These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Over/Under on Null Sec Cartel CSM 9 members

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Lari Isayeki
Border Industrial Limited
#61 - 2014-03-05 08:46:00 UTC
Megarom wrote:

The only weakness in the that I suspect the voting system has is that when people need to be eliminated for lack of anyone having enough votes to be selected it only counts the #1 positions at that time (if I've understood correctly) which could lead in some cases to people being eliminated that have high number on #2 positions, but don't go quoting me on that Dinsdale because I have to recheck it.


STV is designed so that votes for a candidate over a quota are redistributed to second and subsequent choices. This is it's main advantage over other candidate elimination systems.

Ali Aras wrote:

This actually happened last year. Part of the reason why the CFC doesn't have more people on. If people rank their actual preference instead of sticking with a bloc vote (or if bloc candidates can appeal to voters outside their bloc), then they'll succeed more. Of course, then they'll actually *represent* more...


Actually this is wrong on a number of fronts. The CFC got only two representatives on the CSM primarily because their share of the base vote was around 2.5 positions worth. If they'd got 1300 or so more votes for the CFC ticket then they would've got 3 seats. The result is also largely independent of the the order they put those 3 candidates in.

Just because a candidate is a member of a block doesn't mean they won't appeal to other sections of the electorate. Two block candidates that clearly did this are mynnna and yourself (Ali).

While I agree that people should vote for the candidates that they think best represent them, that may well be just the candidates from a bloc.

One thing the CFC successfully, did was to push that you should actually vote for more than one candidate, because in almost all cases at least a portion of your vote will go to your second or subsequent choice. You don't neccessarily need to vote a full 14 candidate ticket though, the composition of CSM 8 would've been exactly the same if people only had a two person ticket.

What I'd like to see is the candidates and interested parties make a concerted effort to educate the electorate on how STV actually works.

For instance, in the CSM election you're not voting for a collection of people you'd like to see on the CSM. You're creating a ranked list of who you most want on the CSM. For this reason, the first name should be the person you most want on the CSM, and the second is the next person you'd want on the CSM if the first person doesn't make it, or if they have excess support. Voting for a full list of 14 candidates is a good idea, but your latter choices will have little influence on the results.
Megarom
Shiva
Northern Coalition.
#62 - 2014-03-05 20:18:26 UTC  |  Edited by: Megarom
So the input that shows the bug (Fred gets elected even though appears only on 2 ballots while Basil and Charlotte have 2 #1s the trickiness of exploitation is exemplified by the fact that a tie breaker win is needed for Fred's election):
4 2
3 1 0
1 2 4 0
1 3 2 0
1 2 4 0
1 3 2 0
0
"Adam"
"Basil"
"Charlotte"
"Fred"
"Title"

The diff that fixes this (forums breaks whitespaces)
67a68,69
> for x in remainingCandidates:
> accumulator[x] = 0.

I might have to backtrack on the undesirable feature thing. I though at first that Charlotte's election with the fixed code might be example of it, because she only has 2 potential votes while Basil has 4. But on those 4 Charlotte is preferred to Basil on 2 so they are tied and Charlotte happens to win it. If we were to award victory to Basil based on ballots where Charlotte is ranked higher we would break one of the good features of STV which is that you can't hurt your more preferred candidates by adding additional candidates on your ballot after them. I'll have to fiddle with the votes a bit more to see if it is possible to build really functioning example of what I originally was going for.

Edit: Found it!
4 1
1 2 1 0
1 3 1 0
1 4 1 0
0
"Adam"
"Basil"
"Charlotte"
"Fred"
"Title"
Jenn aSide
Soul Machines
The Initiative.
#63 - 2014-03-05 23:11:31 UTC
Yay, I get to post in the Eternal Victim/Injustice Collection thread where one cannot help but notice that the original poster not only refuses to work to organize any opposition, but also refuses to run himself.
Dinsdale Pirannha
Pirannha Corp
#64 - 2014-03-06 14:22:46 UTC
Jenn aSide wrote:
Yay, I get to post in the Eternal Victim/Injustice Collection thread where one cannot help but notice that the original poster not only refuses to work to organize any opposition, but also refuses to run himself.


Frankly, anyone who truly wants to fight against the cartels is insane to run, unless they can handle putting up with the very high potential of real life griefing from the sociopaths in the cartels. So thanks, but no thanks.

I am not going to open myself up to harassment from the likes of you.

And as for organizing, as it has been stated hundreds of times, it is impossible for the high sec base, which is scattered across hundreds, if not thousands of organizations, to co-ordinate a slate of candidates and vote in a cohesive manner. E-UNI is the only high sec organization that could pull it off, but they are not running a candidate. And sorry, RvB has shown its true colours, and is most certainly not a group interested in defending the high sec playstyle.

The only way that the high sec playstyle will ever be represented is if CCP arbitrarily assigns a number of seats on the CSM to high sec players. Give a permanent seat to whomever EUNI puts out as a candidate. Find 4-6 other high sec player organizations and pull someone from them as well. High sec should have a minimum of 6 reps out of the 14, likely higher, based solely on the demographics of the game.
WarFireV
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#65 - 2014-03-06 15:06:27 UTC
Then you will find out that more then half of the "highsec" candidates are actually alts. Thems the demographic breaks. Roll
admiral root
Red Galaxy
#66 - 2014-03-07 07:55:04 UTC
WarFireV wrote:
Then you will find out that more then half of the "highsec" candidates are actually alts. Thems the demographic breaks. Roll


Shhhh! That's a dirty secret that we don't want getting out.

No, your rights end in optimal+2*falloff
Jenn aSide
Soul Machines
The Initiative.
#67 - 2014-03-07 14:23:29 UTC
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:
Jenn aSide wrote:
Yay, I get to post in the Eternal Victim/Injustice Collection thread where one cannot help but notice that the original poster not only refuses to work to organize any opposition, but also refuses to run himself.


Frankly, anyone who truly wants to fight against the cartels is insane to run, unless they can handle putting up with the very high potential of real life griefing from the sociopaths in the cartels. So thanks, but no thanks.

I am not going to open myself up to harassment from the likes of you.


Any old excuse you can make to not act I see.

Quote:

And as for organizing, as it has been stated hundreds of times, it is impossible for the high sec base, which is scattered across hundreds, if not thousands of organizations, to co-ordinate a slate of candidates and vote in a cohesive manner. E-UNI is the only high sec organization that could pull it off, but they are not running a candidate. And sorry, RvB has shown its true colours, and is most certainly not a group interested in defending the high sec playstyle.


Translation: "It's not even possible because of reasons, so there, see, I don't even have to try because it would be futile".

This is the reason Eternal Victim and Injustice Collector apply to almost every one of your postings.

Quote:

The only way that the high sec playstyle will ever be represented is if CCP arbitrarily assigns a number of seats on the CSM to high sec players. Give a permanent seat to whomever EUNI puts out as a candidate. Find 4-6 other high sec player organizations and pull someone from them as well. High sec should have a minimum of 6 reps out of the 14, likely higher, based solely on the demographics of the game.


"If only CCP would do it for me"! The Same CCP that is allegedly in the pocket of the RMTing null sec cartels according to you.

If you think all that (ie CCP is corrupt, null cartels call the shots, ect) wouldn't you agree that continuing to play a game that isn't ever going to change (because no one can expect corrupt people to ever stop loving money) is a sign of a perverse and unrealistic world view?
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#68 - 2014-03-08 17:53:36 UTC
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:

The only way that the high sec playstyle will ever be represented is if CCP arbitrarily assigns a number of seats on the CSM to high sec players. Give a permanent seat to whomever EUNI puts out as a candidate. Find 4-6 other high sec player organizations and pull someone from them as well. High sec should have a minimum of 6 reps out of the 14, likely higher, based solely on the demographics of the game.


(1) The "hi-sec playstyle" has at least 2 representatives right now. Mangala Solaris and Mike Azariah.

(2) Allocated seats are hilariously easy to game by large, well-organised groups (know any of those who might be interested). All you'd be doing is handing extra seats to the CFC.

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

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Mike Azariah
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#69 - 2014-03-08 19:02:55 UTC
I fly in Highsec, represent Hisec

and I do NOT think we should have seats allocated so Hisec is sure to get one. As a poster above said . . . alts. (Thanks WarFireV)

How do you prove what a person actually does, where he actually flies and who he/she really is? You listen to interviews, you read forum posts or his or her other writings, you damn well write to them in evemail and ask.

I am not a resident, not a statistic, not an alt. I also am not a clone or a pilot in the distant future. I am a Canadian 54 year old male High School teacher who plays a computer game for his hobby and wants to help make that game continue and thrive. I have my specific style and preferred kind of play. I work and play well with others who are also real people and not puppets of some shadowy distant space organization.

Step back from the game and the metagame and remember what is really here. A bunch of people volunteering a hell of a lot of their own time if they want to be, in any way, effective. Renumeration is a years subscription to the game and possible trips to Iceland.

Oh and 'complete power to change the game so it goes EXACTLY the way they want it to.'

as if

m

Mike Azariah  ┬──┬ ¯|(ツ)/¯
Dinsdale Pirannha
Pirannha Corp
#70 - 2014-03-08 23:43:24 UTC
Malcanis wrote:
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:

The only way that the high sec playstyle will ever be represented is if CCP arbitrarily assigns a number of seats on the CSM to high sec players. Give a permanent seat to whomever EUNI puts out as a candidate. Find 4-6 other high sec player organizations and pull someone from them as well. High sec should have a minimum of 6 reps out of the 14, likely higher, based solely on the demographics of the game.


(1) The "hi-sec playstyle" has at least 2 representatives right now. Mangala Solaris and Mike Azariah.

(2) Allocated seats are hilariously easy to game by large, well-organised groups (know any of those who might be interested). All you'd be doing is handing extra seats to the CFC.


Mike Azariah may be a high sec player, though I am not completely sure of that. Perhaps his style is far different than mine, but I want my high sec representatives fighting as loud and ugly as their enemies from the cartels. Because high sec reps are such an isolated group, they have to be meaner, nastier, and more visible than the group that works behind the scenes with the dev's.
And Mike Azariah has not demonstrated that anger nor resolve in any of his posts that I have seen.

I am sure many people will jump on my comment about being angry as a methodology and will state that quiet professionalism is far more effective. I don't believe that for a second. I can give dozens of real life examples throughout history that combating evil in measured tones simply does not work. Yes, reasoned suggestions and debate make sense to start with. But you reach a point, where you realize that your enemy does not play by the same rules, and you must attack with every weapon you have. And among those weapons is angry diatribes like the ones that I generate. People can say no one listens to them. So be it. At least I don't let the cartels have their way without making as many as possible aware of what is happening.

I liken the cartels to the koch brothers. They are just as intelligent, avaricious, and evil as that family, and use many of the same methods. And the real world is far past the point of reasoned dabate with the koch brothers, just as the Eve high sec players are far past reasoned debate with the goons et al.

Oh, and BTW, Mangala is most certainly not, or at least does not have high sec players' interests at heart. That facade was shattered as soon as RvB whored themselves out in the agreement with goons. ANYONE who has ANY dealings with goons is disqualified from stating they represent high sec interests.
Kiryen O'Bannon
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#71 - 2014-03-09 08:42:56 UTC
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:
Jenn aSide wrote:
Yay, I get to post in the Eternal Victim/Injustice Collection thread where one cannot help but notice that the original poster not only refuses to work to organize any opposition, but also refuses to run himself.


Frankly, anyone who truly wants to fight against the cartels is insane to run, unless they can handle putting up with the very high potential of real life griefing from the sociopaths in the cartels. So thanks, but no thanks.

I am not going to open myself up to harassment from the likes of you.

And as for organizing, as it has been stated hundreds of times, it is impossible for the high sec base, which is scattered across hundreds, if not thousands of organizations, to co-ordinate a slate of candidates and vote in a cohesive manner. E-UNI is the only high sec organization that could pull it off, but they are not running a candidate. And sorry, RvB has shown its true colours, and is most certainly not a group interested in defending the high sec playstyle.

The only way that the high sec playstyle will ever be represented is if CCP arbitrarily assigns a number of seats on the CSM to high sec players. Give a permanent seat to whomever EUNI puts out as a candidate. Find 4-6 other high sec player organizations and pull someone from them as well. High sec should have a minimum of 6 reps out of the 14, likely higher, based solely on the demographics of the game.

This, folks, is why Dinsdale is irrelevant. He's complaining about a problem he refuses to take an obvious action to address because the deck is allegedly so stacked against him its impossible to fix.

That's because for this sort of person, getting elected to CSM (to say nothing of actually influencing CCP, or having to meet other members personally and actually listen to them instead of just squalking about stuff) would be the worst possible thing. It would mean the total control the people he hates is a myth. It would mean his entire narrative of a monithic cartel/CCP arrangement was gone.


That's why he never shows evidence and relies entirely on predjudicial language to make his case - it is about not having to risk having his mind changed. Most likely, based on his signature, he approaches RL politics the same way, just carrying on about "regimes". Demonizing an opponent is a fantastic way to tell yourself you don't have to consider their position.

Eternal Father, King of birth, /Who didst create the heaven and earth, /And bid the planets and the sun/ Their own appointed orbits run; /O hear us when we seek thy grace /For those who soar through outer space.
Sephira Galamore
Inner Beard Society
Kvitravn.
#72 - 2014-03-09 09:46:18 UTC  |  Edited by: Sephira Galamore
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:
Mike Azariah may be a high sec player, though I am not completely sure of that. Perhaps his style is far different than mine, but I want my high sec representatives fighting as loud and ugly as their enemies from the cartels. Because high sec reps are such an isolated group, they have to be meaner, nastier, and more visible than the group that works behind the scenes with the dev's.
And Mike Azariah has not demonstrated that anger nor resolve in any of his posts that I have seen.
[...]
Oh, and BTW, Mangala is most certainly not, or at least does not have high sec players' interests at heart. That facade was shattered as soon as RvB whored themselves out in the agreement with goons. ANYONE who has ANY dealings with goons is disqualified from stating they represent high sec interests.

Suggestion: You stop talking about "high sec players", since you obviously don't mean that, but instead refer to "players that play the way I do"?

Because if you have two CSM members, who mostly live in hisec and are heavily involved with hisec but you don't consider them high sec players you have to check your terminology.

FFS, you realize that the goons that are involved in POCOs are even hisec players now, to varying degrees?
admiral root
Red Galaxy
#73 - 2014-03-09 11:51:18 UTC
Sephira Galamore wrote:
FFS, you realize that the goons that are involved in POCOs are even hisec players now, to varying degrees?


Actually, they were highsec players long before that, what with their long history of decorating killboards with their losses from wardecs, their ice interdiction, suicide ganking, etc.

No, your rights end in optimal+2*falloff
Darek Castigatus
Immortalis Inc.
Shadow Cartel
#74 - 2014-03-12 15:09:43 UTC
Kiryen O'Bannon wrote:
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:
Jenn aSide wrote:
Yay, I get to post in the Eternal Victim/Injustice Collection thread where one cannot help but notice that the original poster not only refuses to work to organize any opposition, but also refuses to run himself.


Frankly, anyone who truly wants to fight against the cartels is insane to run, unless they can handle putting up with the very high potential of real life griefing from the sociopaths in the cartels. So thanks, but no thanks.

I am not going to open myself up to harassment from the likes of you.

And as for organizing, as it has been stated hundreds of times, it is impossible for the high sec base, which is scattered across hundreds, if not thousands of organizations, to co-ordinate a slate of candidates and vote in a cohesive manner. E-UNI is the only high sec organization that could pull it off, but they are not running a candidate. And sorry, RvB has shown its true colours, and is most certainly not a group interested in defending the high sec playstyle.

The only way that the high sec playstyle will ever be represented is if CCP arbitrarily assigns a number of seats on the CSM to high sec players. Give a permanent seat to whomever EUNI puts out as a candidate. Find 4-6 other high sec player organizations and pull someone from them as well. High sec should have a minimum of 6 reps out of the 14, likely higher, based solely on the demographics of the game.

This, folks, is why Dinsdale is irrelevant. He's complaining about a problem he refuses to take an obvious action to address because the deck is allegedly so stacked against him its impossible to fix.

That's because for this sort of person, getting elected to CSM (to say nothing of actually influencing CCP, or having to meet other members personally and actually listen to them instead of just squalking about stuff) would be the worst possible thing. It would mean the total control the people he hates is a myth. It would mean his entire narrative of a monithic cartel/CCP arrangement was gone.


That's why he never shows evidence and relies entirely on predjudicial language to make his case - it is about not having to risk having his mind changed. Most likely, based on his signature, he approaches RL politics the same way, just carrying on about "regimes". Demonizing an opponent is a fantastic way to tell yourself you don't have to consider their position.


Totally not +1ing this for truth being told.

Seriously though Dinsdale, I know your schtick is being a martyr for the supposedly oppressed highsec majority but could you at least try and do it in a way that actually requires effort to debunk. "OMG!!111CARTELS11!!NULLSECHATESHIGHSEC!!11" is just lame at this point.

Pirates - The Invisible Fist of Darwin

you're welcome
Jaxon Grylls
Institute of Archaeology
#75 - 2014-03-14 11:59:13 UTC
Just trawling through this thread a thought occurs to me.

Membership of the CSM is said to be demanding of time and commitment.

Why then should any "casual" players be interested in an activity that by its very nature demands a commitment that many are unable to give to actually playing EVE?

It seems to me that the only people attracted to standing for election to the CSM would be those sufficiently engaged in playing EVE and as such would have neither understanding or empathy with those not able to give time to playing casually.

I am such a casual player and whilst I would like to see more CSM members representing my interests I am not hopeful that this will ever happen.

The only other group likely to be interested in becoming a CSM member are "politicians" and I'm not one of those either.
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#76 - 2014-03-14 12:40:00 UTC
Jaxon Grylls wrote:
Just trawling through this thread a thought occurs to me.

Membership of the CSM is said to be demanding of time and commitment.

Why then should any "casual" players be interested in an activity that by its very nature demands a commitment that many are unable to give to actually playing EVE?

It seems to me that the only people attracted to standing for election to the CSM would be those sufficiently engaged in playing EVE and as such would have neither understanding or empathy with those not able to give time to playing casually.

I am such a casual player and whilst I would like to see more CSM members representing my interests I am not hopeful that this will ever happen.

The only other group likely to be interested in becoming a CSM member are "politicians" and I'm not one of those either.


That's a pretty good point - I was thinking about it last night.

Mike Azariah is a casual player, and specifically represents casual players, but tbh, you're lucky to have him, and I doubt that there will ever be more than 1 "Casual" rep at a time on the CSM.

It's open to discussion as to whether this is a "bug or a feature".

However I can confirm that at least there are some CCP devs who are aware of the casuals and who keep them mind.

There are also people in this thread (*waves arms madly*) who think that hi-sec should be specifically dedicated to casual players (as opposed to carebears).

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

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises
Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
#77 - 2014-03-14 12:58:34 UTC
'Casual' is an interesting term.

Is it related to how much time you put into Eve, or how much you commit to groups within Eve?

Woo! CSM XI!

Fuzzwork Enterprises

Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter
Dinsdale Pirannha
Pirannha Corp
#78 - 2014-03-14 13:26:35 UTC
Malcanis wrote:
Jaxon Grylls wrote:
Just trawling through this thread a thought occurs to me.

Membership of the CSM is said to be demanding of time and commitment.

Why then should any "casual" players be interested in an activity that by its very nature demands a commitment that many are unable to give to actually playing EVE?

It seems to me that the only people attracted to standing for election to the CSM would be those sufficiently engaged in playing EVE and as such would have neither understanding or empathy with those not able to give time to playing casually.

I am such a casual player and whilst I would like to see more CSM members representing my interests I am not hopeful that this will ever happen.

The only other group likely to be interested in becoming a CSM member are "politicians" and I'm not one of those either.


That's a pretty good point - I was thinking about it last night.

Mike Azariah is a casual player, and specifically represents casual players, but tbh, you're lucky to have him, and I doubt that there will ever be more than 1 "Casual" rep at a time on the CSM.

It's open to discussion as to whether this is a "bug or a feature".

However I can confirm that at least there are some CCP devs who are aware of the casuals and who keep them mind.

There are also people in this thread (*waves arms madly*) who think that hi-sec should be specifically dedicated to casual players (as opposed to carebears).


I just read Jaxon's post and yours, and frankly, it did set me back on my heels.
Jaxon's logic is solid, and I had not considered it. If it really does take 20 hours plus / week to be a good CSM rep, then yeah, no way casual players who log on for an hour or 2 every night are going to be willing to shoulder that load.

BUT, there has to be way to get that group more representation. You and I may disagree on the evilness and singular view that the cartel leadership has for the future of the game. But I think we can agree that the "casual" player does make up a larger percentage of the player base than is currently represented, and by a large large margin. And their gamestyle is imperiled when the cartels dominate the CSM, since the casual playstyle is completely foreign to the cartels. I have lived in null, and wormholes. I have lived through the alarm clock CTA's. The majority of the player base simply does not want that level of commitment to Eve, but the cartels are contemptuous of anyone who feels that way.

As for the fact that "some CCP devs who are aware of the casuals and who keep them mind", it should be ALL CCP dev's keep them in mind, all the time. I wonder how many CCP dev's DON'T keep the null sec sov players in mind at all, when they design some game mechanic. Likely zero. When a dev works for CCP, he should be aware and care about every single sector of the player base, not just some of the devs.
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#79 - 2014-03-14 13:36:49 UTC
Well to pick an obvious example, I imagine that the dev team that reworked the wardec system for Retribution didn't think about 0.0 a whole lot.

A quite high percentage of CCP devs are actually recruited from the playerbase. Whilst it's impossible to make an absolute statement, I'd be rather surprised if more than a small percentage of these people who liked EVE enough that they decided to work for CCP considered themselves "casual" when they applied.

But I strongly suspect that working for CCP for 40+ hours a week has a similar or even stronger effect to working on the CSM for 10-20 hours a week: It makes you a casual player. I log in a LOT less than I was before I got elected.

It's not just a question of available time: there are simply only so many hours a week that I want to be thinking about EVE, and being on the CSM eats a large chunk of those hours. I'm pretty sure that many CCP devs have the same experience.

So basically: it's not that bad, Dinsdale. CCP can't help but consider the casual player perspective, because so many of them are.

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

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Dinsdale Pirannha
Pirannha Corp
#80 - 2014-03-14 13:57:14 UTC
Malcanis wrote:
Well to pick an obvious example, I imagine that the dev team that reworked the wardec system for Retribution didn't think about 0.0 a whole lot.

A quite high percentage of CCP devs are actually recruited from the playerbase. Whilst it's impossible to make an absolute statement, I'd be rather surprised if more than a small percentage of these people who liked EVE enough that they decided to work for CCP considered themselves "casual" when they applied.

But I strongly suspect that working for CCP for 40+ hours a week has a similar or even stronger effect to working on the CSM for 10-20 hours a week: It makes you a casual player. I log in a LOT less than I was before I got elected.

It's not just a question of available time: there are simply only so many hours a week that I want to be thinking about EVE, and being on the CSM eats a large chunk of those hours. I'm pretty sure that many CCP devs have the same experience.

So basically: it's not that bad, Dinsdale. CCP can't help but consider the casual player perspective, because so many of them are.


I recognize that a dev who puts in 50 hours a week at CCP probably does not want to spend another 30 a week grinding sov, or hauling fuel to a wormhole POS. In that sense I agree that they would be considered a casual player. But also look at the backgrounds of the dev's that I can think of that I at least see tangible effects on the entire player base. Fozzie is from PL. Rise was primarily a solo player but one who focused on low and null. Falcon came from Veto, a merc crew that spent a lot of time in null. Soundwave was goons. Dolan is from Test. Those are the ones that I know off the top of my head.

While I see those people can't possibly have anywhere the free time to focus on Eve gameplay once they joined CCP, I simply can't accept that they empathize with the causal player. Watching the tournies, and listening to Fozzie and Rise, no way they consider themselves causal players. They came from a background where the causal player was an afterthought, and it would take a ton of time to change that mentality.