open All Channels
seplocked EVE General Discussion
blankseplocked CSM - Do you think?
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: [1] 2

Author Topic

Jenshae Chiroptera
Posted - 2011.09.05 13:58:00 - [1]
 

Edited by: Jenshae Chiroptera on 05/09/2011 14:11:11
That we need more representation from corps and alliances that aren't Goon Swarm?

Edit: Doesn't take long to type "Yes." or "No." and post it.

Two step
Aperture Harmonics
K162
Posted - 2011.09.05 14:14:00 - [2]
 

No. There are only two of them, and they are good folks.

Jenshae Chiroptera
Posted - 2011.09.05 14:36:00 - [3]
 

Only two? Even communism understood that to prevent corruption you need a minimum of three.

Discrodia
Gallente
Symbiosis International
Moose Alliance
Posted - 2011.09.05 14:43:00 - [4]
 

So, you're saying that just because someone was elected by a large number of players, they don't deserve to be on the CSM because of where they're from or who they're affiliated with?

If goons have the resources to elect people, and no one else bothers to vote for other people, goons win by default. You only have the right to complain if you participated in voting against the goons. If CSM mattered enough that a larger section of people participated in voting, maybe you would have a point.

Shahzz
Posted - 2011.09.05 14:59:00 - [5]
 

How fortuitous.

I agree with the OP.

Is there a need and if we had to chose the top 5 issues, what would they be?

The Goons and the Mitanni are actively pushing an agenda, althought not too clear as to the goal. http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2011-09-05-eve-csm-chairman-breaks-the-peace

Also, if there should be changes and you want to organize, is this the right forum?

- fly safe, but often

Jenshae Chiroptera
Posted - 2011.09.05 15:15:00 - [6]
 

Ah, hit the panic alert! They want to hang our CSMs.

----------

Wrong.

Actually, I am suggesting that there be a minimum of three or five total and that means getting some new ones. Not removing the current but adding some balance with others.

Draco Llasa
Thundercats
Posted - 2011.09.05 15:24:00 - [7]
 

there is a wide representation outside Goons.. i do not thing 2 is a lot. and those 2 while they are good dudes, do not dictate CSM consensus.

Jenshae Chiroptera
Posted - 2011.09.05 15:43:00 - [8]
 

Is there an up to date CSM list?

Tippia
Caldari
Sunshine and Lollipops
Posted - 2011.09.05 15:45:00 - [9]
 

You should probably worry less about the number of goons in the CSM and more about the number of goons at CCP… Wink

Jenshae Chiroptera
Posted - 2011.09.05 15:47:00 - [10]
 

Originally by: Tippia
You should probably worry less about the number of goons in the CSM and more about the number of goons at CCP… Wink


Yeah ... was just talking about that in game. Main concern seems to be one that is in charge of accounts?

Sullen Skoung
Posted - 2011.09.05 17:39:00 - [11]
 

Edited by: Sullen Skoung on 05/09/2011 17:40:46
Originally by: Jenshae Chiroptera
Only two? Even communism understood that to prevent corruption you need a minimum of three.


two on CSM an one is the head of security (I still lol at that)

Well if CCP are hiring from Goons, it makes damn sure sense as to the direction the game is going (after all they wanna destroy YOUR game)

Jenshae Chiroptera
Posted - 2011.09.05 17:47:00 - [12]
 

It is the pervasiveness of it that troubles me. Largest alliance, so they have big swing in the game. CSM swing, so they "speak for us" then they are in the company so they have control of the game swing.

Doesn't this bother anyone else? People get fired and disbarred as lawyers for conflicts of interest like this.

Further, someone in game mentioned that too many with one mind set can imbalance a game and ruin it. I hope that isn't happening.

Ghoest
Posted - 2011.09.05 17:53:00 - [13]
 

Originally by: Draco Llasa
there is a wide representation outside Goons.. i do not thing 2 is a lot. and those 2 while they are good dudes, do not dictate CSM consensus.



The problem isnt "goons", its 0.0 voting blocks in general.

Jenshae Chiroptera
Posted - 2011.09.05 18:44:00 - [14]
 

Originally by: Ghoest
Originally by: Draco Llasa
there is a wide representation outside Goons.. i do not thing 2 is a lot. and those 2 while they are good dudes, do not dictate CSM consensus.



The problem isnt "goons", its 0.0 voting blocks in general.


Too true and is there anyway of seeing where the majority of the players are? I am betting in high sec space. Just smaller corps and alliances but many more of them.

We might have a minority shaping and directing the game. That wouldn't be a good representation at all.

Ladie Scarlet
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2011.09.05 20:25:00 - [15]
 

Originally by: Jenshae Chiroptera
Too true and is there anyway of seeing where the majority of the players are? I am betting in high sec space. Just smaller corps and alliances but many more of them.

If they don't care enough to vote then it doesn't matter where they live.

Nykky Syxx
Posted - 2011.09.05 20:42:00 - [16]
 

Originally by: Sullen Skoung
Edited by: Sullen Skoung on 05/09/2011 17:40:46
Originally by: Jenshae Chiroptera
Only two? Even communism understood that to prevent corruption you need a minimum of three.


two on CSM an one is the head of security (I still lol at that)

Well if CCP are hiring from Goons, it makes damn sure sense as to the direction the game is going (after all they wanna destroy YOUR game)


Don't forget CCP Cashflow aka Soundwave, Director of Flying in Space.

Jenshae Chiroptera
Posted - 2011.09.05 21:49:00 - [17]
 

Originally by: Ladie Scarlet
Originally by: Jenshae Chiroptera
Too true and is there anyway of seeing where the majority of the players are? I am betting in high sec space. Just smaller corps and alliances but many more of them.

If they don't care enough to vote then it doesn't matter where they live.


Votes are based on popularity. If Goons say, "Vote for XYZ" then he gets say 100 votes, while Mr High Sec will only get 10 votes from various friends they met or corp members.

This is a reason democracy is flawed Razz

Nicolo da'Vicenza
Amarr
Divine Power.
Atlas.
Posted - 2011.09.05 21:54:00 - [18]
 

hm, the guy with less votes doesn't win, that's quite a flaw alright

Jenshae Chiroptera
Posted - 2011.09.05 22:28:00 - [19]
 

Edited by: Jenshae Chiroptera on 05/09/2011 22:28:15
Originally by: Nicolo da'Vicenza
hm, the guy with less votes doesn't win, that's quite a flaw alright


Certainly, when he is an old veteran that simply never bothered with null sec. That is years of experience [in high sec, which is probably under represented] and in real life he could work in customer relations or be a game tester for another game.

The problem is that popularity does not equate to ability. Rolling Eyes

Barbelo Valentinian
Gallente
The Scope
Posted - 2011.09.05 22:40:00 - [20]
 

Originally by: Jenshae Chiroptera
It is the pervasiveness of it that troubles me. Largest alliance, so they have big swing in the game. CSM swing, so they "speak for us" then they are in the company so they have control of the game swing.

Doesn't this bother anyone else? .


Yeah it bothers me.

Not that I think there's some secret SA conspiracy to destroy EVE, but rather that SA folks are, rather oddly, uber geeks who are embarrassed about being uber geeks, so they profess to despise everything to do with immersion - i.e. they look down with contempt on anyone who's sincerely into the virtual world aspect, who enjoys pretending to be a space pilot in a virtual "place".

So it seems to me that the trend those Goons who work at CCP are instigating is a trend away from a virtual world, towards a mere PvP arena. MT and P2W are comfortably and uncontroversially aspects of that type of game.

But the virtual world element is what made EVE EVE, what made it famous, what made it get in the news.

If they succeed, EVE won't die in terms of subscribers, it may even start to pull up again, but EVE the original "multiplayer Elite" concept, EVE the sandbox, the virtual world, will have died.

Ladie Scarlet
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2011.09.05 23:47:00 - [21]
 

Originally by: Barbelo Valentinian
Yeah it bothers me.

Not that I think there's some secret SA conspiracy to destroy EVE, but rather that SA folks are, rather oddly, uber geeks who are embarrassed about being uber geeks, so they profess to despise everything to do with immersion - i.e. they look down with contempt on anyone who's sincerely into the virtual world aspect, who enjoys pretending to be a space pilot in a virtual "place".

So it seems to me that the trend those Goons who work at CCP are instigating is a trend away from a virtual world, towards a mere PvP arena. MT and P2W are comfortably and uncontroversially aspects of that type of game.

But the virtual world element is what made EVE EVE, what made it famous, what made it get in the news.

If they succeed, EVE won't die in terms of subscribers, it may even start to pull up again, but EVE the original "multiplayer Elite" concept, EVE the sandbox, the virtual world, will have died.

I've seen a lot of people try to explain Goons. None of them have ever been as wrong as you.

Nicolo da'Vicenza
Amarr
Divine Power.
Atlas.
Posted - 2011.09.05 23:54:00 - [22]
 

yeah goons rp all the time

Jenshae Chiroptera
Posted - 2011.09.06 00:03:00 - [23]
 

Originally by: Ladie Scarlet

I've seen a lot of people try to explain Goons. None of them have ever been as wrong as you.


Beware the force of perception.

Do you deny that the game has a heavy slant to push people into null sec? Why are they wanting to nerf ABC ores? Isn't the choice to stay in WHs and avoid null sec a prerogative of the customer?
Have to be careful when taking away options.

Getting late here but I am sure you can all find ways that the game pushes and keeps trying to push people into null sec.

Someone was suggesting the other day that null sec should be in the middle of space and the factions at each compass point.

Sullen Skoung
Posted - 2011.09.06 00:14:00 - [24]
 

Edited by: Sullen Skoung on 06/09/2011 00:16:05
I think the "we want to destroy your game" thing tells me all I need or want to know about the goons. Its just sad CCP agrees with them and wants their game destroyed

anyone else find it funny that lady scarlet is the only goon that ever posts here? Other than mittens ofc

Empy Ralt
Posted - 2011.09.06 00:15:00 - [25]
 


... since the CSM has no power, not even to the extent of being able to punish a set of minutes as they see things, who cares?

Puppet Mas'ter
Posted - 2011.09.06 00:31:00 - [26]
 

Edited by: Puppet Mas''ter on 06/09/2011 00:33:38
Well its obvious that democracy here falls down just like it does in real life. When you cant weed out ppl too stupid to vote for someone in their own best interests, or theyre forced to vote for ppl who arent (yeah cause I think all the goon pets wouldnt be told do this or get out), or are even more stupid and DONT vote (I think it should be mandatory on login if youre going to continue with the farce that voting in this game is anyways), Democracy fails. When youre in a situation like this, where one person can havr as many votes as he's willing to start new accounts for (and alts on those accounts) voting is pretty damn worthless anyways.

to the above, how do you punish minutes?

Jenshae Chiroptera
Posted - 2011.09.06 09:35:00 - [27]
 

Punish minutes? I guess it is something to do with the minutes of a meeting or notes, being changed, altered or just cast in a light that makes CSM to blame? I don't know.

Anyone else got suggestions on how we can avoid the game getting tunnel vision?

Jenshae Chiroptera
Posted - 2011.09.06 22:36:00 - [28]
 

The list of CSMs (I was told two have stepped down since the emergency meeting, anyone got confirmation?

Hypothetical possibility

On page 27

What could have happened is
Goons CEO "Get more people into null sec"
Goon staff of CCP "We remove ore so they must come to null sec! CSM Goons back me up"
Goons CSMs "There is much ore coming from WHs"
Other CSMs "Lies!"

Ephemeron
Caldari Provisions
Posted - 2011.09.06 23:08:00 - [29]
 

The way CSM election process works, I fear that big alliance leaders get most of the advantages. I am sure someone like Mittani is great at understanding EVE on macro scale - how to improve sov/territory control, how to improve fleet battles. But I doubt people like that understand much about small gang warfare, or even see any value in it. Any decent alliance leader only wants to see people in the fleet ops, not doing anything individually.

People who aren't interested in mega alliance gameplay are unlikely to be elected. While some may consider those type of people to be completely irrelevant in grand scheme of things, I have a strong feeling that those people serve to strengthen foundation of EVE community.

I don't want to play a game where you are either a "Leader" or a worthless drone, with your value being measured by quantity not quality.

Jenshae Chiroptera
Posted - 2011.09.07 02:26:00 - [30]
 

Originally by: Ephemeron
Well said


To try TL;DR this for others.

Big alliance electing CSMs run the risk of pushing the game to alliance and null sec, while constantly penalising PvE, WH and high sec players.


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