tl;dr?

wtb character limits of one third what they are now.

If you can't be bothered to read something, why not simply exit the thread instead of showing your ignorance.

Mr Epeen

Um... one of us is trying to move things forward. Bad (masturbatory) writing by the OP fails to convey a message. Asking him for the short version of his self congratulatory piece on god-knows-what is trying to make this thread mean something rather than be a random babbling rant (which according to forums rules is ground for a lock.)

What did you contribute? asshat.

Players should work within the system to act positively and decisively for the good of the game rather than take every opportunity to be negative, critical and apathetic.

in other words "CCP listens to the people that actually speak up"

wow what a thought

wisdommm

Maybe CCP only deserves the customers they cheat for, and deserve to lose the rest.

" --- snip ---

The CSM: Arbiter of the Loudest Voice

The current Council of Stellar Management can rightly claim credit -- snip-- The simple fact is, they got the job done.

No they can't. CCP had ignored them more or less completely until a large number of pilots camped the trade hubs.

Author obviously has an agenda...

maybe you should shut up and unsub instead of being the poisonous badposter you are

So you're saying the CSM played no part in communicating the players' perspective to CCP during last Summer's events? I strongly disagree. Of course the reaction of the playerbase at large was a huge influence, I'm not disputing that. However the player reaction was the problem. The CSM and the communication channels they had access to was part of the solution.

And yes, I have an agenda. I'm trying to reach players who would otherwise go unheard to encourage better use of the systems in place to improve the game we all play.

CSM did NOT get the job done. Not even close. I agree they did get to tell CCP "I told you so"

By "geo-bias", do you mean virtually (as in null vs high) or actually (US/Euro/Aus TZs)?

I agree with you there, there is certainly a bias toward null-sec players.

However if they are representative of the vocal majority, isn't that democracy? As long as they represent the best interests of the playerbase and the game as a whole, I don't think it's a significant concern how they choose to play their game.

My original point is (assuming the above is true) players from all sub-communities should be encouraged to get involved with the CSM process and not just throw the towel in if their chosen candidate didn't get in. The CSM will be effective if players back it.

It's about presenting a united front and pulling in the same direction.

I agree with you there, there is certainly a bias toward null-sec players.

However if they are representative of the vocal majority, isn't that democracy? As long as they represent the best interests of the playerbase and the game as a whole, I don't think it's a significant concern how they choose to play their game.

My original point is (assuming the above is true) players from all sub-communities should be encouraged to get involved with the CSM process and not just throw the towel in if their chosen candidate didn't get in. The CSM will be effective if players back it.

It's about presenting a united front and pulling in the same direction.

I don't know about you, but all the councils so far had been controversy and at best a back up of 50% in parts of the population (and I mean the part that is interested in the whole process.. )

And if CCP doesn't sort out the problem of powerblocs dominating this due to their better organisation this won't ever go away.

So your speech is essentially useless.

ridiculous notion that the CSM is an extension of a player's in-game position.

My "speech" is only useless if you choose to ignore its message - which is that "powerblocs dominating" isn't necessarily a problem if players can see past their prejudices to operate for the greater good. Which is what CSM members are required to do. It tends to be players that hang on to this ridiculous notion that the CSM is an extension of a player's in-game position.

Thus: your speech is useless.

-snip- if players can see past their prejudices to operate for the greater good. Which is what CSM members are required to do.

Perhaps, but I'd sooner make a speech than say nothing or just be negative. The day I feel as you and others seem to I'll find something less depressing to do.

Without access to demographical statistics, it is impossible to know exactly what percentages of players would respond positively to improvements to specific areas of EVE Online

The current Council of Stellar Management can rightly claim credit for their part in this improved relationship and they have worked hard to represent the wishes of the EVE players with whom they've had contact. Regardless of what critics may say, the CSM system has worked well to bring together an effective team of senior players to liaise with CCP for mutual benefit. Whether this was by accident or design is not important.

With the elections for seventh CSM term approaching, those same individuals - stamina and desire permitting - are among the strongest contenders for the (now reduced number of) positions on the next council. They have an establish team ethic, have presumably fostered good relationships with CCP staff and they have experience. However, if the elections shake up the status quo, so be it. I'm sure some fresh blood would be useful too.

The luxury of my popularity is that I don't have to bother lying to my voters about who and what I am. You get exactly what you voted for: a manipulative sadist who makes no apologies for who or what he is. And that's the kind of leadership the CSM requires if it's to accomplish anything when dealing with CCP

.....

I ran for CSM on a platform of explicitly being a manipulative bastard, because it takes someone like me to actually bring CCP around to reason.

Concerns about the under-representation of particular communities or play-styles are irrelevant.

That said, it would be good to see some effective CSM seat challenges from other quarters if the candidates have something to offer. But just a few. The key is for each community to get behind a single representative rather than diluting the votes into ineffectiveness. It may be prudent for some potential runners to instead campaign on behalf of another or even to promote the CSM process in general for a fairer result.