CSM
Sunrise Aigele

I have voted in the CSM XI elections. I am not going to offer explicit endorsements, nor will I offer my ballot.

What I will offer is the thesis that I used to vote: The CSM is not a formal institution, and it cannot be a formal institution. The various attempts to repurpose it as a committee of stakeholders, or as an equal, or to foist upon it any parliamentary measures and protocols, have all failed to one degree or another. The difference in responsibility between volunteers for whom EVE is a game and professionals for whom it is a livelihood is a chasm that no white paper will bridge. The people who have succeeded, without burning themselves out, are the ones who approach CSM as a group of individuals who are enthusiastic about the game talking to individuals who are enthusiastic about the game. The restraint to not become “passionate,” to use a frequent euphemism; the wisdom to approach different people differently; the empathy to see the other person’s point of view; the patience to realize that no CSM member can force CCP to do anything, no matter how important it seems to them; these are more important than any formal rules.

To that I would add that while CCP delights in the ways that we metagame each other, they do not appreciate being metagamed themselves. EVE is our pastime, but it is their livelihood. Metagaming the developers crosses an important line. Even if they cannot prove anything, they will suspect, and any suspicion heralds a breakdown in trust, which ends the effectiveness of that CSM and damages the institution overall.

Apart from those rules, I did not vote for any bloc candidates. It is the responsibility of their bloc to vote for them.

I urge everyone to vote. It does not take long. It can make a difference. Choose wisely.


Comments

CSM — 3 Comments

  1. Interesting post but I must disagree. Blind enthusiasms has lead to the downfall of every organization in history. We need passionate people who care about the game instead of pretending everything is great.

    • Thank you for writing.

      I am not sure where I asked for blindness. I am asking for personable enthusiasm and an emphasis on human interaction, not for enablers and yes-men. People with shared enthusiasms disagree regularly, sometimes strongly.

      For example, after I listened to your Cap Stable interview you landed a spot on my ballot, precisely because of the principles stated in the post. You are optimistic, focused on dialog with CCP, and running on a broad base of knowledge and experience.

      Good luck in the election!

  2. Ah. I’m sorry then, I misread then. I understood shared enthusiasm as meaning supporting CCP in their decisions; and restraint not to become passionate as restraint from criticising them too harshly because it’s a business.
    Anyway, thank you for voting.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *