PDA

View Full Version : If the CSM is a lobby group, why not have more lobby groups?



Mike deVoid
September 15 2011, 11:02:08 PM
This is not a serious proposition, just a thought that occurred to me a few weeks back.

In short, mittens has re-imagined the CSM into what is essentially a lobbying group. Although they cannot make any decisions within CCP and will never be responsible for any of those decisions, they work with and against CCP to influence change. Changes that as a playerbase we want to see. And as with lobby groups, it's hard to attribute successes, especially subtle ones.

But what if someone, or a group of someones, decided to fund alternative lobby groups? Seriously, why only allow one? As as optional extra: what if RMT within EVE was no longer against EULA and RMT funds could be utilised to fund these alternative lobby groups?

I don't really suppose this would result in a better game to play, but I do think it would be interesting to watch.

Evelgrivion
September 15 2011, 11:05:16 PM
This is not a serious proposition, just a thought that occurred to me a few weeks back.

In short, mittens has re-imagined the CSM into what is essentially a lobbying group. Although they cannot make any decisions within CCP and will never be responsible for any of those decisions, they work with and against CCP to influence change. Changes that as a playerbase we want to see. And as with lobby groups, it's hard to attribute successes, especially subtle ones.

But what if someone, or a group of someones, decided to fund alternative lobby groups? Seriously, why only allow one? As as optional extra: what if RMT within EVE was no longer against EULA and RMT funds could be utilised to fund these alternative lobby groups?

I don't really suppose this would result in a better game to play, but I do think it would be interesting to watch.

I don't think it would be a good idea, since it enforces an us vs them mentality between CCP and players. I'd prefer that players, collectively, feel like a part of the development of EVE Online rather than an outside force. Probably a somewhat unreasonable desire, but the last thing we need is more cloak and dagger shit, which is what lobbying groups inevitably breed.

Sponk
September 15 2011, 11:22:58 PM
Aw, my internet spaceship politics is maturing.

They grow up so fast *wipes tear*

Nordstern
September 16 2011, 12:26:00 AM
Lobbyists work because their targets are elected. CCP is not.

You vote with your money on which game you like.

Sponk
September 16 2011, 12:30:09 AM
Lobbyists work because their targets are elected.What? Why would you think that?

Nordstern
September 16 2011, 12:34:20 AM
Because what, exactly, kind of leverage do you have against CCP?

Sponk
September 16 2011, 12:39:47 AM
Because what, exactly, kind of leverage do you have against CCP?
Lobbying is the act of attempting to influence decisions made by officials. Leverage is nice to have, because then it's blackmail, which is more effective than actual lobbying.

Lana Torrin
September 16 2011, 03:11:24 AM
Lobbying is the act of attempting to influence decisions made by officials. Leverage is nice to have, because then it's blackmail, which is more effective than actual lobbying.
Cool... So do we know if any of the higher up in CCP have children then?

Rakshasa The Cat
September 16 2011, 04:06:32 AM
Cool... So do we know if any of the higher up in CCP have children then?
I approve how quickly you thought of the children.

Sponk
September 16 2011, 04:09:48 AM
I approve how quickly you thought of the children.Considering we all act like children here, it's not surprising.

Virtuozzo
September 16 2011, 11:09:53 AM
This is not a serious proposition, just a thought that occurred to me a few weeks back.

In short, mittens has re-imagined the CSM into what is essentially a lobbying group. Although they cannot make any decisions within CCP and will never be responsible for any of those decisions, they work with and against CCP to influence change. Changes that as a playerbase we want to see. And as with lobby groups, it's hard to attribute successes, especially subtle ones.

But what if someone, or a group of someones, decided to fund alternative lobby groups? Seriously, why only allow one? As as optional extra: what if RMT within EVE was no longer against EULA and RMT funds could be utilised to fund these alternative lobby groups?

I don't really suppose this would result in a better game to play, but I do think it would be interesting to watch.

You're right, he changed it from something proactively useful into something which fit a certain side of CCP's comfort zone. There's no success in that, only the aspiration to claim victories over ongoing processes with an absolutely hilarious dose of :lolpolitics: and amateuristic attempts at a personality cult.

But back serious again. So the CSM concept was downgraded, fine, so be it. But you'd want more lobby group concept applications? Oh it would be interesting to watch. Very much so. As interesting as it was years ago to see little clubs work on little ideas on test servers and TQ alike, all seperate and with a few brosef devs, all for the betterment of ... yeah right. We know how that ended.

For the rest you're just heading off into buying frontends for allusions of influence. A bit like US politics, or that of any other banana republic. Or Iceland before "let's go fishing for a while again".

ry ry
September 16 2011, 11:14:12 AM
i for one look forwards to botters4justice storming CCP HQ dressed as superheros.

Virtuozzo
September 16 2011, 11:15:13 AM
i for one look forwards to botters4justice storming CCP HQ dressed as superheros.

You had to plant that image in my head ..... o m g

:D

Mike deVoid
September 16 2011, 11:52:14 AM
i for one look forwards to botters4justice storming CCP HQ dressed as superheros.
Haha, Brilliant.

You're right, he changed it from something proactively useful into something which fit a certain side of CCP's comfort zone. There's no success in that, only the aspiration to claim victories over ongoing processes with an absolutely hilarious dose of :lolpolitics: and amateuristic attempts at a personality cult.

But back serious again. So the CSM concept was downgraded, fine, so be it. But you'd want more lobby group concept applications? Oh it would be interesting to watch. Very much so. As interesting as it was years ago to see little clubs work on little ideas on test servers and TQ alike, all seperate and with a few brosef devs, all for the betterment of ... yeah right. We know how that ended.

For the rest you're just heading off into buying frontends for allusions of influence. A bit like US politics, or that of any other banana republic. Or Iceland before "let's go fishing for a while again".
It's odd to me that you see the transition as a downgrade. The 'lobby group' model works and fits much better with how player-desired game features can be incorporated into CCP's workload than the previous 'politicians and legislature' model. You can see this through the massive backlog of CSM items that merely got added to CCP's backlog. Given that CCP were not proactively including the CSM backlog - that's a clear indictment of the model's failure. (Not that it's particularly important, but the blame for this lies mostly with CCP for setting up a model which was ultimately not compatible enough with their work processes to allow them to include player concerns/wishes.)

The 'lobby group' model on the other hand just seems almost intuitively a match for how the CSM/players can influence REAL change on the work done by CCP. It doesn't really matter that the CSM can't 'prove' under this model that they were responsible for any of the nice things happening, it just matters that they get done.

Evelgrivion
September 16 2011, 12:14:08 PM
It doesn't really matter that the CSM can't 'prove' under this model that they were responsible for any of the nice things happening, it just matters that they get done.

That's the entire problem; playing nice with CCP only seems to lead to CCP being :ccp: anymore.

Pattern
September 16 2011, 01:41:12 PM
This is the CSM is working at its best, in it's current state. Not only is it provoking a reaction at CCP, (thanks to having actual Data about how the player base is responding to :18months: to beat CCP over the head with) the population is now engaged slightly more beyond "lolcsm?".

And I don't think any of the prior responsibilities of the CSM have been diminished either (which were more significant than most seem to think).

Mynxee
September 16 2011, 01:57:51 PM
It's odd to me that you see the transition as a downgrade. The 'lobby group' model works and fits much better with how player-desired game features can be incorporated into CCP's workload than the previous 'politicians and legislature' model. You can see this through the massive backlog of CSM items that merely got added to CCP's backlog. Given that CCP were not proactively including the CSM backlog - that's a clear indictment of the model's failure. (Not that it's particularly important, but the blame for this lies mostly with CCP for setting up a model which was ultimately not compatible enough with their work processes to allow them to include player concerns/wishes.)

I feel compelled to point out that CSM5's efforts to get CCP's attention on the backlog resulted in a fair number of those backlogged items actually getting done. Also, to clarify, it's not that CSM items weren't getting done (some had been done without CSM knowing) but that they weren't identifiable as CSM items, making it impossible to track CSM contributions for follow-up and identification of in-game changes directly attributable to the CSM. CSM5 pushed for and got CCP to agree to tag CSM items in the backlog.

Also...the backlog isn't just some forgotten database where good ideas go to die. Backlogged items formed the basis for Trebor's crowdsourcing exercises. Even now, in addition to CSM6's "big ticket" items, I'm sure that Trebor continues to lobby with CCP to get attention on the backlog. Otherwise, he wouldn't continue to be doing the crowdsourcing stuff.

If CCP is still operating the same as it was last year where all ideas, change requests, etc., get added as "stories" to the backlog, then it stands to reason that CSM6's ideas and requests continue to feed the backlog as well those originating from CCP folks. The backlog was (and presumably still is) the pool from which scrum teams identify specific "stories" to add to their task queue for a given sprint. So I imagine the backlog is alive and well, and hopefully continuing to see CSM stuff getting added to it, even if it's not via the old Assembly Hall proposal/CSM vote method.

Edited to add:


i for one look forwards to botters4justice storming CCP HQ dressed as superheros.

Hilarious mental image, there!

Leviathan
September 16 2011, 02:00:35 PM
Space jews everywhere O.O

Virtuozzo
September 16 2011, 02:06:33 PM
Haha, Brilliant.

It's odd to me that you see the transition as a downgrade. The 'lobby group' model works and fits much better with how player-desired game features can be incorporated into CCP's workload than the previous 'politicians and legislature' model. You can see this through the massive backlog of CSM items that merely got added to CCP's backlog. Given that CCP were not proactively including the CSM backlog - that's a clear indictment of the model's failure. (Not that it's particularly important, but the blame for this lies mostly with CCP for setting up a model which was ultimately not compatible enough with their work processes to allow them to include player concerns/wishes.)

The 'lobby group' model on the other hand just seems almost intuitively a match for how the CSM/players can influence REAL change on the work done by CCP. It doesn't really matter that the CSM can't 'prove' under this model that they were responsible for any of the nice things happening, it just matters that they get done.

No "lobby" concept is ever a solution to anything on its own, as any professional lobbyist will tell you. Unless the lobbyist is only interested in himself or his select interests the lobby element is but one instrument required in the big picture. One of many. What is being advocated sofar by mittens is not lobbying for influence. It can be, and in some cases it has been. Sofar however it has been merely shining exposure on select people and ongoing projects. Don't misunderstand me, I'm not saying that is a bad thing. But it can never be the entirety of it. The lobby method is short term focused, suitable for spotlights, and traditionally not very compatible with long term / ongoing projects or complex dependancies. It is capable of getting you a little thing, or something juicy for yourself. If it has to mean something or enable something more than just a little thing or your own juice, that is where the lobby concept is futile on its own.

The previous form of CSM was CSM5 btw :P That was not "politicians and legislature". Far from. It was due process, pressure management, collaboration - sadly with a big dose of self sabotage through the "meta" game - so to speak, which limited its continuity. CSM4 alrady started to shake off the politicians part. It's CSM6 where the politicians part has been put back on the table :P As for legislature, yes CSM5 adhered to rules & requirements. I can't say that was a bad thing though, and it is not the same as "legislation". With CSM5 anyone who wished so could find out what CSM was doing, what was on the table, and if they wanted they could even find out which CSM member was pulling his or her weight or not.

CSM6 removed that transparancy, and while removing that it also removed its consistancy and a huge part of its visibility. All of which are required for any CSM having any platform or foundation other than individual preferences. Not to mention that it is what enables politician / lobbyist / networker / etc. alike to not get caught in a position of dependancy on either that which pays or that which feeds. As we have seen happen with CSM6, which found itself caught BETWEEN customers and CCP until it got in gear and back on stage (and even now a lot of folks on eveo and other forums still bitch about CSM6 being CCP's advocates, which is bull, but that perception alone is damn dangerous).

