EVE Search - CSM: Making it representative of the playerbase

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

CSM: Making it representative of the playerbase

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 3 :: [one page]
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Zyrbalax III Goldcrest Enterprises 0	Posted - 2011.10.25 09:02:00 - [1] - Quote Assumption: CCP want a CSM that is representative of their player base. Given that 80% of the EVE population is in Hisec (based on the most recent QEN), the current CSM seems to be heavily weighted in favour of the null-sec community. It seems to me that the EVE playerbase can be separated into different groups based on different criteria, for example: Rookies (say < 1 year old) Vets ( >1 year old) Hisec residents Lowsec residents Null residents W-space residents Casual players (play <15 hrs per week) Hardcore gamers ( >15 hrs per week) Bots ( >23/7) PvPers Mission bears Industrialists Miners etc Obviously there's a lot of overlap and most players fit into multiple categories. I think it would be a lot of work (and open to abuse) to try and put the playerbase into "CSM constituencies" based on any categorisation. However there is another way to ensure the different populations get adequate representation on CSM. Set up the CSM so that each seat has a specific role, for example: Hisec Rep Lowsec Rep Null Rep W-Space Rep PvP Rep PvE Rep Industrialist Rep Rookie Rep Bittervet Rep Casual Player Rep Etc When CSM candidates get nominated they choose which role they want to stand for, and set out their manifesto for what they would push for in that role. So for example, the Bittervet Rep might stand on a platform of moar skillz and gimme new toys to play with, while the PvE Rep might say they'll push for new missions or changes to Exploration. Players then vote for who they want in each role, and can see more clearly as CSM progresses whether (for example) the Hisec rep is doing a good job of representing the concerns of Hisec residents. They also know who to go to if they have a particular concern. Don't like the POCO setup? Complain through the Industrialist Rep. Removal of high-ends from W-space? Talk to the W-space rep. This proposal would, I think, make the playerbase feel more "enfranchised", give CSM a bigger voice with CCP, and give CCP better representation of the playerbase. Comments?
March rabbit Ganse Shadow of xXDEATHXx 28	Posted - 2011.10.25 09:05:00 - [2] - Quote Zyrbalax III wrote: It seems to me that the EVE playerbase can be separated into different groups based on different criteria, for example: Rookies (say < 1 year old) Vets ( >1 year old) wont work. i have 2 accounts: - 1.5 years old - 2 months old. How would you separate it? And the same is about all other categories.
Zyrbalax III Goldcrest Enterprises 0	Posted - 2011.10.25 09:07:00 - [3] - Quote March rabbit wrote: Zyrbalax III wrote: It seems to me that the EVE playerbase can be separated into different groups based on different criteria, for example: Rookies (say < 1 year old) Vets ( >1 year old) wont work. i have 2 accounts: - 1.5 years old - 2 months old. How would you separate it? And the same is about all other categories. Might want to read the whole post first?
Aldan Romar Imperial Academy 30	Posted - 2011.10.25 09:17:00 - [4] - Quote It's a democratic process. If more highsec candidates were willing to step up, and if more highsec dwellers were willing to vote there would be more highsec representatives in the CSM. Why create niches for people who cannot be arsed to be politically active or have no support with active voters? You cannot 'construct' a political landscape, it has to grow on it's own. Not saying your idea is bad - in an ideal world all those roles would be filled within the political landscape. And as much as your assumption would be nice for CCP, reality says: CCP gets a CSM that is representative of those players who are interested enough to vote. Perhaps better find a way to interest those underrepresented groups? Chribba: null-sec is scary! Surfin's PlunderBunny: I think lowsec is scarier... spent about 5 hours in null and saw one other person in that time. We spent over an hour trying to out afk-cloak each other
T'amber Anomandari Demaleon Republic Military School Minmatar Republic 26	Posted - 2011.10.25 09:17:00 - [5] - Quote Where does a candidate who runs on client based or graphical/ mechanical issues that would effect the whole playerbase fit?
Tanya Fox Imperial Academy Amarr Empire 6	Posted - 2011.10.25 09:20:00 - [6] - Quote How about we just get rid of the CSM. They will never be a true representation and like most people in those kind of positions their own interests and agendas come first. Plus as far as I know it's a voluntary position so it's not like they have any fear of losing the position to keep them in check. There's plenty of information CCP can gather if they only bother to keep a look out for it, on these forums (all of the game related ones) and ingame.
Jareck Hunter Rubicon Legion Initiative Mercenaries 0	Posted - 2011.10.25 09:20:00 - [7] - Quote Aldan Romar wrote: It's a democratic process. This and the rest he says. If the people don't vote, they shall not complain later.
Zyrbalax III Goldcrest Enterprises 0	Posted - 2011.10.25 09:23:00 - [8] - Quote Aldan Romar wrote: It's a democratic process. If more highsec candidates were willing to step up, and if more highsec dwellers were willing to vote there would be more highsec representatives in the CSM. Why create niches for people who cannot be arsed to be politically active or have no support with active voters? You cannot 'construct' a political landscape, it has to grow on it's own. Not saying your idea is bad - in an ideal world all those roles would be filled within the political landscape. And as much as your assumption would be nice for CCP, reality says: CCP gets a CSM that is representative of those players who are interested enough to vote. Perhaps better find a way to interest those underrepresented groups? I understand what you're saying, but I wonder whether we're in a catch-22; players don't vote now because they don't think their views will be represented; so creating a system where they know their views will be represented may encourage them to vote. I may be wrong - but we'll only know if we try something different! Oh, and most democracies do use constituencies, they don't just put through the top x candidates.
Zyrbalax III Goldcrest Enterprises 0	Posted - 2011.10.25 09:25:00 - [9] - Quote T'amber Anomandari Demaleon wrote: Where does a candidate who runs on client based or graphical/ mechanical issues that would effect the whole playerbase fit? Maybe have one or more "non-specific" roles for candidates with platforms that don't fit any of the "specific" seats?
Jennifer Starling Imperial Navy Forum Patrol 161	Posted - 2011.10.25 09:27:00 - [10] - Quote I always find it strange that you have to vote for people, not ideas. Example: the one I voted for had a 62% agreement on the list of issues. That means almost 40% of the things I find important already won't make it! Let alone the difference of how much weight do you put on an issue? Why not let the players vote for ideas (the same that are used by thematching tool) so you at least know what the playerbase wants and what they think is the most wanted improvement?
Aineko Macx Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire 11	Posted - 2011.10.25 09:27:00 - [11] - Quote Jareck Hunter wrote: Aldan Romar wrote: It's a democratic process. This and the rest he says. If the people don't vote, they shall not complain later. This. Also, probably >50% of empire chars are in fact alts of 0.0 players.
Tanya Fox Imperial Academy Amarr Empire 6	Posted - 2011.10.25 09:35:00 - [12] - Quote Zyrbalax III wrote: Aldan Romar wrote: It's a democratic process. If more highsec candidates were willing to step up, and if more highsec dwellers were willing to vote there would be more highsec representatives in the CSM. Why create niches for people who cannot be arsed to be politically active or have no support with active voters? You cannot 'construct' a political landscape, it has to grow on it's own. Not saying your idea is bad - in an ideal world all those roles would be filled within the political landscape. And as much as your assumption would be nice for CCP, reality says: CCP gets a CSM that is representative of those players who are interested enough to vote. Perhaps better find a way to interest those underrepresented groups? I understand what you're saying, but I wonder whether we're in a catch-22; players don't vote now because they don't think their views will be represented; so creating a system where they know their views will be represented may encourage them to vote. I may be wrong - but we'll only know if we try something different! Oh, and most democracies do use constituencies, they don't just put through the top x candidates. Question is do people feel like they're being represented now by the CSM? How do you choose which candidate to vote for, chances are you won't actually know them. Even if you do know a candidate, do we want a system where people vote for their friends and alliance/corp members. The CSM is nothing more than PR tool, we saw them in action (lack of) months ago, the only time some of them actually started to get involved was when player opinion was against them, so they then made a big song and dance about it out of self-preservation. Do you really want these kinds of people representing you?
Zyrbalax III Goldcrest Enterprises 1	Posted - 2011.10.25 09:38:00 - [13] - Quote Aineko Macx wrote: Jareck Hunter wrote: Aldan Romar wrote: It's a democratic process. This and the rest he says. If the people don't vote, they shall not complain later. This. Also, probably >50% of empire chars are in fact alts of 0.0 players. Name me one RL democracy that elects its government based on the x candidates that get the most votes. For a presidential election this works, but RL democracies use constituencies (of one form or another). What we have now for CSM is NOT democratic in the way that RL tried and tested governance has developed. So it should be no surprise CSM is not working as intended to represent the playerbase to CCP right now. Oh, and according to QEN, null + W-space population = 105k; hi-sec population = >600k. If half are 0.0 alts that means every 0.0 resident has 3 hisec alts, in which case presumably they do actually care about what happens in hisec as that's where they spend most of their time.
Aldan Romar Imperial Academy 30	Posted - 2011.10.25 09:39:00 - [14] - Quote Zyrbalax III wrote: I understand what you're saying, but I wonder whether we're in a catch-22; players don't vote now because they don't think their views will be represented; so creating a system where they know their views will be represented may encourage them to vote. ... It is a catch 22 which is imminent with some democracies these days. People may vote, may not see their ideas become reality and cease to vote which leads to their ideas being less and less represented. I do see what you are proposing, but you cannot give political weight to a minority. What could be possible would be to have a seat for each niche, and give them voting rights in relation to the votes they got: i.e. the nullsec seat got 10,000 votes, the highsec seat got 1,000 votes, so the nullsec seat gets to vote with 10 votes on CSM decisions and the higsec seat with one. This would at least make sure that every niche's voice is heard even if they cannot actually influence policies. If you want to strengthen their position you could give them a veto possibility. Or create an advisor role: let the CSM be created in a true democratic way, but also add a person for each niche that just adds to the discussion but cannot decide on policies. Chribba: null-sec is scary! Surfin's PlunderBunny: I think lowsec is scarier... spent about 5 hours in null and saw one other person in that time. We spent over an hour trying to out afk-cloak each other
Zyrbalax III Goldcrest Enterprises 1	Posted - 2011.10.25 09:42:00 - [15] - Quote Aldan Romar wrote: Or create an advisor role: let the CSM be created in a true democratic way, but also add a person for each niche that just adds to the discussion but cannot decide on policies. I like this idea actually - best of both worlds? Democracy plus every niche has a voice. +1
TR4D3R4LT Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic 0	Posted - 2011.10.25 09:47:00 - [16] - Quote Aldan Romar wrote: It's a democratic process. If more highsec candidates were willing to step up, and if more highsec dwellers were willing to vote there would be more highsec representatives in the CSM. Why create niches for people who cannot be arsed to be politically active or have no support with active voters? You cannot 'construct' a political landscape, it has to grow on it's own. Not saying your idea is bad - in an ideal world all those roles would be filled within the political landscape. And as much as your assumption would be nice for CCP, reality says: CCP gets a CSM that is representative of those players who are interested enough to vote. Perhaps better find a way to interest those underrepresented groups? The problem of not creating said "niches" for people who cant be arsed is that eventually said people are going to leave as there is nothing new for them while other people get the toys. It's part of democratic process too, that's why politicians try to maintain facade that they care for all people in the country. If nobody in the democratic government cares for them it alienate these people, they lose interest in said "country" and there is various problems. Look at past 5000 years of human society and you can see it clearly. For Eve it spells reduction in subs, which in turn makes so called "griefers" sad as their targets start to grow few and far between while at the same time more protected by CCP. It's downward spiral that keeps rolling, sure you can argue whole way down that you're right with statement but it wont stop the spiraling down. Only way to do that is to act like politicians do, keeping up a facade that you care even if you dont. You can mess around with your non-voters to extent, you can raise taxes but not too much, it's walking on the edge of razor especially if you consider that aprox 50% of players are the said "alienated" group. So tossing candy now and then to empire kids to keep them happy is smart, giving them kick now and then without candy is not. The prob of getting them interested lies in fact that most of the players have chosen not to get interested, even if there was real life monetary reward, say 500 dollar for voting in CSM elections, people would not care who they are voting or why, they would care about the money. Only way to show those under active groups that CSM matters is to make CSM matter to them, that is done by actually making CSM do something for them, aka create "niches" for those people and keep noise about it. Or playing poker with people's feelings and having CSM **** royally over said people in hopes they react constructively. When it comes to people's feelings I've always preferred not to play poker if it can be helped.
Tanya Fox Imperial Academy Amarr Empire 6	Posted - 2011.10.25 09:53:00 - [17] - Quote Aldan Romar wrote: Zyrbalax III wrote: I understand what you're saying, but I wonder whether we're in a catch-22; players don't vote now because they don't think their views will be represented; so creating a system where they know their views will be represented may encourage them to vote. ... It is a catch 22 which is imminent with some democracies these days. People may vote, may not see their ideas become reality and cease to vote which leads to their ideas being less and less represented. I do see what you are proposing, but you cannot give political weight to a minority. What could be possible would be to have a seat for each niche, and give them voting rights in relation to the votes they got: i.e. the nullsec seat got 10,000 votes, the highsec seat got 1,000 votes, so the nullsec seat gets to vote with 10 votes on CSM decisions and the higsec seat with one. This would at least make sure that every niche's voice is heard even if they cannot actually influence policies. If you want to strengthen their position you could give them a veto possibility. Or create an advisor role: let the CSM be created in a true democratic way, but also add a person for each niche that just adds to the discussion but cannot decide on policies. lol, 10 x 0.0 candidates and 1x high-sec where the majority of players are in high-sec. Yeah... I can see that working, not. It's not just if people mine or rat etc... it's also the regions they inhabit (also playstyles which tend to be regional too). It might be quaint to dabble in politics, but you really are flogging a dead horse with the CSM.
Jareck Hunter Rubicon Legion Initiative Mercenaries 0	Posted - 2011.10.25 09:54:00 - [18] - Quote Zyrbalax III wrote: Name me one RL democracy that elects its government based on the x candidates that get the most votes. For a presidential election this works, but RL democracies use constituencies (of one form or another). . Sorry, but thats more a logistical problem, thats get solved by constituencies in RL. And i guess yourn american, the democracy where the candidat with less votes still can win.... What we see in the CSM is nearly the purest form of democracy, the one with the most votes wins a place. Then i don't think you have a glue what the CSM is doing. They don't make decisions inside CCP, they can suggest and discuss things, the whole CSM has one (1) voice from many as Stakeholder(?) and they can complain, but in the end CCP says what they will/can do. If your candidat/ideas don't get enoug votes, than maybe nobody is interrested in them.
The Apostle The Black Priests 661	Posted - 2011.10.25 09:55:00 - [19] - Quote I raised a "geographic boundary" as an option not so long ago which is reasonably equivalent to all voting systems worldwide. Simply put, divide Eve as 8 points of a compass starting at the centre of the galaxy. Allow ONE candidate per compass sector. At some random point in time, CCP does a snapshot of which sector players are based within. You cannot stack any sector without knowing 1) what the boundaries are and 2) when the snapshot will occur. All sectors will inherently represent null/low and highsec. All static WH entrances (or closest to) are within the sector at the time of snapshot. You now have ONE VOTE PER CHAR within EACH sector. Normal candidacy selection and lobbying applies. Take an aspirin. If pain persists consult your local priest. WTB: An Austrian kangaroo!
Andski GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 435	Posted - 2011.10.25 09:57:00 - [20] - Quote this is totally the first time this has been brought up and the first time it's shot down because it's a stupid idea!!!!!
Tore Vest Vikinghall 22	Posted - 2011.10.25 10:00:00 - [21] - Quote Just remove CSM. They are not doing anything good for the average player
Tanya Fox Imperial Academy Amarr Empire 6	Posted - 2011.10.25 10:00:00 - [22] - Quote Jareck Hunter wrote: Zyrbalax III wrote: Name me one RL democracy that elects its government based on the x candidates that get the most votes. For a presidential election this works, but RL democracies use constituencies (of one form or another). . Sorry, but thats more a logistical problem, thats get solved by constituencies in RL. What we see in the CSM is nearly the purest form of democracy, the one with the most votes win. Then i don't think you have a glue what the CSM is doing. They don't make decisions inside CCP, they can suggest and discuss things, the whole CSM has one (1) voice from many as Stakeholder(?) and they can complain, but in the end CCP says what they will/can do. If your candidat/ideas don't get enoug votes, than maybe nobody is interrested in them. The CSM can also give a distorted view of the real situation. So you don't think the CSM can influence CCP's decision? If that's the case what do we need the CSM for?
Zyrbalax III Goldcrest Enterprises 1	Posted - 2011.10.25 10:02:00 - [23] - Quote Jareck Hunter wrote: Zyrbalax III wrote: Name me one RL democracy that elects its government based on the x candidates that get the most votes. For a presidential election this works, but RL democracies use constituencies (of one form or another). . Sorry, but thats more a logistical problem, thats get solved by constituencies in RL. And i guess yourn american, the democracy where the candidat with less votes still can win.... What we see in the CSM is nearly the purest form of democracy, the one with the most votes wins a place. Then i don't think you have a glue what the CSM is doing. They don't make decisions inside CCP, they can suggest and discuss things, the whole CSM has one (1) voice from many as Stakeholder(?) and they can complain, but in the end CCP says what they will/can do. If your candidat/ideas don't get enoug votes, than maybe nobody is interrested in them. Not an American, based in UK (but similar problems in our system!) I do understand that CSM don't have power, just a voice; my issue is that voice doesn't represent the whole playerbase to CCP. I know CCP decide what to do regardless of CSM, but at the moment they're taking those decisions without formally hearing the voice of the majority of the playerbase. (Forums being informal.)
Zyrbalax III Goldcrest Enterprises 1	Posted - 2011.10.25 10:05:00 - [24] - Quote Andski wrote: this is totally the first time this has been brought up and the first time it's shot down because it's a stupid idea!!!!! Link please? I searched the forums and found the geographic constituencies idea but no others. I don't think the geographic boundaries is feasible - too much work to implement, and not representative enough. Which is why I'm proposing something different.
Andski GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 435	Posted - 2011.10.25 10:09:00 - [25] - Quote When the CSM was dominated by Empire-based representatives, we didn't make hilariously stupid attempts at threadnaughts to disband or reorganize the CSM. Nullsec organized to get people into the CSM - why can't you? Oh, right, anything that involves a modicum of effort isn't EVE, right?
knobber Jobbler Holding Inc. 9	Posted - 2011.10.25 10:10:00 - [26] - Quote So despite the csm being mainly living in null what is the problem with what they've put on the table to be fixed? It's not like the fixes are not positive for high sec or those wishing to go to low or null sec. Maybe for the high Dec mission runner it offers very little unless you fly with hybrids but then again nothing short of a mission revamp will sort out how dull they are.
The Apostle The Black Priests 661	Posted - 2011.10.25 10:11:00 - [27] - Quote Andski wrote: this is totally the first time this has been brought up and the first time it's shot down because it's a stupid idea!!!!! Like all lobbyists worldwide, perhaps G**ns should be made to declare their interests before making political statements. Take an aspirin. If pain persists consult your local priest. WTB: An Austrian kangaroo!
Rodj Blake PIE Inc. 344	Posted - 2011.10.25 10:12:00 - [28] - Quote A lot of the people in high-sec are the alts of 0.0 people anyway. Dulce et decorum est pro imperium mori.
Zyrbalax III Goldcrest Enterprises 1	Posted - 2011.10.25 10:12:00 - [29] - Quote Andski wrote: When the CSM was dominated by Empire-based representatives, we didn't make hilariously stupid attempts at threadnaughts to disband or reorganize the CSM. Nullsec organized to get people into the CSM - why can't you? Oh, right, anything that involves a modicum of effort isn't EVE, right? I'm not interested in CSM being dominated by any one group, I want it to represent all players and all playstyles in EVE. I admit this is self-interest, because I want to experience all aspects of EVE and I want all aspects to be as good as they can be. Domination by any group is bad because you end up with one playstyle / area benefitting at the expense of others. Smart players would look for ways to enhance the game for all players not just some. Glad you find my "threadnaught" hilarious.
Jareck Hunter Rubicon Legion Initiative Mercenaries 0	Posted - 2011.10.25 10:13:00 - [30] - Quote Zyrbalax III wrote: I do understand that CSM don't have power, just a voice; my issue is that voice doesn't represent the whole playerbase to CCP. I know CCP decide what to do regardless of CSM, but at the moment they're taking those decisions without formally hearing the voice of the majority of the playerbase. (Forums being informal.) Ever heard of the CSM Crowdsources? Just a small link i found after 1 min of search: http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/User_Interface_-_Big_Wins%2C_Fan_Favorites_and_Low_Hanging_Fruit_%28CSM%29 Those lists are respresented to CCP too and everybody can be heard.
Tanya Fox Imperial Academy Amarr Empire 6	Posted - 2011.10.25 10:15:00 - [31] - Quote Andski wrote: When the CSM was dominated by Empire-based representatives, we didn't make hilariously stupid attempts at threadnaughts to disband or reorganize the CSM. Nullsec organized to get people into the CSM - why can't you? Oh, right, anything that involves a modicum of effort isn't EVE, right? Must be easy to get someone elected if their corp and alliances vote for them (especially yours). But that does not serve the community's interests, that just serves the Goons and your allies interests. Although some of those interests maybe the same.
Zyrbalax III Goldcrest Enterprises 1	Posted - 2011.10.25 10:15:00 - [32] - Quote Rodj Blake wrote: A lot of the people in high-sec are the alts of 0.0 people anyway. Already responded on this point - 105k null and w-space residents, 600k hisec (per QEN). If there are so many null-alts in hisec then null residents have an interest in hisec representation anyways.
Zyrbalax III Goldcrest Enterprises 1	Posted - 2011.10.25 10:18:00 - [33] - Quote Jareck Hunter wrote: Zyrbalax III wrote: I do understand that CSM don't have power, just a voice; my issue is that voice doesn't represent the whole playerbase to CCP. I know CCP decide what to do regardless of CSM, but at the moment they're taking those decisions without formally hearing the voice of the majority of the playerbase. (Forums being informal.) Ever heard of the CSM Crowdsources? Just a small link i found after 1 min of search: http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/User_Interface_-_Big_Wins%2C_Fan_Favorites_and_Low_Hanging_Fruit_%28CSM%29 Those lists are respresented to CCP too and everybody can be heard. Thanks, yes I have heard of crowdsource and read the results with interest. It is another way CCP use to get opinions from playerbase - as is the forums. If you like it's a sensecheck of what they hear through CSM. This thread is about CSM though, and how to make it representative of the playerbase.
Zyrbalax III Goldcrest Enterprises 1	Posted - 2011.10.25 10:27:00 - [34] - Quote knobber Jobbler wrote: So despite the csm being mainly living in null what is the problem with what they've put on the table to be fixed? It's not like the fixes are not positive for high sec or those wishing to go to low or null sec. Maybe for the high Dec mission runner it offers very little unless you fly with hybrids but then again nothing short of a mission revamp will sort out how dull they are. Well that's a good point, and I think most of what CSM have raised is good for EVE. There are some obvious areas where CSM has fallen down though - for example W-space ABCs. However, I think it's fair to say that current CSM is mainly interested in stuff that's good for null, which may incidentally be good for the rest of EVE, or may (supporting removal of ABC from w-space) be good for null and bad for other areas. I think a more balanced /representative CSM could have put up a lot of additional / different ideas to benefit other areas of the game as well. Current CSM looks ot me to be acting in the interests of null, and don't really care if that's good or bad for the rest of EVE. Maybe next time round with the current CSM system we'll get a carebear / hisec backlash and have an empire-dominated CSM which will focus only on hisec and missions. I would be against that too - better to get a balanced approach and look for ways to make 1 + 1 = 3 instead of 1.8
ThisIsntMyMain Republic University Minmatar Republic 43	Posted - 2011.10.25 10:38:00 - [35] - Quote Zyrbalax III wrote: Complicated **** that will never work Would you care to tell us exactly who YOU voted for in the last CSM election ?
Andski GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 435	Posted - 2011.10.25 10:44:00 - [36] - Quote Tanya Fox wrote: Andski wrote: When the CSM was dominated by Empire-based representatives, we didn't make hilariously stupid attempts at threadnaughts to disband or reorganize the CSM. Nullsec organized to get people into the CSM - why can't you? Oh, right, anything that involves a modicum of effort isn't EVE, right? Must be easy to get someone elected if their corp and alliances vote for them (especially yours). But that does not serve the community's interests, that just serves the Goons and your allies interests. Although some of those interests maybe the same. We got all of two (2) candidates into the CSM out of four GSF candidates that ran. Goonswarm isn't the only alliance that coordinated a voting effort.
Malcanis Vanishing Point. The Initiative. 751	Posted - 2011.10.25 10:47:00 - [37] - Quote Zyrbalax III wrote: Assumption: CCP want a CSM that is representative of their player base. Given that 80% of the EVE population is in Hisec (based on the most recent QEN), the current CSM seems to be heavily weighted in favour of the null-sec community. It seems to me that the EVE playerbase can be separated into different groups based on different criteria, for example: Rookies (say < 1 year old) Vets ( >1 year old) Hisec residents Lowsec residents Null residents W-space residents Casual players (play <15 hrs per week) Hardcore gamers ( >15 hrs per week) Bots ( >23/7) PvPers Mission bears Industrialists Miners etc Obviously there's a lot of overlap and most players fit into multiple categories. I think it would be a lot of work (and open to abuse) to try and put the playerbase into "CSM constituencies" based on any categorisation. However there is another way to ensure the different populations get adequate representation on CSM. Set up the CSM so that each seat has a specific role, for example: Hisec Rep Lowsec Rep Null Rep W-Space Rep PvP Rep PvE Rep Industrialist Rep Rookie Rep Bittervet Rep Casual Player Rep Etc When CSM candidates get nominated they choose which role they want to stand for, and set out their manifesto for what they would push for in that role. So for example, the Bittervet Rep might stand on a platform of moar skillz and gimme new toys to play with, while the PvE Rep might say they'll push for new missions or changes to Exploration. Players then vote for who they want in each role, and can see more clearly as CSM progresses whether (for example) the Hisec rep is doing a good job of representing the concerns of Hisec residents. They also know who to go to if they have a particular concern. Don't like the POCO setup? Complain through the Industrialist Rep. Removal of high-ends from W-space? Talk to the W-space rep. This proposal would, I think, make the playerbase feel more "enfranchised", give CSM a bigger voice with CCP, and give CCP better representation of the playerbase. Comments? The CSM very accurately represents the players who could be arsed to spend 30 seconds clicking a vote button. Malcanis' Law: Any proposal justified on the basis that "it will benefit new players" is invariably to the greater advantage of older, richer players. Things to do in EVE:-áhttp://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/
The Apostle The Black Priests 661	Posted - 2011.10.25 10:52:00 - [38] - Quote Malcanis wrote: The CSM very accurately represents the players who could be arsed to spend 30 seconds clicking a vote button. AND if you actually believe that is true then you shouldn't even be allowed to vote because you have nfi. The CSM is NOT representative. Period. Take an aspirin. If pain persists consult your local priest. WTB: An Austrian kangaroo!
Tanya Fox Imperial Academy Amarr Empire 6	Posted - 2011.10.25 10:54:00 - [39] - Quote Andski wrote: Tanya Fox wrote: Andski wrote: When the CSM was dominated by Empire-based representatives, we didn't make hilariously stupid attempts at threadnaughts to disband or reorganize the CSM. Nullsec organized to get people into the CSM - why can't you? Oh, right, anything that involves a modicum of effort isn't EVE, right? Must be easy to get someone elected if their corp and alliances vote for them (especially yours). But that does not serve the community's interests, that just serves the Goons and your allies interests. Although some of those interests maybe the same. We got all of two (2) candidates into the CSM out of four GSF candidates that ran. Goonswarm isn't the only alliance that coordinated a voting effort. I'm not saying it is, it just highlights the flaws of the whole CSM process. We don't need the CSM, they can never truly represent the whole community anyway.
Malcanis Vanishing Point. The Initiative. 751	Posted - 2011.10.25 10:56:00 - [40] - Quote The Apostle wrote: Andski wrote: this is totally the first time this has been brought up and the first time it's shot down because it's a stupid idea!!!!! Like all lobbyists worldwide, perhaps G**ns should be made to declare their interests before making political statements. Declare your own. Malcanis' Law: Any proposal justified on the basis that "it will benefit new players" is invariably to the greater advantage of older, richer players. Things to do in EVE:-áhttp://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/
Cpt Fina The Tuskers 59	Posted - 2011.10.25 11:00:00 - [41] - Quote CSM being skewed towards 0,0 and maybe low-sec is totally fine imo since it fits perfectly well with the vision CCP repeatedly expresses of Eve. High-sec missionrunning is not what makes Eve unique GÇô it's mainly the stuff found in 0,0 and low sec space. I would be uncomfortable with more than 1 high sec missionrunning representative being included in the CSM, tbh.
The Apostle The Black Priests 661	Posted - 2011.10.25 11:00:00 - [42] - Quote Malcanis wrote: The Apostle wrote: Andski wrote: this is totally the first time this has been brought up and the first time it's shot down because it's a stupid idea!!!!! Like all lobbyists worldwide, perhaps G**ns should be made to declare their interests before making political statements. Declare your own. I'm NOT on the CSM. Declared thus. Take an aspirin. If pain persists consult your local priest. WTB: An Austrian kangaroo!
Zyrbalax III Goldcrest Enterprises 1	Posted - 2011.10.25 11:49:00 - [43] - Quote Cpt Fina wrote: CSM being skewed towards 0,0 and maybe low-sec is totally fine imo since it fits perfectly well with the vision CCP repeatedly expresses of Eve. High-sec missionrunning is not what makes Eve unique GÇô it's mainly the stuff found in 0,0 and low sec space. I would be uncomfortable with more than 1 high sec missionrunning representative being included in the CSM, tbh. Whatever CCP's vision for EVE, the reality is that 80% of toons are resident in hisec (per QEN), which means 80% of CCP income comes from hisec players. CCP needs to know what these players want, or it risks alienating them and killing the golden goose that allows the rest of EVE (their vision) to exist. I'm not saying I want a carebear hisec CSM; I'm saying I think a more representative CSM would do a better job of helping CCP develop EVE for the benefit of all players.
Andski GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 435	Posted - 2011.10.25 12:06:00 - [44] - Quote Zyrbalax III wrote: Cpt Fina wrote: CSM being skewed towards 0,0 and maybe low-sec is totally fine imo since it fits perfectly well with the vision CCP repeatedly expresses of Eve. High-sec missionrunning is not what makes Eve unique GÇô it's mainly the stuff found in 0,0 and low sec space. I would be uncomfortable with more than 1 high sec missionrunning representative being included in the CSM, tbh. Whatever CCP's vision for EVE, the reality is that 80% of toons are resident in hisec (per QEN), which means 80% of CCP income comes from hisec players. CCP needs to know what these players want, or it risks alienating them and killing the golden goose that allows the rest of EVE (their vision) to exist. I'm not saying I want a carebear hisec CSM; I'm saying I think a more representative CSM would do a better job of helping CCP develop EVE for the benefit of all players. your argument fell apart with the use of "toons", furthermore,
Zyrbalax III Goldcrest Enterprises 1	Posted - 2011.10.25 12:08:00 - [45] - Quote ThisIsntMyMain wrote: Zyrbalax III wrote: Complicated **** that will never work Would you care to tell us exactly who YOU voted for in the last CSM election ? Yup, I admit I didn't vote in the last CSM election. At the time things seemed to be moving along nicely in EVE and I just wasn't interested in what I thought was behind the scenes politics that didn't affect my gameplay. Since then there's been a lot of political stuff going on (Monoclegate, CSM summit, CCP refocus, nullsec design goals, Goonswarm's war on ice miners) which has made me realise that yes CSM and feedback to CCP does matter, which has made me think about whether the current structure works and if there might be a better way - hence this thread. Regardless of whether CSM structure changes or stays as is, I will definitely be voting in the next elections.
Zyrbalax III Goldcrest Enterprises 1	Posted - 2011.10.25 12:11:00 - [46] - Quote Andski wrote: your argument fell apart with the use of "toons", furthermore, So sorry, didn't realise there was a Goonie-approved word to use for "characters". Please forgive my ignorance of the correct terminology. Furthermore...?
Andski GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 435	Posted - 2011.10.25 12:37:00 - [47] - Quote Zyrbalax III wrote: Andski wrote: your argument fell apart with the use of "toons", furthermore, So sorry, didn't realise there was a Goonie-approved word to use for "characters". Please forgive my ignorance of the correct terminology. Furthermore...? "goonie" get out
Zyrbalax III Goldcrest Enterprises 1	Posted - 2011.10.25 12:57:00 - [48] - Quote Andski wrote: Zyrbalax III wrote: Andski wrote: your argument fell apart with the use of "toons", furthermore, So sorry, didn't realise there was a Goonie-approved word to use for "characters". Please forgive my ignorance of the correct terminology. Furthermore...? "goonie" get out Oh another constructive post. Thanks for the bump. I take it there was no "furthermore".
Andski GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 435	Posted - 2011.10.25 13:15:00 - [49] - Quote Zyrbalax III wrote: Andski wrote: Zyrbalax III wrote: Andski wrote: your argument fell apart with the use of "toons", furthermore, So sorry, didn't realise there was a Goonie-approved word to use for "characters". Please forgive my ignorance of the correct terminology. Furthermore...? "goonie" get out Oh another constructive post. Thanks for the bump. I take it there was no "furthermore". there is nothing constructive about your thread, soz m8
Skunk Gracklaw GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 439	Posted - 2011.10.25 17:01:00 - [50] - Quote Zyrbalax III wrote: Oh another constructive post. Thanks for the bump. I take it there was no "furthermore". As a goon who loves posting it pains me to say this but you should probably stop posting.
The Mittani GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 1624	Posted - 2011.10.25 17:26:00 - [51] - Quote Hello, second dumb CSM thread of the day! Quote: As I relaxed in the aftermath of a time-dilated fight where supercaps didn't rule the day and lag didn't determine the outcome, I browsed a rack of podkills with implants, spun my recently rebalanced hybrid-gunned ship, and typed off a poorly-thought-out ragepost about how the CSM was irrelevant, because I'm literally a big babby who has no idea what he's talking about. I then went off to enjoy a bunch of new spaceship-related content that CCP produced after they finally acknowledged that focusing on FiS instead of WiS was the right thing to do!
Yeep GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 19	Posted - 2011.10.25 18:07:00 - [52] - Quote Its a shame Darius III's thread got locked because it was a great example of why a true democracy where every player can vote on every idea would never work. The CSM exists as a filter to filter the stupid ideas from the players (i.e. most of them) so that CCP don't have to waste time pretending to care and as a filter for CCP's stupid ideas so they don't make it to the players (for PR purposes). And constituencies are a terrible idea because they pidgeonhole people. In my time in Eve I've considered myself (in chronological order) an empire mission runner, a higsec pirate, a bookmark scammer, a lowsec confidence griefer, a highsec gun for hire, a lowsec gun for hire, a drone in an all consuming T1 frigate swarm, a leader of said swarm, a nullsec miner, a nullsec mission runner, a nullsec importer, a wartime POS manager, an empire freighter pilot, an ore thief, a nullsec covops scout, a dread pilot, a highsec manufacturer, a blueprint researcher and copier, a nullsec manufacturer, a sanctum runner, an incursion runner, a capital ship constructor and most recently I've been blowing up ice miners. I'd consider over 50% of those things in my current skillset (and I've probably missed some, its been 6 years). They don't define me, they're just things I can choose to do when I log in. So which constituency do I belong to?
Malcanis Vanishing Point. The Initiative. 755	Posted - 2011.10.25 19:59:00 - [53] - Quote The Apostle wrote: Malcanis wrote: The CSM very accurately represents the players who could be arsed to spend 30 seconds clicking a vote button. AND if you actually believe that is true then you shouldn't even be allowed to vote because you have nfi. The CSM is NOT representative. Period. Over 70% of the people who voted saw their vote go to a representative who was elected. That's pretty god damb representive. Those who didn't bother to vote perhaps weren't represented as well, but I don't see why we should worry about that. If they feel badly done by there's another election in a few months, and this time they can bestir themselves to actually make the effort to click a button on a web page. That said, I don't understand all the fuss: none of the rabble-rousers has yet been able to give a concrete example of CSM misconduct other than "I don't like goons and 2 of them are goons so they MUST have done something bad even if I don't know exactly what it was." Personally I suspect the whole thing comes from the sudden realisation that the CSM does have value and it does have an effect, and those who decided that they were too cool to be fooled are suddenly clamouring that they want a slice of the influence pie after all. Well guys, CSM7 will be your big chance. Malcanis' Law: Any proposal justified on the basis that "it will benefit new players" is invariably to the greater advantage of older, richer players. Things to do in EVE:-áhttp://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/
Zyrbalax III Goldcrest Enterprises 18	Posted - 2011.10.26 08:17:00 - [54] - Quote "get out" "big babby" "rabble rouser" "stop posting" You know it's a real shame you guys are just incapable of having a mature discussion about potential ways to improve this game for all players. I haven't accused CSM of misconduct, in fact I think a lot of what the current CSM has done is good news, just maybe a bit null-centric. I just think there are ways we can improve how we talk to CCP that would be good for all of EVE, and that's what this post was trying to explore. And y'know, if you want an EVE to play in 5 years' time, you need to make sure that all players are happy in the game, not just the favoured few. Without hisec players, there is no null. But I understand the Goonies want to break the game, so I guess killing any constructive discussion about how to improve it fits well with their strategy. Thanks to the few people who did respond constructively.
The Apostle The Black Priests 668	Posted - 2011.10.26 09:06:00 - [55] - Quote The Mittani wrote: Hello, second dumb CSM thread of the day! Quote: As I relaxed in the aftermath of a time-dilated fight where supercaps didn't rule the day and lag didn't determine the outcome, I browsed a rack of podkills with implants, spun my recently rebalanced hybrid-gunned ship, and typed off a poorly-thought-out ragepost about how the CSM was irrelevant, because I'm literally a big babby who has no idea what he's talking about. I then went off to enjoy a bunch of new spaceship-related content that CCP produced after they finally acknowledged that focusing on FiS instead of WiS was the right thing to do! You forgot the rest of the quote Mittens. Quote: This all occured after I said WiS was good and then changed my mind when I realized the majority of Eve complained. The fast backtrack from my lightening fast brain saved the day and here I am collecting kudos for my effort. I am The Mittani, your Lord and Saviour. Just let me know which way to park my views next time so I don't look as stupid as I did on this. Take an aspirin. If pain persists consult your local priest. WTB: An Austrian kangaroo!
Skunk Gracklaw GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 492	Posted - 2011.10.26 17:43:00 - [56] - Quote The Apostle wrote: You forgot the rest of the quote Mittens. You have to be a goon alt...nobody should be that easy to troll.
Mal Darkrunner Zero Tau Research Institute 10	Posted - 2011.10.26 19:13:00 - [57] - Quote The CSM is representative ... it's representative of the people who actually voted ... As far as I can tell individual CSM members have been doing a pretty good job of representing people (myself included) outside the sphere of their (CSM members') normal area/style of play. Right now, we appear to have a CSM where the representatives, despite having their own particular area(s) of interest, participate in meaningful discussion about all areas of the game and look, not just at how changes might impact a particular playstyle, but also how they affect other playstyles and the game as a whole. If CCP reorganises the CSM so that members have areas of responsibility, constituencies or areas they must represent, I fear that cooperation may give way to competition (my area is more important than these others) and consideration of the multitude of playstyles may be left by the wayside by representatives too concerned with their own narrow areas. I think calls for this kind of enforced "representation" are based on a couple of false (in my opinion) assumptions: That CSM members cannot separate their in-game politics and actions as players from their out-of game politics and actions as CSM members. That CSM members only listen to a small minority of EVE players (perhaps the people who voted for them, or perhaps the people from their own alliance or people who play the game as they do). That CSM members only care about the needs/playstyles of said small minority. I have yet to see any evidence of this kind of behaviour, but I fear that the kinds of constraints people keep suggesting to make the CSM more "representative" may actually have the opposite effect. My answer - if players do not feel that they are not being adequately represented, then they need to lobby the CSM to make their voices heard, they need to produce logical arguments supported by evidence (there are enough trolls and tears on this forum already), and they need to either put up, or vote for, CSM candidates who will represent them. If you don't vote, you really can't complain that you're not being represented (I did, and I'm happy with what I've seen from this CSM). Just my 0.02isk.
Skunk Gracklaw GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 501	Posted - 2011.10.26 19:32:00 - [58] - Quote Mal Darkrunner wrote: Right now, we appear to have a CSM where the representatives, despite having their own particular area(s) of interest, participate in meaningful discussion about all areas of the game and look, not just at how changes might impact a particular playstyle, but also how they affect other playstyles and the game as a whole. We've been asking for examples of how the current CSM has hurt anybody's gameplay. So far nobody has been able to provide one.
Sirhan Blixt GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 29	Posted - 2011.11.04 01:57:00 - [59] - Quote Mal Darkrunner wrote: The CSM is representative ... it's representative of the people who actually voted ... That such an obvious, self-evident fact has to be repeated over and over again, only to be ignored by those who won't accept it, is as eloquent and savage an indictment of the average pubbie intellect as I have ever seen. What percentage of accounts did not register a vote for any candidate in the CSM6 election? 90%? 84%? Some arbitrarily high number that almost guaranteed that any candidate who actually campaigned or organized got a seat? CCP did everything they could during the election cycle to ease the burden of voting, short of forcing people to do it. It is simply not reasonable for anybody who logged in even once to change skills during that period to claim that they weren't aware of the election or didn't have an opportunity to vote. Still, the number of complaints about the CSM or individual CSM members that begin with "I didn't vote, but ... " simply beggars the imagination. The simple fact of the matter is, if you didn't vote, you lost any standing to complain about the results. I don't know about you, but the threat of losing standing to complain is enough to motivate me to tick the box for one CSM candidate or another. What those advocating removal or reform of the CSM, or some sort of tweak to the election process, conveniently forget about the essential nature of democracy is that those who vote in the majority get representation. Or, to use the favored saw of budding libertarian master debaters, it is two wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner. Every day I hear all manner of curses and anathemas heaped on Goons, mostly deserved, and yet there's also this bizarre notion that Goons organizing for CSM elections somehow introduces a glaring artificiality that distorts the integrity of the entire process, that somehow distorts the reality of it to such a degree that it can only be rectified by changing the rules to favor others, or by chucking out the process entirely. It's usually coupled with the equally bizarre notion that no one else can organize to any meaningful degree to make the effort worthwhile, all evidence to the contrary notwithstanding. I mean-- let's entirely forget that only two Goon CSM candidates actually won seats, and forget about all those others who either aren't Goons, or haven't advocated the exaltation of nullsec at the expense of every other aspect of the game. What about Trebor Daehdoow and all the votes he got from people who weren't members of whatever southern renter alliance he was a member of at the time he was elected? How many of them were highsec dwellers who voted for him purely on the basis of his highsec focus and advocacy? Let's just forget about him and all those current CSM members and alternates from similar backgrounds because their existence presents inconvenient counterarguments to the whole fix/reform/disband CSM thing. So there are so many Goons. Why is that a problem? Or, more to the point, why is that THEIR problem? Does the fact of so many Goons prevent anybody else from organizing to the same level? What about BoB? Obviously not. But rather than exert the required effort, it's easier to stomp one's feet and complain that the system is so broken that it can only be fixed by giving everybody else magic beans or something, some boon or "fix" that will grant them more influence over who gets a seat in the CSM. That's essentially what is being asserted: because there are so many Goons voting, or so many in nullsec voting, their vote needs to count less than those who somehow feel disenfranchised by the results of the previous CSM election. Essentially, that one class of voter should have their votes count more than those of another class. I defy the reader to find any proposal -- one that is actually articulated in a quantifiable manner rather than being just another anti-Goon, anti-nullsec whinge -- that cannot be reduced to that simple, deeply-flawed notion. Mind you-- I will not be holding my breath.
Vio Geraci GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 60	Posted - 2011.11.04 17:36:00 - [60] - Quote I have a strong impression that high-sec players can't be bothered to vote in real life, let alone in a video game.

Pages: 1 2 3 :: [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.