EVE Search - CSM not a democratic vote

Check My IP Information

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

CSM not a democratic vote

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 3 4 :: [one page]

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 4 post(s)
Rhen Ayase Imperial Crusade Syndicate	Posted - 2009.11.18 12:17:00 - [1] its a plutocracy: the one with the money get more votes, because they have more accounts. i hear from many people its normal to have 2 or even 3 accounts, up to 8 or even heard of one with 15. its not democratic for one to have up to 15 votes compared to one only want (or can afford) one eve account.
Destination SkillQueue Are We There Yet	Posted - 2009.11.18 12:21:00 - [2] It is a vote for an entity that has no decision making power, so why does it matter?
Tona Dah	Posted - 2009.11.18 12:26:00 - [3] Hey this truly is unfair! People must have accounts to vote! It is not fair that people who play cannot vote! That there was a conclusion based on the logic in the OP, if it is unfair that people that have more accounts have more votes it is unfair that people that have one account have more votes than people that have no accounts. In any case a plutocracy is a good thing here. I truly want that people that take their spaceships seriously (like Chribba) have more power in these matters.
Aggressive Bias	Posted - 2009.11.18 12:33:00 - [4] Agree with OP, but CCP isn't changing ****.
Tiny Tove	Posted - 2009.11.18 12:33:00 - [5] So the one with more money is paying more for an internet cybergina to go on holiday. That's really their choice, let them choose which cybergina they send to Iceland. It's not going to get them any rancidfish whatever the case, so I say, let them spend.
Kappas. Galaxy Punks	Posted - 2009.11.18 12:55:00 - [6] Another way to look at it is the fact big alliance can push in representatives from their side simply due to the numbers they have; it's a good thing CCP tried to do but the CSM is pretty much corrupt and pointless imo __________________
LaVista Vista Conservative Shenanigans Party	Posted - 2009.11.18 12:58:00 - [7] Originally by: Kappas. Another way to look at it is the fact big alliance can push in representatives from their side simply due to the numbers they have; it's a good thing CCP tried to do but the CSM is pretty much corrupt and pointless imo Are you suggesting that we ban alliances from the CSM?
Malcanis Vanishing Point. The Initiative.	Posted - 2009.11.18 13:08:00 - [8] Originally by: Rhen Ayase its a plutocracy: the one with the money get more votes, because they have more accounts. i hear from many people its normal to have 2 or even 3 accounts, up to 8 or even heard of one with 15. its not democratic for one to have up to 15 votes compared to one only want (or can afford) one eve account. Just like real life, then.
Tiny Tove	Posted - 2009.11.18 13:10:00 - [9] Originally by: LaVista Vista Are you suggesting that we ban alliances from the CSM? Or perhaps just the CSM. Replace with a forum poll.
Pyrhus Taavi	Posted - 2009.11.18 13:13:00 - [10] Originally by: LaVista Vista ~~Are you suggesting that we~~ disband ~~alliances from~~ the CSM?

Minmatar citizen4561451	Posted - 2009.11.18 13:28:00 - [11] Edited by: Minmatar citizen4561451 on 18/11/2009 13:29:03
Grunanca Beyond Divinity Inc Beyond Virginity	Posted - 2009.11.18 13:36:00 - [12] Originally by: Rhen Ayase its a plutocracy: the one with the money get more votes, because they have more accounts. i hear from many people its normal to have 2 or even 3 accounts, up to 8 or even heard of one with 15. its not democratic for one to have up to 15 votes compared to one only want (or can afford) one eve account. Just like with shareholders in real life, the guy with 15 accounts has 15 times more money invested than you. Why shouldnt he then have 15 times more voting power? CCP couldnt care less if one person pays the party or many does as long as they get the money...
Marko Riva Adamant Inc.	Posted - 2009.11.18 14:34:00 - [13] I have 7 accounts but couldn't be bothered to log in the others so just voted with 1. ----------- I think, therefore I'm single. Alliance creation service, also corp updates
Traidor Disloyal Private Nuisance	Posted - 2009.11.18 16:04:00 - [14] I want Clowns for CSM! Just think for the next CSM panel held in Iceland you will see a clown car roll on stage. Out pops 7 (?) clowns. All peeping each others noses and throwing pies at the audience (and each other). That would be worth the price of admission. Clowns for CSM! ************************************************* I have three characters. One has Cov Ops V along with all the bells and whistles that goes with it.
Rhen Ayase Imperial Crusade Syndicate	Posted - 2009.11.18 16:16:00 - [15] Originally by: Grunanca Originally by: Rhen Ayase its a plutocracy: the one with the money get more votes, because they have more accounts. i hear from many people its normal to have 2 or even 3 accounts, up to 8 or even heard of one with 15. its not democratic for one to have up to 15 votes compared to one only want (or can afford) one eve account. Just like with shareholders in real life, the guy with 15 accounts has 15 times more money invested than you. Why shouldnt he then have 15 times more voting power? CCP couldnt care less if one person pays the party or many does as long as they get the money... so then they shouldnt call it democratic if it isnt... then they should call it account shareholder voting or whatever, but not democratic. it isnt and thats fact. -------------------------------------- Slave and Property of Kathryn Dougans.
K'uata Sayus	Posted - 2009.11.18 16:48:00 - [16] Originally by: Rhen Ayase its a plutocracy: the one with the money get more votes, because they have more accounts. i hear from many people its normal to have 2 or even 3 accounts, up to 8 or even heard of one with 15. its not democratic for one to have up to 15 votes compared to one only want (or can afford) one eve account. Democracy is an ideal that does not exist in RL. Why hold CCP and the CSM up to something that does not nor ever has been?? EVERYONE SEEMS NORMAL UNTIL YOU GET TO KNOW THEM.
Larkonis TrassIer Neo Spartans Laconian Syndicate	Posted - 2009.11.18 17:14:00 - [17] Originally by: Tiny Tove Originally by: LaVista Vista Are you suggesting that we ban alliances from the CSM? Or perhaps just the CSM. Replace with a forum poll. You mean the forums that one can log into and post on with multiple accounts? Derp.
Stupid McStupidson Gallente Hoek Lyne and Sinker	Posted - 2009.11.18 17:38:00 - [18] I have 17 accounts, can I vote?
gorhan54	Posted - 2009.11.18 17:38:00 - [19] Originally by: Kappas. Another way to look at it is the fact big alliance can push in representatives from their side simply due to the numbers they have; it's a good thing CCP tried to do but the CSM is pretty much corrupt and pointless imo Toss your opinion and go with the facts. How many CSM's have been found to be corrupt? When they are found, CCP goes "Oh thats ok go ahead and abuse your position." Right? There will always be some people who don't feel like following the rules. Don't be stupid and call the CSM corrupt when a very small percentage have been found to be, especially when the ones found are removed. Good job ignoring all the good work they've done and the positive changes they've made. I think you're just jealous that you know you'd never win a position there.
Tiny Tove	Posted - 2009.11.18 17:43:00 - [20] Originally by: Larkonis TrassIer Originally by: Tiny Tove Originally by: LaVista Vista Are you suggesting that we ban alliances from the CSM? Or perhaps just the CSM. Replace with a forum poll. You mean the forums that one can log into and post on with multiple accounts? Derp. No I mean the forums that are already in use and don't lie and steal.

Larkonis TrassIer Neo Spartans Laconian Syndicate	Posted - 2009.11.18 18:15:00 - [21] Originally by: Tiny Tove Originally by: Larkonis TrassIer Originally by: Tiny Tove Originally by: LaVista Vista Are you suggesting that we ban alliances from the CSM? Or perhaps just the CSM. Replace with a forum poll. You mean the forums that one can log into and post on with multiple accounts? Derp. No I mean the forums that are already in use and don't lie and steal. Is that a dig at me bro? I did many things but I didn't lie or steal. If you are going to try and drag my name through the mud then at least get get the facts right plz.
Niccolado Starwalker Shadow Templars	Posted - 2009.11.18 18:37:00 - [22] Originally by: Rhen Ayase its a plutocracy: the one with the money get more votes, because they have more accounts. i hear from many people its normal to have 2 or even 3 accounts, up to 8 or even heard of one with 15. its not democratic for one to have up to 15 votes compared to one only want (or can afford) one eve account. its fair really. Since those who have more accounts have invested more in the game, they should have more to say in it too! just like the shareholders who have more shares in a company have more to say during the decisionmaking/votations! Originally by: Dianabolic Your tears are absolutely divine, like a fine fine wine, rolling down your cheeks until they flow down the river of LOL
Davich MacGregor Minmatar Stellar Products and Quality Resources	Posted - 2009.11.18 18:58:00 - [23] Originally by: Destination SkillQueue It is a vote for an entity that has no decision making power, so why does it matter? This
Tiny Tove	Posted - 2009.11.18 19:15:00 - [24] Edited by: Tiny Tove on 18/11/2009 19:16:09 Edited by: Tiny Tove on 18/11/2009 19:15:42 Originally by: Larkonis TrassIer Originally by: Tiny Tove No I mean the forums that are already in use and don't lie and steal. Is that a dig at me bro? I did many things but I didn't lie or steal. If you are going to try and drag my name through the mud then at least get get the facts right plz. If you think it is, then it is. If you don't then it isn't. You know what you got caught for and what you didn't. As does every other party who was ever given information that others don't get. Especially in the case of the CSM where it doesn't even need the information, because it has no power or authority to do a thing about it, nor can it talk to anybody else about it. And Since you're deliberately missing the point, let's spell it out so that even a CSM candidate can understand. The CSM does precisely nothing* that a forum poll can't do. Save our carriers, save our moms, when it comes to things that apparently matter, they don't telephone their CSM buddy, they hit the forums. It's that simple. Maybe if they'd given us the CSM we were promised things could have been different. They gave that job, to, wait for it, themselves, Arkkanon, and gave us.... Massive. Waste. Of. Time. *And in case you were wondering why it still exists despite the pathetic voting turnouts, it's because no other game has got one, and they can lie to marketing departments at irrelevant "webzines" about how it's a tool to empower the players, who in reality already had the powers we were "given" via the CSM. They probably get an irrelevant award for it from some of the irrelevant webzines as well. Marketing, damage limitation (and boy did that backfire), bullpies. That's all it ever was. --- WTB: Unwritten Forum Rules and list of posters you're not allowed to Report.
Le Skunk Low Sec Liberators	Posted - 2009.11.18 19:29:00 - [25] Edited by: Le Skunk on 18/11/2009 19:33:02 Edited by: Le Skunk on 18/11/2009 19:28:52 Originally by: Larkonis TrassIer Is that a dig at me bro? I did many things but I didn't lie or steal. If you are going to try and drag my name through the mud then at least get get the facts right plz. YES YOU DID YOU STOLE OUR INNOCENCE!!! We believed in the CSM as a force for good and you ruined it. You ruined... EVERYTHING!!!! SKUNK VOTE ABSTAIN Its Easy 1) Look to the left of your screen in the menu bar. 2) Locate the EVE INSIDER heading (about half way down) and open 3) Locate the CSM header (Abouyt half way down) 4) Click on "main" And from there you can go vote. ABSTAIN is at the very bottom of the page. TIME TO SHAME WITH THE ABSTAIN!!!!! (o)
Hairy Sue	Posted - 2009.11.18 19:37:00 - [26] Originally by: Le Skunk Edited by: Le Skunk on 18/11/2009 19:33:02 Edited by: Le Skunk on 18/11/2009 19:28:52 Originally by: Larkonis TrassIer Is that a dig at me bro? I did many things but I didn't lie or steal. If you are going to try and drag my name through the mud then at least get get the facts right plz. YES YOU DID YOU STOLE OUR INNOCENCE!!! We believed in the CSM as a force for good and you ruined it. You ruined... EVERYTHING!!!! SKUNK VOTE ABSTAIN Vote abstain, and do your part to hoist the CSM by its own petard. Its easy to do And will take under 1 min. You wont have to clink on a dodgy link you can do it via the menu system on the left. Many of you will have had a half assed look for how to vote and then given up. Here is how you do it. 1) Look to the left of your screen in the menu bar. 2) Locate the EVE INSIDER heading (about half way down) and open 3) Locate the CSM header (Abouyt half way down) 4) Click on "main" And from there you can go vote. ABSTAIN is at the very bottom of the page. TIME TO SHAME WITH THE ABSTAIN!!!!!
Tiny Tove	Posted - 2009.11.18 20:11:00 - [27] Edited by: Tiny Tove on 18/11/2009 20:11:40 I don't know the difference between clicking "Abstain", and actually abstaining, ie, not clicking anything. The two appear to me, to be identical. But I think to CCP, clicking Abstain means, "I love the CSM, but these candidates suck". And actually abstaining means "I don't pretend care about the things CCP pretend to care about, so therefore I should have my genuine abstain disregarded in the press." Since they took the time to give us an abstain button, they must have had a reason, and I think it's so they can make the turnout figure unnaturally high by disregarding those who actually abstain. But hey if anybody else can think of a reason why they did that's slightly more plausible....
Le Skunk Low Sec Liberators	Posted - 2009.11.18 20:25:00 - [28] Edited by: Le Skunk on 18/11/2009 20:27:46 Edited by: Le Skunk on 18/11/2009 20:25:43 Originally by: Tiny Tove Edited by: Tiny Tove on 18/11/2009 20:11:40 I don't know the difference between clicking "Abstain", and actually abstaining, ie, not clicking anything. The two appear to me, to be identical. But I think to CCP, clicking Abstain means, "I love the CSM, but these candidates suck". And actually abstaining means "I don't pretend care about the things CCP pretend to care about, so therefore I should have my genuine abstain disregarded in the press." Since they took the time to give us an abstain button, they must have had a reason, and I think it's so they can make the turnout figure unnaturally high by disregarding those who actually abstain. But hey if anybody else can think of a reason why they did that's slightly more plausible.... An interesting point. Previous incredibly low voter turnouts have been shrugged off by CCP and the marketing fanfare continued a pace. However, If you could imagine a future election where more people vote abstain (in the absence of a non of the above button) then actually vote for candidates, I think we would have a strong base to demand the CSM is dismantled or radically altered from its present (chose from the following) corrupt/expensive/useless/non representative/freeloading/and just plain embarrasing state. Together we can do it. Vote Abstain with your 19 accounts. SKUNK (o)
KaarBaak Minmatar Sebiestor tribe	Posted - 2009.11.18 20:28:00 - [29] Three things the CSM has accomplished? And I'll give you one: 1. Skill queue 2. ??? 3. ??? The CSM is a popularity contest for self-important people to win a trip to Iceland. I've read the minutes. I saw the panel at FanFest. The CSM is a waste of money that would be better spent on development. KB Beware the beast Man, for he is the Devil's pawn. Alone among God's primates, he kills for sport or lust or greed. Yea, he will murder his brother to possess his brother's land.
Le Skunk Low Sec Liberators	Posted - 2009.11.18 20:35:00 - [30] Originally by: KaarBaak Three things the CSM has accomplished? And I'll give you one: 1. Skill queue 2. ??? 3. ??? The CSM is a popularity contest for self-important people to win a trip to Iceland. I've read the minutes. I saw the panel at FanFest. The CSM is a waste of money that would be better spent on development. Vote abstain then with all your accounts 1) Look to the menu bar to the left of the forums 2) Look for EVE INSIDER (about half way down) - Expand the menu 3) Look for CSM tab 4) Click on main 5) Follow the on screen prompts, ABSTAIN is at the bottom of the candidate list 6) Confirm your abstain vote 7) Sleep easier at night knowing you are doing something to combat the CSM (o)

Tiny Tove	Posted - 2009.11.18 20:39:00 - [31] Originally by: KaarBaak Three things the CSM has accomplished? And I'll give you one: 1. Skill queue Yes, they do like to take credit for that don't they.... They didn't think of it themselves. Nor did the weight of 8 self importance slugs get it done. Also, I clicked Abstain, just like every time before. These days, just the one account. I've put enough money in that cybertarts holiday fund. And no paying with PLEX doesn't suddenly make my financial contribution to her ego zero, that's would be just "Miner's Maths"; 'I mined it, so it's free'. --- WTB: Unwritten Forum Rules and list of posters you're not allowed to Report.
Le Skunk Low Sec Liberators	Posted - 2009.11.18 20:43:00 - [32] Originally by: Tiny Tove Originally by: KaarBaak Three things the CSM has accomplished? And I'll give you one: 1. Skill queue Yes, they do like to take credit for that don't they.... They didn't think of it themselves. Nor did the weight of 8 self importance slugs get it done. Also, I clicked Abstain, just like every time before. These days, just the one account. I've put enough money in that cybertarts holiday fund. And no paying with PLEX doesn't suddenly make my financial contribution to her ego zero, that's would be just "Miner's Maths"; 'I mined it, so it's free'. Excellant.The abstain faction now has at least three votes (nearly enough to get voted in iirc lol) Though may i ask who "she" is. Are you refering to in general or to a specific woman? SKUNK (o)
Larkonis TrassIer Neo Spartans Laconian Syndicate	Posted - 2009.11.18 20:59:00 - [33] This thread is amusing to say the least.
Tiny Tove	Posted - 2009.11.18 21:05:00 - [34] Originally by: Le Skunk Though may i ask who "she" is. Are you refering to in general or to a specific woman? SKUNK If you say the name, her ego appears, and frankly the less of it the better. Just think of the loudest, foulest wretch that besmirches all that is good about women, perhaps some gold digging tart who would like to thank you all for her free holiday.
Ban Doga	Posted - 2009.11.18 21:19:00 - [35] From the last CSM meeting minutes: "The CSM has expressed its dissatisfaction with the GM teams in many ways. The GM team showed the CSM data about petition ratings that are constantly going up (and reach 79%). The CSM regretted very much the absence of a category breakdown, because while ôstuckö and ôaccount paymentö issues may get frequent 100% satisfaction, reimbursement issues are more likely to be in the bottom of the satisfaction rating. And stuck/payment petitions are most likely to dwarf the other ones. The CSM conceded that the GM Team does a great job in some tasks, but not in others. The GM team said they had refined the hiring and training process, and that due to the complex nature of Eve, training people to know the intricacies of EVE was not an easy task (they mentioned a 200-page document that was supposed to cover information about nothing but POSes as an example). And this despite the fact that they sometimes hire former volunteers. They explained the steps taken to make sure that experts are available in different fields to make sure a GM less knowledgeable about a particular topic has the possibility of transferring the issue to someone who knows, or get the information. They produced data showing decreasing waiting times on petitions, except around new releases. The CSM conceded that customer support was not an easy job, and expressed their opinion that the GMs were shooting themselves in the feet by not communicating to the player base about the status of customer services on a regular basis. However despite the data presented, the CSM thinks there is still very much room for improvement, especially on the competency issue. On the ôfairnessö and/or partiality issue, the GMs said that all allegations of misconduct/unfairness/etc. can be petitioned and they will be investigated by the Internal Affairs staff to prevent such things." Seriously, what do you expect people to think of that? This can be summarized as "CSM is unhappy with the GM team. The GM team assures they try hard. CSM understands that GMs have a difficult job." without losing too much information and that is exactly the thing that I find so lame about this: You learn nothing new from that. I don't care whether the GM guidelines about POSes have 200 or 150 pages. I care about how they want to address the dissatisfaction expressed by the CSM. Almost everything is paraphrased into the "We're doing what we can" / "We'll address that issue" / "We cannot talk about this (yet)" / "It's not easy" / "It's already good/improving" you get from CCP as well. You cannot even really tell what those 79% are supposed to mean (79% of all petitions where handled correctly / as fast as possible / as good as possible / to the satisfaction of the user / without unnecessary escalation / ...?) Were those "petition ratings" so secret that they couldn't be included in the meeting minutes? Same about those "steps taken to make sure that experts are available". And how about not just regretting that the data wasn't really useful but instead asking to get data that would be useful? The CSM is displeased with CCP's lacking communication yet does the same mistakes: "Measures are being taken - You can all relax". A lot of the meeting minutes remind me of the monthly Q&A that found a very quick end after some incredibly lame answers. For me this feels like wasting a lot of time.
Zeba Minmatar Honourable East India Trading Company	Posted - 2009.11.18 21:27:00 - [36] Originally by: Destination SkillQueue It is a vote for an entity that has no decision making power, so why does it matter? Indeed. Name one thing the csm did for the game that the devs hadn't already decided to do.
Le Skunk Low Sec Liberators	Posted - 2009.11.18 21:58:00 - [37] Edited by: Le Skunk on 18/11/2009 21:59:35 Edited by: Le Skunk on 18/11/2009 21:58:31 Originally by: Tiny Tove Originally by: Le Skunk Though may i ask who "she" is. Are you refering to in general or to a specific woman? SKUNK If you say the name, her ego appears, and frankly the less of it the better. Just think of the loudest, foulest wretch that besmirches all that is good about women, perhaps some gold digging tart who would like to thank you all for her free holiday. Hmmm Well the only two female CSM members that have been voted in as far as I can remember have both been embroiled in some form of scandal if the other One was embroiled in a bitter faction warfare exploting scandal (amongst other scandals) And the other (voted in on an alliance block vote) brought the CSM into disrepute by bringing "humorous" issues in front of the CSM and generally larking around and mocking the poor voters SKUNK (o)
Destination SkillQueue Are We There Yet	Posted - 2009.11.18 22:08:00 - [38] Originally by: Zeba Originally by: Destination SkillQueue It is a vote for an entity that has no decision making power, so why does it matter? Indeed. Name one thing the csm did for the game that the devs hadn't already decided to do. The CSM influences decisions, but they don't make them. Same influence could be achieved by alternative means, if CCP chooses to allow it. My point was though, that there is no point in paying your way to the CSM. The ammount of money needed to secure a place would propably allow you to pay for your own trips to Iceland and the fanfest. Since buying the votes would actually be a waste of money and you can't buy any decision making power, why would the issue of buying votes be relevant to anyone.
Tiny Tove	Posted - 2009.11.18 22:14:00 - [39] Originally by: Le Skunk And the other (voted in on an alliance block vote) brought the CSM into disrepute by bringing "humorous" issues in front of the CSM and generally larking around and mocking the poor voters SKUNK I didn't know they allowed login traps to win CSM votes.
Julius Rigel	Posted - 2009.11.18 22:37:00 - [40] Originally by: Tiny Tove Originally by: LaVista Vista Are you suggesting that we ban alliances from the CSM? Or perhaps just the CSM. Replace with a forum poll. But you can't invite a forum poll to Iceland for an important meeting. I mean, let's face it, are you more positive towards the idea of half a dozen "Players working towards the wishes of the community." or "What would you like to see in the next expansion? T3 Titans - Warp to 0 autopilot - Other"? I think most players are reassured by the fact that their stupid ideas are hand-filtered by someone before getting rejected by CCP, as opposed to going straight into a database and getting rejected by CCP. Also, sure, why not ban alliances from voting, the same way alliances are banned from faction wars, and corporations are banned from sovereignty, and NPC corps are banned from owning POSes, and players are banned from destroying NPC structures such as station, gates, and turrets. Or any number of other little rules arbitrarily apply to one group of pilots and not others. Now get off my lawn and take this CSM stuff back to the CSM forum when you leave! /me waves his cane about.

Emperor Cheney Celebrity Sex Tape	Posted - 2009.11.18 22:49:00 - [41] Minmatars count for 3/5ths of a vote. Women are turned away at the polls. That last part was entirely theoretical of course.
ShadowMaiden Amarr Metal Machine	Posted - 2009.11.19 01:33:00 - [42] Edited by: ShadowMaiden on 19/11/2009 01:34:06 Originally by: Destination SkillQueue It is a vote for an entity that has no decision making power and will only present things to CCP that suit their own agenda at the expense of the rest of the playerbase/further their own goals, so why does it matter? fixed.
Caleb Fury Amarr Did I just do that	Posted - 2009.11.19 01:45:00 - [43] Originally by: Destination SkillQueue It is a vote for an entity that has no decision making power, so why does it matter?
Catherine Frasier	Posted - 2009.11.19 03:41:00 - [44] Originally by: Rhen Ayase so then they shouldnt call it democratic if it isnt... then they should call it account shareholder voting or whatever, but not democratic. it isnt and thats fact. Everyone can vote for someone to represent them. That, by definition, makes this democratic. What you want is democracy of a very narrow type, one with suffrage rights extended to individual players instead of by accounts. I agree that this would be "better" but that doesn't change the fact that the current system falls well within the definition of democratic.
Typhado3 Minmatar Ashen Lion Mining and Production Consortium Aeternus.	Posted - 2009.11.19 05:18:00 - [45] Originally by: ShadowMaiden Edited by: ShadowMaiden on 19/11/2009 01:34:06 Originally by: Destination SkillQueue It is a vote for an entity that has no decision making power and will only present things to CCP that suit their own agenda at the expense of the rest of the playerbase/further their own goals, so why does it matter? fixed. "....only present things to CCP that suit their own agenda...." Well then what you do is find one who's agenda is similar to yours and vote for them, thus ensuring the issues you care about get heard. Say you think caldari suck balls in pvp you vote for a CSM who thinks caldari suck balls at pvp and plans to go yell at CCP about it if they get voted in. There's even a fricken questionaire which makes it easier for you to find out which CSM thinks similar to you. Also to OP Australia had a system which allowed multiple voting up until around the 1890's and we did OK up until then. Maybe a system where every human has same voting rights would be better but I can't honestly see a way of doing it. I really find it strange that in eve of all places you come to the forums whining that it's not fair and no one points out the fact your in EVE. The whole game is not fair it doesn't suddenly become all perfect simple and completely even just in the areas you want it to. If the CSM was fair and even and perfectly balanced it would be so out of touch with the EVE universe I wouldn't want it speaking on my behalf. HTFU or GTFO ------------------------------ Just a crazy inventor ccp fix mining agent missions % pls
Rhen Ayase Imperial Crusade Syndicate	Posted - 2009.11.19 10:45:00 - [46] Originally by: Catherine Frasier Originally by: Rhen Ayase so then they shouldnt call it democratic if it isnt... then they should call it account shareholder voting or whatever, but not democratic. it isnt and thats fact. Everyone can vote for someone to represent them. That, by definition, makes this democratic. What you want is democracy of a very narrow type, one with suffrage rights extended to individual players instead of by accounts. I agree that this would be "better" but that doesn't change the fact that the current system falls well within the definition of democratic. no a vote for someone to represent makes it republican, democratic means everyone get the same voting power. thats why its a plutocratic voting, true still repbulcian but not way not democratic. republica - latin public affairs... means the public can see (parts) of whats going on and (a representative part of) the public (mostly elected but there are other types too) is involved in the gouverment democratic - greek power of people, simple means the votepower is one fore each of the people plutocratic - greek power of wealth, and this means one of the people get more votes dependant on wealth and thats why its NOT democratic... and the whole other mess in this discussion: i simply want to clarify its not democratic, i still voted for my favourite, and dont care if the csm is useful or not. its simply one word i think ccp should change, or overhaul the election system in general (which is not possible due to anonymity anyway) ;p -------------------------------------- Slave and Property of Kathryn Dougans.
Tippia Reikoku IT Alliance	Posted - 2009.11.19 11:38:00 - [47] Edited by: Tippia on 19/11/2009 11:39:29 Originally by: Rhen Ayase republica - latin public affairs... means the public can see (parts) of whats going on and (a representative part of) the public (mostly elected but there are other types too) is involved in the gouverment democratic - greek power of people, simple means the votepower is one fore each of the people plutocratic - greek power of wealth, and this means one of the people get more votes dependant on wealth and thats why its NOT democratic... …and also why those meanings are now obsolete, which explains why you're not getting your argument through. In the modern sense of the word, the CSM is democratic. ——— “If you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡… you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.” — Karath Piki
Winters Chill Amarr Shadow Legion.	Posted - 2009.11.19 11:47:00 - [48] Dunno why you all so surprised. In the grand scheme of things the CSM is marketing. Yes it's very sweet of CCP to let the players have a say in the development in their interactive recreational product. Yes, its very nice of them to fly you to iceland for free, based on a popular vote. They don't have to do any of this, and CCP certainly hope you notice this. They hope even more that you'll tell your friends and the media about it. So more people come play eve and win an eve dev themed holiday to iceland. Thats marketing. Sorry if I sound cynical, but Im paying for a month software service, not a passport to a lifestyle.
TeaDaze Agony Unleashed Agony Empire	Posted - 2009.11.19 14:44:00 - [49] If you don't feel any candidate can represent your views and want to vote Abstain instead then that is valid part of the CSM process. CCP can only put candidates who apply (and meet the passport criteria etc) up for election so can't control the quality much. If you want that to improve (or not ) then apply next time. IMO voting Abstain prolongs the CSM process in its current form, you are stating ôI like the CSM idea but I don't agree with any of these candidatesö. Not voting at all and showing a general lack of interest in the CSM would be far more effective in killing it off if that is your aim Is it mostly a marketing gimmick? - perhaps, but that doesn't mean that it doesn't also have a role in communicating player ideas and requests to CCP. Anything that brings new players into Eve is good for everybody; more subs for CCP, more players buying goods from the markets, more targets for PvP etc. To reply to the OP, I simply describe the CSM as "A player Elected Council" and avoid the whole argument between democracy / plutocracy. Vote TeaDaze for CSM #4
Oriens Pars	Posted - 2009.11.19 15:00:00 - [50] Originally by: Grunanca Originally by: Rhen Ayase its a plutocracy: the one with the money get more votes, because they have more accounts. i hear from many people its normal to have 2 or even 3 accounts, up to 8 or even heard of one with 15. its not democratic for one to have up to 15 votes compared to one only want (or can afford) one eve account. Just like with shareholders in real life, the guy with 15 accounts has 15 times more money invested than you. Why shouldnt he then have 15 times more voting power? CCP couldnt care less if one person pays the party or many does as long as they get the money... CSM isn't a corp. It apparently is an elected "office." So what you're saying is the guy that lives on the other side of town that makes 10 times more than me should get 10 more votes than me, when voting for mayor, or city council members, or county legislature, etc, etc? I think not.

Merovee Amarr Gorthaur Legion	Posted - 2009.11.19 15:27:00 - [51] We are lucky to get a vote at all, and if I invest in this game with more than one account I demand that I get more votes. You people are stupid! Of Mordor
Oriens Pars	Posted - 2009.11.19 16:07:00 - [52] Originally by: Merovee We are lucky to get a vote at all, and if I invest in this game with more than one account I demand that I get more votes. You people are stupid! Please explain to me how you think it's fair that you deserve more than 1 vote just because you have more than 1 account. I don't think your 2nd account speaks for me, or anyone else. In fact, it speaks for you...just a second time. What if someone owned 200 accounts and uses those 200 votes to sway a candidate into the CSM that wants to implement a change that benefits only him and his friends? Great, a candidate gets elected with 5000 votes. Who cares if those 5000 votes came from only 500 people (exaggeration of course)? Uh.....I'm sure a LOT of people care. If CCP really does want a fair representation of its player base then they need to fix the way the CSM is actually elected. I'm not saying get rid of the CSM. I'm just saying there needs to be some different way of voting for the candidates. As it is now it's not fair, and needs to be changed....I for one won't vote until it is. For the record - I own 3 accounts and don't want the 3 votes.....1 is fine, and fair.
Kazang Gallente Wrecking Shots	Posted - 2009.11.19 17:03:00 - [53] Originally by: Oriens Pars Originally by: Merovee We are lucky to get a vote at all, and if I invest in this game with more than one account I demand that I get more votes. You people are stupid! Please explain to me how you think it's fair that you deserve more than 1 vote just because you have more than 1 account. I don't think your 2nd account speaks for me, or anyone else. In fact, it speaks for you...just a second time. What if someone owned 200 accounts and uses those 200 votes to sway a candidate into the CSM that wants to implement a change that benefits only him and his friends? Great, a candidate gets elected with 5000 votes. Who cares if those 5000 votes came from only 500 people (exaggeration of course)? Uh.....I'm sure a LOT of people care. If CCP really does want a fair representation of its player base then they need to fix the way the CSM is actually elected. I'm not saying get rid of the CSM. I'm just saying there needs to be some different way of voting for the candidates. As it is now it's not fair, and needs to be changed....I for one won't vote until it is. For the record - I own 3 accounts and don't want the 3 votes.....1 is fine, and fair. Having one vote per account does make sense really if you think about as this is a game and not real politics. The hardcore players that play more and pay more, ie the ones with more accounts, should have more weight behind their vote(s) than one single character. At the end of the day we are paying customers not a constituency to be governed, EVE is a product not a country. Ironically real world politics is already biased far more towards the wealthy or those already in power so your idea that somehow paying customers getting votes per account is wrongly biased is laughable to the point of being stupidly naive. Kazang
Oriens Pars	Posted - 2009.11.19 17:17:00 - [54] Originally by: Kazang Having one vote per account does make sense really if you think about as this is a game and not real politics. The hardcore players that play more and pay more, ie the ones with more accounts, should have more weight behind their vote(s) than one single character. At the end of the day we are paying customers not a constituency to be governed, EVE is a product not a country. Ironically real world politics is already biased far more towards the wealthy or those already in power so your idea that somehow paying customers getting votes per account is wrongly biased is laughable to the point of being stupidly naive. Biased in that they have the money to be in positions to influence others to vote in some way, NOT biased in that they actually have more votes. So yes, because they have the money they have the influence. Not, because they have the money they can physically vote more.
Ikserak tai	Posted - 2009.11.19 17:36:00 - [55] If the CSM is characterized as surrogate beggars with their hands outstretched imploring CCP to consider an idea or two, then they are accomplishing their mission. All we can hope for is a bit of "noblesse oblige". We do not know what the CSM is going to evolve into in the future, but it is a step, albeit small, in the direction of more player involvement in CCP affairs. A real leader may arise and become a member, and exert some real influence. Every frackin' religion has a messiah myth, why not us? YOU'VE NEVER ROCKED 'TIL YOU'VE UNDOCKED.
Malcanis Vanishing Point. The Initiative.	Posted - 2009.11.19 18:11:00 - [56] Originally by: Le Skunk Edited by: Le Skunk on 18/11/2009 21:59:35 Edited by: Le Skunk on 18/11/2009 21:58:31 Originally by: Tiny Tove Originally by: Le Skunk Though may i ask who "she" is. Are you refering to in general or to a specific woman? SKUNK If you say the name, her ego appears, and frankly the less of it the better. Just think of the loudest, foulest wretch that besmirches all that is good about women, perhaps some gold digging tart who would like to thank you all for her free holiday. Hmmm Well the only two female CSM members that have been voted in as far as I can remember have both been embroiled in some form of scandal if the other One was embroiled in a bitter faction warfare exploting scandal (amongst other scandals) And the other (voted in on an alliance block vote) brought the CSM into disrepute by bringing "humorous" issues in front of the CSM and generally larking around and mocking the poor voters SKUNK You must admit that in both cases they were thoroughly representative of the player base. I can't deny that I got a laugh out of seeing people being so thoroughly trolled by Mazillu. If anyone was dumb enough to take what she said at face value then I have a RAVEN NAVY ISSUE I can trade them in Jita 4-4.
Anna Kommenos	Posted - 2009.11.19 18:16:00 - [57] Originally by: Rhen Ayase Originally by: Grunanca Originally by: Rhen Ayase its a plutocracy: the one with the money get more votes, because they have more accounts. i hear from many people its normal to have 2 or even 3 accounts, up to 8 or even heard of one with 15. its not democratic for one to have up to 15 votes compared to one only want (or can afford) one eve account. Just like with shareholders in real life, the guy with 15 accounts has 15 times more money invested than you. Why shouldnt he then have 15 times more voting power? CCP couldnt care less if one person pays the party or many does as long as they get the money... so then they shouldnt call it democratic if it isnt... then they should call it account shareholder voting or whatever, but not democratic. it isnt and thats fact. there is no such thing as a true democratic system, so your point is moot. from the viewpoint of ccp, csm candidate A wins because he gets more accounts voting for him then csm candidate B, which is in real terms the equivalent of winning a "democratic" vote. that only candidate A's alliance members can be bothered to vote is not ccp's problem, they are getting accurate representation because candidate A's voters are the only ones that can be bothered to vote, and therefor are the only ones who deserve a say in the process. if you want true representation convince the playerbase that its worth their time to click a few buttons, otherwise htfu and stfu.
Anna Kommenos	Posted - 2009.11.19 18:21:00 - [58] Originally by: Rhen Ayase no a vote for someone to represent makes it republican, democratic means everyone get the same voting power. thats why its a plutocratic voting, true still repbulcian but not way not democratic. no that makes it a representative democracy, republics are capable of being democratically constituted, but historically speaking this is rare; for the most part they are oligarchal or plutarchal in nature, which, to be honest, makes them no different from any other governmental system.
Avon Caldari Black Nova Corp IT Alliance	Posted - 2009.11.19 20:03:00 - [59] Edited by: Avon on 19/11/2009 20:03:24 Democracy sucks anyway. You are in a plane and the captain and the co-pilot both fall ill and are unable to fly... There is a qualified pilot on the plane. There are several rows of drunken football fans. In a meritocracy you are going to live. In a democracy you are going to plunge to your doom whist rather rude sporting chants are slurred through the PA system as the most popular football fan looks for the cup holder. Letting everyone have an equal say is a pretty terrible idea. アニメ漫画です
LaVista Vista Conservative Shenanigans Party	Posted - 2009.11.19 21:43:00 - [60] Originally by: Le Skunk Well the only two female CSM members that have been voted in as far as I can remember have both been embroiled in some form of scandal if the other SKUNK There has been 4 female members of the CSM. Not 2.

Le Skunk Low Sec Liberators	Posted - 2009.11.20 00:16:00 - [61] Originally by: Avon Edited by: Avon on 19/11/2009 20:03:24 Democracy sucks anyway. You are in a plane and the captain and the co-pilot both fall ill and are unable to fly... There is a qualified pilot on the plane. There are several rows of drunken football fans. In a meritocracy you are going to live. In a democracy you are going to plunge to your doom whist rather rude sporting chants are slurred through the PA system as the most popular football fan looks for the cup holder. Letting everyone have an equal say is a pretty terrible idea. The qualified pilot then sterilizes the male football fans who obviously have inferior DNA and impregnates their wives. SKUNK (o)
Avon Caldari Black Nova Corp IT Alliance	Posted - 2009.11.20 00:57:00 - [62] Originally by: Le Skunk Originally by: Avon Edited by: Avon on 19/11/2009 20:03:24 Democracy sucks anyway. You are in a plane and the captain and the co-pilot both fall ill and are unable to fly... There is a qualified pilot on the plane. There are several rows of drunken football fans. In a meritocracy you are going to live. In a democracy you are going to plunge to your doom whist rather rude sporting chants are slurred through the PA system as the most popular football fan looks for the cup holder. Letting everyone have an equal say is a pretty terrible idea. The qualified pilot then sterilizes the male football fans who obviously have inferior DNA and impregnates their wives. SKUNK The football fans would vote against it. Democracy, remember? アニメ漫画です
Le Skunk Low Sec Liberators	Posted - 2009.11.20 02:36:00 - [63] Edited by: Le Skunk on 20/11/2009 02:36:27 Originally by: Avon Originally by: Le Skunk Originally by: Avon Edited by: Avon on 19/11/2009 20:03:24 Democracy sucks anyway. You are in a plane and the captain and the co-pilot both fall ill and are unable to fly... There is a qualified pilot on the plane. There are several rows of drunken football fans. In a meritocracy you are going to live. In a democracy you are going to plunge to your doom whist rather rude sporting chants are slurred through the PA system as the most popular football fan looks for the cup holder. Letting everyone have an equal say is a pretty terrible idea. The qualified pilot then sterilizes the male football fans who obviously have inferior DNA and impregnates their wives. SKUNK The football fans would vote against it. Democracy, remember? Not being a fan of forcible sterilization and other such practices that was kind of my point SKUNK (o)
KaarBaak Minmatar Sebiestor tribe	Posted - 2009.11.20 03:42:00 - [64] Originally by: LaVista Vista Originally by: Le Skunk Well the only two female CSM members that have been voted in as far as I can remember have both been embroiled in some form of scandal if the other SKUNK There has been 4 female members of the CSM. Not 2. Highlighted. KB KB Beware the beast Man, for he is the Devil's pawn. Alone among God's primates, he kills for sport or lust or greed. Yea, he will murder his brother to possess his brother's land.

CCP Xhagen	Posted - 2009.11.20 12:29:00 - [65] Originally by: Rhen Ayase its a plutocracy: the one with the money get more votes, because they have more accounts. i hear from many people its normal to have 2 or even 3 accounts, up to 8 or even heard of one with 15. its not democratic for one to have up to 15 votes compared to one only want (or can afford) one eve account. It all depends on what you mean by 'democratic'. When we introduced the idea back in 2007 we used the phrase of "Representive democracy" or "democratic council" - that didn't go down very well. So, to emphasize the lack of formal power of the CSM we rephrased it to "Democratically elected representative council" and advertised, repeatedly, that the CSM has no formal powers. And in terms of the election method, i.e. one vote per account, that was combination of practicalities and environment the CSM is in - the line between the in-game characters and the user behind them is not always clear and the question of 'how do you make sure that only one person is behind each and every vote?'. If you look up any author with ideas about electronic, sit-at-home-and-vote, ideas, you will see that no one has found an acceptable solution (with the exception of biometric implementations). ____________________________ EVE Online CCP Games

Tiny Tove	Posted - 2009.11.20 12:38:00 - [66] Originally by: CCP Xhagen and advertised, repeatedly, that the CSM has no formal powers. So at least CCP know where they failed. Now if only the free holiday fraternity and their fanboiz could finally get it through their 800mm rolled reinforced misconception plated skulls. Seeing as it's a dev saying you'd think they finally would, but I don't think holding breath at this point would be advisable. Replace it with forum poll thanks. Nobody can even hear the CSM for the awesome sound of the forums recently.

CCP Xhagen	Posted - 2009.11.20 12:50:00 - [67] Originally by: Tiny Tove Originally by: CCP Xhagen and advertised, repeatedly, that the CSM has no formal powers. So at least CCP know where they failed. Now if only the free holiday fraternity and their fanboiz could finally get it through their 800mm rolled reinforced misconception plated skulls. Seeing as it's a dev saying you'd think they finally would, but I don't think holding breath at this point would be advisable. Replace it with forum poll thanks. Nobody can even hear the CSM for the awesome sound of the forums recently. Who decides what the forum poll is to be about? The point of the CSM is to get uncensored feedback from the players. If CCP decides the topics of said polls we will only be getting the information we want to get. Furthermore, I believe it is important to stress that one should not underestimate the power of meeting someone to talk to him face to face - the CSM might not have any formal powers, but they have a very significant influence. ____________________________ EVE Online CCP Games

Tiny Tove	Posted - 2009.11.20 13:28:00 - [68] Originally by: CCP Xhagen Who decides what the forum poll is to be about? The point of the CSM is to get uncensored feedback from the players. If CCP decides the topics of said polls we will only be getting the information we want to get. Furthermore, I believe it is important to stress that one should not underestimate the power of meeting someone to talk to him face to face - the CSM might not have any formal powers, but they have a very significant influence. Oh come on, who decides what the CSM talk about? Allegedly we do. Uncensored, except by the CSM. If CCP decides something we don't like, see forums recently. And no, corporations have no trouble giving lip service face-to-face. The Ideas forum existed long before the CSM and was working just fine. The CSM appeared in response to T20, was promised to deal with that kind of situation, but we ended up with the weak light nonsense we have now. So we supplemented a working system with a corruptable system, that really worked out well. And you created Internal Affairs to cover and make unaccountable all investigations into corruption. Great job. Even the media was fooled. But as a mere employee, you're only allowed to tow the company line. So, get towing.

CCP Xhagen	Posted - 2009.11.20 13:40:00 - [69] Originally by: Tiny Tove Oh come on, who decides what the CSM talk about? Allegedly we do. Uncensored, except by the CSM. If CCP decides something we don't like, see forums recently. And no, corporations have no trouble giving lip service face-to-face. The Ideas forum existed long before the CSM and was working just fine. The CSM appeared in response to T20, was promised to deal with that kind of situation, but we ended up with the weak light nonsense we have now. So we supplemented a working system with a corruptable system, that really worked out well. And you created Internal Affairs to cover and make unaccountable all investigations into corruption. Great job. Even the media was fooled. But as a mere employee, you're only allowed to tow the company line. So, get towing. The company line demands that I tow; no arguments on the forums; no trolling of players. As any reply from me would end in not towing the company line I have only one (viable) option to me: Sir, I have read your reply and I have acknowledged it. ____________________________ EVE Online CCP Games

Sergeant Clawhammer	Posted - 2009.11.20 13:44:00 - [70] Originally by: CCP Xhagen The company line demands that I tow; no arguments on the forums; no trolling of players. As any reply from me would end in not towing the company line I have only one (viable) option to me: Sir, I have read your reply and I have acknowledged it. That's borderline trolling tbh. And back on track, where is the vote for cat button?

Malcanis Vanishing Point. The Initiative.	Posted - 2009.11.20 13:49:00 - [71] Edited by: Malcanis on 20/11/2009 13:49:45 It's "toe the line" not "tow the line".
Doddy The Executives IT Alliance	Posted - 2009.11.20 15:00:00 - [72] All modern "democracies" are run by focus groups, lobbyists and pressure groups anyway, the csm is quite a good representation of this tbh and is actually more democratic than the reality.
Jack Gilligan THE MuPPeT FaCTOrY	Posted - 2009.11.20 15:06:00 - [73] The CSM was originally supposed to be created to give the players a role in policing CCP, ie: to prevent any more T20's. It was never actually set up for that role. It more or less is completely useless window dressing, and I think CCP is wasting subscriber money flying what amounts to a superfanboi club to Iceland. Which is why I don't vote for CSM, and I urge others to not vote. If the vote participation keeps dropping, CCP will know we don't give a rat's rear end about the CSM.
HowardStern	Posted - 2009.11.20 15:12:00 - [74] Originally by: Marko Riva I have 7 accounts but couldn't be bothered to log in the others so just voted with 1. I abstained with 1 account. And only because I couldn't be bothered logging every other account in.
Tiny Tove	Posted - 2009.11.20 15:15:00 - [75] Originally by: Doddy All modern "democracies" are run by focus groups, lobbyists and pressure groups anyway, the csm is quite a good representation of this tbh and is actually more democratic than the reality. Those groups don't spontaneously appear though, nor are they created by the ruling body. They are the manifestation of moderately powerful groups who have to combine forces not yet being powerful enough singularly to influence a government. Since the CSM doesn't come under that, it being a completely contrived body created and endorsed by CCP, the analogy has a flaw. Large Alliances are more akin to lobby groups etc. The CSM is akin too.... er... I don't know. I'd say a Mayor, but Mayors at least have some power and abilities. Their really is nothing like a CSM in real life. Perhaps maybe the local Rotary Club, or Parish Council. But that would be a bit unfair to the Rotary Club.
ANALDESTROYR Gallente No Compromise	Posted - 2009.11.20 17:33:00 - [76] Originally by: Oriens Pars Originally by: Merovee We are lucky to get a vote at all, and if I invest in this game with more than one account I demand that I get more votes. You people are stupid! Please explain to me how you think it's fair that you deserve more than 1 vote just because you have more than 1 account. I don't think your 2nd account speaks for me, or anyone else. In fact, it speaks for you...just a second time. What if someone owned 200 accounts and uses those 200 votes to sway a candidate into the CSM that wants to implement a change that benefits only him and his friends? Great, a candidate gets elected with 5000 votes. Who cares if those 5000 votes came from only 500 people (exaggeration of course)? Uh.....I'm sure a LOT of people care. If CCP really does want a fair representation of its player base then they need to fix the way the CSM is actually elected. I'm not saying get rid of the CSM. I'm just saying there needs to be some different way of voting for the candidates. As it is now it's not fair, and needs to be changed....I for one won't vote until it is. For the record - I own 3 accounts and don't want the 3 votes.....1 is fine, and fair. LOL, U HAVENT SEEN THE USA ELECTIONS, MORE CORRUPT THAN RUSSIA. ((
Taedrin Gallente The Green Cross	Posted - 2009.11.20 17:45:00 - [77] Originally by: CCP Xhagen Originally by: Tiny Tove Oh come on, who decides what the CSM talk about? Allegedly we do. Uncensored, except by the CSM. If CCP decides something we don't like, see forums recently. And no, corporations have no trouble giving lip service face-to-face. The Ideas forum existed long before the CSM and was working just fine. The CSM appeared in response to T20, was promised to deal with that kind of situation, but we ended up with the weak light nonsense we have now. So we supplemented a working system with a corruptable system, that really worked out well. And you created Internal Affairs to cover and make unaccountable all investigations into corruption. Great job. Even the media was fooled. But as a mere employee, you're only allowed to tow the company line. So, get towing. The company line demands that I tow; no arguments on the forums; no trolling of players. As any reply from me would end in not towing the company line I have only one (viable) option to me: Sir, I have read your reply and I have acknowledged it. Which probably also explains why there is so little dev interaction in threads where players are being very emotional and aggressive. ---------- There is always a choice. The choice might not be easy, nor simple, nor the options be what you desire - but, nevertheless, the choice is there to be made.
Oriens Pars	Posted - 2009.11.20 18:35:00 - [78] Originally by: ANALDESTROYR LOL, U HAVENT SEEN THE USA ELECTIONS, MORE CORRUPT THAN RUSSIA. (( Corrupt, possibly. In fact, probably.....but, PAYING FOR ACTUAL PHYSICAL VOTES IS AGAINST THE LAW! Paying for lobbyists, and whoever else to sway voters a certain way is NOT against the law, that's why we see soo many stupid ass ads for 6-12 months prior to elections. Trust me, if you get caught paying someone outright to vote a certain way you are gonna end up in jail.
Konoch Caldari Azriel's Legion	Posted - 2009.11.20 18:42:00 - [79] Originally by: CCP Xhagen Originally by: Tiny Tove Oh come on, who decides what the CSM talk about? Allegedly we do. Uncensored, except by the CSM. If CCP decides something we don't like, see forums recently. And no, corporations have no trouble giving lip service face-to-face. The Ideas forum existed long before the CSM and was working just fine. The CSM appeared in response to T20, was promised to deal with that kind of situation, but we ended up with the weak light nonsense we have now. So we supplemented a working system with a corruptable system, that really worked out well. And you created Internal Affairs to cover and make unaccountable all investigations into corruption. Great job. Even the media was fooled. But as a mere employee, you're only allowed to tow the company line. So, get towing. The company line demands that I tow; no arguments on the forums; no trolling of players. As any reply from me would end in not towing the company line I have only one (viable) option to me: Sir, I have read your reply and I have acknowledged it. Please relay this message to your bosses. The CSM is nothing but an abject failure. I will not vote in it i will not participate in it because it has become blatently clear to us you refuse to listen to it. I was due to reup my subscription in the Jan/Feb months. If Dominion goes down the track of the latest Dev blog i will not do so. I will hit the cancel subscription button and on the last day delete my character. Slap N on the head please and make him get his act together. His actions have basically in one clean swoop declared this group a Farce and set a lot of people looking for potential viable options. And while T20 there werent really any good ones. THIS TIME THERE ARE! STO (online before july 4th next year) TOR Possibly ready for a new years launch? Who knows its bioware. Jumpgate Evo? In closed betas right now will also be ready within the next six months.] If you want to bleed off subscriptions to those games keep doing what you're doing. FIX THIS!
Everseeker United Corporate Ventures	Posted - 2009.11.20 20:42:00 - [80] Ya know, I do not mind that there are people who can vote on more then 1 toon... as long as it's not alts on the same account, and it's not a temp account, I am REALLY fine with it... Look at the numbers... do you REALLY think that the people on the CSM bought thousands of accounts, JUST to get on the CSM? And, when you think about it...If they did... So? That means you have a person who cares enough about this game to sink hundreds of dollars into the CSM process.... My only problem is kinda small, but... In MOST (OK, all the ones I can remember) of the elections I have participates in where there are Y people competing for X seats (and Y>X) I have been asked to "Pick X Names from the following" not pick Mr.Moon X times, but pick several names.... The fact that I can only pick 1.... not as satisfactory to me I might think MS Apple would be a GREAT person, when paired with MS Bravo... but I can't indicate that... If I am asked to select my choice for CSM, let me tell you my choice.... not just 1 member (and yes, I think this is a good thing, and I voted) EverSeeker

Tellenta Gallente Invicta.	Posted - 2009.11.20 22:07:00 - [81] Edited by: Tellenta on 20/11/2009 22:08:53 Originally by: Rhen Ayase its a plutocracy: the one with the money get more votes, because they have more accounts. i hear from many people its normal to have 2 or even 3 accounts, up to 8 or even heard of one with 15. its not democratic for one to have up to 15 votes compared to one only want (or can afford) one eve account. edited because I was wrong zomg votes I think, but I've never voted for CSM due to the fact that I am not emotionally attached to this game enough to do research on canidates for a position that may or may not do anything in particular that may or may not effect my play style in any meaningful fashion.
Ebanni Ebanni Mercantile	Posted - 2009.11.21 18:52:00 - [82] Originally by: CCP Xhagen It all depends on what you mean by 'democratic'. Priceless. Abstain.
Khamal Jolstien Caldari RennTech BricK sQuAD.	Posted - 2009.11.21 20:47:00 - [83] Originally by: CCP Xhagen Originally by: Tiny Tove Oh come on, who decides what the CSM talk about? Allegedly we do. Uncensored, except by the CSM. If CCP decides something we don't like, see forums recently. And no, corporations have no trouble giving lip service face-to-face. The Ideas forum existed long before the CSM and was working just fine. The CSM appeared in response to T20, was promised to deal with that kind of situation, but we ended up with the weak light nonsense we have now. So we supplemented a working system with a corruptable system, that really worked out well. And you created Internal Affairs to cover and make unaccountable all investigations into corruption. Great job. Even the media was fooled. But as a mere employee, you're only allowed to tow the company line. So, get towing. The company line demands that I tow; no arguments on the forums; no trolling of players. As any reply from me would end in not towing the company line I have only one (viable) option to me: Sir, I have read your reply and I have acknowledged it. Glad to see the professionals at CCP partake in trolling just as much as the people they're supposed to moderate over.
Oscardoodle Amarr	Posted - 2009.11.21 21:05:00 - [84] Originally by: CCP Xhagen Who decides what the forum poll is to be about? The point of the CSM is to get uncensored feedback from the players and have the ability to do nothing with it. If CCP decides the topics of said polls we will only be getting the information we want to get, which is how it should be. Furthermore, I believe it is important to stress that one should not underestimate the power of meeting someone to talk to him face to face - the CSM might not have any formal powers, but they have a very significant influence over nothing. Fixed ur poast.
Gnulpie Minmatar Miner Tech	Posted - 2009.11.21 21:59:00 - [85] True democracy is stupid. Why should anyone be allowed to have the same impact on a topic they have NO clue about as someone who has really deep and good knowledge and skills about that topic? That is most absurd. Or do you want a democratic vote from people on the street how to repair your car next time it is broken? I bet you go to professionals then instead. So, see how democracy is great when it comes to skills and knowledge? True democracy is nonsense and a bad thing. People much wiser than me (and probably anyone else here) wrote about that topic already thousands of years ago - the arguments haven't changed a single bit since then. But probably you didn't mean democracy but representation anyway.
Oscardoodle Amarr	Posted - 2009.11.21 22:12:00 - [86] Originally by: Gnulpie do you want a democratic vote from people on the street how to repair your car next time it is broken? I bet you go to professionals then instead. Allow me to enlighten you. You pay a pro to fix your car and if you don't get what you pay for then you go somewhere else. Thinkaboutit brown noser.
Peryner University of Caille	Posted - 2009.11.21 23:18:00 - [87] Originally by: Khamal Jolstien Originally by: CCP Xhagen Originally by: Tiny Tove Oh come on, who decides what the CSM talk about? Allegedly we do. Uncensored, except by the CSM. If CCP decides something we don't like, see forums recently. And no, corporations have no trouble giving lip service face-to-face. The Ideas forum existed long before the CSM and was working just fine. The CSM appeared in response to T20, was promised to deal with that kind of situation, but we ended up with the weak light nonsense we have now. So we supplemented a working system with a corruptable system, that really worked out well. And you created Internal Affairs to cover and make unaccountable all investigations into corruption. Great job. Even the media was fooled. But as a mere employee, you're only allowed to tow the company line. So, get towing. The company line demands that I tow; no arguments on the forums; no trolling of players. As any reply from me would end in not towing the company line I have only one (viable) option to me: Sir, I have read your reply and I have acknowledged it. Glad to see the professionals at CCP partake in trolling just as much as the people they're supposed to moderate over. people like you are the reason dev don't reply on the forums. If they say nothing, the player consider it trolling. If they say something emotional, the player become enraged they have an opinion! If they say, I can't reply, but even though I can't, I will at least let you know I'm reding and not ignoring you. Then it's considered trolling. So the only obvious clear way for the devs to not get the playerbase mad is not post at all. Thanks a lot Jolstien, you're like the one spoiled kid that gets recess canceled for the rest for us Damned if you do Damned if you don't
Imiarr Timshae Caldari Funny Men In Funny Hats	Posted - 2009.11.21 23:18:00 - [88] Of course it's not democratic, here's why : Linkage
Terianna Eri Amarr Senex Legio Get Off My Lawn	Posted - 2009.11.22 00:15:00 - [89] Originally by: CCP Xhagen no arguments on the forums; no trolling of players Some would claim that CCP Nozh is in violation of the latter (target painteeeers); I would instead claim that the forums would be more interesting if these rules were removed ________________ Originally by: CCP Incognito PS the "time to P*nis" is the shortest time recorded in human history. :)
AnonyTerrorNinja Minmatar Buggers' Advanced Interstellar Transport	Posted - 2009.11.22 00:36:00 - [90] I was going to post one of my wall-of-text arguments towards the OP here, but I got way too tired half-way in. CSM has no power. CSM can be as corrupt as they want, that doesn't mean CCP are or are going to put up with caving to the corruption. CSM is there to collect and relay 'the voice' (read: incessant whines) of the players to the devs in a format that is slightly-less whiney. There, I think I summarized the important bits. Whether groups of 'corrupt' players push to get their personal CSM member in or not, CSM members' actions within the forums/game are likely monitored to make sure there's little to no personal-gain scheming going on. If they aren't, then something, somewhere, is very wrong. ---

LeBelInconnu Tribal Liberation Force	Posted - 2009.11.22 00:39:00 - [91] Originally by: Taedrin Originally by: CCP Xhagen Originally by: Tiny Tove Oh come on, who decides what the CSM talk about? Allegedly we do. Uncensored, except by the CSM. If CCP decides something we don't like, see forums recently. And no, corporations have no trouble giving lip service face-to-face. The Ideas forum existed long before the CSM and was working just fine. The CSM appeared in response to T20, was promised to deal with that kind of situation, but we ended up with the weak light nonsense we have now. So we supplemented a working system with a corruptable system, that really worked out well. And you created Internal Affairs to cover and make unaccountable all investigations into corruption. Great job. Even the media was fooled. But as a mere employee, you're only allowed to tow the company line. So, get towing. The company line demands that I tow; no arguments on the forums; no trolling of players. As any reply from me would end in not towing the company line I have only one (viable) option to me: Sir, I have read your reply and I have acknowledged it. Which probably also explains why there is so little dev interaction in threads where players are being very emotional and aggressive. if only there was a way for devs to have a hand full of players tell the devs what the players on the forum have been saying... and nto have 100s fo people yelling voer each other... maybe we could pick some of us by viting, and then the people we vote for could sit down one on one with ccp. and thus the devs could a safe enviroment in which to talk to the playerbase... yeah, that' a good idea, we should do that. DB Preacher - "We command your game now. As long as you remain in GoonSwarm, we make you play our way..." wtf is wrong with you?
JACKIE M00N	Posted - 2009.11.22 00:43:00 - [92] CSM = Holding a gun with no bullets
Khemul Zula Amarr Keisen Trade League	Posted - 2009.11.22 00:52:00 - [93] Edited by: Khemul Zula on 22/11/2009 00:53:44 Originally by: Terianna Eri Originally by: CCP Xhagen no arguments on the forums; no trolling of players Some would claim that CCP Nozh is in violation of the latter (target painteeeers); I would instead claim that the forums would be more interesting if these rules were removed Definately. Forums need dev trolling. Someone like Navigator posting a thread like "Stop the salvage thieves!" would be awesome. Good ol' Democracy. One man, one vote. And sometimes that One Man decides to give others the illusion of voting also. After all, it's always nice to share, or atleast create the illusion of sharing while not actually sharing but making others content because they believe you are sharing while you are actually not (otherwise known as 'Politics'). Veal, murder. Baby Carrots, healthy snack. Food hypocrisy at work.
murder one Gallente Death of Virtue MeatSausage EXPRESS	Posted - 2009.11.22 01:42:00 - [94] Originally by: JACKIE M00N CSM = Holding a gun with no bullets More like holding the packaging box of a gun, with no gun inside it. And still no bullets. -murder one [07:13:55] doctorstupid2 > what do i train now? [07:14:05] Trista Rotnor > little boys to 2
DigitalCommunist November Corporation	Posted - 2009.11.22 06:19:00 - [95] I've yet to cast any votes in the CSM process, and I doubt I ever will. And its not because I dislike the CSM concept (hell, I demanded they bring it back).. but because I dislike what voting represents. I don't think I could ever find a person with values identical to mine. What should I do then? Vote for someone who I agree with only half of the time? I would much rather abstain and feel left out than participate and feel stupid because the person I gave my vote to is a raging moron on many issues - but not as much as every other candidate option. Screw the middleman, let us promote issues and topics for review and discussion instead. In a cutthroat, hypercapitalistic and ruthless environment where most players wouldn't trust their HAC to a stranger even with billions in personal wealth, why should they entrust them to shape their gameplay experience before anything is said or done? Why does it even happen? Because people like to push buttons and for many, not voting is not possible. In a CSM election event filled with 1 month old newbs, bored vets who haven't played in 4 years, and dirtbags who think removing concord is great, we would still end up with a Lesser Evil CandidateÖ The CSM harbours the same fault of real world democracies, even though it doesn't have to. In the real world, you have to pick people to run the show and wield power or literally nothing would happen. But in EVE, we already have a central authority which can administer action and change. Another layer of beaurocracy between us and them is both redundant and inefficient. As evidenced by the lack of decline in forum whines, most people choose to ignore the option of ***ing at the CSM when they can *** to CCP directly. CCP is screwed if they ignore either one: ignoring CSM means pointless drama, while ignoring the playerbase means becoming reliant on the the input of a few individuals. The irony of this is that CCP have - in the process of simplifying feedback - created even more work for themselves. CCP should issue massively detailed surveys on every aspect of the game on a routine basis. Valuable data can be harvested and compared against account information like total wealth, age, logged in time, etc. They would have statistical data representative of how new players feel, what veterans think, what 0.0 alliances want, and so on. Every vote, option and checkbox entered by every player would still hold some meaning. Afterwards, publish all the data (just like QEN) and the playerbase can have discussions about interpretation or bicker over which demographic is more important. Hell, the players might come to understand the various groupings of player values well enough to form organized lobby and political groups. This initial round of surveys can focus purely on satisfaction with various features and elements of gameplay, and when the areas of improvement are narrowed down, CCP issues a second round focusing on specific implementations. Finally, the third round is just a ballot of "what do you want us to do next from this list?". Repeat this process with every expansion, and the game will evolve in a positive direction much faster than a few dudes with a personal soapbox can ever hope to accomplish. And this is not me saying "CSM candidates have no influence or power". Such things don't matter when you constantly recieve a different mix or "slice" of the community. Influence and power can be counterproductive when new candidates push devs into doing the exact opposite of what previous councils wanted. Have general opinions in the playerbase changed in the meantime? Probably not! It shouldn't take more than 10 of these CSM councils to make CCP realize they're just as random as throwing a dart at the forums and reading the feature/idea/suggestion/whine contained within. Hopefully then, we see some of this overly hyped "iterative development process" in action.
Ignitious Hellfury Minmatar Republic Military Skool	Posted - 2009.11.22 06:24:00 - [96] Originally by: JACKIE M00N CSM = Holding a gun with no bullets false. Larkonis almost made of with BILLIONS!!! /vote lark
Tiny Tove	Posted - 2009.11.22 13:43:00 - [97] Originally by: Taedrin Which probably also explains why there is so little dev interaction in threads where players are being very emotional and aggressive. I only wounded it, quit crying. Wasn't it they that said "Harden The What Up?" themselves? If they wanna be pouty emo, that's their business. HARDEN THE **** UP
Dirk Mortice	Posted - 2009.11.22 14:15:00 - [98] I don't see what the problem is. Surely the player who pays CCP 10x as much money should have 10x as much say in the companies activities?
Borun Tal Minmatar	Posted - 2009.11.22 23:40:00 - [99] I think this thread proves two things: 1) CSM is a castrated alley cat with zero power (CCP Xhagen's words) and influence, and 2) nobody can police a company that doesn't allow anyone in the front door in the first place (XHagen's "toe the company line" comment). CCP doesn't want certain things discussed publicly in forums where most of their players frequent (these forums and chat) and censors those items, so what effect do you REALLY think CSM can do? To compare CSM to lobbyists is just to prove one doesn't know what lobbyists can do. I work IRL for a large law firm that has lobbyists on payroll, and what these guys do would shock many purists (ie, uninformed) on these forums. The same power doesn't exist for CSM, and never will (it's CCP's sandbox and they make 100% of the rules, irrespective of what the paying customers say or think).
Taaketa Frist Minmatar Lone Star Joint Venture Wildly Inappropriate.	Posted - 2009.11.23 00:10:00 - [100] Dear CCP, RE: This thread Can't please nobody. That is all. Yours truely, Taaketa Frist -------------- Dang nabit

Ralle030583 Mystic Lion Hearts Sev3rance	Posted - 2009.11.23 00:19:00 - [101] Originally by: K'uata Sayus Originally by: Rhen Ayase ..stuff... Democracy is an ideal that does not exist in RL. Why hold CCP and the CSM up to something that does not nor ever has been?? this made my day :) /signed
Frug Omega Wing	Posted - 2009.11.23 01:17:00 - [102] Part of the problem with these forums is that a lot of the sensible people have long since stopped posting on eveo because of the rampant stupidity of the players here. I know I sure gave up months ago. The unfortunate fallout of this is that this is the forum the devs post in. So not only do they not talk to a lot of reasonable people, but they also have to listen to you idiots. - - - - - - - - - Do not use dotted lines - - - - - - If you think I'm awesome say BOOO BOOO!! - Ductoris Neat look what I found - Kreul Whisper/PrismX 4 emperor
Tiny Tove	Posted - 2009.11.23 01:25:00 - [103] Originally by: Frug Part of the problem with these forums is that a lot of the sensible people have long since stopped posting on eveo because of the rampant stupidity of the players here. I know I sure gave up months ago. The unfortunate fallout of this is that this is the forum the devs post in. So not only do they not talk to a lot of reasonable people, but they also have to listen to you idiots. HTFU.
Woodwraith Prophets Of a Damned Universe	Posted - 2009.11.23 03:00:00 - [104] Originally by: DigitalCommunist The CSM harbours the same fault of real world democracies, even though it doesn't have to. In the real world, you have to pick people to run the show and wield power or literally nothing would happen. But in EVE, we already have a central authority which can administer action and change. Another layer of beaurocracy between us and them is both redundant and inefficient. I would posit that the distance between the average eve players ideas and CCP is about like me trying to get info to the man in the moon. Having a repeater in the middle that can take a handful of ideas they're elected on and bring them into the belly of the beast is surely better than thinking something clear and concise will come out of these forums. Even not counting CAOD, the signal to noise ration in here is just a notch above 4chan most days. Worse case scenario, you elect someone with decent ideas and no one listens to them, I still don't see how were in any worse off a spot than we'd be without them.
Le Skunk Low Sec Liberators	Posted - 2009.11.23 04:04:00 - [105] Originally by: Frug Part of the problem with these forums is that a lot of the sensible people have long since stopped posting on eveo because of the rampant stupidity of the players here. I know I sure gave up months ago. The unfortunate fallout of this is that this is the forum the devs post in. So not only do they not talk to a lot of reasonable people, but they also have to listen to you idiots. You gave up posting "months ago" because of all the idiots? A quick look at your post history shows you post on this forum every other day. SKUNK (o)
Dillon Arklight Universal Army Ushra'Khan	Posted - 2009.11.23 05:53:00 - [106] Reading this thread it is easy to see why so many players have become dissolutioned with the idea of the CSM. Its short history is full of examples of communication breakdown between the CSM and CCP and more recently we saw corruption on the CSM in the form of Larkonnis Trassler. It astounded me when at the fan fest the CSM rather hesitantly reported that the communication lines between themselves and CCP had broken down. You have to wonder how this could have happened and if it reflects upon CCP's commitment to the CSM ideal. This lack of communication was more recently proved when it took over 2 months for the notes of a recent CCP/CSM meeting to become available to us the players. http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1175622&page=3 The arguments for one player having one vote is currently being discussed and I agree with CCP that itÆs almost impossible to guarantee that a person with multiple accounts will only vote once. Unless players, like me, decide that even though they pay for multiple accounts you should only vote once. Because vote I shall. ItÆs easy to look on the CSM from the outside and criticize and complain but sadly your voice will not be heard amongst the thousands on the forums. It will be heard if you vote to abstain. That will send CCP a much louder message than a rant on a thread or a sly comment on the forums. If you donÆt agree with the CSM or there is no candidate which matches your views then use the abstain button, itÆs there for that purpose. As a final thought if I vote for a candidate I would like to see more detailed information once the CSM session is over as to what they voted on various topics. ItÆs all well and good for a candidate to get elected with general platitudes such as "boost amarr!" but it would be nice to see if they stuck to their promises. Co-host of PODDED Podcast http://podded.libsyn.com/

CCP Xhagen	Posted - 2009.11.23 15:47:00 - [107] Originally by: DigitalCommunist The CSM harbours the same fault of real world democracies, even though it doesn't have to. In the real world, you have to pick people to run the show and wield power or literally nothing would happen. But in EVE, we already have a central authority which can administer action and change. Another layer of beaurocracy between us and them is both redundant and inefficient. As evidenced by the lack of decline in forum whines, most people choose to ignore the option of ***ing at the CSM when they can * to CCP directly. CCP is screwed if they ignore either one: ignoring CSM means pointless drama, while ignoring the playerbase means becoming reliant on the the input of a few individuals. The irony of this is that CCP have - in the process of simplifying feedback - created even more work for themselves. The approach we took with the 'new' CSM was: as much hands off as humanly possible. That means we screen out as few candidates as possible and we screen out almost no topics raised by the CSM. I realize that this 'almost no' is there - the CSM is supposed to focus on EVE related matters, not on CCP as a business (e.g. the Game Time Code changes). I disagree with your implicit statement that 'simplified feedback' means less work. We fully realize that this route created even more work and bound us down - the commitment to talk to the CSM has been made. Originally by:** DigitalCommunist CCP should issue massively detailed surveys on every aspect of the game on a routine basis. Valuable data can be harvested and compared against account information like total wealth, age, logged in time, etc. They would have statistical data representative of how new players feel, what veterans think, what 0.0 alliances want, and so on. This is being/or will be (I'm not 100% in the loop there) done too. Again I don't agree with your 'either or' approach. Furthermore, if CCP designs the questions and the available answers, CCP is controlling what message we get and what not. The CSM is supposed to provide us with feedback, selected by the players, not by CCP. Originally by: DigitalCommunist It shouldn't take more than 10 of these CSM councils to make CCP realize they're just as random as throwing a dart at the forums and reading the feature/idea/suggestion/whine contained within. Hopefully then, we see some of this overly hyped "iterative development process" in action. I'm not part of the Game Design team, thus I simply don't know the status of current projects in there. What I do know is that for the 4th CSM, the process of how we handle things internally that are brought up by the CSM will change. For the 5th CSM we will hopefully have changes that touch upon the external matters related to the CSM. ____________________________ EVE Online CCP Games

Jin Gle Asgardreia	Posted - 2009.11.23 16:01:00 - [108] I just want to congratulate CCP in making a democratic system that resemble the various democratic systems that exist in real life so very closely. In every aspect :)
DigitalCommunist November Corporation	Posted - 2009.11.23 17:33:00 - [109] Cool, I got a reply. As I understand it, you think CCP asking questions will skew the type of feedback you get. My response is that while its possible to ask highly loaded and focused questions, you can easily avoid it by hiring the right person for the job. Maybe a professional statistician to go with your economist? That person can always run the questions by the community for feedback on the survey itself. Either way, its not a huge deal if your surveys are thorough and frequent. Right now you influence the type of feedback CSM gives just by announcing what upcoming expansions are about. Because they're individuals with some desire to be of worth, they might not tell you certain things just because they seem unlikely or unfeasible in the near future.
Sumach Merge	Posted - 2009.11.30 15:39:00 - [110] Originally by: Frug Part of the problem with these forums is that a lot of the sensible people have long since stopped posting on eveo because of the rampant stupidity of the players here. I know I sure gave up months ago. The unfortunate fallout of this is that this is the forum the devs post in. So not only do they not talk to a lot of reasonable people, but they also have to listen to you idiots. Yeah the 'sensible' people end up on Scrapheap Challenge as bitter Veterans who complain about absolutely everything, suggest ideas that are even more horrid than the ideas in the Features and Ideas forum, and believe they are entitled to everything.

Rhatar Khurin Minmatar Dead poets society The Laughing Men	Posted - 2009.11.30 15:51:00 - [111] I always vote for whomever i think will do a good job pushing Factional warfare related things into view. Failing that, whomever has the prettiest avatar


Pages: 1 2 3 4 :: [one page]

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.