You are trolling as a seated CSM.
This has no bearing as a conversation.
I didnât ask about the CSM. I asked about teleconferencing vs direct, prolonged face-to-face interaction. The sort of thing that happens in every industry. It doesnât take more than a quick google search to demonstrate that there are pros and cons to both meeting types, that the optimal model is a combination of both.
Even companies whose business model directly relies on telepresence understand that physical meetings have benefits you simply canât duplicate online, and are generally better for brainstorming, or whiteboard presentations. This would imply that the optimal model for the CSM is, well, pretty close to the schedule we have right now: most of the CSMâs work is done via telepresence, but there are two extended âSummitsâ where they all go to Iceland to participate in direct, face-to-face communication, where the CSMs and the developers can immediately read one anotherâs body language, tension levels, etc, in ways that arenât really possible even with a webcam.
As for what other MMO developers do⌠Why is following the herd considered a good thing?
You say the CSM hasnât been effective. The truth is: we donât know what the CSM has stopped. NDAs prevent them from telling us anything on the order of âCCP wanted to make everyoneâs ships turn into hot dogs, but we suggested that might be a completely idiotic idea and they shouldnât let CCP Dillweed come up with Agency Events like that while heâs tripping balls on pee-sharkâ.
As for whether or not you are defending a dissertation here, no, you are not. A dissertation represents a large chunk of the authorâs time and effort. Instead, youâre asking to represent us. That means you want to be one of the people protecting our time and effort.
Which is to say Iâd care far less about a dissertation defense than I do a CSM candidate.
And no, you have not come up with evidence and facts to back up your claims. You have come up with assertions, made without support evidence. Whether or not they are true doesnât make them evidence, and some of them are definitely not true. For exampe, you assert:
This isnât really true, as it hinges on being a blanket, uniform statement. Tele-conferencing is preferred for some purposes. For others, face-to-face meetings are definitely preferred. Tele-conferencing is cheaper, and easier to schedule, with less disruption of the time around the meeting, but face-to-face meetings are still preferred, for many of the reasons I linked above. This is true both in industry and in politics.
Personally, this strikes me as evasive (as do most of your answers to this particular line of discussion), and dismissive of the concerns of the very people you claim to want to represent.
Many players are wrong.
This doesnât mean youâll be allowed to run. It only means that the content of the thread wasnât appropriate for the original location.
Very few CSM last for more than 2 terms, as itâs not exactly an easy thing to put up with. Additionally, only one CSM per Corp/Alliance is a hollow, toothless idea. Itâs obvious who you aim that idea at, but letâs take a moment and look at the actual CSM landscape right now.
Right now, there are 10 CSM. Of them, 7/6 are not in the same Corp/Alliance. 4 are members of the same Alliance, and 3 of those, in fact, the same Corporation. If your plan to limit that Corp/Alliance to 1 member were active⌠they could just move.
For the moment, letâs set aside movement during a term, and just look at the easy case. Youâre pretty clearly aiming this bit at the Imperium, and Goonswarm, but if we look at the Alliances in the Imperium, LAWN, Bastion, and TNT have no CSM members. So itâd be childâs play to move 3 people into different Alliances to evade your hollow, ineffectual limitation.
Please note that that was Alliances, not Corps. If we were just shuffling people between of corps, CONDI has enough corps to make that a no-brainer. Judge could go to Amok., Innominate stay where he is, and Aryth could be shuffled into ASCEE cuz thatâd be hilarious and cruel (to both him and ASCEE).
But thatâs just moving them before theyâre elected. At least one CSM member has changed Alliance twice this term. (Do you know which one? It was kinda publicized if you were paying attention.) Three of the current CSM changed their Alliance during the course of the previous term (including one of the ones now in the same Corporation as 2 others), while two of them were on the CSM.
At no point do the functions and terms of CSM membership imply that a candidate is pledging to represent their Corp/Alliance to CCP. With that in mind, how would you propose keeping such a move from happening? Do you plan to insist that players not be allowed to change Corporation while theyâre on the CSM? Is that even remotely sane? If a CSM memberâs corporation failscades during their term, they end up locked into a 5-man corp that canât do anything because the CEO and 3 other players all quit?
What if they got kicked out? Can the corp CEO not kick someone out of corp because theyâre on the CSM?
6 are (now) members of the same Coalition, a distinction that has absolutely no official imprimateur from CCP. There is no in-game support for Coalitions. There is no forum designation of coalitions. CCPâs developers are not expected to track Coalition membership. Without that, thereâs no way to really police âwhich Coalition are you in?â This is especially true when you consider that each prospective CSM member designates which of their accounts and alts they wish to identify with.
The nullsec spy game depends, to large extent, on being able to operate without having your alts identified, including by hostile spies. Spies often use VPNs and other smokescreens to disguise their IP addresses and other tell-tale indicators of linked accounts. The organizations that use these spies are well aware of these methods, and train their spies in their use. It would be childâs play to train their CSMs in such things as well (assuming the CSM in question isnât already familiar with them). CCPâs stance on doxxing prevents them from revealing a playerâs alts, which would make it difficult for them to say âOh, no, Salvos canât actually serve even though you voted him in, he has an alt in CONDIâ.
And that doesnât even get into the plan we openly acknowledged weâd use when CCP was talking about limiting Alliance sizes: âGoonswarm 1â, âGoonswarm 2â, âGoonswarm 3ââŚ
So⌠how do you propose enforcing this idea in a way that has any actual effect? Donât get me wrong, I understand that your intent here is to ensure that more of the community is directly represented. However, this idea seems completely inept at achieving that goal, so Iâm curious as to how youâd address the inadequacies with it.
Frankly, the way to get more of the community more equally represented is to get them to vote, in an organized manner. If you donât vote, you get what those of us who do decide youâll get.
6 Likes
Sure it does.
How do we know that you actually play the game? Thereâs no evidence I can find that you login. Your zkillboard has a total of 0 kills, and 4 losses, the most recent of which was 2015. Even casual players tend to lose ships more often than an average of 1 per year.
As a potential voter - and since you have used absence of evidence as evidence of absence throughout this thread - Iâm asking you to tell us how often you log in and how we can verify this is true.
How can I, as a potential voter, in good conscience vote for someone - even if I agree with their platform - if I am concerned they donât actually play the game?
2 Likes
But I am.
29k.
2 Likes
How often I log in on this account, character, or any other is none of your business, especially as asked by you as a seated CSM.
Keep the trolling going at your own jeapordy.
Your posts will only reinforce the pre-existing views of my supporters/voters that the CSM does not represent them and is politically influenced.
Is this your only response to that entire post, or will you address the actual points raised in it?
1 Like
You are putting yourself out in the community as a candidate for office. Thus, how often you log in is my business, as a potential voter. This is what happens when you run for office - things that you otherwise could keep private become topics of discussion.
Repeatedly referring to someoneâs questioning of the OP as trolling does not make it trolling. Youâre a candidate for office, and I am trying to ask questions that I feel are important for me in making up my mind about who to vote for on CSM 14.
5 Likes
Yes.
And it addresses it all as the only relevant issue and response to it.
I question the form/function/existence of the CSM program.
If you have further questions about that, ask the seated CSMs via contact with them.
So you have no response to having one of your anchor positions demonstrated to be non-viable and ineffective?
You have no response to having the assertions you claim are âfactsâ demonstrated, with evidence, to be incorrect?
I think that tells anyone reading this thread all they need to know.
Considering âthatâ is you questioning the form/function/existence of the CSM program, I fail to see why anyone should be contacting the current, seated CSMs to ask them about your positions.
1 Like
Itâs not just him, remember. Another 90 people agreed with him in the polling that was done. Heâs almost got enough for a small-time WH corp worth of players who support disbanding the CSM.
3 Likes
I dont need, or want, the votes of the trolls here and existing âCSM buddyâ voters.
My voters/supporters are those that dont believe the CSM system represents them.
Those are the voters I will represent.
I know this is difficult for you to grasp, but thats what is going to happen.
So far 3 existing CSM have attempted to troll my campaign.
Wait till my supporters hear that, whom do not trust, do not agree with and will not vote for this kind of system.
I have seen no evidence of any CSM members trolling this thread.
3 Likes
Tsk. Donât stoop, Brisc. Thereâs a lot more people than that poll who wouldnât mind seeing the CSM abolished or radically restructured, including members of other under-represented segments of the playerbase. Many of those people have better ideas for assuring broader representation than this guyâs, though. Additionally, most of them openly acknowledge that part of the reason the system is so broken is because democratic representation inherently favors more organized blocs of voters. They can speak with a unified voice. Disorganized voters tend to wind up scattering a greater number of votes between multiple candidates, ensuring none of them win.
1 Like
My voters/supporters wont agree with that, when I compile your posts here to them as proof they should vote for me to stop this in EVE.
1 Like
âYourâ voters are those you can convince to vote for you, as opposed to voting for any one of a number of other protest votes. If you think youâll be the only one clamoring to get onto the ballot on the âgrrr CSM, hat CSMâ platform, youâre a fool. You need to be able to demonstrate that your intended policies are viable, in order to convince people to choose you over someone else whoâs just better at politicking than you are. Because buddy, you ainât too hot at it.
2 Likes
My point wasnât that there were arenât more players who could potentially agree with that position. I agree with you that itâs likely there are more. My point was more about the fact that he continues to rely on an unscientific, self-selected poll of fewer than 150 accounts as demonstrative of significant support for this contention in the player base.
To stop what?
1 Like