Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [8] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 38 post(s) |
|
CCP Xhagen
C C P
|
Posted - 2008.04.11 15:18:00 -
[211]
Originally by: Chribba Will there be a "none of the above" option for the voting - like in RL voting, or will this be a "only X pilots voted so we blame it on lack of participation" rather than people being unhappy with it all?
IIRC Zapateros post of the EON awards, there was less pilots voting in total than pilots flying with the Goons. Which in that case made it pretty easy to blame lack of participation rather than maybe people being unhappy with the choices?
There will be an 'abstain' option. ____________________________
EVE Online CCP Games |
|
Candy
Developmental Neogenics Amalgamated
|
Posted - 2008.04.13 03:58:00 -
[212]
Originally by: CCP Xhagen
Originally by: Chribba Will there be a "none of the above" option for the voting - like in RL voting, or will this be a "only X pilots voted so we blame it on lack of participation" rather than people being unhappy with it all?
IIRC Zapateros post of the EON awards, there was less pilots voting in total than pilots flying with the Goons. Which in that case made it pretty easy to blame lack of participation rather than maybe people being unhappy with the choices?
There will be an 'abstain' option.
Will it be possible to vote against the concept entirely? That is, to vote to prevent the creation of such a council?
|
Juwi Kotch
Gallente VIRTUAL LIFE VANGUARD Carpe Universitas
|
Posted - 2008.04.13 18:27:00 -
[213]
What harm could such a Council do, that you see a need to prevent it?
Juwi Kotch
Discussion Board |
Candy
Developmental Neogenics Amalgamated
|
Posted - 2008.04.13 19:28:00 -
[214]
Originally by: Juwi Kotch What harm could such a Council do, that you see a need to prevent it?
Juwi Kotch
First and foremost, it gives a large amount of power to a small group of individuals, a concept that has consistently failed on the Internet from day one. Second, that small group of individuals will inevitably end up representing the large player blocs and not the playerbase as a whole (see "of the Year" voting for an example of this kind of popularity contest). Third, it will allow CCP to assign responsibility for failures and mistakes to those entrusted with overseeing it's progress. "Don't like a new feature or content change? Not our fault, you picked these guys." Finally, it does what so many other government entities mistakenly do, and that is to put decisions that should be handled by experts into the hands of people who are not by any reasonable measure.
The whole purpose of this council was to allow a select group of players behind the scenes access to make sure that the game is run fairly. That's all. Since then, it has morphed from a simple mechanism for oversight into a full-fledged Board of Directors.
In short:
A 'No Council' choice would allow someone to vote to maintain the careful, incremental changes to the game instead of entrusting it's future to a group of rabid sensationalists.
Note: If you've picked up on the general distrust I have in any 'novel' form of government, it's because I've lived in the US my entire life.
|
DigitalCommunist
Obsidian Core
|
Posted - 2008.04.13 19:52:00 -
[215]
I agree with Candy.
If you want democracy, then give us the right to choose between your CSM format and something else. Otherwise, this feels like a digitization of everything wrong in modern government, namely, having to pick between individuals who'll speak on their own behalf and face zero accountability for it.
Alternatives to your CSM;
- A monarchy, with established methods of obtaining royalty status, complete with lineage and order of succession. - A socialist republic - A technocracy - Bi-monthly CSMs done in a simple chat channel |
Juwi Kotch
Gallente VIRTUAL LIFE VANGUARD Carpe Universitas
|
Posted - 2008.04.13 19:54:00 -
[216]
Originally by: Candy First and foremost, it gives a large amount of power to a small group of individuals, a concept that has consistently failed on the Internet from day one.
No, the power is minuscule and influential only. I don't know where such has been tested already, and if that has failed or not. The concept and structure as demonstrated by CCP looks good to me, and offers chances to actually succeed in my understanding.
Originally by: Candy Second, that small group of individuals will inevitably end up representing the large player blocs and not the playerbase as a whole (see "of the Year" voting for an example of this kind of popularity contest).
You should read the main CSM document, and look at the list of the candidates. There are many who do not belong to one of the big power blocks, and the method to bring up topics allow to that to all who are interested. If only the power blocks are interested, well, then it is that way, just like the fact that 90% of all EVE pilots live in Empire, and thus probably carebear issues will domain. Interestingly, the powerblocks are all 0.0...
Originally by: Candy Third, it will allow CCP to assign responsibility for failures and mistakes to those entrusted with overseeing it's progress. "Don't like a new feature or content change? Not our fault, you picked these guys."
No, it is clearly stated, that the CSM has no powers at all, but voicing positions. Any decision will be fully on part of CCP.
Originally by: Candy Finally, it does what so many other government entities mistakenly do, and that is to put decisions that should be handled by experts into the hands of people who are not by any reasonable measure.
There are many candidates which have many years of experience in MMOGs in general or in EVE in particular. What expertise do you expect they don't have?
Originally by: Candy The whole purpose of this council was to allow a select group of players behind the scenes access to make sure that the game is run fairly. That's all. Since then, it has morphed from a simple mechanism for oversight into a full-fledged Board of Directors.
I don't see this. Actually, nothing at all has changed since the first idea was presented, only details have been added.
Originally by: Candy In short:
A 'No Council' choice would allow someone to vote to maintain the careful, incremental changes to the game instead of entrusting it's future to a group of rabid sensationalists.
You are assigning much more power to the CSM members as they have. The individual member cannot do much at all. The CSM as a body is a tool the EVE community can use to voice their wishes ans opinions to CCP. If that tool is powerful or not, we will see. After we have had the first CSM in action, we can start to judge.
Juwi Kotch
|
Juwi Kotch
Gallente VIRTUAL LIFE VANGUARD Carpe Universitas
|
Posted - 2008.04.13 19:57:00 -
[217]
Originally by: DigitalCommunist I agree with Candy.
If you want democracy, then give us the right to choose between your CSM format and something else. Otherwise, this feels like a digitization of everything wrong in modern government, namely, having to pick between individuals who'll speak on their own behalf and face zero accountability for it.
Alternatives to your CSM;
- A monarchy, with established methods of obtaining royalty status, complete with lineage and order of succession. - A socialist republic - A technocracy - Bi-monthly CSMs done in a simple chat channel
Just to reiterate again, the CSM members can hardly do anything on their behalf. There will be a quite elaborately structured method in place to collect the EVE communities wishes what the CSM presents before CCP. You may read more about that on the general CSM paper linked to at the original topic of this thread, in particular pages 16 and 17.
Juwi Kotch
|
Candy
Developmental Neogenics Amalgamated
|
Posted - 2008.04.13 20:28:00 -
[218]
Originally by: Juwi Kotch Truncated in the interest of post size reduction. See above.
Clearly there is a disagreement. You think there should be a council, I don't. You have the opportunity to support it's creation, I have no means to vote against it. Why not, in the interest of fairness and full participation, allow those of us who disagree with you to have a say?
Also, I've carefully read the document and examined the candidates. My concern is not the amount of power they have, but the fact that they have any at all. Either they have enough power to make serious changes to the game, and there is cause for concern, or they don't, and they have no purpose at all.
Originally by: DigitalCommunist - A monarchy, with established methods of obtaining royalty status, complete with lineage and order of succession.
This should also be another voting option. |
Juwi Kotch
Gallente VIRTUAL LIFE VANGUARD Carpe Universitas
|
Posted - 2008.04.13 20:45:00 -
[219]
You're correct, we have different opinions here. And I have never said that I'm opposing an option to vote against such a council, I only wanted to know why you are thinking such a possibility is needed.
The power of the CSM is only influential. The CSM cannot get anything done against the will of CCP. In that case, it would be in fact powerless and unnecessary. But that is not the point. The CSM is a step to and part of a more formalized approach to gather the player base's opinions and to get it discussed in more productive way then via boards.
I'm optimistic that this is a good idea and has some potential. If that really works out, we will see. It will probably need a few CSMs until everything is worked out, but it is a beginning. If CCP does not give it any chance to do what it is set up to do, it will deteriorate into a free trip system to Iceland for some players and be cancelled earlier or later. It will be one of the major tasks of the first two or three CSMs to avoid this.
Juwi Kotch
|
Ben Derindar
Dirty Deeds Corp. Axiom Empire
|
Posted - 2008.04.15 09:28:00 -
[220]
Candy & DC make fair points. For a long time I felt pretty much the same way, questioning the need for the CSM to begin with. But it's been clear from the beginning that CCP have wanted to make this happen (even if the original scope has changed somewhat with time), so instead of fighting the system, I chose to work within it and see what - if anything - could still be accomplished.
Perhaps for future CSMs, players could be given the opportunity to vote yes or no for each candidate. That way, people who can't decide between multiple candidates could vote for each of them, and those who oppose the system entirely can vote no to everyone. Granted, it's not quite the same as saying no to the system itself, but it's the next best thing for those who feel that way.
If nothing else, it would be interesting to see if anybody's net vote count would even be positive as a result.
/Ben
Ben Derindar: Eve CSM candidate
|
|
|
CCP Xhagen
|
Posted - 2008.04.17 12:34:00 -
[221]
Originally by: DigitalCommunist I agree with Candy.
If you want democracy, then give us the right to choose between your CSM format and something else. Otherwise, this feels like a digitization of everything wrong in modern government, namely, having to pick between individuals who'll speak on their own behalf and face zero accountability for it.
Alternatives to your CSM;
- A monarchy, with established methods of obtaining royalty status, complete with lineage and order of succession. - A socialist republic - A technocracy - Bi-monthly CSMs done in a simple chat channel
I'm not claiming that the first run will be perfect. But we are going ahead with it and will then take further steps when we will have further information. ____________________________
EVE Online CCP Games |
|
|
CCP Xhagen
|
Posted - 2008.04.17 12:36:00 -
[222]
Edited by: CCP Xhagen on 17/04/2008 12:38:47 The candidate application have been reviewed and mail to all applicants has been sent out.
In total we received 97 applications, of them 64 were accepted and 33 were rejected. The reason for rejection was mostly due to the application itself not being properly filled out, or the passport was either not supplied by the applicant or it was an invalid passport.
The official candidate section will be published before the coming weekend.
Further information will be published once I have complied them.
The voting period will open up the 5th of May and be open for two weeks.
____________________________
EVE Online CCP Games |
|
Hamfast
Gallente
|
Posted - 2008.04.17 14:21:00 -
[223]
Originally by: CCP Xhagen
In total we received 97 applications, of them 64 were accepted and 33 were rejected.
OMG, all the people I wanted to vote for have been rejected!!! I have nobody left I want to vote for...
Oh, wait, that's real life
Looking forward to the published list of candidates and the official start of the campaign season.
|
Hamfast
Gallente
|
Posted - 2008.04.17 14:44:00 -
[224]
Originally by: Candy
Originally by: Juwi Kotch
Truncated in the interest of post size reduction. See above.
Truncated in the interest of post size reduction. See above.
Originally by: DigitalCommunist
Truncated in the interest of post size reduction. See above.
I think there is a mistake in perception, the CSM has no power to change things, the game is in fact the intellectual property of CCP, and to offer up the power to change that property would be a really bad idea...
The Power the CSM has is they are allowed to ask questions and CCP has in fact promised to answer... how many times have we posted issues and problems we have seen, the thread grows to 5, 6, 10 pages... and there is no reply from CCP? When the CSM asks a question on our behalf, CCP has stated they will answer...
The problems I see with the CSM at this point is there are so many expectations from the ill-informed player base that seem to think the CSM will have power to fix things, and when there are few if any changes, they will give up on it...
The other side of the coin is just as bad, if CCP totally ignores the CSM (uses it for propaganda and advertisements only) fails to live up to their side of the bargain as it were, and I think the CSM will be more of an anchor then an Afterburner...
We need to both keep our sceptisim and hopes in check, voice our opinions and read the replies, but lets reserve our final opinions on the validity of the CSM until after the fact, if it crashes and burns, I will be right there with you to decry the failure, but until that time, I will try to keep an open mind and give it the benifit of the doubt.
|
|
CCP Xhagen
|
Posted - 2008.04.18 16:30:00 -
[225]
Candidate list is up ladies and gents.
Here it is. |
|
Zubb Ionesco
Audentia et Artis
|
Posted - 2008.04.18 16:52:00 -
[226]
Eligible are only those who can afford to fly to Island, so do what you want but please don't call this farce "democratic". I call to boycott this election. ----------------- Never knock on Death's door. Ring the bell and run! Death hates that. |
Hardin
Amarr Epitoth Fleetyards Vigilia Valeria
|
Posted - 2008.04.18 20:04:00 -
[227]
Edited by: Hardin on 18/04/2008 20:04:14
Originally by: CCP Xhagen Candidate list is up ladies and gents.
Here it is.
Thanks. Just to point out that at present the list of candidates incorrectly links my site:
The proper URL is:
http://hardinfaq.blogspot.com/
Please can you correct this!
Cheers
|
Omber Zombie
Gallente Frontier Technologies
|
Posted - 2008.04.19 06:30:00 -
[228]
Originally by: Zubb Ionesco Edited by: Zubb Ionesco on 18/04/2008 17:01:58 Eligible are only those who can afford to fly to Island, so do what you want but please don't call this farce "democratic". I call to boycott this election.
PS: just read inside the list of canditates... they are either naive-eagerly fools or they just making fun of the whole thing. Hardly any seems adult and serious enough to come into question for acting in the name of other people. And certainly not in mine!
since the first statement you made is based on you not reading or comprehending, you may want to re-evaluate your second statement.
also, the website listed for me is wrong on the official list - the site is http://omberzombie.wordpress.com/ ----------------------
CSM 08 Blog | 1st Campaign Vid |
HelloDolly
|
Posted - 2008.05.20 04:17:00 -
[229]
Originally by: Tasko Pal What is the mechanics of the actual vote? Do I just vote for one CSM candidate and the top X of them become part of the CSM? Could someone point me to documentation about that?
This is detailed in the PDfs linked to in the head post. Each account gets one vote. The nine candidates with the most votes are appointed to the CSM and the following five candidates become the alternates.
IZ (http://myeve.eve-online.com/download/devblog/CSM.pdf page 15) Thank you for answering that question. Unfortunately I did not know the answer prior to voting. CCP, for the future, please see to it that voting instructions are placed more prominently. A simple note on the candidate page could have helped along with a link to the above mentioned .pdf file.
I wonder if it was intentional to force voters to log in prior to viewing candidate details. I would prefer that it not have been. Rather than the official candidate page, I found it easer to Find and view (via an external web browser) the candidates at http://www.eve-csm.com/.
I did appreciate the official candidates page (once found) and the offering of web server space for the candidate home pages.
I look forward to working with the council on new player related concerns.
Thank you for making the election happen.
|
manasi
Ceptacemia Fallout Project
|
Posted - 2008.05.21 14:23:00 -
[230]
Edited by: manasi on 21/05/2008 14:23:37 Could we get results? Today? It is after DT....I thought that today was the day and there would be much fanfare etc...perhaps not?
|
|
Admiral Nova
Strike Team Nova
|
Posted - 2008.05.21 20:25:00 -
[231]
Edited by: Admiral Nova on 21/05/2008 20:28:52 It looks like based on the results the top 9 candidates were elected on 53.3% of the votes, the other 47% of voters in the end had no say at all.
The average vote of the top 9 was 1408 votes, which means that had they been able to express their preferences at least 7 of the 9 elected could have easily been replaced with others, prefered by the majority. We simply were given an election system where people were punished for supporting candidates that were less likely to win by essentially having their vote thrown out. A more representative system allows preference to be taken into account.
You required less than 3% of the vote to gain a position, representing 11.1% of the population. You infact only required 0.028% of the active accounts to vote for you, to represent 11.1%
|
Zathi Shaitan
Illiteracy Combatants
|
Posted - 2008.05.24 04:09:00 -
[232]
Congratulations to everyone who won.
You are now, oficially, the cheapest consultants a gaming industry company has ever employed. ---- " Several unconventional alliances where made at that point " - Hey CCP, "where" != "were".. you too, Brutus? http://loseloose.com/ |
Kalmanaka
Blueprint Haus Intrepid Crossing
|
Posted - 2008.05.24 14:13:00 -
[233]
This thread is a psychiatrists wet dream. There are so many people suffering from paranoia here. Whooo hoooo!
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [8] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |