These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Did CSM 8 do anything?

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Lady Areola Fappington
#21 - 2014-02-20 16:38:22 UTC
The CSM is useful for what they do. The problem is some people have a skewed notion as to what the CSMs job is.

I'd much rather have a player chosen focus group (CSMs most basic job), over CCP cherry-picking a group in order to forward their own bad ideas under the color of customer consensus.

7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided. --Eve New Player Guide
Mocam
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#22 - 2014-02-22 10:45:08 UTC
XavierVE wrote:
I think your question is fundamentally flawed. The question isn't whether CSM 8 did anything, but has the CSM process in general contributed positively to the development of EVE? Not just CSM 8, but all the prior ones as well.

I'd say no, personally. It's a useful dog and pony show for CCP's PR, but in terms of actually getting anything positive done? Not really outside of very small niche projects.

I have a hard time believing in a process that elects a group of people who can't argue Fozzie out of interceptor nullification when they know that the nature of server ticks would make them uncatchable. Things such as this are basic elements of the game, for developers and CSM members to not understand how game-breakingly bad that change was is a sad testament to the failure of the entity in general. To then have the issue addressed with an effective yet ham-handed nerf to agility was another failure on the CSM as a collective.

CSM 8 would probably like to point to small issues such as the SMA loot drop fixes as an "accomplishment." It's hard to put much value in something whose greatest accomplishment is getting CCP to be slightly less lazy than usual. The fact that the CSM is so powerless to tout this as a "win" for the CSM is a great illustration of how irrelevant and powerless the CSM actually are. Which is nothing personal against this particular CSM grouping, but again, points to the irrelevance of the entire process overall.

Advocates for the CSM process have deluded themselves into believing that the CSM did something about the mess that was Incarna, but in reality, the pay2win controversy surrounding that expansion was addressed by the playerbase rioting and mass unsubbing. CSM just yelled a bit amongst the noise.

Picking on a CSM here or there is just rather petty, the entire process is at best irrelevant.


A bit cynical but also understandable. I went through my own annoyance with the CSM a while back - especially when analyzing the results and statements from both the CSM, CCP and time-lining it. An earlier CSM.

What I would suggest is that you do the same with this CSM's history. Go through and look at what the CSM has talked about and where CCP has made statements that they worked with the CSM and ... was the result.

IF you choose to, I think you may find your attitude shifting a bit closer to what I posted. If you don't, well that's not too shocking for EVE players who "know what they know already!"

Honestly - give it a shot. It's a couple hours digging around this website is all.

There's validation from CCP that the CSM was the source/catalysts for certain decisions and that was surprising to see.
El Space Mariachi
Zero Fun Allowed
xqtywiznalamywmodxfhhopawzpqyjdwrpeptuaenabjawdzku
#23 - 2014-02-23 00:27:51 UTC
XavierVE wrote:
I think your question is fundamentally flawed. The question isn't whether CSM 8 did anything, but has the CSM process in general contributed positively to the development of EVE? Not just CSM 8, but all the prior ones as well.

I'd say no, personally. It's a useful dog and pony show for CCP's PR, but in terms of actually getting anything positive done? Not really outside of very small niche projects.

I have a hard time believing in a process that elects a group of people who can't argue Fozzie out of interceptor nullification when they know that the nature of server ticks would make them uncatchable. Things such as this are basic elements of the game, for developers and CSM members to not understand how game-breakingly bad that change was is a sad testament to the failure of the entity in general. To then have the issue addressed with an effective yet ham-handed nerf to agility was another failure on the CSM as a collective.

CSM 8 would probably like to point to small issues such as the SMA loot drop fixes as an "accomplishment." It's hard to put much value in something whose greatest accomplishment is getting CCP to be slightly less lazy than usual. The fact that the CSM is so powerless to tout this as a "win" for the CSM is a great illustration of how irrelevant and powerless the CSM actually are. Which is nothing personal against this particular CSM grouping, but again, points to the irrelevance of the entire process overall.

Advocates for the CSM process have deluded themselves into believing that the CSM did something about the mess that was Incarna, but in reality, the pay2win controversy surrounding that expansion was addressed by the playerbase rioting and mass unsubbing. CSM just yelled a bit amongst the noise.

Picking on a CSM here or there is just rather petty, the entire process is at best irrelevant.


same

gay gamers for jesus
Dersen Lowery
The Scope
#24 - 2014-02-23 02:13:33 UTC  |  Edited by: Dersen Lowery
XavierVE wrote:
I have a hard time believing in a process that elects a group of people who can't argue Fozzie out of interceptor nullification when they know that the nature of server ticks would make them uncatchable. Things such as this are basic elements of the game, for developers and CSM members to not understand how game-breakingly bad that change was is a sad testament to the failure of the entity in general. To then have the issue addressed with an effective yet ham-handed nerf to agility was another failure on the CSM as a collective.


You mean, the interceptor change that was sourced from, and supported by, the community? (Except, obviously, for you.)

XavierVE wrote:
Advocates for the CSM process have deluded themselves into believing that the CSM did something about the mess that was Incarna, but in reality, the pay2win controversy surrounding that expansion was addressed by the playerbase rioting and mass unsubbing. CSM just yelled a bit amongst the noise.


But since CCP came to its senses it's basically been going down the list of things that CSMs 4, 5 and 6 had spelled out as necessary and desirable changes. So while it's true that an advisory panel is incapable of ~forcing~ any outcome, it's also true that once their collective advice was heeded the game improved rapidly.

Proud founder and member of the Belligerent Desirables.

I voted in CSM X!
XavierVE
No Corporation for Old Spacemen
#25 - 2014-02-23 03:40:31 UTC  |  Edited by: XavierVE
Dersen Lowery wrote:
You mean, the interceptor change that was sourced from, and supported by, the community? (Except, obviously, for you.)


"Sourced from the community" - One guy had a dumb idea that Fozzie didn't really think about very deeply in order to push out some lazy development. Sure.

Which then was "fixed" with a ham-handed agility nerf in the very next point release. And why was that? Because it was exactly what people like me said would happen (and there were dozens of us noting this prior to Rubicon)... that the nature of server ticks would render gangs of interceptors uncatchable while travelling in null and would become FOTM to the detriment of the small gang meta.

And it did, without any question.

But the CSM either could not realize this would happen, did not care, or were not listened to. Either way, the equation results in irrelevance at best.

Quote:
But since CCP came to its senses it's basically been going down the list of things that CSMs 4, 5 and 6 had spelled out as necessary and desirable changes. So while it's true that an advisory panel is incapable of ~forcing~ any outcome, it's also true that once their collective advice was heeded the game improved rapidly.


It is hard to argue that the game has improved rapidly since the Fourth CSM or that CSM advice is listened to in general. Certainly the CSM did not advise CCP to implement Incarna in the way it has, certainly the CSM was much in favor of the mooted POS revamps CCP themselves had put forward years ago. When something as minor as the CSM 8 minutes themselves are beyond an afterthought for CCP, it's hard to find any sense in an argument that CCP values or remotely cares about their advice.

And there's an argument to be made that CCP really shouldn't care about their advice, hence the surveys they send out to the playerbase. Which are probably a better source of information than a politicized micro-focus group.
Frying Doom
#26 - 2014-03-04 12:13:06 UTC  |  Edited by: Frying Doom
Varius Xeral wrote:
Nobody is going to vote for you. You contribute about as much as benign cancer. Stop posting.

I would never run for the CSM and honestly atm I have not got enough time to read the forums, let alone run in an election.

Unfortunately I may even be to busy this year to give the new candidates hell, during the election.

And while I may give them all hell, Trebor especially and Malcanis copped it as well this year, I frankly don't have the time for a good conspiracy theory this year. Well unless they delay the elections enough.

So thank you for your hard work, even though I missed it all and hopefully I will get time to abuse the new CSM in time. :)

Any spelling, grammatical and punctuation errors are because frankly, I don't care!!
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#27 - 2014-03-04 15:51:00 UTC
XavierVE wrote:

It is hard to argue that the game has improved rapidly since the Fourth CSM or that CSM advice is listened to in general. Certainly the CSM did not advise CCP to implement Incarna in the way it has, certainly the CSM was much in favor of the mooted POS revamps CCP themselves had put forward years ago. When something as minor as the CSM 8 minutes themselves are beyond an afterthought for CCP, it's hard to find any sense in an argument that CCP values or remotely cares about their advice.

And there's an argument to be made that CCP really shouldn't care about their advice, hence the surveys they send out to the playerbase. Which are probably a better source of information than a politicized micro-focus group.


You should compare the list of CSM proposals to CCP with what got implemented. I think that cold hard facts might surprise you.

As for the minutes, your analysis of CCP apologising for taking so long with the minutes and implementing a new process to ensure that they're turned around more quickly as proof that they "don't remotely care" gives us an interesting insight into your thought, if that's really the word I want, processes.

"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
#28 - 2014-03-04 17:07:15 UTC
Frying Doom wrote:


I frankly don't have the time for a good conspiracy theory this year. Well unless they delay the elections enough.



Are the kangaroos acting up again down there? C'mon Australia isn't gonna pass, easier access to a gun, legislation any time soon. Should always have time for a good conspiracy theory.

Signature removed for inappropriate language - CCP Eterne
Balder Verdandi
Wormhole Sterilization Crew
#29 - 2014-03-05 04:12:56 UTC
I think a lot of players don't understand the CSM, it's purpose, or the fact that their hands are tied by the NDA they have to sign.

To be fair, I think the CSM needs to be a bit more available to the player base. You can't do it all on forums. You folks need to use TwitchTV, YouTube, Facebook, something to get out there and talk to the players. We should have Q&A sessions where we can find out more about what you're doing to help the community, what you're presenting to CCP, what ideas you've created since becoming part of the CSM.

What needs to happen is the CSM needs to clear away as much of the grey areas as possible. I think this is why many people were upset about the minutes not being published. The lines of communication aren't as clear as they'd like, and it can be easily misunderstood that CCP is interfering with the CSM and a lot of people were upset by this misunderstanding.

Second, CCP needs to be a bit less restrictive with the NDA. Many players want to help fix the stuff in Eve that is broken, or in some cases has been broken for years. I can understand some of the upgrades we've seen were needed (ship models is a good example; I love the new ship models). The problem is there are players complaining about corp roles and POS fixes for the better part of five years. We've heard the complaints about the fiasco with the inventory UI for over a year after it was rolled out. We're still hearing complaints about the "new launcher". How long has that been in production?

We've heard from CCP that "It's in the works. ™" too many times. We've heard from the CSM that they know there is something happening but can't talk about it because the NDA prevents them.

The player base wants to hear more from both CCP and the CSM, and while I understand there is some tech data that can't be discussed, you can find a way to address both the internal and external concerns at the same time.

Long live the failure of "Unified Inventory"!

POS fix dated back to 2006!
XavierVE
No Corporation for Old Spacemen
#30 - 2014-03-06 16:13:23 UTC  |  Edited by: XavierVE
Malcanis wrote:
You should compare the list of CSM proposals to CCP with what got implemented. I think that cold hard facts might surprise you.


Only if I were prone to ignore the massive amount of suggestions that were not implemented.

Let's say I walk outside, and I see a shiny blue plane flying east. It leaves the same time each day, going in the same direction. If I look to the sky and yell "Fly east!", am I making the plane fly east... despite the fact that I yelled "fly west!" four times at it prior, and it ignored me and flew east anyways? post hoc ergo propter hoc

Malcanis wrote:
As for the minutes, your analysis of CCP apologising for taking so long with the minutes and implementing a new process to ensure that they're turned around more quickly as proof that they "don't remotely care" gives us an interesting insight into your thought, if that's really the word I want, processes.


CCP apologizing for taking so long with your minutes is akin to me apologizing to my wife when I don't put much thought into how she wants the toilet seat left.

The reality of the world is that sometimes people say things and apologize for things just to relieve a potential headache rather than out of actually caring about what they're saying. If you don't understand this element of social guile, I'd recommend a solid trip to a specialist that is well-practiced in the diagnosis and treatment of Asperger's Syndrome.
okoolos rimmer
Napkin Nation
#31 - 2014-03-06 19:46:23 UTC
Xavier i agree with many but not all of your arguments but I have a question of my own. If CSM is irrelevant then should we just ignore the elections and send people we like for a trip to Iceland? or do you have any concrete suggestions how to improve things?
March rabbit
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#32 - 2014-03-06 21:33:07 UTC
Malcanis wrote:

Bullshit like this used to really annoy me, but I now find great comfort in the fact that your own dearly protected ignorance will also ensure that you can't have any effect on the CSM process other than persuading people who are as foolish as yourself to stay out of it as well.

this makes Malcanis supporters look as stupid as supporters of Ero1

The Mittani: "the inappropriate drunked joke"
XavierVE
No Corporation for Old Spacemen
#33 - 2014-03-06 23:52:17 UTC  |  Edited by: XavierVE
okoolos rimmer wrote:
Xavier i agree with many but not all of your arguments but I have a question of my own. If CSM is irrelevant then should we just ignore the elections and send people we like for a trip to Iceland? or do you have any concrete suggestions how to improve things?


Two cents: just make sure you do all of the player surveys that CCP put out. Whether you vote or not doesn't really make a difference. Just be realistic about what the CSM is. An elected focus group, nothing more. It does not really matter who gets elected, overall.

In terms of improving the CSM as concept, I don't believe there is much that could be done. The problem with the CSM isn't generally the people who get elected, most of them are fairly nice folk who CCP employees probably like drinking beer with. They're a PR tool and a focus group. There's not much "change" you can do to the CSM which makes it anything more than some players who are sometimes used as a sounding board, and more often used in their primary function... a tool to placate the player base.
Mike Azariah
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#34 - 2014-03-07 00:29:39 UTC
XavierVE wrote:

In terms of improving the CSM as concept, I don't believe there is much that could be done. The problem with the CSM isn't generally the people who get elected, most of them are fairly nice folk who CCP employees probably like drinking beer with. They're a PR tool and a focus group. There's not much "change" you can do to the CSM which makes it anything more than some players who are sometimes used as a sounding board, and more often used in their primary function... a tool to placate the player base.


Given Malc is part of this discussion I am not sure you can say we do a lot of placating as our main purpose.

Me, I'm Canadian. Being polite comes with the igloo and the toque.

Can I prove we made a difference? No, the big stuff we do is under NDA. If CCP says we really helped a cynical person could question the validity of endorsing your own sockpuppet.

So it is up to you, the players. Do you want to help choose people who may (or may not) have an effect on the game? If it is the latter then what do you lose by voting? If the former is true and you don't vote then you are giving up a chance to have a say in what happens in this game. There ARE organizations that would rather you believed that this was useless and there was no sense in anybody voting.

except

Even the most cynical organizations in the game work hard to control the election and organize their people to vote. Would they do that and try to 'control the council' if there was no real power to be had? Or would they be better served to convince the general populace that there was no point to voting so don't bother THEN vote themselves to get their viewpoint represented and yours ignored.

nah, that is just too manipulative for the nice people who I play games with, right?

m




Mike Azariah  ┬──┬ ¯|(ツ)/¯
okoolos rimmer
Napkin Nation
#35 - 2014-03-08 02:26:43 UTC
Wait so the arguments for voting in CSM elections are the fact that there isn't anything better so "we may as well.." and that nullsec blocks are trying to manipulate it so there "must be something there!". That's rather thin.
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#36 - 2014-03-08 17:14:41 UTC
XavierVE wrote:
Malcanis wrote:
You should compare the list of CSM proposals to CCP with what got implemented. I think that cold hard facts might surprise you.


Only if I were prone to ignore the massive amount of suggestions that were not implemented.


Good ideas are essentially free. There's an unlimited supply of them, continually renewed. At best only a small fraction of suggestions and proposals will ever be seriously looked at, let alone even partially implemented.

As part of my CSM duties, I posted some good advice on how to maximise the chances of your idea being considered.

However, the fraction of CSM supported proposals that have been implemented is at least an order or two of magnitude higher.

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

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#37 - 2014-03-08 17:16:10 UTC
March rabbit wrote:
Malcanis wrote:

Bullshit like this used to really annoy me, but I now find great comfort in the fact that your own dearly protected ignorance will also ensure that you can't have any effect on the CSM process other than persuading people who are as foolish as yourself to stay out of it as well.

this makes Malcanis supporters look as stupid as supporters of Ero1


My supporters voted.

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

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#38 - 2014-03-08 17:18:27 UTC
okoolos rimmer wrote:
Wait so the arguments for voting in CSM elections are the fact that there isn't anything better so "we may as well.." and that nullsec blocks are trying to manipulate it so there "must be something there!". That's rather thin.


If that's the argument you have inferred from what's posted here, well...

OK how about this. If the "nullsec blocs" think it's valuable enough to spend time and effort on, is that not a prima facia argument that there's something worth controlling?

This being the case, is it not worth your own time at least putting your vote in to spoil their plans while you work out if you want to take the time to investigate the matter more fully?

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

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#39 - 2014-03-08 17:47:26 UTC
Balder Verdandi wrote:
I think a lot of players don't understand the CSM, it's purpose, or the fact that their hands are tied by the NDA they have to sign.

To be fair, I think the CSM needs to be a bit more available to the player base. You can't do it all on forums. You folks need to use TwitchTV, YouTube, Facebook, something to get out there and talk to the players. We should have Q&A sessions where we can find out more about what you're doing to help the community, what you're presenting to CCP, what ideas you've created since becoming part of the CSM.


None of us have done all of those things, but pretty much all of of those things have been done by at least some of us. Several CSMs have blogs, several are active on twitter, several of us are active on forums, all of us (who are active at all) have been in Town Halls, and so on.


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

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
XavierVE
No Corporation for Old Spacemen
#40 - 2014-03-08 17:59:47 UTC  |  Edited by: XavierVE
Malcanis wrote:


Good ideas are essentially free. There's an unlimited supply of them, continually renewed. At best only a small fraction of suggestions and proposals will ever be seriously looked at, let alone even partially implemented.

As part of my CSM duties, I posted some good advice on how to maximise the chances of your idea being considered.

However, the fraction of CSM supported proposals that have been implemented is at least an order or two of magnitude higher.


I love replies like this. "An order or two of magnitude higher." Terms like that are when you know someone has turned around and thinks you're too stupid to notice that they're talking out of their ass.

Literally thousands upon thousands of ideas are posted by people on the forums, on blogs, on third-party forums. To claim that the CSM is somehow a relevant process worthy of the yearly hullabaloo because the average idea has a 0.2% chance of being implemented, but the average CSM backed idea has a 0.8% chance of being implemented is not exactly the hearty endorsement that I think that you think it is.

Quote:
OK how about this. If the "nullsec blocs" think it's valuable enough to spend time and effort on, is that not a prima facia argument that there's something worth controlling?

This being the case, is it not worth your own time at least putting your vote in to spoil their plans while you work out if you want to take the time to investigate the matter more fully?


The old "Goons will dominate if you don't vote!" reason for voting. Considering the ego of The Mittani is... "an order or two of magnitude higher" than your average person... would it not also stand to reason that a null-sec bloc wants people on the CSM because it's a matter of prestige and ego, rather than anything that has any true worth? Speaking from the perspective of a very small alliance that had a CSM member elected last cycle, there is a certain cachet that comes from having a CSM member. But that's about it.

Alternatively, if what you say is true and that the CSM is so powerful that null-sec blocs really want to get the vote out in order to abuse the system... shouldn't then the system be scrapped, in order to prevent player abuse of the entire game?

You cannot have it both ways. The "Vote or the Goons will win!" boogeyman is so pathetic.