BB80 – Is CSM worth it?
CCP Seagull ecourages you to get involved in CSM12 and put your name forward to be a Space-Politician. On his blog Neville Smit noted that CSM11 had done a good job with minimum of drama. However he said he’d not be covering CSM12 like he has in previous years as he sees no point. The power-blocs will vote on who they want and unless Steve Ronuken manages to get on CSM12 it is almost certainly going to have every seat taken by the big null-sec blocs.Is Neville right? Is the CSM moving more and more into just a voice for 0.0? Is this a bad thing? Are the hi-sec, low-sec and WH players going to lose out badly or is it really not an issue as its the same game? Could a totally null-sec dominated CSM 12 give a balanced voice for everyone?
Okay, so that’s not entirely true.
I’ve been in the game since the very first CSM so I’ve observed (mostly from a calm distance) the various shenanigans and events that have occurred.
So, first question, is Neville right? Uh, yeah, pretty much. No offence, but the null blocs ~are~ bloc-voting en-mass, and because fewer and fewer people actually care any more… welp! Rarely we get some people from alternative platforms. And that’s nice. But it’s usually a part of whatever ‘x’ bloc wanted for the overall platform. So the rest of the time, those voices tend to end up apparently more… muted, in comparison to the prevalence of the null voices.
Is this a bad thing? I guess that depends on your position on Fozziesov, null in general, and how these things impact the overall EVE economy (if you don’t think they impact your economy (even if only in the smallest way), then you’ve not been paying as much attention in EVE as you think you have). But does this mean large chunks of the rest of the game (lowsec/holes I’m looking at you here) don’t get as much attention as they probably deserve? Well, generally, yeah. So overall, I’d say somewhat negative. Although the reality is the combination of player culture, and developmental processes have left null in a state where it is less than attractive to the player base, and that does need fixing too.
Is this bad for high, low, and holes? Well for the latter two, yeah, sure. Those deserve plenty of attention – maybe not super tippy top of the priority list but damn it should be up there at least. For high? As someone who spends plenty of time in multiple areas, including high, I’d say it’s less of a big deal for high-sec, with the exception of requiring continued attention to bounty systems and war systems as neither of these is anywhere near as satisfactory as they should otherwise be (but discussions on those would make for a better topic in another post).
A totally null-oriented 12 will still give to other areas of the game to degrees. Especially if people vote for the more knowledgable candidates who can show clear vision in more areas than merely null. But it really won’t be as balanced as it would be if there were more candidates and more voters.
What’s really needed is defined chairs for each region. Say, two from each, with two more chains for niche play, rather than regional knowledge, and the remaining two for general purpose candidates, with at least one representing the newbies and/or folks who just do a mixed bag of stuff in game. This would limit the impact of any one region or political standpoint (hypothetically, at least), and allow for a more diverse selection of representatives, who would hopefully also be subject matter experts who could actually give CCP some kind of decent sounding board for decisions.
Of course, as they would be elected representatives, which makes it as much a popularity contest as anything else, the reality would probably be… less than stellar.