|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 34 post(s) |
Yeep
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
255
|
Posted - 2012.09.11 12:00:00 -
[1] - Quote
CCP Xhagen wrote: Regarding the navel-gazing; sometimes it is necessary to take a look at the foundation that is being worked from in order to move on. I think that making sure the CSM-system itself is working in a satisfactory manner is healthy for its long term effectiveness.
I think the main point is instead of discouraging the candidates who are currently organised you should be encouraging all the candidates to exhibit a similar level of organisation. |
Yeep
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
258
|
Posted - 2012.09.11 16:07:00 -
[2] - Quote
Bloodpetal wrote: #1 - Platforms.
CCP lays out a series of topics they want representation for and that they'd like to have on the CSM. This list should fit with their next 12 month cycle of dev.
So for example, the next 12 month development cycle should have the following platforms ::
Dust514 War Decs Hi-Sec Low-Sec Ship Balancing Faction Warfare Industry
This is terrible. A huge part of the CSM's remit is to communicate what they (via the players) feel CCP should be working on and this completely removes that (or at least ensures the CSM are unqualified). Someone elected on a platform of war decs is almost always going to say war decs need more work so war decs end up in the next CSM platforms list (also so they can get re-elected). |
Yeep
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
258
|
Posted - 2012.09.11 21:21:00 -
[3] - Quote
Bloodpetal wrote: Simplify the topics that each CSM is expected to run on, let them state their exact intentions for each topic with no bullshit and then have them campaign against each other on those topics and get players to vote for them based on the topic they want to push in the CSM.
You seem to be posting this idea multiple times per page and its still terrible. Direction should come from the CSM to CCP rather than the other way around. Issues are not neatly resolved in one CSM term. Things being discussed this term may not be implemented until next term or the one after.
What about issues CCP doesn't even think exist but the players are keen on? Which of your platform CSMs would represent those? |
Yeep
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
258
|
Posted - 2012.09.11 21:40:00 -
[4] - Quote
Dersen Lowery wrote: As long as the categories are non-exclusive and non-binding, I don't really see the problem. If a candidate had to make a statement on each one, that would make sense. If the candidate believes that CCP is flat-out missing something, they should be able to list that as an additional item that they intend to run on, and lay out a case that they intend to plead to CCP.
It also promotes the idea that Eve is a series of unconneted mini games (which it isn't obviously). Single issue candidates do not make good CSM members you want people with a broad view of whats best for the whole game. It also gives people the impression that the CSM is a game design council rather than an advisory and oversight board which leads to incorrect expectations of what the CSM can accomplish.
Categories are a terrible idea, constituencies are a terrible idea. |
Yeep
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
260
|
Posted - 2012.09.13 16:45:00 -
[5] - Quote
Josef Djugashvilis wrote:It does not matter, if for example, all the CSM are full time null sec players.
What matters is when, for example CCP say they want to look at hi-sec that the CSM is able to put aside their ingame bias (if indeed they have one) and work for the benefit of Eve as a whole.
The problem is even when they do this they get screamed at because whats best for eve as a whole is not necessarily best for high sec. |
Yeep
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
261
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 11:44:00 -
[6] - Quote
Frying Doom wrote:Lord Zim wrote:Frying Doom wrote:I am sorry you must really be one of the hi-sec carebears and not some one who voted for Goonswarm reps. So because I'm in goonswarm, I'm suddenly completely incapable of having my own opinions on anything? So you didn't vote for your CEO. You heartless bastard. Oh and there is of course the fact that I have never seen you not tow the same line as all the other members of Goonswarm but I would not accuse you of not having your own opinion as yours is the one the rest of the Goons seem to follow on these forums.
Have you considered the possibility that "the rest of the Goons" are actually smart people and independently came to a conclusion, and its different to the one that you came to because you are not so smart? |
Yeep
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
263
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 12:16:00 -
[7] - Quote
Frying Doom wrote: Your previous statement which are now to numerous to easily list refute this point.
Let me tell you a story about a guy we'll call Dying Froom.
One day Dying Froom goes to his doctor and is tragically diagnosed with cancer. Dying Froom believes strongly in homeopathy so he asks his doctor for a homeopathic cure. His doctor patiently explains that homeopathy has been scientifically proven not to work and points him to a number of studies to that effect. Dying Froom however is adament that homeopathy will cure his cancer and eventually the doctor has to give up because there is no effective treatment he can ethically reccommend that Dying Froom will accept.
Dying Froom leaves his doctor furious, what do doctors know about medicine anyway. If doctors don't believe in homeopathy they must all be stupid, and the scientists too. They must all be brainwashed into saying that homeopathy is fake, or paid off in some massive conspiracy. So Dying Froom goes on the internet and loudly denounces doctors and scientists because what do they know? He builds a massive pile of assumptions and falsehoods so that he can continue to believe that homeopathy actually works. At no point does he consider he possibility he might just be wrong. Eventually he dies of cancer.
Can you spot the parallels here? |
Yeep
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
263
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 15:16:00 -
[8] - Quote
Frying Doom wrote: And we are back to your original point"Have you considered the possibility that "the rest of the Goons" are actually smart people and independently came to a conclusion, and its different to the one that you came to because you are not so smart?"
And the answer in your case is "even posts score higher on the IQ tests."
So everybody who disagrees with you is stupid because they disagree with you because you're smart because you're you and you know you're smart so you can't be wrong.
Right? Or is my IQ too low and I'm missing something? |
Yeep
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
263
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 15:46:00 -
[9] - Quote
Frying Doom wrote:I do not consider Lord Zim, Snow Axe and a lot of others I am constantly differing with to be in anyway stupid, I believe they tow the party line a lot
Except you clearly hold their opinions is less regard because you don't believe they could have arrived upon them without "toeing the party line". |
Yeep
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
269
|
Posted - 2012.09.25 10:20:00 -
[10] - Quote
Dersen Lowery wrote: I'm presuming that if nobody knows them, they won't even get votes. If C is everybody's second choice, then C wins. I'm agnostic about which is "better." I just don't see how it's obvious that this result is worse than A or B getting elected, when a significant portion of the player base hates them.
Because Eve is a game and in order to maintain balance for one party to gain another has to lose. I'd rather have CSM members who are honest about that than shameless panderers who appeal to everyone but will have to break half their promises post-election. |
|
Yeep
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
269
|
Posted - 2012.09.25 17:57:00 -
[11] - Quote
Dersen Lowery wrote:Yeep wrote:Because Eve is a game and in order to maintain balance for one party to gain another has to lose. I'd rather have CSM members who are honest about that than shameless panderers who appeal to everyone but will have to break half their promises post-election. How can a voting system possibly correct for panderers? That's up to the voters. Under FPTP, the only thing that changes is that you have to pander to a sufficient number of voters, and screw the rest.
You can't remove them with a voting system, but if your aim with voting reform is to elect the people who inspire the least hate thats all you'll get because nobody can risk a radical opinion. Eve is a game about shooting people and taking their stuff, any worthwhile opinion is going to attract some hate. |
|
|
|