open All Channels
seplocked Jita Park Speakers Corner
blankseplocked CSM and Representation.
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: [1] 2

Author Topic

Hakugard Odinsson
Posted - 2011.08.03 13:03:00 - [1]
 

It has recently come to my attention that there is a large amount of whining that the CSM doesn't represent them, and that perhaps there is not confidence left in the delegates.

This is self defeating. best way to make yourself represented and lend the CSM more power, Vote for them.The CSM delegates received 27580 votes out of a player base of 300K+, and you are complaining they do not represent the player base. answer is they don't. The solution?

Simple vote for them, it takes 5 minutes of your time, and the best way to increase CSM's power not to mention legitimacy is to increase the number of people who participate.

I know that there is something up to around 10k votes for people who didn't get enough votes to actually be in the CSM but come on guys rather than arguing about how they don't represent you vote for someone who you think will next CSM election. What I am not saying however, is that the current CSM is illegitimate and pointless, i am not saying either that everyone should vote and that those who aren't are somehow subverting a democratic process. But in the way that the CSM are trying to represent the people who are actually voting for them, they constantly have to deal with people who may not have voted at all making attempts on their legitimacy.

In short stop *****ing start voting.

Discuss....

Jaxon Grylls
Posted - 2011.08.04 10:27:00 - [2]
 

Look, it's quite simple. To quote the Evelopedia "The Council of Stellar Management (CSM) is a player-elected council to represent the views of the players to CCP."

So although the CSM may have been elected by a subset of the electorate, much as happens in most democracies, the CSM are mandated to promote the interests of the whole of the playerbase not just those factions who have been mobilised to vote for a particular candidate or candidates.

To do otherwise is to be at odds with what CCP set up the CSM to do.

On your other issue, there is at the moment a lively discussion going on about how we can set up an organisation to do exactly what you suggest. If you are interested in helping you can contact me ingame.

The current CSM is by its own uttereance, at least those by the more vocal members, determined to do exactly what you say they are not. The aim, as far as I can see of the current CSM, is to boost the interests of 0.0 at the expense of the other sectors of the game, the nerfing of ABC ore in WHS being a glaring example. Why, so that 0.0 is "less dependant" on hisec. I'm sure the pioneers of the old west would have loved that. Bet you those poor souls travelling through Death Valley would have been delighted to see an Interstate Highway or a McDonalds, would have made life easier for sure but that's not how it was and neither should 0.0 After all the people in nullsec are there for the opportunities it offers. They are the pioneers, the tough, hungry ones making a better life for themselves. Don't want to be spoonfed as well do they? No, the various parts of EVE should be interdependant, hisec making the supplies and services nullsec providing the materials, markets and room for expansion of corps and alliances.

Daemonspirit
Six Degrees of Separation
Posted - 2011.08.04 17:39:00 - [3]
 

Contact Eve-University, they have a pretty good Hi-Sec presence.

Zirse
Minmatar
Brutor Tribe
Posted - 2011.08.04 18:21:00 - [4]
 

Originally by: Jaxon Grylls
Look, it's quite simple. To quote the Evelopedia "The Council of Stellar Management (CSM) is a player-elected council to represent the views of the players to CCP."

So although the CSM may have been elected by a subset of the electorate, much as happens in most democracies, the CSM are mandated to promote the interests of the whole of the playerbase not just those factions who have been mobilised to vote for a particular candidate or candidates.



An EVElopedia article is not legally binding.

Poetic Stanziel
Gallente
Macbeth Transport and Freight LLC
Posted - 2011.08.04 18:46:00 - [5]
 


Asuri Kinnes
Caldari
Adhocracy Incorporated
Posted - 2011.08.04 19:41:00 - [6]
 

Originally by: Zirse
Originally by: Jaxon Grylls
Look, it's quite simple. To quote the Evelopedia "The Council of Stellar Management (CSM) is a player-elected council to represent the views of the players to CCP."

So although the CSM may have been elected by a subset of the electorate, much as happens in most democracies, the CSM are mandated to promote the interests of the whole of the playerbase not just those factions who have been mobilised to vote for a particular candidate or candidates.



