| Pages: [1] :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Topic |
Allaria Kriss
Elipse Inc.
    |
Posted - 2008.06.06 12:40:00 -
[1]
This is a fairly simple suggestion that would go a long way towards keeping the CSM's reputation intact.
Reading the CSM Week 3 agenda, I am upset to see that almost half the agenda items were apparently added by the same people that posted them in the first place. This is not unexpected in the first weeks after the election, when candidates are trying to drum up support for the platforms that they ran on. However, I'm still bothered a bit. The two that especially bother me are Item #6, which has only middling support (31 supports out of 255 posts), and especially Item #9, which has almost no support (13 supports out of 56 posts) but is on the agenda anyway, which was posted by an alliance member of and cheerleader for one of the CSM members.
From a player's perspective, this smacks of self-service and favoritism, and I don't like it at all. This isn't an attack at the integrity of the CSM members who have done this, but it does make me worry that representation here is not equal.
My solution? Add the following:
Agenda: List the following items: Who posted an issue, who nominated the issue, and (optional) a reason for nominating it.
CSM Rules: A new rule: 'You cannot nominate a thread you started unless it receives X support.' Optionally, this could extend to be 'You cannot nominate a thread started by you OR any members of your corp/alliance unless it receives X support.' To keep this fair, X should be a higher-than-usual number, like 50-60. This might create some problems for the Goonswarm representatives, but some would argue that's probably not a bad thing. This will also raise the problem of alt-posting from particularly determined friends of the candidate, but it should cut back on it at least.
|
Allaria Kriss
Elipse Inc.
|
Posted - 2008.06.06 12:40:00 -
[2]
This is a fairly simple suggestion that would go a long way towards keeping the CSM's reputation intact.
Reading the CSM Week 3 agenda, I am upset to see that almost half the agenda items were apparently added by the same people that posted them in the first place. This is not unexpected in the first weeks after the election, when candidates are trying to drum up support for the platforms that they ran on. However, I'm still bothered a bit. The two that especially bother me are Item #6, which has only middling support (31 supports out of 255 posts), and especially Item #9, which has almost no support (13 supports out of 56 posts) but is on the agenda anyway, which was posted by an alliance member of and cheerleader for one of the CSM members.
From a player's perspective, this smacks of self-service and favoritism, and I don't like it at all. This isn't an attack at the integrity of the CSM members who have done this, but it does make me worry that representation here is not equal.
My solution? Add the following:
Agenda: List the following items: Who posted an issue, who nominated the issue, and (optional) a reason for nominating it.
CSM Rules: A new rule: 'You cannot nominate a thread you started unless it receives X support.' Optionally, this could extend to be 'You cannot nominate a thread started by you OR any members of your corp/alliance unless it receives X support.' To keep this fair, X should be a higher-than-usual number, like 50-60. This might create some problems for the Goonswarm representatives, but some would argue that's probably not a bad thing. This will also raise the problem of alt-posting from particularly determined friends of the candidate, but it should cut back on it at least.
|
Elsebeth Rhiannon
Gradient
Electus Matari
|
Posted - 2008.06.06 12:47:00 -
[3]
Goonies would just use alts. ;)
In general I agree on the point that there should be some visibility on the listings about it.
However, I am uncomfortable by the idea that there needs to be a minimum support. If it was a simple vote for support procedure, we would not need CSM at all -- CCP should just look at the poll numbers directly. CSM are there to put some individual perspective to it, and the solution for if we do not like any particular representatives perspective would be to not vote for them in the future (and possibly tell others why they should not, either).
--
Help us defend the Republic; join Gradient today.
|
Elsebeth Rhiannon
Gradient
Electus Matari
|
Posted - 2008.06.06 12:47:00 -
[4]
Goonies would just use alts. ;)
In general I agree on the point that there should be some visibility on the listings about it.
However, I am uncomfortable by the idea that there needs to be a minimum support. If it was a simple vote for support procedure, we would not need CSM at all -- CCP should just look at the poll numbers directly. CSM are there to put some individual perspective to it, and the solution for if we do not like any particular representatives perspective would be to not vote for them in the future (and possibly tell others why they should not, either).
--
Help us defend the Republic; join Gradient today.
|
Lia Gaeren
Pole Dancing Vixens
|
Posted - 2008.06.06 13:05:00 -
[5]
 Originally by: Allaria Kriss
CSM Rules: A new rule: 'You cannot nominate a thread you started unless it receives X support.' Optionally, this could extend to be 'You cannot nominate a thread started by you OR any members of your corp/alliance unless it receives X support.' To keep this fair, X should be a higher-than-usual number, like 50-60. This might create some problems for the Goonswarm representatives, but some would argue that's probably not a bad thing. This will also raise the problem of alt-posting from particularly determined friends of the candidate, but it should cut back on it at least.
Agree with some, but not all of the post. Particularly don't think the quoted section would help, unless you extend it further to 'X amount of support from people outside your corp/alliance' which isn't fair because it disenfranchises all of those people. On the other hand, without that rule, a large corp or alliance could probably very easily muster the required amount of support just by asking its members to log on and vote accordingly.
I don't have an issue with candidates picking issues that they want to escalate and presenting them for vote - we had the opportunity to vote for the people we wanted, so the theory goes that what they select will be backed by the majority of the people who voted for that person. A ludicrously unpopular suggestion with the player base might still need to be presented because it has further reaching implications that forum trolls (such as me  ) cannot see, which would better the game overall.
Provided that the candidates don't lose sight of presenting topics which have good support but which don't fall under their personal 'banner' this doesn't bother me overmuch.
|
Kelsin
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2008.06.06 13:08:00 -
[6]
I don't think this would solve the "problem" that you would want it to.
|
Allaria Kriss
Elipse Inc.
|
Posted - 2008.06.06 13:15:00 -
[7]
Oh well, I just wanted to put the topic up for discussion, and would like to see it thought about at some point. Would be nice to have some sort of check or balance, though I'm not sure what that would be (and just hacked that together as I was posting it as an example).
More discussion please.
And Kelsin: In the spirit of discussion, WHY don't you think it would solve the problem?
|
Esmenet
|
Posted - 2008.06.06 13:15:00 -
[8]
Isnt this why there are 9 CSM members instead of one? Technically you would expect the other 8 to vote down suggestions of this kind.
|
Allaria Kriss
Elipse Inc.
|
Posted - 2008.06.06 13:19:00 -
[9]
This point does win the argument.  I concede this argument and chalk it up to cynicism and paranoia, and hereby thumbs-down my own proposal.
|
Hardin
Praetoria Technologies
|
Posted - 2008.06.06 13:24:00 -
[10]
Originally by: Esmenet
Isnt this why there are 9 CSM members instead of one? Technically you would expect the other 8 to vote down suggestions of this kind.
Indeed, and also select topics of discussion that they may feel are more worthwhile of CCP's attention.
While we may not disagree with the choices of other CSM representatives they are entitled to bring forward whatever issues they want to.
The rest of the CSM can then decide if they are worthwhile or not and then CCP will get a similar opportunity
-----
Alliance Creation/Corp Expansion Services
Advert |
|
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2008.06.06 13:26:00 -
[11]
You are also going to see CSM members supporting minor no-frills issues that receive hardly any support but are simple and easy to implement and will benefit the community.
CSM Manifesto 2008 | Destroy Outposts! |
Jeirth
Republic Military School
|
Posted - 2008.06.06 13:27:00 -
[12]
Edited by: Jeirth on 06/06/2008 13:27:32
Grats to Allaria o7
You are a standup person and I salute you
|
|
| Pages: [1] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |