EVE General Discussion

I'm lazy too. I guess that means I'm also cynical for saying that...



What about a married, gay miner who is warming up his globes by ganking?

Democracy. The 10% who still care.

So, what is the best way to represent the various members, playstyles, and groups within the playerbase? To step up and run for CSM; urge friends to run; support voting and vote; getting involved in debate, discussion, and the process; There are so many options to support the process beyond simply saying that the process or organization is broken. Hell, if you don't like it, get involved and make a change.

I'm a wormhole resident. I founded one of the largest FW corps in the history of Eve, I owned space in Delve, I've researched, copied, manufactured and sold billions in Capital weapons and ammo, I fought in the Northern War against the Drone Russians, ran level four missions, mined, FC'd everything from small gangs to Supers, taught new players how to Eve, been a lowsec pirate, highsec ganker, and I'd imagine I'm forgetting some things...

Point isn't to toot mah horn, the point is that if I'm a member of a CSM, I can influence and represent across a ton of the playstyles and many of the playerbase. Sure, some of the people elected overtly represent a particular playstyle or community, but that doesn't dismiss their (our) experience or our ability to help represent and support other areas. So, as long as you vote people with diverse experience and a willingness to utilize their experience for the overall betterment of the greater Eve community, then you can achieve a larger representation; and who's to say that you aren't the person for the job?

Discuss, Debate, Run, Vote, and simply be involved if you want to make the CSM better.

So, to you the solution is to become a part of the problem?

As long as CCP does not take measure to make sure the entire player base is informed about CSM and get them involved in the vote, the problem with CSM only representing a subset of the player base will persist.

Mangala Solaris. He's a great guy in the corp, tirelessly organizing content not only for RvB but for the general EVE public. Events such as Ganked roams for example. The time and effort he puts in to making this better should be recognized. I'm happy with him representing my interests as a player.

No.

No person in hi-sec is underrepresented. They are represented exactly to the degree they voted. CSM is a sounding board, a PR machine, entirely obsolete, good for getting ideas and feedback to the developers, or any combination thereof that you'd like. It's not a modern parliament. Hi-sec won't be better served with adding 9 morons to 1 energetic, well reasoned and creative person. You can't outvote the "null-bloc" on the CSM, and your "regional voting" is just not applying to the CSM.
You might need to look up some advisory boards. Often, green advisory councils have a few politically appointed members, some elected or appointed by interest groups, a few corporate members and a lawyer, or economist or both. Very few have people because of their academic background, but then again many of the others have such a background. Such a group wouldn't vote - because they can't decide stuff. They can't change policy because a majority thinks one way or the other. But charismatic, hardworking and resourceful members on such a board can have a good chance of getting listened to. That's the CSM, but it's not your idiotic idea of some kind of space-parliament.

No.

Yes, obviously. All the votes for null-sec members magically appearing, nobody knows from where.

No, it's not a "nulltocracy". It's a council of those willing to run and able to get support. Most of the time, they're also realistic about being able to get a platform to say things to developers, but not under the delusion that they get to vote on each new feature as items on an agenda.
Null-sec is generally more organised than any other area of space, but you still see the wormholers organise and get people in, you see lowsec or FW candidates give it a good showing, so they either get together and find a good candidate that they can agree on, or are ambitious enough to run their own candidate in a soloshow. Is the support part easier when you have 2 000 characters you can mail for probable votes easier? Yes, of course it is.

But FW didn't have that force, and neither did the WH candidates. Still, they got 2 or 3 candidates in (Two Step, Hans Jagerblitzen, a third guy IIRC), in one election. They organised, ran a limited number of excellent candidates, got those viewpoints into the room. Can any hi-sec candidate do exactly that? Yes, naturally.

There is no inherent security-status bias in the CSM. This election, as any election, comes pre-rigged for the intelligent, the prepared, the charismatic and the witty. "Prepared" today often means being in a party that can organise, has a voter base already, can get you on TV etc. In EVE, "prepared" means one with a voter base, name recognition, a platform for publicity or a good amount of people who can speak positively for you. Even when you have that, a victory is not given. Take a look at riverini last year and his EN24 party. I'm risking the prediction that something similar will happen this year. I don't think he has it to win, just like most hi-sec candidates he is missing those few bits that makes a winning candidate.

I'm not sure I am going to have Steve Ronuken on my list come election day. It's a possibility because I think he (At least on the surface) is intelligent, well-reasoned and could be an asset to council CCP on a number of issues. That's the same reason I voted for Hans Jagerblitzen before, even though I do not like FW and I think low-sec is pointless.

I'd like the best reasoned, the most intelligible, the most knowing and the most creative candidates on the CSM. I want those regardless of what security-status they call home, or what corp or alliance ticker they have, because I don't view the CSM as a penislengthcomparison, but the players electing a sounding&feedback board to council CCP. Feyd Rautha Harkonnen does not want that. Evidently, he thinks of this as a comparison between the penislengths of hi-sec, low-sec, null-sec and WH. He's free to do that, but at least if he reads my (and others') rebuttal, he'll know why he is barking up the wrong tree.

****MTU for CSM****

When you say "less than 10%", presumably you're unaware that last year it was 14%, and the year before, 17%.

That's still far from enough, but it's half as much again as you're trying to pretend.

In any case, thanks for grudgingly conceding that we the CSM are doing what could be expected to be done with respect to publicising the CSM.

So my original statement stands. If "72%" of the players can't muster more than 2 candidates, is that a problem with the other 28% or with the 72%? What electoral system could represent people who refuse to vote or run? The functionally ******** idea of "allocated" seats would be ridiculously easy to game by organised groups.

If you people put a tenth of the effort into getting representation that you do Into complaining you're not then you'd have nothing to worry about.