Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
mazzilliu
|
Posted - 2009.09.17 23:52:00 -
[1]
I'm going to say it, like I promised I would:
Let's remove CSM term limits!
Okay, it isn't going to be that simple. We need protections against jerkwads who are popular online but get no work done within the CSM, but in the long term we're going to need continuity along with fresh ideas. So I propose three simple changes that should fix this problem and i will follow it up with my reasoning~
1. Remove the 2 term limit. Instead, NO MORE THAN 4 incumbents are allowed on the CSM at any time. Incumbent is defined as someone who has already served the 2 terms and is running again. What this rule will mean is that when it comes time to tally the votes, if more then 4 incumbents are on the CSM, the 4 qualifying incumbents with the highest votes may stay and the rest are disqualified from both CSM and alt status.
2. Upon application, for all incumbent applicants, CCP should look closely at the past contributions and decide whether or not it's worth paying for all the airfare to get them to Iceland. CCP can arbitrarily deny any incumbent's application if they think that their contribution to the CSM will not be worth the financial cost.
3. Partial terms(such as when a CSM has to drop out and an alt steps up to take their place) do not count towards the term limit IF the partial term did not include the CSM Iceland Summit where the majority of the CSM's work is done. Specifically, this will mean that this half-term does not count towards Issler's max.
So anyways here are my reasonings:
1. A significant portion of the CSM are people elected by the same voting blocs(goons, goons, northern coalition, specific EVE forums, Pandemic Legion + renters + the girl vote.......). Preventing the same individual from stepping up means the voting bloc will choose someone else to represent their interests, so partially removing the rule as proposed will not necessarily cause a huge change. In the long term continuity is going to be important, because the 2-term rule essentially means the CSM will eternally be filled with CSM noobs and anyone really qualified to serve is disqualified after only two terms.
Also, because of rule #2, I do not think that this change will result in abuse.
2. the CSM is basically consultant work for CCP. Their payment is the free trip to Iceland and all they stuff they buy you, and you need to submit satisfactory work in return.
3. I don't think what is happening with regards to Issler's situation is fair.(for those not in the know, Issler has already served once and was an alt this term before she was bumped up to full CSM status, AFTER the very important Iceland CSM summit. so she's riding out the lame-duck end of this term and it currently means she can no longer get elected)
MAZZILLIU 2009. CHANGE I CAN IMPOSE ON YOU. |
Dr BattleSmith
PAX Interstellar Services
|
Posted - 2009.09.18 00:28:00 -
[2]
Fast forward 5 years....
The same 4 incumbents have been the same 4 incumbents for 4 years with any new first-term members not having the votes to break their alliance backed hold on those 4 slots...... Same 4 members from same 4 alliances every year as a standard. Getting more and more entrenched and suffering from greater and greater depths of hubris.
Someone new comes along and tries to shake it up.... CCP pulls the plug on them.... Everyone screams....
Long terms in office are just as poisonous for organisations as they are for the egos of the people involved.
After 8-10 years in RL office people start to think they might be Caesar.
|
Omber Zombie
|
Posted - 2009.09.18 00:34:00 -
[3]
personally I'd prefer a simpler system if after your 2 term limit you can't serve consecutive terms. I.e. serve 2, next invalid, serve 1, invalid, and so on.
As for Issler, I was under the impression that this term didn't count towards the term limit. ----------------------
My Blog |
Dr BattleSmith
PAX Interstellar Services
|
Posted - 2009.09.18 00:35:00 -
[4]
Quote:
because the 2-term rule essentially means the CSM will eternally be filled with CSM noobs and anyone really qualified to serve is disqualified after only two terms.
The alternative is that it's filled with CSM elites who rubbish the CSM noobs, stalling the process and blocking ideas that don't come from the entrenched members.
Freshness and enthusiasm is much more desirable then creating a group of people who are essentially "in for life".
|
mazzilliu
|
Posted - 2009.09.18 00:46:00 -
[5]
Edited by: mazzilliu on 18/09/2009 00:54:00 Edited by: mazzilliu on 18/09/2009 00:47:47
Originally by: Omber Zombie personally I'd prefer a simpler system if after your 2 term limit you can't serve consecutive terms. I.e. serve 2, next invalid, serve 1, invalid, and so on.
As for Issler, I was under the impression that this term didn't count towards the term limit.
yeah that would be simpler. but the rule in the OP would guarantee a constant supply of CSM 1 or 2 term newbies(who will be in the majority, guaranteed 5 members minimum)
I talked to Issler a while ago just when it was happening and that was what I thought the situation was. if there was some official response later on i missed it. If the point is moot then i can remove that, too.
also battlesmith is in la la land
EDIT: if the majority of the CSM likes my idea or omber's idea more, whichever one i will put in the wiki page to get voted on.
MAZZILLIU 2009. CHANGE I CAN IMPOSE ON YOU. |
MatrixSkye Mk2
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2009.09.18 02:25:00 -
[6]
This is exactly how it starts, man! This is how dictators get into power! First they start by abolishing presidential term limits. I see what you did there . I'm on to you, Senator Palpatine.
|
Micia
Minmatar Hand Of Muritor
|
Posted - 2009.09.18 03:49:00 -
[7]
Nope, not a chance.
CSM has demonstrated well enough that it is entirely useless and should simply be scrapped. |
Nadarius Chrome
Celestial Horizon Corp.
|
Posted - 2009.09.18 04:02:00 -
[8]
Very much not supported. The CSM's not a reward for getting a lot of people to vote for you, and other people with fresh ideas need to be rotated through. |
Orb Vex
THE R0NIN
|
Posted - 2009.09.18 07:27:00 -
[9]
Edited by: Orb Vex on 18/09/2009 07:32:46
Originally by: Nadarius Chrome ...other people with fresh ideas need to be rotated through.
|
Reef Skywalker
|
Posted - 2009.09.18 13:19:00 -
[10]
Linux time schedulers are a cool thing that can be applied CSM terms. For example: no more than 5 incubents-2 (former 2 cms season members) no more than 4 incubents-3 (former 3 cms season members) no more than 3 incubents-4 (former 4 cms season members) no more than 2 incubents-5 (former 5 cms season members) no more than 1 incubents-6 (former 6 cms season members)
Or something else. I do not support the solution described in the first post, but I support the core idea. A good solution will probably emerge after discussing this with CCP.
Something MUST be done with Issler being disqualified. It's just not fair.
|
|
Santiago Fahahrri
Galactic Geographic
|
Posted - 2009.09.18 13:25:00 -
[11]
Not supported. All elected offices should have painfully low term limits. ~ Santiago Fahahrri Galactic Geographic |
Aethrwolf
Caldari Home for Wayward Gamers
|
Posted - 2009.09.18 13:33:00 -
[12]
hmm.. keep the term limits, but dont make them permanent.. serve 2 terms and be unable to serve again until 2 more terms have passed. Just make it so the time in office=time out of office after you hit your term limit. Absolutely everything is subjective. |
Destination SkillQueue
Are We There Yet
|
Posted - 2009.09.18 13:56:00 -
[13]
We have a constant stream of new people wanting to get in to CSM and the old corrupt officials need to be booted out to make room for the newcomers. If at some point we can't find enough new people who are interested in the job, we can scrap the whole thing as people have clearly moved on.
|
De'Veldrin
Minmatar Special Projects Executive
|
Posted - 2009.09.18 15:58:00 -
[14]
This is the part where I say not just no, but HELL NO.
Let's face it,emove term limits then the largest alliances will always be garunteed a seat, not based on the merit of their candidates, but based on the number of members in their alliance. That's rubbish, to be quite frank, and it's a crappy idea.
At that point, you don't have to care about the larger player base, only about keeping your alliance members happy so they'll vote for you en masse next election.
So thank you, but no thank you. --Vel
|
Andrest Disch
Amarr Debitum Naturae
|
Posted - 2009.09.18 16:59:00 -
[15]
Originally by: Micia Nope, not a chance.
CSM has demonstrated well enough that it is entirely useless and should simply be scrapped.
Agreeing with this, spend the money on better servers or something so we can have the directional scanner back. |
Alt Troll
Minmatar SniggWaffe
|
Posted - 2009.09.18 17:54:00 -
[16]
what do you honestly think the odds are of the CSM voting to disband itself? ____________ FEED me! You know you want to -all posts made on this character represent the views of my main's corp, alliance, as well as the views of everyone else in EVE and in the universe.- |
Drake Draconis
Minmatar Shadow Cadre REIGN Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.09.18 18:41:00 -
[17]
Hell No ========================= CEO of Shadow Cadre http://www.shadowcadre.com ========================= |
Dretzle Omega
Caldari Global Economy Experts Stellar Economy Experts
|
Posted - 2009.09.18 19:19:00 -
[18]
Originally by: Micia Nope, not a chance.
CSM has demonstrated well enough that it is entirely useless and should simply be scrapped.
Fail for thinking one CSM proposal not being implemented (yetÖ) meaning that it is entirely useless. No matter the support, CCP has final say. (And have they even been able to bring this up to CCP?)
I think a max of 2 over-termed incumbents should be allowed to stay, provided that there no incumbents currently in their first term that are running for their second. |
Herschel Yamamoto
Agent-Orange
|
Posted - 2009.09.18 21:16:00 -
[19]
1) This is a silly restriction, that makes less sense than the current one by far. You'll be disenfranchising thousands of voters with this, and buggering up the elections totally. No.
2) Arbitrary exclusion of viewpoints CCP doesn't like...isn't this what the CSM was originally intended to prevent? Hell no.
3) Yup, fully agree with this bit.
#3 is reasonable, but there's no way I can support this as a whole.
|
De'Veldrin
Minmatar Special Projects Executive
|
Posted - 2009.09.18 21:22:00 -
[20]
Originally by: Alt Troll what do you honestly think the odds are of the CSM voting to disband itself?
Do you honeslty think that if CCP decides to disband the CSM they're going to bother asking what the CSM thinks about it? Appearances aside, this is still a dictatorship ruled by CCP (which is as it should be, being as it's their sandbox). --Vel
|
|
Wulfnor
Caldari Roving Guns Inc. RAZOR Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.09.19 08:45:00 -
[21]
Edited by: Wulfnor on 19/09/2009 08:46:59 Edited by: Wulfnor on 19/09/2009 08:46:33 While I think your point number three is valid and should be passed your larger point about removing term limits I disagree with for two reasons.
The first it puts CCP in the position to be accused of playing favorites. Whatever their reasons for denying a trip to some and not to others may be, no matter how valid or reasonable those reason really are they will ultimately not be able to escape charges of favoritism in their choices and so are left with either accepting all or rejecting all CSM incumbants which negates your system check
Secondly there is the question of the delegates themselves let me quote a poster from another section:
i think that future CSM's are the biggest risk as far as corruption goes, however. They are not required to "go undercover" like ccp employees, they are usually alliance leaders, and they are not expected to step down from their ingame positions during their terms, and they cannot lose their job because of whatever they do. That is, they have all the incentive in the world to be corrupt with only the penalty of getting banned if they aren't subtle enough and get caught.
Returning the same delegates to office repeatedly would seem to increase the risk this poster believes is already existent.
|
Dierdra Vaal
|
Posted - 2009.09.19 10:50:00 -
[22]
Edited by: Dierdra Vaal on 19/09/2009 10:57:52 Edited by: Dierdra Vaal on 19/09/2009 10:57:01 Edited by: Dierdra Vaal on 19/09/2009 10:50:11 To maz's idea I vote no. It is way too complex if nothing else. Not to mention the fact that continuity hasnt shown to be a problem so far. From CSM3, only 3 pilots will not be able to run again (Vuk Lau, Omber Zombie and myself). So there are 6 people who can run again (and I have a feeling at least a few of them will), which ensures continuity - without getting the council to become an 'old boys club' with the same 4 blockvoted players over and over. As tempting as it is to think "oh dont worry, I'm the right man/woman for the job!", the CSM needs constant fresh blood.
And while voting blocks may always get a seat, at least that seat will go to a different person every 2 terms (if not sooner), which has already proven to be a good thing (I wont name names here). Not to mention that it is highly dubious to pass an issue (law) that gives yourself more power.
While OZ's idea has merit, I think it should at least be a 2 term sabbatical. So after serving two terms (either consecutively or not), you'd have to wait a year to run again.
As much as I'd like to be chairman for life - I dont think this is a good idea. For maz's idea I'm voting no. Omber's idea, adjusted for a 2 term sabbatical period... maybe. Director of Education :: EVE University Chairman of the CSM
|
Extreme
Eye of God Slightly Inappropriate.
|
Posted - 2009.09.21 22:10:00 -
[23]
Too many options, and i dont think it is correct to have this changed by just CSM-3.
I think its too soon, there were yet just 3 terms in council of wich many did their second term now.
Lets wait another 3 extra counsils...
. .
|
OwlManAtt
Gallente Yasashii Heavy Industries
|
Posted - 2009.09.21 23:15:00 -
[24]
Edited by: OwlManAtt on 21/09/2009 23:19:44
Quote: 1. Remove the 2 term limit. Instead, NO MORE THAN 4 incumbents are allowed on the CSM at any time.
Messy. Wasted votes. What if you're on the fence about two candidates, one of which may end up being disqualified after the votes are tallied? That's an unclean solution to something that I don't even see as a problem. Not supported - keep the term limits.
Quote: 2. Upon application, for all incumbent applicants, CCP should look closely at the past contributions and decide whether or not it's worth paying for all the airfare to get them to Iceland.
Absolutely not supported. The CSM delegates are accountable to the player base. I do not like the idea of CCP, the entity that the CSM was intended to be a balance on, having the power to simply veto somebody because they didn't like the work they did.
Quote: 3. Partial terms(such as when a CSM has to drop out and an alt steps up to take their place) do not count towards the term limit IF the partial term did not include the CSM Iceland Summit where the majority of the CSM's work is done. Specifically, this will mean that this half-term does not count towards Issler's max.
Significant reform is needed in this area. From what I remember, Issler wasn't even aware that he (she?) had been put on the CSM until the devblog was published (source). She was never given an opportunity to say no. That rather absurd.
Edit!
One further point. I am rather disturbed by this part of your comment:
Quote: the CSM Iceland Summit where the majority of the CSM's work is done.
That seems like a broken mechanic. The duration of your term is spent not in Iceland. I understand that having you lot in a room with some game designers is efficient, but this indicates to me that you lot haven't got any ears or pull for the rest of your term?
Not to go veering off topic, but does CSM <=> CCP communication (and action) need some improvement? --- Owl |
QwaarJet
hirr Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2009.09.21 23:26:00 -
[25]
If they are good, they should be allowed to stay for as long as people vote for them. I support this.
It means people like Vuk can stay on for a long time, but it also means poorer former CSM members (like Ankhesentapemkah) can re-apply.
Oh well.
|
mazzilliu
|
Posted - 2009.09.22 03:08:00 -
[26]
Originally by: OwlManAtt
One further point. I am rather disturbed by this part of your comment:
Quote: the CSM Iceland Summit where the majority of the CSM's work is done.
That seems like a broken mechanic. The duration of your term is spent not in Iceland. I understand that having you lot in a room with some game designers is efficient, but this indicates to me that you lot haven't got any ears or pull for the rest of your term?
Not to go veering off topic, but does CSM <=> CCP communication (and action) need some improvement?
all the time before iceland... leads up to iceland and what is done in those few days is the culmination of all the csm's work during that term till then.
there are more online csm-ccp meetings afterwards but they arent face to face. the first iceland trip is really the most important time in the csm by far.
MAZZILLIU 2009. CHANGE I CAN IMPOSE ON YOU. |
Vaal Erit
Science and Trade Institute
|
Posted - 2009.09.22 07:56:00 -
[27]
This just reeks of potential abuse of favoritism by CCP (don't we have enough of that *tinfoil*) Long term CSM members will form natural friendships or more between players and CCP and that always ends bad. As Larkonis noobler has show us, it doesn't take much for a CSM member to go "fck csm" and flat out cheat for personal gains.
Also, you will have people voting for the same people without really looking at the other candidates or performance.
Lastly, new blood is ALWAYS good for any organization. Fresh ideas, fresh viewpoints and new perspectives are good. Good corporations and alliances are always recruiting the best pilots and the CSM should always be doing the same, electing 4 of the same people will put the CSM in a rut.
If this is about poor Issler, well thems the breaks. I'm pretty sure Issler could have turned down the position and then saved the full term for later.
No.
Originally by: CCP Whisper So you're going to have to do some actual thinking with regards to hull components and their capabilities instead of copying some cookie-cutter setup. Cry some more.
|
Marlona Sky
D00M. Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2009.09.22 11:50:00 -
[28]
Hell ****ing no!!!
|
Orree
Dynaverse Corporation Vertigo Coalition
|
Posted - 2009.09.23 17:09:00 -
[29]
Not supported as-is.
I could get behind the idea of 2 consecutive terms, then two-3 terms off before one can run again. This should help make sure that the truly talented CSM people can still contribute after their 2 terms and that we're not scraping the bottom the the barrel due to term limits.
I would just prefer seeing people not become entrenched in their positions on the CSM and I think having different people and diverse/new ideas flowing through regularly is best.
---------- "How much easier it is to be critical than to be correct." ---Benjamin Disraeli |
The BigOne
Gallente Redheads and Railguns
|
Posted - 2009.09.23 18:10:00 -
[30]
We could give the CSM a unique luxury yacht, too, so they can fly around the cluster in style. Can't have our elected representatives feeling cramped on their way to Jita.
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |