EVE General Discussion

My "speech" is only useless if you choose to ignore its message - which is that "powerblocs dominating" isn't necessarily a problem if players can see past their prejudices to operate for the greater good. Which is what CSM members are required to do. It tends to be players that hang on to this ridiculous notion that the CSM is an extension of a player's in-game position.

I'm not suggesting that the system is perfect, but it's made worse by player apathy. Game mechanics will only be improved in favour of those who point out failings.

"The squeaky wheel gets the grease."

Perhaps, but I'd sooner make a speech than say nothing or just be negative. The day I feel as you and others seem to I'll find something less depressing to do.

Zleon, I'm not disagreeing with much of what you just wrote, in fact you're echoing much of what I wrote in my original article. However, I think you're missing the point I was originally trying to make. I understand it is a numbers game, I said as much. I'm simply trying to encourage better communication between the under-represented sections of the playerbase and the CSM, both by asking the players to speak up and the CSM to listen.

I accept I am being naive and positive on a forum full of negativity and apathy, but hell it was worth a try. I'll just retreat back to my blog and leave you lot to your virtual self-harm.

We do know: http://twitter.com/#!/CCP_Diagoras/status/159660258753658882/photo/1



Does this sound like a healthy relationship?



And its interesting to see the behaviour of CSM when they claim credit for CCP's work regardless of the origins and yet when its something the community is dispondant with they disassociate all knowledge of their involvement, e.g. WiS




No they are not, its only people who simply want to dismiss those concerns that are.



I'm indifferent of this kind of crystal ball gazing and being manipulative as to peoples motivations for candidacy. Not neccesarily the focus that should be afforded to an effective representative. The "key" as you like to use it is to get behind individuals whose manifesto reflects your ideas and that which will benefit the game and not to manipulate elections. Despite that the idea of rallying behind a small number of candidates as opposed to being fractured is one of the solid arguments for deposing certain power blocs.

Then this should interest you and others then:

and as per your previous post:



I don't understand the point, or are you compounding on my point as you are aggreeing with your conclusion, that a CSM council member should represent all interests with equal diligence? Or are you confusing the fact that I do actually agree that the CSM should afford interest to all players in the collective benefits of EvE?



However to add to the information the CSM constituational also provides for deliberate instructions outside the white paper disscussion on voting politics theory prior to the main body of the CSM instructions as set out below:


"The key question that council members must consider before casting their vote is whether or not the issue at hand has the potential to improve or otherwise benefit the entire EVE society, and not just a select group within the community
that was successful in bringing attention to their unique case. Seeing the big picture—in this case, the needs of a society with over 300.000 individuals—is the primary responsibility of a CSM Representative, and reconciling that view with
the interests that won them the election is the greatest challenge they will face in this implementation."

and

"CCP is unable to accommodate any issue considered detrimental to the collective interests of EVE , particularly if the issue(s) touch upon meta-level concerns."

Fair enough, be interested to see any points of clarification.

Not listening to the people you want to keep selling your product to will be the end of that product and often the company aswell. I've met my fair share of arrogant CEO's trying to push along their views regardless of what the target audience wants with all the bad results accompanied by such behavior.

Tho totally relying on what your target audience wants aint a good idea as well. Companies should listen to what they have to say and filter out the unrealistic so they can focus on realistic changes. I think CCP does this very well considering they are very innovative on the market but still stay true to their concept and vision. It's easy to stray from your original formula when you're being innovative.

Anyway, I think CCP deserves some more credit on what they have done resently. They've made some hard discisions from what I can understand from a consumers point of view. But it must have been tough on the internal workings of CCP as well.

And on CSM I can't really say anything. My first impression is that they aren't entirely representing their voters I think but that might also have to do with their voters having some unrealistic expectations or just the wrong timing. But I haven't really been following it. Thinking I should tho.

That guy not getting a free trip to Iceland