Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
The PitBoss
Interstellar Brotherhood of Gravediggers Privateer Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.06.11 23:49:00 -
[1]
Back on MAY 23rd i posted an issue i would like the CSM to look into and bring to CCP
This issue has Somewhat substantial discussion/debate ... decent amount of support ... OVER ALL ... a good AMOUNT of attention to it ... OR SOME WOULD THINK ... ATLEAST compared to other issues out there that are ... LESS discussed ... LOW support votes ... LOW thread views
[ISSUE] Looting from my kill SHOULD = Looter flagged to me (214 responses / 99 votes / 3823 Views)
For some reason this issue and OTHER issues are being treated to the left by the CSM ... Whilst issue like the following Have jumped to the front of the line ...
=======================
Here is just a few on that list:
1. [ISSUE] BACON and basic logserver exploitation (169 replies / 77 votes / 3082) 2. [ISSUE] Fix the forums (66 replies / 62 votes / 716 replies) 3. Drone Implants (39 replies / 30 votes / 546 views) 4. [ISSUE] Re-examination of 0.0 Sovereignty System (73 replies / 13 votes / 1240 views) 5. [Minor ISSUE] Option to change all ammo at once (86 replies / 83 votes / 967 views) 6. [ISSUE] Bombs need a boost (36 replies / 24 votes / 533 views) 7. [ISSUE] 5% rule way too strict (97 replies / 70 votes / 2467 views) 8. [ISSUE] Evaluation of empire war dec mechanics (55 replies / 11 votes / 952 views) This one i find VERY humorous ... especially since the war dec fiasco between PRIVATEER ALLIANCE and IVY LEAGUE ... Thread <-- clicky
MAINLY because: dierdra vaal posted this one .... and is now in charge of the follow-up
CAN WE SAY: You're putting the mouse in-charge of the cheese
========================
ANYWAY ... the list goes on AND the trend continues ...When asked about how each [ISSUE] is selected to bring to CCP this reply was given in a previous thread: CLICKY
Originally by: Serenity Steele Right now; - The main constraint on taking issues to vote is requirement that they have been raised in this forum for a minimum of 7 days. - After that, the secondary constraint is time to discuss issues per meeting. At time of writing, this is the first meeting with topics eligible for voting, so expect more issue coverage as the weeks progress.
Which selection criteria EXACTLY are used is entirely up to each CSM member, unless there is a minimum basis of support, in which case the council are required to take it to CCP. At the moment, the basis for minimum support is 5%, which the CSM see as unrealistic, so will vote to have this changed.
So THE question is ... WHO'S INTERESTS ARE YOU LOOKING OUT FOR?
The General player base who you were voted in by to represent them
-OR-
Your personal interests and/or that of your buddies/corps/alliances?
Respectfully,
Thanks,
PB
Siggys and Banners by: Kalen Vox |
Siona Windweaver
|
Posted - 2008.06.11 23:56:00 -
[2]
Originally by: The PitBoss
Your personal interests and/or that of your buddies/corps/alliances[/center]
Isn't that obvious?
Though i will say some members are looking for general player base issues, or at least they try to i guess
|
Herschel Yamamoto
Bloodmoney Incorporated
|
Posted - 2008.06.11 23:58:00 -
[3]
You continue your love of good grammar and restrained capitalization from the previous thread, I see.
Cheap shots aside, while your thread may have more votes than the others, it's also had a lot more opposition. My two (Fix the forums/Option to change all ammo at once) are both wholly uncontroversial, with the majority of the non-vote posts being supporters who forgot to click. While they may have less raw support, they're something everybody agrees on, and as such not only can they be passed through easily(allowing for faster meetings, which means more room for business to be conducted), they can be delivered to CCP easily and hopefully implemented quickly, which gives the CCP concrete achievements to use to defend themselves from accusations of various types. Besides, there's been two weeks and 24 issues considered - there'll be time for your complaints to be heard just like everybody else's. If you've really got that big a problem, EveMail the most receptive CSM members and ask them to put it on the agenda - it'll work a lot better than a whine thread on CSM issue selection methodologies. ------------------ Fix the forums! |
Aprudena Gist
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.06.12 00:01:00 -
[4]
They Look out for themselves and their own that's why most of them ran on a platform of pet issues. |
Demarcus
Killjoy.
|
Posted - 2008.06.12 00:22:00 -
[5]
Wow, I see this forum actually is very useful. Now I can learn all of the games best exploits long before CCP actually bothers getting around to fix them. SUPER! ------------------------------------- You are all worthless, and weak.
|
The PitBoss
Interstellar Brotherhood of Gravediggers Privateer Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.06.12 00:53:00 -
[6]
Originally by: Herschel Yamamoto .. it'll work a lot better than a whine thread on CSM issue selection methodologies.
If you consider this whining .. you really need to get off the computer and go get a girlfriend ... |
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2008.06.12 01:02:00 -
[7]
Originally by: The PitBoss
Originally by: Herschel Yamamoto .. it'll work a lot better than a whine thread on CSM issue selection methodologies.
If you consider this whining .. you really need to get off the computer and go get a girlfriend ...
Pitboss, I really intended to get involved with this discussion and there is still time to get it on the agenda for sunday. I do have a issue with the proposal as you've stated it on the thread though ... and thats about what happens to my gang mate's wreck flagging if we lose a ship fighting in hisec against war enemies. Is it our enemies that get to "own" the wreck for the purpose of flagging other neutral thieves that come and steal it? How about both the corporation/gang mates of the victim + the kill get dual ownership of the wreck - so anybody stealing from it gets flagged to both parties?
How does that sound? Can you work it into the proposal somehow?
We've still got time to get this heard for sunday - let me know what you think and if we can sort out some agreement on that dual ownership thing I'll advocate and raise the issue for you.
|
Farrqua
Turbo Mining Inc.
|
Posted - 2008.06.12 01:17:00 -
[8]
Edited by: Farrqua on 12/06/2008 01:18:34 Edited by: Farrqua on 12/06/2008 01:17:30
Originally by: Jade Constantine
Originally by: The PitBoss
Originally by: Herschel Yamamoto .. it'll work a lot better than a whine thread on CSM issue selection methodologies.
If you consider this whining .. you really need to get off the computer and go get a girlfriend ...
Pitboss, I really intended to get involved with this discussion and there is still time to get it on the agenda for sunday. I do have a issue with the proposal as you've stated it on the thread though ... and thats about what happens to my gang mate's wreck flagging if we lose a ship fighting in hisec against war enemies. Is it our enemies that get to "own" the wreck for the purpose of flagging other neutral thieves that come and steal it? How about both the corporation/gang mates of the victim + the kill get dual ownership of the wreck - so anybody stealing from it gets flagged to both parties?
How does that sound? Can you work it into the proposal somehow?
We've still got time to get this heard for sunday - let me know what you think and if we can sort out some agreement on that dual ownership thing I'll advocate and raise the issue for you.
Wait a second. Pit boss had a decent support and response. And he has to change his proposal because you do not agree with it as such. Your agenda made the list and it did not even get even close to the same type of support. How does that work? That has been my point.
i.e. The removal of the Learning Skills issue fell flat on its face support wise. And the OP had by no means changed anything that would make any sense.
So how does this work? He made the mark of 7 days at least, garnered strong support, and the ratio was much higher than the ones that is currently on the list. |
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2008.06.12 01:21:00 -
[9]
Edited by: Jade Constantine on 12/06/2008 01:21:41
Originally by: Farrqua Wait a second. Pit boss had a decent support and response. And he has to change his proposal because you do not agree with it as such. Your agenda made the list and it did not even get even close to the same type of support. How does that work? That has been my point. The removal of the Learning Skills issue fell flat on its face support wise. And the OP had by no means changed anything that would make any sense. So how does this work? He made the mark of 7 days at least, garnered strong support, and the ratio was much higher than the ones that is currently on the list.
Listen. Scream at me for taking an interest and actually getting involved in the discussion if you want. Or maybe I could just ignore it and go away because I'm tired of the childish claptrap on this forum. The pure amount of time thats been wasted this week over the most irrelevant rubbish is astounding. So why don't you just shut up and let Pitboss answer. Its his damn thread, if you want to join the mob its -> that way.
|
Herschel Yamamoto
Bloodmoney Incorporated
|
Posted - 2008.06.12 01:24:00 -
[10]
Originally by: The PitBoss
Originally by: Herschel Yamamoto .. it'll work a lot better than a whine thread on CSM issue selection methodologies.
If you consider this whining .. you really need to get off the computer and go get a girlfriend ...
I don't view "whine" as a pejorative per se - I've described some of my own threads as "whine threads" before. Nonetheless, your tl;dr is "You didn't pick me! You're all self-serving jerks!" - if that's not whining, I don't know what is.
As for getting a girlfriend, there's not enough sex in the world to keep me from being an overeducated *******. I'd definitely have less time to post here if I had access to all the sex in the world, of course, but it wouldn't change my opinion of what you have to say if I still managed to see it. |
|
Farrqua
Turbo Mining Inc.
|
Posted - 2008.06.12 01:30:00 -
[11]
Originally by: Jade Constantine Edited by: Jade Constantine on 12/06/2008 01:21:41
Originally by: Farrqua Wait a second. Pit boss had a decent support and response. And he has to change his proposal because you do not agree with it as such. Your agenda made the list and it did not even get even close to the same type of support. How does that work? That has been my point. The removal of the Learning Skills issue fell flat on its face support wise. And the OP had by no means changed anything that would make any sense. So how does this work? He made the mark of 7 days at least, garnered strong support, and the ratio was much higher than the ones that is currently on the list.
Listen. Scream at me for taking an interest and actually getting involved in the discussion if you want. Or maybe I could just ignore it and go away because I'm tired of the childish claptrap on this forum. The pure amount of time thats been wasted this week over the most irrelevant rubbish is astounding. So why don't you just shut up and let Pitboss answer. Its his damn thread, if you want to join the mob its -> that way.
Wow, nice. You are really showing your true colors.
Couldn't find the mute button so you decided to try to shout me down.
I was not screaming at you in this thread. I was actually asking questions to fully understand how this works.
I was very calm as I wrote that and actually was looking for a real answer? I am not sure how you read that as a challenge.
But I guess you have some issues or something you need to work out or did I hit a nerve of some kind? And as far as yhis is "his thread" is poppycock. It is posted in a public forum and telling me to go away is not with in your power sir.
I am not a part of any mob, and I am an independent player that has an interest on how this game is played.
|
The PitBoss
Interstellar Brotherhood of Gravediggers Privateer Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.06.12 01:32:00 -
[12]
Originally by: Jade Constantine Pitboss, I really intended to get involved with this discussion and there is still time to get it on the agenda for sunday. I do have a issue with the proposal as you've stated it on the thread though ... and thats about what happens to my gang mate's wreck flagging if we lose a ship fighting in hisec against war enemies. Is it our enemies that get to "own" the wreck for the purpose of flagging other neutral thieves that come and steal it? How about both the corporation/gang mates of the victim + the kill get dual ownership of the wreck - so anybody stealing from it gets flagged to both parties?
How does that sound? Can you work it into the proposal somehow?
We've still got time to get this heard for sunday - let me know what you think and if we can sort out some agreement on that dual ownership thing I'll advocate and raise the issue for you.
Thanks for your prompt response jade ... I will post something to the effect on dual ownership and what not in a bit after i've sat down and thought it out ...
The reason for this is BECAUSE i do realize that there has to be a compromise to get this topic on the agenda ... and many thanks for giving it the opportunity.
MY answer may not be the best one ... BUT i am willing to put forth another effort to get something fixed that i personally (and others) may feel is broken to the satisfaction of the majority.
Thanks,
PB
Siggys and Banners by: Kalen Vox |
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2008.06.12 01:37:00 -
[13]
Originally by: Farrqua I was very calm as I wrote that and actually was looking for a real answer? I am not sure how you read that as a challenge.
Then I'd advise you re-read what you wrote. And revisit your tone, and ask the questions with a more neutral phrasing that doesn't immediately move to accusation and condemnation. I felt its entirely ridiculous for you to criticize me for suggesting an alternation to the ISSUE that would let me support it with a clear conscience. Isn't that exactly what we're supposed to be doing - engaging with player issues and supporting those we feel are a genuinely good idea for the game?
Honestly yes, I did snap at you but its not been a very productive day for CSM issues and I found it disappointing that actually having a couple of minutes to look at a genuine issue again turns back into the accusation-charged environment elsewhere on these forums today. People are human Farrqua - even CSM reps.
CSM Manifesto 2008 | Destroy Outposts! |
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2008.06.12 01:38:00 -
[14]
Originally by: The PitBoss Thanks for your prompt response jade ... I will post something to the effect on dual ownership and what not in a bit after i've sat down and thought it out ...
The reason for this is BECAUSE i do realize that there has to be a compromise to get this topic on the agenda ... and many thanks for giving it the opportunity.
MY answer may not be the best one ... BUT i am willing to put forth another effort to get something fixed that i personally (and others) may feel is broken to the satisfaction of the majority.
Yeah I do apologize for taking a while to get round to this but the dual ownership thing was the compromise that a lot of people I've asked about it felt would be needed. It is a fairly complicated issue in that respect. The basic principle you know I love - more pvp opportunity in empire and consequence for theft is great. Just needed that tweak really. Fingers crossed we can get it through the csm now.
all the best.
|
Mihailo Great
Aliastra
|
Posted - 2008.06.12 02:57:00 -
[15]
Wow Jade, this is apublic discussion forum, the thread does not belong to the OP. You are totally clueless aren't you?
|
Farrqua
Turbo Mining Inc.
|
Posted - 2008.06.12 03:07:00 -
[16]
Originally by: Jade Constantine
Originally by: Farrqua I was very calm as I wrote that and actually was looking for a real answer? I am not sure how you read that as a challenge.
Then I'd advise you re-read what you wrote. And revisit your tone, and ask the questions with a more neutral phrasing that doesn't immediately move to accusation and condemnation. I felt its entirely ridiculous for you to criticize me for suggesting an alternation to the ISSUE that would let me support it with a clear conscience. Isn't that exactly what we're supposed to be doing - engaging with player issues and supporting those we feel are a genuinely good idea for the game?
Honestly yes, I did snap at you but its not been a very productive day for CSM issues and I found it disappointing that actually having a couple of minutes to look at a genuine issue again turns back into the accusation-charged environment elsewhere on these forums today. People are human Farrqua - even CSM reps.
My tone was apparently created on your end. Trying to milk the tone or poster of someone from cold text without observing gestures, tone of voice or eye contact is a wee bit silly I think. And a little presumptuous. However I will return in kind as it has been in previous posts towards me. Yes we all are human, and we do at times see the boogie man under every rock when we think we are being prosecuted.
From someone outside of the current debacle of political posturing from the different sides and factions, I am not all that confident in this process. I am on 2nd life here in eve. Started and watched the game grow and expand from the beginning.
And as a player form the masses that voted in the hope for change, I feel obligated to debate, and comment where I feel and in the manner I feel as it best meets the current tone form the CSM and its chair.
|
Herschel Yamamoto
Bloodmoney Incorporated
|
Posted - 2008.06.12 03:17:00 -
[17]
Originally by: Jade Constantine
Originally by: Farrqua Wait a second. Pit boss had a decent support and response. And he has to change his proposal because you do not agree with it as such. Your agenda made the list and it did not even get even close to the same type of support. How does that work? That has been my point. The removal of the Learning Skills issue fell flat on its face support wise. And the OP had by no means changed anything that would make any sense. So how does this work? He made the mark of 7 days at least, garnered strong support, and the ratio was much higher than the ones that is currently on the list.
Listen. Scream at me for taking an interest and actually getting involved in the discussion if you want. Or maybe I could just ignore it and go away because I'm tired of the childish claptrap on this forum. The pure amount of time thats been wasted this week over the most irrelevant rubbish is astounding. So why don't you just shut up and let Pitboss answer. Its his damn thread, if you want to join the mob its -> that way.
Dude, Valium. ------------------ Fix the forums! |
Ephemeron
Anti-BoB
|
Posted - 2008.06.12 18:46:00 -
[18]
I don't have particular interest in Jade Constantine, but I do find the anti-Jade people amusing.
This is turning into classic democratic politics - the politics of never ending arguments, where nothing can be done, where people waste entire time talking about silly irrelevant things that look absolutely ridiculous to outside observer.
Jade is fighting against that. Lets see if CSM people can do better than the USA Congress
|
Kailiani
|
Posted - 2008.06.13 02:34:00 -
[19]
214 responses / 99 votes / 3823 Views
Of which, 19 are votes from PVT alliance, and who knows how many of their alts. Which would be naturally biased especially when told to vote for such a topic.
Also lots of opposition to your topic vs mostly unanimous voting in other topics, I'd say they are doing well.
Except 4 and 8, which surprisingly are being pushed, while Jade supported both of them.
|
Windjammer
|
Posted - 2008.06.13 23:54:00 -
[20]
I read that proposal and thought it died a natural death. Seemed to me that a lot more people were of a different opinion than the OP as far as what constituted ownership. Honestly, I thought it was a troll that just went away.
Windjammer
|
|
Esmenet
|
Posted - 2008.06.14 10:56:00 -
[21]
Originally by: The PitBoss
So THE question is ... WHO'S INTERESTS ARE YOU LOOKING OUT FOR?
The General player base who you were voted in by to represent them
-OR-
Your personal interests and/or that of your buddies/corps/alliances?
Respectfully,
Its their personal interests and/or that of their buddies/corp. The only way you can force a issue through is by getting 5% of eve to vote on it, and the chances of that happening is small. Even then the chances of getting CSM to spend any real effort on it is slim to none.
|
Esmenet
|
Posted - 2008.06.14 10:59:00 -
[22]
Originally by: Windjammer I read that proposal and thought it died a natural death. Seemed to me that a lot more people were of a different opinion than the OP as far as what constituted ownership. Honestly, I thought it was a troll that just went away.
Windjammer
While i wont comment on the issue itself its pretty obvious that more controversial "issues" with far less support have been pushed through as it was in the interest of a CSM member.
|
LaVista Vista
|
Posted - 2008.06.14 11:02:00 -
[23]
Originally by: Esmenet
Its their personal interests and/or that of their buddies/corp. The only way you can force a issue through is by getting 5% of eve to vote on it, and the chances of that happening is small. Even then the chances of getting CSM to spend any real effort on it is slim to none.
I think that isn't true.
I have personally been writing up submission templates for things like the colourblind issues and the mac/linux clients. I'm neither colourblind nor do I use mac/linux.
So how can you say it's personal interest? None of my friends have asked me to take up certain issues either. If they did, I would probably tell them to screw themselves and ask them to go write a post on the forum.
I can of course only talk on my own behalf. I can't deny some council members are looking out for their own interest. But you should certainly not expect for that to be true for all members.
|
LaVista Vista
|
Posted - 2008.06.14 11:04:00 -
[24]
Originally by: Esmenet
Originally by: Windjammer I read that proposal and thought it died a natural death. Seemed to me that a lot more people were of a different opinion than the OP as far as what constituted ownership. Honestly, I thought it was a troll that just went away.
Windjammer
While i wont comment on the issue itself its pretty obvious that more controversial "issues" with far less support have been pushed through as it was in the interest of a CSM member.
I do agree on that point. Things like.. lets see. Destructible outposts shouldn't even have been taken onto the agenda because of the EXTREMELY low support %. But a member sponsered it. So well
|
Morgenrei
|
Posted - 2008.06.14 12:18:00 -
[25]
The members got their votes also for the issues they have put on their flags in their running campaigns. The votes for each of the CSM members are far higher than the support in any(?) single-issue-thread till now.
|
Verone
Veto Corp
|
Posted - 2008.06.14 13:21:00 -
[26]
I'm still trying to get my head around why there's so many meetings.
They're coming as little as THREE days apart. What's the deal? Why not just hold longer meetings and get things done, rather than spending a couple of hours bickering and asking people to come back in 3 days, then rinsing and repeating the process?
I've seen more organised riots tbh.
\o/ EON FICTION WRITER OF THE YEAR! \o/
>>> THE LIFE OF AN OUTLAW <<< |
Esmenet
|
Posted - 2008.06.14 13:31:00 -
[27]
Edited by: Esmenet on 14/06/2008 13:36:01 Edited by: Esmenet on 14/06/2008 13:35:38
Originally by: LaVista Vista
Originally by: Esmenet
Its their personal interests and/or that of their buddies/corp. The only way you can force a issue through is by getting 5% of eve to vote on it, and the chances of that happening is small. Even then the chances of getting CSM to spend any real effort on it is slim to none.
I think that isn't true.
I have personally been writing up submission templates for things like the colourblind issues and the mac/linux clients. I'm neither colourblind nor do I use mac/linux.
So how can you say it's personal interest? None of my friends have asked me to take up certain issues either. If they did, I would probably tell them to screw themselves and ask them to go write a post on the forum.
I can of course only talk on my own behalf. I can't deny some council members are looking out for their own interest. But you should certainly not expect for that to be true for all members.
Well such things as colorblind issues and linux clients or many of the simple UI adjustments are very easy to support as it doesnt have any real impact on the game itself. They also require a very low amount of input from the csm. As such they cant really be compared to changes such as the changes the OP proposed.
From your campaign and the issues you supported its easy to see you are mostly interested in market related changes that will benefit you and others in your situation. Nothing wrong with that, as it is expected and what you seem to know best. But then changes that fall outside the interests of those 9 elected members will naturally be overlooked. As such the issues the csm will spend time on is largely determined by the csm members personal interests. But then its up to the voters to vote on someone that will be interested in the same issues as them.
|
Esmenet
|
Posted - 2008.06.14 13:40:00 -
[28]
Originally by: LaVista Vista
Originally by: Esmenet
Originally by: Windjammer I read that proposal and thought it died a natural death. Seemed to me that a lot more people were of a different opinion than the OP as far as what constituted ownership. Honestly, I thought it was a troll that just went away.
Windjammer
While i wont comment on the issue itself its pretty obvious that more controversial "issues" with far less support have been pushed through as it was in the interest of a CSM member.
I do agree on that point. Things like.. lets see. Destructible outposts shouldn't even have been taken onto the agenda because of the EXTREMELY low support %. But a member sponsered it. So well
Yes such things ruin what little faith people have in the csm program.
|
LaVista Vista
|
Posted - 2008.06.14 13:50:00 -
[29]
Originally by: Verone
I'm still trying to get my head around why there's so many meetings.
They're coming as little as THREE days apart. What's the deal? Why not just hold longer meetings and get things done, rather than spending a couple of hours bickering and asking people to come back in 3 days, then rinsing and repeating the process?
I've seen more organised riots tbh.
Our meetings are usually 1 week apart. But due to having to submit the agenda, we have had an extra meeting.
As for longer meetings, it's a challenge with both US and EU crew, at least during week days. During weekend, there's no reason other than how much we can get onto the meeting at any given time.
|
Verone
Veto Corp
|
Posted - 2008.06.14 18:01:00 -
[30]
Originally by: LaVista Vista
As for longer meetings, it's a challenge with both US and EU crew, at least during week days. During weekend, there's no reason other than how much we can get onto the meeting at any given time.
People were told that if they were to apply to be a candidate then they'd need to dedicate the time to be able to do what's asked of them.
I don't see this as a vaild argument tbh. If people want to be on the CSM, they should make sure they have the time and the chair should make sure the meetings are organised so that under regular circusmstances everyone is able to attend.
\o/ EON FICTION WRITER OF THE YEAR! \o/
>>> THE LIFE OF AN OUTLAW <<< |
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |