CSM 15 - All You Need to Know

[Australian_Excellence]

@Scoots_Choco

And yet despite all of that, you’ve still failed to answer my original question.

Let me put it so even a complete idiot can understand.

We have four departments of emergency services and we want a board to oversee them.

Fire, Ambulance, S&R and Police. The Police have extremely organized unions who get everybody out to vote, the other three services are not nearly as organized. Voting ends and the Police service comes out with 9 out of the 10 seats on the board.

You don’t see a problem here? Are you a full retard?

@Scoots_Choco

@Scoots_Choco

You just make weak attempts at insulting nullblocs.

how am I insulting nullblocs? lmao

Still waiting lmao.

[Scoots_Choco]

Yawn, all I see here is backtracking because you realize you never provided a viable alternative to start with when called out and now you’re just trying to argue for argument’s sake. Disappointing.

I had hoped you had some kind of unique perspective on what kind of system CCP could use, but alas, that was misplaced, because there’s nothing here other than another crybaby who refuses to actually put his money where his mouth is.

What a shame.

@Australian_Excellence

We have four departments of emergency services and we want a board to oversee them.

Fire, Ambulance, S&R and Police. The Police have extremely organized unions who get everybody out to vote, the other three services are not nearly as organized. Voting ends and the Police service comes out with 9 out of the 10 seats on the board.

You don’t see a problem here? Are you a full retard?

And here’s some weak attempt to make a real-world parallel but failed to realize that EVE Online is a video game and not a parallel to the real world.

Again, yawn.

It’s made even worse when you take into consideration the kid’s username. So much for “excellence”, when he can’t even come up with a coherent argument, starts back tracking, and then reverts to some weird attempt at making real life parallels.

[DeMichael_Crimson]

@Arrendis

@Australian_Excellence

The whole argument I was having with him was that they aren’t representing the players as a collective, theyre representing mainly nullbloc players

Well, then you’re being pretty impressively dumb, what with that whole ‘arguing with an ex-CSM member from null who put thousands of man-hours into trying to represent the interests of wormholers, FW pilots, and high-sec and telling him he didn’t do exactly what he quite blatantly did’ thing.

You’ve got to be kidding, W-holes, Null Sec, FW, High Sec, etc all have different issues and nobody can fairly represent the interests of players in all those areas.

CCP can easily see player accounts and know which one is most active as well as what content they engage in the most. That’s what they did to create our ‘2019 Year In Eve’ video’s.

Anyway, I think a balanced CSM would have 1 seat available to represent each of these different segments of Eve:

Wormhole
Null Sec
Low Sec
High Sec
Faction War
PvP Content
PvE Content
Market Trade
R&D Manufacturing
Resource Processing

[Totchibana]

Id comment but i dont wanna be banned.

[Totchibana]

CSM would have 1 seat available to represent each of these different segments of Eve: YOU WANT 1 PERSON to rep the WWWHOOLLEEE of WH’s? NULL SEC??? PVP PVE ??? Are u stupid??? Talk about a path to abuse of power.

[Dravick_Afterthought]

@Arrendis

He’s not gonna believe you, Steve. It doesn’t matter how many people explain it to him, as long as anyone agrees with someone from null, he won’t let himself believe they’re not lying.

I’m just waiting for him to blame it all on the 5G towers…

[DeMichael_Crimson]

That’s right, it would be a more balanced CSM with each segment of Eve being represented than how the current CSM is set up…

[Ember_Fireheart]

@Arrendis

The CSM don’t have any real influence with CCP unless they’re unanimous

I was making a joke, hence why something like that would seem attractive to them.

[Ember_Fireheart]

@CCP_Darwin

Whomever. (Sorry, just trying to get into the spirit of this thread.)

Technically you are being constructive and helping him so yea you are correct sir.

[Ember_Fireheart]

@Gneeznow

Reminder to all that the CSM was formed as a pressure valve in the wake of CCP T20 spawning tech 2 blueprints for his pals and being caught (after of course CCP banned everyone who outed him and tried to cover it up) and the CSM has done nothing since its inception except act as a lobbyist group to the large organised nullsec groups with focused voting power.

Voting for any of these clowns on the CSM makes you a useful idiot.

This is not true at all, the CSM are there to hear CCP’s idea’s and bring up points using player experience (CSM are the room of brains from Psyco Pass lol) that CCP would not have thought of, which helps CCP release changes and content that effects players positively. If a certain player group is not represented thou then possible negative effects might get missed.

The power to be heard is strong even if you make a good idea and never get credit for it it doesn’t matter because that idea has already become attached into the sub conscious and later down the line CCP might implement the idea because its there in their head and ends up suiting the current content.

[CCP_Dopamine]

Hmmm… seems like I run into a cache issue and the page reverted to the previous version. Going to fix that now.

[Mara_Pahrdi]

@Arrendis

The CSM brings focused and structured feedback from the community to CCP and represents their views and interests.

‘the community’ is a singular communal noun, not a plural. ‘its’ (as last year’s had) was correct, ‘their’ is incorrect. This is a common error, and often crops up when considering the difference between ‘people’, and ‘a people’. The former references people in general, where the latter references a collective, like a nation.

It also crops up in organization names when those names seem plural. ‘The New York Yankees’ is, in fact, a singular organization, and when talking about the Yankees org, it is appropriate to use singular verb agreement, as opposed to ‘the members [notice the plural?] of the New York Yankees’, which ‘the Yankees’ is often shorthand for. Similarly, ‘the community’ is singular, where ‘members of the community’ would be plural.

Shouldn’t it rather be communities instead of community? That would be closer to reality, after all. Then “their views” would be ok.

[CCP_Dopamine]

A lot of great conversations here, so let me chime in on some of the topics.

1. Having different perspectives on the CSM is one of the great benefits the program offers, and we have been actively investigating various models of how we could achieve a broader representation of players on the council. Unfortunately, due to several challenges around the ability to correctly identify candidates and voting mechanisms, without introducing too many error-prone rules, we could not do it this time around. However, I am still very much interested in exploring this in the future, so lets the conversation going on that front!

2. CSM members should always be elected by the players and players alone. I am happy to discuss ways how we can create a system where specific segments of the community have a seat at the council if democratic elections are preserved.

3. In many ways, we rely on the feedback from the CSM, and the ability to talk to experienced players under NDA has been invaluable. However, we don’t end there and have been listening and interacting with other players outside of the council. A good example is a fantastic work the lowsec Discord community has done by creating comprehensive proposals filled with great insights that EVE developers could digest and try to incorporate into their planning. CSM members also did a bunch of legwork by reaching out to other players in an attempt to fill potential gaps in feedback when preparing for the summit.

[Mara_Pahrdi]

Well, if I can be bothered to vote in summer, you’ll get my vote .

[addelee]

I applied last year and the application was never accepted as CCP’s mail servers weren’t accepting 1 character email addresses (i.e. g@somedomain.org)

We spoke about it on twitter at the time.

Has this been resolved?

[CCP_Dopamine]

I’ll find out

[DeMichael_Crimson]

Yeah sorry brother but I vote no for holding a vote to disband the CSM. Also having accounts that don’t vote be counted as a vote for dissolution of the CSM just sounds spiteful and unbalanced.

The main point of the CSM is to represent the interest of all player’s in all segments of the game. The current CSM set up formula falls short of that and that’s something which needs to be adjusted.

So instead of pushing to disband the CSM, how about helping to come up with a CSM set up formula that will enable equal representation of all players.

[Sgt_Ocker]

@Scoots_Choco

This has already been addressed by Brisc and other before him in preceding posts. CSM does not represent Security statuses. CSM represent PLAYERS as a collective.

Sorry but NO they don’t, most bar 1 or 2 rare exceptions represent the area of the game they engage in.

What would be better than the current CSM elections?
NO CSM.,.

What would be best for game development if CCP really wanted player input - Taylored surveys.
They won’t happen as that would require actually interacting with more of the player base, it would require CCP actually knowing what questions to ask or at least have a small understanding of what the game needs.

I for one am over hearing CCP spout on with “after discussions with the CSM” and still releasing crap into the game that shows an obvious lack of foresight or direction.
Is the CSM really so impotent?
If so why is it still a thing?

CCP have become pro at tossing the CSM under the bus.

The best outcome for the upcoming CSM elections would be if NOBODY voted.

[Black_Pedro]

@CCP_Dopamine

Having different perspectives on the CSM is one of the great benefits the program offers, and we have been actively investigating various models of how we could achieve a broader representation of players on the council. Unfortunately, due to several challenges around the ability to correctly identify candidates and voting mechanisms, without introducing too many error-prone rules, we could not do it this time around. However, I am still very much interested in exploring this in the future, so lets the conversation going on that front!

The only way to fairly get more diversity on the CSM is to increase the size back up to 14 (or better yet 16 or 18). Yes, a large council has some downsides with increased overhead and costs, but those are the trade-offs necessary to get a more representative council.

Right now, and I expect again, we will have a very skewed council, which probably still is better than nothing, but isn’t representative. And that just undermines the legitimacy of the whole institution.

[Xenuria]

@Steve_Ronuken

The last election was something like 64 people.

Where do you cut off? It’s a huge can of worms.

I think the new policy on forum posts should weed out most of the people who stumbled into the election looking for the nearest starbux and just happened to have their passport on them.