In earlier CSMs, where interaction with CCP was largely confined to the Summits and the company pretty much ignored them for the remainder of the term, the CSM communicated loudly and frequently with the wider playerbase because that was the only party listening. Today the pendulum swings in the opposite direction - since chatting it up in secret with devs in the NDA-sealed skype channels is always going to be sexier than the plodding groundwork of public relations, that's the direction of communication CSM7 is naturally favouring.

Transparency is a lofty ambition. Access and reasonable dialogue, though, would be almost just as nice.

I know getting a straight comment on this forum from a certain "High-sec CSM Representative" regarding valid issues was literally impossible. The only opinion I was ever able to garner was a philosophical one about the economics of happiness which was nominally unrelated to any of the issues I tried to address. I do not wish to launch personal attacks, but the evidence should be pretty apparent to anybody willing to look.

If we can't even get a CSM Representative to give a simple opinion about the unintended effects changes are having on Eve, how can we expect to be adequately represented? In the particular case I'm referring to, botting was among my concerns. Never was an opinion expressed by the CSM in question pertaining to botting in any way. Instead I got a boilerplate response, over and over: Essentially it can be summarized as, "These changes were not meant to address those issues."

One of the only routes of access we, as players, have to the CSM is through these forums. How disenfranchising it feels to be treated like a second-class player undeserving of even an opinion, I can tell you quite personally. I felt like this CSM Representative was telling me in no uncertain terms that I was not worth the relevant opinions, and that my playstyle made me an enemy by proxy.

That's not transparency. That is a brick wall.

Feel free to make specific asks on a feature by feature basis and I am happy to discuss within the limits of the NDA what I think about what we can expect.

CSM 7 is being very transparent, you are just using some bizarre filter to pretend we aren't engaging the community.

It's here: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=161013&find=unread

It would be helpful as the NDAs lift if we could here more about what happened behind the scenes.

That's not transparency. That's just them talking about themselves.

As much as most of us would love that to happen, it probably won't. CSM doesn't want to criticise CCP openly, because then CCP will cut them off. (Or so they think.) The CSM is neutered with this fear.

Oh sure, they'll tell us they've disagreed with CCP, but without knowing on what they disagreed, it's an empty statement. An easy statement to make, if you don't have to back it up.

We never got this sort of pandering when The Mittani was in charge. CSM8 needs a strong capable leader again.

Sure it probably has room for improvement, but you give them no credit for that?

Yeah, in the spirit of transparency , what did the CSM think of the newest dev blog?

Since you are talking about me I was very forthright about answering you. The problem is that you couldn't accept that the question you asked was based on agreeing on how to evaluate the result of the barge change. I supported them and still do based on the concept that since I ran to make miners happier and they did I was glad that happened, the fact that you continue to single me out when all the CSM 7 supported the change shows pretty clearly your question was meant as some sort of troll/personal attack. I could have ignored you but I continued to try and get some resolution to your post.

As for what has been announced to date, I am very happy with what we know about crime watch, the new ships, the balancing that has been announced. Feel free to make specific asks on a feature by feature basis and I am happy to discuss within the limits of the NDA what I think about what we can expect.

Some folks have stated that the next expansion seems light. I think part of that is that a lot of what we are going to see is the "same" stuff we have now, but having it behave differently. So not as clear as the "new shiny" many expansions have provided.

So feel free to ask about specifics. You'll get an answer from me, even if you choose to try and frame it as not answering because you were trying trying to get some "specific" answer to "trap" someone into saying something you think you want to use to affect the next election.

CSM 7 is being very transparent, you are just using some bizarre filter to pretend we aren't engaging the community.

Issler

We never got this sort of pandering when The Mittani was in charge.

I'd like to see their opinions on the latest bounty/killright devblog.

Their opinions on the suspect flag being applied for activating a killright, for instance.

It's been a point of contention.

It's been a point of contention.

Wow. This is what you call transparency? Or you just scared to upset CCP, figuring they could cut off access? What good is the access if you're unable to publicly criticise, so that your constituents know where you stand?

When is the next Town Hall? Shouldn't the time and date be announced soon? You all said you wanted to have them every 4-6 weeks. I think it's been quite a bit longer since the last one.

How about a Town Hall before the next summit? You know, transparency and all, plus connecting with the playerbase. That thing you're supposed to be doing as CSM members.

We're trying to time this next town hall so players can provide us with feedback before the Reykjavik summit in December. For that to be possible, we need to have the summit topics nailed down and giveable to the playerbase. This process is happening right now, and we hope for it to be done by the weekend. We're eager to schedule the next town hall as soon as possible and have it be a productive connection between players and CSM.