Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 .. 11 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Jenshae Chiroptera
2464
|
Posted - 2016.01.09 13:26:04 -
[1] - Quote
Once again, we are approaching the elections for the CSM.
Once again, it will no doubt be largely Goons appointed members.
Once again, we shall have the minority (Null Sec) speaking for the majority (High Sec).
Once again, we will be voting for people people based on what tribe they are in (coalition)
... and yet again, we will be thinking about ourselves when we do this; without regard for whether they actually have the skills and neutral mindset to do a good job.
Thus our carousel will keep on spinning, CCP shall have to take what the CSM put forward with a bucket of salt. (It seemed from this past year that even when the CSM was being positive and trying to put the brakes on some really bone-headed ideas; that they were completely ignored.)
You can point to a few exceptions yes, like some of the stuff Sugar Kyle has done. You can harp on about how it is better than nothing and we haven't had another Incarna since we have had the CSM came about. You can also go on about the daily work they do and ignore why they are motivated to be there and the influence they try and exert.
However, I want you to ask yourselves this:
- Why are you voting for that person? - Is the CSM influence more gradual and insidious? - Is the CSM too full of peacocks or selfish agendas to be taken seriously by CCP? - Is CSM largely a lobby group? - How can the whole process be improved? - Are these questions too late? ( ... because the ballot pages are made, CCP's mind is made up and the rest of the year people don't care.)
CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids
There are other ways to fix Null Sec stagnation and Fozzie SOV is the wrong approach.
|
Bumblefck
Kerensky Initiatives
10158
|
Posted - 2016.01.09 13:50:42 -
[2] - Quote
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: - Why are you voting for that person? - Is the CSM influence more gradual and insidious? - Is the CSM too full of peacocks or selfish agendas to be taken seriously by CCP? - Is CSM largely a lobby group? - How can the whole process be improved? - Are these questions too late?
- I'm not
- That sounds like a comparative sentence but it's missing the target of comparison
- No more than this thread
- That's the whole idea
- Elect everyone in New Eden to the CSM
- No, they're just pointless
Got a HoleySheet1 corpse? I'll buy it for 200m!
Bumble's Space Log
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
26662
|
Posted - 2016.01.09 14:37:46 -
[3] - Quote
Once again, the unproven and rather silly notion that there is a GÇ£highsec majorityGÇ¥ (to say nothing of the outright laughable idea of there being a coherent highsec affiliation that sits in opposition of some equally coherent nullsec affiliation) is bandied about.
GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skillplan 2.3 - Vanguard Edition.
|
Nana Skalski
Poseidaon
2206
|
Posted - 2016.01.09 14:54:37 -
[4] - Quote
I hope only few will vote, those who really want the change for better to happen, those who really want this game to succeed, those who really know the candidates.
You, yes, I am talking about You, think of consequences when you vote. Think about your experience, think about experience of others.
Dont be bamboozled by people talking about nullsec or highsec being the essence of the game, they need to rethink their stance, because we play everywhere as collective. Vote for people that want to play a better game, no matter where they are.
( -á° -ƒ-û -í°)/ GòáGò¼GòªGò¼Gòú - my sandcastle
( -á° -ƒ-û -í°)/ <=X - my yacht
|
MidnightWyvern
Night Theifs
144
|
Posted - 2016.01.09 14:58:29 -
[5] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Once again, the unproven and rather silly notion that there is a GÇ£highsec majorityGÇ¥ (to say nothing of the outright laughable idea of there being a coherent highsec affiliation that sits in opposition of some equally coherent nullsec affiliation) is bandied about. Seriously, all of us who live in Null-Sec rarely are on the same page, but High-Sec is worse. So many opinions held by so many people and all of them "The Right Way to do High-Sec".
_#portDust514
Don't let interactions like this become only a memory.