An EVElopedia article is not legally binding.

Since it's put up by CCP, maintained by CCP and added to by the CSM, I'm pretty sure it gives an accurate description of what is expected of the CSM.

"it's not legally binding" - of course not. But saying it's not binding is *not* like saying "it's not accurate".

Top Contributors For This Page

----Omber Zombie [14]
----Erik Finnegan [12]
----Inanna Zuni [8]
----Meissa Anunthiel [4]
----Mynxee [4]
----tasman devil [4]
----Serenity Steele [3]
----Nexus Kinnon [2]
----Mara Rinn [2]
----ISD Alassien [2]

Category: CSM



Zirse
Minmatar
Brutor Tribe
Posted - 2011.08.04 22:01:00 - [7]
 

Sure, but there is no 'mandate' for them to represent everyone in EVE. I think its their job to help CCP improve EVE, and the CSMs should concentrate on areas of their respective strengths. What started this whole thing was a CSM who hadn't a clue trying to tinker with nullsec mechanics. Now before you say it, this CSM isn't actively pursuing the wormhole thing, so no, I don't think there are any parallels there.

This CSM is by and large, out to fix nullsec. We're getting a nullsec expansion this winter, so I think its great we have a specialized CSM to hopefully get this moved in the right direction. (Third times the charm?) There are still a few candidates who are not part of the nullsec block, so its not like highsec has zero representation anyways.

Jaxon Grylls
Posted - 2011.08.05 10:59:00 - [8]
 

Originally by: Zirse
Sure, but there is no 'mandate' for them to represent everyone in EVE. I think its their job to help CCP improve EVE, and the CSMs should concentrate on areas of their respective strengths.


Then might I suggest that the CSM contact those parts of the game which they are not drawn from and consult. If they have gaps in their knowledge about certain aspects of the game then it is their duty as members of a body supposedly representing the players to CCP to find out the views and concerns of all parts of the game. That is, I think a very good reason for have a more representative CSM in the first place.

Asuri Kinnes
Caldari
Adhocracy Incorporated
Posted - 2011.08.05 14:34:00 - [9]
 

Originally by: Jaxon Grylls
Originally by: Zirse
Sure, but there is no 'mandate' for them to represent everyone in EVE. I think its their job to help CCP improve EVE, and the CSMs should concentrate on areas of their respective strengths.


Then might I suggest that the CSM contact those parts of the game which they are not drawn from and consult. If they have gaps in their knowledge about certain aspects of the game then it is their duty as members of a body supposedly representing the players to CCP to find out the views and concerns of all parts of the game. That is, I think a very good reason for have a more representative CSM in the first place.

They should all have been looking at the CSM like this. It's not like we're not all in the same sandbox. Someone kicks sand out of one area, it ends up in another.

Someone throws sand into the machinery in null-sec, it has it's effects in hi-sec. Nerf anoms - more lvl 4 runners. Nerf 4's - have more explorers (or whatever). Change plex or introduce something else to spend it on - change the dynamics of game time for plex. It's all related.

Jaxon Grylls
Posted - 2011.08.08 11:58:00 - [10]
 

Originally by: Zirse
Sure, but there is no 'mandate' for them to represent everyone in EVE.


Please check out the following .pdf Link

Please note: This document was originally created by Pétur Jóhannes Óskarsson on behalf of CCP.

A couple of the points in the document caught my eye

1) 'The purpose of the CSM is to represent society interests to CCP. This requires active engagement with the player community to master EVE issue awareness, understanding, and evaluation in the context of the “greatest good for the greater player base”.'

2) Publish meeting minutes within three days of the meeting. This in the context of the duties of the Secretary/Vice Secretary

So, how are they doing do you think?

Dusty Warrior
Posted - 2011.08.08 20:01:00 - [11]
 

Edited by: Dusty Warrior on 08/08/2011 20:02:49


Jaxon... sorry, may I add a paragraph from just below where you got your info?

Candidates are expected to be active on the CSM forums and participate in the discussion of topics. They are also expected to adhere to the EULA/TOS and carry themselves in a manner that sets an example for other players to follow.

Thanks buddy. Very Happy Itallics would be the focal point.

Jaxon Grylls
Posted - 2011.08.08 20:33:00 - [12]
 

Originally by: Dusty Warrior
and carry themselves in a manner that sets an example for other players to follow.

Thanks buddy. Very Happy Itallics would be the focal point.


I could not agree more and so far, from what I've seem , the current CSM or at least parts of it hold certain sections of the players in contempt.

Originally by: Fee Seas
1. Of course we knew that wormholes were 'nullsec'. Whoever wrote that line in the minutes - probably Trebor, Meissa or Two Step - misrepresented what occured. We were surprised, however, that you could day-trip into wormholes and mine ABC from hisec.

2. I don't give a **** about wormholes or wormhole issues. That also means that I'm not expending any political capital 'chasing' an ABC nerf in wormholes. I think it's stupid, but it's a trivial issue compared to the sucking chest wounds that impact this game and wormholes aren't my area of space. If you're spazzing about the comment, odds are that you are, yourself, a trivial person.

3. CSMs represent their voters. They might claim to represent the entire playerbase. If they have that delusion, good for them; I operate in a realm of political realities.

4. Probably due to e-fame, of the 5365 votes I received, only 1700 came from my own alliance (we ran exit polls to determine the approx GSF count). If you voted for me, as far as I'm concerned, you deserve realposts and can evemail me anytime with your concerns about whatever. If you didn't vote for me, I don't care about your opinion, and might go out of my way to actively antagonize you because, as a sadist, I enjoy hurting people I dislike.

5. If you think the election was 'rigged' you're a joke. Nullsec is incredibly organized in order to survive. CSM5 demonstrated to nullsec that power in the hands of the ignorant could be incredibly damaging to the game, so Nullsec seized the CSM by out-organizing everyone else.

6. There's a tremendous amount of influence and power within the CSM, but it's not a explicitly delineated power. This means that babbys who don't understand how power works see it as powerless - which suits me fine, because then they don't vote and tell their friends not to vote. This makes it easier for someone who's organized and motivated - like me - to win. Babbys can make badposts about how the CSM is powerless, I'll have quiet conversations at 3am in bars in Reykjavik with key devs to try to convince them to fix the broken areas of the game. Win-win. This is already paying off with TiDi, Iterative Ship Balance, and I hope - judging from the public statements in interviews and such - supercapital balancing.

7. I'm 'arrogant' because I don't care what most people think, and I'm secure in my life and my position ingame. I've 'won' EVE - accomplishing various goals I set for myself (every man's 'win EVE' is dfferent) - so many times now that I don't really give a **** anymore. The Great War was won, I did a bunch of crazy espionage crap and I've successfully led one of the best blocs in the game. If that makes me arrogant, whatevs - New Eden tramples the humble."


Referring to a post by The Mitanni I believe. To me this sort of thing brings the CSM into disrepute.

Zirse
Minmatar
Brutor Tribe
Posted - 2011.08.08 22:12:00 - [13]
 

A PDF file still isn't a mandate. There are no legal obligations.

What exactly are you asking for here, to impeach them? They're unpaid volunteers FFS.

Jaxon Grylls
Posted - 2011.08.09 10:20:00 - [14]
 

Originally by: Zirse
A PDF file still isn't a mandate. There are no legal obligations.

What exactly are you asking for here, to impeach them? They're unpaid volunteers FFS.


No, just get them to do the job they presumably volunteered for.

You sound like a right barrack room lawyer. I'm not saying that the .pdf is holy writ, but it is the foundation document from CCP that set up the CSM and from what I read the current CSM are not fulfilling the job that they were elected to do.

Magnus Orin
Minmatar
Wildly Inappropriate
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2011.08.10 16:53:00 - [15]
 

Originally by: Jaxon Grylls


So although the CSM may have been elected by a subset of the electorate, much as happens in most democracies, the CSM are mandated to promote the interests of the whole of the playerbase not just those factions who have been mobilised to vote for a particular candidate or candidates.




Oh you are a poor naive fool with a lot to learn about the real world.

Zirse
Minmatar
Brutor Tribe
Posted - 2011.08.10 18:01:00 - [16]
 

Originally by: Jaxon Grylls
Originally by: Zirse
A PDF file still isn't a mandate. There are no legal obligations.

What exactly are you asking for here, to impeach them? They're unpaid volunteers FFS.


No, just get them to do the job they presumably volunteered for.

You sound like a right barrack room lawyer. I'm not saying that the .pdf is holy writ, but it is the foundation document from CCP that set up the CSM and from what I read the current CSM are not fulfilling the job that they were elected to do.


You're asking the CSM to defy human nature. I'm going to have to agree with Magnus, you sound very naive.

I'd like to point out that history has all but proven (with a few exceptions) that the vast majority of public representatives are at least somewhat self-serving. Politics are usually a zero-sum game, where somebody wins and somebody loses. Elected officials are almost never on the losing side of a decision.

The past CSMs have been no different, they just haven't been as forthright as Mittens. I would argue its not that big of an issue really, because EVE can still stand to gain from the expertise of the various factions that have held the CSM, even if they can be self-serving.

Its not like CCP is going to give the Goons an "I Win" button because The Mittani is chairman. Relax.

Lykouleon
Wildly Inappropriate
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2011.08.10 19:26:00 - [17]
 

Representative Democracy is fun.

Jaxon Grylls
Posted - 2011.08.10 19:55:00 - [18]
 

Edited by: Jaxon Grylls on 10/08/2011 21:12:40
Originally by: Magnus Orin
Oh you are a poor naive fool with a lot to learn about the real world.


Son, I expect I can give you a good thirty years if not more.

I'm not being naive, it's just that when people are elected with a clear set of rules showing them what's expected of them, and I don't know what that .pdf is if not a set of rules from CCP to the CSM as to how to conduct themselves, I expect them to at least try and make an effort to abide by them.

Still as Upton Sinclair put it "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his job depends on not understanding it." So that may explain why so many people cannot seem to see that the CSM is not living up to the standards laid down by CCP, as it seems to be to the advantage of certain sections of the game, at the moment.



James Arget
Caldari
Future Corps
Sleeper Social Club
Posted - 2011.08.15 01:22:00 - [19]
 

What they will or will not do we can not debate, they can only decide that for themselves.

What we can do is try to come to an understanding from all players and CSMs of what their intended purpose is. The current CSM is acting with an intended purpose very different from what many players, many voting players, had understood previous to the current term.

I would argue that we can only hope that CCP clarifies this point before the next election: Is the task of a CSM to represent those players who voted for them, or all EVE players?

No amount of voting or not voting will do any good at solving that issue.

Extreme
Eye of God
Intergalactic Exports Group
Posted - 2011.08.15 12:12:00 - [20]
 

The one thing CCP should at least change in their CSM election method is that it should no longer be possible to cast votes per account.

CCP has to change this into 1 vote per player no matter how many subscribed accounts he has.



/Extreme, CSM-2

Zirse
Minmatar
Brutor Tribe
Posted - 2011.08.15 17:43:00 - [21]
 

Originally by: Extreme
The one thing CCP should at least change in their CSM election method is that it should no longer be possible to cast votes per account.

CCP has to change this into 1 vote per player no matter how many subscribed accounts he has.



/Extreme, CSM-2


That's a dumb idea, and not feasible.

Its dumb because people with multiple accounts are more important customers to CCP, and therefore should get a more proportionate say. Its infeasible because accounts aren't tied to any identifying metric because you can create trial accounts and pay for them with PLEX.

Extreme
Eye of God
Intergalactic Exports Group
Posted - 2011.08.15 21:42:00 - [22]
 

Edited by: Extreme on 15/08/2011 21:43:11

Originally by: Zirse
Originally by: Extreme
The one thing CCP should at least change in their CSM election method is that it should no longer be possible to cast votes per account.

CCP has to change this into 1 vote per player no matter how many subscribed accounts he has.



/Extreme, CSM-2


That's a dumb idea, and not feasible.

Its dumb because people with multiple accounts are more important customers to CCP, and therefore should get a more proportionate say. Its infeasible because accounts aren't tied to any identifying metric because you can create trial accounts and pay for them with PLEX.


It may sound dumb to you but CSM is the council representing the player base.
When you speak of a player base you speak of single persons not the number of accounts a player may have.

Fact is that if it stays based on the number of accounts a person have then the number of votes a councilor will have should be worth a number of votes within the council. Say that the chairman has gotten 5000 votes and the 9th councilor only 1000 votes.
The chairman should then have 5 votes against the 9th councilor with only one (based on 1 vote per 1000 votes).

I don't think such will be wishful by the player base and so the election vote system has to get a major change.

I have enough ideas on how CSM election should be changed but i leave it up to CCP.

Zirse
Minmatar
Brutor Tribe
Posted - 2011.08.15 21:45:00 - [23]
 

Originally by: Extreme
Edited by: Extreme on 15/08/2011 21:43:11

Originally by: Zirse
Originally by: Extreme
The one thing CCP should at least change in their CSM election method is that it should no longer be possible to cast votes per account.

CCP has to change this into 1 vote per player no matter how many subscribed accounts he has.



/Extreme, CSM-2


That's a dumb idea, and not feasible.

Its dumb because people with multiple accounts are more important customers to CCP, and therefore should get a more proportionate say. Its infeasible because accounts aren't tied to any identifying metric because you can create trial accounts and pay for them with PLEX.


It may sound dumb to you but CSM is the council representing the player base.
When you speak of a player base you speak of single persons not the number of accounts a player may have.



This isn't a democracy you dumbass, its a business.

As to the rest of your gibberish I had no idea what you were trying to say.


Extreme
Eye of God
Intergalactic Exports Group
Posted - 2011.08.15 22:41:00 - [24]
 

Originally by: Zirse
Originally by: Extreme
Edited by: Extreme on 15/08/2011 21:43:11

Originally by: Zirse
Originally by: Extreme
The one thing CCP should at least change in their CSM election method is that it should no longer be possible to cast votes per account.

CCP has to change this into 1 vote per player no matter how many subscribed accounts he has.



/Extreme, CSM-2


That's a dumb idea, and not feasible.

Its dumb because people with multiple accounts are more important customers to CCP, and therefore should get a more proportionate say. Its infeasible because accounts aren't tied to any identifying metric because you can create trial accounts and pay for them with PLEX.


It may sound dumb to you but CSM is the council representing the player base.
When you speak of a player base you speak of single persons not the number of accounts a player may have.



This isn't a democracy you dumbass, its a business.

As to the rest of your gibberish I had no idea what you were trying to say.




You are naming people dumbass probably because you think you are very smart right? Confused

Never mind commenting as somehow you getting off on being rude, probably have a bad real life or something.


Have a nice day!

Dusty Warrior
Posted - 2011.08.16 03:20:00 - [25]
 

Originally by: Zirse
Originally by: Jaxon Grylls
Originally by: Zirse
A PDF file still isn't a mandate. There are no legal obligations.

What exactly are you asking for here, to impeach them? They're unpaid volunteers FFS.


No, just get them to do the job they presumably volunteered for.

You sound like a right barrack room lawyer. I'm not saying that the .pdf is holy writ, but it is the foundation document from CCP that set up the CSM and from what I read the current CSM are not fulfilling the job that they were elected to do.


You're asking the CSM to defy human nature. I'm going to have to agree with Magnus, you sound very naive.

I'd like to point out that history has all but proven (with a few exceptions) that the vast majority of public representatives are at least somewhat self-serving. Politics are usually a zero-sum game, where somebody wins and somebody loses. Elected officials are almost never on the losing side of a decision.

The past CSMs have been no different, they just haven't been as forthright as Mittens. I would argue its not that big of an issue really, because EVE can still stand to gain from the expertise of the various factions that have held the CSM, even if they can be self-serving.

Its not like CCP is going to give the Goons an "I Win" button because The Mittani is chairman. Relax.


Hence why the CSM should be disolved as it serves no purpose in a G-A-M-E! This isn't a democracy... it's a ****ing game.

The CSM should have never been created and should cease to exist as it serves ONLY a few losers that NOT ONLY have shown us they have little or no idea of the mechanics of the game, but also self serving *****es much like RL self centered politicians of the western world. This mentality does NOT belong in a game where people go to take a break from the real world.

Darius III
Caldari
Interstellar eXodus
BricK sQuAD.
Posted - 2011.08.16 11:42:00 - [26]
 

If the players knew what goes on with the CSM-they would be surprised. Sometimes pleasantly, sometimes not. The CSM actually works pretty damn hard for what we perceive as beneficial to the game, but our ideas and yours may be different as to what constitutes as beneficial. That being said, we look out for issues in Hi and Low sec, in addition to null and WH space.

Being elected to represent trolls, outlaws and criminals of eve has not stopped me from supporting many different Hisec initiatives, many of which focus on gameplay improvements for such groups as: Miners, Industrialists, Missioners, Traders and Couriers and Ratters. The CSM knows that gameplay improvements benefit everyone as a healthy balanced Eve, means more fun for everyone and more subscribers and a more diverse playerbase.

Nearly everyone in the CSM has extensive experience in all phases of the game and all occupations and strives to make improvements. While the rest of the CSM may not like me, and even if CCP took a wary approach to someone who cheated in the election-everyone was able to look past that and make progress at the emergency summit. In short, we are already doing the things you seem to want and think we are ignoring.

If people knew how demanding and at times tedious, the 'job' of CSM is-I don't think there would be many people running at all for it. The vast majority of us spend so many hours a week working on CSM related issues-it would quiclkly add up to man years if anyone was keeping track. D3

Jaxon Grylls
Posted - 2011.08.16 13:58:00 - [27]
 

Originally by: Darius III
If people knew how demanding and at times tedious, the 'job' of CSM is-I don't think there would be many people running at all for it. The vast majority of us spend so many hours a week working on CSM related issues-it would quiclkly add up to man years if anyone was keeping track. D3


Then should what you are saying about how hard the current CSM is working be true, and I reserve judgement on that until I see any concrete results; all I have to say is the communication skills of the CSM are sorely lacking. Six weeks from the emergency meeting and I have yet to see any minutes, I may have missed them, if so my apologies, but the delay in publishing the minutes of the first meeting was shocking. You do know that the minutes are SUPPOSED to be published within three days, don't you?

Nicolo da'Vicenza
Amarr
Divine Power.
Atlas.
Posted - 2011.09.04 08:21:00 - [28]
 

bet you'll vote next time hippy

Jerric DeValerian
Posted - 2011.09.05 06:32:00 - [29]
 

Originally by: Hakugard Odinsson
It has recently come to my attention that there is a large amount of whining that the CSM doesn't represent them, and that perhaps there is not confidence left in the delegates.

This is self defeating. best way to make yourself represented and lend the CSM more power, Vote for them.


The biggest question would be "who is 'them' in the last sentence?" Apart from some scattered forum postings, I wouldn't be able to name one, much less associate current members or candidates to policies they support.

You state that it would only take five minutes of my time. But without some knowledge, voting is rather pointless.

Nobody (at least nobody I know) likes political advertising. But it does serve some purpose to make the candidates known to the people. Or is it that the current and prospective members of the CSM do like their proceedings mired in secrecy and keeping the masses uneducated?

Jaxon Grylls
Posted - 2011.09.05 08:00:00 - [30]
 

Originally by: Jerric DeValerian
[
The biggest question would be "who is 'them' in the last sentence?" Apart from some scattered forum postings, I wouldn't be able to name one, much less associate current members or candidates to policies they support.

You state that it would only take five minutes of my time. But without some knowledge, voting is rather pointless.

Nobody (at least nobody I know) likes political advertising. But it does serve some purpose to make the candidates known to the people. Or is it that the current and prospective members of the CSM do like their proceedings mired in secrecy and keeping the masses uneducated?



No, at least not in hisec. A group of players have got together to try and inform and encourage hisec residents to vote for candiates who will represent their interests in the next CSM election. This is on simmer at the moment but things are happening. Contact either me or Lakitel if you are interested in getting out the vote next election and we will will be happy to discuss what needs to be done.


Pages: [1] 2

This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 


The new forums are live

Please adjust your bookmarks to https://forums.eveonline.com

These forums are archived and read-only