"Some of the best parts of EVE happen outside the game."

The time has come to take a peak at the results of Monday's CSM poll. Every once in a while I like to do these just to see what the results are like.

They are just for fun, and not particularly scientific.



The Results

At the beginning of the poll, nearly 94% of those who took it said they were voting this year.
Question 2 asked why the non voters were not voting this year, with the following options: (You could choose multiple reasons)

1. In the end it doesn't matter
2. I don't like any of the candidates
3. I don't think my vote matters.
4. The election is rigged
5. The voting process is too hard/inconvenient
6. I don't care about the CSM
7. My account is not active at the moment
Other

The few people who admitted to not planning to vote chose a variety of options, with 1-3 selects on every options except "I don't like any of the candidates" which got no selects.

"In the end it doesn't matter" got the most selects with 3 in total.



Only 67% of the people taking this poll voted in the last CSM elections.
This pseudo random sampling shows over a 25% increase in votes since last year.


The majority of people have between 1-3 votes, with 34% having 2.
7 People claimed to have 5 or more votes, and 3 claimed to have no idea how many they had.


Question 5 was a general question, asking, on a scale of 1 to 5 how Representative the participants thought the CSM has been, overall.

The answers were somewhat symmetrical with 34 people choosing a 3.  27% chose 4, 18% chose 2, and the number who chose 1 and 5 were exactly equal.


What They Said:

"CSM has a solid understanding but it lacks certain play styles"

"Currently to many null sec, block voted charecters in csm6"

"Did a decent job in the beginning of their term, lost sight of the "constituents" towards the end."

"I give it a 2 for representation because the CSM is representative but mostly to one particular group, null sec."

"The Individual CSM member represents players that think the same way they do. GOOD CSM members generally work towards the continued health of the game as a whole."

"Currently too monolithic over previous CSMs"

"Nullsec seemed overly dominant with respect to the actual population in CSM 6"

" I can't claim to have access to the stats necessary to draw a conclusion about the make-up and desires of the player base. That's something even CCP would have trouble quantifying, and the forums are never going to be an adequate or representative sample size."

"In the high level stuff they do well - e.g. no Incarna at the expense of FIS, and no golden ammo, but they obviously all have their own axe to grind. They represent their constituents well, not necessarily the whole player base."

"Across all terms, the CSM has provided good representation with the possible exception of FW/Low Sec. Although people will whine that CSM6 focused on null sec only, it's not unreasonable that in a given term one area of the game in sore need of attention gets that attention."

"There's a decent mix of CSM members that represent the views that matter to me. I did not select 5 because of the predominantly nullsec representation and the lack of lowsec/FW representation."

"I believe the membership of the CSM is not representative, however most of the members have made an effort to represent other groups, and members of underrepreseted groups like two step have evidently been given a strong say on their areas."

"It is sort of a first for gaming and MMO from what I have seen. Bridging the gap between the Community and Devs."

"Too concentrated on nullsec"

"Elections do not choose "the best candidates" they select for those who can best win elections."

"Badly fractured empire vote leads to nullsec dominance of the CSM"



Even though many were skeptical at how Representative the CSM is, over 50% of the participants rated the CSM with a 4 or 5 out of 5 for Effectiveness. 35% of the participants chose middle ground at a 3 out of 5 rating.


What They Said:

"Combined with the riots they got the job done. Without riot i don't think they would have."

"Recently the CSM had made strides to become more effective, that's not to say they are fully there yet, but their voice is being heard."

"Giving this a 3. CSM 5 made great strides in communicating with CCP and the players. I believe CSM 6 did major work with CCP during the summer of rage. Other than that I don't believe the CSM has been very effective at all outside of sucking up free trip to Iceland and providing a giant troll fest during campaign season."

"Insufficient communication with the playerbase"

"Their dealings with the summer of rage and into Crucible were huge"

"better since csm6"

"The CSM educates CCP about the way their game is played, what their players are thinking, how players behave, and what the potential impacts of game changes might be; CCP is not good at discerning this stuff for themselves."

"Mittens brought a lot to the table by way of opening up communication between CCP and the CSM/playerbase. Communication being the bottleneck that prevents/promotes bad/good ideas."

"It sure has to have had a part durring the Summergeddon last year to what ended up making Crucible such a good "Expansion"."

"Well, at least Mittens is good at CLAIMING the CSM has been "extremely influential", but narcissistic asshats are really great at "stolen glory"--taking credit for others' actions and accomplishments."

"Hard to quantify, depends heavily on what you think the CSM is for, this CSM mainly cashed in on player outrage and claimed credit for things they may or may not have actually had any say in"



The top two reasons people are voting for whom they are voting for is because:

• "My candidate represents my game play" at 41% and
• "I'm voting for my candidate because I like what they have to say" at 38%.

12% of the participants voted for a candidate they feel will push a specific thing they want doen in game.
Nobody voted for someone randomly.


What They Said:

"I'm voting for Hans because he, like myself, are low sec dwellers. While I am not in FW I feel Hans has a broad understanding of the game well enough to adequately support my interests to CCP from a low sec dweller stand point. I also hope that Hans won't take shit lying down from the null sec bloc people. Low sec should be its "own" entity not a test bed for null."

"They understand why WH space is good, and seem to want to keep it that way."

"I voted for Hans, Prom and T'amber. Hans Lagerblitzen for his FW/lowsec platform and I tend to agree with most of his views. Prom because he's a human EFT and very knowledgeable about the PVP aspects of the game (read: spaceships). T'amber, previous CSM misgivings aside, because damnit, I want to see a hot pink Scorpion someday."

"I'm almost definitely in the minority, but I voted for a candidate for another play style because I believe that playstyle deserves representation."

"I voted Seleene. His "immersion" ideas are by far some of the best I've heard -- and he's in favor of creating a basic "story" and using mechanics to reflect that, rather than 'arbitrary mechanics are arbitrary' as CCP plays it now."

"I am also hoping their victory is a pain in the ass to others."

"Because I think voting is important, regardless of the fact, who my candidate is."

"My candidates will approach CCP with the changes players want"

Only 8% said they would vote to eliminate the CSM altogether, though nearly 40% said they would change the nomination process, and over 37% said they would change the voting process.


What They Said:

"Its allways good to have someone speak up for you."

"Better to have some representation than none at all"

"The CSM is clearly a unique entity that no other MMO or game has. It's not to say the process can't be improved but should not be removed."

"The players still need a voice. CSM is unprecendented and should not be lost. CCP NEEDS the sounding board/combined input."

"The CSM has stopped in their tracks some really bad ideas floated by CCP--ideas which clearly show a lack of awareness about the game, how it is played, and community mindset/behaviors."

"While I have not been directly following the CSM too much until reciently, I feel it still is something that has value to the EVE community and game, is unique to EVE alone, and may continue to add value as well as the potential to grow as EVE grows. With the scale of EVE and the unknown of the future, EVE and its community may exist and develop for a very long time."

"It just doesn't matter."

"Direct survey of players is better than some guys opinions."

"Some of the best parts of EVE happen outside the game."



With regards to changing the nomination process, Almost all comments were with regard to adding some sort of 'primary' or 'political party' aspect to the nomination so that each election is sure to have an equal representation across play styles, or removing the 'like' system, as most said it was ineffective the way it's currently set up.

With regards to changing the VOTING process, many people said they'd like to see in-game voting, rather then voting via the website. One suggestion was to have a pop up on the login or character selection screen so that more people will vote.