These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

EVE General Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

The CSM – Council of Sov. Management.

First post
Author
Jenn aSide
Worthless Carebears
Pandemic Horde
#81 - 2017-04-20 16:46:25 UTC
Issler Dainze wrote:


So now I'm changing what I first said. The CSM is now a popularity contest with an Iceland vacation and a gift bag if you win!


That cuts it, I'm running for CSM 13 on the "HTFU you dumb MF'r" party ticket...
Vic Jefferson
Stimulus
Rote Kapelle
#82 - 2017-04-20 16:59:51 UTC
Cade Windstalker wrote:
Personally, in short, I think all of the fussing and fighting over the composition of the CSM is so much smoke with no fire. There's very little good evidence that the lack of one particular group being personally represented on the CSM has a major negative impact on their area of play. The whole thing feels like a relatively minor legitimate point that's being crammed full of a boat load of "CCP did this thing I don't like!" complaints disguised as democratic outrage.



So, as always, I appreciate your measured and composed responses.

While I admit that there isn't a highly tractable link between the decline of many play sytles/lack of any developer time on certain areas of space and the exact CSM composition, it does sort of leave the imagination to freely wander the lands of explanations. EvE is a lot of things to a lot of people, and everyone has their favored niche, which is part of the fun of the game; it is not one monolithic experience, it is the sum of a varied and diverse set of things. When those niches show decline over many years and there is no honest tell that help is on the way, or that there is even someone voicing the issues, naturally that wandering imagination will happen upon the ugly valley of culpability.

I don't think it's wrong to look at the CSM, see that some (most) niches have no voice, and wonder how things would ever get better without a voice. A lack of the potential for positive change, perceived or real, is a potential negative impact on their area of play. I gave a nod to this in the original post - it's not what the CSM are saying that's a problem, they aren't directly ruining other people's game so much, it's what they aren't saying that is a problem because so many voices are effectively left out of the process entirely.

Zarek Kree wrote:
Vic Jefferson wrote:
I do not have a proposed fix for the problem...


A reasonable post until that point. That's when I stopped reading. Complaining is what children do. Coming up with effective solutions is what big boys do.


Oh, this is something we could chew on for years. I think a balanced CSM would look like this, assuming 10 seats:

3 Sov Null
1 Lowsec FW
1 Lowsec non-FW
1 High Sec Antagonist
1 NPC null
1 Industry specialist
1 Wormhole enthusiast
1 NPSI specialist

Now the first thing someone could do is heavily criticize that, as I have left out playstyle X, Y, and Z, and I'm just as full of disgusting exclusionary tribalism as the filthwizards I am decrying, bending the developer ears only to my own limited imperialistic views on where the game should be headed - towards my game. That's somewhat valid, I won't deny that, but at least I am trying to give a nod that others exist.

The second thing someone could do is point out how easy that system is to game, unless CCP rigorously enforces who is allowed to run for each seat. However, if it was enforced, at least the game would have the 'right' distribution of voices, and potentially one of the better voices in each category - you only have to beat the others in your category, not a massive null bloc as a candidate from say, non FW lowsec or NPC null.

We could spill an endless amount of ink in pursuit of the mythical perfect system, because we all know that it does not exist, at least for everyone. The current system is not perfect, but very good for blockading most player voice out and electing in large bloc candidates, so from that perspective, it is close to perfect for some people.


Vote Vic Jefferson for CSM X.....XI.....XII?

Zarek Kree
Lunatic Legion Holdings
#83 - 2017-04-20 17:16:37 UTC
Vic Jefferson wrote:
Oh, this is something we could chew on for years. I think a balanced CSM would look like this, assuming 10 seats:

3 Sov Null
1 Lowsec FW
1 Lowsec non-FW
1 High Sec Antagonist
1 NPC null
1 Industry specialist
1 Wormhole enthusiast
1 NPSI specialist

Now the first thing someone could do is heavily criticize that, as I have left out playstyle X, Y, and Z, and I'm just as full of disgusting exclusionary tribalism as the filthwizards I am decrying, bending the developer ears only to my own limited imperialistic views on where the game should be headed - towards my game. That's somewhat valid, I won't deny that, but at least I am trying to give a nod that others exist.

The second thing someone could do is point out how easy that system is to game, unless CCP rigorously enforces who is allowed to run for each seat. However, if it was enforced, at least the game would have the 'right' distribution of voices, and potentially one of the better voices in each category - you only have to beat the others in your category, not a massive null bloc as a candidate from say, non FW lowsec or NPC null.

We could spill an endless amount of ink in pursuit of the mythical perfect system, because we all know that it does not exist, at least for everyone. The current system is not perfect, but very good for blockading most player voice out and electing in large bloc candidates, so from that perspective, it is close to perfect for some people.


You could potentially get me onboard for such a system. Except I think I'd have half "at large" seats that would function exactly like the current system. Then the other half would be "specialist" seats for which you have to apply to CCP to be on the ballot. It might require a slight expansion of the CSM (to maybe 12-14 seats) to be viable. As you said, it's not perfect and it's not as democratic, but it gets all the various voices heard.
Mr Mieyli
Doomheim
#84 - 2017-04-20 17:26:40 UTC
This would possibly be a lot more work for CCP, but it should be possible to survey each and every eve player at least now and then, and use a computer system to process the data and highlight the most common areas of concern. In this way every eve player could have their voice heard directly without representation, if they are interested enough in the game to fill out a survey.

I think the main issue with the CSM is actually the choice of candidates and the impact having a candidates voice heard can have, it's almost far too serious a concept for a video game. It excludes the more casual players as they won't spend the time researching candidates, and tobe fair most null players won't research either but simply follow leadership's orders. This is certainly not meant to diminish in any way the effort put in by CSM members, as they are almost definitely some of the most dedicated eve players around.

This post brought to you by CCP's alpha forum alt initiative. Playing the eve forums has never come cheaper.

Cade Windstalker
#85 - 2017-04-20 17:35:27 UTC
Black Pedro wrote:
As it said, it doesn't matter if you agree with them or not. It is however a fact that problems have been missed, the mood of the players misjudged, and chronic misunderstanding of game mechanics demonstrated. Like this useless graph requested by the last CSM which says nothing meaningful about freighter ganking at all. God love Jin'taan for trying, and he has gone way above and beyond in an attempt to represent non-representated play styles and I really honour him for it (and voted for him because of it), but he has no practical experience with highsec criminal mechanics at all as far as I can tell. Yes, he can do his best to talk to players and represent their concerns to CCP, but he won't be able to interpret what every change means to CrimeWatch and he shouldn't be expected to. There should be someone sitting next to him who has some familiarity with the mechanics.

There isn't. And there isn't for a large number of play styles. You may still have confidence in the CSM's ability to cover every aspect of the game, but I certainly don't.


I think you may have misunderstood my objection. I don't agree with those examples in that I don't agree that they are examples of places where the CSM failed in a way that any kind of composition change would fix. They aren't an example of the CSM not functioning correctly, they're just things you don't like that CCP had valid reasons for, one of which went in and the other hasn't, at least not yet.

As for things like that graph, yes that graph doesn't say much, but that in and of itself is potentially instructive. Lacking more context at the moment though I can't really comment more on it beyond that I don't really think it illustrates anything useful here. At best it's one CSM trying to address a potential concern brought to him by other players.

Black Pedro wrote:
That my friend is not a strawman argument. It is a clear illustration of the problems of a limited representative council, especially one selected on popularity rather than merit/diversity.


It's a strawman. You've taken a clearly ridiculous potential case with a glaring flaw and tried to expand it to the current state of the CSM to illustrate why that flaw is still an issue. Except you've done it without any kind of consideration as to whether or not your example at all accurately models or takes into account the broader case. That's a textbook strawman argument.

Black Pedro wrote:
If we want the CSM to just be communicators it doesn't matter. If we want them to be from a diverse enough to actually have experience with all areas of the game there is a certain critical size we would need to ensure proper coverage. I don't know what that number is, but what the current system shows is 10 is clearly not enough. Probably 100 would be and likely 20-30 would be enough. But as we both agree, that may representatives isn't feasible or probably even desirable.


So, again, what was the point of that argument? Your example did nothing to show that 10 people is too few, you've proposed no solution, and you have no magic number that will work.

Black Pedro wrote:
I agree. I see no fix. That is why I am just going to disengage. I see no problem in having a ineffective council that CCP can sound ideas off of and ignore at their pleasure other than if they somehow convince themselves that is more infallible or representative of the player base than it clearly is in my estimation.


I don't think CCP or the CSM are under any misapprehensions about their fallibility, but the CSM aren't worthless and they aren't an override button on CCP actions. Implying either of those, which is what your statement here seems to do, doesn't help.

Neither does disengaging from the CSM and declaring it worthless just because it's not doing what you specifically seem to want it to (apparently something involving the watchlist among, I'm sure, other things).

I can not think of a single potential or real problem with the CSM or any other representative group that doesn't get worse when the people they're representing cease to care about the representation in question.
Zarek Kree
Lunatic Legion Holdings
#86 - 2017-04-20 17:40:06 UTC
Mr Mieyli wrote:
This would possibly be a lot more work for CCP, but it should be possible to survey each and every eve player at least now and then, and use a computer system to process the data and highlight the most common areas of concern. In this way every eve player could have their voice heard directly without representation, if they are interested enough in the game to fill out a survey.


I think this is a good idea, but it doesn't negate the need for a CSM because the general population doesn't get access to proposed changes and features as the CSM does.
Cade Windstalker
#87 - 2017-04-20 17:41:47 UTC
Vic Jefferson wrote:
So, as always, I appreciate your measured and composed responses.

While I admit that there isn't a highly tractable link between the decline of many play sytles/lack of any developer time on certain areas of space and the exact CSM composition, it does sort of leave the imagination to freely wander the lands of explanations. EvE is a lot of things to a lot of people, and everyone has their favored niche, which is part of the fun of the game; it is not one monolithic experience, it is the sum of a varied and diverse set of things. When those niches show decline over many years and there is no honest tell that help is on the way, or that there is even someone voicing the issues, naturally that wandering imagination will happen upon the ugly valley of culpability.

I don't think it's wrong to look at the CSM, see that some (most) niches have no voice, and wonder how things would ever get better without a voice. A lack of the potential for positive change, perceived or real, is a potential negative impact on their area of play. I gave a nod to this in the original post - it's not what the CSM are saying that's a problem, they aren't directly ruining other people's game so much, it's what they aren't saying that is a problem because so many voices are effectively left out of the process entirely.


Thank you for the compliment, I try though I don't always feel that I hit the mark.

I guess I disagree with you here in large part because I don't believe CCP are actually leaving anyone out. As I said before they read the forums, reddit, blogs, and other places people leave feedback either individually or in groups.

The problem here is, fundamentally, that CCP are in a Catch-22 of not enough dev time and if they speak to things too far in advance they risk either causing problems with player emotions (don't want people anticipating something that won't be touched for 2 years, they'll just feel disappointed at the wait) or risking having plans change and then the players feeling lied to.

It's pretty much impossible for CCP to have enough devs to give every area of the game the time and attention it wants. A certain other fantasy MMO with a budget and player-base many times the size of Eve and an overall simpler design space can't even manage to keep ahead of players devouring content, so it's unrealistic to expect Eve to.

I don't really have a solution for this but I don't think the CSM are the cause or even particularly culpable in the problem you're describing here. The issue is the realities of game development and that it's impossible for the priorities of CCP and their limited time and manpower to align with those of every group of players simultaneously.
Jenn aSide
Worthless Carebears
Pandemic Horde
#88 - 2017-04-20 17:47:59 UTC  |  Edited by: Jenn aSide
I think it's much ado about nothing. CCP is going to do what CCP thinks is best for it's business, the CSM is at most window dressing and at worst a camouflaged scapegoat (people blame the CSM for all manner of things they have no control over, taking some of the heat off CCP, name should be changed to CSHS...Council of Stellar Heat Sinks).

The idea that people at CCP need some elected player to tell them about some area of gameplay is off base, there is a whole section of the company that does nothing but compile and analyze what people do in game and when. One more hyper opinionated gamer on a player panel isn't going to change anything or generate any "oh my gawd I didn't know that" moments for the professional developers who have access to lots and lots of data.

Worrying about the CSM is giving the CSM and players in general way too much credit, and giving CCP way too little.
Zarek Kree
Lunatic Legion Holdings
#89 - 2017-04-20 17:56:35 UTC
Cade Windstalker wrote:
I guess I disagree with you here in large part because I don't believe CCP are actually leaving anyone out. As I said before they read the forums, reddit, blogs, and other places people leave feedback either individually or in groups.


I completely agree that CCP isn't leaving anyone out because they have no shortage of information from which to draw. However, I will argue that representation is a perception issue more than it is a functional issue. People need to feel their voices are being heard. Ensuring that a wider variety of voices have a seat at the CSM table isn't so that CCP can make a better product (I doubt it would matter much), but so that the player base who aren't currently represented feel like somebody is speaking for them. Perception doesn't have to reflect reality for it to be meaningful.
Soel Reit
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#90 - 2017-04-20 17:57:35 UTC  |  Edited by: Soel Reit
Jenn aSide wrote:
Issler Dainze wrote:


So now I'm changing what I first said. The CSM is now a popularity contest with an Iceland vacation and a gift bag if you win!


That cuts it, I'm running for CSM 13 on the "HTFU you dumb MF'r" party ticket...


you're my candidate!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
i'm gonna vote you with my 9k alts Cool legit
Jenn aSide
Worthless Carebears
Pandemic Horde
#91 - 2017-04-20 18:00:38 UTC
Soel Reit wrote:
Jenn aSide wrote:
Issler Dainze wrote:


So now I'm changing what I first said. The CSM is now a popularity contest with an Iceland vacation and a gift bag if you win!


That cuts it, I'm running for CSM 13 on the "HTFU you dumb MF'r" party ticket...


you're my candidate!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
i'm gonna vote you with my 9k alts Cool legit


Well, that's one, I only need ilke 25,999 more!

Vote for me and we will go to the middle east Minmatar space and get all that Oil Spiced wine for ourselves!
Zanar Skwigelf
HIgh Sec Care Bears
Brothers of Tangra
#92 - 2017-04-20 19:21:47 UTC
Zarek Kree wrote:
Vic Jefferson wrote:
Oh, this is something we could chew on for years. I think a balanced CSM would look like this, assuming 10 seats:

3 Sov Null
1 Lowsec FW
1 Lowsec non-FW
1 High Sec Antagonist
1 NPC null
1 Industry specialist
1 Wormhole enthusiast
1 NPSI specialist

Now the first thing someone could do is heavily criticize that, as I have left out playstyle X, Y, and Z, and I'm just as full of disgusting exclusionary tribalism as the filthwizards I am decrying, bending the developer ears only to my own limited imperialistic views on where the game should be headed - towards my game. That's somewhat valid, I won't deny that, but at least I am trying to give a nod that others exist.

The second thing someone could do is point out how easy that system is to game, unless CCP rigorously enforces who is allowed to run for each seat. However, if it was enforced, at least the game would have the 'right' distribution of voices, and potentially one of the better voices in each category - you only have to beat the others in your category, not a massive null bloc as a candidate from say, non FW lowsec or NPC null.

We could spill an endless amount of ink in pursuit of the mythical perfect system, because we all know that it does not exist, at least for everyone. The current system is not perfect, but very good for blockading most player voice out and electing in large bloc candidates, so from that perspective, it is close to perfect for some people.


You could potentially get me onboard for such a system. Except I think I'd have half "at large" seats that would function exactly like the current system. Then the other half would be "specialist" seats for which you have to apply to CCP to be on the ballot. It might require a slight expansion of the CSM (to maybe 12-14 seats) to be viable. As you said, it's not perfect and it's not as democratic, but it gets all the various voices heard.



Or, and hear me out:

We let CSM be CSM, and we let focus groups be focus groups?

If CCP wanted good focus groups, they can throw up a thread where all the other focus groups are and run with that.

Classifying CSM seats based on your in-game activity is kind of silly as well because of alts. As an example, Noobman is a high-profile wormhole CSM member, but he also has a Titan pilot in PL, and (I think) he has a HK super pilot that ganks ratting supers in drone lands. Which of your seats would he sit in? Wormhole because of his main? Sov Null because of his Titan Pilot? Low-sec non FW because the screenshot of that Titan he posted on Reddit shows it in low sec?
Black Pedro
Mine.
#93 - 2017-04-20 19:24:28 UTC  |  Edited by: Black Pedro
Cade Windstalker wrote:
As for things like that graph, yes that graph doesn't say much, but that in and of itself is potentially instructive. Lacking more context at the moment though I can't really comment more on it beyond that I don't really think it illustrates anything useful here. At best it's one CSM trying to address a potential concern brought to him by other players.
That's exactly what it is. It is an example of a CSM member doing his best to bring concerns of the players to the summit after hosting a series of roundtables with players who engage in game play he has no experience in but also have no one else on the council to represent them with any experience. I salute the efforts of Jin'taan and some other members of CSM XI in trying to fill in the glaringly obvious gaps in the council's experience by talking to the players. It's no substitute for having someone with direct experience of these areas of game on the council, but it is something.

Cade Windstalker wrote:
It's a strawman. You've taken a clearly ridiculous potential case with a glaring flaw and tried to expand it to the current state of the CSM to illustrate why that flaw is still an issue.
It's not even an argument, let alone a straw man. I did not set up a false point only to refute it nor make any conclusion. I pushed to the extreme a situation to highlight the fact I am sure you agree with that there is such a thing as under-representation, and that by changing the number of members of the council you increase the number of players that have representation. This is self-evident to anyone who considers the situation, but is made clearer with that thought experiment.

I think though we largely agree. There is a number of council members that would provide "complete" coverage of the playerbase, at least to the first approximation of general professions, activities and sectors of space in Eve. That number might be impossibly high and unwieldy for the council, but it does exist, and if the number is less than that then there are players who go unrepresented. Again, a simple fact. I see no solution to it, but that doesn't mean players and play styles are going unrepresented on the CSM unless you assert that 10 is enough and the current council is proficient in all areas of the game. That might be where we disagree as I think that at least this year, 10 was not enough as even 14 was not enough last year.

To each their own I guess.

Black Pedro wrote:
Neither does disengaging from the CSM and declaring it worthless just because it's not doing what you specifically seem to want it to (apparently something involving the watchlist among, I'm sure, other things).

I can not think of a single potential or real problem with the CSM or any other representative group that doesn't get worse when the people they're representing cease to care about the representation in question.
Fair enough but here we are. Why should anyone care about a institution that either has no power and is just a collection of the space powerful pretending that they do, or really does have power but contains no one that represents them or their playstyle year-after-year? It's why the CSM keeps sliding into irrelevance (well that and the self-serving leaks, in-fighting, and self-interested lobbying that was the staple of pre-CSM11 councils). The problem gets worse and worse as more players stop caring and more power (real or pretend) becomes concentrated around those who have the most votes, which happens to be nullsec organizations.

I agree it isn't healthy, productive and doesn't bode well for the future of the CSM or the game in general, but it is what we have.

You can tell people they should care, but as the last two years showed either you can't make them, or even if you do there are not enough of them to surpass the number of votes the 5th or 6th largest nullsec entity can muster.

Don't worry though, I'll still spend a few futile minutes and send my votes the way of someone who can represent what I do in-game once a year. I'll also still talk to CSM members who show an interest in engaging on subjects outside their experience. But none of that means I have any confidence that the current sov nullsec CSM can as effectively represent me or a large collection of other players as well as a more diverse CSM could.
Zarek Kree
Lunatic Legion Holdings
#94 - 2017-04-20 19:58:31 UTC  |  Edited by: Zarek Kree
Zanar Skwigelf wrote:
Or, and hear me out:

We let CSM be CSM, and we let focus groups be focus groups?

