Yes but to represent the solo and small gang pvper’s one needs to understand it, yes indi guys are important and you have 3 of them in the CSM if I’m not mistaken. I guess we have 3 as well so I’ll stop complaining.
1 Like
Oh right yeah haha i see.
CSM isn’t for representing specific areas, it’s representing people. You don’t need areas represented by geography in the game, in my opinion. You need people who play the game representing people who play the game.
3 Likes
If it isn’t about specific areas then why such a big focus on specific areas? I agree with people who play the gam representing people who play the game, but it has literally been about what each candidate can bring to specific areas of the game.
So what could be wrong with criteria for people to apply for csm roles specifically for areas of the game?
Isn’t looking at specific areas where it all goes wrong? Focussing so hard on 1 thing that they are blind to the knock on effects to other areas.
That in my head is the CSM’s job. CCP come to the CSM with proposals and the CSM say…….did you think about this? Did you think about this? How does x work now that y has been changed?
Based on that a “jack of all trades master of none” that can think things through critically will be far more effective as a a member of the CSM than an expert in one specific area.
Otherwise we are just doomed to the cycle of 1 thing being changed/fixed and f*cking up 10 other things because the blinkers were on.
2 Likes
All specialists will be jack of all trades by default to a degree, just because of the amount of time they have put into the game, being jack of all trades master of none is a problem thou becuase the CSM needs top end knowledge to be able to counter CCP’s arguement on the spot without having to google info, Timing is huge especially when it’s needed to stop a thought from cementing inside the dev’s mind.
Also its much harder to speak to a specialist outside of the CSM becuase of NDA.
If NDA was not important and CCP put their idea’s out for a long period of time for discussion then yes I could agree with you, that the best nogotiators, listeners and jack of all trades would make the best csm but that is not the case.
So seen as the CSM is a job, slots could be alloacted based on main focus. That way the CSM has a fairly even mix of each main thing and are more committed to that area of the game and gameplay. Still the same structure, but candidates would go for either Null, FW, HS, LS, WH or indy as their main focus. 2 slots for each area of the game…ish.
Like roles really.
I personally think the csm lineup is great, but at the same time looking at everything each candidate wants to acheive, it’s kind of a all over the place. I think roles would clean that up and also with that, other ideas players have can be given to the person who deals with that area, just like a job, because it is a job.
In case you didn’t take my meaning from the post you replied to I think that CSM in roles would be a death sentence for this game.
Eve is a big complex echo system and should always be looked at as a whole and not through the sum of its parts.
Simplifying it to “roles” as you suggest in my opinion is like covering yourself in petrol and lighting a match because you were feeling cold. Sure you wont be cold anymore buy by golly are you going to regret it 
4 Likes
It’s a big complex thing but let’s ignore that and look at it as a whole? That doesn’t make sense but you’re entitled to your opinion as am i 
Right now the csm is whoever running for whatever to say whatever. That’s too simple. Roles add some structure and potentially balance the workload for candidates.
But yeah whatever
No right now the CSM is a collection of players CHOSEN BY THE PLAYERS to represent the players based on the players opinions on how well they can do that.
What you are proposing would severely limit the players choice as some potential candidates would not fit neatly into the boxes you are making for them.
1 Like
It would add structure and merit with people dedicated to certain areas. Right now it’s just whatever and we elect them.
It is impossible to be fair in all ways. Often times, I think people define a process as ‘fair’ only if it gets the results they want. The people on the CSM aren’t the people I want, so the CSM is not fair. Very rarely have I heard ‘These results favor me too much, so the system is unfair’, though I have heard it.
Even if you were to try to mete out slots on the CSM by focus, you would have to have some system whereby you could even classify people as being in one particular boat and a lot of people don’t fit into any neat category. What do you do? Prevent them from having an opinion on things outside their pigeonhole?
The CSM is about as close to fair as you’re going to get. CCP is otherwise in total control of who gets to sit in their office with the CSM being the sole exception. Putting byzantine rules in place to segregate the seats by class just hands a portion of the power CCP gave up back to them. Who else could choose who belongs into what bucket?
Highsec, Small Gangs, or whatever, need a face and an agenda. I mean a real agenda that is achievable on the CSM. Anyone can use the words ‘good’ or ‘better’ and the like to sound good on a soap box, but it’s a lot harder to define what is good or what is better into something that is actionable. I don’t see many highsec folks who have actionable descriptions of what they want, other than to say they want more of whatever their revenue stream consists of without having thought about anything greater than themselves.
Mike isn’t my favorite fella, but he’s honest and consistent. You can be pretty sure of what you’re getting and what he stands for outside of vague terms like ‘good’. Also, with the deck stacked the way it is, people have to stop waiting until the last second to campaign. The election for the next CSM has already begun, and now’s the time to plan your campaign and rally your troops.
Change starts with you, the person griping about how things are. The time to campaign or to support the candidate you want elected is now, not at some future date when CCP announces the election we all know they’re going to have. If you want to play democratic PvP and get seats, you’ve got to up your game. Your votes are all you need. There’s supposedly enough people interested in change that the power to create that change is out there if people are serious enough to wield that power. Lazy folk who sit around for something else to happen aren’t going to cut it.
1 Like
What is the benefit of that structure exactly?
At what point does expertise cross into bias?
What use is a CSM that is focused on mini agendas for niche focuses within the game with no regard for how their area of focus influences other areas?
The CSM is and will be most effective as a focussed entity with the good of the game as a whole in mind. Reducing it into a whole host of mini agendas will result in internal squabbling and impotence.
If people think the CSM don’t speak for them now then my god are they going to be unhappy when the faction warfare guy is arguing with the low sec guy and CCP ignores them both because they can’t agree. And yes that will be far worse than it is now because as the faction warfare guy all the faction warfare people are going to think he is accountable to them. Therefore there will be a pressure for that CSM member to put fw interests ahead of the overall health of the game.
At the moment that doesn’t exist in the same way. Sure null blocks have their agendas but there is a general consensus that the overall health of the game is more important than short term gain.
Splitting our roles is changing to a system that will encourage rivalries between different parts of the player base given that changes that benefit sone will be to the detriment of others.
This whole roles thing is short sighted. It’s divisive, it’s blinkered, it’s unproductive and it’s bad for the game, the players and future candidates.
I can’t see a single good thing that would come from it.
2 Likes
I hope the csm this time round really show ccp they are together in agreement on things otherwise it’s just a load of fragmented hot air that will be ignored again.
Im on about workload and attention. If people have defined roles, they can balance and manage work load better. Things would be more concise as well.
We’ll agree to disagree.
In other words looking at a single aspect of this without considering other areas and seeing the problems.
A perfect illustration of the problem
No i want every aspect covered.
We’ll agree to disagree…
Except a room full of jack of all trade’s masters of none would not see a single aspect or others they would just see a big blur. They have to rely on each others knowledge and trust that it is accurate.
Until CCP devs are honest and intelligent enough to rethink their plans for gameplay when problems and concerns are pointed out by the CSM, it really doesn’t matter what area of EVE a CSM member is biased toward, only that they are knowledgable and willing not to drink the Icelandic Koolade. We cannot blame the entire CSM when a CCP dev comes up with bad ideas and only needs one CSM member to show approval, despite a majority of disagreement from the rest, to continue heading the wrong direction. One only needs to read the minutes from past summits and transcripts from AMAs from former CSM members to see the issue isn’t the CSM, but CCP’s own damn arrogance that they are always sure on what they are doing with their changes.
3 Likes
I don’t know why people focus so much on the specific areas. It’s something I’ve tried to fight against while I’ve been running. It makes little sense to categorize players based on where they live, given how varied and diverse the gameplay styles are throughout the various areas. Ken Feld and I are both “nullsec players” but he and I do completely different things.
The main issue with “criteria for people to apply” is that it’s easily gamed. How do you do it? Is it self-reported? Does CCP have to verify what you’re saying is true? What if you’re playing on an alt that’s not your main? Who decides who is a “highsec player” or a “wormholer?” If you set that up it just turns in a bureaucratic nightmare, and the result is not likely to be any better than the existing system, where the players decide who is credible for each other by who they vote for.
2 Likes