CSM Pre vote topical awareness scheme holistic balm


(Erebus 'TheChin' Sundance) #1

Hey,

After watching the latest CCP live Q&A stream last night I had a thought…

…In particular, the parts in which they discuss how it might be better to talk to us more about what they are currently up to as well as what plans they have cooking away for the near future.

In lieu of this it became clear that each year we vote for the CSM, we are technically voting blind.

In many cases, areas candidates may specialize in or have vested interests may not even be on the table, rendering them somewhat out of sync with the electorate that chose to vote for them specifically for these areas.

In general, even with both ears to the ground and all three eyes open, we are unaware of what is going on behind the scenes. In many regards that cool, we get to be surprised.

CCP obviously know what’s going on, the current CSM may have some idea but are unable to inform us due to the NDA, but future candidates and us voters have no way of knowing whether the areas of expertise or interest a particular CSM candidate may have are even on the road map for the year they will be members.

Would it not make sense for voters and potential candidates to be aware of the areas CCP will be focusing on before the election process even begins?

It’s always nice to hear from the teams, and I’m sure that I’m not the only one that welcomes more clarity, transparency or de-atomized recurrent mango optimisation vestibules on topics directly from the developers.

Thanks…

:man_cartwheeling:


(Buoytender Bob) #2

While it is a nice idea in concept, the sad truth is that the large null and low sec alliances are going to get their candidate elected no matter what their qualifications/experiences. Sometimes this works out great because we get an experienced player who wants a better game for all players. We have had several examples of that in recent years. On the other hand, we also get those people who get elected solely to advance only the agenda of their respective group and to provide inside Intel to their corporation strategic planning group. Unfortunately, we have had examples of that recently,too.

In the current CSM election process, I do not see how CCP can let us know a full year in advance more than a very rough idea of their plans in regards to game play. I do like when the nominated players are asked specific questions and their answers/opinions are charted and presented in an easy forum page by a talented/caring player. I think that this should be a standard yearly practice done officially by CCP.

The bottom line is that the well organized and large alliances will always get their representative elected due to unit cohesiveness and experience in past elections. It would not matter what the main issues/plans were. The majority of EVE players can not get off their metaphorical arse and vote, so they have no one to blame but themselves.


(Steve Ronuken) #3

They can’t. And it’s got nothing to do with the election process, and everything to do with how they do development.

CCP don’t have a feature roadmap stretching out years in advance, in anything other than very very rough plans. Even a few months in advance can be pushing it (unless they’re big features like Refineries)


(Erebus 'TheChin' Sundance) #4

Just for the record, I am pro CSM. I don’t believe (the statistics would also suggest) that the large voting blocks, despite the democratic ugliness of their attempted manipulations, has anything other than a minor effect on the overall votes, and a lot less influence than we may fear over CCP’s plans.

From what I understand, a lot of the power is in high sec, they just don’t utilize it.

While I do understand and largely agree this relates mainly to development, I merely suggest it as it would be hugely advantages to CCP, the CSM and the voters.

I propose that a more relevant tailored CSM campaign would dynamically improve not only the relationship with the CSM and CCP, but also the voters and the CSM.

CCP need not release the entirety of any plans, an air of mystery is always required. Simply a rough area. Candidates with interests in these areas would be more forthcoming. Candidates with no interest in these areas would know in advance that their particular area of expertise while not irrelevant in the grand scheme, would perhaps be more suited to a different year. Areas of high contention would get more candidates applying leading to greater electoral choice and stronger campaigns.

From the CCP live Q&A last night, we know that high sec is getting looked at, plans for PVE and refineries etc… we will find out more in a few weeks. Is this because CSM members like yourself Steve, and Mike before you, have had through subtle or unsubtle means some influence in these areas?

Could that influence not be better directed if there was a common theme?

Or am I to understand that through our current system it’s essentially just a coincidence or luck that you ended up a in the CSM at a time High sec was under discussion?

…I do worry when I hear that CCP don’t have a rough sketch for years down the line, would it not be prudent at some point to get one?

I have at least 20 years left in me. Maybe 30 if I start behaving. I would hope for some fruition from the interwoven stories and concepts scattered throughout New Eden within this time.


(Linus Gorp) #5

The CSM has no influence on CCP’s plans if CCP doesn’t want them to. They’re advisers, not more, not less.
CCP can choose to ignore them whenever they feel like it, something they do all the time on controversial topics.


(The Judge) #6

CCP overall doesn’t ignore the CSM at all. However, a developer can ignore the advice and/or input of the CSM if they don’t see anything backing it up (which is part of the CSM’s job to prove there is an issue with a devs line of thinking).

“CCP can choose to ignore them whenever they feel like it, something they do all the time on controversial topics” This line of thinking is completely false and ironically the exact opposite. Controversial topics are typically the first ones we’re asked about. If it was a clear cut issue they wouldn’t need feedback to make a change.


(yellow parasol) #7

You need to be made aware that your post makes the csm look incompetent. it’s not meant as insult or to be offensive, but the csm are people who don’t necessarily have the necessary experience for the role you explain, especially because they’re being chosen based on popular votes, not actual competence for negotiations, reasoning and analysis.

you know, like people who actually know how to disect an idea and burn it with fire when necessary.

The reason why it makes you guys look incompetent, is because of all the incidences where CCP apparently did not listen to you and just went ahead anyway. the way you word it, makes it look like you guys were too incompetent at explaining and reasoning why certain features are a bad idea, or why they should be modified.

and that is very likely, actually.

Considering some of the horrible decisions CCP has made, with rather simple minded reasoning behind them, you can’t even blame anyone for thinking that the csm is nothing more than an attempt of controlling the vocal part of the players with democracy as effective and useful as it is in the real world: zero.

PS: this is not meant as attack. you’re not politicians. if you were, this post would have been three times as long, roasting you into tears. i don’t think you’re bad people and i think it’s great that you guys want to help the players and ccp, but it needs to be allowed to address some elephants.