If CCP wanted good focus groups, they can throw up a thread where all the other focus groups are and run with that.


Are there any focus groups? Certainly none with the standing of the CSM. If they wanted to build something like a Council of Functional Management (CFM) that operated alongside the CSM, then that would be okay too. The point is to ensure that various functional groups have a seat at some table.

Zanar Skwigelf wrote:
CSM seats based on your in-game activity is kind of silly as well because of alts. As an example, Noobman is a high-profile wormhole CSM member, but he also has a Titan pilot in PL, and (I think) he has a HK super pilot that ganks ratting supers in drone lands. Which of your seats would he sit in? Wormhole because of his main? Sov Null because of his Titan Pilot? Low-sec non FW because the screenshot of that Titan he posted on Reddit shows it in low sec?


I'd say that he would sit in whatever seat he's approved to run for and that he wins by popular vote. If someone has a strong resume in wormhole ops as well as manufacturing, then he's qualified to speak for either constituency. Which one he chooses to run for is up to him.
Cade Windstalker
#95 - 2017-04-20 20:27:16 UTC
Zarek Kree wrote:
I completely agree that CCP isn't leaving anyone out because they have no shortage of information from which to draw. However, I will argue that representation is a perception issue more than it is a functional issue. People need to feel their voices are being heard. Ensuring that a wider variety of voices have a seat at the CSM table isn't so that CCP can make a better product (I doubt it would matter much), but so that the player base who aren't currently represented feel like somebody is speaking for them. Perception doesn't have to reflect reality for it to be meaningful.


The CSM isn't just a PR gag though, it's an actually functional body and we have plenty of examples small and large through the years where they've given valuable feedback to CCP on upcoming changes and ideas.

Just stuffing more people into it for appearances sake and at the expense of its functional role doesn't help anyone and would likely diminish the value of the body from CCP's perspective.



Black Pedro wrote:
I think though we largely agree. There is a number of council members that would provide "complete" coverage of the playerbase, at least to the first approximation of general professions, activities and sectors of space in Eve. That number might be impossibly high and unwieldy for the council, but it does exist, and if the number is less than that then there are players who go unrepresented.


I think there might be a number that you or I would be satisfied with but I find it highly unlikely we would come up with the same number. Generally speaking the number any given player would be satisfied with is going to be "One for every area of the game I am invested in + 1" but only if all of them agree with the player's general viewpoint or approach to that area of the game. Can't have those heretics representing Factional Warfare/Low Sec/Null Sec/High Sec/Miners/Gankers/Jita spam alts!

The problem is a pretty fundamental one to any group, "Human subcultures are nested fractally, there's no bottom."

Black Pedro wrote:
Fair enough but here we are. Why should anyone care about a institution that either has no power and is just a collection of the space powerful pretending that they do, or really does have power but contains no one that represents them or their playstyle year-after-year? It's why the CSM keeps sliding into irrelevance (well that and the self-serving leaks, in-fighting, and self-interested lobbying that was the staple of pre-CSM11 councils). The problem gets worse and worse as more players stop caring and more power (real or pretend) becomes concentrated around those who have the most votes, which happens to be nullsec organizations.


Because none of this is actually true or in any way represents how the CSM actually works or what it does?

Seriously, that's rapidly becoming my default response to anyone with any questions or criticism of the CSM. Go learn what it actually does and how it actually works. Read the minutes, talk to the members or at least read their posts, and stop thinking of the CSM as surrogate Game Designers.

They're there to give CCP feedback on ideas. They don't have override power, they don't represent just their interests or the interests of their alliance, and they're certainly not making any kind of meaningful decision that impacts their groups that doesn't get filtered through a dozen different other places.

As I've seen several previous CSMs say, getting onto the CSM with a platform saying you're going to go on and advocate for your little area of space does basically jack-all if CCP aren't already working on it.

If I were to put the CSM in D&D terms it would be something like "Grants a 2% bonus against developer induced gameplay accidents".
Black Pedro
Mine.
#96 - 2017-04-20 20:55:37 UTC
Cade Windstalker wrote:
Because none of this is actually true or in any way represents how the CSM actually works or what it

Seriously, that's rapidly becoming my default response to anyone with any questions or criticism of the CSM. Go learn what it actually does and how it actually works. Read the minutes, talk to the members or at least read their posts, and stop thinking of the CSM as surrogate Game Designers.

They're there to give CCP feedback on ideas. They don't have override power, they don't represent just their interests or the interests of their alliance, and they're certainly not making any kind of meaningful decision that impacts their groups that doesn't get filtered through a dozen different other places.
Exactly. They are there to give feedback on ideas put to them by CCP, but how can they do that if they have little or no experience of certain aspects of the game important to me?

I am glad you feel there are people on the council who can give constructive feedback on what you do in the game. I don't. Maybe I am wrong, although all the evidence and interactions I have had point in this direction. There are some earnest and hardworking people on the council, but none I feel can actually represent the things I do regularly in the game from any direct experience and there haven't been any for a long time.

I think I have spent enough words on this subject and my point is clear. The CSM may work for you, but is clearly not the most useful avenue for my views and concerns to be conveyed to CCP given the lack of representation. More importantly, I have no actual solution to make the problem better so there is no point in complaining about it. I'll just stick to the forums and other channels as you suggested before. It seems to have worked in the case of the MER and it might again next time something inevitably slips by the CSM.
Zarek Kree
Lunatic Legion Holdings
#97 - 2017-04-20 21:21:41 UTC
Cade Windstalker wrote:
Zarek Kree wrote:
I completely agree that CCP isn't leaving anyone out because they have no shortage of information from which to draw. However, I will argue that representation is a perception issue more than it is a functional issue. People need to feel their voices are being heard. Ensuring that a wider variety of voices have a seat at the CSM table isn't so that CCP can make a better product (I doubt it would matter much), but so that the player base who aren't currently represented feel like somebody is speaking for them. Perception doesn't have to reflect reality for it to be meaningful.


The CSM isn't just a PR gag though, it's an actually functional body and we have plenty of examples small and large through the years where they've given valuable feedback to CCP on upcoming changes and ideas.

Just stuffing more people into it for appearances sake and at the expense of its functional role doesn't help anyone and would likely diminish the value of the body from CCP's perspective.


I've come to respect your opinions quite a lot, but you're simply wrong here. Nobody is calling the CSM a PR gag, but its value isn't only in the functional benefits it provides (which are substantial). It also serves the psychological purpose of giving the players a voice with the developers. Suggesting that such a role is a gag is actually what diminishes the CSM's value. So if a significant percentage of the player base feels disenfranchised, then it's losing a substantial amount it's potential value. Giving people a voice (especially when it's non-binding) is never a bad thing.

I fully support your functional assessment. My point is that the value of the CSM also involves a psychological element. That's not a gag - that's the way our brains are wired. Leaders understand that people need to be heard - even if the answer is no.

Retar Aveymone
DJ's Retirement Fund
Goonswarm Federation
#98 - 2017-04-20 22:53:58 UTC
i dont want to read through five or six pages of pubbies whining it isnt fair they're not on the csm but has anyone pointed out that the graphs in the first post mean absolutely nothing and that the poster doesn't even make an effort to suggest they mean anything

hes like look at this graph, as you can see by this random assortment of bar graphs that don't actually really correspond to anything the null blocs have a stanglehold on the csm

i dont think he has any idea how stv actually works
Retar Aveymone
DJ's Retirement Fund
Goonswarm Federation
#99 - 2017-04-20 22:57:53 UTC
i mean if you wanted to say "look the null blocs dominate the csm!!!!!!" you would, uh, show the winners and what bloc they represent

not the initial votes, which are noisy and fairly useless without knowing where votes flow to, or a big bar chart of names without even alliances tagged

it is a fair bet that someone who thought that graph had any relevance to anything about the csm probably doesn't have any keen understanding of any part of it besides that they're very mad they're not on the csm
Soel Reit
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#100 - 2017-04-20 22:57:55 UTC
i mean... you're a goon....
have you asked permission to talk? Roll

pay attention or you're gonna get kicked ehehehhehehe
Soon™