Proof of this message would go a long way.
Your problem is a psychological one. Look at what you are doing here, you are defending not even trying while trying to win a word game with me. YOU havenât tried to get 1000s of people to do something, you would need to try and fail first before asking me if I have.
YOU are the one who has the problem with the CSM, yet when given a prescription about what you can do about it, actions that even if not successful would send a message to CCP, you instead derail yourself into nonsense.
Your actions here an example of why all human politics suck, why people IRL complain about getting screwed by politicians and then refuse to vote when they have a chance.
You can hardly complain about others (CCP, the CSM etc) when you yourself canât get it right, now can you?
2 Likes
Jenn did you read the stuff I wrote?
I voted for years, I did, each year I did my homework on the candidates deciding which ones would best represent me and be best for the game. I voted. None of them got on the CSM. Because the CSM isnt an exercise in democracy its an exercise in organisation. Which you seem to be ok with. âThey who org best win.â I am not ok with that, that to me is a broken system. Thats why i am its critic not because âi have a problem with the CSMâ lmao
You say âYoure not even trying!â well, in actuality I did try, I voted⌠lost. I voted again⌠lost again. And again and again⌠etc
You see the problem?
Yea, the problem is twofold.
- You think voting is the issue. Itâs not about YOU voting, its about people LIKE you voting.
How much of that time did you spend organizing others to vote? How much time did you spend talking to random people, making friends, and explaining the issues to them?
Iâm betting none.
- The other issue is that you are using the CSM as a scape goat. Most anti-CSM people do. They think that because the CSM is made up of people who arenât like them, that the CSM is responsible for everything that is wrong with the game.
Itâs not true, The CSM is at best a powerless advisory panel and at worst a publicity stunt aimed at covering the fact that CCP is going to do what they want with their product regardless of what anyone says.
I believe the CSM has some effect, but itâs not so much as people imagine, so blaming them for stuff CCP does is actually stupid. But if you would organize other people like yourself, at least you all would have a little say.
But you donât, and itâs your fault.
1 Like
You are right, I didnt organise others to vote. Why should i have to? I did my homework, educated myself and voted accordingly. Thats democracy. The current CSM system is not how a democracy should work and I have more important things to do with my life than trying to wrangle EVEâs community to agree with me one way or the other.
And the CSM is not my âscape goatâ at all. Its meant to be a democratically elected body to represent the players to CCP. It doesnt. It represents 0.0 special interests. I agree its an advisory panel but the advice seems to always favour the 0.0. Funny that.
I think the CSM and CCPs relationship with it is an echo-chamber of bad ideas. As evidenced amply by the proposed âbalance passâ for next month.
Itâs funny and quite obvious how the different troll alts rotate, itâs always the same ones and they always take their turn.
If you would only read what you are writing, you would see your problem, and how it comes from you, not CCP or the CSM.
âWhy should I have toâ? Because you want a certain outcome, thatâs why.
You go on about âspecial interestsâ. There are no speciainterests. No democratically elected body in the history of mankind represents âthe peopleâ. Every.single. democratically elected body in the history of mankind represent the voters aka the âspecial interestsâ you cry about. The CSM represents the people who can be bothered to vote and organize , the people who care enough about this video game to spend a few minutes on it.
You and tbh so many other here and IRL have constructed these safe mental hiding zones (âomg the corrupt politicans and the special interests!!â) in an attempt to protect you from the truth and hide you from the harsh realities of your own choices. Thatâs your fault, if you would see things how they actually are, you could affect them, maybe even change them.
But you wonât. At the end of the day itâs easier to be a victim and complain than it is to fight and risk losingâŚ
7 years ago I read an article about non-voters and bookmarked it, if you want to learn something about your reactions here, here you go: The âSilent Majorityâ Agrees With Me, Voters Believe â Association for Psychological Science â APS
1 Like
I think your view of democracy differs than mine.
It doesnt come down to me, I did my part, it comes down to the CSMs democratic system which clearly you are ok with and I am not.
You think i am a âvictimâ when i am in fact a participant, one thats realised that his participation is pointless. You however have become the megaphone for a broken system. All the evidence points to it being messed up but no, its me as the participant who has the problem apparently, evidence be damned huh?
Youâre in need a mirror not me, that and a reality check.
Iâm not the one with the problem here. I like the csm for what it is just fine.
When you can learn to stop deflecting and take some responsibility (instead of thinking your problems are some elseâs to fix) you will have solved your problem.
Good luck.
1 Like
Perhaps you should stop being a hot lunch for a broken system, wise up and realise that the system is shite and its goto go.
Good luck.
In my opinion it is important to have balance in the CSM because different kinds of people from different areas of space doing different things will see things differently. It seems like CCP is only able to focus on one thing at a time and the past number of years thatâs been Nullsec with Fozziesov and Citadel stuff. It wouldnât make much sense for a Highsec PvE dude with a focus on the NPE or some Highsec Wardec dude to be apart of Nullsec discussions and balance. Iâm not saying that everyone is a one-trick pony but I can see the Highsec pve dude just sitting there with no experience of sov warfare, capitals, and empire building.
I like the idea of focus groups. CCP has just recently announced the courier contract to citadel change, and that came about from a focus group⌠it took like 2-3 years but it happened.
The problem with focus groups is that itâs not as marketable to the outside, âoh look weâre different and have a social council of players that come to Iceland and discuss various things with developers!â The other issue is that a lot of if not most of what is discussed is under NDA so you couldnât have a bunch of focus groups with a bunch of people for obvious reasons.
I have seen some really outstanding CSM members like @Jin_taan come into a discord server and discuss issues with some of my peers. I 100% believe that this type of responsibility should be required because letâs face it⌠If I try to get in touch with one of the Goon CSMs and try to talk about things like Wardecs or ganking; he isnât going to care one bit because it doesnât benefit him and his constituents in Nullsec.
I also refuse to believe that these large groups with CSM dominance arenât going right back to their alliance leaders and leaking stuff under NDA to use it for their betterment in-game.
3 Likes
I donât think so either. The players that are elected, especially in recent years, seem earnest and genuine and I believe serve in good faith to make the game better.
That still doesnât mean there isnât a problem with diversity and the overrepresentation of players from a certain background. The electoral system is biased to favour large, organized groups and so we get a council that is more homogenous and not especially representative of the player base and player activity. And while I think the council and game suffer for that somewhat, I canât think of a better way to select a council.
Weâve seen examples of how the lack of diversity has led to development decisions that hurt some playstyles where the council the in the past overlooked or failed to appreciate the impact of a change. While perhaps the meeting minutes will change my mind, right now I believe this 500MN hictor kerfuffle another of these.
While honestly I am on the fence of whether wormholers should have such a tool - the ease of rolling holes appears to have been made too great by the clever application of these mechanics - the way in which it was handled was a complete fail. I have to imagine that a strong wormhole representative like a Corbexx or a Noobman would have impressed upon CCP how much outrage there would be over this change, especially after CCP promised an alternative and then reneged. Instead, the CSM appears to have whispered in CCPâs ear that it would be fine to make the change quickly just to get it done and then unsuccessfully tried to convince the player base with a âunanimous statementâ it was better than nothing leaving a mess for CCP to clean up when most of the players didnât go for it.
Well, as long as the CSM is mostly nullsec leaders, FCs and the Eve famous, more niche communities will go unrepresented in those meetings. I really do appreciate the effort some of the council have made to engage the broader player base, and this does help the council do its job, but problems and issues are going to be missed by a council who play the game largely in the same way, and naturally issues and changes that effect them are going to get more airtime even if they are well intentioned as I think they are.
Regardless of this latest CSM mistep/overreach, this mess is not the fault of the CSM. The buck ultimately stops with CCP and it is up to them to develop the game for all the players. They have to filter out the bad advice from the CSM and catch problems the Council doesnât and I think the best way for them to do that is through parallel channels such as the forums and focus groups. The CSM is cool as an unique Eve thing, but they arenât even a legitimate body having no official power or any qualifications other than popularity. I do think such a group is better than nothing and adds some value, but CCP has to keep front of mind they are not the end-all and be-all of player activity and player needs in the game.
If nothing else, this minor debacle is a good reminder of that for everyone involved.
Institute rule of 1 CSM seat max, per Corp/Alliance.
If multiple candidates with those tags run, only the one that gets the most votes gets that seat on CSM.
Then they just âhappenâ to be in a different alliance (of themselves), but still run on the same platforms and get voted for by the same people.
2 Likes
Thats fine, and not what the change addresses.
If you think of the CSM in terms of the UN for example, each nation can have only one seat, not multiple ones.
The change would simply create false flags who still do all their business for their parent alliance, they just do it under a flag. Just like NPC Freighter alts do, etc.
Thats fine.
But the actual CSM member as a character behind it will not, and cannot be, in the same corp/alliance as another CSM character, nor can two be elected to two seats from the same corp/alliance tags.
What alts they have, who they conduct business with, and what corps/alliances they fly under is up to them, but it will not be possible anymore for a corp/alliance to have more than 1 sitting CSM member with their tags.
Quotas are stupid.
Whatâs important for CSM is knowledge of the game, not who their friends are, so if any quota system was introduced it should be based on area of space/profession.
However, quotas:
- lead to a less competent CSM
- lead to resentment of the majority voters because who they vote for gets put aside at some point
- would even further erode respect in the CSM because people are voted on that have fewer votes than others that miss out
- removes freedom in voting (if you vote for one person in an Alliance then thereâs no point voting for someone else as well one of them just becomes a wasted vote)
- quotas also work against groups we might want to see more representation from (eg. Say another industrialist in Steveâs Alliance had a good profile and a lot to offer the CSM. Theyâd be blocked from being elected no matter what)
The current system is fine. Itâs not the system at fault if people arenât able to rally the community around voting for them. They clearly donât have the metagame down well enough.
4 Likes
Its not a quota.
Its a restriction on how many CSM members can be seated under one Corp/Alliance tag.
That Corp/Alliance can seat 1 CSM under its flag, and thats it.
This applies to all Corps/Alliances, equally.
One seat per member state in the UN is also not a quota.
quota
ËkwÉĘtÉ/
noun
- a limited or fixed number or amount of people or things, in particular:
synonyms: allocation, share, allowance, limit, ration, portion, apportionment, assignment, dispensation, slice, slice of the cake; More
A restriction is a limit. Itâs a quota or any other word you want to use that means the same thing.
2 Likes