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


 
Author Topic

Yao
Gallente
Parental Control
HELL4S
Posted - 2008.05.02 14:16:00 - [1]
 

What is the purpose of this all?I dont know if i have missed a line or something but we ellect candidates for what and what will they be able to do?Like propose stuff to ccp like the feutures and ideas section of the forum on our behalf?This sounds very official and formal but i cant see how officially and formal can stand in EVE,the GAME we like to play.It more seems to me another chance or reason for magazines to write about eve rather than anything else.This tends to be my personal opinion with a small part of the picture i get so far and to justify my post here is a question to all candidates:

Above showing off and blah blah blah what do you see coming out of this through yourself as if you get elected,while its a new thing in EVE and new things are expected from it and what do you see coming back to you as an elected man?

Lorq vonRay
More-Cowbell
Posted - 2008.05.02 15:10:00 - [2]
 

im forced to agree

i original thought the plan was for a player oversite commitee? sort of a checks and balances sort of deal so that a repeat of the "incident" would not happen again. when did it turn into new player petition system? or has this always been the idea? if so y did the NY Times report this?

if im wrong in any of my assumptions, plz inform me with courtesy
no flaming

Treelox
Posted - 2008.05.02 16:13:00 - [3]
 

With the original idea of what the CSM was to be put forth over a year ago, there was purpose to it, as illustrated by the poster above me.

Sadly now with all the changes that have occured to it, the whole thing has become nothing more than a "Dog and Pony" show, and will most likely really only be utilized by CCP for Public Relations purposes. The only other "benifit" I see in this for CCP is that they gain 9 FREE "employees" to do what the Community Management team should be doing anyways.

I hope that the 9 who win dont become too dissillusioned and feel that their free trip to iceland is compensation enough for being involved in what is most surely and sadly will become a farce.

IMO, show CCP how much you care about this waste of their resources, VOTE ABSTAIN!!

Vox Pop
Posted - 2008.05.02 16:30:00 - [4]
 

I think for people with similar skepticism, there are actually other options apart from abstaining: both Yusra, and myself are running for a seat on the CSM, which we intend not to use for our own ideas and opinions. Have a look at let me know what you think. They might be appealing to people not seeing the point of the whole CSM

Treelox
Posted - 2008.05.02 16:38:00 - [5]
 

Vox, I am familar with your platform. For me though for the message to be properly understood and recieved by the powers that be at CCP HQ, one needs to vote "ABSTAIN".

A vote for a canidate is consider to be acceptance of the whole concept.

Not voting at all just shows apathy and disintrest, which is not something that will worry CCP much at all. Since we all know that interaction in the community as a whole is always low in comparision to the total player base (5% visit the forums, etc).

Voting "ABSTAIN", shows CCP that we are paying attention, are concerned but arent buying into this overall concpet. It sends a message that is a correct embodyment of those players like myself that do care, do pay attention, but see the whole CSM concept as seriously lacking any real substance, longevity and a general waste of resources.


If you will, CSM, is a bone thrown to us the player base. Not a marrow rich with pieces of fresh flesh attached bone, but an old semi fossilized bone lacking in all nutrients.

Slickdrac
Minmatar
M Takumi Research and Production
East Empire Trade Federation
Posted - 2008.05.02 16:40:00 - [6]
 

The purpose is for them to serve as a filter for the forums, deciding what is really an issue with the game, and what is simply whining. They must demonstrate an understanding of the game so that we can decide who actually knows enough about the game to be able to intelligently look at multiple issues people bring up, and if they seem to be a legitimate problem, then they know enough about the game and balance to come up with a solution that solves that problem without causing either more problems, or effecting something else in a more severe way.

In case you don't know, at least one space should be placed between your punctuation and you next sentence. Wink

Treelox
Posted - 2008.05.02 16:43:00 - [7]
 

Originally by: Slickdrac
The purpose is for them to serve as a filter for the forums, deciding what is really an issue with the game, and what is simply whining.


So essentially CCP is trying to hire 9 employees to work for 6months with the only compensation they recieve is a free trip to Iceland?

Is not what you just described part of the job description of the Community Managers?

Lorq vonRay
More-Cowbell
Posted - 2008.05.02 17:07:00 - [8]
 

its seems it has devolved from its original focus on fairplay and CCP neutrality into give CCP a vacation from the forums

Treelox
Posted - 2008.05.02 17:30:00 - [9]
 

Originally by: Lorq vonRay
its seems it has devolved from its original focus on fairplay and CCP neutrality into give CCP a vacation from the forums



Indeed, and that is why I am plan on voting abstain. If anything CCP doesnt need another layer of bufferage between themselves and the general player base. They need more hands on and direct interaction with the player base, not this council of 9 proxys.


This game was great when the dev's interacted with the player base on a regular basis, since the T20 incident(which is also what kicked off the whole CSM thing), the dev interaction with the whole player base has dramatically declined.


Vote abstain, and force CCP to directly interact with their player base, instead of their new layer of scapegoats which is what the CSM will become.

Vox Pop
Posted - 2008.05.02 17:38:00 - [10]
 

Originally by: Treelox
Vox, I am familar with your platform. For me though for the message to be properly understood and recieved by the powers that be at CCP HQ, one needs to vote "ABSTAIN".

A vote for a canidate is consider to be acceptance of the whole concept.


I agree with you there, Treelox. I've done it in certain elections as well, where the options I could vote for were all non-options, letting me seemingly vote for supporting the system.

But given the fact that I am actually trying to change the concept of the CSM before it is working (or not, depending on your view ;) into something which might have a broader support in the EVE community, should bring an extra option for some players:

  • No vote: no opinion, your involvement with EVE is of no importance

  • Abstain: strong opinion, you disagree with the concept of the CSM, and don't want anything like it

  • Vote for me: strong opinion, you disagree with the concept of the CSM, but want to have some more direct influence in CCP


(I'm aware I might have slipped a tiny bit of bias in there, but as I'm up against 60-odd other candidates, I'm sure you'll forgive me this little freedom :)

Gritt Pebbledasher
PURE Legion
Pure.
Posted - 2008.05.02 18:17:00 - [11]
 

Edited by: Gritt Pebbledasher on 02/05/2008 18:19:21
We have one shot here to make sure that the people we elect aren't going to allow themselves to become CCP patsies in any kind of PR cover up to rinse away the bitter taste of the T20-BOB corruption which 'inspired' CCP to talk to its playerbase in the first place.

The first CSM has a tremendous responsibility to set precedents for future CSMs... we/they need to ensure that we represent the views of players, not just on the 'I want this ship tweaked or that mechanic balanced' issues (although that has a place) but on fundamental meta issues that affect all of Eve's players - things like openess, honesty and transparency, lag and system population caps. Big issues that require CCPs attention in order to properly enable the game universe to run smoothly and fairly as they move into a period where other space MMOs are due to market.

Yao
Gallente
Parental Control
HELL4S
Posted - 2008.05.02 18:21:00 - [12]
 

Originally by: Yao
It more seems to me another chance or reason for magazines to write about eve rather than anything else.



Originally by: Lorq vonRay
im forced to agree

i original thought the plan was for a player oversite commitee? sort of a checks and balances sort of deal so that a repeat of the "incident" would not happen again. when did it turn into new player petition system? or has this always been the idea? if so y did the NY Times report this?

if im wrong in any of my assumptions, plz inform me with courtesy
no flaming


Oh my goodness it is already an article in NY times and how can i convice even my self i didn know about it...and no im not a ''medium'' ....this is so childishly funny

Gritt Pebbledasher
PURE Legion
Pure.
Posted - 2008.05.02 18:25:00 - [13]
 

Maybe its a scheme to make us less effective representatives, bog us down in 'I fly Amarr so I want Amarr ships to be l33t' arguments rather than the actual issues that lead to the (re)formation of a CSM-style body. Namely: corruption, distrust between customers and CCP and the monumental lack of openness and instinct for secrecy. Because obviously that sort of harsh reality wouldnt make such good media copy, would it?

Lorq vonRay
More-Cowbell
Posted - 2008.05.02 23:02:00 - [14]
 

i read thru both pdfs that CCP provided and see nothing about the CSM being able to audit CCP and their actions. if i have missed it, im sorry and would like it pointed out to me

that was the main reason that interested me in the CSM


cyt0matrix
Carebear Killers Inc.
Posted - 2008.05.02 23:34:00 - [15]
 

This is such a bad idea. This is gonna ruin the game. I am against this. Crying or Very sadCrying or Very sad

Treelox
Posted - 2008.05.03 02:06:00 - [16]
 

Originally by: Lorq vonRay
i read thru both pdfs that CCP provided and see nothing about the CSM being able to audit CCP and their actions. if i have missed it, im sorry and would like it pointed out to me

that was the main reason that interested me in the CSM




This was what the original concept was sold as "sort of" a year ago. As you have noticed from reading the current .pdf's that is not what it about any longer.

Instead it has become some committe that will achieve only what CCP allows it to achieve, while CCP spins it to the world media outlets as a reflection of their epeen coolness.

Yes, CSM is being delivered to us pre-nerfed for our pleasure.

This would be why I plan on voting "Abstain", instead of for any canidate.

Treelox
Posted - 2008.05.03 02:09:00 - [17]
 

Originally by: cyt0matrix
This is such a bad idea. This is gonna ruin the game. I am against this. Crying or Very sadCrying or Very sad



ruin the game?

While I think the implementation of this idea is a farce, a waste of time and resources. I fail to see how it will ruin the game.

Would you care to go into details how the CSM will ruin the game?

Ben Derindar
Dirty Deeds Corp.
Posted - 2008.05.03 02:29:00 - [18]
 

The purpose of the CSM is to discuss whatever CCP allows us to discuss, between ourselves and them, and on your behalf.

The whole "allowing" thing will probably be defined by whatever conditions are listed in the NDA that successful candidates will be asked to sign, but I do still hope that we will be allowed to explore the issues that led to the foundation of the CSM to begin with, at least to some degree.

/Ben

Lorq vonRay
More-Cowbell
Posted - 2008.05.03 03:09:00 - [19]
 

Edited by: Lorq vonRay on 03/05/2008 03:09:05
Originally by: Ben Derindar
The purpose of the CSM is to discuss whatever CCP allows us to discuss, between ourselves and them, and on your behalf.

The whole "allowing" thing will probably be defined by whatever conditions are listed in the NDA that successful candidates will be asked to sign, but I do still hope that we will be allowed to explore the issues that led to the foundation of the CSM to begin with, at least to some degree.

/Ben




so CCP dictates what the CSM agendas are? if so, isnt this quite biased towards CCP and is totally the opposite of what the CSM was originally proposed to be and do? namely bring trust back to CCP from the player base

Treelox
Posted - 2008.05.03 03:11:00 - [20]
 

Originally by: Lorq vonRay

Originally by: Ben Derindar
The purpose of the CSM is to discuss whatever CCP allows us to discuss, between ourselves and them, and on your behalf.

The whole "allowing" thing will probably be defined by whatever conditions are listed in the NDA that successful candidates will be asked to sign, but I do still hope that we will be allowed to explore the issues that led to the foundation of the CSM to begin with, at least to some degree.




so CCP dictates what the CSM agendas are? if so, isnt this quite biased towards CCP and is totally the opposite of what the CSM was originally proposed to be and do? namely bring trust back to CCP from the player base


exactly my point too, Lorq, hence why I am voting "Abstain"

Lorq vonRay
More-Cowbell
Posted - 2008.05.03 03:19:00 - [21]
 

im doubting voting "abstain" will have much, to any, impact on CCP or how this CSM develops







if you play a game made by someone else expect the person who made the game to win

Treelox
Posted - 2008.05.03 03:34:00 - [22]
 

Originally by: Lorq vonRay
im doubting voting "abstain" will have much, to any, impact on CCP or how this CSM develops




No I dont think it will impact CCP much either if I vote Abstain, but it at least impacts them more than my total apathy and not casting any vote.

Vox Pop
Posted - 2008.05.03 08:07:00 - [23]
 

Originally by: Lorq vonRay
Edited by: Lorq vonRay on 03/05/2008 03:09:05
Originally by: Ben Derindar
The purpose of the CSM is to discuss whatever CCP allows us to discuss, between ourselves and them, and on your behalf.

The whole "allowing" thing will probably be defined by whatever conditions are listed in the NDA that successful candidates will be asked to sign, but I do still hope that we will be allowed to explore the issues that led to the foundation of the CSM to begin with, at least to some degree.

/Ben



so CCP dictates what the CSM agendas are? if so, isnt this quite biased towards CCP and is totally the opposite of what the CSM was originally proposed to be and do? namely bring trust back to CCP from the player base


That's not true guys. If you read the CSM Summary document, it states:

Originally by: CSM Summary

Anyone with the right to vote can start a topic on the CSM forums and comment
on any number of existing topics. (...) A topic can be anything that a player considers important. The goal is to either gain the support of a Representative, or gain a 5% public support level on the
issue from the total voter population. If either of these conditions is met, the topic must be addressed by the CSM. (...) Upon reaching the CSM, all topics must be discussed by representatives and voted on to determine if escalation to the CCP Council is necessary. A simple
majority vote is required for passage.



(Emphasise put in by me.)

CCP dictates nothing. The only big catch is that CCP reserves the right to ignore any topic brought to it by the CSM. The role of the CSM is purely advisory.

Which, really, is for the best. Consider for example a CSM with a majority of representatives consisting of 0.0 players. If they had power as a council, they could seriously ruin the game for a very big part of the player base, namely the hi sec players. (This example works the other way around as well btw ;)

So yeah, I think it could be a lot worse. And better as well of course, which is why I'm running: the only way of regaining the trust of the player base is direct democracy.


 

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