Thanks!
2 Likes
Thanks Obama.
â â â â CSM, waste of time.
4/10 are goons, all but one are nullsec players. You call that representative group? You just get more biased CSM than ever. How can we cooperate with âourâ representatives knowing they will put null and their alliances in the first place?
9 Likes
Guy having a Forum alt wants to tell us that he didnât exercise his voting power before.
I call bs.
I think Guard wasnât asking for proof of racism, but of the CSM being some kind of âRMT cartelâ like another poster suggested.
And that canât be right. CCP loses money due to RMT and if there was any kind of RMT connected to CSM members, it would far more likely be a behind-the-curtain business deal between CCP and the leaders of a large Bloc and thus would not constitute RMT.
The other thing, yeah, it seems not all candidates are held to the same standard. I guess at the bottom of it, it is a topic that CCP wants to avoid as much as possible, since everywhere you have a small, but very vocal minority, who will flame as hard as they can once anyone seriously tries to shut down hate speech. The only solution is to swiftly exclude such individuals and CCP being a business might prefer to stay vague enough and keep those customers. If EVE would attract more young people this might change.
@CCP_Guard I have two questions regarding the CSM election process.
-
What is CCPs stand on buying votes with ISK? Is it RMT if a player pays with in-game currency to get a community-paid trip to Iceland?
-
Can we have some kind of in-game Event for the next CSM elections to ensure higher participation of non-aligned players?
2 Likes
Tend to agree with this post! Goons and friends make up a third of the player base. So sad to see them as at least half of the CSM.
I think the rules should be changed to only include a maximum of 1 person per alliance group on the CSM.
1 Like
I havenât looked into that specifically but instinctively I wouldnât guess that happens a lot. Would be pretty hard if not impossible to correlate that data since weâd have to store the data for what the random order presented was for each voter and I find it unlikely we do.
Youâre right though, using all your votes is powerful in the STV system. People may have strategic reasons for not using them all but anyone voting for popular candidates should make sure they put more people after them to make sure their vote has effect.
Now youâre bordering on slander, my friend. Youâre saying I have motives which I donât have and while you are free to your opinion, you canât just make up your own reality and accuse people of actions that fit your view. No skin of my back but there are rules here and this isnât civil discourse once you start accusing everyone of things you cannot possibly know because they arenât true.
I repeat, if you have evidence to back up any wrongdoing by CSM members, please send it to me and it will be treated with full confidence and investigated seriously.
3 Likes
Sorry, no bs on this oneâŚand are you sure I am a guy?
Good post. I would also add something that people donât necessarily know, and that is that we donât automatically tell the CSM every detail all the time. Itâs a need-to-know relationship and in cases where thereâs limited value in sharing very detailed information such as mineral ratios or resource distribution details, we hold those back and focus on what people need to know in order to discuss each issue in an informed manner and provide good feedback. Of course thereâs a lot of trust involved but some people may think being on the CSM is an all you can eat self-service buffet of dank secrets and itâs not 
Hey. Thatâs a common suggestion that comes up but personally I donât see it working well. Iâve thought about it a lot and always come back to it being hard to manage, easy to game. I think it would turn into an endless argument about whether people actually fit a criteria or not.
I think voters should decide what criteria they want and vote accordingly.
- There are no current rules against buying votes. Itâs definitely something we could look at changing but I donât have a strong opinion on it currently. As it stands itâs not a strong tool to get a seat compared to being on alliance ballots for example, and it can also backfire by driving away potential votes who dislike the practice. But like I said, itâs not set in stone the way it currently works.
One thing Iâd like to object is that the CSM summit is a âcommunity-paid tripâ to Iceland. Sure, you guys pay the billsâŚno dispute there :). But breaking it down like that is a little iffy because ultimately CCP as a business allocates itâs budget in a way that makes sense and CSM summits are definitely a worthwhile cost for CCP as a company. For CSM members itâs also more than a free trip. Itâs 4x9 hour days of straight meetings with travel on each end. Lately weâve started granting people an extra day on the Friday to breathe a bit before the flight home because the pace is pretty gruelling.
Appreciate the point though.
- Iâd love to do something like that. By then weâll have a new improved website for the voting and my dream is always to get it in the game or in the launcher. Weâll see what we can get
4 Likes
Post #9 
The launcher knows all of our accounts, potentially saving a ton of player effort, or also potentially - helping you move toward one player, one vote.
Thatâs the thing - you donât know that.
I certainly donât intend to put null and my alliances before my responsibility to the community. I didnât run to be an INIT/nullsec rep on the CSM. I ran to represent the average player on the CSM, because thatâs what I am.
Thatâs what you should expect from everybody you elected - they represent all the players, not just their alliances or corporations or even play styles.
My door will always be open to anybody who wants to have a constructive conversation about EVE and has issues or concerns they want to communicate.
Whether you like it or not, the CSM still exists. Until a time where it doesnât, âboycottingâ the CSM vote will only continue to put the people you presumably donât want to see in the seats that are available. Querns of GSF had said on Reddit once that their strength doesnât come from the collective voting numbers GSF/Imperium can rally to the polls, but the vast degree of opposing players who just canât be bothered to get involved to voice any other view or opposition.
âBoycottingâ the CSM only removes your vote from the election process. Encouraging others to do the same only exacerbates the effect. If nothing else, look at it this way: if your opponent is collecting 3 out of 10 votes, reducing voter count is just going to make that 3/9. Pushing it further, you get 3/8⌠3/7⌠3/6. If seeing 5 seats go to The Imperium is not palatable to you, encouraging their opposition to not vote may well only result in 6 seats next year. Perhaps even 7 the year after that.
Boycotting will not solve any of the problems that you perceive in the CSM. Encouraging others to dis-involve themselves from the process of communication between players and CCP will not address those problems, either. Rather than taking your vote and walking away, encourage the playerbase to become actively involved. Rally your community and those around you to voice your ideas and propose changes to the system. Do you want Alliance/Coalition limits? Term limits to individual members? A waiting period before any serving member can be re-elected? If so, propose it, make it known, advertise it! Get that info to the CSM, vote for people who you are confident will bring those desires and concerns to CCP. If you donât trust anyone to do that, run for CSM yourself.
Taking your toys and leaving the sandbox doesnât make the sandbox go away. All you do is leave it for the others to keep playing in without you.
1 Like
You sound like RL politician.
1 Like
Boycotting CSM isnât going to solve anything other than allow the misrepresented to still be misrepresented. Honestly though given that the CSM has been reduced in overall size, I believe some further reform is needed. CCP can begin by placing a limit of 1 candidate per alliance. When the candidate goes through the process of getting on the ballot, they must declare what alliance they are affiliated with, not the character they are, just the alliance. If they are truly not affiliated with any alliance, the voters will be able to recognize that. If at anytime they reveal their affiliation and it matches that of another candidate, said candidate would then be disqualified from running further.
Is that a perfect solution? NoâŚbut it is a start to help spread out the limited number of positions. If you have say 4-5 candidates wanting to run for CSM under the banner of an alliance, then those guys need to hold their own internal elimination process to choose only one person to run. I think under these guidelines you will see a higher voter turnout as well as more confidence in the CSM and its selection process. It may seem unfair to not let the player base âchooseâ its own candidates and members, but when you have a large block of loyal players backing nearly half the CSM to vote for, it discourages participation by other candidates of lessâŚpedigree so to speak, and provides an environment where you have essentially a political party going on vs everyone else and everyone else keeps having low turn outs from accepting the fact that it wonât matter because of all the candidates running for that one âpartyâ
Restricting an allianceâs representation within the CSM to 1 member wonât solve that, but it will alleviate it some allowing for more variety and diversity in the CSM which ultimately can only be good. My opinion of course, but it sure beats the hell out of continuing to boycott and seeing lower and lower voter turn out each year.
1 Like
Thereâs a reason for that.
1 Like