EVE General Discussion

 
 

The CSM – Council of Sov. Management.

First post
Author
#61 - 2017-04-19 22:12:01 UTC
Avaelica Kuershin wrote:
Sonya Corvinus wrote:
Orin Solette wrote:
Yes, but non-voting players who are less invested into the game should be represented as well. Just because you don't play in null and you have less time invested into who is running CSM, what's happening in EVE, etc. does NOT mean that your interests should not be represented at the same level.

CSM is honestly a sham at this point. It's sad because it's a great idea but campaigns take organization and most players don't play a game to get into political campaigns. They log into shoot stuff and make stuff, whether be it solo or with a couple of friends without the affiliation or rules of large alliances. That's a valid playstyle and one that needs to be embraced if we want to reverse the shrinking population of New Eden.


So run for CSM yourself and motivate people in high sec to vote for you.


I do recall (last year, two years ago?) a candidate trying to motivate hi sec dwellers. Can't remember how that turned out.

Maybe I should put my name forward even though I've misbehaved in hi.


I was elected twice largely on high sec support. But it would take several folks really focused on high sec to be elected to make any sort of difference.
#62 - 2017-04-19 22:39:15 UTC
So I'll say this again. What the CSM was formed to do is a very real thing that it should still be around today to do. It is supposed to be a player elected oversight organization to do the following in order of importance:

- Keep CCP honest and force them to maintain a 'fair" sandbox.
- To regularly review and report the general health of the game. That is why in the beginning we would spend nearly a day with the CCP economist.
- Talk with CCP about general game play topics.

What the CSM seems to have become and why I do not support it in its current form.

- A popularity contest that awards the winners an Iceland vacation.
- A lobbying committee for the special interests of the winners backing organizations.
- A place for wanna be game designers to randomize the real game designers.
- An echo chamber/cheering squad for whatever the current CCP "head designer" is in the chair at the moment.

So would I continue it in its current form? No. Would I replace it with something more like it was intended originally.? Yes. Does anyone care what I think or would do? No, its not at all likely that anyone would or does.

But here is how I've learned to live with it. In many ways Eve is much bigger than itself. It is played at many many levels. And the CSM is now one of the meta-levels that the more advanced players can choose to tackle. So celebrate the CSM! It is one of the things that makes Eve what it is.

My advice to anyone that gets worked up about the CSM is run! Who knows, you could surprise yourself and get elected. Should that happen though I fear for your soul! You very well could fall for the darkside and soon begin to believe you really know how to make Eve better. And that is the first step to doom! If you do get CCP to listen to you and agree to do what ever new shiny you think Eve needs they will crush your dreams, What they will deliver will be far from what you intended and what you will be stuck with will haunt you all your days!

My advice, sit back and enjoy the show. The CSM has less influence that you might suspect and less than they think or may claim to have.
Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
#63 - 2017-04-19 22:42:10 UTC
You consider going to Iceland for 4 days of meetings a vacation? I think we have very different standards.

Woo! CSM XI!

Fuzzwork Enterprises

Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter

#64 - 2017-04-19 23:34:03 UTC
Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote:
Many companies are quite apt at keeping their customers satisfied even if nobody represents them or those custoemrs don't engage. Is CCP one of those companies? That's a moot question, and I feel inclined to say "no".


Clearly you've never been on the forums for another MMO Lol

Try the ones for any of Blizzard's games, the only difference in the whining there vs the whining here is the portraits next to our whining are nicer.

Other than that it's the same ****, claims that the devs hate one group but love another, often the same groups reversed in two different posts a week apart. Complaints about the state of balance, that patches aren't fast enough, that something hasn't been fixed that should have been, ect.

There are *certainly* communities and devs worse than Eve's, that I say without reservation.
Renaissance Federation
#65 - 2017-04-20 01:10:07 UTC
Chainsaw Plankton wrote:


ungankable highsec likely results in a bunch of isk printing which isn't really a good thing.


It would result in no more isk printing than occurs already. You're searching for maybe an increase of mudflation? or just a general player produced item printing. I'm split of weather highsec ganking is a useful mechanic cause of how many items it removes for the economy.

Ungankable highsec would cause an increase to stockpiles generation of nearly all player produced items. No longer would an industrial ship carrying a billion worth of rigs to Jita for sale be ganked on the way thus more than 50% of these items would make it to market. No longer would Jump Freighters carrying almost nothing be ganked on their way to Jita by one of the numerous groups that do that (I think highsec is actually the most dangerous area in EVE for jump freighters). No longer would code be able to roam the belts and gank the unsuspecting Hulk pilot. No longer would the lazy pilot lose his +5 implants because he decided to slowboat pod autopilot to Jita to get a new ship. ETC ETC.
#66 - 2017-04-20 01:13:44 UTC  |  Edited by: Soel Reit
Steve Ronuken wrote:
You consider going to Iceland for 4 days of meetings a vacation? I think we have very different standards.




ahahahahhahaha
PLS


don't write these bullshits ahhHAHHAHAHAHAHHAH
#Tilted

anyone that voted you is dumb as much as you, judging from what you are writing Cool
#67 - 2017-04-20 02:17:05 UTC
Soel Reit wrote:
Steve Ronuken wrote:
You consider going to Iceland for 4 days of meetings a vacation? I think we have very different standards.




ahahahahhahaha
PLS


don't write these bullshits ahhHAHHAHAHAHAHHAH
#Tilted

anyone that voted you is dumb as much as you, judging from what you are writing Cool


Soel do you have a trolling quota to meet or something?

This is low effort and uninformed even for you. We literally have the schedule for the CSM meetings, you can see clearly that there is exactly zero time for playing tourist there. The only way going to the summits is a vacation these days is if your day job is somehow worse than sitting in a series of conference rooms with a bunch of Eve players arguing game minutia...
#68 - 2017-04-20 06:58:18 UTC  |  Edited by: Nana Skalski
Hey, CSM is not the wheel of pain or something, nor a vacation.

Its just CSM. They meet and discuss what has to be discussed. They argue with CCP about stuff they love, the game. That is additional strain on your mental health.
#69 - 2017-04-20 08:15:26 UTC
Cade Windstalker wrote:
Vic Jefferson wrote:
No one's debating name recognition being the most important thing if you want to get elected. I think there are quite a number of people however that feel it's a problem, if the goal is to have a good overall representation of the player-base.


There is no democratic system that is not going to rest at least partly on name recognition. What you can do will never matter as much as who knows that you can do it.
Of course, but this issue raised by Vic isn't unique to Eve. Representative governmental systems around the world have been specifically designed to resist the democratic tendency to tyranny of the majority, or complete power resting in the hands of whoever manages to get 50%+1 on their side. For example, in many systems there a senate whose composition represents regional representation (e.g. the United States) or other minority stake holders (e.g. the UK, France) to balance the expression of pure popular will.

Now I am not suggesting we need a 'Space Senate' but it must be acknowledged that the OP is correct to point out that the CSM has failed to provide fair representation of the types of play that go on in Eve Online, and overrepresent the largest groups in the game. The only question to me is does this matter? I think it does in the sense that CCP does, or at least want to appear to, take development cues from the Council. The very first session of the last CSM minutes asked the members this very question. If CCP accepts that what these players, overwhelmingly in the leadership of large nullsec entities, are representative of all the players, then there is a problem. I hope that they don't, but it certainly can be argued that it doesn't serve the bulk of the players to have the majority of the council be from one area of the game and trying to shape the overall development of the game for everyone, which it at least appears might be the case.

The other problem I see is how poorly the "focus group" role of the CSM is served by having a council made up of largely nullsec leadership, YouTube streamers and narrow subject experts. How can the CSM point out problems of a new mechanic on say Faction Warfare, if none of their members have ever really participated in Faction Warfare? Or wardecs? Sure, CSM members can ask the player base directly for feedback, but at that point they are outside the bounds of the NDA so CCP might as well as ask the players directly for such feedback and stop relying on possibly biased or inexperienced unpaid volunteers to do their product research.

I don't have the answer, and honestly I really don't care much at this point. Whatever the CSM was conceived as, it is now basically a collection of space politicians who occupy this strange space between the fiction of New Eden and the reality of being a part of the game development of Eve Online. I think it is poorly served by the lack of diversity which contributes to general apathy towards the body and this inability of the election process to bring diverse game knowledge to the institution hampers some of its primary functions. But it is what it is, and I really just hope that CCP keeps front of mind that what comes out of the mouths of those 10 players is not a complete representation of the thoughts and experiences of the bulk of their players.
ChaosTheory.
#70 - 2017-04-20 12:56:45 UTC  |  Edited by: Jenn aSide
The CSm is no different from any other political situation. ie People make up these high minded systems and checks and balances and law and whatever, but at the end of the day, human nature wins out and you end up with greedy, corruption, broken promises and disenchantment.

In this case the 'human nature' problem is that you simply can't overcome power of organization and charisma. Null sec was always going to dominate any election process, because null sec is the place where active players go and manipulate the 'politics on the ground' to achieve goals. Null sec WILL always dominate any process CCP puts into place because of the kinds of people involved.

The high sec players will be too busy not giving a **** about anything but their generally solo pursuits to do anything.

The Low Sec players will be too busy basically not existing in the 1st place because low sec sucks (lol)

The Wormholes also generally don't exist and even if they did, you wouldn't know it until they showed up on grid with you because, well, no local lol.

All jokes aside, just like in real life, you can't make a system that will have an outcome other than the natural one where the active and engaged people win and the apathetic self defeating types lose.

And just like the old saying of "you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink", well, it's the same in EVE. You can have as many pop ups as you want saying "CSM voting is open" but you simply can't make anyone in high sec give a damn enough to click on the link and spend 5 minutes to be represented.
#71 - 2017-04-20 13:09:34 UTC
If we're going to start arguing for equivalencies to real life democracies then either the forums or CCP themselves take on the role of advocate for less represented play-styles. As much as people like to claim otherwise most of the people at CCP do in fact play Eve and themselves represent a fairly broad base of play. They also, again contrary to apparent popular belief, read the forums and other loci of community feedback.

None of this means that extreme minority sections of play are never going to get squished for the greater good though.

The "Booster Smuggling" play style is kind of the poster child for this. The playstyle itself provided interesting gameplay for a tiny group of players, but the mechanics that enabled it were relegating the production and use of Combat Boosters to a fairly niche area of gameplay to the point that their use by anyone who ever needed to pass through High Sec with the ship using them was an extreme rarity compared to similar consumables.

Since the change Booster use is up significantly as demonstrated by trade on the market, and manufacturing has followed to keep pace with demand. That's taken away a small section of content from the game, but to the benefit of the rest of it.

The argument generally put forward in favor of some alternative representation system is that these players might be better represented and their gameplay better preserved, but if you look at the forum thread it's pretty obvious that for the *vast* majority of the playerbase this was an uncontroversial change. It's possible something could have been done to make both parties happy, but that would have likely taken significantly more dev time and potentially have caused problems as exception-based mechanics tend to do.

I think the view that the CSM is too one-dimensional in its composition tends to ignore that most of the people who are on the CSM are experienced players who have played a long time and have fairly varied experiences as a result. They also have alts they may do other things on and close friends involved in other sections of the game.

In this respect the most important thing for a CSM isn't the faction they publicly align themselves with it's the ability to say "I don't know enough about that area of the game, I'm going to keep my mouth shut."
#72 - 2017-04-20 13:59:58 UTC  |  Edited by: Black Pedro
Jenn aSide wrote:
The CSm is no different from any other political situation. ie People make up these high minded systems and checks and balances and law and whatever, but at the end of the day, human nature wins out and you end up with greedy, corruption, broken promises and disenchantment.
A very cynical view, but actually somehow appropriate for an institution born of the dystopian universe of strife that is New Eden. I think if you view the CSM as more of an exercise in political role-play than a body expected to be a really effective part of the game development process, it is indeed much more palatable and makes much more sense.

Cade Windstalker wrote:
If we're going to start arguing for equivalencies to real life democracies then either the forums or CCP themselves take on the role of advocate for less represented play-styles. As much as people like to claim otherwise most of the people at CCP do in fact play Eve and themselves represent a fairly broad base of play. They also, again contrary to apparent popular belief, read the forums and other loci of community feedback.
No, the lack of diversity clearly impacts on their effectiveness. Just to cite two examples: the proposed (and eventually rescinded?) change to the monthly economic reports and the nerfing of the buddy list as an intel source. Whether you agree or not with these changes, the impacts on these changes on segments of the player base were not even raised at the summits when proposed. Now yes, we only have a tiny glimpse of what discussion actually goes on behind the scenes and maybe the minutes are not a fair representation of what went on, but any market watcher or active hunter of other players would immediately identify the impact these changes would have on their play style and that wasn't voiced. Having a broader and/or deeper bench of CSM members would make the body much more effective at catching potential issues early on which is suppose to be the main point of having these players sign an NDA as I understand it.

Look, let's do a thought experiment. What if CCP said that due to budget cuts, they are going to slash the CSM to only two players and that CSM 12 will now only consist of Aryth and The Judge. Do you think they have sufficient breadth of experience and knowledge of all areas of the game for CCP to comfortable bounce game changes off of? Would you be comfortable with only these two filtering your concerns to CCP? If not, what is the correct number of players before you have a representative number? 4, 8, 10? The current size is an arbitrary number, or at least arbitrary as to the diversity of player activity its members cover, and seems to me a long way off from cover all the types of game play that goes on in Eve. I get that there are other concerns that will limit the number of players and that a too large council has its own set of issues that may limit its usefulness, but to claim that the current set of self-described nullsec-focused players is sufficiently diverse lacks any evidence from what I can see. And if that is true it just happened by chance given breadth of experience is not how most people decide how to vote; their in-game alliance affiliation is pretty much the sole determinant of whether a player is on the council or not.

Yes, the CSM members can talk to me or any other player and try to understand various aspects of the game they may not interact with daily and many of them do. I am very appreciative of those that make the effort. If the CSM is suppose to be just a communication channel then it will work fine as long as there are a few elected who take the time to do so and talk with the players. That is one thing and I don't think it matters much where players come from for that role. But if they are suppose to be directing game development or critically reviewing proposed changes to identify problems early then it very much matters that there is a broad representation of experience and play styles on the council who have signed the NDA. I don't see how anyone can argue with that, even if we all agree it is not a simple problem to solve.

I wish the CSM luck and I hope CCP continues to get some value from the institution. For me, I'll spend my time as you suggest making my concerns and views known to CCP and the community directly on these forums and elsewhere.
#73 - 2017-04-20 14:10:43 UTC
Cade Windstalker wrote:


I think the view that the CSM is too one-dimensional in its composition tends to ignore that most of the people who are on the CSM are experienced players who have played a long time and have fairly varied experiences as a result. They also have alts they may do other things on and close friends involved in other sections of the game.

In this respect the most important thing for a CSM isn't the faction they publicly align themselves with it's the ability to say "I don't know enough about that area of the game, I'm going to keep my mouth shut."


The glorious thing about this is the glorious thing about modern democracy. Democracy was a wonderful Greek invention destroyed by an Italian called Julius. Since then, not democracy so much.

No, in all seriousness WTF is the "other sections of the game"? The bit where male players undress their female alts on certain well known cyberporn channels? Does the CSM or CCP endorse this? Or do they ignore it?

Being somewhat smarter than anyone who believes votes change anything, I'd propose both CCP and the CSM ignore a HUGE proportion of what happens in New Eden. At first I was offended by rich white people would can afford TWO computers playing EvE (and claiming it can't be played without being such a silverspoon fed wanker), then I realised reporting known AFK bot accounts does nothing as well.

My personal take on EvE (and it's politicians included) is it is a VR built on RL. Trying to control any reality (virtual or otherwise) is impossible. It's CCP's program just as life is god's program (dear atheists forgive my rhetoric here) but if petty competition between "Null Lords" defined EvE it would be worse than a Shakespearean tragedy and enter the realm of American television.
#74 - 2017-04-20 15:17:19 UTC
Black Pedro wrote:
No, the lack of diversity clearly impacts on their effectiveness. Just to cite two examples: the proposed (and eventually rescinded?) change to the monthly economic reports and the nerfing of the buddy list as an intel source. Whether you agree or not with these changes, the impacts on these changes on segments of the player base were not even raised at the summits when proposed. Now yes, we only have a tiny glimpse of what discussion actually goes on behind the scenes and maybe the minutes are not a fair representation of what went on, but any market watcher or active hunter of other players would immediately identify the impact these changes would have on their play style and that wasn't voiced. Having a broader and/or deeper bench of CSM members would make the body much more effective at catching potential issues early on which is suppose to be the main point of having these players sign an NDA as I understand it.


I don't agree with either of these examples, but for different reasons.

The MER change was proposed by CCP and no one on the CSM had any reasonable argument against it. The playerbase didn't either, there was just an outpouring of emotion towards keeping the stats around. That's not something any representative body is ever going to be able to accurately communicate.

For the Buddy List change that still doesn't have any reasonable arguments against it. Even as someone who mostly benefited from it it was absolutely free intel and the game is better off without being able to freely know when someone is or is not online without any restrictions.

Black Pedro wrote:
Look, let's do a thought experiment. What if CCP said that due to budget cuts, they are going to slash the CSM to only two players and that CSM 12 will now only consist of Aryth and The Judge. Do you think they have sufficient breadth of experience and knowledge of all areas of the game for CCP to comfortable bounce game changes off of? Would you be comfortable with only these two filtering your concerns to CCP? If not, what is the correct number of players before you have a representative number? 4, 8, 10? The current size is an arbitrary number, or at least arbitrary as to the diversity of player activity its members cover, and seems to me a long way off from cover all the types of game play that goes on in Eve. I get that there are other concerns that will limit the number of players and that a too large council has its own set of issues that may limit its usefulness, but to claim that the current set of self-described nullsec-focused players is sufficiently diverse lacks any evidence from what I can see. And if that is true it just happened by chance given breadth of experience is not how most people decide how to vote; their in-game alliance affiliation is pretty much the sole determinant of whether a player is on the council or not.


This is a strawman not a useful example. It belongs, at best, in a philosophy class talking about the definition of a heap, not in any meaningful discussion of representative democracy.

If you want a statistically valid sampling you want polling, but that has more issues for the devs than the current system, and any sampling of players large enough to be statistically valid would also be too large for CCP to support. Let alone have meaningful discourse within that group.

Black Pedro wrote:
Yes, the CSM members can talk to me or any other player and try to understand various aspects of the game they may not interact with daily and many of them do. I am very appreciative of those that make the effort. If the CSM is suppose to be just a communication channel then it will work fine as long as there are a few elected who take the time to do so and talk with the players. That is one thing and I don't think it matters much where players come from for that role. But if they are suppose to be directing game development or critically reviewing proposed changes to identify problems early then it very much matters that there is a broad representation of experience and play styles on the council who have signed the NDA. I don't see how anyone can argue with that, even if we all agree it is not a simple problem to solve.

I wish the CSM luck and I hope CCP continues to get some value from the institution. For me, I'll spend my time as you suggest making my concerns and views known to CCP and the community directly on these forums and elsewhere.


Based on some comments by current and former CSM I feel the role of the CSM is something like a combination focus group, outside perspective, and sounding board.

While it's a valid crticism to say that the CSM doesn't always represent a broad swath of players no reasonable fix has been proposed, here or elsewhere, and all of the *other* fixes that have been proposed are either unworkable, detrimental to the functioning of the CSM, or wouldn't be accepted by the broad majority of players for good reason. Largely because they remove the democratic elements from the CSM partly or entirely.

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.
Caldari State
#75 - 2017-04-20 15:31:43 UTC
The CSM is broken and corrupt.

Alliance mail out and the first 7 slots are filled with Goons, PL etc

High Sec is broken.

15 Alts in Insta whatever and one neutral bump ship and your set for very little risk and massive reward.



#76 - 2017-04-20 15:54:03 UTC
Cade Windstalker wrote:
Soel Reit wrote:
Steve Ronuken wrote:
You consider going to Iceland for 4 days of meetings a vacation? I think we have very different standards.




ahahahahhahaha
PLS


don't write these bullshits ahhHAHHAHAHAHAHHAH
#Tilted

anyone that voted you is dumb as much as you, judging from what you are writing Cool


Soel do you have a trolling quota to meet or something?

This is low effort and uninformed even for you. We literally have the schedule for the CSM meetings, you can see clearly that there is exactly zero time for playing tourist there. The only way going to the summits is a vacation these days is if your day job is somehow worse than sitting in a series of conference rooms with a bunch of Eve players arguing game minutia...



dude!
you're going to argue and speak about a game that you LOVE and CARE for!
that is your HOBBY! that is something you love to play anytime!

tell me it's not a vacation!
tell me it's work! i dare you!

you are literally going (all payed) to speak about spaceships 24/7, trolling the devs, having fun with other nerds, metagaming with other alliances and whatever!
i can't see how you can call that WORK.

That's a HOBBY, and dedicating days to a hobby it's called vacation/holiday in MY BOOK!
and if it's so heavy to bear guys.... just don't go and candidate for cms LUL Cool

i dunno what's wrong with you TBH
#77 - 2017-04-20 15:58:58 UTC  |  Edited by: Black Pedro
Cade Windstalker wrote:

I don't agree with either of these examples, but for different reasons.
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.

Cade Windstalker wrote:
This is a strawman not a useful example. It belongs, at best, in a philosophy class talking about the definition of a heap, not in any meaningful discussion of representative democracy.

If you want a statistically valid sampling you want polling, but that has more issues for the devs than the current system, and any sampling of players large enough to be statistically valid would also be too large for CCP to support. Let alone have meaningful discourse within that group.
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.

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.

Cade Windstalker wrote:
While it's a valid crticism to say that the CSM doesn't always represent a broad swath of players no reasonable fix has been proposed, here or elsewhere, and all of the *other* fixes that have been proposed are either unworkable, detrimental to the functioning of the CSM, or wouldn't be accepted by the broad majority of players for good reason. Largely because they remove the democratic elements from the CSM partly or entirely.
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.
#78 - 2017-04-20 15:59:45 UTC
Issler Dainze wrote:
I was elected twice largely on high sec support. But it would take several folks really focused on high sec to be elected to make any sort of difference.
I voted for you then and I'd certainly vote for you again should you add your name to the ballot next year.

Mr Epeen Cool
#79 - 2017-04-20 16:02:33 UTC  |  Edited by: Zarek Kree
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.

To steal a quote, there's no doubt that the CSM is the worst possible system available - except for all the others. We live in an imperfect world and this is an imperfect game. That doesn't mean we shouldn't strive for improvements, but it does mean that "bad" is sometimes as good as you're going to get and is still better than the alternatives.
#80 - 2017-04-20 16:41:50 UTC
Soel Reit wrote:
Cade Windstalker wrote:
Soel Reit wrote:
Steve Ronuken wrote:
You consider going to Iceland for 4 days of meetings a vacation? I think we have very different standards.




ahahahahhahaha
PLS


don't write these bullshits ahhHAHHAHAHAHAHHAH
#Tilted

anyone that voted you is dumb as much as you, judging from what you are writing Cool


Soel do you have a trolling quota to meet or something?

This is low effort and uninformed even for you. We literally have the schedule for the CSM meetings, you can see clearly that there is exactly zero time for playing tourist there. The only way going to the summits is a vacation these days is if your day job is somehow worse than sitting in a series of conference rooms with a bunch of Eve players arguing game minutia...



dude!
you're going to argue and speak about a game that you LOVE and CARE for!
that is your HOBBY! that is something you love to play anytime!

tell me it's not a vacation!
tell me it's work! i dare you!

you are literally going (all payed) to speak about spaceships 24/7, trolling the devs, having fun with other nerds, metagaming with other alliances and whatever!
i can't see how you can call that WORK.

That's a HOBBY, and dedicating days to a hobby it's called vacation/holiday in MY BOOK!
and if it's so heavy to bear guys.... just don't go and candidate for cms LUL Cool

i dunno what's wrong with you TBH


I was going to write about this same post. Here is why it's a vacation. I was away from work. I was in Iceland. I was put up in a pretty decent place. First time I went we had a waffle machine and my shower had a volcanic steam valve. We were fed pretty well. We got odd Icelandic soft drinks! Several nights we were taken out to local bars. We spent our days talking about a game we clearly all enjoyed.

Was it lounging on a beach in some tropical setting? No, would I do it again, yes.

The second time I was flown to Iceland as part of the CSM was during fanfest and that really was a vacation. I also enjoyed some of the other silly perks, I think I got a medal twice. :-) plus the CSM thingy when you forum post.

You know what the real pay off was? I got to meet some amazing folks in real life I would not have otherwise all on CCP's nickle. So there is a definite set of "perks" that come with being elected.

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!
Forum Jump