EVE Search - [CSM] December Summit

Check My IP Information

All Channels

Assembly Hall

[CSM] December Summit - Future of the CSM

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 :: [one page]

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Trebor Daehdoow Dirt Nap Squad Dirt Nap Squad. 1074	Posted - 2011.11.23 16:23:00 - [1] - Quote Please discuss issues related to this session in this thread. We look forward to your comments and suggestions. CSM - because I have not yet plumbed the depths of my inherent masochism! CSM 6 Activities Summary \| My CSM blog
Orakkus Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic 11	Posted - 2011.11.23 17:26:00 - [2] - Quote Appears to be working as intended. Eve is back on track. CCP will make more money. More money means more Profit and investment into their other projects down the road.
Vertisce Soritenshi Varion Galactic Tragedy. 199	Posted - 2011.11.23 19:50:00 - [3] - Quote Orakkus wrote: Appears to be working as intended. Eve is back on track. CCP will make more money. More money means more Profit and investment into their other projects down the road. OMG... So anyway...changes need to be made to the CSM to ensure more balance for who is represented in the overall community. I don't see how it is even possible. CSM members...(No offense Trebor) should not be allowed to run if they have already been voted in and served on the CSM once or twice already. Support our boobies!-áLINKY!
Drake Draconis Shadow Cadre Shadow Confederation 121	Posted - 2011.11.23 20:09:00 - [4] - Quote Vertisce Soritenshi wrote: Orakkus wrote: Appears to be working as intended. Eve is back on track. CCP will make more money. More money means more Profit and investment into their other projects down the road. OMG... So anyway...changes need to be made to the CSM to ensure more balance for who is represented in the overall community. I don't see how it is even possible. CSM members...(No offense Trebor) should not be allowed to run if they have already been voted in and served on the CSM once or twice already. Your a day late and a dollar short. They lifted the restriction even under exterme protest and CSM now have unlimtied terms....you have a snow balls chance in hell in reversing that. Happened Last year....don't recall when or how or what but it was a dark day for CSM/CCP
Solo Player 78	Posted - 2011.11.23 20:53:00 - [5] - Quote Recently started to work as intended - by the players. As a leverage for players to get their views taken seriously by being legitimated, public, loud and focussed about it. Still, could improve on its legitimacy by improving the election process. For example, reduce number of nominations to a more manageable number through some sort of primaries on the forums while making sure minority interests remain represented. RL politics have come up with quite a few ways to do this. Also, make it easier and more attractive for players to vote. 50% participation would greatly add legitimacy.
Vertisce Soritenshi Varion Galactic Tragedy. 199	Posted - 2011.11.23 21:37:00 - [6] - Quote Free 5k Aurum for voting! Only thing I can really think of without giving free ISK or PLEX and screwing the game over. Support our boobies!-áLINKY!
StukaBee GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 36	Posted - 2011.11.23 22:32:00 - [7] - Quote Vertisce Soritenshi wrote: Free 5k Aurum for voting! Only thing I can really think of without giving free ISK or PLEX and screwing the game over. Free Aurum just means that of those people who don't currently vote, those who don't care enough about Aurum will continue to not vote, and those who want free Aurum will pick a name at random from the list (or just the first name at the top) so they get their payout. It might give the false impression of legitimacy but it wouldn't increase the number of informed or engaged voters.
Vertisce Soritenshi Varion Galactic Tragedy. 199	Posted - 2011.11.23 23:38:00 - [8] - Quote StukaBee wrote: Vertisce Soritenshi wrote: Free 5k Aurum for voting! Only thing I can really think of without giving free ISK or PLEX and screwing the game over. Free Aurum just means that of those people who don't currently vote, those who don't care enough about Aurum will continue to not vote, and those who want free Aurum will pick a name at random from the list (or just the first name at the top) so they get their payout. It might give the false impression of legitimacy but it wouldn't increase the number of informed or engaged voters. This is true but there really isn't any way to "incentivise" voting without giving some kind of reward compensation. Unfortunately it will always lead to that outcome. I think CCP should work on the out of game and in game advertisements to help get the word out. Make it easier to see the information people are voting for and more information about the person and what they wish to accomplish as well. Support our boobies!-áLINKY!
