|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
dexington
Caldari Baconoration
|
Posted - 2011.07.13 07:58:00 -
[1]
The CSM is nothing more then a PR tool, to make it seems like CCP wants to involve the eve community in the design and development of eve. They are bought and payed for by CCP, sadly it does not takes more then a few trips to Iceland and some drinks with the devs, to make the CSM members drop their pants and bend over.
The stakeholder roll basically only means that when CCP agrees with an CSM idea that can be added to the backlog, which again means that CCP if and when they fell like can implement the idea. In the end CCP can both now and later turn down any suggestion made bu the CSM.
CCP also fully control the information given to the CSM, and regulates what information the CSM can pass on to the community. Time and time again we have seen that the CSM says that they are not being given the information need to fulfill their roll, and even worse they don't complain about it, as long as they get their free trips to Iceland.
The CSM was ment to be a way for the players to influence the design and development of eve, but it ended up being a tool CCP would use to influence the eve player base.
|
dexington
Caldari Baconoration
|
Posted - 2011.07.13 12:21:00 -
[2]
Originally by: White Tree
Nice straw-man argument wherein you compare the CSM to pedophiles.
You stay classy, Cashcow Golden Goose.
in the land of the blind the one eyed man is king...
He didn't compare the CSM to pedophiles, he just pointed out that you didn't need to vote or be in the CSM to voice you opinion, and proved it using an example of a social group which few belong to but most have an opinion about.
|
dexington
Caldari Baconoration
|
Posted - 2011.07.13 13:08:00 -
[3]
Edited by: dexington on 13/07/2011 13:13:12
Originally by: White Tree I think some of you don't know what a straw-man argument is...
are you trying to say that stated premise fail to support the proposed conclusion?, or are you the one who don't know what a straw-man argument is...
|
dexington
Caldari Baconoration
|
Posted - 2011.07.13 14:15:00 -
[4]
Originally by: jackaloped If you quit your day job so you can play eve full time Eve becomes your life. Such a person could never represent players who are growing tired of the game's direction and thinking about leaving it. People who do not have lives outside of internet spaceships will never really represent most players.
The CSM only represent the players who by chance share their or their alliances views, they don't in anyway represent the eve player base in general. Anyone who don't share the views of the big alliances have little to no chance of voicing their opinion through the CSM.
The views of the CMS members are to homogenous to represent the player base, it's basically a one party democracy.
|
dexington
Caldari Baconoration
|
Posted - 2011.07.13 16:10:00 -
[5]
Edited by: dexington on 13/07/2011 16:23:31
Originally by: Maduin Ardens Edited by: Maduin Ardens on 13/07/2011 15:53:22
Originally by: Jonathan Ferguson They argue for changes that will benefit their alliances over the good of the game. Time to throw the bums out.
The CSM are elected to speak for various facets of the subscriber base at large, such as null security, empire, industry, PvP, etc.
So are you saying that a 0.0 dweller who is elected to speak on behalf of null security dweller interests, who argues his or her case whether it benefits Empire dwellers or not, is somehow wrong?
I must have a vastly incorrect understanding of what an elected representative is supposed to do, Oh wait, I understand perfectly.
Did you think CCP just had elections for a handful of random popular subscribers in the game, got them all in a room, and demanded "MAKE GAME BETTER! ... GO!" ?
It is not quite like that, friend.
The problem is that more or less everyone in the CSM wants to improve null sec, the CSM is not covering the various facets of the subscriber base, only the part that lives in 0.0.
The Mittani was whining about the CSM when they didn't mainly focus on 0.0, and now that that goal is reached, everyone who has complains about anything else in the game belong to the minority of raving lunatics.
|
dexington
Caldari Baconoration
|
Posted - 2011.07.13 16:42:00 -
[6]
Originally by: Jita Jenn CCP devs prioritize highsec because that's where the majority of players live. The CSM highlights problems in nullsec that CCP are not aware of because nullsec has never been a priority.
If what you say is true then the CSM represent the minority of 0.0 players, and should not be seen as the voice of the community. I don't care all that much if the CSM focus on high or low sec, i'm just sick and tired of them claiming to be "the voice" of the community, when they only work for their own and their alliances interest.
The community clearly voiced more opinions against micro transactions then for, still the CSM chairman publicly says that the only part of the community that don't like micro transactions are loud lunatics.
|
dexington
Caldari Baconoration
|
Posted - 2011.07.13 17:43:00 -
[7]
Originally by: Daedalus II Edited by: Daedalus II on 13/07/2011 17:18:13
Originally by: dexington
The community clearly voiced more opinions against micro transactions then for, still the CSM chairman publicly says that the only part of the community that don't like micro transactions are loud lunatics.
Well if you call 5000 loud lunatics "the community" then yes, you're right. I however rather see the remaining 400 000 as the community.
I didn't see 400000 players saying they support microtransaction, i didn't see anyone protest in support for micro transactions. The CSM would like to say that the silent majority supported CCP/NEX/microtransactions, which is nothing more then bending the truth to serve their own purpose.
|
|
|
|