2015-10-24T22:01:17Z; baltakatei> CSM Roundtable - notes

22:02:37> Waiting for 2nd mic to kick off
> CCP Leeloo: I'm CSM coordinator (1)
> CCP Falcon: I'm EVE community manager (2)
> I"m Mike Ezaraiah (3)
> I'M EXdeath. Legion of Xdeath (4)
> J (5)
> Chance Ravine (wingspan) (6)
> I'm Grnsrm (7) //"grr"
> I'm Steve Lookin (8) (?)

> Which one of you are running again? (Steve raises hand)
> 7: I've had public things last year. It's been interesting-- we had forward momentum at
	summit. Really productive. Lot of good things done. Then a lot of that stuff got
	smashed into tiny bits. There was a huge NDA breach. It obliterated trust. We're
	borderline nonfunctional. When your dev can't talk to you, it's like... we've had
	internaly with CSM a number of people who say "why bother". We've had internal
	discussions. CSM has huge amount of potential. LEeloo and Falcon do an amazing job
	but they don't have a lot of support from their management that we need to help them
	with as CSM emmbers. I do have a lot of regrets on how this has gone off. If you
	have a developer (this is Larrakin's big announcement) how you walk into an and
	look someone in the eye regarding what you were about to announce.
> 2: You may have a lot of attaboys but it only takes one "oh shit" to <erase the benefit>
> 1: Sometimes actions of 1 person who accidentally (?) something, then dev doesn't want
	to work with you. there is little that we can do on our side.
> aud: We are aware.. How do you guys keep yourselves accountable. There's a lot of
	discussion on Reddit on what exactlyw as leaked. The issue is moving forward, what do
	you guys do ... both CCP and playership put you there. At the endof the day you have
	to be accountable to the playership... How do you fix this?
> 3: Some people don't have to attone. ONce elected, ther is no recal notice. you could
	have elected me and I could have done buggerall. Darius 3 did that and he got
	reelected. Last year and this year these were the most active CSMs based on activity.
	None of us are repsonsible to you. TO be elected, we just have to talk perty in the
	last month and still get elected. If you get elected by set electorate, there are
	people who don't have to campaign. They can be elected for as long as they want so
	there is no obligation to answer to you plebians.
> 5: This is going back to what cyan(?) is saying. The focus groups with T3Ds. You need to
	stop making CSM accountable and making organization work as a whole. Like Mike said,
	we have no requirement to be accountable. We could come to players and say "we argued
	for this" when they say the opposite in council. We talk about accountability, but
	functionality first, then transparency.
> 6: accountability. I like idea of accountability watch. How do people vote. Whenever
	there is any kind of update or feature proposed, and then going to CSM members and
	going to all opinions are brought out. Otherwise, CSM members can go to the public on
	their own and players have to put it into a picture in their heads on their own.
> 7: CSM doesn't have to answer to anyone. The idea of the CSM and what it can be-- we
	have a lot of good people who put in a lot of work. Maybe I don't agree with Chance,
	but he works hard, he puts into a lot of effort into this. When you're into a
	situation when you have a lack of support, by I mean, the CSM as an institution and
	you're making a case of accountability... -- We were going ot have focus groups, being
	able to bring in FC's and talk about NDA'd info. We're talking about expanding
	community access-- Some of us know one thing really wel, we don't know everything
	about that one thing. You bring in a lot of people-- trust that they won't leak
	everything. How do you make case for expanded community involvement when-- There needs
	to be a trust level to not sabotage the game for your own personal benefit.
> aud: On subj of accountability, there has been a lot of talk about individual CSM
	members, about when a change is amont, -- When bowhead was released, Mike you were out
	there that you were proud of and had pushed for You got credit . However, when
	wormhole and nullsec change was made, you got used as a political shield against any
	sort of upset from that thing. How do you guys feel about what you are given credit
	for by CCP?
> 7: the only bigger PR meatshield are those guys (Leeloo, Falcon). It's frustrating
	because there is a lot of good work that people give credit for. There is a lot of bad
	work where blame (?) parceled out. Mike has pushed heavily for-- It's difficult to
	balance giving CSM credit and not speaking on CSM behalf. CCP has to strike that
	balance or we have to solve as community or solve structurally. (?) visibility issue.
> 8: About wormhole change. Sol dragon took a lot of flak on that. While he talked about
	it, he wasn't the person to be behind it. I'm not goin got say who it was, but people
	may be able to work it from things that have been said. It's not that hidden. and no
	I'm not talking about corpx(?).
> 6: sort dragon does a lot of work.  Only thing I got recognition for was elimination of
	camera wobble.
> 2> This is something we discussed about how tight the NDA. What you can't take or not
	take credit for. Advocation. There is misconceptions about what CSM really is. As we
	can see about skill tree, there was a mixed reaction.
> 2: I'm not worried about spilling beans. CSM's reaction internally was very negative.
	It's something for the best part, you said it was something you didn't support and
	something you wer fond of. Bu tthe decision was then made, well, we'll put it to the
	wider community and see what people think. We cant to get a feedback from a wider
	demographic how they would use this. Some members of CSM have taken serious flak for
	something they "supported" or "advocated". Understand, while CSM can say this is great
	or this is stupid, or community will react this way-- they are not a veto community.
	They get to see what's on the drawing board. They are not in a position where "you
	cannot do this feature". They can advise against. They have done. It's not to the
	point that CSM can say "you cannot do this".
> 1: People sometimes bring features (pink skins) to CSM expecing them to force it in
	That is not something CSM can do. We have tools -- CSM can submit requests to devs
	(camera wobble).
> aud: You said CSM may change going forward. If change will go to more focus group entity,
	question as votor: what are some qualities going forward for CSM if it does change?
> 7: We have an organization that is not a focus group. We cannot be. You cannot
	democratically elect a focus group. Having access to focus groups would be wonderful.
	But it's not going to happen. There are smart EVE players. (3: some of you are dumb
	too). We've never adapated to the kind of community that we've become. The only way
	CSM can meet these challenges if we are not seeing this political figurehead. (?)
	We're just a bunch of space popular people. You may get good people you may not.
	But regardless of who is on CSM, EVE has a lot of good people. You can use democratic
	organization filter in people who are subject matter experts. That is as far as I can
	tell (I've spent 1 yr thinking of this) CSM is broken as an institution. That is only
	path forward.
> 7: If you are familiar with sugar kyle (?). She is a fantastic a CSM. They collect
	whole lot of feedback. The ability to gather lots of wormhole people. Devs find it
	valuable. It's not about (I am space important) you become a community facilitator to
	link CCP with players. That is something that we can do as a democratically elected
	CSM. You have legitimacy, you have the ability to (?)
> aud: question: I know you talked about accountability. . Between yourselves have an
	accountability of what each CSM member is doing. I've heard it's not a roundtable.
	Individual CSM member might work with devs one-on-one with dev. Do you see that? Are
	you not always aware of what is happening around the table?
> 5: We're not elected with accountability or elected with mandate to work as a team. We
	have no obligation to use those. You could get elected, think you're smarter than all,
	and send your ideas to devs. Some people operate on CSM don't talk to rest of CSM and
	convo devs privately. People take to CSM in different ways. Getting CSM to act as
	whole (we all agree on this) is very difficult. There's always 1 or 2 that abstain or
	object. There is no mandate to work as a team.
> 8: One thing I will say about no accountability and no mandat.e It comes down to the
	professionalism of those involved. Vast majority of people I have worked with on CSM.
	They talk to eachother. That's vast majority, I'm not saying all. Whether or not we
	should talk about that more is another question. Probably we should. It's a difficult
	if you want to maintain level of professionalism. Calling someone out is going to
	completely (?). It's a difficult one.
> 7: It's not just NDA leaks that has driven the councio. We have had number of leaks of
	our private skype channel. Ther eis ameasure of trust that you have to have with
	people you are working with. That trust doesn't exist at that current time. That
	leads to a lot of 1-1 convos. Devs are bieng told that you only need to talk to the
	one CSM you want. (?) It's the only way things are getting done at al. 1-1
	relationships. Unfortunate but it is how it is atm.
> 3: It's running joke in CSM "If any one of us is dumb enough to say "the CSM thinks")
	-- You get to say "you" think, you aren't allowe dto say you think X,Y,Z. <a lot of
	noise here. basically, CSM says that it's a running joke among 14 CSM members there
	is always some disagreement>
> aud: The problem coming form palyer side. Player-side frustration of why they should
	participate. If rabblerouse is only result, what can players do reduce drama cycle or
	make institution more effective so we see less of this roundabout (damage control and
	more actually working. It drags everyone down if we end up in circle of "he's a jerk".
> 3: Main mistak eis we keep electing politicians.
> 1: Biggest danger of voting. My opinion of CSM was low. Let's ay it like that. I
	started working with CCP and saw CSM from inside. I saw how much difference that work
	actually does that we do. The biggest danger is when you vote You can't guarantee that
	the member will actually do shit. It's been the case (we have gentlemen of person
	being accused of being inactive). He's inactive for a little while. (?) If I'm going
	to recommend change to allow CSM to act upon less active players. When I get word from
	CSM that perosn is inacive, -- CSM drama was mostly CSM 1, 2, ..... -- It was every
	single CSM unfortunately. I'm not sure if we can do anything to mitigate that.
> 6: EVE community loves drama. Part of it is on CSM. Part of is its on community side.
> 2: I can't fault CSM's efforts for as long as I've been with CCP. I'm in same position
	of Leeloo. I ran for CSM 1. Jake Constantine. Didn't want to be ins ame room with him.
	I had negative opinion of CSM. I don't want to be involved in it. I came to CCP and I
	see Sugar(?), Cyon(?), -- I see people show up with binders this thick of suggestions.
	I see people with reams of notes -- people who are spending hours of free time --
	pouring efforts. I was really wrong. One of most frustrating things is -- we've got
	to go to see what we can do to make CSM fully fucntional again In terms of how CCP
	works now. We've switched things sdrastically with new release cadence. Time scale.
	Some changes get out within a week. It's hard to go concept -> design -> internal
	-> feedback. This is one thing that come sup (missilelauncher count). CSM didn't see
	rebalances to missile launchers. CCP said small changes will bypass CSM and go straight
	to singularity. We need to go back to drawing board. Chance said EVE community loves
	drama, backstab. It's just something you ahve to mitigate as much as possible. Leeloo
	and I are trying to mitigate this.
> 1: There is investigation going on. That's all I can say
> aud: I'm 8-year-player. I have -- We're not mega corp. Some are lowsec. We see CCP as a
	old boy's club of lobbyists. We don't give shit about anyway, goonswarm fed, etc. that
	the non megacorps don't matter. I think if you guys get rid of your poitical climbing
	and backstabbing, there is no way to prescreen anyone's integrity. I found that when
	our corp got raped for 4b. If you find a way amongst yourselves to represent the
	serious players that are in small corps as well as the megas, I think you'll have a
	much cleaner filter to work with.
> 3: I'm not a megacorp or one. Cyon (? - "zion"?) is person I would point to. I have
	never in 2 years I have worked with him suspected that anything he was doing was
	goon-motivated for goon motivated. I've never found his -- (aud: that's the
	perception, though).
> 2: Simple explanation: this is perception some people have, and that is wrong.
> 7: I don't see distinction between mega or small corps People are engaging in EVE
	sandbox. As coalition, it is ultimately long-view in the best interest of our players
	that the entirety of the game be the best game it can be. That means respecting
	veterans, rookies, miners, PVPers. All this is important if you are talking about
	advocacy.. As player representatives. We aren't representing -- we have -- it's not
	self interest -- It's for interest of people who voted for them -- I'm going to do,
	by proxy, to do the best job I can to best of my ability - do something for the
	community because it is for the best of the community. -- <pushing for single-purpose
	advantages helps one group, and hurts others> You can't take this as narrow view. Most
	people up here (except maybe all). We diagree (with other CSM) all the time.
> 2: We had a bit of discussion. It went out in last CSM minutes. Why don't we try to restructure summit to have sessions occur at the same time. We looked at shceduling highsec dealing with highsec guys, null sec guys with nullsec guys. The focus right now for CCP is on nullsec. Citadels. Capitals. We actually sat down in nullsec sessions. During convos, he brought up some valid points (guy who focuses on highsec) about things that occur in nullsec can impact highsec activities. I have seen CSM members -- I look at public stuff ("He's only on CSM to help this coalition"). I have seen CSM members that argue against things that would benefit their own alliance because overall it is better for the long term health of the community. Democracy is popularity. whoever wins most votes wins. I would say to hisec people who are not being represented. Get candidate. Get them onto CSM. That's how it works.
> 2: I've made a point of going to a player gathering. I'll wear a goon or some apparel
	... I love fueling conspiracy theories. It makes EVE what is is. I love messing with
	people. I'm trolliest person at CCP, I guess.
> 3: He posed with goon pin on his clothing in picture with girl dressed as a bee.
> 2: It's good that you brought it up (aud asking about CSM bias). (aud: but it is a
	perception in community)
> aud: Because of nature of EVE (permanency) means there are people heavily invested in
	EVE. Par tof issue is when these issues come up, when there's drama or misconduct,
	RMT allegations, it's difficult as a player who is not involved (or at CCP's POV),
	it's hard to see impact of this. It's hard to hear from CCP that CCP is seeing or that
	CCP is looking into it. It's good to hear that CCP is looking into issues. It would be
	good if CCP can help reduce reddit flamewars (other aud: reddit cannot be stopped).
> aud: As potential CSM, it was a bit of a clownshow. All indications show this year's
	election is already going to be a clownshow. That's my assessment of the situation.
	I want to know how you feel abou the election process how you thought previous
	election went and more importantly are there any important lessons for next CSM
	election.
> 2: It's politics. Politics is always a clownshow.
> aud: <There are still CSM apps coming in. - interviews>. Community can help. It's going
	to be up to "us and the team that we create" and to go through with a critical eye and
	say "what are you doing". It will come to us (//who is "us"? interviews?). CSM fucked
	up. We need to put more effort into process. <no idea what this audience member
	is talking about, but panel knows>
> 5> It's almost november and there are dozens of campaign entries. I was elected to talk
	about NPSI. CCP Falcon has said focus has been null. Candidates need to be able to act
	professional. Candidates need to be able to be conversant with all fields. Candidates
	need to be able to comment on direction of EVE (in general) it would show voters who
	they would want o be representing and help CCP go forward into the future.
> 6: I didn't think election process was a clownshow. There were youtube profiles.
> 7: When you say clownshow, you are saying that the community is chaotic. Nobody can
	control this. As for as mechanics, webpages worked. It was super smooth. If we are
	worried about having too many people running.... why is that a worry?
> aud: Q1: Yous ay "we have no obligation, we have no obligation" it feels you have a
	moral obligation to forward the game as a whole. It sounds like your'e saying that
	but--. Q2: You guys talk about focus groups, but it sounds like the CSM prevents or
	is a better solution--beacuse focus groups --summit (?) --it seems CSM gives a great
	cross-focus-group-communication. I think that works well. Are you going to focus
	groups? Are you thinking hybrid is best (//I'm not grasping what audience member says)
> 8: If you are not a professional candidate, don't run. If you are doing it as a joke,
	don't run. Don't waste everyone's time.
> aud: I find player groups important. Couldn't we solve 90% of issues if we removed
	secret access info from company?
> 1: One reason for CSM having access is to stop CCP from doing stupid shit.
> 2: We have some super sensitive stuff shown at CSM. I don't think we don't that should
	stop. There is a huge benefit from sitting down with people who know their shit. I
	think taking away access (privileged info) would be bad. It's good to have a sounding
	board of people who have put so many hours into the game. As for leaks, if it is one
	individual that leaks info, we can act on it. We can set example that we're not going
	to screw around. If people are going to mess with our trust, and going ot use the CSM
	as a shitshow to get a bit of publicity to make themselves look good, they'll end up
	on end of a very painful sharp stick.
//ended note-taking due to timeout - moving to structure presentation