Efrim Black
Gallente
Apellon
   |
Posted - 2009.03.24 17:57:00 -
[1]
 Originally by: LaVista Vista
Quote:
Well Vista, what good has the CSM accomplished?
I'm perfectly willing to accept the CSM if you can prove that CCP has done anything based on the CSM's wishes.
Lets see:
1. Orca
2. Weapon stacking
3. Skill queue
4. PLEX system as a response to the uproar about 30-day GTCs being taken out
5. The possiblity of a 0.0 overhaul(See the CSM minutes)
6. Assembly arrays getting a boost
7. Suicide ganking balancing
8. Module cycle timer.
Ad there's more stuff in the pipeline I'm sure. The problem with interacting with a company is that, despite using agile methods, that it's not all the agile. They work on 4 month-schedules, which means that CSM2 won't see the fruit of it's labour till maybe even CSM4 takes office. So the fact we had so many features already implemented into the game is really excellent, imo.
Quote:
The NY times article may have been misinterpreted or whatever, but that doesn't change that the original catalyst that resulted in the CSM's formation was the T20 incident. CCP said they wanted more player oversight over their actions.
A catalyst just makes things go faster. However that's quite different from causality. I agree ENTIRELY that the T20 incident made the leadership of CCP realize that Xhagen's idea for a CSM was really good.
Quote:
How is the CSM anything other than a useless figurehead, if CCP is still allowed to bend rules whenever they want without consulting the CSM at all?
I think you are speculating a bit too much. I have no idea how much I can say due to my NDA. However just trust me when I say that you are making a wrong assumption.
Quote:
Where's the transparency we were promised? GM Grimmi's statement didn't explain anything and didn't clarify the rules whatsoever. It didn't explain which circumstances allow you to petition for a name change. It didn't explain why the new alliance name is longer than allowed for anyone else. It didn't explain why KenZoku deserved a name change.
I agree with you entirely. I'm not very pleased with the statement either.
Quote:
CCP designed the game with safeguards built in so that you can't just disband an alliance. BoB chose to remove those safeguards to operate more efficiently, leaving themselves vulnerable. Why do they get sympathy? What happened to them was fair under the rules and the solution they got from it wasn't. End of story.
Exactly. The CSMs stance is also quite clear on this. Nothing warranted that the name should have been changed.
This is why I voted for you. Thank you for existing. 
|