|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
8886
|
Posted - 2013.04.27 18:05:00 -
[1] - Quote
So much for the unstoppable bloc vote.
Quick, let's start working on excuses to note vote in CSM 9! Malcanis' Law:-á "Whenever a mechanics change is proposed on behalf of 'new players', that change is always to the overwhelming advantage of richer, older players."
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
8911
|
Posted - 2013.04.28 06:57:00 -
[2] - Quote
Snow Axe wrote:Hopefully CSM 8 can take the positives and fix the negatives.
This is, essentially, the plan.
1 Kings 12:11
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
9195
|
Posted - 2013.05.08 13:06:00 -
[3] - Quote
dark heartt wrote:
If people who actually want the game to do well honestly think that null sec is over-represented, then they need to work on informing those around them to vote accordingly, not say, "Oh don't vote because the CSM is dominated by null sec."
I wish I could Like this more than once.
1 Kings 12:11
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
9199
|
Posted - 2013.05.08 13:53:00 -
[4] - Quote
Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote:Frying Doom wrote:dark heartt wrote:If the majority of the actual players are in highsec, then they could quite easily outvote the null sec guys so the argument that they don't care about the CSM because it is null controlled is flawed. The issue is the players not voting, not who 'controls' anything. They don't care so they don't vote. Yes they can out vote Null, but they don't care. And why should they care about being represented in something that does not represent them? CCP should be the first interested to get a representative CSM, but they're OK with the CSM being as is and actually are very proud that now they represent better the dwindling minority who will rather use the elections than vote with their wallet/feet.
You have to care first, then you get the representation. You're not going to get places just handed to you because you deserve it for being a special snowflake. You'll have to put just as much effort and interest into the process to get out of it what those who currently participate do.
I realise that it's horribly unfair and oppressive, and you do deserve to get what you want without doing anything for it, but that's the way life is.
1 Kings 12:11
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
9208
|
Posted - 2013.05.08 16:31:00 -
[5] - Quote
corebloodbrothers wrote:if u want to make voting lower next year, then keep hiding the results, its kinda embarresing they havent released them, when they said 27 th. atleast share the raw data, shouldnt be to hard
If you want more people to vote for you next year, stop embarrassing yourself like this.
1 Kings 12:11
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
9209
|
Posted - 2013.05.08 20:01:00 -
[6] - Quote
Why didn't you run? You have plenty of ideas, you're articulate, you certainly care a lot.
Start prepping for your CSM 9 campaign now. Form a party, start networking, set up a website, get people to vote for you, get elected, get it done.
It can't be less effort and less emotionally draining that the passion you put into expressing your discontent on these forums. And it certainly can't be less productive in terms of achieving your stated goals.
1 Kings 12:11
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
9214
|
Posted - 2013.05.09 09:12:00 -
[7] - Quote
Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote:Malcanis wrote:Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote:Frying Doom wrote:dark heartt wrote:If the majority of the actual players are in highsec, then they could quite easily outvote the null sec guys so the argument that they don't care about the CSM because it is null controlled is flawed. The issue is the players not voting, not who 'controls' anything. They don't care so they don't vote. Yes they can out vote Null, but they don't care. And why should they care about being represented in something that does not represent them? CCP should be the first interested to get a representative CSM, but they're OK with the CSM being as is and actually are very proud that now they represent better the dwindling minority who will rather use the elections than vote with their wallet/feet. You have to care first, then you get the representation. You're not going to get places just handed to you because you deserve it for being a special snowflake. You'll have to put just as much effort and interest into the process to get out of it what those who currently participate do. I realise that it's horribly unfair and oppressive, and you do deserve to get what you want without doing anything for it, but that's the way life is. As I said, it is CCP who should be interested to get a CSM as representative as possible, if just for the investment it represents. If they're fine with how the CSM represents the playerbase, who am i to object? Anyway, i am from a nation cynical enough to not blame it on "the people" when they ignore a unrepresentative representative system. With only one guy in 14 at the CSM that remotely looks like me, the only reason why I vote here it's because i'm a sucker for democracy, not because i think the CSM represents anyhting else but who are the cooler guys with 1% of buddies amongst the playerbase. It is CCP who chose that, in order to have a special relationship with them, a player must build up a fan club to vote for him, a task which accidentally is way easier to some players just because they play in certain ways in a certain places, and way harder to others who play other ways in other places. It is CCP who favor the players who organize, over the ones who don't, albeit it is moot, to say the least, that the players who organize are the same ones who pay the bills or beef up the subcription numbers with fresh players. By the way, as much as CCP lets the CSM become a popularity contest rather than a representative tool, they also choose to ignore other ways to engage the playerbase in a more systematic and professional manner, less "buddies of my buddies" style. But that would be another matter....
To me this reads like you're trying to make the whole thing purely CCP's problem.
Sorry buttercup, but it's not.
CCP are "happy" to speak to the people who care enough to run, and who are chosen by the people who care enough to vote. If that leads to a CSM that's mostly populated by "nullsec", why should that bother CCP, exactly? Because you don't like it? Well maybe you don't, but you don't care enough to do anything about it.
Actions speak louder than words. Whining on the forum about "popularity contests" because the people you like didnt get voted for, and using that as a reason why you didn't vote is just... it's not even dumb, It's surreal. How on earth do you expect anyone to take your complaints seriously when you show no evidence that you actually care at all? You don't even care enough to make sense.
1 Kings 12:11
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
9270
|
Posted - 2013.05.10 23:41:00 -
[8] - Quote
Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote:Malcanis wrote:To me this reads like you're trying to make the whole thing purely CCP's problem.
Sorry buttercup, but it's not.
CCP are "happy" to speak to the people who care enough to run, and who are chosen by the people who care enough to vote. If that leads to a CSM that's mostly populated by "nullsec", why should that bother CCP, exactly? Because you don't like it? Well maybe you don't, but you don't care enough to do anything about it.
Actions speak louder than words. Whining on the forum about "popularity contests" because the people you like didnt get voted for, and using that as a reason why you didn't vote is just... it's not even dumb, It's surreal. How on earth do you expect anyone to take your complaints seriously when you show no evidence that you actually care at all? You don't even care enough to make sense. I think i am not making myself clear... The CSM is a business resource intended to keep the customers happy. If it fails to represent the customers, it fails to keep them happy and so fails to fulfill its intended role. If it turns that most customers don't have anyone to speak for them at the CSM and help CCP how to keep them happy, how is that the customer's fault? "Hey, if you want to keep giving us your money, you should step forward and convince us to do what it takes so you keep giving us your money" must be one of the weirdest business cases in history. Most companies kind of ask their customers to speak with them rather than quit... But then with CCP, being listened to is a privilege to be earned. And you call me surreal?
You can speak to CCP for free on the forums. They do listen if you present your case well, effectively and persistently, as I have found out for myself several times. (Bounty reform, insurance reform, 0.0 outpost rework, to name but 3 causes that have been effectively championed)
If you want them to pay particular attention and credit you with being allowed to read NDA stuff, then it's not so much CCP you have to persuade as your fellow customers.
1 Kings 12:11
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
9276
|
Posted - 2013.05.11 23:07:00 -
[9] - Quote
Snow Axe wrote:Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote:Please tell, what is the business case for the CSM? Enlighten me with a non-incorrect and non-childish assumption. Unpaid consultants with a minor PR poost for the CSM existing. The former is the most important of the bunch, though, the latter is just a nice side benefit.
p much this.
\o/ I won an unpaid second job!
1 Kings 12:11
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
9279
|
Posted - 2013.05.12 11:32:00 -
[10] - Quote
Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote:Malcanis wrote:Snow Axe wrote:Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote:Please tell, what is the business case for the CSM? Enlighten me with a non-incorrect and non-childish assumption. Unpaid consultants with a minor PR poost for the CSM existing. The former is the most important of the bunch, though, the latter is just a nice side benefit. p much this. \o/ I won an unpaid second job! Unpaid consultants? To consult what?
Get elected next year and find out.
1 Kings 12:11
|
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
9279
|
Posted - 2013.05.12 11:35:00 -
[11] - Quote
(I realise that this would involve committing to some actual effort and responsibility above forum whining)
1 Kings 12:11
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
9296
|
Posted - 2013.05.13 15:16:00 -
[12] - Quote
Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote:
Further, if CCP was engaging players in other ways, the representativeness of the CSM would not matter much, as players who didn't got a voice in the CSM, would get it through other means.
But they do. They engage with or get feedback from the players through the forums (Go look at the BS rebalance threads in features and ideas for an excellent example), through the CSM, at fanfest, via the blog community, and by playing the game themselves.
Your beef is that you basically want CSM-level depth of engagement for yourself without having to provide CSM level commitment or effort. If you want deep level pre-release involvement then you have to convince CCP that you're a worthwhile person to talk to, sign an NDA, and commit to a given level of work.
1 Kings 12:11
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
9327
|
Posted - 2013.05.14 07:46:00 -
[13] - Quote
Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote: People who quit rather than try and make themselves listened.
Sorry, can't help.
1 Kings 12:11
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
9350
|
Posted - 2013.05.14 14:21:00 -
[14] - Quote
What if we're working on idea that actively encourages miners to socialise?
1 Kings 12:11
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
9363
|
Posted - 2013.05.14 20:00:00 -
[15] - Quote
Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote:Malcanis wrote:What if we're working on idea that actively encourages miners to socialise? Sounds like you're bound to kill another soloable activity. CSM 1, Mike Azariah 0.
What if we just teleport a bucket of money into every mining barge's ore hold every time the type 100 characters into local?
1 Kings 12:11
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
9411
|
Posted - 2013.05.16 08:07:00 -
[16] - Quote
Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote:Malcanis wrote:Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote:Malcanis wrote:What if we're working on idea that actively encourages miners to socialise? Sounds like you're bound to kill another soloable activity. CSM 1, Mike Azariah 0. What if we just teleport a bucket of money into every mining barge's ore hold every time the type 100 characters into local? ...so I am right and you actually are going to nerf solo mining in order to force miners to gang together (that is, punish them for not being able/willing to fleet).
Well you're openly admitting that all you care about is your personal ISK/hr and not having to adapt or learn anything new, so I thought, why not cut to the chase?
1 Kings 12:11
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
9411
|
Posted - 2013.05.16 08:10:00 -
[17] - Quote
Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote:dark heartt wrote:Why don't you want to get involved in the multiplayer part of the game? Tried 3 times with bad results, and not trying any more.
I nearly 7 years, I've never had a bad result, although I've been in good corps that joined terrible alliances a couple of times.
You can see my employment history for yourself; there's at least a dozen different corps there.
So
Malc: 12 corps, 0 bad results (I'll willingly admit that some were better than others, but they were all great guys even if some were less well run than others)
Inda: 3 corps, 3 bad results
What do you think someone looking at those numbers, with no prior knowledge of either of us, might conclude from those stats?
1 Kings 12:11
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
9428
|
Posted - 2013.05.16 14:41:00 -
[18] - Quote
Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote:Snow Axe wrote:Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote:Pick the one with a mental disorder. Player B. Who the hell sticks with a bad corp for any amount of time? Further, who the hell sticks with multiplayer after having 3 bad experiences in the first 3 attempts? Why should the next one be any different?
That's the key question. I could not have expressed the problem more clearly if I tried. Why should the result be different
If you want to get a better result, you will need to either change the conditions or change your approach to the problem.
You have decided that it would be more effective to try and change the whole game than change your approach to it. I admire the scope of your ambition and the strength of your determination more than I do your chances of success.
I freely admit that I did the exact opposite, and adapted what I did and how I approached the challenges to the nature of the groups I was within. When I was in the pirate corp Alcoholics Anonymous, I did various (terrible nasty) things that would have been unnacceptable in the Ruffryders, but I had fun in both corps and liked the people in them. When I was in High4Life, I operated with a mindset that wouldn't have gone down at all well when I was in FLA but which worked a treat in H4L.
Essentially, with each change in corp, I was ready to rewrite my definition of success to match the overall theme of the group. Consequently, I worked well with them, contributed to the group's success and generally enjoyed myself. When I stopped enjoying myself, I usually left for hi-sec for a few weeks until mission running bored me to the point where I wanted to try another corp, and off I went.
So no, I don't think you're mentally ill. I think you've talked yourself into a corner, and you find yourself feeling that being consistent and "right" is more important than having fun and making friends. That can be admirable and right in real life - I wouldn't want my lawyer or doctor to such a moral week reed - but EVE isn't real life, it's a stylised simulation we engage in together for our entertainment. It's not always fun, in the sense that a rollercoaster is "fun", but if you're playing EVE in a way that leaves you uninterested and uninvolved, then you're literally doing it wrong.
And it's not even that you don't want to socialise: you specifically say that you want to be able to talk to people in game. You've had a couple of bad experiences and decided that you don't want to risk "failing" again. So you've backed yourself into a rhetorical corner where you can never succeed, because not failing is more important than succeeding.
Tell me: what do you need from a corp for you to consider your membership of it as a "success"?
1 Kings 12:11
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
9428
|
Posted - 2013.05.16 14:47:00 -
[19] - Quote
dark heartt wrote:Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote:Snow Axe wrote:Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote:Pick the one with a mental disorder. Player B. Who the hell sticks with a bad corp for any amount of time? Further, who the hell sticks with multiplayer after having 3 bad experiences in the first 3 attempts? Why should the next one be any different? Everyone. That's what an MMO is all about, the whole "massively multiplayer" thing you know. In fact that's what real life is like. Not everything you do is perfect every time. Malcanis has been pretty lucky in finding 12 good corps over the last 7 years. Personally it's taken me 3 years to find a corp that is pretty much a perfect fit...
They were good corps, not "perfect fits". It took me about 3 years to find the perfect fit as well (GÖÑ VANIS GÖÑ). The point is that I was willing to adapt myself as well as looking for a corp that was adapted to me.
People are generally pretty nice once you get to know them and accept them for what they are. There were a few jerks, but why reject 97 good people because of 3 jerks? Tune them out and enjoy the good.
1 Kings 12:11
|
|
|
|