Monday, 18 March 2013

CSM primer for newbies 
 ( or  )

This year I will be voting in the CSM elections, but I am not yet sure who for.

The Buzz words that I thought I was looking for were:
  • POS revamp (with themes of better security options), 
  • Wormhole
  • Destabilising the large null alliances
However, today I had pointed out a new buzz word pointed out to me : New Player experience.

If you do not know how the 'Player Representative Council' (called the CSM) elections work, especially if you avoid game forums due to the noise to signal ratio, then consider reading the above article.


  1. I think it best to combine two approaches - picking the plattform and picking the person.

    Regarding the platform it's all about self-interest and you're hurting yourself not to vote for people who will advocate the changes that benefit you. Eve is a zero sum game and if, say, CSM 8 has no wormhole candidates then everyone else gets dev time and isk per hour benefits over the development cycle except the wormhole guys.

    Regarding the people the way such committees work is that strong persuasive people who can make strong cases while being willing to compromise get all the influence. The screaming nut who is obsessed with one issue, the shy 17 year old who mumbles, they are wasted votes. Nothing such candidates do has any effect on game development unless they mature. Jester and Malcanis seem the stand outs in this regard.

    Lastly give some consideration to voting against your immediate self-interest. I like new player candidates even though I guess I'm Eve-old and rich now because I like new players coming in to the community and am underwhelmed with the bitter grogards who fill places like Kugu and Failheap. An Eve developed to attract bright-eyed newbies while causing rich old players to ragequit because they don't get to solo 200 players with an aoe doomsday is a better Eve, even if I'm closer to being the aoe doomsday pilot than the bright-eyed cannon fodder.

    1. "Regarding the people the way such committees work is that strong persuasive people who can make strong cases while being willing to compromise get all the influence."

      Extremely true, and a real problem with voting systems. The swing vote has disproportionate influence in many scenarios.

      "The screaming nut who is obsessed with one issue, the shy 17 year old who mumbles, they are wasted votes. "

      You have now set up a false dilemma. You've mentioned 2 axes, "strong persuasive" vs "screaming, or shy", and "willing to compromise" versus the implied "unwilling to compromise", which you conflate with one-issue-ism. It's true that the most influence goes to the sp wtc, and the least to the sos utc. However, only mentioning these two and then referring to one of the 4 quadrants as "wasted votes" sets up a false dilemma, and also a false implication between broadness of interest and broadness of ability to make dealmaking compromises.

      Also, while it is often true that swing votes have disproportionate influence, it is not always true. The United States congress over the past 20 years has often ended up in situations where the swing vote had extra influence, but also many situations where one bloc took control and the swing vote was completely marginalized and penalized.

      Anyway, the point is, electing someone who has a huge amount of influence, but doesn't go with your positions more than random chance would dictate, is actually much more of a wasted vote than voting someone who always goes with your positions but doesn't have a great deal of influence within the council. In the first scenario, you've voted for someone with a great deal of influence, who uses that influence AGAINST your positions. This is a vote of negative quality, and you would have been better off to have abstained. The latter scenario is of marginal positive quality of vote, which is better than having abstained.

      This is why you can't judge the platform and the person totally separately. If someone's platform is with your views, generally, but the person is TOO willing to compromise, then you might end up with the former situation. Or, more immediately applicable here, if the candidate is too vague or ambiguous, attempting to be all things to all people, then you're also in danger of ending up in the first camp. I'm obviously referring to Ripard Ambiguous Teg here.

      Lastly, one can look at voting for CSM primarily as voting for an influential member of the committee--or one can look at one's vote as primarily a message to CCP. Looking back at CSM7, and valuing the work that appears to have been done by it, its value to me personally is very low indeed. Using that as a standard, the purpose of my votes this year are naturally then sending a message to CCP about what I stand for. Voting for a vague candidate who's very willing to compromise from his already vague views would send a message to CCP that I don't stand for anything. I'm voting for candidates who have firm beliefs that I agree with, are strong and eloquent, and who I hope will be able to work and communicate well with CCP, placing those 3 qualities in the order I value them. Thus, someone like Trebor, who I am still fond of for creating Wizardry back in the day, and fulfills most of my criteria, is absolutely out, because he wants to turn EVE into a themepark. He'd be a strong CSM member, but for the loyal opposition.


Posts older than 14 days are subject to moderation before being published. I do so sporadically. If you have a question regarding older posts, also evemail dotoo foo.

Blogger comments supports basic html. You can make a link 'clicky' by <a href="http://yoursite/yourpage">yoursite/yourpage</a>

While I currently accept anonymous users, please include a pseudonym. I get confused answering anonymous.

If the word verification is preventing you from adding a comment, please evemail DoToo Foo for alternative methods