These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
12Next page
 

CSM "seats" reserved for experts of specific game areas (Low sec, roleplay e.d.)

First post
Author
Che Biko
Alexylva Paradox
#1 - 2011-09-09 02:43:16 UTC  |  Edited by: Che Biko
Something has bothered me about the CSM's composition for some time now. I always vote for one of the Roleplay candidates, because I would like someone on the council that can talk about issues from a roleplayer's perspective, but as far as I know, in at least in the last two elections, no candidates representing the roleplayers were elected, mainly due to the votes being split among them.

I think it would be nice if at least a portion of the seats would be reserved for candidates representing a certain area in the game, so there's a better chance of a balanced and well rounded CSM. Categories could be Low sec, Null sec, PVP, Industry, Roleplay and fiction, Small corps/alliances, Piracy etc.

Well, that's my 0.02 isk for now, what is yours?
Zirise
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#2 - 2011-09-09 02:55:10 UTC  |  Edited by: Zirise
Terrible idea. This quote pertains more to geographic divisions, but is applicable here as well.

Levarr Burton wrote:



Political expert here, and this idea is bad. Creating artificial divisions in the representation of the player base will only serve to reduce the effectiveness of the CSM both as a sounding board for CCP and as a representative of the players themselves. On top of that, the increased confusion of the representative process is likely to increase voter apathy, and reduce participation, which is counter-productive for everyone.

Furthermore, you would need to have a fool-proof system for determining what category each corporation and candidate falls into, and you have to take into account change and outliers from the standard patterns of behaviour. My corporation lived in wormholes for a year and a half, if I'd been elected the "Wormhole" representative on the CSM 2 months before we moved to nullsec, which position would I hold? Would I have to resign, or take part in a by-election to hold my seat? If a corporation or alliance lives largely in lowsec, but consistently is able and willing to project power into all reaches of nullsec, which seat do they hold? If a highsec mission-running corporation starts roaming lowsec in between missions, are they still a highsec corporation? In order to implement your system, the divisions between areas of space, and participation in those areas, would need to be far more definite and static.

Also, I would point out that having 3 representatives from NPC corporations is basically just a way to stack the CSM with either more highsec members, cyno alts, or 10-hour hero suicide destroyer pilots.

Moving on, it is a terrible idea to allocate representation without regard to population. A good real-world example of this is the American Senate, 100 members, evenly divided between 50 states. A state with one million voters holds as much influence as a state with thirty million. What your 3-3-3-3-3 system would do is over represent people from relatively sparsely inhabited sections of space (namely low security and wormhole space) and under represent more highly populated areas of space such as high security and sovereign null security space. That imbalance will further disenfranchise people from the idea of the CSM.

It is also a bad idea to force representation levels without regard to political participation. Why are there so many representatives from null security alliances? Because that is the main demographic that was motivated to participate in this past election. Each of the successful candidates managed to organize one of the top-9 political machines in the contest. They were most effective at communicating their ideas, they were most effective at convincing the eligible voters to check their name instead of somebody else's. In short, they were, in a democratic voting system, the best candidates. Regardless of your opinion of their view on highsec missions, ************, or icelandic prostitutes, those 9 people are, by the metric of votes earned, the best candidates. Nothing was stopping highsec organizations from trying to form a voting bloc for their preferred candidates, yet they largely did not. The null security candidates got their target audience on-side with their ideas, and (more importantly) participating in the process. Why should a candidate with more votes be passed up for a candidate with fewer votes (as in, an inferior candidate) simply because "there's already 3 from wormhole space" or wherever? That approach will only serve to promote voter apathy (as the 4th-place candidate might not get to sit on the theoretical 15-spot CSM, while a 16th-place candidate might).

Imposing such a flawed structure on the CSM in a misguided search for "fairness" (with "fairness," in this case, actually meaning "getting more exposure for MY ideas, regardless of their actual merit, feasibility, and usefulness in the quest to improve EVE Online: A Bad Game in general, not just nitpick 3 things which inherently benefit my playstyle.") will only serve to reduce both the effectiveness of the institution itself as well as the involvement of the player community in the development of the game. And we've all seen what happens when CCP management operates in a bubble of self-reinforcing ideas without some stern input from the players. They force the developers to toss out half-finished fluff with no real utility, and then go chasing the next shiny.
Saracha
#3 - 2011-09-09 03:36:46 UTC
Yeah i would have to agree with Zirise. Dividing up the CSM would only hurt the institution. It would create the sense that each member of CSM is only relevant to his or her on "sphere", reducing the CSM's political power from the limited pull it has in CCP now to just a handful of individuals who don't know much about the game as a whole. Not what we need from CSM.

If you feel like Role-playing is being under represented in CSM then the best thing to do by far would be to organize people. I t seems to me that any role-playing groups should have an advantage because such a group would be more dedicated for role-playing reasons to get someone elected.
Saracha
#4 - 2011-09-09 03:37:02 UTC
Yeah i would have to agree with Zirise. Dividing up the CSM would only hurt the institution. It would create the sense that each member of CSM is only relevant to his or her on "sphere", reducing the CSM's political power from the limited pull it has in CCP now to just a handful of individuals who don't know much about the game as a whole. Not what we need from CSM.

If you feel like Role-playing is being under represented in CSM then the best thing to do by far would be to organize people. I t seems to me that any role-playing groups should have an advantage because such a group would be more dedicated for role-playing reasons to get someone elected.
Che Biko
Alexylva Paradox
#5 - 2011-09-09 03:48:38 UTC
Quote:
Furthermore, you would need to have a fool-proof system for determining what category each corporation and candidate falls into, and you have to take into account change and outliers from the standard patterns of behaviour. My corporation lived in wormholes for a year and a half, if I'd been elected the "Wormhole" representative on the CSM 2 months before we moved to nullsec, which position would I hold? Would I have to resign, or take part in a by-election to hold my seat? If a corporation or alliance lives largely in lowsec, but consistently is able and willing to project power into all reaches of nullsec, which seat do they hold? If a highsec mission-running corporation starts roaming lowsec in between missions, are they still a highsec corporation? In order to implement your system, the divisions between areas of space, and participation in those areas, would need to be far more definite and static.

Why fool-proof? Hardly anything is.
In the scenario above, I would say that a candidate should resign when he can no longer adequatly represent his category.
Quote:
Why should a candidate with more votes be passed up for a candidate with fewer votes (as in, an inferior candidate) simply because "there's already 3 from wormhole space" or wherever? That approach will only serve to promote voter apathy (as the 4th-place candidate might not get to sit on the theoretical 15-spot CSM, while a 16th-place candidate might).

Because WH space is already well represented in this scenario. I think it's better if the CSM has the expertise of as many areas as possible within it. It would prevent those areas from being overlooked by "theme-CSMs". I'm hoping any possible increase in voter apathy would be countered by still having general seats on the council. And I think voter apathy would decrease for "minorities".
Quote:
Imposing such a flawed structure on the CSM in a misguided search for "fairness" (with "fairness," in this case, actually meaning "getting more exposure for MY ideas, regardless of their actual merit, feasibility, and usefulness in the quest to improve EVE Online: A Bad Game in general, not just nitpick 3 things which inherently benefit my playstyle.") will only serve to reduce both the effectiveness of the institution itself as well as the involvement of the player community in the development of the game. And we've all seen what happens when CCP management operates in a bubble of self-reinforcing ideas without some stern input from the players. They force the developers to toss out half-finished fluff with no real utility, and then go chasing the next shiny.

I think having a well-rounded CSM instead of a "theme CSM", like a null-sec alliance dominated one, would actually be more effective, and it could increase community involvement. And talking about bubbles, how would you call a CSM mostly comprised of candidates all active in the same area?
Saracha
#6 - 2011-09-09 03:57:22 UTC
Well the idea in a democracy (which the CSM is) is that you go with majority rule, while at the same time protecting the rights of minorities. Having a person get elected into the CSM because they live in lowsec for example, even though they recieved much less votes defeats the purpose. If (like in the last election) one region gets favored heavily, then those candidates need to be on CSM. The people we actually voted for are the one the majority wants, unless something else gets in the way, like violating the EULA, then the people actually elected should be on CSM.
Che Biko
Alexylva Paradox
#7 - 2011-09-09 04:15:05 UTC
Saracha wrote:
Yeah i would have to agree with Zirise. Dividing up the CSM would only hurt the institution. It would create the sense that each member of CSM is only relevant to his or her on "sphere", reducing the CSM's political power from the limited pull it has in CCP now to just a handful of individuals who don't know much about the game as a whole. Not what we need from CSM.

If you feel like Role-playing is being under represented in CSM then the best thing to do by far would be to organize people. I t seems to me that any role-playing groups should have an advantage because such a group would be more dedicated for role-playing reasons to get someone elected.

I would not call it dividing, but complementing. I don't think having a well rounded CSM would decrease the pull on CCP, but actually increase it as it would represent a broader player base. Ensuring all side of the game are represented would only increase the CSM knowledge of about the "game as a whole".

Saracha wrote:
Well the idea in a democracy (which the CSM is) is that you go with majority rule, while at the same time protecting the rights of minorities. Having a person get elected into the CSM because they live in lowsec for example, even though they recieved much less votes defeats the purpose. If (like in the last election) one region gets favored heavily, then those candidates need to be on CSM. The people we actually voted for are the one the majority wants, unless something else gets in the way, like violating the EULA, then the people actually elected should be on CSM.

Rights of minorities? Hmm, I don't think we have the same idea about what the CSM should be.
I think it's not a good idea if one area is dominating the CSM, while another area is lacking. The function of the CSM, IMO, is to discuss topics from as much angles as possible, and not just from the viewpoint of the "majority". Null sec alliances aren't even a majority in the game, most characters live in high-sec. I can see that they should be heavily represented in this CSM however, but that does not mean it's a good idea to exclude other categories.

I also think the democratic side of the CSM should be in the assembly hall, where the players vote for the issues they would like the CSM to bring to CCP.

CSM proposals can only improve if they are discussed with experts from many areas.
The CSM should be representing all players, not just the "majority".
Zirise
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#8 - 2011-09-09 04:38:18 UTC
Che Biko wrote:
Saracha wrote:
Yeah i would have to agree with Zirise. Dividing up the CSM would only hurt the institution. It would create the sense that each member of CSM is only relevant to his or her on "sphere", reducing the CSM's political power from the limited pull it has in CCP now to just a handful of individuals who don't know much about the game as a whole. Not what we need from CSM.

If you feel like Role-playing is being under represented in CSM then the best thing to do by far would be to organize people. I t seems to me that any role-playing groups should have an advantage because such a group would be more dedicated for role-playing reasons to get someone elected.

I would not call it dividing, but complementing. I don't think having a well rounded CSM would decrease the pull on CCP, but actually increase it as it would represent a broader player base. Ensuring all side of the game are represented would only increase the CSM knowledge of about the "game as a whole".

Saracha wrote:
Well the idea in a democracy (which the CSM is) is that you go with majority rule, while at the same time protecting the rights of minorities. Having a person get elected into the CSM because they live in lowsec for example, even though they recieved much less votes defeats the purpose. If (like in the last election) one region gets favored heavily, then those candidates need to be on CSM. The people we actually voted for are the one the majority wants, unless something else gets in the way, like violating the EULA, then the people actually elected should be on CSM.

Rights of minorities? Hmm, I don't think we have the same idea about what the CSM should be.
I think it's not a good idea if one area is dominating the CSM, while another area is lacking. The function of the CSM, IMO, is to discuss topics from as much angles as possible, and not just from the viewpoint of the "majority". Null sec alliances aren't even a majority in the game, most characters live in high-sec. I can see that they should be heavily represented in this CSM however, but that does not mean it's a good idea to exclude other categories.

I also think the democratic side of the CSM should be in the assembly hall, where the players vote for the issues they would like the CSM to bring to CCP.

CSM proposals can only improve if they are discussed with experts from many areas.
The CSM should be representing all players, not just the "majority".



That's how democracy works. Its far from perfect, but its the best system we've managed to come up with in ~200,000 years.

We have a 'nullsec' theme CSM because nullsec players got out and voted because it was important to them, and because the nullsec candidates were effective in convincing others to vote for them. Everyone has equal opportunity to organize themselves and campaign for votes.

You sound like you're simply unhappy with the current status quo, and want an easier path to representation for your views.
Darius III
Interstellar eXodus
#9 - 2011-09-10 00:47:12 UTC
Believe it or not-CSM works hard for issues OTHER THAN 0.0. We have consulted with CCP on many issues that affect everyone in game. While the CSM is composed of many 0.0 Alliance people, we realize that we need ALL areas of eve looked at for improvement, through the lenses of the players and their various professions.

While I am personally from a 0.0 alliance, I, for my own reasons, want to see improvements for Hi-sec populations. If one aspect of the population does not receive attention to fixing issues or adding content, they will leave. We know that this will affect everyone, and reduce the quality and divercity of Eve as a whole. And no one on the CSM wants to see this happen. Not even the 'troll candidate' (thats me BTW)

While I do not endorse your idea for splitting the vote for several reasons, chief among them that it wouldnt work, I would like to see more diversity within the CSM. Your idea has merit, and possibly with some modifications, I would support it myself. Especially if there was a 'suicide ganking' faction or 'Hi-sec piracy' group.Pirate

Hmmm

Che Biko
Alexylva Paradox
#10 - 2011-09-10 01:30:17 UTC
Well, wether democracy is the best system depends on what your goal is.
I'm actually fine with the democratic element in how the CSM works, for the most part anyway.
The players decide witch issues should be discussed by the CSM. The CSM then decided wether or not to bring them to CCP. That's not really my issue. I also have not problems with any priorities the current CSM might have, just to get that out of the way.
All I want is to ensure the CSM can do this with as much information/expertise as possible.

I would be perfectly fine with it if the candidates elected for the categories would not recieve a vote on the CSM.
I guess you could say I want the CSM to be more scientific and less political.
E man Industries
SeaChell Productions
#11 - 2011-09-10 02:55:33 UTC
If you want an RP rep vote for an RP rep.

thats said most CSM's are long term players and have experienced many parts of eve.
Two step
Aperture Harmonics
#12 - 2011-09-10 16:43:07 UTC
Everyone on the CSM has experienced at least several different areas of EVE life, even if we currently don't live in those areas. For example, while I have my main character in w-space, I have a couple of alts that do highsec production. I even own a couple T2 BPOs that I bought with profits from invention when it first came out.

Just because we don't live somewhere now doesn't mean we don't understand the issues, and as always, if we have questions we come to you guys. For example, you said you voted for a RP candidate. Why did you do that? What do you feel needs to be improved in EVE to better enable your playstyle?

CSM 7 Secretary CSM 6 Alternate Delegate @two_step_eve on Twitter My Blog

13lue Flower
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#13 - 2011-09-11 21:35:36 UTC
Saracha wrote:
Well the idea in a democracy (which the CSM is) is that you go with majority rule, while at the same time protecting the rights of minorities. Having a person get elected into the CSM because they live in lowsec for example, even though they recieved much less votes defeats the purpose. If (like in the last election) one region gets favored heavily, then those candidates need to be on CSM. The people we actually voted for are the one the majority wants, unless something else gets in the way, like violating the EULA, then the people actually elected should be on CSM.


Sorry to hate, but the CSM is actually a Republic (Republic - a state in which the supreme power rests in the body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by representatives chosen directly or indirectly by them). Just as our government is a Republic (contrary to what you may have heard). Now we democratically elect these representatives, so in that aspect I agree that for the most part we democratically select what we want but just like in the real world, those representatives can "go their own way".
Meissa Anunthiel
Redshift Industrial
Rooks and Kings
#14 - 2011-09-12 08:24:28 UTC  |  Edited by: Meissa Anunthiel
Che Biko wrote:
Something has bothered me about the CSM's composition for some time now. I always vote for one of the Roleplay candidates, because I would like someone on the council that can talk about issues from a roleplayer's perspective, but as far as I know, in at least in the last two elections, no candidates representing the roleplayers were elected, mainly due to the votes being split among them.

I think it would be nice if at least a portion of the seats would be reserved for candidates representing a certain area in the game, so there's a better chance of a balanced and well rounded CSM. Categories could be Low sec, Null sec, PVP, Industry, Roleplay and fiction, Small corps/alliances, Piracy etc.

Well, that's my 0.02 isk for now, what is yours?


My 2 cents is that all the categories you mention are actually represented. During CSM 3 I pushed for more live events and trying to address some of the gaping holes in the backstory, CCP took the clue and tried it again and integrated with the sansha expansion, and yet I don't roleplay (I tried it, it's not my thing). Bottom line is it's up to you to elect people who care about more than where they're from and what they do.

Electing a highsec missioner who knows nothing about null or low or wormholes or cap fights or T3 manufacture, etc. would be a terrible waste (it has happened). You want people who know a bit (or a lot) of everything, so they have meaningful input to provide to most discussions. The CSM spends its time speaking about different subjects, and limiting CCP's interlocutors to 1 or 2 people per subject while the others twiddle their thumbs wouldn't make for very good feedback.

And I'm not the only one with knowledge in all areas of the game.

Member of CSM 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7

Vyl Vit
#15 - 2011-09-12 09:45:22 UTC
I'm not going to bother to lacerate Lavarr Burton's post. It does such a good job on its own. I do love how the initial assertions as fact are not borne out by any facts. Also, the omission of the fact the U.S. Senate is a deliberative body, while that other pesky part of Congress which membership is based on population density and distribution (the Unbridled Combat arm) is notably left out. Nice try. Sorry, I can't even say that. Some try.

The fact the CSM represents very narrow interests and a small percentage of the player base is irrefutable. I like the idea of representing style of play. However, it may be more fair, meaning less liable to be picked apart by malcontents, if it represented regions, or areas.

It's evident as it stands it represents a particular few. Those who defend this are obviously of that few, and are understandably against losing their strangle hold on the decision making process...such that it is. I'm amused with the pedal to the metal denial of this by those interests. I love it when people try to couch BS in "simple, obvious logic." They remind me of Homer Simpson.

Paradise is like where you are right now, only much, much better.

Meissa Anunthiel
Redshift Industrial
Rooks and Kings
#16 - 2011-09-12 10:02:44 UTC
Vyl Vit wrote:

The fact the CSM represents very narrow interests and a small percentage of the player base is irrefutable.


Not only is it refutable, it is refuted. By me, here, now... You stating it to be inrefutable does not make it so.

The percentage of voters does not indicate what the elected body does, what it is interested in and what percentage of the playerbase it represents.

A simple example, I defended the interests of the newbies during a conversation about skill points, yet those very same newbies don't vote (some of them are not able to, others don't know), yet they were represented. During another conversation I defended the interests of the casual highsec industrialists, many of whom didn't vote either.

The percentage of players who voted is not the same as the percentage of players represented by the elected people.

Member of CSM 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7

Ya Huei
Imperial Collective
#17 - 2011-09-12 10:15:08 UTC
I personally like what the CSM is trying to do at the moment. I've listened in on most of the interviews/chats and I think you guys are doing the job admirably.

So a big two thumbs up, and don't let anyone forget that FIS > WIS

Ya

VC General
No Baals Inc
#18 - 2011-09-12 13:37:23 UTC
Zirise wrote:
Terrible idea. This quote pertains more to geographic divisions, but is applicable here as well.

Levarr Burton wrote:



Moving on, it is a terrible idea to allocate representation without regard to population. A good real-world example of this is the American Senate, 100 members, evenly divided between 50 states. A state with one million voters holds as much influence as a state with thirty million.


I disagree with this for the same reason in Eve as I do IRL. The purpose of the senate is to make sure you don't get a bunch of people gathering into one location, and dictating everything to the rest of the people, who most likely don't choose to live in that location because they don't agree with those people in the first place. The same thing goes with Eve. Although RP'ers might make up a minority in Eve, their views don't get heard in the CSM even as a minority, because no one represents them at all.

3-3-3-3-3 is a pretty extreme way to go and still say it represents the player base, but I wouldn't mind seeing "expert" seats reserved in the CSM, so that every major playstyle has someone representing their point of view. I'd rather see something like 1-1-1-1-1, with the other 10 seats going to the people that get the most votes regardless of the area they represent. That way at worst you'll see someone who barely got enough votes to get in pushed out for someone who represents a minority.
Zagam
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#19 - 2011-09-12 14:54:10 UTC
I think the CSMs have done a pretty good job of pointing out the potential flaws in the argument.

Also, this topic has been worked over already pretty efficiently on other threads.

Its not like the current CSMs live only in nullsec, and never leave. Also, have you tried talking to one of the CSMs about your concerns first? I've exchanged e-mails with a CSM before about some of my concerns, and based on what I've seen on the forums and in talking to others... if you make the effort of talking to them... you can have many of your concerns addressed.
VC General
No Baals Inc
#20 - 2011-09-12 15:25:35 UTC
That's true as well. The CSM has the ultimate goal of making Eve bigger and better, as do most of the player base. Everyone in the CSM is knowledgeable in general, and has probably tried many different places and styles over the years. Any of them that are worth the roles they've been given should be happy to receive and consider solid proposals from the players, even if it isn't something that affects them personally in-game.
12Next page