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...

Monday, February 14, 2011

Quote of the Week: Alienation

This week's Quote of the Week comes from an unexpected source: mazzilliu, one of the members of CSM5.  The context was a discussion on SHC of an apparent Goon/Test initiative to control a bloc of CSM6 for 0.0 residents generally and large 0.0 alliances in particular.  If your tolerance for flaming, counter-flaming, and general over-reacting is high, the discussion is worth reading.  ;-)  More on the initiative itself in my very next post.

But for this post, let's stick to the quote:
i just think that the csm is better at communicating when it alienates as few people at CCP as possible.
First, full disclosure: if you'd asked me a month ago who the least productive member of CSM5 was, I would have said mazz hands down.  She doesn't take the job seriously; that part is clear enough.  You don't have to be a serious person to be on the CSM, but you have to take the responsibilities seriously if you want CCP to respect your positions.

That said, I think this is a remarkable quote, both for its insight and because of the source.  There's no question that mazz is quite intelligent.  Dumb people don't get on the CSM.  But she also presents a front that indicates that alienating people is her stock in trade.  ;-)  This makes the quote rather ironic.  Even she has admitted a couple of times that her on-line persona is more troll than not.  This is, after all, the very same person that said this:
nothing wrong with fear based politics. it gets shit done. i know for my campaign i spent a lot of time in highsec lying to people that i cared about highsec issues.
Not exactly a quote designed to not alienate.  ;-)

But the (first) quote is quite insightful because, as far as I'm concerned, CSM5 only made one major mistake last summer, and that was in breaking the relationship with the Incarna team.

Incarna is the biggest, most important initiative in EVE for CCP right now, and even if every single member of the CSM hated what the Incarna team was doing, you don't break that relationship.  You keep the relationship open, and work within it to get the changes the players want implemented or at least considered.  The Incarna team is going to proceed regardless.  But if the relationship with them is broken, they're just going to proceed without any player input at all, which would be a disaster.  As far as I'm concerned, one of the most important jobs CSM6 has is to get that relationship reopened, and soon.

I think a several of the CSM5 members realize this now, in retrospect.  That mazz should be the one to verbalize it, though, I find rather remarkable.  ;-)


  1. Can't exactly break a relationship where one side pretty much refused to come to the table except in high profile public situations like the Summits.

    The CSM's concerns about Incarna can be roughly sorted into four categories: status (what IS the current state of development?), expectations management messaging to players (based on reality, not pipe dreams), gameplay (what will there be to do and will it tie into EVE-the-spaceships-game meaningfully), and implementation (will use be forced, will walking around in stations give you advantages that non-docking pilots don't get, and more). CSM5 has been asking since June for a response from and engagement by Team Incarna on any of those topics. There has been no communication outside the Summits with the key players on Team Incarna, nor any reason given why they refuse to engage. That is the most frustrating thing of all.

    I hope CSM6 has better luck, but that will depend on the reasons why Team Incarna has elected not to engage ongoing dialog with the CSM. Whatever they are.

  2. haha, haters gonna hate. just because you are ignorant of something doesn't mean it's not there. do some research before you call me an inactive csm member


  3. I didn't say inactive. I said "least productive." I actually believe you were hugely active, but there's a difference between that and productivity. One measures effort. The other measures results.


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