Statement of CSM 15 Regarding the Upcoming Nullsec Empire War

In preparation for what is widely believed to be the largest nullsec empire vs. empire war in the last 4 years, the members of CSM 15 have issued the following statement:

Recognizing that the CSM includes representatives from all three major nullsec coalitions as well as independent non-aligned members, and some of those members are senior level decision makers in those coalitions, the CSM met to discuss potential issues in the internal workings of the CSM as a result of this conflict.

All of the members of CSM 15 are concerned that the implementation of major game changes that could impact the outcome of the war during the upcoming period of hostilities could damage the
reputation of the CSM and its relationship with CCP. There already exists in the minds of many players the belief – a false one - that CSM members actively advocate in their own interests rather than the interests of the entire game.

In order to combat that perception, all of the members of CSM 15 have agreed to the following:

The CSM recommends to CCP that they carefully consider the effects of implementing any changes that could lead a reasonable, objective third party player to believe that CCP was attempting to make changes to the game to benefit one or more of the belligerents at the expense of the others. This does not mean, however, that they will recommend CCP stop work on potential game changes that could impact the war, simply that they carefully consider the effects of implementing any changes.

The CSM takes its duty to represent the players and to advocate for changes that benefit the entirety of New Eden seriously. The goal of this statement is to reassure players that the CSM will not actively use their influence inappropriately and they will do their best to provide CCP with the best advice and feedback they can in an impartial manner.

As always, final decisions about any changes to the game rest with CCP, and, at best, the CSM provides feedback, guidance and advice. We look forward to continuing our collaboration with the developers, even while we’re actively blowing each other up in the game.

m

8 Likes

D’awwwww boilerplate hot air :balloon:. (Not directed at Mike, just the statement itself.)

4 Likes

How stupid do you guys think we are?

Nobody cares about the fake nullsec “war”

6 Likes

Go easy on him. He was coerced into saying that by the nullbloc CSMers :yarn::thread::scissors::dolls:. He secretly publishes an underground Zine distributed only via Xeroxed copies on how to fight the power. Bring down TTT! Bring down TTT! Also, he’s the lead singer of Rage Against the Machines #doxxed (???)

2 Likes

It’s amazing how many people rush here to be the first to scream “nobody cares.”

This statement, which was approved by the entire CSM, is designed simply to make it clear that we know that with this big war coming up, everybody is going to be on edge that major game changes could be implemented that could mess with it - it has happened before, in 2016 as well as last year. We wanted to reiterate that we have told CCP to be aware of that and be careful in deciding what to implement if it could reasonably be viewed as beneficial to one party over the other.

2 Likes

What an awful, self serving statement.

Change the roadmap to serve the interests of conflicted CSM members.

This post confirms this belief. The CSM are in it for themselves.

CSM members with a conflict of interest should step down. Not give us empty weasel words and try to dissuade the development of features that might affect their war.

Disgusting.

2 Likes

I am unsure how it can be self serving to drag something out into the open and say that we (the CSM) DON"T want to metagame the hell out of a war. There are members of the CSM on both sides of the conflict (if it happens) as well as a precious few of us who are neutral or not directly involved.

Me? I want you to call us on ■■■■■■■■ and metagaming and yes I do want CCP to continue to develop things in the months ahead

THIS is, for me the key statement to that effect. Make sure that the changes do not suddenly swing the war to one side or end it prematurely. I count on the player population to be watching (and maybe participating) and the ‘boilerplate’ above? That is us saying WE are watching as well. If and when changes come? Well let us know whether they are good or bad or Red Dots. I’ll still be here, listening.

m

4 Likes

I just think the statement was unnecessary. Good politicians are supposed to be objective and impartial forever and always - why make a statement to that effect? To be extra objective/impartial now as opposed to other times? It’s kind of silly, hence the teasing.

I’d be more impressed with community engagement of ideas in which such disclosures are made and openly addressed relative to those so specific ideas. “Okay, so this proposal has some merits. Full disclosure: it could have this impact on the war due to XXX leveraging it heavily in YYY fashion in ZZZ situations, but the change would be healthy overall for all players, and even those using the mechanics in the war should be able to adapt with CCP announcing changes in advance”

Of course, only two CSMers regularly engage with the community (as a whole, not blocs within which they reside), so the fluff message (many words, no real significance) has less of an impact with 80% of the signatures being fluffier than the message itself.

Nullsec is dumb. The “big war” is fake. It is important for us to post that we don’t care because the CSM works really hard to convince CCP that nullsec is the only thing that matters. Delete all of sovereign null for all I care. Or squabble a bit with your endless titan armadas. Whatever.

3 Likes

Their not dumb, they just have whales to insure their existence.

CCP must have put pressure on them to put on a show for better reviews.

Good point, I never quite thought of it that way, close, but never put it that way.

For all it’s fluffiness, I suppose they felt they had to say something “Just in case”.

Every major war there has been accusations that the CSM was trying to metagame CCP to make game changes to benefit one side or the other. There have been multiple situations where changes have been made that have had an impact on wars - the drifter issue being the most obvious one recently - and I can tell you that there are a lot of folks who are gearing up right now to fight who are worried about when/if the rug is going to get pulled out from under them.

That’s why the statement was necessary - to make it clear that we’re aware of those concerns and we’ve passed those on to the Devs.

3 Likes

On this point, you have a very valid concern.

The CSM official statement attempts to deflect us from the main issue - the problem is not that CCP is biased toward one null mob or the other null mob. The problem is that there is a bias towards null and away from the three (four?) other parts of the game.

I have been pondering the Triglavian events and I wonder if they will eventually be able to put nullsec in its proper perspective. Imagine all that developer time that has been spent on something that doesn’t have anything to do with null.

The emphasis is important.

I prefer the transparancy shown by this thread and I trust that any changes that may unduly influence one side or the other(s) will not go unnoticed. Just keep things out in the open as much as possible.

Can you guys put any of the issues that are raised by CSM members into your CSM weekly updates?
Thanks.

1 Like

This is an open letter to CCP, not really directed at the playerbase. I don’t think the CSM is trying to be transparent - this is some kind of half-hearted threat directed at CCP: “Leave null alone, or else!”

Or else what though? The whales quit? That seems to be all they might care about?

Disagree. The concern noted is the affect any changes may have on the reputation of the CSM at a time of war. I think this is definitely the playerbase and public, who may have seen things in the past that were not transparent. I like this new approach to represent ALL groups rather than a few (or one). Even if some see it as self-serving, I still welcome the transparancy.

1 Like

It worked when they wanted CCP to end the blackout.

We all knew CCP was going to cave on that one. I’m curious to see how this pans out.

This is probably their response to the ESS announcement on Twitch whatever that was.