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, April 8, 2014

The polls are open!

Go vote in the CSM9 Elections! Remember, my endorsed slate this year is...

1. Ali Aras
2. Xander Phoena
3. Steve Ronuken
4. Mike Azariah
5. Sugar Kyle
6. James Arget
7. Matias Otero
8. corbexx
9. corebloodbrothers
10. mynnna
11. progodlegend
12. Psychotic Monk
13. DNSBLACK
14. Mangala Solaris

But at the end of the day, I'd rather have you voting -- even if it's for someone else -- than not voting. So please go vote!

44 comments:

  1. I find it strange how much you think Matias Otero would be able to do. He effectively hasn't played EVE for ~8 months. He barely did anything during the build-up of BRAVE and quit being CEO about six months after BRAVE started. In a recent alliance mail from leadership he wasn't even among the top three candidate suggestions for BRAVE members to vote for.

    Why exactly do you think he'll do anything well on the council?

    ReplyDelete
  2. (checks accounts)

    Sorry, no active subscriptions could be found

    (sighs)

    Well, unfortunately I won't be able to add any votes to the 14%... vºv

    Now seriously, can someone tell me whether something has been done to improve voter turnout?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Sorry, succumbed to the Jovian disease. My vote this time round is arrant apathy.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Why don't you do a post listing just what CSM8 has accomplished this time around? Because all I'm seeing is an anemic and uninteresting summer expansion looming, and the question whether voting is even worth my time is pointing pretty firmly towards "nope" right now. Yes, I'm sure my memory is just *terrible* and you've done plenty of good things, but please. Remind us.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If you look at the general intent of the CSM, they accomplished a ton.
      Let's look at the things this CSM has managed in the past 5 months (you have to assume the first 6 months of changes were directed by the past CSM).

      Just off the top of my head, the null sec cartels orchestrated:

      1. While hammering of high sec income with the refining skills nerf, they crushed high sec mission income with this huge nerf to reprocessing, while at the same time handing themselves a ridiculously large buff in mineral production.
      2. Got the ESS introduced that is completely risk-free and hands them a 5% boost to ISK PLUS an enormous amount of LP.
      3. Got the Omni directional wrecked which just kills any drone boat mission runners that don't fly the Domi or Ishtar.
      4. Ruined the armour Marauder's for Incursions, and we are about to hear how the Vindicator is losing its web bonus, wrecking it as well.
      5. And I am betting on an announcement REALLY soon about how high sec mfg slots are getting trashed.

      If you look at in the context of the CSM's goal of impoverishing high sec, and enriching null sec, they have been quite successful. Their longterm goal is to drive as many high sec players into being serfs for the null sec feudal lords, who in turn hand over a big chunk of their income to enhance the RMT capabilities of these lords of null sec.

      Delete
    2. "whether voting is even worth my time"

      You realize you just spent more time typing than a simple vote would have taken?

      You asked what CSM has achieved, but if anything not voting will give them less influence, not more. So got vote!

      Delete
    3. If you don't vote, you can't complain, or renew your forum posting privilege rights :)

      Regards, a Freelancer

      Delete
    4. OP here.

      Dinsdale: Yes, and as a hisec dweller, this doesn't exactly make me very fond of the CSM as a whole. The nullsec bloc has always been the more vocal one (because assholes are generally loudmouths too? Yes, I'm generalizing.)

      Jean-Mira: Really? Typing a paragraph takes you longer than reading up on the various candidates and figuring out who you can trust? Nice.

      Anon@2:13PM: The whole "if you didn't vote you have no right to complain" (also known as "if you got it for free you have no right to complain") is a ridiculous fallacy. To drag it right down to your level: If you were to be raped and had to choose which serial rapist would be doing the honors, would responding "I'd rather not" automatically revoke your right to complain about being raped? Yay, must be nice to be you. /sarcasm

      Delete
    5. @ Anonymous April 9, 2014 2:45/OP

      I agree with you when it comes to researching what candidates you want to vote for. Along with the fact that Nullsec is very vocal on the CSM especially when compared to HighSec Dwellers. I also would like some actually Un NDA'd facts on what the CSM has done.

      However, your comparison between participating in what is essentially a political system, and being a victim of two serial rapists is beyond the most ridiculous hyperbole.

      Should we be able to complain? Yes, absolutely. However, your feet get cut out from under you severely when you point out you never participated in the system in the first place. Sure you can complain about something, but taking an action to try and change that, by voting etc.however small your singular action might be, at least you made the effort and can hold your head high when you put forth your complaints.

      The importance of the CSM can't be changed if you don't vote for it. You cannot kick NullSec out of the command of the CSM if you don't try and change the composition of it by voting.

      Delete
    6. @Simyaldee: I was being facetious. I've also voted for (or against...) most of the CSMs to date.

      And to be honest, like most RL politics, oftentimes the elections consist of picking between the bad and the worse candidates (out of the pool of candidates that are actually electable). Since this usually results in abject disappointment, this time I'm not even going to bother. My vote goes to "No CSM at all", in that regard, because I'd rather not have a group of reps than a group of reps which actively go against my own wishes. If the CSM getting more votes lead to more influence with CCP, the reverse should be true as well, I hope!

      Delete
    7. Actually, if you are informed to be able to value voting as "not worth it", yes, voting takes less time that typing that paragraph. Pick whichever blogger you sympathize with and vote his endorsement list. There are dozens ballots out there, surely there is one for you among them.

      Not saying it wouldn't be better to make a more informed vote. But claiming it takes "too much time" is just bullshit.

      Delete
  5. These nay-sayers they say "Nay"

    Then later they will say "CSM9 didn't do anything and they sucked and I didn't vote because I knew that would happen"

    I wonder if anyone will roll their eyes at that?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The CSM does a lot for the people who vote it and nobody else.

      Unfortunately, that's not much people, and CCP would run into serious trouble if the people who doesn't cares about the CSM also stopped paying their subscriptions.

      Delete
    2. How do you propose that CSM should serve people who never vote, never participate, and never make their wishes known? Should they learn to read minds?

      How do you know that they even agree with you?

      Delete
    3. @Anon 5:48

      Player retention and growth are so relevant to CCP that Dr. Eyjogg (the games' resident economist) is in charge of it.

      The fact that the CSM elections are largely dismissed by the players and CCP does nothing to remedy that means that the CSM is only of marginal use to gain or retain players. So in a sense, it doesn't matters what players at large think of the CSM.

      if they don't want or don't care about being represented, retaining them still is CCP's job, just not the CSM's job.

      Delete
    4. @Anon 12:10 - If DrE is in charge of player retention and growth, then that explains why CCP has been failing miserably at it.

      DrE, like the CSM, was never anything but a bit of marketing PR ("hey, look, we've got a *real* economist working on our virtual economy - isn't that cool"). He isn't a game designer, nor an expert on product marketing & customer support.

      The casual ease with which many of us can manipulate the EVE economy is proof positive that DrE is nothing but a number cruncher, making up fictitious reasons to explain what is going on in EVE market system. On numerous occasions, he never had a clue what was really going on. Like an organ-grinder's monkey approach to making music....

      Delete
  6. Jester, I see you are still supporting Psychotic Monk even after you had been shown evidence of his participation in Erotica1's bonus room.

    I'm sorry, but the hypocrisy in this is staggering. It certainly does a lot to reinforce the arguments of those claiming that you weren't really out to do anything about EVE bullying, but rather just had a personal vendetta against E1.

    That and the fact that you silenced the rest of your planed posts on the subject once E1 had been removed makes it clear that your personal goal was accomplished and you consider the problem solved. Meanwhile, one of the worst offenders may have been removed, but there are many more taking his place.

    Were you really interested in doing something about the culture of bullying in EVE, or were your detractors right that it was all about using your influence to remove one person? I preferred to believe the former, but the evidence for the latter has been piling up of late. It's a shame; I thought you were really making a stand for something.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm not sure if jester simply missed this. I'm not going to level accusations at him.

      But I too am confused by this support.

      Delete
    2. Ali Aras as his #1? She's one of the psychopaths who think Jester was exaggerating the whole Bonus Room situation.

      I'd ask for an explanation but maybe it'll fall into one of those "side issues" he posted for us not to think about

      Delete
    3. @Louis Robichaud

      In the comments on Jester's blog post listing his endorsements, this was pointed out to him. Jester responded (so he is definitely aware of the issue) by asking for proof. Audio recordings of the bonus room in which PM is identified were linked, yet still there is no retraction of support. If he missed it before, it's been brought to his attention now, and he still hasn't changed his stance.

      I'd say that's worth calling him on it.

      Delete
    4. Anon0940: That's the thing: I HAVEN'T been shown such proof that I know of. Do you have such proof?

      Delete
    5. Well, if it matters, you could always ask the candidate, who seems uncharacteristically coy on the subject. I would understand your not wanting to open another can of Gurista frigates, though.

      Delete
    6. Ignoring proof is not the same as not having it.

      Quoting from the previous comments section:

      "Well, there's the sound of his voice < https://soundcloud.com/fancy-space-tourist/happy-miner-payout > (called by name fifteen minutes in) and the roar of his silence < https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=326497 >."

      Delete
  7. "So please go vote!"

    I think not.

    I voted in the last three CSM elections and have been disappointed in both (a) the choice of voting mechanisms which gives voting blocs more control over the election than individual voters, and (b) the utter lack of qualification/ability of the CSM members to get the fundamental point across to CCP that we don't all play the game the same way (ie. not everyone wants to do only PVP).

    Seems like the only way to effect a real change in the CSM is for the majority of the players to abstain from voting, or unsub.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Abstinence is truly the only solution to promote change.

      Abstain from voting and, if that doesn't get the message across to CCP, then abstain from playing.

      Delete
    2. Abstinence? Only 12% of the player base votes. This has been the consistent statistic since the beginning of the CSM process. Abstinence has not worked 8 times. When do you think it will begin to have an effect?

      Delete
    3. Well we're almost 10 CSMs in. How's the abstinence thing been working for you so far?

      Delete
    4. CSM is nothing but a PR marketing tool for CCP. CCP doesn't listen to the CSM any more than they listen to the forums, or results of the surveys.

      So, they don't really care if CSM is representative or not, nor whether they get a good voting turnout or not.

      Delete
  8. "So please go vote!"

    No I will not support a waste of time and money.

    The CSM is a failure and should be terminated immediately.

    Only 12% of the users cast a vote in the last election .. thus any claim by the CSM that it legitimately represents the 'player base' is absurd. CCP is quite aware of this and uses polling and direct feedback mechanisms to gather data on what the real player base desires or needs in a new release.

    Lets stop pretending and give CCP back the time and money spent .. perhaps they can redirect into a larger refactoring effort?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It is a shame CCP doesn't tell us what percentage of people respond to their surveys etc (or if they do I can't find the numbers anywhere) to back up your assertion that this could replace the feedback of the CSM by providing a wider range of opinions based on larger participation numbers.

      I'd also point out that the model used by CCP is used across a wide range of applications and services in the professional world i.e. direct feedback from the wider customer based married with 'User Groups' of some sort.

      Delete
    2. That CCP won't share such info over time is having a cumulative damming effect on them. These are the things CCP SHOULD be crowing about however over the past few years i think its safe to say that EvE isn't the game it was a few years back.

      CCP Marketing sucks and most likely will continue to suck which is truly sad in that they do have a good product but piss-poor abilities or vision in how to portray that product not only to new but existing players.

      Vote for this?....*dismissive wanking motion*...

      That Ripard (another old "seasoned" gamer like myself at 45 yrs) isn't running tells me pretty much everything I need to know. This guy LOVES the game whether or not you agree or disagree. This past year has been excruciating to watch him jump through hoops to defend CCP.

      Sincerely looking forward to Garths triumphant return with many illuminating posts because frankly, I think that has more impact on CCP decisions than the CSM did for him.

      Delete
  9. For those who are complaining about high sec income nerfs etc, not voting only gives more influence to the null sec voting blocks....

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Doesn't work that way, Louis.

      Just like voting "independent" in the US has no practical effect on the fact that the Republicans and Democrats get all of the seats in Congress.

      Why do you think the null sec alliances created the voting blocs, anyways?

      Delete
    2. Actually that's exactly how it works. GG

      Delete
    3. Aleks returns once again to prove that he is a clueless moron!

      Delete
    4. Actually, Aleks is right. With STV you don't lose your vote if your preferred candidate doesn't make it. null block gets about as many seats as their voter percentage is. If you increase the number of nonn block voters, null block gets viewer seats.

      Delete
  10. well I have voted, so I have earned the right to complain?

    1. direct goon
    2. allied to goon
    3. so called "journalist" to goon.

    did I miss someone? (I know I did, but I am not far from the mark)

    oh yeah, lots of candidate representation. but all puppets to one master. I for one, welcome the CSM7 chairman back to his rightful position, and will assume my own position as "not the game, but my game get ruined".

    when this goes pear shaped, hopefully it will be final CSM. of course in the current culture of Eve it will be the fault of anybody but the elected.

    ReplyDelete
  11. So, given that most of the null alliance players *do* cast their votes, a 12% voter turnout (ref: Anon11:00 above) means that null players likely represent less than 20% of the EVE player base.

    And, yet, CCP spends more than 80% of their time/effort on features/fixes which only benefit null sec gameplay.

    Apparently, CCP does not understand how the 80/20 rule works....

    ReplyDelete
  12. There's a certain irony about using the last day of your EVE subscription to vote in the CSM elections after a brief return.

    I voted for the Goon bloc.

    The reason? I was not impressed with our narrator using the significant clout of the CSM Vice-Chairman position to go all Jihad on an individual player no matter how rancid.

    Reminded me of the worst of another high profile CSM member singling out a certain player.

    You have to wonder where CCP would be if either of those things had ended in the worst possible way.

    I'm not sure if being drunk was a factor at play here though. I suspect, given the series of posts on the topic it was more a desire to leave a legacy.

    Now all we have is the lure that if the stakes are high enough, and the risks deemed acceptable CCP can be gamed even more so based on this dangerous precedent.

    Therefore, even though I remain an avid reader of this blog I can't support the Vice-Chairman's endorsements because of the above actions.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Wow. There's more whine here than I can shake a...wheel of cheese at..?
    Just...Wow.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Wow, the whine and cheese joke... how original.

      Delete
    2. I don't know, cheese wheels can be pretty heavy. I'm guessing you can't shake them all that much.

      Delete

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