Re-read the post you are replying too. This time without your Epeen derangement syndrome, and you’ll have the answer. It’s right there.
Mr Epeen 
2 Likes
Well what main other reason would you have for someone making an alt specifically to bash the CSM about how everything is wrong about the CSM?
Of course, it’s just speculation that this person made the alt to pretend to have a more popular opinion, it could just as well be that the alt was made because their main got banned from the forums. Or they are too shy to post on their main.
Question remains: why would someone make an alt just to bash on the CSM?
2 Likes
Well what reason do you have for completely ignoring this half of the post I quoted and was replying too?
EDS makes people do things that make them look disingenuous at best and total dicks at worst.
Mr Epeen
2 Likes
You were responding about alts, which clearly is the first part of the text you quoted.
I assumed you quoted too much. My mistake.
What is a temp?
Right, well, not new, not an alt, do not want to be on the CSM, nor have I ever run for it.
So, other than speculate on the above…
Don’t feel represented by the CSM.
Don’t think it is the best mechanism for directed, informed, feedback to the developers at this era of Eve.
And strongly disagree with the open letter’s being turned into an activism campaign by working with sympathetic gaming ‘journalist’ to try and put CCP under pressure to take the actions wanted by the CSM, and the interest I feel it does represent.
Also, there is zero wrong with selling fully fitted ships that have a cargo hold full of ‘Gold Ammo’ as well.
well with that opinion I can assure you that I do not represent you.
m
10 Likes
I don’t think the opinion held by the player outside a voting block has mattered to their lack of representation through the CSM for a while now though.
Mike is outside a voting bloc.
2 Likes
An interesting way of saying only one CSM member is not corrupt.
Mr Epeen
1 Like
Anyone who runs on a platform like this for CSM won’t get enough votes to survive to the third round.
Absolutely not. That’s in your imagination.
I would favour no CSM and more direct player voting on actual features/issues as I originally stated here Replacing the CSM with another model? - #29 by Emotional_Support_Clown
The only time the average gamer in Eve hears about the CSM is spam in local chat for votes, other than that, it’s a members only club never to be seen again (except when making the news).
Tow points I want to touch on.
-
WE sign NDAs so CCP can float an idea without releasing it to the general population. This would not work with your referendum model.
-
If you plug your ears and yell a lot you never hear from anyone. Several CSM stream on a regular basis. Two of us are regulars in these forums. So I ask you HOW would you expect the CSM to reach the ‘average gamer in Eve’?
m
12 Likes
I think that end of the day the CSM is only an advisory group … CCP will listen (or not) as it choses. I don’t think any proposed changes to the CSM will get around this fact.
1 Like
thats really all the players are too, advisory… hell if every eve player tried and got their way in EVE, it wouldn’t be EVE.
This is CCP’s game that they created after all. if they want to make changes to X Y Z they have that perogitive… If players A-E don’t like it but F-Z do, tough ■■■■ for A-E players.
If the ones who keep bitching about EVE saying its not the same game, go make your own ■■■■■■■ game then.
1 Like
In regard to the polemicist,
Nope, not going to, or ever will run for the CSM. Start focusing on what is actually said. Between this speculation, and the vitriol some of you have shared throughout this post, all it is doing is convincing me more than ever that the CSM isn’t representative, or advocacy. It is PvP by out of game political means, at best.
In regard to the apologist,
The Null Bear security blanket of the CSM, while running vast botting farms ‘Because we have to because every other part of Null Sec does’ does far, far more damage to the in game economy, and player retention. Asset security, the root of all evil to Eve’s purity from creep toward Pay to ‘Catch Up’, was long ago, but since it overwhelming, overwhelmingly, protected Null Bear assets to an absurd degree, that is a third rail to even discuss. The CSM line will always call back to skill point selling, which is a fallacy in this regard. Null Sec made, supported, and asked for this situation, and now as it gets less optimized to their first mover favor at an absurd degree, they are now against it as they see the other shoe readying to drop. Why, because 'Their Game; that is all that matters at the end of the day, and a major component to their political blocs that use the CSM as their direct lobby, not an advisory feedback body on the game, to CCP.
And, I think CCP is getting wise to it, finally. Hence why the CSM won’t get to put in their obvious, and self evident, feedback on monetization. Its like asking boot leggers how they feel about ending prohibition.
1 Like
Given your posts, I’m not entirely sure that you understand the CSM. And I truly don’t mean this as an insult.
Yes, the forums have a lot of people who dive to personal attacks far too quickly, but you’ve other ways of interacting with the CSMs. Eve Online is a game with not just one community, but many communities and each of the CSMs are active in a number of communities. I know you’re on both the Talking in Stations discord which has a number of active CSMs on it as well as the Roleplay is Primary Discord which is pretty much where I am the loudest. (I know I don’t have the fancy forum tag, but as you can verify, I am the glorious ascended loser of CSM 16.5). You’ve got a lot more ability to chat with more CSMs than you think.
So, in my personal experience, I think that more of the voters outside of blocs tend to multibox harder than those in blocs. Blocs definitely have their share of multiboxers, which is something you’ll find all over the game, but the fact of the matter is that adding more accounts is just a bigger boost of power for those who field fleets of 20-50 than it is for groups that fill up fleets and you’ll probably find that the average account size reflects that. Though I admit, there’s likely a lot of very casual high sec oriented players who work on a single account, I expect that they’re also often the type who doesn’t pay much attention to the elections. Changing it to per-player would not make Null blocs have fewer seats; it would mean they get either the same number or more, I expect. They get them because they’re not only larger, but better organized than the rest of us (which isn’t to bash us, it makes sense because they’re ‘blocs’ and we’re organized into smaller groups who won’t be agreeing about a lot of things). At the present moment, though, we’ve multiple non-bloc candidates on the CSM.
So this one basically comes down to representing the players. I concede that it’s entirely within the realm of possibility that Eve Online could change and become a dramatically different game and end up with more players. But neither myself nor the people who (eventually) elected me want a different game. We want the one that we love and we all either want to prevent it from losing the things that we love or fight for it to get back to a state in which we love it. However, one thing that’s almost a universally held opinion among Eve players (CSM or not) is that we do indeed want the game to have more new players and we want the new players not to be limited, but treated well and very importantly, not exploited.
It’s certainly not a perfect system, but do you have any proposals of what you’d want to replace or fix about it? The one idea I got from your post is that you don’t like how accounts are what votes, and I do truly think trying to change that would not change the things that you think it would.
Regards!
5 Likes
Cleaned
3 Likes