The lobbyist without due diligence or best practices in instrumentation is always dependant on that on which he feeds. If you want a lobbyist without these things to focus on more than what feeds him for longer than the noses are long, you're going to have to look at - what in these contexts - CSM5 engaged to employ as methods.

Any lobby group rests on specific individuals, without elements of accountability or required functionality that provides visibility or transparancy without a need to force that through crisis. A lobby group concept is not be default a bad thing, keep that in mind, but it does come with significant vulnerabilities to abuse. And EVE has seen its share of lobby groups over the years, some put together by CCP, and some that simply came to be out of customers and CCP on occasions. None of it ended in healthy manners, because transparancy / visibility / consistancy always lacked - because it always ended up in special brosef relations and status for virtual altars (so to speak).

Yes, everything always comes down to people, and their interaction, that is correct. But there is a difference between interaction that has fixed procedures / processes attached, with requirements for each, and the interaction which resides solely with the individual and personal engaging without fixed procedures / processes / requirements. It's similar to CCP's classic confusion of person = position != function.

A great and capable person can use the lobby concept to be vastly more effective for short term goals, depending on the type of organisation he has to penetrate and engage in. But that rapidly becomes an argument of finding the good human. Which is a fun quest, so to speak, and as history shows one not very reliable. This aside of the simple observation that lobbyism focuses specifically on that which serves itself. That is only natural, it has to feed itself to provide continuity for itself.

I can write a wall of text on that, but that would take things too far here. As I've pointed out before, the CSM concept NEEDS a strong element of lobby. But as the lobby focus has simple and common vulnerabilities, and is ONE instrument (or rather, should be just one - why limit yourself?) and it is here contained in an environment and interaction which does carry the "meta" of EVE (doh) AND it has to deal with a company where the biggest vulnerabilities are found in the dependancy on lobby concept application for organisation ... there is a need for a buffer against vulnerabilities on either side.

A buffer is not difficult. Rules, requirements, best practices. Particularly those which serve what mittens would call one of the requirements of "power" for CSM (not "of", but "for"). If you want results that benefit from continuity of either process or progress, you are going to need instruments and events that have a consistant transparancy and visibility. Lobby groups are very vulnerable to the ego factor, and are averse to these things. Why? Because these things remove the ego from the venture.

All of this is not simply a case of "nullsec" or "winter" or "rockets". It's about EVE. There is plenty room in that where lobby can strive for influence on a detail level, but if the whole is to be kicked in gear again (meaningfully) then that detail level and that method really should be just one part of it all. After all, CCP plans for longer than one CSM in its business cycle. And we've seen the results of CCP engaging on planning without taking the benefits of utilising CSM on both detail and big picture level. None of it has been going anywhere for years.


It's not black/white Mike. It isn't even either/or. There's no reliable focus on a detail level without engaging the big picture. And there, is where the "show" and "lobby" elements alike hit the wall. There is where -as mittens pointed out - the business begins. And that is really where the focus should be first and foremost, cause without that level, EVE walks under stone tablets (Seleene can explain that one better than I can).

Al Simmons
September 16 2011, 10:45:56 PM
So a lobby group would pay CCP to make their game better? Pretty sure we already do that.

Evelgrivion
September 16 2011, 11:03:37 PM
So a lobby group would pay CCP to make their game better? Pretty sure we already do that.

That's actually a remarkably good point, in a variety of ways.

thebomby
September 20 2011, 03:33:02 PM
All of this ignores the very basic and even more obvious fact that CCP only responds to bad PR and players unsubbing. They simply ignore everything else, because, as Torfi put it, they think players don't do game design. On top of this, they're very idiosyncratic and there is a lot of evidence that the Icelandic culture whence they come is one that tends to enforce the mentality of ignoring criticism and pushing on regardless.

The current CSM, as well as CSM5 would have been mostly ineffectual had it not been for 2010's :18months: summer of rage and this year's Incarnagate.

sivani2015
November 12 2011, 08:52:45 AM
Thanks for your nice information.

Scrum Challenges (http://learnsoftwareprocesses.com)

Mike deVoid
November 12 2011, 11:57:13 AM
Ban the bots!