Skip to main content

CSMX - Post #21

It is a week without dev blogs. However, the CSM has been reviewing some that will hopefully make their way to you very soon.

We have also sat down with CCP on Thursday and discussed null sec and the current impacts the Aegis changes have brought and the game that players are currently playing. The floor is open to share your stories, thoughts, and opinions. As always, I suggest using explanations and descriptions instead of, "It sucks" or the term "cancer". Those are not productive complaints that I can use to argue for what you want.

Jump Clone changes are staying. This came up when the bug was noticed. The cause of the bug was found quickly and we had a lot of back and forth about the feature and if it should stay or not. I reached out for feedback here as well as receiving it from the game and such. I've made a lot of clones for people with my Rorqual but I don't think that that's the best reason to keep standings as they were. I think that it highlights the fact that there needs to be a better reward system created for high standings. At the same time, it also reestablishes the fact that standings need a serious sit down and rework as they become a weird, hollow shell of features. My concern is that this will be left dangling. I don't want that.

Over on Eve Now they have been posting some of the structure concept design. Our relationship with the structure team is very good. We're down there hashing out details. We don't always agree but we at least are having conversation. I'd like to bring back structure bonuses to faction warfare system ownership and spend a lot of time poking in that area.

We also have a very important soundboard/townhall we are planning for the end of next week. Look to the forums for the announcement, hopefully Monday.

And I've been spending a lot of time reading feedback, documents, and having discussions with various groups and topics inside of faction warfare as we gear up for the summit.

Not to address the recent round of CSM Drama

Friday, while I was at work, all hell seemed to break loose. I came home to discover that "The CSM" wished for Gorga to resign. Not having been spoken to about the subject, I spent a large amount of the evening finding out what happened even as people asked me what was going on. At the same time Corbexx released a meeting attendance list that he has been keeping. I will try to address both topics.

Meetings. I made one of the two scheduled this week. Each week that we have meetings I try to tell you if we did or did not have meetings this week and if I was able to attend them. That is my accountability to you as to what I am doing and what I am able to attend.

Meetings are mostly held during CCP's working hours. That is GMT. I am EST which places me at four to five hours (damn daylight savings) behind CCP. On work days, I work from 6am to 6pm. I have a two week cycle where I work opposing days. This means I am only off every other Friday. That is why I make half the weekly meetings with Leeloo. Unfortunately,  I did not make the type of job decisions that.allow me to attend meetings during my work day. If a meeting falls on a day I work  I cannot attend.  I gave CCP Leeloo my work calendar through the end of 2016 for this reason but meetings fall when they will. We have had a number of meetings with twenty four hour notice. I will also point out that this is the same schedule I had last term. However, more meetings were on my days off and our bimonthly meeting was always on a day off being every two weeks.

The case of the public call for Gorga to resign is an interesting  situation. I was at work and started getting people asking me what was going on and why did I want Gorga to resign. The topic of looking into his inactivity had cropped up. Is he okay? Is he busy? Has anyone heard from him? However, on Friday as I understand it there was the Friday meeting. I was not at because I was at work. Then there was a tweet. Then all hell broke loose. I have no problem with members of the CSM asking another member to resign and stating a reason for that. If people wish they can start to lobby for me to resign. That is personal choice. My natural tendency is to be very angry at being included in another decision instead of writing angry tweets or posts I decided to push back my knee jerk reaction. I could have added to the drama storm brewing and I decided not to and instead look at the situation.

Inactive members of the council seem to plague session after session. I'd like everyone to be active and I'd like those who find they don't have the time or that the CSM has not provided them the interest to resign. The amount of time that can go into this position can be unexpected. I think its a worthy project and I take the responsibility  that I volunteered for seriously. I hope if I found myself in a home or employment position that did not allow me to interact with the position as I believed I'd be able to interact with it, that I'd step down. That being said, I will not cover for an inactive member. I will express what activity I have seen and note that a member can be active outside of my view. But for the most part, even if we do not directly interact with each other we see things like conversations on slack, confluence interactions, and other signs that the member is around.

The problem is there is no way to officially  deal with inactive  members. It is something we started trying to have formally written up last year and something  we will  have to get done. That leaves an inactive member not violating the technical side of things but violating the spirit and reason of being here. The current white paper does call on a member to communicate with their constitutes. Two months of silence does not seem like communication.

It disappoints me that this failing happens session after session. People stand up and ask players to vote for them. They ask players to let them represent them. And then they walk away from it without even saying, "I'm going to go." I believe we should have something in place that is a bit more clear and coherent and the lack of that is what is causing these situations that appear to be sudden storms but that have been brewing slowly.

One concern brought to me on Friday night was worry that the CSM was not functional or productive when a situation like this is going on. The activity of the individual members are so important because of our time spent with developers. But, if a member calls out another member that does not mean they cannot work on useful improvements and responses to the game. If someone asks me about a member's activity, I will freely share their activity as I have seen. Internally, I will question if a member is active and I'd like to see that addressed. Six weeks is a release and six weeks of silence puts a member behind and valuable feedback is potentially lost.

Some members of the CSM have approached CCP Leeloo and addressed themselves in public or private as they may have. Now this ball is in play. As always, I'm curious about the voters reaction. Do they want members quickly stripped and removed or do they want people sitting in their positions forever? I figure there is a lot of middle ground there.

As to why should there be a process? CCP can just remove a member but the backlash that would cause between conspiracy theorists and the potential trust it might break would be mostly alleviated with a clear process. There are issues to address like a basic understanding of activity. Is a month inactive to long? When is it to late to add a new member? Is it ever? I'm not a big fan of ambiguity.

In the end, this rolls back to the white paper rewrite that started last year and has not yet produced a new white paper. That is an unfortunate situation and one that I'd like to have resolved by the end of this term. There is more to being on the CSM then being elected and that needs to be made clear. This is a volunteered for responsibility. No one made me run. I try to hold myself accountable to you and I hope that I have managed to do that.


  1. Heh, CSM drama instead of devblogs. Guess that happens when silly season comes and there's no real news to talk about until CCP are back from their hard earned holidays...

    I've seen the request for feedback on Fozziesov... huh... Aegisov... It is interesting how there's little activity in the GD thread on feedback, and a lot more discussion (but nothing dramatic) in the petition by the Russian block (UAxDeath & al).

    A comment catched my eye (not literal quoting): "Aegisov is becoming a WiS, sucking resources from the rest of the game". I guess that dude is right, if he looks at the releases and what have they done for some people.

    Also some people are complaining that CCP is just replaying past glories, and even "new" stuff is just a sequel to successful content from the past.

    Guess that's true in the case that a player didn't liked the content when it was first released, so getting more of the same is not thrilling. Certainly I'm not impressed by Drifter Incursions. I somehowl hope the end of the Drifter storyline won't be that lame, and at some point the capsuleers will be able to align with the drifters. God knows i'm all for adding NPC interaction and player-driven PvE so the players create their own shades of grey instead of "here be Drifters, they're evil and they're mean, now learn how to farm them". Also others claim that Drifters herald the end of the Empires as NPC influence is removed from game, one standing at a time... which would be a very stupid move by CCP. Or a smart one, if their plans include downsizing EVE and shift focus to other projects.

  2. “The problem is there is no way to officially deal with inactive members. It is something we started trying to have formally written up last year and something we will have to get done. That leaves an inactive member not violating the technical side of things but violating the spirit and reason of being here.”

    As is often the case Sugar, you winnow to the heart of the matter. If CSM members don’t proceed in good faith, the institution suffers. I may, however, disagree with how you set up the question as there are at least two distinct possibilities:

    1) Some removal mechanism beyond convincing them to resign is one possibility. To some extant this already exists since breaking the TOS, EULA and/or Nondisclosure Agreement means a quick exit from the CSM and one could well argue that it should be extended to include at least some minimal participation requirements. That said . . .

    2) Another possibility would be to simply make the CSM robust enough to survive inactive members doing nothing. Provided enough members are active, inactives’ lack of participation isn’t generating any harm and those inactives will not be reelected anyway. The CSM has 14 members. I suspect it could function with less (8?). This being the case, a few inactives won’t deeply harm the institution beyond annoying those who are active, the nearly elected who would have been active and the voter base that got hoodwinked into voting for a loafer.

    Obviously, I’m a fan of the second option. If someone’s not hurting anything, I see no deep reason to get one’s hackles up. I would also be a fan of not rewarding idleness so no Iceland trips for sloths.

    1. The only problem I have with the second option is exactly what you stated about voters being hoodwinked and the nearly elected. If CCP had never gone with a player voting method of selection, it wouldn't be an issue, but since they have, it would be in their interest to show the players that votes matter, especially if they want more player engagement in the CSM process.

    2. During the last CSM election, people would bring up the idea that the CSM is too large. I always replied that members would get elected who wound up going AFK for various reasons and the extra positions were needed to ensure enough active representatives were available.

    3. Heretic,

      I’m inclined to ask whether a robust eliminate inactives cure would prove worse than the loafing disease. Hoodwinked voters aren’t guaranteed a replacement representing their concerns, rather they’ll get whomever is next in the votes acquired line. The next in liners, especially if they agitate for inactive removals, end up looking like conniving losers unwilling to accept election results. The same conniving appearance risk applies to active CSM members and CCP itself. Booting people off the CSM that aren’t producing any appreciable harm (and they can’t be because they aren’t active) seems terribly unseemly given that any specific inactive problem will take care of itself in the next election cycle anyway.

      At best, all that’s being achieved is satiating the annoyance of hard working volunteers who discover that not all those around them prove nearly so industrious and assuaging disgruntled voters who discover they would have preferred voting for somebody else. While getting a little get back can be highly satisfying, volunteer democratically elected deliberative bodies probably aren’t the best place to go about pursuing such pleasures.

    4. You are correct Dire in that I could function completely on my own. I do not think that is fair to the voters. I think it is a waste of the potential of the position. I do not think leaving seats abandoned is the answer.

  3. 2 questions:

    1. What play-style group does Gorga supposedly represent?
    2. Who is the next person up in the pool that would replace him, and what playstyle would they supposedly represent.

    I would have someone on the CSM that does nothing than another mouthpiece for the null sec cartels.

    1. UAxDEATH is up next. Same playstyle, except he gets his income from a rental alliance, Shadow of xXDEATHXx.

    2. UAxDEATH is up next. Same playstyle, except he gets his income from a rental alliance, Shadow of xXDEATHXx.

    3. As Noizy said, Gorga led a large null sec alliance and as Steve has run the numbers for us, XDeath is up next.

  4. This was a very enlightening read that helps brings context to the whole situation, thanks for continuing to keep your constituency in the loop Sugar.

  5. So many things to address in this post.... Hmm, where to start?

    First of all, silly other CSM members for ignoring Corbexx's data and moving straight for 'Well Miiiiiissss, he didn't do annnnnnnnnything' schoolyard-level manipulation. (Which really makes this feel more like a powerplay than a 'good for the CSM' idea).

    Now, before I leap any further, I notice (perhaps incorrectly?) that you didn't say anything about the specifics of Gorga's situtation...

    My main questions are: Who are 'the CSM'? which members advocated for Gorga's removal? if this was raised with CCP *first*, or if this is just a cackhanded attempt at shifting a supposedly inactive CSM out the door?

    Many, many questions to be asked here, in my opinion. (Notably, why the CSM [so called] hasn't/doesn't seek your opinion).

    So, part one addressed.

    Rob K.

    1. Gorga's situation is his to share if he chooses to share. Unless the member makes it known in public or approves of it, I will not share that type of information.

      Who advocates for removal, you will have to ask each member. I will not speak for them. Some have been public.

      I think there is a difference between wishing someone would make a decision to step down and going and asking them to do it. I'm not sure where I stand with the second part. I know it is an easier thing to answer for some but it is a hard one for me. I'm greatly torn between the rules and lack there of and my personal passion for the position and what I wish from others.

      As for why? I don't know. I also didn't ask. It is to easy to fall into a fight about it. I have not asked for Gorga to resign nor have I signed onto anything that will have someone ask in my stead. If I reach that conclusion I would take up the responsibility to do so.

    2. Hmm, I meant "what was your opinion on Gorga stepping down?", not "Tell us everything about Gorga". I don't think I said that very well though. Sorry :).

      My main concern really was the lack of CCP involvement (that we could see). Inter-CSM communication is important, but CSM-CCP communication is *literally* the reason the CSM exists. That CCP seems to be a long way behind on this is not promising.

      As for "who should ask people to step down?" I'm utterly on the side of CCP here. It should be done in private, based on CCP's feelings, with limited (if not no) involvement from the CSM.

      CSM is a volunteer position, so CCP should behave with dignity and respect towards them, not calling them out, or writing them off. How CCP treats the inactive CSM defines how they treat the passionate, active CSM.

      As for the embarassing display by JayneF, a public apology to the members of the CSM he so comfortably ignored should be on the cards, I feel.

      Rob K.

  6. Ok, I wrote out a second post, pointing out the various horrors of the Jump Clone changes, and decided not to publish it, because CCP is basically not going to reverse this change unless Goons/PL/someone abuses it to hell.

    Still, look at the recent NC. move op demolition for an example of how things are going to be in future for the rest of New Eden, once the above groups get set up.

    I'm looking forwards to BL as kings of low-sec, with the ability to drop 200 T3 and Logistics on any pos timer they see, and eventually *every* interesting Citadel Timer.

    Only a couple of months to go before that happy occasion, right guys?

    Guys? Guys? Why have you all left?

    Rob K.

  7. I've heard various CSMs argue recently that they want a "process" for a CSM-initiated removal of a fellow CSM member. I strongly disagree with this idea. A procedure for "removal from office" is necessary in a governing body for all sorts of good reasons, but the there is already a removal from office procedure for CSM members.

    The CSM members fundamentally serve at the pleasure of CCP. If CCP considers a member's lack of activity to be a problem, they can remove them. If the CSM considers it to be so, they can ask CCP to remove them. The other CSMs (and CCP) will probably have to give a reason. But this procedure exists now and is perfectly adequate to deal with the situation.

    Other CSMs have claimed that a process or procedure would help cool emotions surrounding a removal. I respectfully submit that this is complete bollocks. There is not a single example scenario you can dream up where the reaction to "the rest of the CSMs stabbed X in the back and forced the removal" will be better than the reaction to "CCP said X had to go, other CSMs agree".

    If a removal procedure is voting-based or otherwise not based on participation metrics, any removal will be seen as profoundly political. This will make players genuinely fear the representatives of other areas of play and "block politics".

    On the other hand, if it's metrics based, than it is fundamentally yet another system to game. If the metrics are even remotely strict, you will have the first issue rear its head again when exceptions are made. Far more likely is that it will be universally gamed and the entire discussion is nothing but an exercise in organizational onanism.

    1. +1. Any system where other CSM members can get rid of a CSM member opens up a pandora's box of politicking issues. That power should rest firmly and exclusively with CCP imho.

    2. I find it interesting that the terms of process have created an idea that it should be a CSM to CSM decision. I don't actually care for that. Yes, CCP can remove people but like anything else CCP does it tends to be best done with a clear ruleset.

      If the person broke the NDA or cheated that should be stated. If it is for inactivity what inactivity is and what some very basic requirements are. That is a process.

  8. In consideration that the CSM emulates Australian election mechanics - we now want to go further down that path by a Dismissal in Eve? An action such as this would damage confidence in the process. If there is case to answer for, it would be to the constituency that Gorga represents.

    As for Clones and Standing. I did not think that genie was going back into the bottle. But still POS and this; that just leaves refining, mission agents and trading taxes. 40% value right-off for having bothered to earn that 8 standing.

  9. Seems said the meta gaming of certain cam members is getting out of control. goonswarm members forcing others out.

  10. I can only say 4 words:
    THANK you Sugar Kyle.

    Thank you!
    I can only hope that perhaps SOMEDAY the average Eve Online player finds out just what you have been spending bazzilions of hours doing.
    For them.
    Whoops, this is actually 52 words. Sorry, I simply got carried away, haha!


Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Maybe one day!

 [15:32:10] Trig Vaulter > Sugar Kyle Nice bio - so carebear sweet - oh you have a 50m ISK bounty - so someday more grizzly  [15:32:38 ] Sugar Kyle > /emote raises an eyebrow to Trig  [15:32:40 ] Sugar Kyle > okay :)  [15:32:52 ] Sugar Kyle > maybe one day I will try PvP out When I logged in one of the first things I did was answer a question in Eve Uni Public Help. It was a random question that I knew the answer of. I have 'Sugar' as a keyword so it highlights green and catches my attention. This made me chuckle. Maybe I'll have to go and see what it is like to shoot a ship one day? I could not help but smile. Basi suggested that I put my Titan killmail in my bio and assert my badassery. I figure, naw. It was a roll of the dice that landed me that kill mail. It doesn't define me as a person. Bios are interesting. The idea of a biography is a way to personalize your account. You can learn a lot about a person by what they choose to put in their bio

Taboo Questions

Let us talk contentious things. What about high sec? When will CCP pay attention to high sec and those that cannot spend their time in dangerous space?  This is somewhat how the day started, sparked by a question from an anonymous poster. Speaking about high sec, in general, is one of the hardest things to do. The amount of emotion wrapped around the topic is staggering. There are people who want to stay in high sec and nothing will make them leave. There are people who want no one to stay in high sec and wish to cripple everything about it. There are people in between, but the two extremes are large and emotional in discussion. My belief is simple. If a player wishes to live in high sec, I do not believe that anything will make them leave that is not their own curiosity. I do not believe that we can beat people out of high sec or destroy it until they go to other areas of space. Sometimes, I think we forget that every player has the option to not log back in. We want them to log


Halycon said it quite well in a comment he left about the skill point trading proposal for skill point changes. He is conflicted in many different ways. So am I. Somedays, I don't want to be open minded. I do not want to see other points of view. I want to not like things and not feel good about them and it be okay. That is something that is denied me for now. I've stated my opinion about the first round of proposals to trade skills. I don't like them. That isn't good enough. I have to answer why. Others do not like it as well. I cannot escape over to their side and be unhappy with them. I am dragged away and challenged about my distaste.  Some of the people I like most think the change is good. Other's think it has little meaning. They want to know why I don't like it. When this was proposed at the CSM summit, I swiveled my chair and asked if they realized that they were undoing the basic structure that characters and game progression worked under. They said th