Abdiel Kavash Paladin Order Fidelas Constans 163	Posted - 2011.11.23 23:46:00 - [9] - Quote Any sort of incentive for voting will only add random noise to the results. The only way to encourage responsible voting is to promote the CSM and make people widely aware of what it is and what it does. Propaganda and campaigning by the candidates, and the idea that we can change the course of this game, is what brought many people in 0.0 alliances to vote for CSM6, not getting free stuff.
Goose99 Republic Military School Minmatar Republic 208	Posted - 2011.11.24 03:40:00 - [10] - Quote Make voting mandatory... like creating a portrait. Can't log into game until you vote.

StukaBee GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 37	Posted - 2011.11.24 08:14:00 - [11] - Quote Goose99 wrote: Make voting mandatory... like creating a portrait. Can't log into game until you vote. Same problem as giving away Aurum above: Stukabee wrote: It might give the false impression of legitimacy but it wouldn't increase the number of informed or engaged voters.
Lord Zim Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 182	Posted - 2011.11.24 09:32:00 - [12] - Quote Goose99 wrote: Make voting mandatory... like creating a portrait. Can't log into game until you vote. "oh god, what's this? I can't play my game until I pres butan? JUST SHOW ME A BUTAN AND I WILL PRES I NEED MY ICE MINING FIX!" Yep. This suggestion won't help, no matter how many times guys like you put this forward.
Goose99 Republic Military School Minmatar Republic 216	Posted - 2011.11.24 17:15:00 - [13] - Quote Lord Zim wrote: Goose99 wrote: Make voting mandatory... like creating a portrait. Can't log into game until you vote. "oh god, what's this? I can't play my game until I pres butan? JUST SHOW ME A BUTAN AND I WILL PRES I NEED MY ICE MINING FIX!" Yep. This suggestion won't help, no matter how many times guys like you put this forward. What you're afraid of is just the opposite - that the ice miners would actually read the short description and run down goon candidate.
StukaBee GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 38	Posted - 2011.11.24 23:19:00 - [14] - Quote Goose99 wrote: Lord Zim wrote: Goose99 wrote: Make voting mandatory... like creating a portrait. Can't log into game until you vote. "oh god, what's this? I can't play my game until I pres butan? JUST SHOW ME A BUTAN AND I WILL PRES I NEED MY ICE MINING FIX!" Yep. This suggestion won't help, no matter how many times guys like you put this forward. What you're afraid of is just the opposite - that the ice miners would actually read the short description and run down goon candidate. How would a bot know who to vote for?
Cygnet Lythanea World Welfare Works Association 3	Posted - 2011.11.24 23:25:00 - [15] - Quote You do realize that bots have evolved quite a bit from the old days. The trick is to leave them in IRC channels for a while so they start to learn english and then have them listen in say, Minmater channel here in game, and pretty soon you'll have them wandering around mining ice and spouting 'LOL l2p noob!' 'Can i haz yur stuff?' and posting their considered opinions on how awesome goonswarm is in the forums.
Bomberlocks CTRL-Q 59	Posted - 2011.11.25 01:04:00 - [16] - Quote The CSM, or at least part of it, has done a good job at reporting to the players this term. Two Step, Trebor and Seleene in particular come to mind.
Tahna Rouspel BWE Special Forces Rage Alliance 16	Posted - 2011.11.25 04:24:00 - [17] - Quote I think the CSM did a good job. It didn't feel like there was any bias towards a certain part of the game in the arguments. I just hope the next CSM will take into consideration all parts of the game in the future as well. I would hate to see Null sec get all the income and wormholes and low sec miss-out despite being equally as dangerous.
Evei Shard Science and Trade Institute Caldari State 16	Posted - 2011.11.25 05:18:00 - [18] - Quote Keep the CSM, but give users an easily visible bright red "vote on Eve related issues' button right next to where their character selection is. Let the players decide at the screen if they want to be involved where the game goes, instead of having to hear about second or third hand, or, worse yet, stumbling onto the forums to find out about it. People don't need the stuff forced on them, but they need the option to do so clearly in front of them, specifically so they know that they have that option in the first place. More player interaction directly with CCP at a level that provides CCP with raw data to work with (instead of having to pay someone to read through the endless repeating threads on the forums). Less CSM manipulation. Profit favors the prepared
Xorv Questionable Acquisitions 2	Posted - 2011.11.25 06:59:00 - [19] - Quote Seems to be working better than it ever has since I've been following EVE. Granted it's dominated by people from Null Sec alliances, but I'd rather have them representing me than someone voted in by players that are forced to vote. If players can't take the time to inform themselves and vote, well I'd rather they had no say at all tbh.
Malcanis Vanishing Point. The Initiative. 1238	Posted - 2011.11.25 08:41:00 - [20] - Quote Trebor Daehdoow wrote: Please discuss issues related to this session in this thread. We look forward to your comments and suggestions. I trust you will strongly resist any proposals for "reserved seats" for specific so-called 'consituencies'. Special treatment is not a way to improve the credibility of a democratic process. 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/

Malcanis Vanishing Point. The Initiative. 1238	Posted - 2011.11.25 08:44:00 - [21] - Quote Vertisce Soritenshi wrote: Orakkus wrote: Appears to be working as intended. Eve is back on track. CCP will make more money. More money means more Profit and investment into their other projects down the road. OMG... So anyway...changes need to be made to the CSM to ensure more balance for who is represented in the overall community. I don't see how it is even possible. CSM members...(No offense Trebor) should not be allowed to run if they have already been voted in and served on the CSM once or twice already. Yes if there is one thing that will increase the effectiveness of the CSM, it's ensuring that only those people who have to spend half their term getting used to the way CCP works can be elected. We should definitely toss that experience into the dumper and ensure that only inexperienced CSMs represent us. This is not at all a back-door proposal to get rid of CSMs you don't like even though they got lots of votes because you're afraid that the CSMs you do like won't get as many. 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/
Malcanis Vanishing Point. The Initiative. 1238	Posted - 2011.11.25 08:46:00 - [22] - Quote Goose99 wrote: Lord Zim wrote: Goose99 wrote: Make voting mandatory... like creating a portrait. Can't log into game until you vote. "oh god, what's this? I can't play my game until I pres butan? JUST SHOW ME A BUTAN AND I WILL PRES I NEED MY ICE MINING FIX!" Yep. This suggestion won't help, no matter how many times guys like you put this forward. What you're afraid of is just the opposite - that the ice miners would actually read the short description and run down goon candidate. Of that the bots would vote for whoever the bot script writer wants them to... 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/
Trebor Daehdoow Dirt Nap Squad Dirt Nap Squad. 1077	Posted - 2011.11.25 10:06:00 - [23] - Quote Malcanis wrote: I trust you will strongly resist any proposals for "reserved seats" for specific so-called 'consituencies'. Special treatment is not a way to improve the credibility of a democratic process. I for one will resist them, because it's impossible to properly implement it. And in any case, very few players stay in one particular niche for their entire EVE careers. WRT to focusing on one area to the exclusion of others, right now the focus is on fixing basic stuff that broadly affects a lot of people. Getting CCP to implement Dead Horse POS's, for example, is something that helps everyone. Improving industry and mining makes hisec more interesting and nullsec more valuable -- and worth fighting over. And so on, and so on. People in the CSM might disagree over whether iterating nullsec sov or FW or lowsec is the highest priority, but these are disagreements at the margins. And if a sharp-eyed dev at CCP comes up with (or notices on the forums!) a low-cost way to iterate an existing game feature (like FW, or bounties), we are certainly going to get behind that, even if it doesn't directly affect an area of the game we hold near and dear -- because the bang for the buck will be too good to ignore. CSM - because I have not yet plumbed the depths of my inherent masochism! CSM 6 Activities Summary \| My CSM blog
Akrasjel Lanate Naquatech Conglomerate 197	Posted - 2011.11.25 17:23:00 - [24] - Quote Trebor Daehdoow wrote: Please discuss issues related to this session in this thread. We look forward to your comments and suggestions. CSM shouldn't have monopoly mostly for CSM
Khudin Hadashur Imperial Academy Amarr Empire 0	Posted - 2011.11.25 20:01:00 - [25] - Quote As far as changes for the CSM is concerned, I found myself agreeing with what The Mittani posted in his Chairman's thread: Mittens wrote: I think the CSM needs one change only for CSM7: a minimum signatures requirement to be added on the ballot. Something relatively minor, like 100 signatures.
Kenpachi Viktor Gradient Electus Matari 90	Posted - 2011.11.27 10:17:00 - [26] - Quote I would like to see the signatures requirement, also I'd like to see an instant run-off voting system used where you can vote for just one person, or preference vote for everyone. keep the 12 month terms, but have half the seats up for election every 6 months "Watch what they do not what they say. Talk is cheap, and while I do like the current activity of the Devs it really doesn't mean much unless we start seeing results."-á
Gevlin SMANews.net SpaceMonkey's Alliance 44	Posted - 2011.11.28 10:46:00 - [27] - Quote CSM needs more marketing avenues with the actual game of eve. like: Splash screen on Load up the IN CQ captian Quarters the In space TV in space near Jump Gates if it is in game - the CSM will have to work in "Role playing " some of the topics to avoid emerssion breaking A link to the in game Browser's Wiki of the CSM would be Handi or a web page pointing to a particular poll One of the larges concerns I have is the developing of official polls the need to be neutral. Several Polls written by the CSM during the summer of incarnage were written with incredibly bias. If a poll is written it should be done by that CSM Mediator guy. So that the polls will depict an unbias question and provide a valid answer. The private Polls that when out during the last Summer (the market research) the CSM should view the results of these, so they can temper of what they see from the forums that can easily suffer from group think vs what people are thinking on an individual by individual basis. They then can leverage their vocal minority input to position that also addresses the information collected from the surveys. I agree with several people: CCP needs to focus most of eve's recources on FIS, but the development of WIS still needs to continue, just as a slower and more efficient pace. In eve I wish to be more than just a machine.
Tiger's Spirit Troll Hunters INC. 23	Posted - 2011.11.28 13:50:00 - [28] - Quote Disband :D
FloppieTheBanjoClown The Skunkworks Petition Blizzard 362	Posted - 2011.11.29 01:45:00 - [29] - Quote Here's an idea for getting people to vote: create a new faction frigate and only give it to people who vote. It doesn't have to be Dramiel 2.0, just something worth having. Or maybe a vanity item. Or a choice, that faction frig, a *GOOD* vanity item, or insert third good idea here
Mara Villoso Big Box 32	Posted - 2011.11.29 21:33:00 - [30] - Quote Malcanis wrote: I trust you will strongly resist any proposals for "reserved seats" for specific so-called 'consituencies'. Special treatment is not a way to improve the credibility of a democratic process. If only it were actually a democratic process. It's anything but. There's nothing to stop CSM members from voting for or against anything they want, whether or not the constituency that elected them wants it. That's a particular problem for groups outside the big alliances. As long as metagaming is allowed in the CSM, it not only isn't democratic, it never will be. If the goal is to have players directly interface with CCP to assist in the overall development of the game, the CSM is actually the worst possible way to go about it. The crowd sourcing method and other common RL tools for gathering opinions and information from particular constituencies should be more than enough to fulfill the underlying purpose of the CSM. "Direct democracy" in EVE is entirely possible. Why should CCP limit itself to the opinions and machinations of a handful of people? Why take the risks associated with NDAs and such? While I have no direct evidence of anyone acting on information gleaned from their roles as CSM members, it seems odd to me that ice interdiction coincided so perfectly with a complete change to the POS fuel system. Enough with fake politics and a CSM that doesn't truly represent all of the game's constituencies.

Cearain The IMPERIUM of LaZy NATION 88	Posted - 2011.12.01 17:40:00 - [31] - Quote I wish nda was information was not talked about or at least was the exception rather than the rule. Here are the problems: 1) Its unclear how alliance leaders that are on the csm don't get an advantage from hearing what changes are being made in advance of the other players. Is there any clear guidlines on how the csm should act. For example Alliance leader csm hears super caps are being nerfed. Another leader in his alliance then tells him "Super caps are the **** we are putting all our resources toward creating huge fleets of them." How is the CSM alliance leader supposed to respond? Is he to say well we discussed the future of supercaps at an nda meeting so I must recuse myself from any alliance decision making relating to supercaps?? Its insider trading. Ok I agree that with any one thing this may not amount to much - just a slight advantage. But when you add it all together anoms nerfed/buffed dreads nerfed buffed basically csm knows all the changes well in advance of other players. 2) Even if somehow csm can explain how the above does not give them an advantage it seems to me there is still the appearance of an advantage. This appearance will lead more people to want to join the alliances where the leaders are in the know. This also gives the alliances an advantage. 3) Most importantly, the nda and csm has just built a wall between players and ccp. CSM never really discusses much at all with the players on the forums. And the conversations that do happen are often chilled by the csm worrying they will be anked for overstepping the nda. Basically csm has become the receptionist for ccp. When players want to know something csm says GÇ£CCP is unavailableGÇ¥ and when we ask them its always GÇ£well we canGÇÖt really say what we know because of nda.GÇ¥ Look at the GÇ£discussionGÇ¥ about the secret meetings with zulu. Really why csm at all? Zulu knew the players werenGÇÖt happy. CouldnGÇÖt zulu himself told the players ccp is reworking things and he will let us know. Why did he need csm to tell us that. With new emphasis on NDA the csm has become pretty silly. If ccp wants CSM to be a focus group to run ideas by then fine but donGÇÖt claim csm is representing views of the players when the players arenGÇÖt even privy to the issues discussed. CCP has bought some good will with the players they no longer need csm to be a buffer. CSM should be able to come back from a meeting and tell players about everything they discussed. Sure some ideas will be howlers but thatGÇÖs not the end of the world. So for these reasons I think the nda discussions should be scrapped and if ccp isnGÇÖt willing to discuss things with the players that should include the players on the csm. Short of that there should be precious little that is bound by the nda. Otherwise csm is really just acting like a receptionist/wall between players and ccp. BTW: I do not mean to suggest anyone on the csm did anything wrong with any nda information. I donGÇÖt pretend to know one way or another. But until I understand what sort of guidelines are followed when it comes to how they deal with nda information its hard to see that their alliances are not reaping benefits. Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
Max Kolonko Worm Nation Ash Alliance 10	Posted - 2011.12.03 20:40:00 - [32] - Quote I would like to see few things changed: - minimal representation of each major "playstyles" representatives - i.e. null, hi, low, wh etc... - players should be able to vote for more than one "playstyles" candidates, for example being able to vote for null and WH representative - CSM should have IN GAME visibility - In Game croudsourcing for example? CSM news on splash screen? CSM Voting IN GAME? etc... - CSM should have TAGS on forum, like GM/DEV's Now a little more explanation for 2 first points: I represent few "playstyles". I like incursions and used to run missions every day at some point, I used to live in 0.0 and would like to have many things in there reworked. Now I live in WH space, and see all the things that need work in there too. So, I would sleep better if I knew, that CSM have representative for each of those "playstyles", even one dedicated person. CSM consist of what? 10 delegates if I recall correctly? Lets say there are 7 Major "Playstyles" (Hi, Low, Null, WH, FW, Mining, Industry - those are just examples, that can be totally difrent) each playstyles have at least one delegate, and 3 "playstyles" that are most common have second delegate Each Delegate will be somehow (either by CCP, or by running candidate) categorized to ONE "playstyle". Each player would be then able to vote in up to two (three) categories. This ofc have it drawbacs. Possibilities of gaming system and putting much more representatives by heavy organised entities (goons, EVE UNI, etc...). Just food for discussion
Hirana Yoshida Behavioral Affront 173	Posted - 2011.12.03 21:37:00 - [33] - Quote Make sure that all (or most) aspects/areas of Eve are represented .. the travesty that is the current null council is bad for Eve as whole.
The Mittani GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 2465	Posted - 2011.12.03 21:55:00 - [34] - Quote This thread is a good collection of tinfoil. Stuff I'm going to push: minimum signatures requirement more electoral visibility Stuff that's dead on arrival siloing proposals coerced voting It's important to allow people to /not/ vote, if they feel the CSM is a sham. I don't plan to vote for President in ~freedomland~ next November, and if I was forced to I'd write in Mickey Mouse. People shouldn't be required to validate a system they consider to be bullshit. I suspect CSM7 will see vastly increased turnout, because despite a tiny vocal minority of the blind and deluded, most players now realize how much power and influence a properly-led CSM can wield. They ran a lot of login ads for the CSM6 election; if you didn't notice them, it's not because CCP didn't try - it's because people didn't think the CSM mattered. The Office of the Chairman: A Thread for Constituent Issues
Cearain The IMPERIUM of LaZy NATION 88	Posted - 2011.12.04 05:18:00 - [35] - Quote The Mittani wrote: This thread is a good collection of tinfoil. .. I suspect CSM7 will see vastly increased turnout, because despite a tiny vocal minority of the blind and deluded, most players now realize how much power and influence a properly-led CSM can wield..... Wield in what way? In game I think the alliance leaders who are also on csm will do better in general than those who are not on csm. Outside the game I think we saw people unsubscribing en mass that influenced ccp. I think we saw csm often explain that they couldn't say much due to nda so players never really knew what was going on. I'm not sure if you include my post in the collection of "tinfoil" but I'm sure even you could see that the nda was onerous this time around. Why not make it so the nda is the exception and not the rule? That is make it so csm can discuss with the players they supposedly represent about what they discussed with ccp unless there is clear indication it is nda? Now it seems the other way around. It seems you can't discuss anything with he players unless ccp says you can. Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
Andski GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 1142	Posted - 2011.12.04 07:10:00 - [36] - Quote Cearain wrote: In game I think the alliance leaders who are also on csm will do better in general than those who are not on csm. Tell that to Vuk Lau!
Malcanis Vanishing Point. The Initiative. 1326	Posted - 2011.12.04 11:26:00 - [37] - Quote Cearain wrote: The Mittani wrote: This thread is a good collection of tinfoil. .. I suspect CSM7 will see vastly increased turnout, because despite a tiny vocal minority of the blind and deluded, most players now realize how much power and influence a properly-led CSM can wield..... Wield in what way? In game I think the alliance leaders who are also on csm will do better in general than those who are not on csm. Outside the game I think we saw people unsubscribing en mass that influenced ccp. I think we saw csm often explain that they couldn't say much due to nda so players never really knew what was going on. I'm not sure if you include my post in the collection of "tinfoil" but I'm sure even you could see that the nda was onerous this time around. Why not make it so the nda is the exception and not the rule? That is make it so csm can discuss with the players they supposedly represent about what they discussed with ccp unless there is clear indication it is nda? Now it seems the other way around. It seems you can't discuss anything with he players unless ccp says you can. CCP dictate NDAs, not the CSM. Maybe you missed the blogs and posts where all the CSMs have said that they want to reduce the use of the NDA-bat - but they're also unanimous that they need to be able to see information that really does need to be NDA'd in order to function. 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/
Aineko Macx Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire 25	Posted - 2011.12.04 11:38:00 - [38] - Quote The one thing CSM has been slacking on, is, ironically, communication with the playerbase. Except for Trebor and Two Step the CSMs rarely give input on discussions the forum (especially Ass. Hall, which is supposed to be the official venue).
Cearain The IMPERIUM of LaZy NATION 88	Posted - 2011.12.04 16:31:00 - [39] - Quote Malcanis wrote: Cearain wrote: The Mittani wrote: This thread is a good collection of tinfoil. .. I suspect CSM7 will see vastly increased turnout, because despite a tiny vocal minority of the blind and deluded, most players now realize how much power and influence a properly-led CSM can wield..... Wield in what way? In game I think the alliance leaders who are also on csm will do better in general than those who are not on csm. Outside the game I think we saw people unsubscribing en mass that influenced ccp. I think we saw csm often explain that they couldn't say much due to nda so players never really knew what was going on. I'm not sure if you include my post in the collection of "tinfoil" but I'm sure even you could see that the nda was onerous this time around. Why not make it so the nda is the exception and not the rule? That is make it so csm can discuss with the players they supposedly represent about what they discussed with ccp unless there is clear indication it is nda? Now it seems the other way around. It seems you can't discuss anything with he players unless ccp says you can. CCP dictate NDAs, not the CSM. Maybe you missed the blogs and posts where all the CSMs have said that they want to reduce the use of the NDA-bat - but they're also unanimous that they need to be able to see information that really does need to be NDA'd in order to function. Good then csm seems to agree with me. Maybe that will be a topic of conversation. To say "ccp dictate nda's, not the csm" is irrelevant. CCP dictates everything in game but this is a meeting between ccp and csm. So CSM could presumably discuss things that they want changed - liked the extremely overbearing nda cloud that looms over their communication with players. Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
Hirana Yoshida Behavioral Affront 173	Posted - 2011.12.04 17:17:00 - [40] - Quote We players have proven on more than one occasion that we don't behave well with foreknowledge of the Eve universe, in that light the use of the NDA is more than acceptable. Very fine line between necessary information and encouraging insider trading.

Mara Villoso Big Box 39	Posted - 2011.12.05 21:40:00 - [41] - Quote The Mittani wrote: This thread is a good collection of tinfoil. Said the tin supplier and foil maker. Explain why the CSM is better than all of the other methods for systematically gathering stakeholder input. Why is it better to filter everything through a small group of people who are self-admittedly acting in their own best interest? Is the purpose of the CSM to provide feedback on the game? If so, who is gathering the input from the groups not represented by the current CSM members? Since the majority of players don't even vote, can it even be said that the CSM is truly a representative body in the traditional sense? If we're going to pretend that its a democratic process, the process itself must first be decided on by the body politic, which is something that never occurred. If low participation is a sign that the majority of players feel the CSM is a sham, then why do we still have a CSM. The "vote" would seem to already be in and counted. Why not formalize it? Let's have a vote to decide whether there should even be a CSM. Or a vote to decide between a variety of methods to accomplish the same goals. Finally, adjusts tinfoil hat what checks and balances prevent any CSM member from from acting on NDA information through indirect means? A smart, observant player with resources and an advanced understanding of the interrelationships of game mechanics could easily get his group to act in such a way that no one could ever say he violated the NDA, yet they would still benefit from it. E.g. it is confidentially revealed moons will be reseeded throughout EVE. So an alliance leader opts to not defend the space he currently controls and instead prepare to move to whatever new locations are eventually revealed. There's no way to prove he stopped defending it based on that information. I'm not saying its happened for sure, but the metagame extends into the CSM process, so it seems safe to assume that it does. Intelligent belligerents use every tool they can.
AkJon Ferguson JC Ferguson and Son Ltd Ferguson Alliance 56	Posted - 2011.12.05 22:19:00 - [42] - Quote Disband the CSM and with the money you save hire back 1 of the crying dudes that got fired. Maybe have a blubbering competition where whoever produces the most actual tears in 10 minutes wins. Seriously, this CSM has been horrible and proven that the CSM election mechanic is so broken that CCP would somehow incorporate it into New Eden if it could only figure out how. Failing that, support my proposal and let's at least have the opportunity to vote the worst of this bunch out.
Cearain The IMPERIUM of LaZy NATION 89	Posted - 2011.12.05 22:28:00 - [43] - Quote Mara Villoso wrote: The Mittani wrote: This thread is a good collection of tinfoil. Said the tin supplier and foil maker. Explain why the CSM is better than all of the other methods for systematically gathering stakeholder input. This isn't necessarilly better. And I don't think CCP intends it to be the only way to get input. I would say ccp have been very good about getting information from the forums about what players want. In fact I would bet there have been 5xs as many posts directly from devs as there have been posts from our csm representatives on the forums. Most people at ccp are smart enough to know that the csm is not representative representative of the playerbase at large. Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
AkJon Ferguson JC Ferguson and Son Ltd Ferguson Alliance 56	Posted - 2011.12.05 22:29:00 - [44] - Quote Cearain wrote: Most people at ccp are smart enough to know that the csm is not representative representative of the playerbase at large. Let's hear them say say that, then. That would be a good first step.
Cearain The IMPERIUM of LaZy NATION 89	Posted - 2011.12.05 23:05:00 - [45] - Quote AkJon Ferguson wrote: Cearain wrote: Most people at ccp are smart enough to know that the csm is not representative representative of the playerbase at large. Let's hear them say say that, then. That would be a good first step. They pretty much have. Don't get me wrong the csm is helpful to ccp. But its pretty clear that many people just voted for whoever their alliance leaders told them to vote for. There was no real close consideration of why they play eve and whether their alliance leaders ideas will make them play eve longer. Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
AkJon Ferguson JC Ferguson and Son Ltd Ferguson Alliance 56	Posted - 2011.12.05 23:18:00 - [46] - Quote Cearain wrote: AkJon Ferguson wrote: Cearain wrote: Most people at ccp are smart enough to know that the csm is not representative representative of the playerbase at large. Let's hear them say say that, then. That would be a good first step. They pretty much have. Don't get me wrong the csm is helpful to ccp. But its pretty clear that many people just voted for whoever their alliance leaders told them to vote for. There was no real close consideration of why they play eve and whether their alliance leaders ideas will make them play eve longer. You trolling, bro? If they 'pretty much have' then why the **** am I posting in the 'Council of Stellar Management' section of forums? Why am I not posting in the Player Feedback and Suggestions section of forums? Show me where Hilmar has said 'Yes, we're aware that having a goon spy lead developer (Soundwave) a former goon leader security chief (Darius Johnson) and a goon spy/leader CSM chair (Alex) has a huge potential for favoritism and otherwise unacceptable behavior.' Show me where Hilmar has said 'Yes, we're aware that CSM V represented all of EVE and we ignored them, so the best of them quit. We're also aware that CSM VI mostly behaves like a bunch of juvenile delinquents and most of their 'ideas' are self-serving.' CSM VI is like me without the foresight, ethics, eloquence, or intellect. Perhaps that's why they get on so well with CCP.


Pages: 1 2 :: [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.