|
|
| Author |
Topic |
Tzar'rim
Universal Securities
    |
Posted - 2008.04.29 09:16:00 -
[1]
I won't vote for people with a strong bias, people who (I feel) are from groups that have done EVE a dis service or people who are capable of writing 17 paragraphs without actually saying anything.
|
Tzar'rim
Universal Securities
|
Posted - 2008.04.29 09:34:00 -
[2]
Edited by: Tzar''rim on 29/04/2008 09:34:54
 Originally by: LaVista Vista
Originally by: Tzar'rim
I won't vote for people with a strong bias, people who (I feel) are from groups that have done EVE a dis service or people who are capable of writing 17 paragraphs without actually saying anything.
Well, i was actually discussing this with Jade recently.
Isn't it better to be biased, than just saying "Vote for me, I'm not biased, and i will listen to everybody"?
To me, it shows to me that a biased person actually knows something, where the non-biased person, doesn't.
Also, according to some people, my whole document about the state of the economy(10 pages or so), said nothing. Also, isn't a good politician a person who can write alot, but say nothing, yet have the listener hear what he wants to hear?
In the end, the CSM has to represent the community. So there is a balance.
I want the CSM to be unbiased as I want them to translate our problems and requests to CCP without any personal agendas, unfiltered. Regardless of playstyle or (possibly) ingame background.
People who write without actualling saying anything will smother any discussion into nothingness, resulting in non-action and never actually getting to the point of a problem. All that adds is static lowering the signal to noise ratio.
I understand the principle or a majority vote but thing is; we're not voting to elect for a group to be in control, we're voting for a comittee to help the powers that be in our name. There's a huge difference in requirements for both types and as I see it, people confuse the CSM with running for elections while having your own agenda and having the power to make decisions.
That's not what the CSM is.
|
Tzar'rim
Universal Securities
|
Posted - 2008.04.29 09:44:00 -
[3]
There's a difference between filtering out idiotic requests (I want my <insert ship> to have 8-8-8 slots and 99% resists!!!!!) and coloring the problems and requests of the EVE population for your own benefits before pesenting them to CCP.
|
Tzar'rim
Universal Securities
|
Posted - 2008.04.29 10:02:00 -
[4]
Edited by: Tzar''rim on 29/04/2008 10:02:37
If the majority of the CSM's are from big space holding alliances then the chances of a request from the playerbase lowering the defensive posiblities and making it easier to attack sovereignity systems will probably be watered down.
If people feels that EVE should be more catered around teamwork and thus jumpfreighters should be nerfed and that carriers should be even less useable as haulers because that in effect increases the size of the universe. Also, it narrows down the area of influence an alliance can have and advocates more teamwork and effort into holding space.
PVPers would love that, alliance holders, traders and industry alts would hate it. It would however be better for the game itself long term. So if the CSM is made up of mostly PVPers then the idea would be looked into and worked out and presented to CCP. The ones that would not benefit from such a change would discard it, either immediately or simply by covering it with bull**** and then 'forgetting' about it.
|
Tzar'rim
Universal Securities
|
Posted - 2008.04.29 10:22:00 -
[5]
Originally by: The Economist
Edited by: The Economist on 29/04/2008 10:16:00
I wouldn't vote for any candidate using the CSM as some kind of personal soapbox from which to lobby CCP about their pet peeves with regard to game design and balance.
As far as I'm concerned the whole point of it is to provide a little transparency to the goings on within CCP and help avoid tinfoil-hattery on the epic scale of several well-known threadnaughts and perceived/imagined issues of the past few years. Not to give a select few some kind of direct channel to the devs with which to attempt to influence the direction and design of the game; which from the sounds of some of the candidates' forum utterances, some of them believe is the case.
Edit: just realised that this was directed at csm candidates but meh, I stand by my opinion and hope I'm not alone.
You're not alone, bolded for truth.
|
|