|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
OwlManAtt
Gallente Yasashii Heavy Industries
|
Posted - 2009.09.21 23:15:00 -
[1]
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 |
OwlManAtt
Gallente Yasashii Heavy Industries
|
Posted - 2009.10.06 14:00:00 -
[2]
Originally by: De'Veldrin Unfortunately, no. We can simply think of this as the asshat CSM and (hopefully) not have a repeat in the future.
This issue passed in the CSM. You have three other delegates to thank, not just mazz.
I don't think I'd want to go so far as to impeach or recall mazz, as (s)he's done a lot of good work on the CSM...but this particular issue has been handled very badly.
There are also no hard rules on how an issue needs to be proposed to the CSM, so while this may be a rather disappointing incident, there is technically nothing ``wrong'' about it.
All you can do is remember who voted to pass this issue when it comes time for voting. --- Owl |
OwlManAtt
Gallente Yasashii Heavy Industries
|
Posted - 2009.10.09 14:38:00 -
[3]
Originally by: Drake Draconis It's amazing they keep dodging the question isn't?
I'm amazed by your inability to read post #71. --- Owl |
|
|
|