(EVE alt> Sarayu Wyvern. Dust 514 alt> Mobius Wyvern.)
|
Chopper Rollins
Lantean Empire
1194
|
Posted - 2016.01.09 15:11:26 -
[6] - Quote
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:
- Why are you voting for that person? - Is the CSM influence more gradual and insidious? - Is the CSM too full of peacocks or selfish agendas to be taken seriously by CCP? - Is CSM largely a lobby group? - How can the whole process be improved? - Are these questions too late?
- To troll - No - Always was - No - No idea - Yes
Goggles. Making me look good. Making you look good.
|
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
2289
|
Posted - 2016.01.09 15:18:07 -
[7] - Quote
Welcome to politics. An organized group with unified desires and goals will trounce an unorganized, disparate mass of people any day.
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
Doc Fury
Furious Enterprises
7964
|
Posted - 2016.01.09 15:28:13 -
[8] - Quote
It's so adorable that there are still players who believe the CSM is relevant.
Gÿ+
The accumulated filth of all their sex and murder will foam up about their waists and all the ho's and politicians will look up and shout 'Save us!' and I'll look down, and whisper: 'Hodor'.
|
Elise Randolph
Habitual Euthanasia Pandemic Legion
1457
|
Posted - 2016.01.09 15:38:26 -
[9] - Quote
No offense, but this is the most pseudo-intellectual bullshit that I've read this year.
~
|
Jace Varus
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
3
|
Posted - 2016.01.09 16:14:09 -
[10] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Once again, the unproven and rather silly notion that there is a GÇ£highsec majorityGÇ¥ (to say nothing of the outright laughable idea of there being a coherent highsec affiliation that sits in opposition of some equally coherent nullsec affiliation) is bandied about.
Go to the beta map in-game, and turn to the average number of pilots in space in the last 30 minutes. There you go. |
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
26663
|
Posted - 2016.01.09 16:25:11 -
[11] - Quote
Jace Varus wrote:Go to the beta map in-game, and turn to the average number of pilots in space in the last 30 minutes. There you go. Just one problem GÇö in fact, the exact same problem as with all those inane claims: it doesn't display players. The mythical majority is just that: a myth, at best born out of bad maths, at worst born out of sheer ignorance and wishful thinking.
GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skillplan 2.3 - Vanguard Edition.
|
Cristl
282
|
Posted - 2016.01.09 16:36:40 -
[12] - Quote
Elise Randolph wrote:No offense, but this is the most pseudo-intellectual bullshit that I've read this year. It's only the ninth of January though. Give it time and I'm sure we can increase the bullshit factor. |
Deitra Vess
Scope Works Psychotic Tendencies.
840
|
Posted - 2016.01.09 16:44:40 -
[13] - Quote
I don't get why they don't just have it so before you vote you declare your a "high sec player," "wormhole player," ect and then just put people into the csm as part of parties or whatever. Make the number of members divisible by 4 (for each major group) and put for example 3 people in to represent each aspect of the game. We would also see where the majority of the player base resides and they can focus on the areas where the most people are. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
26665
|
Posted - 2016.01.09 17:10:48 -
[14] - Quote
Deitra Vess wrote:I don't get why they don't just have it so before you vote you declare your a "high sec player," "wormhole player," ect and then just put people into the csm as part of parties or whatever. Make the number of members divisible by 4 (for each major group) and put for example 3 people in to represent each aspect of the game. We would also see where the majority of the player base resides and they can focus on the areas where the most people are. Because it would be ridiculously easy to rig, and would yield the result that the majority is in null, and that, for some curious reason, all the GÇ£high sec candidatesGÇ¥ would also be mostly focused on null issues.
The main flaw is that the distinction between those player types is itself pretty nonsensical. Again, they aren't coherent groups; treating them as anything even remotely resembling parties makes no sense because there is no shared opinion or policy outlook. Any pre-selected representation will inherently not be representative and any other representation will only be of those who show up and who organise, which will always be derided as biased and unfair.
GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skillplan 2.3 - Vanguard Edition.
|
Jenn aSide
Ascendent. Test Alliance Please Ignore
13290
|
Posted - 2016.01.09 17:13:46 -
[15] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Jace Varus wrote:Go to the beta map in-game, and turn to the average number of pilots in space in the last 30 minutes. There you go. Just one problem GÇö in fact, the exact same problem as with all those inane claims: it doesn't display players. The mythical majority is just that: a myth, at best born out of bad maths, at worst born out of sheer ignorance and wishful thinking.
You maybe forgot desperation and butthurt?
What the "high sec partisans" never face is that a lot of high sec is just our alts. And even worse than that (from their perspective) is that of those who are real high sec players, many of them LIKE null, aspire to null (or low or WH gameplay) and vote for null candidates.
The most vocal high sec posters here suffer from that 'truly false consensus' problem where they think everyone in high sec thinks like them, when in fact their views are just fringe idiocy that are unpopular EVEN in high sec.
|
Memphis Baas
907
|
Posted - 2016.01.09 17:56:49 -
[16] - Quote
CCP has to finish the damn null sov revamp and give roles to those capitals; everybody's bored and people are leaving.
High sec is in a pretty good place, ships have been revamped, UI for industry has seen some changes, lots of the standings restrictions have been removed so y'all can POS and PI and whatever.
Finish fixing null, so we can have the big wars again; they attract new players and keep the old interested and playing. |
Ralph King-Griffin
Devils Rejects 666 The Devil's Warrior Alliance
13480
|
Posted - 2016.01.09 18:07:31 -
[17] - Quote
Jenn aSide wrote: The most vocal high sec posters here suffer from that 'truly false consensus' problem where they think everyone in high sec thinks like them, when in fact their views are just fringe idiocy that are unpopular EVEN in high sec.
*cough*
Better the Devil you know.
=]|[=
|
Yourmoney Mywallet
Jita Institute of Applied Monetary Manipulation
789
|
Posted - 2016.01.09 18:24:43 -
[18] - Quote
Who? What? |
Benny Ohu
Chaotic Tranquility Snuffed Out
4512
|
Posted - 2016.01.09 18:38:17 -
[19] - Quote
yes we need to start asking the real questions
why haven't we seen any councilors birth certificates is the csm actually a cover for an extraterrestrial nacho smuggling operation could the csm voting process be improved with a peacock wrestling bonus round is there confirmation no csm x members were blood-drinking lizards, and if not, why not why won't ccp publically acknowledge independant reports csm voting causes rashes
e: why are you voting for that person |
Ibutho Inkosi
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
14
|
Posted - 2016.01.09 18:40:32 -
[20] - Quote
This CSM election has a reputation of not being very representative. A vast majority of people seem relatively isolated, or limited in their in-game contacts with one another, so it seems like a large leap of faith that anyone would know anyone who runs, or would be known if running themselves. The reputation EVE's CSM has is it has, as a result, been hijacked and is constantly held by a small percentage of well-organized people, and therefore only represents them and their interests.
I have a problem with endorsing situations such as these. I also have a problem with so-called professional people countenancing such conditions. However, when these so-called professionals are a party to exposing their own paying customers to the vagaries of a select few of their paying customers, then things are more than a little strange. This changes the relationship of the company and the customer to one of charlatan and dupe.
It's a black cloud over what otherwise would be a rather positive situation, and also has to be suspect in why things a majority of players seem to clamor for don't seem to be getting any attention at all. Could it be to address such issues runs counter to the wishes of the select few who have hijacked the process? Sadly, in such cases as these, where credibility is breached, one must assume it does.
Thanks for the peppy "lets' all get in there and do something" post. I can see the idealism driving it. Yet, so few players use and read this forum, I doubt it will have the required impact.
As long as the tale of the hunt is told by the hunter, and not the lion, it will favor the hunter.
|
|
Velarra
489
|
Posted - 2016.01.09 18:54:24 -
[21] - Quote
https://secure.eveonline.com/ |
Trevor Dalech
We pooped on your lawn Resonance.
200
|
Posted - 2016.01.09 19:03:14 -
[22] - Quote
Deitra Vess wrote:I don't get why they don't just have it so before you vote you declare your a "high sec player," "wormhole player," ect and then just put people into the csm as part of parties or whatever. Make the number of members divisible by 4 (for each major group) and put for example 3 people in to represent each aspect of the game. We would also see where the majority of the player base resides and they can focus on the areas where the most people are.
I'm everything except a high sec player, although I do have a suicide ganking alt for when I'm bored, so I guess I do high sec as well. Which pigeonhole will you fit me into? |
Kiandoshia
Applied Anarchy ChaosTheory.
2391
|
Posted - 2016.01.09 19:12:32 -
[23] - Quote
Deitra Vess wrote:I don't get why they don't just have it so before you vote you declare your a "high sec player," "wormhole player," ect and then just put people into the csm as part of parties or whatever. Make the number of members divisible by 4 (for each major group) and put for example 3 people in to represent each aspect of the game. We would also see where the majority of the player base resides and they can focus on the areas where the most people are.
There are no parties or major groups, only alts and more alts. |
Demica Diaz
SE-1
172
|
Posted - 2016.01.09 21:31:52 -
[24] - Quote
Cant we just work on improving game as whole instead of bickering over which sec gets majority? |
King Aires
Chicks on Speed Mordus Angels
81
|
Posted - 2016.01.09 21:45:49 -
[25] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Jace Varus wrote:Go to the beta map in-game, and turn to the average number of pilots in space in the last 30 minutes. There you go. Just one problem GÇö in fact, the exact same problem as with all those inane claims: it doesn't display players. The mythical majority is just that: a myth, at best born out of bad maths, at worst born out of sheer ignorance and wishful thinking.
CCP tells us there is 1.5 accounts per person on average. So we can take the population of High-Sec and halve it to come up with the representative average of players who are at least "High-Sec".
Therefore, there is still more high-sec than null. And the CSM is overwhelmingly weighted towards CFC bought trolls. |
Johan Civire
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
1044
|
Posted - 2016.01.09 22:09:53 -
[26] - Quote
Easy fixs remove csm done. No need for them. Do i care nope do i need them nope do the do what the want? yup so why keep them? 90% of those players in game do not give f*ck about csm because let be honest here, your just playing a game. Nothing more.... And devs do what the want. Pushing releasing stuff we do not ask, why the change? why change the interface back to 1999 style? why removing stuff like juxeboxs why remove the all mighty weapons dooms day and Nerf them in a nutshell? And so on and on and on...........
Because like i say the do what the want to do. A new commander on the wheel and all crazy things are happening. Working on other games and split eve in 2 game`s with the money from eve online. Then making updates that take age to Finnish or half broken or half done its the same.
I play way to long in eve. Catch my drift here. Nothing will change the do not listen. The keep dreaming that the can make eve in a cash cow. If the do that we are losing the game. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
26669
|
Posted - 2016.01.09 22:48:00 -
[27] - Quote
King Aires wrote:CCP tells us there is 1.5 accounts per person on average. So GǪnothing, because it is an average. What is the distribution among Gǣnon-highseccersGǥ compared to GǣhighseccersGǥ? What is the character distribution among these accounts? What is the distribution of characters among the two groups? Until you know all of those, you cannot conclude anything, and guess what? Not even CCP has any idea of where the players are. That's why all they have ever been able to produce is character counts.
The best guess we have is based on the general trend that Gàö of all characters tend to be parked in highsec. However, this means that if every account that has a non-high character also has a highsec alt (and this is not a very drastic assumption to make), we have a character distribution of Gàô non-high, Gàô highsec alts, and Gàô GÇ£pure highsecGÇ¥, making them a pretty small minority.
GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skillplan 2.3 - Vanguard Edition.
|
Scipio Artelius
The Vendunari End of Life
42990
|
Posted - 2016.01.09 23:49:01 -
[28] - Quote
Tippia wrote:King Aires wrote:CCP tells us there is 1.5 accounts per person on average. So GǪnothing, because it is an average. What is the distribution among GÇ£non-highseccersGÇ¥ compared to GÇ£highseccersGÇ¥ that creates this average? What is the character distribution among these accounts? What is the distribution of characters among the two groups? Until you know all of those, you cannot conclude anything, and guess what? Not even CCP has any idea of where the players are. That's why all they have ever been able to produce is character counts. The best guess we have is based on the general trend that Gàö of all characters tend to be parked in highsec. However, this means that if every account that has a non-high character also has a highsec alt (and this is not a very drastic assumption to make), we have a character distribution of Gàô non-high, Gàô highsec alts, and Gàô GÇ£pure highsecGÇ¥, making them a pretty small minority. Yes. There's a lot more to the statistics to analyse than just the simple numbers.
Of my current 8 characters, 7 are in highsec right now, yet the total time they actually do anything (5 of them are just cyno alts) is less than 1/4 of what I do on Scipio.
Even those 5 cyno alts that are parked in highec currently are there for station/region trading, but if they have to undock then it's off to lowsec and nullsec for them and then back to their trading station.
One player, mostly playing in lowsec and nullsec, yet the raw numbers look like 88% highsec and 12% nullsec.
Come Win At Eve - Join The Vendunari
|
Scipio Artelius
The Vendunari End of Life
42990
|
Posted - 2016.01.09 23:54:28 -
[29] - Quote
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: - Why are you voting for that person? - Is the CSM influence more gradual and insidious? - Is the CSM too full of peacocks or selfish agendas to be taken seriously by CCP? - Is CSM largely a lobby group? - How can the whole process be improved? - Are these questions too late?
- Who Xenuria? As a troll initially, but Mittens has already declared that Xenuria will be in, so I might have to vote Gevlon if he eventually gets accepted - CSM influence? - I think there are other reasons it isn't taken seriously by some of CCP - I think a lot of people go into it thinking they can lobby and then realise that's not its purpose - Abolish it - Maybe
Come Win At Eve - Join The Vendunari
|
King Aires
Chicks on Speed Mordus Angels
81
|
Posted - 2016.01.10 00:07:31 -
[30] - Quote
Scipio Artelius wrote:Tippia wrote:King Aires wrote:CCP tells us there is 1.5 accounts per person on average. So GǪnothing, because it is an average. What is the distribution among GÇ£non-highseccersGÇ¥ compared to GÇ£highseccersGÇ¥ that creates this average? What is the character distribution among these accounts? What is the distribution of characters among the two groups? Until you know all of those, you cannot conclude anything, and guess what? Not even CCP has any idea of where the players are. That's why all they have ever been able to produce is character counts. The best guess we have is based on the general trend that Gàö of all characters tend to be parked in highsec. However, this means that if every account that has a non-high character also has a highsec alt (and this is not a very drastic assumption to make), we have a character distribution of Gàô non-high, Gàô highsec alts, and Gàô GÇ£pure highsecGÇ¥, making them a pretty small minority. Yes. There's a lot more to the statistics to analyse than just the simple numbers. Of my current 8 characters, 7 are in highsec right now, yet the total time they actually do anything (5 of them are just cyno alts) is less than 1/4 of what I do on Scipio. Even those 5 cyno alts that are parked in highec currently are there for station/region trading, but if they have to undock then it's off to lowsec and nullsec for them and then back to their trading station. One player, mostly playing in lowsec and nullsec, yet the raw numbers look like 88% highsec and 12% nullsec.
All the while forgetting you never log those 7 in, so they wouldn't show up in the CCP snapshots anyways.
Let us all just agree then, we will never know who is a sole High or Null sec player, but that population activity is highest in High Sec and representation on the CSM is what, 90% null sec?
Scipio Artelius wrote: - Abolish it
Now we are getting somewhere |
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 .. 11 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |