Himlar

Corruption almost certainly.

What kind of corruption?

Supporting statements?

I also preferred Eve before the CSM for some very simple reasons.

I like my games designed by game designers. I enjoyed the game hugely when it was designed by CCP and I was looking forward to a lot of the future material CCP had planned.

It is the staff and shareholders/owners of CCP whose livelihoods stand or fall on the success of the game. The CSM have no investment, risk nothing, so they have neither the skill nor the incentive to look at creating a good game for all players.

The last concurrent usage figure recorded in the alliance tournament was something over 600,000 characters logged in.

Most of these players do not care one whit about null sec. Most of them did not vote for the current CSM. Which means most of them did not want the current CSM. This CSM does not represent me. I did not choose them. I had no say in their appointment. It was CCP I chose, that I voted for with my wallet, and I never thought they needed anyone to tell them what to do.

I want to play the amazing, deep, open, engrossing, wonderful game I was playing before a bunch of unqualified nullsec muppets started screaming to have their own way. I want my Eve back. I want my CCP back.

Remove CSM

I was having a great time, I didn't feel shorted at all until the CSMs started sticking their oars in. During the period of time you cite the game as barely being alive in fact.

That's my point - my love for the game started dying right about the time we got CSMs and certain sections of the playerbase discovered that they could influence game design by screaming a lot.

There wasn't an option for "none of the above."
There was no button labelled "I don't hire a lawyer to fix my plumbing, why is one doing my game design?"
I wasn't allowed to vote for "Someone Qualified."

You picked the boot licking route, I am not surprised, can't really expect anyone who is afraid to undock alone to man up.

Apologies for the brevity here but I'm running short of time.

I currently have accounts that are active in high and lowsec - I spent about 2 years living in nullsec and still visit it fairly often but frankly I always found it to have either not enough people, or people I couldn't stand. In my time in eve, I've never been one single thing - I've always engaged in everything Eve has to offer. I'll fight solo, lead a fleet, run a mission or strip a belt with equal happiness but what I am most of all, is a tourist in someone else's vision.

Hilmar talked once about evolving Eve piece by piece into a "complete science-fiction simulator" and I'd like to see that. CCP have proven that they can create a game that I love, because I fell in love with Eve. There is no evidence that anyone on the CSMs has ever created a successful game, never mind one that is to my taste.

It's not any one thing that the CSM has done that has me, as you put it, "up in arms." It's the presumption of a group of players that they can chose what my money is spent on. I want the artists I am paying to make this game to decide what they spend time on, not "some random blokes."

Even if we had a CSM back then, they'd probably have been demanding CCP change the rules on anchor ranges so they could make better penises and swasticas. Because from my PoV, that's what's happening. My FiS was working just fine so why would I want a body around that just forced CCP to "focus" on FiS when I could have had a more diverse and beautiful game to lose myself in that in future, could evolve in many different ways.

As for what I'd consider "qualified" to tell CCP what to do, how about a degree in Game Design including at least one business module, one AAA title shipped and having to successfully pass a two-stage interview by people at CCP who then decide to hire them. That's on a par with what makes you suitable to design a game in every other games company.

perhaps I foolishly assumed that before running for the CSM every candidate would have read what it meant to be a member of the CSM and made the personal choice to operate under that definition ..... abusing the role of being a member of the CSM to reward your political supporters hurts the greater player base.

Candidates are expected to be active on the CSM forums and participate in the discussion of topics. They are also expected to adhere to the EULA/TOS and carry themselves in a manner that sets an example for other players to follow.
The Mittani Post #31
"I haven't given CCP any of my actual money in years"

So following his example EVE has no paying subscribers and you think that is good for the game?

Unless you have facts to support the figures you are arbitrarily plugging in you really don't know do you? So how does that trump the Business 101 model i posted? It doesn't.

Have none of you ever had a debate where you had to support your position with facts instead of "My opinion is better then your opinion"? Come on upgrade your intellectual game to make this at least challenging.

Um ...... yeah I am a relentless researcher ........ because i am of the opinion facts more often then not win the day. Being armed with the best factual knowledge base can give an advantage to the person possessing that greater resource in my opinion.

If you can't differentiate between a CSM saying he advocates for griefing and doing the actual griefing you are correct

Seriously CCP your forums suck, I constantly get thrown to "We were ganked, go back" yet my post came up fine anyways, thus the doublepost. vOv

(And I had to retype this out because you deleted my post that I had posted from my iPhone via, we were ganked :P)

So if i follow your line of reasoning here the job definition should not have **** to do with what a successful candidate does after he or she is elected. In that case why is a job definition created? CCP did not ask for each group of Alliance constituents to elect a monarch in the rules i read.

What, specifically, did any CSM do to make the game worse?

And your proposal that people be recalled for being "perceived" to be biased is flat out pants-on-head insane. Listen, I'll give you a tip about putting forward ideas for how things should be changed in EVE: the very first thing you do - even before you start working on details, is think to yourself "how could I abuse this". If you can think up even a single way to exploit the idea, then ditch it, because rest assured that for every one way you think up, some devious bastards will think up 9 more.

Still, it IS CCP's right to run their game however they see fit even if they alienate past, current and future customers.

Superlatives are almost always wrong, (c wut i did ther?), but I am glad there was relief for some people but will it mean that much to people who either don't play or play but felt Crucible wasn't hugely meaningful? Crucible was a fart in a hurricane albeit a welcome fart.

The self delusional self appointed defender of the status quo whimpers again, yawn nothing new here.