And so it continues.
It appears from the posts I have read that I will have to start sharing my tinfoil, based on the cartel propagandists' comments in this thread.

You know CCP, when more and more of the player base starts posting in threads like this, and do my job of sounding the alarm bell, you might want to consider stop listening to the Malcanis', Mike's, and mynnna's of the gaming community, and start listening to, I dunno, accountants?

Or are you too far gone, and so wrapped up in the cult of "null sec is the panacea of everything" to recognize what is happening?

Of course, I am just some complete nutbar, with zero credibility , even though I have played all aspects of this game, save two.
I have not played FW , nor I have I played RMT lord.

But what do I know about Eve, and apparently a legion of like-minded people?

You could really be a good asset to the commmuntiy if yo would stop being delusional. You've been sounding alarms for YEARS with not one shred of evidence that you've been right about anything. In fact, you've been wrong over and over again. The one thing that ever actually hurt ccp and EVE's subs (incarna and the nex store debacle) you never even saw coming. You are litterally the Harold Camping of EVE Online.

And honestly, this is a surprise to me. I would think that CCP and CSM would want to strive to have the CSM represent all players, regardless of who elected them.

MDD

That's how it generally goes in any given MMO. Just replace words "power blocks" with vocal forum posters. CSM is certainly improvement in the feedback process, but only if majority of subscribers vote.

Regarding the 'unofficial' as opposed to 'official' GSF candidates (Or GSF aligned candidates.) remark I made one of the GSF CSM candidates states in her own candidacy statement that she is the "official" candidate. It may mean that she is the official GSF or it may be a amusing or sarcastic comment on her part. Nevertheless I was quoting her term for her position and her reference to there probably being too many representatives of GSF on the CSM.

Personally I would like to see CCP make a rule that there can only be one candidate running from each alliance or from the corporations within an alliance.

Example: XX Alliance comprises of corporation A, B, & C. The alliance decides that member 'A1' of 'A' corporation should run as a candidate for the XX alliance to represent their views on the CSM. This would then mean that no other members of corporations A, B, or C could also run as candidates for the CSM in that year.

Given the biased state of CSM for as long as I can remember this rule would make it more likely that minority viewpoints could be represented rather than large block votes and their minions. We have just seen changes being made to stop the tournament being rigged from the outset. I think the same should be done for the CSM.

When I mark tests I have a policy of NOT looking at who wrote them so as to avoid tainting the mark with bias. I do the same reading the forums. I only glance at the faces to the side AFTER reading the post. It is possible for someone you dislike or think little of to have a good idea.

Accountants run the company? No. But man I loved going to the summit to meet their economist. Dr. Eyjo was a fantastic speaker and we managed to get to see him for two sessions (This is where the knowledgeable of you are getting jealous). In a game laughingly referred to as spreadsheets in space, do you honestly think that the people running it do not know how to track trends and cause/effect?

Next year I'm running for CSM. I know nothing about anything, I'm perfect.

So which are the "numerous" unofficial CFC members?

When an idea is good as a whole but rejected by the power blocks because it hurts them, dev are lobbied. The idea is suppressed. Good reasons are ignored. Average players do not give their opinions as usual. So dev compromised and twisted the mechanic in favor of vested parties.

It is a harsh truth that the 'apathy' is NOT the biggest issue but, instead, education.

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=310880&find=unread Weirdest forum 'like' i ever gave

And you gave it to one of the best ideas I have ever seen on these forums. Perhaps the best even.

i disagree.

i was very apathetic this year compared to last. last year i voted for 14 candidates on 3 accounts. this year i voted for like 7 on 1 account.

the CSM never seem to be doing that much other than "we had a chat to them, but here's a forum thread for your feedback anyway" which undermines the CSM when ccp just ask us directly anyway.
in addition, i don't want to read every candidates generic and boring pitches to figure out which ones i don't want to vote for, because you have to pick so many of them. i just want to vote for 1 person, like i do when i actually vote in elections. find 1 guy and go "he represents me best" not "this guy and these other 6 picked at random because i have slots to fill, but i'm not that interested in it"

not to mention, ccp made less effort to educate people this year than last year. last year i remember getting eve mails on my accounts, this year; nothing. if ccp can't be arsed to promote the csm, and tell us what they're doing. why should people care?

the lack of apathy is linked to education. people don't give a **** because nobody tells them why they should give a ****.

I would add that If the CSM was really that relevant and important, meeting minutes would require DAYS and not MONTHS to release. It's been pretty clear to anyone paying attention for very long where priorities lie with CCP in regard to the CSM and player communication. Since the CSM is a just a marketing focus group promoted as "player representation" that has no real oversight or influence whatsoever, it should come as no surprise there's apathy.

Hi, I'm a highsec ganker. I have very little knowledge of nullsec, how it works, what it needs/doesn't need. Do you want me representing nullsec players, recommending changes that I think are good for null? Remember, I have no experience in that area, and at best, my recommendations are going to be heavily theorycrafted.

I'd much rather have CSM members who focus on the areas in EVE that they have the most expertise in.

i disagree.

i was very apathetic this year compared to last. last year i voted for 14 candidates on 3 accounts. this year i voted for like 7 on 1 account.

the CSM never seem to be doing that much other than "we had a chat to them, but here's a forum thread for your feedback anyway" which undermines the CSM when ccp just ask us directly anyway.
in addition, i don't want to read every candidates generic and boring pitches to figure out which ones i don't want to vote for, because you have to pick so many of them. i just want to vote for 1 person, like i do when i actually vote in elections. find 1 guy and go "he represents me best" not "this guy and these other 6 picked at random because i have slots to fill, but i'm not that interested in it"

not to mention, ccp made less effort to educate people this year than last year. last year i remember getting eve mails on my accounts, this year; nothing. if ccp can't be arsed to promote the csm, and tell us what they're doing. why should people care?

the lack of apathy is linked to education. people don't give a **** because nobody tells them why they should give a ****.

It wasn't until a few patches ago that the CSM had any say in anything. I forget the feature now. but a few expansions back the CSM partnered with a scrum team and gave step by step feed back and caused a feature to change quite a bit. I think the feature was well received but i dunno if CCP followed up and let the CSM have access like that again