Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
|
CCP Fallout
|
Posted - 2010.03.23 15:24:00 -
[1]
In addition to changes in the length of the Council of Stellar Management terms, we are pleased to announce that will be accepting candidates for the Fifth CSM. More information can be found in CCP Diagoras' newest dev blog.
Fallout Associate Community Manager CCP Hf, EVE Online Contact us |
|
Marlona Sky
D00M. RED.OverLord
|
Posted - 2010.03.23 15:47:00 -
[2]
1st in a dark day for the EVE Community with the removal of term limits. I guess we should welcome out new CSM dictators.
|
el caido
School of Applied Knowledge
|
Posted - 2010.03.23 16:02:00 -
[3]
Marlona, you're assuming the CSM matters.
Silly bear.
|
Destination SkillQueue
Are We There Yet
|
Posted - 2010.03.23 16:02:00 -
[4]
Originally by: Marlona Sky 1st in a dark day for the EVE Community with the removal of term limits. I guess we should welcome out new CSM dictators.
On the positive side, we can now stop wasting time getting to know any new candidates and just keep voting the same candidate each time, until he finally gets tired of taking free trips to Iceland.
|
Mashie Saldana
Red Federation
|
Posted - 2010.03.23 16:15:00 -
[5]
Yay, now we will have Fanfest freeloaders stuck at CSM for 12months per year...
|
T'Amber
www.shipsofeve.com
|
Posted - 2010.03.23 16:26:00 -
[6]
Edited by: T''Amber on 23/03/2010 16:29:21
T'amber for CSM5
I'm not sure on the time changes, but it would be cool if we could pool our votes for coalitions incase we fail by ourselves. Its also good to see all the support for csm above
-T'amber
Click to Support
|
Larkonis Trassler
Genos Occidere Sev3rance
|
Posted - 2010.03.23 16:35:00 -
[7]
Awwwww yeah.
Please resize your signature to the maximum file size of 24000 bytes. Zymurgist No. Larkonis |
Jason Edwards
Internet Tough Guy Spreadsheets Online
|
Posted - 2010.03.23 16:46:00 -
[8]
Quote: Term limits will be removed, and all people who have previously used up their term limits are æreset' - anyone can run again, and can be elected as many times as the voters see fit.
Lol. Csm failing to exist already? ------------------------ To make a megathron from scratch, you must first invent the eve universe. ------------------------ Life sucks and then you get podded. |
Katana Seiko
Gallente
|
Posted - 2010.03.23 16:50:00 -
[9]
Well, I think that a limitation is good and necessary. But a limitation of being re-elected once should be good. That also allows the person to run for office again after having a break of one year. --- "Multiple exclamation marks are a sure sign for a diseased mind." -Terry Pratchett |
Jack bubu
Lyonesse. RAZOR Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.03.23 16:52:00 -
[10]
good, more power to the CSM ;)
|
|
TeaDaze
|
Posted - 2010.03.23 16:58:00 -
[11]
I do wonder if that is a bit too soon for the next Iceland summit. Unless CCP expect CSM5 to consist of pretty much all returning candidates.
Getting up to speed in 3 weeks (whilst the Alliance Tourney is on too) is a big ask for people totally new to the process.
|
Ashina Sito
Gallente Center for Advanced Studies
|
Posted - 2010.03.23 17:01:00 -
[12]
Originally by: Mashie Saldana Yay, now we will have Fanfest freeloaders stuck at CSM for 12months per year...
Quote: The visit will take place in June, the first month of their taking office.
This will then be followed by a second visit in December.
There is no FanFest CSM summit, unless CCP is moving Fanfest out of October and changing it to June or December.
It's nice to see all the requirement information posted or linked to with the CSM announcement blog this time. Having a 3 day notice to get started with the CSM canidaite info is a bit short, but I guess it must be done. Time to get crackin' I guess.
My canidate post from the last CSM Election Ashina for CSM |
Rakshasa Taisab
Caldari Sane Industries Inc. Initiative Mercenaries
|
Posted - 2010.03.23 17:04:00 -
[13]
Originally by: Marlona Sky 1st in a dark day for the EVE Community with the removal of term limits. I guess we should welcome out new CSM dictators.
Better than having the number of voters half every term cause no one knows anything about the dregs of the barrel.
Though I would have suggested a cool-off period of one term after every two, just to rotate the seats a bit.
|
Ashina Sito
Gallente Center for Advanced Studies
|
Posted - 2010.03.23 17:10:00 -
[14]
Originally by: TeaDaze I do wonder if that is a bit too soon for the next Iceland summit. Unless CCP expect CSM5 to consist of pretty much all returning candidates.
Getting up to speed in 3 weeks (whilst the Alliance Tourney is on too) is a big ask for people totally new to the process.
I think they know this. I can't see the CSM 5/1 summit being of much use to CCP. It is unfortunate but something that must be done to set the CSM on the schedule they want it to run.
My canidate post from the last CSM Election Ashina for CSM |
Derus Grobb
Tribal Liberation Force
|
Posted - 2010.03.23 17:16:00 -
[15]
Looks like the CSM is getting a boost.
Good stuff CCP! ---
|
Kile Kitmoore
|
Posted - 2010.03.23 17:36:00 -
[16]
No term limits but is there a mechanism for recalling someone?
EVE is a very complex game, thank god. That complexity however makes it impossible for a handful of elected individuals to represent many aspects of the game. Divide the game into categories and CSM candidates should run on their expertise in those areas.
Please consider using EVE Gate, IGB and e-mail to help facility CSM communications and voter turnout.
|
ThorTheGreat
Caldari GoonWaffe SOLODRAKBANSOLODRAKBANSO
|
Posted - 2010.03.23 17:40:00 -
[17]
Originally by: Kile Kitmoore No term limits but is there a mechanism for recalling someone?
EVE is a very complex game, thank god. That complexity however makes it impossible for a handful of elected individuals to represent many aspects of the game. Divide the game into categories and CSM candidates should run on their expertise in those areas.
Please consider using EVE Gate, IGB and e-mail to help facility CSM communications and voter turnout.
yes csm candidates should be pigeonholed into arbitrary categories because you said so
|
Larkonis Trassler
Genos Occidere Sev3rance
|
Posted - 2010.03.23 17:40:00 -
[18]
Originally by: Marlona Sky 1st in a dark day for the EVE Community with the removal of term limits. I guess we should welcome out new CSM dictators.
U mad?
I do have my reservations about the term length and abolition of limits though. As seen with CSM 4 continuity isn't much of an issue, perhaps forbid people from doing 2 consecutive terms?
Please resize your signature to the maximum file size of 24000 bytes. Zymurgist No. Larkonis |
Larkonis Trassler
Genos Occidere Sev3rance
|
Posted - 2010.03.23 17:50:00 -
[19]
Originally by: ThorTheGreat
Originally by: Kile Kitmoore No term limits but is there a mechanism for recalling someone?
EVE is a very complex game, thank god. That complexity however makes it impossible for a handful of elected individuals to represent many aspects of the game. Divide the game into categories and CSM candidates should run on their expertise in those areas.
Please consider using EVE Gate, IGB and e-mail to help facility CSM communications and voter turnout.
yes csm candidates should be pigeonholed into arbitrary categories because you said so
What he said.
Funnily enough people tend to vote for the people they most relate to and to be brutally honest a candidate is probably better off with decent-good knowledge of all game mechanics rathat than being an expert in one field at the expense of others.
Please resize your signature to the maximum file size of 24000 bytes. Zymurgist No. Larkonis |
Meissa Anunthiel
Redshift Industrial Rooks and Kings
|
Posted - 2010.03.23 19:11:00 -
[20]
Originally by: Larkonis Trassler
Funnily enough people tend to vote for the people they most relate to and to be brutally honest a candidate is probably better off with decent-good knowledge of all game mechanics rathat than being an expert in one field at the expense of others.
Absolutely. The number of elected representatives over the terms who had no knowledge whatsoever of some aspects is not small. Some of them barely knew anything other than PvEing in Empire... There is no signature |
|
Vuk Lau
4S Corporation Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2010.03.23 19:18:00 -
[21]
If I get elected I will propose the rule that Herschel Yamamoto must be in CSM. Its a pity that he is missing his delegate spot for ages, while FreeTripToIcelandCrew is repeatedly getting in.
|
Virtuozzo
Against ALL Authorities
|
Posted - 2010.03.23 19:55:00 -
[22]
"Term limits will be removed"
So much for steering away from the CSM as special interest / advance insight group.
≡v≡
|
Ben Derindar
Dirty Deeds Corp.
|
Posted - 2010.03.23 21:18:00 -
[23]
I can understand the desire for longer terms for the sake of added delegate continuity, but I can't say I like the idea of unlimited terms, I'm afraid; not unless CCP raises the standard of requirement for becoming a candidate to begin with.
It's hard to have faith in a system when some of the delegates have clearly got in just for the luls, and would freely do so again given another chance.
/Ben
|
Serenity Steele
Dynamic Data Distribution
|
Posted - 2010.03.23 22:36:00 -
[24]
This looks to me like over-kill; both extending the period to 1 year PLUS making no limit on total number of sessions.
Taking the limit off enables good performers can do it for longer = good.
Extending the period to 1 year means: - non-contributing/incapable/stupid people stay longer = bad. - people will need to be kicked for non-participation = bad. - Still facing a risk of continuity every time the entire council can cycle = bad.
Would it not be better to state the terms are 6 months, existing members get an option to extend for 1yr? Council members nominating to step-down before election cycles, rather than having to be kicked because their life changes. A number of seats open each 6 month period, there is still continuity for people who get into it, there is still a chance to bow-out gracefully, there is still a medium-term period for new-blood to enter.
Not to mention the other interesting meta-gaming aspects of people demanding that specific council members step-down at the 6 month mark, encouraging others to stay the 1 year etc.
It would probably also have an interesting effect on the election periods, as there are less positions, people would have a greater impact on garnering votes to get in. The flip-side could ofc. be that larger voice powerblocks keep on inserting more candidates, with 2 strikes at the pie ;)
Buy ≡v≡ Strategic Maps in the Eve-Online Store |
JitaPriceChecker2
|
Posted - 2010.03.23 22:43:00 -
[25]
Posts nr 2 and 3 says it all.
|
Carniflex
StarHunt Systematic-Chaos
|
Posted - 2010.03.23 23:00:00 -
[26]
Hm. Perhaps one day I will run also for that spot in there. Next spring perhaps. I can already imagine the pitchforks and torches when I promise to lobby for removal of T2 BPO's and proper UI for industry.
6 months was pretty reasonable time interval for CSM in my opinion considering how 'fast' is time in EVE. However 1 year is still within more or less reasonable time interval. Just have to pick your candidates better.
|
Cat o'Ninetails
Rancer Defence League
|
Posted - 2010.03.24 00:01:00 -
[27]
vote cat
x
|
Dragon Greg
|
Posted - 2010.03.24 01:00:00 -
[28]
Originally by: Serenity Steele This looks to me like over-kill; both extending the period to 1 year PLUS making no limit on total number of sessions.
Taking the limit off enables good performers can do it for longer = good.
Extending the period to 1 year means: - non-contributing/incapable/stupid people stay longer = bad. - people will need to be kicked for non-participation = bad. - Still facing a risk of continuity every time the entire council can cycle = bad.
Would it not be better to state the terms are 6 months, existing members get an option to extend for 1yr? Council members nominating to step-down before election cycles, rather than having to be kicked because their life changes. A number of seats open each 6 month period, there is still continuity for people who get into it, there is still a chance to bow-out gracefully, there is still a medium-term period for new-blood to enter.
Not to mention the other interesting meta-gaming aspects of people demanding that specific council members step-down at the 6 month mark, encouraging others to stay the 1 year etc.
It would probably also have an interesting effect on the election periods, as there are less positions, people would have a greater impact on garnering votes to get in. The flip-side could ofc. be that larger voice powerblocks keep on inserting more candidates, with 2 strikes at the pie ;)
Looks like you're still thinking of the CSM as the CSM, whereas it seems CCP is moving ahead full speed encompassing CSM in SCRUM.
It is almost funny if it goes like announced now it'll bump into stuff players usually bump into in game, like kicking inactive directors and all that, I wonder if the chairman has a button to disband the CSM
As long as the CSM remains a political process, it will not become a viable stakeholder group within scrum since it solely represents special interest groups (representing polities) as opposed to general interest groups (representing clients).
|
Meissa Anunthiel
Redshift Industrial Rooks and Kings
|
Posted - 2010.03.24 01:20:00 -
[29]
Originally by: Dragon Greg
As long as the CSM remains a political process, it will not become a viable stakeholder group within scrum since it solely represents special interest groups (representing polities) as opposed to general interest groups (representing clients).
That is only true insofar as the only people voting are the ones with special interests.
However, despite the fact that most elected reps come from special interests, some of them have acted in the general interest and have had the knowledge necessary to make decisions with general regards to the impact to the whole community. There is no signature |
ThorTheGreat
Caldari GoonWaffe SOLODRAKBANSOLODRAKBANSO
|
Posted - 2010.03.24 01:24:00 -
[30]
Originally by: Dragon Greg
Originally by: Serenity Steele This looks to me like over-kill; both extending the period to 1 year PLUS making no limit on total number of sessions.
Taking the limit off enables good performers can do it for longer = good.
Extending the period to 1 year means: - non-contributing/incapable/stupid people stay longer = bad. - people will need to be kicked for non-participation = bad. - Still facing a risk of continuity every time the entire council can cycle = bad.
Would it not be better to state the terms are 6 months, existing members get an option to extend for 1yr? Council members nominating to step-down before election cycles, rather than having to be kicked because their life changes. A number of seats open each 6 month period, there is still continuity for people who get into it, there is still a chance to bow-out gracefully, there is still a medium-term period for new-blood to enter.
Not to mention the other interesting meta-gaming aspects of people demanding that specific council members step-down at the 6 month mark, encouraging others to stay the 1 year etc.
It would probably also have an interesting effect on the election periods, as there are less positions, people would have a greater impact on garnering votes to get in. The flip-side could ofc. be that larger voice powerblocks keep on inserting more candidates, with 2 strikes at the pie ;)
Looks like you're still thinking of the CSM as the CSM, whereas it seems CCP is moving ahead full speed encompassing CSM in SCRUM.
It is almost funny if it goes like announced now it'll bump into stuff players usually bump into in game, like kicking inactive directors and all that, I wonder if the chairman has a button to disband the CSM
As long as the CSM remains a political process, it will not become a viable stakeholder group within scrum since it solely represents special interest groups (representing polities) as opposed to general interest groups (representing clients).
This statement would make more sense if it wasn't the clients doing the voting.
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |