representing people (myself included) outside the sphere of their (CSM members') normal area/style of play.

Right now, we appear to have a CSM where the representatives, despite having their own particular area(s) of interest, participate in meaningful discussion about all areas of the game and look, not just at how changes might impact a particular playstyle, but also how they affect other playstyles and the game as a whole.

If CCP reorganises the CSM so that members have areas of responsibility, constituencies or areas they must represent, I fear that cooperation may give way to competition (my area is more important than these others) and consideration of the multitude of playstyles may be left by the wayside by representatives too concerned with their own narrow areas.

I think calls for this kind of enforced "representation" are based on a couple of false (in my opinion) assumptions:

1. That CSM members cannot separate their in-game politics and actions as players from their out-of game politics and actions as CSM members.
2. That CSM members only listen to a small minority of EVE players (perhaps the people who voted for them, or perhaps the people from their own alliance or people who play the game as they do).
3. That CSM members only care about the needs/playstyles of said small minority.

I have yet to see any evidence of this kind of behaviour, but I fear that the kinds of constraints people keep suggesting to make the CSM more "representative" may actually have the opposite effect.

My answer - if players do not feel that they are not being adequately represented, then they need to lobby the CSM to make their voices heard, they need to produce logical arguments supported by evidence (there are enough trolls and tears on this forum already), and they need to either put up, or vote for, CSM candidates who will represent them.

If you don't vote, you really can't complain that you're not being represented (I did, and I'm happy with what I've seen from this CSM).

Just my 0.02isk.

That such an obvious, self-evident fact has to be repeated over and over again, only to be ignored by those who won't accept it, is as eloquent and savage an indictment of the average pubbie intellect as I have ever seen.

What percentage of accounts did not register a vote for any candidate in the CSM6 election? 90%? 84%? Some arbitrarily high number that almost guaranteed that any candidate who actually campaigned or organized got a seat? CCP did everything they could during the election cycle to ease the burden of voting, short of forcing people to do it. It is simply not reasonable for anybody who logged in even once to change skills during that period to claim that they weren't aware of the election or didn't have an opportunity to vote. Still, the number of complaints about the CSM or individual CSM members that begin with "I didn't vote, but ... " simply beggars the imagination.

The simple fact of the matter is, if you didn't vote, you lost any standing to complain about the results. I don't know about you, but the threat of losing standing to complain is enough to motivate me to tick the box for one CSM candidate or another. What those advocating removal or reform of the CSM, or some sort of tweak to the election process, conveniently forget about the essential nature of democracy is that those who vote in the majority get representation. Or, to use the favored saw of budding libertarian master debaters, it is two wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner.

Every day I hear all manner of curses and anathemas heaped on Goons, mostly deserved, and yet there's also this bizarre notion that Goons organizing for CSM elections somehow introduces a glaring artificiality that distorts the integrity of the entire process, that somehow distorts the reality of it to such a degree that it can only be rectified by changing the rules to favor others, or by chucking out the process entirely. It's usually coupled with the equally bizarre notion that no one else can organize to any meaningful degree to make the effort worthwhile, all evidence to the contrary notwithstanding. I mean-- let's entirely forget that only two Goon CSM candidates actually won seats, and forget about all those others who either aren't Goons, or haven't advocated the exaltation of nullsec at the expense of every other aspect of the game. What about Trebor Daehdoow and all the votes he got from people who weren't members of whatever southern renter alliance he was a member of at the time he was elected? How many of them were highsec dwellers who voted for him purely on the basis of his highsec focus and advocacy? Let's just forget about him and all those current CSM members and alternates from similar backgrounds because their existence presents inconvenient counterarguments to the whole fix/reform/disband CSM thing.

So there are so many Goons. Why is that a problem? Or, more to the point, why is that THEIR problem? Does the fact of so many Goons prevent anybody else from organizing to the same level? What about BoB? Obviously not. But rather than exert the required effort, it's easier to stomp one's feet and complain that the system is so broken that it can only be fixed by giving everybody else magic beans or something, some boon or "fix" that will grant them more influence over who gets a seat in the CSM. That's essentially what is being asserted: because there are so many Goons voting, or so many in nullsec voting, their vote needs to count less than those who somehow feel disenfranchised by the results of the previous CSM election. Essentially, that one class of voter should have their votes count more than those of another class. I defy the reader to find any proposal -- one that is actually articulated in a quantifiable manner rather than being just another anti-Goon, anti-nullsec whinge -- that cannot be reduced to that simple, deeply-flawed notion.

Mind you-- I will not be holding my breath.