Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Frying Doom
Zat's Affiliated Traders
420
|
Posted - 2012.08.05 08:22:00 -
[31] - Quote
JonnyRandom wrote:Then here's another though I want to bring up: What if some players really are voting by not voting? What if the lack of votes is a sign that many players either don't care about the CSM, or don't put much faith in it, thinking it to be too ineffective or a PR farce that was that set up by CCP as damage control after that incident.
What if, by not voting, some players are saying (directly or indirectly) that they put their full trust in the developers of their favourite game? Then for them I would give the same advice as I would for someone in reality who did not vote when some useless politician got in.
Suck it up and support someone closest to your own philosophy eg. grow a pair or bend over and take it without bitching. Any Spelling, gramatical and literary errors made by me are included free of charge.
|
Alphea Abbra
Grim Determination Nulli Secunda
63
|
Posted - 2012.08.05 10:30:00 -
[32] - Quote
Frying Doom wrote:JonnyRandom wrote:Then here's another though I want to bring up: What if some players really are voting by not voting? What if the lack of votes is a sign that many players either don't care about the CSM, or don't put much faith in it, thinking it to be too ineffective or a PR farce that was that set up by CCP as damage control after that incident.
What if, by not voting, some players are saying (directly or indirectly) that they put their full trust in the developers of their favourite game? Then for them I would give the same advice as I would for someone in reality who did not vote when some useless politician got in. Suck it up and support someone closest to your own philosophy eg. grow a pair or bend over and take it without bitching. This, and in case of EVE CSM elections where it's ridiculously easy to get on the ballot, you can also run yourself if no other platform is what you want to see elected. |
Mara Pahrdi
The Order of Anoyia
15
|
Posted - 2012.08.05 14:42:00 -
[33] - Quote
JonnyRandom wrote:If you had read the thread, you'd see that I am looking for two things: 1. Is this an issue that needs to be addressed? 2. How can this issue be addressed? 1. No. 2. Doesn't need to.
And before you ask: I'm a hisec dweller and voted with all my accounts. |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
4429
|
Posted - 2012.08.05 19:06:00 -
[34] - Quote
JonnyRandom wrote:Then here's another though I want to bring up: What if some players really are voting by not voting?
They could have voted for Darius who ran on a fairly explict "do nothing" platform. I'll repost something I wrote at the time of the election:
Malcanis wrote: Whether you like it or not, the CSM is a primary channel that CCP uses to communicate with the playerbase. CCP get a small group of players with some level of accountability (including signing an NDA) with whom they can build a working relationship over a useful time period. Even if you personally don't think the CSM is the best solution, you should still vote in the elections if you want your views represented in that channel.
Additionally, the more people who vote in the election, the more weight and influence the CSM will have with CCP. It's much harder to handwave away a representative group that 50 or 60% of your paying customers chose than one that 5 or 6% did. If you think the CSM should have more power, then complaining about how powerless it is on the forum isn't the correct solution. Voting is.
If you don't like the way that the CSM operates at all, then crying about it on the forums will not, alas, change a damb thing. Find a candidate who agrees with you that the CSM should operate differently, and get him/her elected.
If you just like to **** on anything that anyone does because you're that kind of person, vote for an obvious troll candidate like Xenuria. It'll make plenty of people mad and Xenuria happy. Or stand as a troll candidate yourself, split the troll vote and make Xenuria mad too. Both are fine options.
Remember that there's nothing useful about cheap cynicism. Just dismissing the CSM out of hand "because everyone knows" that it's corrupt/useless/rigged/ (regardless of the lack of evidence) is simply conceding the battle before you've even tried to win.
Essentially, whatever your opinion of the CSM is, the correct response is to participate. There is literally no downside to voting.
When you're choosing who to vote for, try and make an effort to analyze their campaign. Reflexively voting for people purely on the basis that they're "high sec" or "null sec" or "a missioner like me" of whatever is an open invitation to getting votescammed by a fast talking egomaniac with no other agenda than to get herself elected and be important.
If a candidate makes assertions, consider if those assertions are testable. Are they just sweeping "everybody knows" rumours with no evidence? Do they contain actual numbers that can be checked? Are they willing to provide specific examples which can be independently verified?
If a candidate makes promises, consider whether they'll be in a position to fulfill those promises. Being a CSM doesn't mean that CCP will automatically change your pet issue to the way you'd like it. Candidates who campaign on a promise to make Caldari Navy Invulns have a lower tag cost or increasing the targetting range of your favourite interceptor and other microlevel stuff like that are either hopelessly naive about the CSM or they're simply telling you whatever you want to hear to get your vote, knowing full well they can't deliver.
Finally, remember that the EVE character is not the person. You're voting for the player, not the character, still less his corp or alliance. If a candidate has a platform you like, then it doesn't matter a bit that he's in an alliance which kicked you out of your space last year: he's still the right choice. If a candidate is make vague unfocused promises and poorly referenced assertions, then even if he's your corpmate, you should kick him to the curb (remember: you can always lie to him and tell him that you were one of the 4 guys who voted for him)
So: vote. Encourage your corpies and alliance mates to vote. Get your friends to vote. Vote.
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/ |
Scatim Helicon
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
668
|
Posted - 2012.08.06 21:20:00 -
[35] - Quote
Explicitly highsec candidates have a poor record when it comes to effectiveness, activity, and sanity. Titans were never meant to be "cost effective", its a huge ****.-á- CCP Oveur, 2006
~If you want a picture of the future of WiS, imagine a spaceship, stamping on an avatar's face. Forever. |
Frying Doom
Zat's Affiliated Traders
429
|
Posted - 2012.08.07 01:16:00 -
[36] - Quote
Scatim Helicon wrote:Explicitly highsec candidates have a poor record when it comes to effectiveness, activity, and sanity. Unlike previous Null sec candidates and there huge egos and questionable sanity. Any Spelling, gramatical and literary errors made by me are included free of charge.
|
Dersen Lowery
Knavery Inc. StructureDamage
60
|
Posted - 2012.08.07 01:32:00 -
[37] - Quote
Malcanis, quoting himself:
Quote:When you're choosing who to vote for, try and make an effort to analyze their campaign. Reflexively voting for people purely on the basis that they're "high sec" or "null sec" or "a missioner like me" of whatever is an open invitation to getting votescammed by a fast talking egomaniac with no other agenda than to get herself elected and be important.
I want to expand on this a bit, because as any CSM member will tell you, and as the summit report makes clear, CSM do not set the agenda. They comment and respond to CCP's agenda. They can ask CCP for things, and they can bang their drum through the communications channels, but it's CCP's game. What this means is that the main value that "the sov null candidate" or "the wormhole candidate" brings is the ability to help CCP work through those aspects of the game when they come up. But what if they don't? To be useful, every CSM candidate should have a pretty broad experience of the game.
There is another reason to demand a broad experience of the game: EVE is a single-shard universe with a single economy. Null sec dwellers and low sec dwellers alike depend heavily on high sec industrialists and logistics pilots, even if those pilots are their own alts. High sec dwellers depend on null sec dwellers for minerals for T2 production, and on null sec and low sec for a steady supply of eager shoppers. I'm sure there's a lot I'm missing, because I haven't been here that long myself, but you get the idea. And when you advocate for your own side, you have to make sure you account for the way everyone in the game is interconnected, or the idea that seems good to you and your particular style of play could backfire terribly. |
Katarina Reid
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
200
|
Posted - 2012.08.07 07:43:00 -
[38] - Quote
I vote for null sec CSM members. I live in low sec atm with 2 characters(2 accounts). I have 13 characters(9 accounts) in high sec. So which box do i fit in to? |
knobber Jobbler
196
|
Posted - 2012.08.07 12:07:00 -
[39] - Quote
JonnyRandom wrote:We know that the game's population is split something like 70% hisec, 10% low sec, 20% null-sec. Something like that, the exact figures are not important. Yet it seems that the CSM is composed entirely out of representatives of big alliances in null-sec. So the CSM which is the voice all of Eve's population represents only 20% of the game's population... I know there have been talks with CSM of how to bring more people into nullsec? But why are people that already live in nullsec trying to find ways to bring hi-sec into null-sec? Seems kind of backwards to me. I'd rather people like myself, that live in hi-sec, had more influence in finding ways to make null-sec more attractive to us. That's just 2 thoughts I wanted to bring up... not sure if this has been discussed or not before.
Because that 20% can be bothered to short **** out.
70% of the game doesn't know any mechanics past clicking on an NPC and shooting at it and then how to talk to a mission agent. I don't want those 70% having any part of that discussion about game mechanics. That 70%, other than a few are just not interested in the game past there own solo experience. Null sec is not a solo experience in general and its meant to be tougher. Besides, all I hear is excuses not to come to null sec by pubbie care bears. High sec is to easy so people won't leave.
There is no excuse, I was a pubbie carebear once then I toughened the f*ck up, had a tea spoon of concrete and joined the dark side and actually learnt about EVE past shooting a rock or little red dots which don't fire back all that much. Its much more fun and I get to troll people without much original thought!
Null sec doesn't want high sec to come to it; Its more like null sec wants: To be able to fully exist in null sec without high sec, to do everything you need to exist in null sec, in null sec itself. To be get new players in from high sec, to lose that risk aversion and participate in the greatest player driven content generator of any game going, save second life but pretend I never said that last bit. To control the CSM because null sec residents generally have a much better understanding of most of the games mechanics than a dude who's spends his entire EVE career in a Navy Raven playing advanced Space Invaders while masturbating to pictures on fukung.net (ok, so most of null sec also is fapping away to **** links in local). To laugh an Xenuria and that chubby Mexican when they run for CSM.
|
Anslo
The Scope Gallente Federation
17
|
Posted - 2012.08.07 15:52:00 -
[40] - Quote
There shouldn't even be a CSM. This game is full of trolls and psychos looking for easy ways to screw everyone and each other over. Meta-gaming galore. |
|
Anslo
The Scope Gallente Federation
22
|
Posted - 2012.08.07 15:54:00 -
[41] - Quote
knobber Jobbler wrote:JonnyRandom wrote:We know that the game's population is split something like 70% hisec, 10% low sec, 20% null-sec. Something like that, the exact figures are not important. Yet it seems that the CSM is composed entirely out of representatives of big alliances in null-sec. So the CSM which is the voice all of Eve's population represents only 20% of the game's population... I know there have been talks with CSM of how to bring more people into nullsec? But why are people that already live in nullsec trying to find ways to bring hi-sec into null-sec? Seems kind of backwards to me. I'd rather people like myself, that live in hi-sec, had more influence in finding ways to make null-sec more attractive to us. That's just 2 thoughts I wanted to bring up... not sure if this has been discussed or not before. Because that 20% can be bothered to short **** out. 70% of the game doesn't know any mechanics past clicking on an NPC and shooting at it and then how to talk to a mission agent. I don't want those 70% having any part of that discussion about game mechanics. That 70%, other than a few are just not interested in the game past there own solo experience. Null sec is not a solo experience in general and its meant to be tougher. Besides, all I hear is excuses not to come to null sec by pubbie care bears. High sec is to easy so people won't leave. There is no excuse, I was a pubbie carebear once then I toughened the f*ck up, had a tea spoon of concrete and joined the dark side and actually learnt about EVE past shooting a rock or little red dots which don't fire back all that much. Its much more fun and I get to troll people without much original thought! Null sec doesn't want high sec to come to it; Its more like null sec wants: To be able to fully exist in null sec without high sec, to do everything you need to exist in null sec, in null sec itself. To be get new players in from high sec, to lose that risk aversion and participate in the greatest player driven content generator of any game going, save second life but pretend I never said that last bit. To control the CSM because null sec residents generally have a much better understanding of most of the games mechanics than a dude who's spends his entire EVE career in a Navy Raven playing advanced Space Invaders while masturbating to pictures on fukung.net (ok, so most of null sec also is fapping away to **** links in local). To laugh an Xenuria and that chubby Mexican when they run for CSM.
And then screw over high sec players to get your way. If you want to secede go to another game and don't infringe on OUR game by making additions and suggestions and demands that 70% don't want. |
Xenuria
Marcabian 5th Invasion Fleet
593
|
Posted - 2012.08.07 16:47:00 -
[42] - Quote
It's simple, vote Xenuria.
Xenuria CSM 8 |
JonnyRandom
31
|
Posted - 2012.08.07 18:56:00 -
[43] - Quote
Anslo wrote:There shouldn't even be a CSM.
Are there many more with such consent? |
Frying Doom
Zat's Affiliated Traders
453
|
Posted - 2012.08.08 01:30:00 -
[44] - Quote
JonnyRandom wrote:Anslo wrote:There shouldn't even be a CSM. Are there many more with such consent? I would hope not
Within the CSM we have a rare commodity. We have a player elected set of representatives that actively communicate with CCP.
Although CCP does not listen to them all the time is irrelevant.
If more people would actually Vote and take an interest in the CSM then we would have a more representative CSM. This years CSM is by far the most balanced we have had in the last few years if ever but more is needed to get a representative council of the whole of EvE.
If the council represented the view of the majority of EvE players we would have less forum complaints. Even though we are already getting to the point that the current complaints are more like stupid attention seeking whining than actual complaints, excluding the UI fiasco.
How can we achieve this. 1) Well for a start more awareness need to happen though out EvE like for example a CSM billboard in select systems telling players what it actually is and what they are doing.
2) Cut down the amount of alt Voting by making characters have to be subscribed continuously for 3 months before the CSM election as a requirement to Vote. This stops people just activating old alts for one month to vote.
3) Actively seek player feed back via questionnaires that come up as log in ads to provide a link and then have a page that shows the current CSMs ratings for categories like effectiveness, participation, whether they are following a path you like ect.. These are good feed back to the CSM as it lets them know what the larger player base is thinking rather than just us vocal people. About 1 a month would be good and would allow the CSM to Poll the voters for example, if we did this to gate guns what would your response be and a series of check boxes.
4) Have CCP post junk mail to the subscribers email accounts just like the EvE spam we get now telling everyone about the CSM and what they are currently doing. Also a monthly thing.
Yes it is more work for the CSM and more for CCP but in the long run I think it would make the CSM a better stronger body whose representatives would be so in tune with the player base CCP would have to listen to them.
Any Spelling, gramatical and literary errors made by me are included free of charge.
|
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1652
|
Posted - 2012.08.08 01:41:00 -
[45] - Quote
JonnyRandom wrote:Regardless of that, I'm still interested to know if you guys think that newer player opinions should matter in the CSM.
Kelduum Revaan, the CEO of noted veteran corp EVE University, known for its upper 8 digit SP requirements, is on the CSM. EVE Online: Trammel (or NGE) |
Kithrus
Deus Fides Empire Curatores Veritatis Alliance
209
|
Posted - 2012.08.08 10:34:00 -
[46] - Quote
Anslo wrote:There shouldn't even be a CSM. This game is full of trolls and psychos looking for easy ways to screw everyone and each other over. Meta-gaming galore.
I'm interested to hear what you would put in its place. |
Frying Doom
Zat's Affiliated Traders
460
|
Posted - 2012.08.08 12:01:00 -
[47] - Quote
Kithrus wrote:Anslo wrote:There shouldn't even be a CSM. This game is full of trolls and psychos looking for easy ways to screw everyone and each other over. Meta-gaming galore. I'm interested to hear what you would put in its place. I believe for earlier comments he just wants it removed so we can trust in the Developers... As the CSM is suggesting things the other 70% don't want.
I will admit I laughed when I heard that one.
I suppose we could rename "EvE Online" to "Riots R Us" and be done with it. Any Spelling, gramatical and literary errors made by me are included free of charge.
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
4445
|
Posted - 2012.08.08 16:58:00 -
[48] - Quote
The CSM is very highly representative of players who bothered to spend 30 seconds clicking a vote button. Those who could not bring themselves to make that much effort will have their voices ignored for another year.
Too bad... 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/ |
Revolution Rising
Native Freshfood Minmatar Republic
353
|
Posted - 2012.08.08 19:52:00 -
[49] - Quote
Malcanis wrote:The CSM is very highly representative of players who bothered to spend 30 seconds clicking a vote button. Those who could not bring themselves to make that much effort will have their voices ignored for another year.
Too bad...
Yeah I can't believe that people that didn't vote aren't being heard now. I personally am going to cry myself to sleep EVERY NIGHT until the CSM is disbanded over this.
CSM7 Skype Leak
|
Frying Doom
Zat's Affiliated Traders
466
|
Posted - 2012.08.08 22:17:00 -
[50] - Quote
Malcanis wrote:The CSM is very highly representative of players who bothered to spend 30 seconds clicking a vote button. Those who could not bring themselves to make that much effort will have their voices ignored for another year.
Too bad... People who cannot be bothered voting for the CSM really don't have the right to ***** about it afterwards. You choose not be participate in the democratic process, you have chosen not to have a voice and not to be heard.
You Voted by Not Voting, You Voted for Silence. Any Spelling, gramatical and literary errors made by me are included free of charge.
|
|
Kithrus
Deus Fides Empire Curatores Veritatis Alliance
210
|
Posted - 2012.08.08 23:12:00 -
[51] - Quote
Frying Doom wrote:Malcanis wrote:The CSM is very highly representative of players who bothered to spend 30 seconds clicking a vote button. Those who could not bring themselves to make that much effort will have their voices ignored for another year.
Too bad... People who cannot be bothered voting for the CSM really don't have the right to ***** about it afterwards. You choose not be participate in the democratic process, you have chosen not to have a voice and not to be heard. You Voted by Not Voting, You Voted for Silence.
Exactly, this entire issue ( if true which I doubt) ) can be fixed by getting your mates to vote |
Frying Doom
Zat's Affiliated Traders
470
|
Posted - 2012.08.09 01:29:00 -
[52] - Quote
Kithrus wrote:Frying Doom wrote:Malcanis wrote:The CSM is very highly representative of players who bothered to spend 30 seconds clicking a vote button. Those who could not bring themselves to make that much effort will have their voices ignored for another year.
Too bad... People who cannot be bothered voting for the CSM really don't have the right to ***** about it afterwards. You choose not be participate in the democratic process, you have chosen not to have a voice and not to be heard. You Voted by Not Voting, You Voted for Silence. Exactly, this entire issue ( if true which I doubt) ) can be fixed by getting your mates to vote Or just pick a random candidate and go like hell to get them in. Then laugh at how insanely easy it is to get people onto the CSM Any Spelling, gramatical and literary errors made by me are included free of charge.
|
Kithrus
Deus Fides Empire Curatores Veritatis Alliance
211
|
Posted - 2012.08.09 03:03:00 -
[53] - Quote
Frying Doom wrote:Kithrus wrote:Frying Doom wrote:Malcanis wrote:The CSM is very highly representative of players who bothered to spend 30 seconds clicking a vote button. Those who could not bring themselves to make that much effort will have their voices ignored for another year.
Too bad... People who cannot be bothered voting for the CSM really don't have the right to ***** about it afterwards. You choose not be participate in the democratic process, you have chosen not to have a voice and not to be heard. You Voted by Not Voting, You Voted for Silence. Exactly, this entire issue ( if true which I doubt) ) can be fixed by getting your mates to vote Or just pick a random candidate and go like hell to get them in. Then laugh at how insanely easy it is to get people onto the CSM
I don't randomly vote. Indeed last term I didn't at all. I think many of the CSM have lost sight of the main goal and I want to see a change.
I think we need someone to shake things up next year. |
Frying Doom
Zat's Affiliated Traders
471
|
Posted - 2012.08.09 03:50:00 -
[54] - Quote
Kithrus wrote:Frying Doom wrote:Kithrus wrote:Frying Doom wrote:Malcanis wrote:The CSM is very highly representative of players who bothered to spend 30 seconds clicking a vote button. Those who could not bring themselves to make that much effort will have their voices ignored for another year.
Too bad... People who cannot be bothered voting for the CSM really don't have the right to ***** about it afterwards. You choose not be participate in the democratic process, you have chosen not to have a voice and not to be heard. You Voted by Not Voting, You Voted for Silence. Exactly, this entire issue ( if true which I doubt) ) can be fixed by getting your mates to vote Or just pick a random candidate and go like hell to get them in. Then laugh at how insanely easy it is to get people onto the CSM I don't randomly vote. Indeed last term I didn't at all. I think many of the CSM have lost sight of the main goal and I want to see a change. I think we need someone to shake things up next year. So find someone and push them like hell. Any Spelling, gramatical and literary errors made by me are included free of charge.
|
Frying Doom
Zat's Affiliated Traders
471
|
Posted - 2012.08.09 04:12:00 -
[55] - Quote
On a separate note I would like to be able to vote for people based on an area
for example having ministers, like a mining and industry person, someone for PvP, Mission Runners, Wormholes, Null sec, Hi-sec ect..
It would be easy to come up with 14 different types with the number of votes received still deciding the areas most fitting to go to CCP for summits. That way the number of votes received would be more inclined to show what areas the players would like to see fixed/altered.
So the voting screen would be longer and would allow voting for people in the different categories, while only allowing a person to appear in only 1 catagory.
Then the CSM could elect there own Chairman, secretary ect..
Any Spelling, gramatical and literary errors made by me are included free of charge.
|
Snow Axe
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
458
|
Posted - 2012.08.09 04:47:00 -
[56] - Quote
You can't really categorize issues that simply, though. PvP for example, not only does it happen in every region of the game, but the methodolgies and issues with each kind are completely different than the other. Same goes for industry, and to a lesser degree mining. You get the opposite problem when you try to separate by highsec/lowsec/nullsec - they're just too broad. There is no "nullsec" way of playing, just as there's no "lowsec" or "highsec" way, and living in one area doesn't preclude anyone from having experience in any other.
Also, RE: going to CCP for summits, remember that only the top 7 of 14 go to Iceland. How would this system handle that - do the less popular 'sections' get excluded? Do we just have 7 categories and 7 'miscellaneous' candidates?
Personally, I don't think the current system needs changing at all. For candidates, it's as close to all-inclusive as CCP can get, and for voters, the mechanism is easy and the amount of time given to vote borders on absurd. The problem is that most players don't seem to give a **** about the CSM, and playing with the voting system is never going to change that.
You want to open a real can of worms? Ask yourself why CCP should be striving to hear the voices of people who can't even be bothered to read a post and/or click a radio button. Remember, this isn't straight politics, this is an advocacy group. They need people who are passionate about Eve, people who want to actually work to help make the game better for everyone around. I don't really see how reaching out to the "can't be bothered" crowd will help them in any way. |
Frying Doom
Zat's Affiliated Traders
471
|
Posted - 2012.08.09 05:16:00 -
[57] - Quote
Snow Axe wrote:You can't really categorize issues that simply, though. PvP for example, not only does it happen in every region of the game, but the methodolgies and issues with each kind are completely different than the other. Same goes for industry, and to a lesser degree mining. You get the opposite problem when you try to separate by highsec/lowsec/nullsec - they're just too broad. There is no "nullsec" way of playing, just as there's no "lowsec" or "highsec" way, and living in one area doesn't preclude anyone from having experience in any other.
Also, RE: going to CCP for summits, remember that only the top 7 of 14 go to Iceland. How would this system handle that - do the less popular 'sections' get excluded? Do we just have 7 categories and 7 'miscellaneous' candidates?
Personally, I don't think the current system needs changing at all. For candidates, it's as close to all-inclusive as CCP can get, and for voters, the mechanism is easy and the amount of time given to vote borders on absurd. The problem is that most players don't seem to give a **** about the CSM, and playing with the voting system is never going to change that.
You want to open a real can of worms? Ask yourself why CCP should be striving to hear the voices of people who can't even be bothered to read a post and/or click a radio button. Remember, this isn't straight politics, this is an advocacy group. They need people who are passionate about Eve, people who want to actually work to help make the game better for everyone around. I don't really see how reaching out to the "can't be bothered" crowd will help them in any way. Ok well on the categorizing the issues if you have for example several candidates for the post of CSM PvP and you have for example someone whose expertize is high sec ganking and another candidate who is an FW candidate and someone who is primarily a Null sec blobber, if out of those the blobber got voted in you could presume that those who care enough about the game to vote are mostly feeling that blob war fare needs some love. Yes this would be gamed a hell of a lot by the organized blocks but that is hardly an argument because the current system is now.
Yes I agree lo-sec, null sec, hi-sec are rather broad categories but most people have the majority of there expertise in one sec. Those people who have a lot of multi sec experience should just pick one that they believe they are strongest for and go for that one. There extra exterience in other areas would be a bonus to the CSM if they were voted in.
On the Iceland trip it is still he who has the most votes wins.So if you are say running for the Null sec candidate and you are by far superior to those running against you, you will get more votes than say a hi-sec candidate that only gets in by the skin of their teeth because another candidate was almost as popular.
As to why CCP should bother to extend an olive branch as it where to people who cannot be bothered. Well it is their game too and more importantly it is the 80+% of accounts that did not vote that keeps the game running with their money. Yes having people who don't care that much about EvE is worrying but like most things the general populous needs to be educated, the presence of the CSM to the average player is minor or non-existent. This needs to change, they need to be made more aware especially as the CSM becomes more of a stake holder in the future.
Frankly even if the voting categorizes thing died in the butt, I strongly believe we need to bring more of the cannot be bothered crowd into the fold. Having a larger percentage of them voting will reduce the power of special interest group voting blocks yes but most importantly it will give us a more representative CSM. The closer the CSM is to the whole of the player base the less complaints and unsubs we will get as well as a higher percentage of player satisfaction.
The more happy players EvE has the more subs it will get via word of mouth. The more subs it gets means it will get more money. The more money it has the more people they can hire to work on THIS game. More people working means a better game for us all.
Sorry if some of it is a bit fuzzy, RL intrudes Any Spelling, gramatical and literary errors made by me are included free of charge.
|
Ravan Hekki
Blue-Fire
31
|
Posted - 2012.08.10 19:25:00 -
[58] - Quote
Because to quote a dead man..... Democracy is two wolves and a lamb sitting down to vote on what to eat for dinner, liberty is a well armed lamb. Guess the Null sheep got guns.....and organisation, in fact enough organisation to get people to vote for them. Hell the candidate i voted for represented my interests and bothered to canvas me.
Of course it could be a percentage of the HS toons are null alts and maybe 70% of the game just enjoys what they are doing in hs and don't bother with the forums.
And we do know statistically the forums are made up of 30% of the eve population, it's quoted somewhere. So us people bitchin' in the forums (me included as a forum warrior) are the minority. Wonder if our opinions really matter? |
Noisrevbus
192
|
Posted - 2012.08.13 13:14:00 -
[59] - Quote
Another thing that should be kept in mind is the following:
Everyone in nullsec have been to highsec. Not everyone in highsec have been to nullsec.
That apply as much as a general principle of age and experience in the game, as it does gameplay profile. Not only have people in null done the voyage once, their way of playing the game usually entail revisiting highsec on a daily basis. They have done everything you do, and more. Why vote for someone with a limited scope of the game over someone with a comprehensive one?
Some people living in highsec belive their limitation enable a greater depth of understanding for their "division" of the sandbox, but there's only so much depth you gain from doing the limited things offered for years rather than months. The content is not varied enough to see depth in experience accumulated over time when it comes to NPC- or market interaction over limited area.
Now, i know the "new deal" of CCP is trying to pander to, and pamper, you - going against the logic of their own core game to create theme parks in a sandbox - trying to say that highsec should be an eligable microcosmos contained within itself. That doesn't change the fact that there are other players with a more comprehensive perspective on the entire cosmos, the entire game.
That means those people will also pluck votes from people who to do not live within their "block".
I do not currently involve myself with sovereign space either - yet i voted for people who do - because they had the most comprehensive platforms. It's not like i don't care about EVE outside the immidiate scope of what i do myself. That's just bigotry, and i'm glad that has no voice on the current CSM. |
Nicolo da'Vicenza
Divine Power. Cascade Imminent
1464
|
Posted - 2012.08.13 20:29:00 -
[60] - Quote
csm 7 dominated by big nullsec alliances like noir., apeture harmonics, EVE-Uni and The Honda Accord lol |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |