Welcome to Jester's Trek.
I'm your host, Jester. I've been an EVE Online player for about six years. One of my four mains is Ripard Teg, pictured at left. Sadly, I've succumbed to "bittervet" disease, but I'm wandering the New Eden landscape (and from time to time, the MMO landscape) in search of a cure.
You can follow along, if you want...

Tuesday, January 17, 2012

Consensus choice for the Quote of the Week

bigmac on Failheap sums up my concern about "the CSM" having this or that position far better than I did.  When Trebor said, "Two step has addressed the general issue of why we do it that way in the minutes. I am sure that if you want to know the position of a particular CSM on a particular issue, they will be happy to state it -- and if they won't, then you know who *not* to vote for.", bigmac replied:
The problem with this is, as in RL, there's nothing to prevent candidates from saying one thing to get elected and then turning around and advocating for the exact opposite in dark smoke filled rooms where there is zero accountability, followed by lying about what they did in order to get re-elected. We need to know who is advocating for what exactly in these meetings. Otherwise the process becomes corrupt just like in RL.
Well said.

The number of controversial positions in this document advocated by "the CSM" is rather staggering, honestly.  "The CSM" has given voters little choice but to blame the entire group for whichever ones we want to.  Two step, you're in favor of wormhole stabilizers.  Trebor, you're in favor of super-cap blobs knocking out station services throughout NPC Venal.

More about these controversial positions tomorrow.


  1. In this case, Jester, I beg to differ. I get the impression that the summit meetings are only a small portion of the influencing effort that CSM reps can put over CCP.

    I'd say there are two other interactions that play a larger role:
    - CSM reps public stand, which applies influence in a more extensive way, and
    - drinking with the devs after the meetings, which applies influence in a more intensive and informal way.

    The former is public knowledge and the later is not going to appear in the minutes no matter what. Although some CSM members wouldn't mind a bunch of paparazzies recording everything they say or do during their Iceland stay, that is simply not going to happen.

  2. Fix CSM mechanics
    If there is a rep from each major playstyle then no one area gets nerfed

    1. I think the intrinsic difficulty with that solution is it requires "pinning down" eve into little pigeon hole play-styles. E.g. you ARE an industrialist, miner, PvPer, mission-runner, nullsec alliance CEO etc. when in reality those lines are much more blurred.

      Am I an industrialist... no, do I do industry - of course. Am I a miner... no, do I have a hulk - you bet. Am I a mission runner... sometimes, but I wouldn't want to be defined by it. This is challenging.

  3. FYI, two step is an alternate, wasn't at the meeting and raged when he replayed the video from the sumit.

  4. I can't believe the CSM supported wormhole stabilizers. That would only make wormhole vulnerable to blob attacks from mega corporations.

    That would potentially kill all the small corporation residing in wormholes.

    Not to mention, wormholes are not impossible to take without reason, they're impossible to take because you're facing a whole corporation that's active in a single system. If the corporation because less active, then they also become vulnerable.

  5. FYI, I wrote a blog post about my thoughts on the wormhole session: http://twostep4csm.blogspot.com/2012/01/my-take-on-december-csm-summit.html

    1. Added your blog to my "infrequent but important" list for a bit so this shows up more prominently.


Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.