Jita Park Speakers Corner

What argument? I see very few arguments from CSM's in this thread against my idea. Most just talk about how experienced and wellrounded they are, and representing all areas.
I realize we can ask questions, but one of the CSM's strengths lies in that they can spot problems before they reach the game/are announced. We can all point out problems after they enter the game/are announced, we technically don't need the CSM for that, although they are helpful in that area as well.


Even if that is true now, it doesn't have to be this way with future CSMs. There's technicaly nothing stopping the players from electing 9 representatives with only mining experience. Also, just because something is adequate now, does not mean we shouldn't look for ways to improve.
In certain areas I think it's better to have one (current) expert than 9 people with only some (dated) knowledge. I lived in w-space for over a year, but I have also not lived there anymore for over a year, so I don't feel like I can say what it's like there these days. As far as roleplay in EVE is concerned, just because you have some RP experiece in EVE does not automaticaly give you a (good) roleplayer's eye.
I find it somewhat funny that Two Step mentions "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." and then asks me about RP'ers issues, seemingly not aware of, let alone understanding, any RP issues. It makes me wonder how many of the CSM visit the Fiction forum, and how often.
Well, Two Step, I'll mention one issue that is relevant to this thread, the other's I'll mail to you: In my eyes the RP/immersion side of EVE is increasingly a CCP oversight, and thus far (through FW, Incursions, and now, more disturbingly, Incarna) the CSM has not been able to counter that.


I disagree. I think it's also up to CCP and the CSM to ensure the CSM represents all players/areas. It's their product/hobby, it's also in their interest to make it as good as it can be.
Also, I have not said that the experts should be prohibited from having any knowledge about other areas of the game. It certainly would be better if the experts would also have knowledge about other areas of the game, just like any representative. And I must point out that the 'twiddling thumbs' argument goes into details have not even been defined yet: Should the experts be present at every meeting/issue? Maybe, maybe not. I see no reason why they shouldn't be allowed to keep their mouth shut when they have no input. Anyway, depending on how this idea is implemented, there might not be any more thumb-twiddling then there is now.

Um... You're trying to present an argument to us, but in the process of that presentation, you are showing how biased you are towards your proposal, and refuse to listen to *anyone* else.

There are numerous threads on the forums about the varied experience that the CSMs have, and proposals strikingly similar to this one have come up at least 2 other times on the new forums alone, and countless times on the old forums.

The CSM does not exist as a "filter" to prevent unwanted changes from making it to TQ. The CSM was designed to relay player concerns back to CCP via player representatives.

In regards to you saying that the next CSM election could elect 9 miners... you're absolutely correct in that it could happen. Of course, the next CSM election could have 9 people with less than 1M SP, or 9 people that never leave hisec, too. My point is that when there is direct representation, decided by election, you tend to get a cross section of experience, and more or less meet the average. Along the lines of a spectrum, the election results may lean one way or another, but elections are done to serve the majority.

And finally... if you are so hell-bent on trying to make the CSM more scientific... why don't you run for CSM next year?