Replacing the CSM with another model?

Looking at recent events, how the CSM has shaken out as a player advocacy body, and the original intended purpose of the process for giving perspective to game development, and the past issues it was born more or less out of, I don’t think it is a viable mechanism continuing forward. I actually see it becoming a greater detriment to meeting the original challenges it was hoped to address.

1, It represents the margins of Eve Online’s player base to near no level. Eve is a game a various play style, and pursuits. The CSM focus will continue to be hyper focused on narrower areas, that ultimately hurt the game’s potential to grow and bring in new players.

2, The primary official method of correspondence and interaction with it is ineffective with the amount of ad hominem and vitriol allowed to be fostered within it. The ideas are far too often not what is discussed in the Assembly Hall forum, but the person proposing them. Many of the most hostile and blatant perpetrators of this are player political bloc members with representation within the CSM wishing to control the discourse. It’s become far more a critical front on the sov front, than a player advocacy and advisory mechanism for CSM.

3, It is a meaningless democratic process, as it is per account, not per player. Thus, again ensuring it will only ever represent player political blocs who engaging in account milling to ensure their interest like a Tammany Hall political machine.

4, Its, full stop, not working to better the game. Eve as a game did not make money in the last quarter. The IP, and how that was licensed and marketed did. By every indirect metric, and the general consensus, game population is in a concerning decline. Yet the loudest voices on this, some in the CSM, claim it is the game not being allowed to STAY mostly the same causing it to be so despite the stagnations within it that limit new player progression paths. Eve is twenty years on now but stuck with the inertia of purity concepts for how the game should be, game play wise and monetization wise. People, careers, larger industries about it have changed, drastically in its time. A mechanism like the CSM is not the best solution for shedding that now harmful inertia.


We should replace the CSM with me.


One. Perhaps your criticisms would hold more weight if you had ever participated in a CSM campaign.

Two. Partisan politics are divisive. Please show me a better system.

Three. I would kindly ask you not to undermine the few guardians we have.

Four. In may ways the original design documents are “the constitution” of the game. Acting beyond its scope could very well void everything that has been achieved by everyone who has participated. There needs to be a solid immutable foundation. You describe an abomination.


The only way to win is not to play. The CSM served its purpose and has been obsolete for years.

Time to put it to bed.

Mr Epeen :sunglasses:


1, Your first point more so points to an elitism, than any sort of rebuttal attempt.

2, Partisan politics, yes. It is for an advisory and advocacy body to game development. This point actually demonstrates how it has moved from that purpose.

3, I am an adult, I vote with my wallet, and my feet, I don’t need a ‘guardian’ in this case. As do many others not.

4, This isn’t the founding of a republic. And no, no there does not, most definitely does not need to be an ’ immutable foundation’, as Eve Online is a business in a competitive market space with tight margins. It needs to experiment with monetization models, and it can’t afford to be self-sabotaged by player interest political blocs in it trying to damage its new player appeal in the game press, which is what was recently carried out with this open letter.


I’d be in favor of replacing the CSM with a juicy ham.


… Can’t enjoy ham.

But, not opposed to the suggestion either.

I agree, I only want the best to represent me.

You fundamentally misunderstand the function of the CSM. I do not have the inclination to educate you.

Idiot. They are not guarding you. They are maintaining integrity to the best of their ability.

Please regal me with the details of how CCP is not in the social engineering game.
You think CCP gets its funding from the players? Wake up.

This rotten plutocratic space democracy has to go!
Gank Jita4-4!
Destroy all the Tradehubs!
Redistribute the assets that the bourgeoisie of the null-blocks have horded!
Ban every RMTler and redistribute his assets!
The proletariat of the cluster should control how New Enden and its axis of power work!

All jokes aside, the CSM is alright. CCP should talk more to its playerbase.


I’ve met enough EvE players to understand why CCP wants nothing to do with them.


Yeah, I bet you just looked in the mirror, you griefer.

I propose that player with most active account in a specified field will be chosen by CCP as expert and everything will be consulted with him. He would also have the deciding and final word in that field.

The field branches would include, PvE, Industry and PvP, and more. Even roleplaying and art could be included, because there are players who do fantastic fanart and work on SKINs of their own design like CPPC.


The CSM is the unhappy recipient of at least two poison chalices; on the one hand, it cannot be called representative of the playerbase when voter apathy is such a persistent feature of every election.

The plucky individuals who do ascend to its ranks face the second toxic offering - the Non-Disclosure Agreement.

Open democracy and the business environment have never been especially close bedfellows. For the CSM Members, not being able to report back to their electorate in a timely manner, and in some detail, must be frustrating and disheartening.

The argument for keeping the CSM, in its current form is, usually, ‘Well, it’s better than nothing’. Not a ringing endorsement.

From the point of view of CCP, the presence of intelligent and informed players of EVE who, between them, may have amassed a great deal of information about the game, should be helpful.

But is the CSM the entity to help them in their plans for EVE? Currently, I don’t believe it is - and that is not to demean the players who make up the Council. It is simply hamstrung, through no fault of those players.

CCP struggles to anticipate problems which are clear to some of us, and apparently fails to accord them sufficient attention when Council Members do bring them up. They don’t seem to have a Devil’s Advocate on the payroll.

It’s CCP’s game. Let them make the play. We can still put forward our suggestions in the appropriate sub-forum, and have them mulled over by fellow players and CCP staffers.

If we’re landed with a surprise - pleasant or otherwise - we surely have the means to let our views be known.

There’s nothing stopping CCP asking general advice from any player, without divulging commercially sensitive information. But if the company wants proper scrutiny of its initiatives, then it should employ suitable staff, and pay them.


I think you may have confused the actual purpose of the CSM with the stated purpose.

I believe the CSM was created by CCP at a time of critical negative perception by the playerbase, in which CCP was trying to do something very visible to show they were indeed “hearing from and listening to the playerbase and being influenced by the players’ needs”.

They wanted something fast, visible, and cost-effective. They wanted it targeted at the audience they cared about, that being the groups that signed up the most subs and paid the most cash. So they came up with a voting system that makes the players themselves do all the work, skews the voting towards null-sec power blocs, and requires comparatively little participation and cost on CCP’s part.

CCP got exactly what they wanted. The groups that pay the most cash got to feel they have more input into the game. CCP benefits from deflecting some of the criticism they’ve earned onto the CSM. The rest of the playerbase has some notion that CCP is “listening”.

If you thought CCP actually wanted a representative body, fairly chosen, of people who really know the parts of the game that need fixing and could advise them on it, then you’re thinking of some other game developer. One that actually gave a damn.

(Note: this is not intended to detract from the work put in by all the CSM’s over the years. For good or ill they’ve put in a lot of time and effort overall in order to try to make the game “better” in some fashion.)



1 Like

Scallops wrapped in bacon! :heart_eyes: The trick is to raise the temp for the last 10 min to make the bacon crisp!

I like the CSM because they beat their heads against the wall more than the rest of us. Well, at least some of them at least.

1 Like

Can @Mike_Azariah at least stay? Maybe he would like to have some juicy ham from time to time.

1 Like

My wife does a marmalade glaze on ham that is very very nice.

sometimes I think the CSM echoes a very old comment on democrazy in general.

democracy is the worst form of government – except for all the others that have been tried - W. Churchill

the comment on the poison chalices is fairly on point.

(gotta love Danny Kaye)

Given the NDA parameters I would be interested in what model you would propose. Remember the ‘best man or woman’ for the job might not want it. They are busy playing the game they signed up for.

It takes a special kind of crazy to be CSM, look to past members and the number of people who had their day in the sun but have since . . . vanished.

I readily admit to being that special kind of crazy (and liking ham)



The corollary of that also applies. Both for the CSM and the ISD. The person who wants the job is the person least suited to have it.

This is a general comment. You know I love you :kissing_heart:

Mr Epeen :sunglasses:


Why don’t you apply?

This, I would love hear! :sunglasses: