| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 :: [one page] |
|
|
| Author |
Topic |
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
    |
Posted - 2008.06.03 19:17:00 -
[1]
Edited by: Jade Constantine on 03/06/2008 19:17:32
3rd CSM Meeting: 8th of June 18:00 Eve Time
Initial Agenda Items:
1. Alternates and Voting (if an alternate is empowered to replace a full rep for the meetings does can a rep come back mid-way through and take the alternates place once again?) (Hardin)
2. Processes behind future appointment of CSM committee (Hardin)
3. Update on Assembly Hall tweaks for CSM members (Jade)
4. Confirmation of CSM forum tools request document. (Dierdra)
5. Confirmation of Assembly Hall stickies, public template, + submission template.
(Provisional public issues û have been on record for 7 days with significant public support or CSM rep advocacy -)
1. Science Industry + Secondary Market (Lavista)
http://myeve.eve-online.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=782682
2. General Eve Forums improvement/fixing
http://myeve.eve-online.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=778049
3. CSM should vote for its own chairman (Jade)
http://myeve.eve-online.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=783042
4. Feasibility of Outposts going boom (Jade)
http://myeve.eve-online.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=785568
5. Re-examination of 0.0 Sovereignty
http://myeve.eve-online.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=777906
6. Reload all Ammo
http://myeve.eve-online.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=783536
7. Small Freighters
http://myeve.eve-online.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=781074
8. Drone Implants
http://myeve.eve-online.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=781729
9. Multiple undocking points
http://myeve.eve-online.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=779886
10. Rigged ships and cargo
http://myeve.eve-online.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=779886
11. Aggression timer is too short/variable hull fix
http://myeve.eve-online.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=780181
12. Improve Bombs
http://myeve.eve-online.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=784572
13. Large Hull Exploration Vessel
http://myeve.eve-online.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=779425
***
IÆd like all CSM representatives/alternatives that will be able to attend on Sunday to inform themselves about the council/public issues that weÆll be discussing in advance of the meeting. Please read the threads, check out the drafts and review the previous meeting minutes/chatlog so we donÆt waste any time allotted to us.
If any CSM representative wishes items added to the agenda for Sunday please reply to this thread before 14:00 hours on Friday afternoon with a brief overview of the issue + link to the assembly hall thread. Make sure that the issue you are advocating will have been open to public debate for 7 days by the time of the meeting on Sunday.
*Note, order of the agenda will be tweaked if necessary to ensure that all CSM reps get their issues heard within the scope of the meeting.
*Note2, as a member of the electorate the best way you can ensure you get your issues onto the agenda is a) convince a CSM rep to bring it to the agenda directly, or b) make sure it gets a good debate and plenty of support and IÆll be inclined to add it anyways on my own authority in the interests of community.
CSM Manifesto 2008 | Destroy Outposts! |
Goumindong
Merch Industrial
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.06.03 20:26:00 -
[2]
Nothing being done to facilitate discussion? No word on what that template you voted on last time was?
 |
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2008.06.03 20:35:00 -
[3]
 Originally by: Goumindong
Nothing being done to facilitate discussion?
The general conclusion was that posting issue threads in the Assembly Hall for seven day minimum was the best means of facilitating discussion.
Quote:
No word on what that template you voted on last time was?
If you read the 2nd meeting chatlog you'll see that we didn't have it ready and had to defer - should have it up this week.
CSM Manifesto 2008 | Destroy Outposts! |
Goumindong
Merch Industrial
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.06.03 20:51:00 -
[4]
Originally by: Jade Constantine
The general conclusion was that posting issue threads in the Assembly Hall for seven day minimum was the best means of facilitating discussion.
Bull****, you never discussed it. Hell your post in the "Look at 0.0 sov" thread is "I support this"
way to have a facilitate discussion!
There is only a chance in hell of having a discussion if a CSM starts the topic and even then its flooded with **** by all the idiots who don't realize they don't need to "vote" anymore.
Put up a thread where we can have a discussion. Its not difficult, its no undue burden, all it requires is a little honesty and a smidgen of initiative.
Quote:
If you read the 2nd meeting chatlog you'll see that we didn't have it ready and had to defer - should have it up this week.
I read the chatlog and it looked to me like you voted to approve it.
|
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2008.06.03 20:54:00 -
[5]
Originally by: Goumindong
Bull****, you never discussed it. Hell your post in the "Look at 0.0 sov" thread is "I support this"
way to have a facilitate discussion!
There is only a chance in hell of having a discussion if a CSM starts the topic and even then its flooded with **** by all the idiots who don't realize they don't need to "vote" anymore.
I've told you before about swearing and insulting people in your posts Goum. Learn to behave with a little respect and maybe you'll get some discussion. Continue like this and you'll continue quite rightly being ignored.
CSM Manifesto 2008 | Destroy Outposts! |
Goumindong
Merch Industrial
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.06.03 21:07:00 -
[6]
Originally by: Jade Constantine
Originally by: Goumindong
Bull****, you never discussed it. Hell your post in the "Look at 0.0 sov" thread is "I support this"
way to have a facilitate discussion!
There is only a chance in hell of having a discussion if a CSM starts the topic and even then its flooded with **** by all the idiots who don't realize they don't need to "vote" anymore.
I've told you before about swearing and insulting people in your posts Goum. Learn to behave with a little respect and maybe you'll get some discussion. Continue like this and you'll continue quite rightly being ignored.
Welcome to the internet. Now are you going to answer my charges, buck up and get something useful done or are you going to go and cry to your mommy because someone said a mean word?
I don't ignore you when you ad hominem, strawman, and use all sorts of fallacious and specious logic. You should not ignore anyone else when they use adjectives.
|
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2008.06.03 21:22:00 -
[7]
Edited by: Jade Constantine on 03/06/2008 21:22:41
Originally by: Goumindong
You should not ignore anyone else when they use adjectives.
I'll feel free to ignore anybody I consider fails on the basic standards of civilized debate Goum. Welcome back to my ignore list 
CSM Manifesto 2008 | Destroy Outposts! |
Viktor Amand
|
Posted - 2008.06.03 22:45:00 -
[8]
I, personally, wish the representatives wouldn't give their own ideas (some of which lack popular support) priority over those which clearly have popular support with many more support posts.
|
Omber Zombie
Frontier Technologies
|
Posted - 2008.06.04 00:22:00 -
[9]
i won't be available as an alt due to the timing of the meeting. Have fun.
----------------------
CSM 08 Blog | 1st Campaign Vid |
Ming Daizong
Mithraeum
|
Posted - 2008.06.04 00:56:00 -
[10]
Edited by: Ming Daizong on 04/06/2008 00:58:40
|
|
LaVista Vista
Conservative Shenanigans Party
|
Posted - 2008.06.04 03:58:00 -
[11]
Originally by: Viktor Amand
I, personally, wish the representatives wouldn't give their own ideas (some of which lack popular support) priority over those which clearly have popular support with many more support posts.
Could you give an example of such ones?
 |
Arithron
Gallente Trade Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.06.04 07:30:00 -
[12]
I'd like to raise an objection to Agenda item 1, for the following reasons:
Each player is only allowed to present ONE issue- here, 60+ issues are being presented together. I see no mention of a CSM member being exempt from this one topic limit. They can support as many issues as they like. However, each issue on the PDF and start of this thread needs to be proposed on the thread by a different player, discussed for 7 days etc.
Each of these are seperate issues and have different implications, level of support and the like. There needs to be seperate discussion on EACH one. I doubt that you will have time in a meeting to discuss each of the 60+ issues raised in the PDF.
Take care,
Arithron
|
Arithron
Gallente Trade Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.06.04 07:34:00 -
[13]
Originally by: Viktor Amand
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I, personally, wish the representatives wouldn't give their own ideas (some of which lack popular support) priority over those which clearly have popular support with many more support posts.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Could you give an example of such ones? (La Vista)
I can easily give an example:
http://myeve.eve-online.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=784572&page=2
20 'thumbs up (from 200,000), Jade supports it...
Take care,
Arithron
|
Papa Ina
GoonFleet
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.06.04 09:35:00 -
[14]
Originally by: Arithron
Originally by: Viktor Amand
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I, personally, wish the representatives wouldn't give their own ideas (some of which lack popular support) priority over those which clearly have popular support with many more support posts.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Could you give an example of such ones? (La Vista)
I can easily give an example:
http://myeve.eve-online.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=784572&page=2
20 'thumbs up (from 200,000), Jade supports it...
Take care,
Arithron
To give a proper example you would have to also include an issue with more popular support being ignored in favour of this.
As an aside it is also the CSM members rights to bring up issues which they feel are important to Eves future. That's why they were voted in. if you wanted a puppet council you should have voted for someone else.
 |
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2008.06.04 13:18:00 -
[15]
Originally by: Papa Ina
Originally by: Arithron
Originally by: Viktor Amand
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I, personally, wish the representatives wouldn't give their own ideas (some of which lack popular support) priority over those which clearly have popular support with many more support posts.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Could you give an example of such ones? (La Vista)
I can easily give an example:
http://myeve.eve-online.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=784572&page=2
20 'thumbs up (from 200,000), Jade supports it...
Take care,
Arithron
To give a proper example you would have to also include an issue with more popular support being ignored in favour of this.
As an aside it is also the CSM members rights to bring up issues which they feel are important to Eves future. That's why they were voted in. if you wanted a puppet council you should have voted for someone else.
This really. I've actually been pretty wide-ranging in the issues I've nominated to the agenda thus far and looked for the highest levels of relative support as a tie-breaker. Its important we get the material for good meaty discussions at the Iceland summit and that means getting a move on in the selection of issues. Some candidates did stand on purely administrative platforms without opinions of their own, but by and large the eve electorate voted for people with outspoken views and the drive to get things done.
CSM Manifesto 2008 | Destroy Outposts! |
Arithron
Gallente Trade Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.06.04 15:26:00 -
[16]
This really. I've actually been pretty wide-ranging in the issues I've nominated to the agenda thus far and looked for the highest levels of relative support as a tie-breaker. Its important we get the material for good meaty discussions at the Iceland summit and that means getting a move on in the selection of issues. Some candidates did stand on purely administrative platforms without opinions of their own, but by and large the eve electorate voted for people with outspoken views and the drive to get things done.
I have never said you don't pick wide-ranging topics for the agenda I was simply giving an example of one with just 20 players supporting, as Lavista asked ;)
All of the candidates had drive to get things done, otherwise they wouldn't have stood in the first place. You seem to take offence when players point out the rules that the CSM should follow and what it is supposed to do. You are in an elected position, and the guidelines are available for all to see...so expect players to watch and point out when things aren't as they could be. This is healthy, not something to be dismissed with glib one-liners!
I point out when there are issues I don't believe are in keeping with the general gist of what the CSM was setup to do...such as Lavista putting 60+ issues on the table in one go, presumably needing just a single nay or aye vote for them all. I disagree with this, as each issue should get its own thread for discussion and no block acceptance of issues was intended...
You might put a lot of issues to CCP for the meeting, but by then they would have already decided the outcome and give you a response as you formally present the issues. The last minutes indicate that you think it's not needed to discuss the issues in a CSM meeting, just a vote, as, presumably, you all follow each argument and response on each thread...
Some of the issues you select contravene this part of the explanatory document:
After each CSM member presents their opinion to support or disprove a motion, the matter is brought to vote; a majority rule passes the issue for escalation. A ll CSM deliberations are to be documented by the S ecretary, including the reasons for supporting or denying the measure.
The key question that council members must consider before casting their vote is whether or not the issue at hand has the potential to improve or otherwise benefit the entire EVE society, and not just a select group within the community that was successful in bringing attention to their unique case.
Anyway, looking forward to the next meeting minutes!
Take care,
Arithron
|
Herschel Yamamoto
Bloodmoney Incorporated
|
Posted - 2008.06.04 16:19:00 -
[17]
Edited by: Herschel Yamamoto on 04/06/2008 16:24:04
Originally by: Arithron
I'd like to raise an objection to Agenda item 1, for the following reasons:
Each player is only allowed to present ONE issue- here, 60+ issues are being presented together.
Not true - many players have started multiple threads on Assembly Hall. For example, I've started 4, of which 2 are being discussed this week. As well, many people are bringing up multiple topics in one thread - usually in the form of comprehensive fixes on one topic of discussion, exactly like LaVista. I don't recall seeing this as being disallowed anywhere in the CSM rules. Unless I missed something(and if I did, let me know), everything happening here is perfectly in order.
Also, Jade, your agenda has an error - the link to issue #11 is wrong. Please update it, so that we can be sure which issue you're referring to.
------------------
Fix the forums! |
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2008.06.04 17:53:00 -
[18]
Originally by: Herschel Yamamoto
Also, Jade, your agenda has an error - the link to issue #11 is wrong. Please update it, so that we can be sure which issue you're referring to.
Thank you Herschel, fixed it now.
CSM Manifesto 2008 | Destroy Outposts! |
LaVista Vista
Conservative Shenanigans Party
|
Posted - 2008.06.04 18:14:00 -
[19]
Originally by: Arithron
The key question that council members must consider before casting their vote is whether or not the issue at hand has the potential to improve or otherwise benefit the entire EVE society, and not just a select group within the community that was successful in bringing attention to their unique case.
If all the issues were brought up individually, you won't get the large picture either. And without the large picture, it won't benefit the entire EVE society. The industry side of eve is extremely complex. Some of the things in my issue relies on other issues. Some can be implemented alone(Bug fixes, general UI improvements and gameplay mechanics). But some of the ideas DOES have large implications indeed.
That is why this is just a list of things for CCP to have a look at. Ginger stated at the devchat recently, that industrial love will happen in the next expansion(Post-FW), and this is why the market discussion forum, who put this together, wants to gather together a large bunch of things, such that CCP can work on it. The CSM term is planned around the fact that expansions go out every + year. So CSM is exactly the right place to bring up a huge bunch of issues and ideas for CCP to work on.
By your logic that one can't raise an issue with several aspects is not good. Many of the isuses that are brought up so far have extremely many aspects, which will have to be discussed. The only difference from that and then the issue I raised, is that I made it pretty clear what the EXACT issues are.
|
Arithron
Gallente Trade Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.06.04 18:29:00 -
[20]
Sorry, quite correct!
I mant to say that each player is allowed to start one topic per thread..
Obviously Lavista isn't doing this, since 60+ topics in one thread...
Arithron
|
|
Arithron
Gallente Trade Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.06.04 18:32:00 -
[21]
The point I am trying to make Lavista is that you do bring up many issues that need discussed- but each needs a seperate thread to discuss them in turn. At a meeting of the CSM, you will need to debate each issue in turn and vote on each one- not vote once on 60+ issues!
Some affect the whole Eve society, some don't...
Take care,
Arithron
|
LaVista Vista
Conservative Shenanigans Party
|
Posted - 2008.06.04 18:38:00 -
[22]
Originally by: Arithron
The point I am trying to make Lavista is that you do bring up many issues that need discussed- but each needs a seperate thread to discuss them in turn. At a meeting of the CSM, you will need to debate each issue in turn and vote on each one- not vote once on 60+ issues!
Some affect the whole Eve society, some don't...
Take care,
Arithron
Wouldn't creating +60 issues create an extreme overhead, especially when they can't really be discussed and individual issues per say, due to the clear connection between most of the issues?
|
Arithron
Gallente Trade Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.06.04 18:53:00 -
[23]
Well, they already creat the overhead by virtue of there being so many of them! They are connected simply by falling under the 'Science and Industry' category. Each is a seperate issue by itself...and hence needs a seperate thread for discussion and debate for 7 days by players.
And then, of course, each issue needs to be discussed and then voted upon by the CSM. The CSM document makes this clear.
Take care,
Arithron
|
LaVista Vista
Conservative Shenanigans Party
|
Posted - 2008.06.04 18:55:00 -
[24]
Originally by: Arithron
Well, they already creat the overhead by virtue of there being so many of them! They are connected simply by falling under the 'Science and Industry' category. Each is a seperate issue by itself...and hence needs a seperate thread for discussion and debate for 7 days by players.
No, that isn't really the case. It's way more complex than you make it out to be. Some of them relies on other things, it's that simple.
|
Arithron
Gallente Trade Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.06.04 19:05:00 -
[25]
They may rely on other things, but you can bring those up when you are discussing and debating the issue in a CSM meeting, or on the thread for a specific issue. Afterall, thats what you have been elected to do as a group...
Take care,
Arithron
|
Wu Jiun
State War Academy
|
Posted - 2008.06.05 00:51:00 -
[26]
I know its nitpicking but I think its "per se".
|
Ki Tarra
Ki Tech Industries
|
Posted - 2008.06.05 15:11:00 -
[27]
Originally by: LaVista Vista
Wouldn't creating +60 issues create an extreme overhead, especially when they can't really be discussed and individual issues per say, due to the clear connection between most of the issues?
I agree that +60 issue threads would be a bit much, however, there must be a balance that can be found.
I agree with the settiment that you have bundled too much into a single proposal. It makes it far too diffucult to address each sub-proposal.
Most of your ideas I support, but it is diffucult to discuss the strengths and weaknesses of the individual ideas with them so tightly bundled.
Perhaps breaking them down a bit more: ie improvements to shares, improvements to POS services, improvements to the market, improvements to contracts.
There is simply too much in there, and the only constant uniting it all is that it does not involve combat mechanics.
To the point, contrast the level of discussion in your thread, verse this more specific thread. While both touch on the need to improve share trading, your thread says very little about how that is accomplished and why that approach is favorable. The other thread allows the idea to be developed more fully.
There are pros and cons to most of your suggestions. However, by uniting them all into a monstrous package, it limits and diffuses discussion of those specifics.
I would encourage the council to replace LaVista's general issue with discussion of the stock-market specifics for this meeting as we have atleast three threads (those linked above plus this one) that have been active for over a week discussing different approaches to implementing/improving this area of the game.
Then allow development of discussion on the other areas of LaVista's proposals seperately before being them up in the council.
|
Arithron
Gallente Trade Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.06.05 17:22:00 -
[28]
Per se is indeed correct!
I agree with the idea of the shares being an agenda item and the rerst put up on seperate threads for better discussion.
As an aside, I note that the meeting this weekend, 8th June, is within the 14 day period before the meeting in Iceland. Does this mean that the agenda items discussed, which have to be submitted to CCP at least 14 days in advance, won't be addressed by CCP this time?
Take care,
Arithron
|
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2008.06.05 17:49:00 -
[29]
Originally by: Arithron
As an aside, I note that the meeting this weekend, 8th June, is within the 14 day period before the meeting in Iceland. Does this mean that the agenda items discussed, which have to be submitted to CCP at least 14 days in advance, won't be addressed by CCP this time?
Take care,
Arithron
As of this moment zero issues have been formally transmitted to CCP in the format of a submission template. Time constraints have been harsh, and we are doing our best to invent this process from the ground up. All parties are going to need to appreciate that the CSM document (full and summary) will be incomplete and inappropriate to the needs of the inaugural/founding session in certain aspects. We will be forwarding submission templates to CCP in advance of the Iceland meeting but these will fall short of the 14 day specification in the documentation and we're going to be asking CCP for their understanding and forbearance on the issue in the interests of making this inaugural session work.
As an aside, I'm going to ask people to stop trying to play legal games with the founding CSM documentation for the apparent purpose of confusing the issues and making the task of the CSM harder than it should be. We will get these things resolved and will have the CSM documentation re-written where it needs to be revised and corrected. We are not going to slavishly adhere to the text where it needs revision and external input to ensure the CSM can be all it can be for the game of Eve and the community.
For this inaugural session its my intention that we take 3 weeks worth of issues produced in template format and provide these to CCP 5-6 days in advance of the first CSM/CCP meetings. Yes this is certainly shorter than the 14 days specified but its my judgment call as CSM chair that this represents better value to the community than simply flying to Iceland with a grand total of zero issues added to the agenda after complying with the 7 day open discussion and 14 day prior submission rules in the documentation.
Sometimes you have to bend the rules to get a decent outcome. This is one of those times.
CSM Manifesto 2008 | Destroy Outposts! |
Inanna Zuni
The Causality
Electus Matari
|
Posted - 2008.06.05 18:19:00 -
[30]
The following three topics will have completed seven days of 'the ability for discussion' by the date of the meeting:
* Proposals for UI improvements
* Replace double-click in a chat channel
* Cargo hold size of ships in hangar but not in use
Not surprisingly, for topics which will benefit everyone and are non-contentious, there are not an enormous number of responces, however they are all positive. eg.
Originally by: Elseix
UI improvements are second only to performance improvements in terms of positive effect on the entire eve community.
IZ
My principles
|
|
Arithron
Gallente Trade Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.06.05 19:40:00 -
[31]
Edited by: Arithron on 05/06/2008 19:59:50
As an aside, I'm going to ask people to stop trying to play legal games with the founding CSM documentation for the apparent purpose of confusing the issues and making the task of the CSM harder than it should be. We will get these things resolved and will have the CSM documentation re-written where it needs to be revised and corrected.
We aren't playing legal games, these are the clearly stated rules in the CSM document, put up BEFORE the elections, which we all were well aware of. No items on the agenda for CCP before flying to Iceland would be a failure of the current CSM council, rather than a failure of the rules. Nothing needs changing- you just have to make sure that meetings etc are held in the proper timeframe before the 14 day period, and issues are properly discussed and voted upon.
Highlighting the rules and framework that the CSM works within doesn't confuse issues, it just draws your attention to something that you have to take into consideration and acknowledge. Afterall, you can still bring the meeting forward to Friday evening and get the agenda items submitted in time. By being aware of the requirements, you can avoid situations where you then need leeway etc.
There actually isn't much wrong with the documentation that the CSM has to work within. Bypassing clearly laid-out criteria (eg, Lavista's 60+ issues into a single vote) or overlooking clearly stated rules (eg, Agenda items to CCP 14 days beforehand) don't require changes to any process...they require a little more care in the application to the process.
If you follow this link (which, btw, is fantastic Serenity!) you can clearly see nine issues you can present to CCP and discuss, as you have already voted on them in meetings.
http://myeve.eve-online.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=783002
Take care,
Arithron
|
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2008.06.05 20:13:00 -
[32]
Originally by: Arithron
No items on the agenda for CCP before flying to Iceland would be a failure of the current CSM council, rather than a failure of the rules. Nothing needs changing- you just have to make sure that meetings etc are held in the proper timeframe before the 14 day period, and issues are properly discussed and voted upon.
Well we're altering the rules this time Arithron. I've told you the rationale. And I'm confident that eve-players will understand my intention to get more useful issues on the agenda for Iceland rather than less of them. You are free to disagree but this decision is made.
CSM Manifesto 2008 | Destroy Outposts! |
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2008.06.05 20:15:00 -
[33]
Originally by: Inanna Zuni
The following three topics will have completed seven days of 'the ability for discussion' by the date of the meeting:
* Proposals for UI improvements
* Replace double-click in a chat channel
* Cargo hold size of ships in hangar but not in use
Not surprisingly, for topics which will benefit everyone and are non-contentious, there are not an enormous number of responces, however they are all positive. eg.
Originally by: Elseix
UI improvements are second only to performance improvements in terms of positive effect on the entire eve community.
IZ
Adding them now Inanna, thank you.
CSM Manifesto 2008 | Destroy Outposts! |
LaVista Vista
Conservative Shenanigans Party
|
Posted - 2008.06.05 20:15:00 -
[34]
Originally by: Arithron
Bypassing clearly laid-out criteria (eg, Lavista's 60+ issues into a single vote) or overlooking clearly stated rules (eg, Agenda items to CCP 14 days beforehand) don't require changes to any process...they require a little more care in the application to the process.
I'm sorry, but we didn't overlook anything. That must be you.
If you read the chat logs from the first council meeting, you will see this:
[ 2008.05.24 19:03:15 ] CCP Xhagen > The list of topics before the Iceland meeting has to be sent 7 days in advance (an exception due to the short period before the trip).
Also, as for my 60+ issue, would you leave it already? If CCP finds it to be an issue, they will state so and just reject to make a statement and the issue will be split up for one of the other meetings with CCP.
|
Arithron
Gallente Trade Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.06.05 20:32:00 -
[35]
No need to get personal....
The issue with the '60+ issues' isn't what CCP thinks about it- it's what the players, who want to comment and discuss each of the issues, think about it. Thats the point I am trying to make. How can we have trust in a CSM that is willing to vote on 60+ issues in one go, without allowing debate and discussion occur on each of them in the forums? Players also need to follow the same rules for proposing issues...
Nine issues presented to CCP in a meeting ain't that bad! I appreciate that time is short, but quality, not quantity, should be the aim. Afterall, it's the first time such a meeting has occured...it should set a high standard for future CSM's to aspire too!
I did miss the 7 day submission in the first meeting- I wasn't being picky by pointing out the 14 day thing, I just thought someone should point it out to avoid disappointment. Afterall, I DO want the CSM council to work, as I'll be standing again next time round.
Take care,
Arithron
|
Goumindong
Merch Industrial
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.06.06 01:03:00 -
[36]
Originally by: Jade Constantine
Edited by: Jade Constantine on 05/06/2008 20:22:12
Originally by: Arithron
No items on the agenda for CCP before flying to Iceland would be a failure of the current CSM council, rather than a failure of the rules. Nothing needs changing- you just have to make sure that meetings etc are held in the proper timeframe before the 14 day period, and issues are properly discussed and voted upon.
We (meaning CSM+CCP) are altering the rules this time Arithron. I've told you the rationale. And I'm confident that eve-players will understand the intention to get more useful issues on the agenda for Iceland rather than less of them. You are free to disagree but this decision is made.
I am sorry, how are we going to get useful ideas on the agenda when you guys won't even give us official threads where we can explain the problems and concerns of changes?
That is kinda like having big pharma write the medicare bill with no input from the public and claiming its been widely discussed and the public has had the chance to weigh in.
|
Herschel Yamamoto
Bloodmoney Incorporated
|
Posted - 2008.06.06 01:27:00 -
[37]
Originally by: Goumindong
I am sorry, how are we going to get useful ideas on the agenda when you guys won't even give us official threads where we can explain the problems and concerns of changes?
That is kinda like having big pharma write the medicare bill with no input from the public and claiming its been widely discussed and the public has had the chance to weigh in.
God damn it, man, how thick-headed are you? Threads in Assembly Hall ARE OFFICIAL.
------------------
Fix the forums! |
Goumindong
Merch Industrial
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.06.06 02:38:00 -
[38]
Originally by: Herschel Yamamoto
Originally by: Goumindong
I am sorry, how are we going to get useful ideas on the agenda when you guys won't even give us official threads where we can explain the problems and concerns of changes?
That is kinda like having big pharma write the medicare bill with no input from the public and claiming its been widely discussed and the public has had the chance to weigh in.
God damn it, man, how thick-headed are you? Threads in Assembly Hall ARE OFFICIAL.
where we can explain the problems and concerns of changes. You cannot do that in the Assembly Hall threads. They're rallies, not discussions.
|
MotherMoon
Huang Yinglong
FOUNDATI0N
|
Posted - 2008.06.06 03:31:00 -
[39]
Originally by: Goumindong
Originally by: Herschel Yamamoto
Originally by: Goumindong
I am sorry, how are we going to get useful ideas on the agenda when you guys won't even give us official threads where we can explain the problems and concerns of changes?
That is kinda like having big pharma write the medicare bill with no input from the public and claiming its been widely discussed and the public has had the chance to weigh in.
God damn it, man, how thick-headed are you? Threads in Assembly Hall ARE OFFICIAL.
where we can explain the problems and concerns of changes. You cannot do that in the Assembly Hall threads. They're rallies, not discussions.
slap
|
Erotic Irony
0bsession
|
Posted - 2008.06.06 04:01:00 -
[40]
Originally by: Herschel Yamamoto
Originally by: Goumindong
I am sorry, how are we going to get useful ideas on the agenda when you guys won't even give us official threads where we can explain the problems and concerns of changes?
That is kinda like having big pharma write the medicare bill with no input from the public and claiming its been widely discussed and the public has had the chance to weigh in.
God damn it, man, how thick-headed are you? Threads in Assembly Hall ARE OFFICIAL.
You seem to have only half read, official yes, discussions? Certainly not.
Most of the posting in assembly is almost entirely spam in the form of /signed or simply blank posts with support checked--no one is interested in asking questions or clarifying, just shoring up hasty "support". Is this me too syndrome a discussion by any measure?
___
Eve Players are not very smart.
Support Killmail Overhaul
|
|
Herschel Yamamoto
Bloodmoney Incorporated
|
Posted - 2008.06.06 04:51:00 -
[41]
Originally by: Erotic Irony
You seem to have only half read, official yes, discussions? Certainly not.
Most of the posting in assembly is almost entirely spam in the form of /signed or simply blank posts with support checked--no one is interested in asking questions or clarifying, just shoring up hasty "support". Is this me too syndrome a discussion by any measure?
I've gone through this in other posts, but the short answer is yes. Look at this thread of mine, that I started specifically because Gou said that there ought to be debate even on that topic - 69 replies, 68 thumbs and a "They really should have this.". There's no debate there, because it's essentially undebatable - it's a good idea that everybody supports. Now, I'd love to get away from /signed spam, and I want to see CCP implement a system to vote without posting ASAP, but until we do it's a fact of Assembly Hall.
That said, there's still plenty of discussion happening - look at this thread, that's had 139 comments in the past 24 hours, the vast majority of which were at least somewhat lengthy and debating the issue at hand.
Frankly, if you don't think there's enough discussion, go chip in a few comments. And if you don't think there's enough opportunity for discussion(which is really the relevant part here), then all you have to do is acknowledge the possibility of you going and chipping in a few comments. That shouldn't be too hard, right?
------------------
Fix the forums! |
Erotic Irony
0bsession
|
Posted - 2008.06.06 05:07:00 -
[42]
Originally by: Herschel Yamamoto
Frankly, if you don't think there's enough discussion, go chip in a few comments. And if you don't think there's enough opportunity for discussion(which is really the relevant part here), then all you have to do is acknowledge the possibility of you going and chipping in a few comments. That shouldn't be too hard, right?
The lack of real discussion is a symptom of a whole host of problems, not something you or I can ameliorate--it exemplifies the worst aspects of an internet forum: completely unmoderated, saturated in "me too" posts and there's too much thread overlap. Just posting more or more constructively means nothing in this context because of the volume of people spamming and structural limits of the forum.
See also: monster trucks.
It's a lost cause.
___
Eve Players are not very smart.
Support Killmail Overhaul
|
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2008.06.06 05:16:00 -
[43]
Originally by: Erotic Irony
See also: monster trucks.
It's a lost cause.
Its a lost cause when monster trucks get voted through the csm.
Thats not the same thing.
Lucky we've got a spam-prevention function eh?
CSM Manifesto 2008 | Destroy Outposts! |
MotherMoon
Huang Yinglong
FOUNDATI0N
|
Posted - 2008.06.06 09:11:00 -
[44]
Originally by: Erotic Irony
Originally by: Herschel Yamamoto
Originally by: Goumindong
I am sorry, how are we going to get useful ideas on the agenda when you guys won't even give us official threads where we can explain the problems and concerns of changes?
That is kinda like having big pharma write the medicare bill with no input from the public and claiming its been widely discussed and the public has had the chance to weigh in.
|