Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Drake Draconis
Minmatar Shadow Cadre REIGN Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.10.11 13:37:00 -
[121]
I speak and unederstand english just fine.. how ironic that the one who thinks I don't agrees with me regardless... even if he didn't mean to.
Vuk - I find your insight quite disturbing... In all honesty the only reason I would run for CSM is to make sure that people got heard... that's it. And even then I'm not convinced its worth my time.
The Trip in all honesty while great and all that... doesn't really interest me. I'd rather be playing EVE : O P
(Aside from meeting CCP face to face but still)
I'm not into the drinking and partying bit... but that's just me. ========================= CEO of Shadow Cadre http://www.shadowcadre.com ========================= |
Vuk Lau
4S Corporation Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2009.10.11 14:51:00 -
[122]
Edited by: Vuk Lau on 11/10/2009 14:52:11 I never thought on you when I said that, but I want to throw up when people are openly talking about that during campaign, get elected :facepalm: and then still have decency to talk around how they applied to CSM just for kicks, free trip...
|
mazzilliu
Caldari Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
|
Posted - 2009.10.11 15:55:00 -
[123]
Originally by: Mashie Saldana Mazz, your performance at the Fanfest CSM-panel was impressive. After arriving late the only thing you contributed with was "Thanks for voting so I got a free trip to Fanfest".
I can see why you are aiming for the fall 2010 term next.
i think you'll be pleased to know that right after that i went back to taking a nap and nursing my hangover.
i really would like to know who hasn't taken their fakejob seriously on the 3rd CSM. seems like everybody at least contributed something, even i did. it seems like the CCP guys have a general idea of who has pulled their weight and who hasnt so i am pretty sure the ccp veto of anyone over 2 terms should be pretty effective for keeping away people that dont deserve it. the metrics for performance are pretty simple... the number of issues, and the significance of the issues raised
MAZZILLIU 2009. CHANGE I CAN IMPOSE ON YOU. |
Marlona Sky
D00M. Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2009.10.11 16:04:00 -
[124]
Welp, in the end, each person on the CSM was voted for by players.
If the players vote for the village idiot, and then are up in arms because that persons decisions are stupid then all I have to say is:
What did you think was going to happen?
Term limits are a double edged sword. You restrict the time you get with the good ones and restrict the time you get with the bad ones. All the events that have unfolded in these last several months reflect that having a two term limit is a good thing.
|
Jade Constantine
Gallente Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2009.10.11 18:03:00 -
[125]
This if nothing else convinces me that there should be no change to term limits. CSM should not be a recurring free holiday for powerblock idols prepared to put pictures of themselves on the internet.
The term limit keeps things honest. And it challenges the community of Eve to keep finding new representatives to serve their time on the CSM and then go back to the player base and enjoy the game.
This thread was quite ill-advised and the discussion of this extremely unpopular issue cannot be other than a waste of CSM and CCP time.
The True Knowledge of the Star Fraction |
Vuk Lau
4S Corporation Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2009.10.11 18:53:00 -
[126]
Originally by: Jade Constantine
This if nothing else convinces me that there should be no change to term limits. CSM should not be a recurring free holiday for powerblock idols prepared to put pictures of themselves on the internet.
Can u elaborate please?
|
Jade Constantine
Gallente Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2009.10.11 19:05:00 -
[127]
Originally by: Vuk Lau Can u elaborate please?
[ 2009.09.27 17:36:13 ] Dierdra Vaal > 11: CSM term limits (maz) [ 2009.09.27 17:36:18 ] Dierdra Vaal > http://wiki.eveonline.com/wiki/CSM_term_limits [ 2009.09.27 17:36:43 ] mazzilliu > ok just so everyone knows i did not use the original idea from my thread in the official wiki [ 2009.09.27 17:36:49 ] mazzilliu > i used omber's idea instead as it was simpler [ 2009.09.27 17:37:10 ] mazzilliu > that is, after you serve your two you can't serve consecutive terms afterwards [ 2009.09.27 17:37:32 ] mazzilliu > also ccp can deny a returning csm applicant if they think they aren't getting their money's worth of advice from them [ 2009.09.27 17:37:36 ] Dierdra Vaal > ! [ 2009.09.27 17:37:40 ] Issler Dainze > ! [ 2009.09.27 17:37:41 ] mazzilliu > and issler's partial term doesnt count towards her limit [ 2009.09.27 17:37:43 ] Zastrow J > jade constantine forever [ 2009.09.27 17:37:44 ] mazzilliu > dv go [ 2009.09.27 17:37:56 ] mazzilliu > i am pretty sure jade constantine would end up 'denied' :P [ 2009.09.27 17:38:15 ] Dierdra Vaal > I'll be voting no and here is why (as much as I'd love to be chairman for life - oh the power! THE POWER!!) [ 2009.09.27 17:38:24 ] Dierdra Vaal > 1) The thread got very, VERY little support [ 2009.09.27 17:38:36 ] Dierdra Vaal > this is not what the players want, it is only what you want [ 2009.09.27 17:38:56 ] Dierdra Vaal > 2) I think it is extremely dubious for policy makes to make rules that give themselves more power [ 2009.09.27 17:39:28 ] Dierdra Vaal > 3) Your argument indirectly supposes that people who got elected first are 'the most qualified' ("anyone really qualified to serve is disqualified after only two terms") [ 2009.09.27 17:39:37 ] Dierdra Vaal > which I dont agree with because Bane Glorious was awful [ 2009.09.27 17:39:40 ] Dierdra Vaal > (no offense) [ 2009.09.27 17:40:07 ] Dierdra Vaal > I also think that switching out people once in a while, even if they come from the same power block, is good [ 2009.09.27 17:40:17 ] Dierdra Vaal > otherwise we'd still sit here with Ankhesemtapemka [ 2009.09.27 17:40:19 ] Dierdra Vaal > :P [ 2009.09.27 17:40:21 ] Dierdra Vaal > end [ 2009.09.27 17:40:27 ] Zastrow J > what a nightmare [ 2009.09.27 17:41:01 ] Erik Finnegan > ! [ 2009.09.27 17:41:18 ] mazzilliu > ppl like that are the sort of people CCP should disqualify anyways. obvious lack of game experience and so forth [ 2009.09.27 17:41:35 ] mazzilliu > also i promised in my campaign i would totally do this so this is me fulfilling my promises :D [ 2009.09.27 17:41:36 ] mazzilliu > issler go [ 2009.09.27 17:41:41 ] Issler Dainze > I don't agree with CCP deciding if a candidate "contributed enough". I would support the ability to serve again after 2 terms with some break and agrees with the nightmare :-) [ 2009.09.27 17:42:15 ] Issler Dainze > as for experience, that is relative, a lot of folks that need representing aren't that experienced either, so representing that experience can be useful. (end) [ 2009.09.27 17:43:02 ] mazzilliu > its one thing to have new players in mind, its another to have no clue how game mechanics work, then voting on them [ 2009.09.27 17:43:12 ] mazzilliu > erik go [ 2009.09.27 17:43:39 ] Erik Finnegan > I think we should be very careful with this issue. As DV said, the player support was low. What I like about it is the idea to make the CSM a money-worth partner of CCP, which is conveyed in solution part #2. [ 2009.09.27 17:44:20 ] Erik Finnegan > Still, I think that such a change should be dealt in a different way than in our regular issue sessions. [ 2009.09.27 17:44:30 ] Erik Finnegan > Especially since there are only online-meeting with CCP now. [ 2009.09.27 17:44:31 ] Erik Finnegan > FIN [ 2009.09.27 17:44:51 ] Erik Finnegan > ( well, there is fan fest ) [ 2009.09.27 17:45:23 ] Avalloc > !
The True Knowledge of the Star Fraction |
Jade Constantine
Gallente Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2009.10.11 19:06:00 -
[128]
[ 2009.09.27 17:45:23 ] Avalloc > ! [ 2009.09.27 17:45:40 ] mazzilliu > well i think that it will help if ccp has at least a few longer term csm members, so theya rent always dealing with complete unknowns [ 2009.09.27 17:45:46 ] mazzilliu > avalloc go [ 2009.09.27 17:45:48 ] Dierdra Vaal > ! [ 2009.09.27 17:46:27 ] Avalloc > ccp is still ironing out communication kinks with csm too.. and I personally feel a lot of 1-3's valueable input potential was wasted [ 2009.09.27 17:47:02 ] Avalloc > two terms with two term break, then one more might not be so bad [ 2009.09.27 17:47:19 ] Avalloc > end [ 2009.09.27 17:48:17 ] mazzilliu > yeah, whatever happened in the csm 1 and 2 is pretty much a complete unknown to me and probably most of you guys. [ 2009.09.27 17:48:49 ] Issler Dainze > the csm 2 likes it that way :-) [ 2009.09.27 17:49:19 ] Erik Finnegan > ! [ 2009.09.27 17:49:21 ] mazzilliu > if our chairman didnt have the experience of the csm 1 we probably wouldnt have gotten as far as we have so far. experience in the csm is a huge factor in your ability to actually do stuff in the csm [ 2009.09.27 17:49:42 ] Dierdra Vaal > (why thank you) [ 2009.09.27 17:49:43 ] mazzilliu > dv go [ 2009.09.27 17:49:48 ] Dierdra Vaal > There were at least 2 CSM1 members on CSM2. There are 3 CSM2 members on CSM3.. and I'm sure some of you will end up running for CSM4. I dont think you need to worry about having a completely new CSM. [ 2009.09.27 17:50:13 ] Dierdra Vaal > I also think that, IF this is introduced (which I doubt Xhagen will agree with) it should be at least a 2 term (1 year) hiatus. [ 2009.09.27 17:50:15 ] Dierdra Vaal > end [ 2009.09.27 17:51:33 ] mazzilliu > a 1 year hiatus is fair enough. if enough people think that enforcing a 1 year break instead of 6 months is important enough i will re-write the wiki [ 2009.09.27 17:51:47 ] mazzilliu > when you get to that point, natural player turnover when people quit the game becomes a major factor [ 2009.09.27 17:51:55 ] mazzilliu > i think erik is next [ 2009.09.27 17:52:12 ] Erik Finnegan > I think we should address the "wasted potential" issue, which Avalloc mentioned. A solution might not be the proposed issue here. Still, this issue wants to solve the same problem : tap into the potential of the CSM. But the issue we propose should [ 2009.09.27 17:52:22 ] Erik Finnegan > ound differently than this here. The problem summary here goes "CSM term limit". But that is not the problem.What we should be eager to solve / improve is the communication and the good use of the CSM-CCP cooperation. [ 2009.09.27 17:52:25 ] Erik Finnegan > FIN [ 2009.09.27 17:52:56 ] Erik Finnegan > ( *sound ) [ 2009.09.27 17:53:05 ] mazzilliu > hmm. food for thought. anyone else? [ 2009.09.27 17:54:20 ] mazzilliu > if nobody has anything else to add lets vote [ 2009.09.27 17:54:22 ] Erik Finnegan > DV mentions improvements on her last slide. That can be discussed further with players and CCP [ 2009.09.27 17:54:30 ] Issler Dainze > ! [ 2009.09.27 17:54:34 ] mazzilliu > ok issler [ 2009.09.27 17:54:35 ] mazzilliu > go [ 2009.09.27 17:54:54 ] Issler Dainze > are we removing the CCP veto of candidates based on their perception of contributions? [ 2009.09.27 17:55:04 ] Issler Dainze > end [ 2009.09.27 17:55:10 ] mazzilliu > er, i never said we were going to [ 2009.09.27 17:55:14 ] mazzilliu > ???? [ 2009.09.27 17:55:23 ] Issler Dainze > I see [ 2009.09.27 17:55:32 ] Erik Finnegan > No, we are voting down to whole proposal. ;) [ 2009.09.27 17:55:45 ] mazzilliu > ok lets vote [ 2009.09.27 17:55:49 ] mazzilliu > voting yes [ 2009.09.27 17:55:53 ] Erik Finnegan > /emote votes no [ 2009.09.27 17:56:12 ] Issler Dainze > votes no because of the ccp vetoe would support reelection after a one yeat hiatus [ 2009.09.27 17:56:16 ] Dierdra Vaal > no [ 2009.09.27 17:56:33 ] Zastrow J > should i vote for napfest solidarity or to troll that thread of haters
The True Knowledge of the Star Fraction |
Jade Constantine
Gallente Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2009.10.11 19:07:00 -
[129]
[ 2009.09.27 17:56:37 ] Zastrow J > luckily its the same thing, voting yes [ 2009.09.27 17:57:03 ] Dierdra Vaal > vuk votes yes [ 2009.09.27 17:57:07 ] Dierdra Vaal > avalloc is the swing vote [ 2009.09.27 17:57:13 ] Zastrow J > DUN DUN DUN [ 2009.09.27 17:57:16 ] Avalloc > argh [ 2009.09.27 17:57:21 ] mazzilliu > hey avalloc vote yes [ 2009.09.27 17:57:39 ] Issler Dainze > no he voted argh! [ 2009.09.27 17:57:43 ] Avalloc > I'm torn. [ 2009.09.27 17:58:33 ] Avalloc > yeesh [ 2009.09.27 17:58:47 ] Dierdra Vaal > yes? [ 2009.09.27 17:58:52 ] Avalloc > errr [ 2009.09.27 17:58:55 ] Erik Finnegan > ( the secretary did not understand the vote given ) [ 2009.09.27 17:59:00 ] mazzilliu > sounded like a yes to me [ 2009.09.27 17:59:01 ] Avalloc > I'm, deciding. [ 2009.09.27 17:59:04 ] Dierdra Vaal > ok [ 2009.09.27 17:59:11 ] Avalloc > This is polarized. :P [ 2009.09.27 17:59:14 ] Dierdra Vaal > /emote drumrolls [ 2009.09.27 17:59:19 ] Avalloc > (sorry for delay) [ 2009.09.27 17:59:41 ] Avalloc > what were you revising in wiki, mazz? [ 2009.09.27 18:00:17 ] mazzilliu > well what i said i did was change the original idea to omber zombie's simpler idea of a 1 term hiatus after the 2 terms. so its like serve 2, skip 1, serve 1, skip 1 etc etc [ 2009.09.27 18:00:24 ] mazzilliu > and then DV said something about a 1 year hiatus instead of 6 month [ 2009.09.27 18:00:39 ] mazzilliu > then i said if this is a big enough deal to everybody i can revise the wiki to say 2 term(1 year) hiatus instead [ 2009.09.27 18:00:44 ] Avalloc > will you do 1 year hiatus? [ 2009.09.27 18:00:48 ] mazzilliu > sure [ 2009.09.27 18:01:08 ] Erik Finnegan > I think it is risking our reputation at CCP. Because of bad wording of the "problem". [ 2009.09.27 18:01:48 ] Avalloc > well, ccp can do as they choose to [ 2009.09.27 18:02:18 ] Avalloc > voting yes [ 2009.09.27 18:02:23 ] mazzilliu > woohoo [ 2009.09.27 18:02:25 ] mazzilliu > editing wiki now [ 2009.09.27 18:02:38 ] Zastrow J > 0wned [ 2009.09.27 18:02:40 ] Dierdra Vaal > motion passed 4/3 [ 2009.09.27 18:02:45 ] Dierdra Vaal > So This Is How Liberty Dies...With Thunderous Applause [ 2009.09.27 18:02:52 ] Dierdra Vaal > *dramatic pose*
The True Knowledge of the Star Fraction |
Vaal Erit
Science and Trade Institute
|
Posted - 2009.10.12 06:50:00 -
[130]
Okay from what I understand from Larkonis and Vuk Lau's posts was that the continuity is terrible in the CSM and that the first term is more or less training. Well, sounds like you want longer terms or a method to fix the continuity and "csm rookie" issue. I don't see why you need to have unlimited term limits to fix those problems. If anything, this creates more work for CCP as they now have to monitor the CSM to determine if they are doing their job or not because they have this ridiculous "veto".
I would gladly support terms changed from 6 months to 1 year or an overlapping system so the outgoing CSM gets to teach the incoming CSM but I definitely do not want to see anyone on the CSM for years upon years.
Originally by: mazzilliu
...there's not really any ingame special interest groups that are trying to push issues at the cost of another group of players.
Have you read the EVE-O forums or played eve online recently? That's all players do mostly, they want themselves boosted and the bad guys nerfed so that they win. There are no formal organizations like real life political lobby groups yet but I am not so naive to believe that it cannot be done or hasn't already been done to some extent.
Lastly, this thread should be renamed "The Spazzilliu and Drake Rageconis show"
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.
|
|
Argonis Valentio
Senex Legio
|
Posted - 2009.10.12 07:55:00 -
[131]
Originally by: Vaal Erit Lastly, this thread should be renamed "The Spazzilliu and Drake Rageconis show"
In the sense of this issue, you need to define formal. Formal in whose eyes? I'm fairly certain Goonies have formalised their voting process to get 2 folks in, the probability of two getting in is low.
On that note, Mazz' stunt speaks volumes of information to major alliances. Namely, that they can do what they want and get free cookies in the process for casting their votes in an organised fashion. Prior to this thread, I was unaware that CSM gets free play time, not that it matters much - a good trader can make 6 months worth of gameplay creds in the same time but it's the incentive which is problematic.
CSM gets too many incentives to increase the time frame they can run for. Next thing you'll see is CCP paying for body guard protection on the flight and transportation to and from Iceland .
If your going to volunteer to do something, that's what it should be - volunteer work...
|
fuze
Gallente Quam Singulari Cult of War
|
Posted - 2009.10.12 10:26:00 -
[132]
Originally by: Vaal Erit I would gladly support terms changed from 6 months to 1 year or an overlapping system so the outgoing CSM gets to teach the incoming CSM but I definitely do not want to see anyone on the CSM for years upon years.
Sums it up nicely. Half year terms seem to be short when it comes to digging into the matters (and red tape). Initially when I read the subject I thought it was about extending the half year into a full year and pherhaps cutting down the terms to just one.
Having CSM noobs is a good thing since it minimizes the chance of personal agenda's being pushed. Since CSM aren't Eve noobs there is nothing against having other perspectives from other players. This outweights the having to read into CSM to get the job done IMHO.
Besides if you want to have a during influence and go to the fanfest every year you should apply for a job at CCP.
|
Marlona Sky
D00M. Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2009.10.12 11:20:00 -
[133]
I think I will run for CSM for the fall term too. I could use a free trip to fan fest. Free 6 month of eve subscription. All kinds of stuff for myself. Also the ability to push forth my own agenda even though the voice of the eve community doesn't want me to. After all, I know what is best regardless of their opinion. And just do this over and over and over...
And once in a great while, bring forth something to the voting table that some non-csm low life so I can say I am a voice of the people.
My people of course...
Muahaha.... MUAHAHAHAHAAHA!!!
|
Vuk Lau
4S Corporation Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2009.10.12 13:14:00 -
[134]
As I already said somewhere big powerblocks will always have their candidates in CSM, and I dont see nothing wrong in there. If you could actually spent hour or two of your life instead of smacking 0.0 reps, you would see that most of the changes we will see in dominion and most of them were proposed by either Goon reps, myself and I think Jade Constantin in CSM 1.0 (i am talking about Incentivizing 0.0, supercap changes and such). The funniest thing is that the big alliances like Goons or Morsus Mihi will suffer the most due to all this changes proposed by us, so all the whine that we are pushing our own agenda before trying to make EVE better place for everyone is pure bull****.
Extending CSM term to 9 or even 12 months was my idea aswell, but I think CCP is against it.
At the end I will repeat myself, there isn't perfect system neither in RL and naturally not in internet spaceship game, but there should be room for improvement for current one.
|
Jade Constantine
Gallente Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2009.10.12 16:03:00 -
[135]
Originally by: Vuk Lau As I already said somewhere big powerblocks will always have their candidates in CSM, and I dont see nothing wrong in there. If you could actually spent hour or two of your life instead of smacking 0.0 reps, you would see that most of the changes we will see in dominion and most of them were proposed by either Goon reps, myself and I think Jade Constantin in CSM 1.0 (i am talking about Incentivizing 0.0, supercap changes and such). The funniest thing is that the big alliances like Goons or Morsus Mihi will suffer the most due to all this changes proposed by us, so all the whine that we are pushing our own agenda before trying to make EVE better place for everyone is pure bull****.
Thing is Vuk you shouldn't pretend that pushing the agenda of the people who elected you isn't a big part of the role. Eve players are voting for you take their issues to CCP and try their best to get them into the game. This ranges from the little things like UI fixes and ship tweaks, to the medium stuff like boosting blackops and bombers - right up to the reinvention of 0.0 as we will shortly see.
These are passionate subjects and players expect their representatives to carry that passion to CCP. If delegates were really only go-to-guys collecting forum posts and copy and pasting into the wiki when why bother having elections in the first place? CCP could just hire an intern to do that job and have done with it.
The best thing the CSM can represent is a vital and enthusiastic debate where many sides of the argument get presented and all the talking turns into good stuff. Got to say I was pretty exhausted by all the butting heads I had to do with Goons in CSM1 but at the end of the day we managed to get stuff done and promoted the issues that the voting eve public wanted us to present.
Though I've not yet had the urge to do my 2nd term (mainly because I'm really looking forward to playing with the changes in dominion and frankly the CSM is hard work if you do it properly) - I can say I'm glad I did it, I think it needed doing and frankly somebody did need to confront the status quo of the big powerbloc alliances and say what was wrong with the current sovereignty model.
Quote: Extending CSM term to 9 or even 12 months was my idea aswell, but I think CCP is against it.
I'm against it too. I think six months is fine and two terms means you get a second bite at the cherry in a while (perhaps to see how your issues helped shape the game down the road). But keeping the terms relatively short and avoiding "delegate-for-life" rubbish keeps it fresh, gives everyone a chance to take their term and prevents the abuse of CSM status by power bloc favourites treating it as a free holiday and beer fest.
Quote: At the end I will repeat myself, there isn't perfect system neither in RL and naturally not in internet spaceship game, but there should be room for improvement for current one.
I can't disagree with that, but thats a long way from supporting a motion from a sitting committee to extend their tenure and privileges that got less public supports (3) than it did council members (4). To be honest that vote was an embarrassment and I think several of your current CSM delegates realized that in the course of the discussion.
This issue certainly doesn't represent anything the community is asking you to take to CCP and seems more about Maz trolling people than actual practical reform.
You should strike it from the submission list and pretend it never happened to be quite honest.
True Knowledge |
De'Veldrin
Minmatar Special Projects Executive
|
Posted - 2009.10.12 16:18:00 -
[136]
Originally by: Marlona Sky I think I will run for CSM for the fall term too. I could use a free trip to fan fest. Free 6 month of eve subscription. All kinds of stuff for myself. Also the ability to push forth my own agenda even though the voice of the eve community doesn't want me to. After all, I know what is best regardless of their opinion. And just do this over and over and over...
And once in a great while, bring forth something to the voting table that some non-csm low life so I can say I am a voice of the people.
My people of course...
Muahaha.... MUAHAHAHAHAAHA!!!
Can I be one of your people?! Pleeeeeeeeease!? --Vel
In the world of emoticons, I was colon capital d. |
Drake Draconis
Minmatar Shadow Cadre REIGN Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.10.12 17:22:00 -
[137]
Originally by: Jade Constantine
Quote: At the end I will repeat myself, there isn't perfect system neither in RL and naturally not in internet spaceship game, but there should be room for improvement for current one.
I can't disagree with that, but thats a long way from supporting a motion from a sitting committee to extend their tenure and privileges that got less public supports (3) than it did council members (4). To be honest that vote was an embarrassment and I think several of your current CSM delegates realized that in the course of the discussion.
This issue certainly doesn't represent anything the community is asking you to take to CCP and seems more about Maz trolling people than actual practical reform.
You should strike it from the submission list and pretend it never happened to be quite honest.
Glad to know I'm not the only one here seeing this. ========================= CEO of Shadow Cadre http://www.shadowcadre.com ========================= |
Yaay
Game-Over
|
Posted - 2009.10.12 17:30:00 -
[138]
Cross posted for emphasis:
This reminds me of a recent US congress vote for pay raise even when we're getting lectured on how broke our country is from these same people. It's in nobody's self interest except the members of the body of voters. The players are obviously happy with the way the system works, even if the system is horrible. Come up with a better proposal, or throw it away totally.
Personally I think the entire election system is a crock. It's not well published, it's not well maintained, and it's very much in favor of large alliances.
It's sad when I read goon responses to a goon CSM on here where they blatantly say I was told to support this so click. Same goes for all the other CSM's. Most of the major support threads on here are a CSM and his alliances backing after they were told on their private forums to go support it. If you look through the actual supports, it's 10% or less of independent voters even commenting on most issues.
The forum is woefully under read, woefully managed, and poorly done.
I think before the CSM tries to force longer terms, maybe they should take a harder look at what makes this system so bad.
For starters, how about an option to support or disapprove of a thread. I've seen 1000 post threads get 100 supports and 900 alts or replies detailing the thread more. Surface value would say that there are 900 rejections of the topic, when really it's just a stiff debate between posters. How many threads get passed up because of this mistake?
What about better publicity and handling of information from devs and CSM. OPEN TS night 2x a month, Open CSM only forum where topics can be debated by them for everyone to see. OPEN ask-a-Dev Forum where issues regarding CSM get a post, and no replies allowed Until someone in the know answeres the question.
How about an updated CSM section on the website.
Open CSM debate sessions on IRC.
ETC.
All those issues are far more important than the longevity of a CSM.
DD changes
Docking PVP games |
Drake Draconis
Minmatar Shadow Cadre REIGN Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.10.12 18:11:00 -
[139]
Originally by: Yaay Cross posted for emphasis:
This reminds me of a recent US congress vote for pay raise even when we're getting lectured on how broke our country is from these same people. It's in nobody's self interest except the members of the body of voters. The players are obviously happy with the way the system works, even if the system is horrible. Come up with a better proposal, or throw it away totally.
Personally I think the entire election system is a crock. It's not well published, it's not well maintained, and it's very much in favor of large alliances.
It's sad when I read goon responses to a goon CSM on here where they blatantly say I was told to support this so click. Same goes for all the other CSM's. Most of the major support threads on here are a CSM and his alliances backing after they were told on their private forums to go support it. If you look through the actual supports, it's 10% or less of independent voters even commenting on most issues.
The forum is woefully under read, woefully managed, and poorly done.
I think before the CSM tries to force longer terms, maybe they should take a harder look at what makes this system so bad.
For starters, how about an option to support or disapprove of a thread. I've seen 1000 post threads get 100 supports and 900 alts or replies detailing the thread more. Surface value would say that there are 900 rejections of the topic, when really it's just a stiff debate between posters. How many threads get passed up because of this mistake?
What about better publicity and handling of information from devs and CSM. OPEN TS night 2x a month, Open CSM only forum where topics can be debated by them for everyone to see. OPEN ask-a-Dev Forum where issues regarding CSM get a post, and no replies allowed Until someone in the know answeres the question.
How about an updated CSM section on the website.
Open CSM debate sessions on IRC.
ETC.
All those issues are far more important than the longevity of a CSM.
And yet again... agreed. ========================= CEO of Shadow Cadre http://www.shadowcadre.com ========================= |
Vuk Lau
4S Corporation Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2009.10.12 18:37:00 -
[140]
Originally by: Drake Draconis
Originally by: Yaay Cross posted for emphasis:
This reminds me of a recent US congress vote for pay raise even when we're getting lectured on how broke our country is from these same people. It's in nobody's self interest except the members of the body of voters. The players are obviously happy with the way the system works, even if the system is horrible. Come up with a better proposal, or throw it away totally.
Personally I think the entire election system is a crock. It's not well published, it's not well maintained, and it's very much in favor of large alliances.
It's sad when I read goon responses to a goon CSM on here where they blatantly say I was told to support this so click. Same goes for all the other CSM's. Most of the major support threads on here are a CSM and his alliances backing after they were told on their private forums to go support it. If you look through the actual supports, it's 10% or less of independent voters even commenting on most issues.
The forum is woefully under read, woefully managed, and poorly done.
I think before the CSM tries to force longer terms, maybe they should take a harder look at what makes this system so bad.
For starters, how about an option to support or disapprove of a thread. I've seen 1000 post threads get 100 supports and 900 alts or replies detailing the thread more. Surface value would say that there are 900 rejections of the topic, when really it's just a stiff debate between posters. How many threads get passed up because of this mistake?
What about better publicity and handling of information from devs and CSM. OPEN TS night 2x a month, Open CSM only forum where topics can be debated by them for everyone to see. OPEN ask-a-Dev Forum where issues regarding CSM get a post, and no replies allowed Until someone in the know answeres the question.
How about an updated CSM section on the website.
Open CSM debate sessions on IRC.
ETC.
All those issues are far more important than the longevity of a CSM.
And yet again... agreed.
Dont you think we didnt already proposed bunch of that/or similar stuff. It had to pass 1+ year to get semiworking CSM emails and part of the forums where we can discuss issues internally. I dont want to sound as little whiner like Yaay is :D especially cause concept as CSM is something nowhere to be seen, and only having it live and going is huge success for a CCP as a company, but the fact is that CSM delegates (esp. CSM 1.0) had/have a lot of difficulties on their path. As mentioned we are still experiencing lack of support from CCP (yes I am whining again :D ) but I assume exclusively cause I think that CCP is undermanned, not due to lack of will to support CSM as project. Thats the same reason a lot of things Yaay mentioned above are still dead on a paper. Anyway this is bit off topic.
As I already said I was and divided on this matter. Sadly I had to leave the meeting due to RL crap before this issue came to the table so I voted yes, but mainly cause I wanted to see CCP view on this matter.
|
|
Marlona Sky
D00M. Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2009.10.12 18:48:00 -
[141]
I will support any changes that will enhance the CSM ability to do its job better.
I absolutely will NOT support anything that removes/extends term limits. The reason they are there serves a very good purpose. Only 3 terms into the CSM and you want to remove the biggest safety feature. "This seat-belt chafes my neck while I'm driving, lets remove it so I am more comfortable." The solution would be to adjust the shoulder strap on the B-pillar lower so its not on your neck.
I will NOT support a CCP veto on a CSM member because they think they will suck as a CSM member. The players voted them there so they should be there. The moment some CSM member from say a power block is disqualified because CCP decides they are not good enough that power block will be up in arms shouting that CCP is BoB or some stupid crap. I highly doubt CCP is sitting over expenses wondering if the free stuff is cost effective on your input. They make plenty of money and are doing just fine.
You really should have pushed forth changes to help CSM members do a better job during the two terms and you would have gotten the support of the eve players.
You still have time to redeem yourself with the players and bring forth the needed changes you need to happen so the CSM can better serve the players within the two term limit. Unless of course you don't give a ****.
|
Yaay
Game-Over
|
Posted - 2009.10.12 18:58:00 -
[142]
Originally by: Vuk Lau
Dont you think we didnt already proposed bunch of that/or similar stuff. It had to pass 1+ year to get semiworking CSM emails and part of the forums where we can discuss issues internally. I dont want to sound as little whiner like Yaay is :D especially cause concept as CSM is something nowhere to be seen, and only having it live and going is huge success for a CCP as a company, but the fact is that CSM delegates (esp. CSM 1.0) had/have a lot of difficulties on their path. As mentioned we are still experiencing lack of support from CCP (yes I am whining again :D ) but I assume exclusively cause I think that CCP is undermanned, not due to lack of will to support CSM as project. Thats the same reason a lot of things Yaay mentioned above are still dead on a paper. Anyway this is bit off topic.
As I already said I was and divided on this matter. Sadly I had to leave the meeting due to RL crap before this issue came to the table so I voted yes, but mainly cause I wanted to see CCP view on this matter.
Vuk, you don't need CCP to implement most of those changes. There are plenty of CSM's, plenty of outsourcing that you can do in your alliances, etc to get most of that done. Hell, BE would probably host a TS session or 12 considering they do it every patch anyways.
IRC is like lol free.
There are forums outside these.
Wiki could be vastly updated and more timely.
If CCP is behind, it's up to you guys to make your positions work. If you don't have the resources from CCP, create them yourselves. You guys make it sound like such sacrifices you have to make to do this stuff. First, it's optional. Second, you're reaping plenty of reward to justify the extra effort. Hell, a trip to iceland is what, about 3000 dollars American pay roughly after boarding, food, etc?
You can't blame us players for not having sympathy with you guys. Right now, CSM is a glory ***** position. If we got rid of all the alliance leaders who do it as a sidebar to everything else and got the less well known passionate players to do it, maybe we would have already seen these 2ndary changes occur.
All we ever hear from the CSM is lots of talk and hype and not a lot of result. Maybe you guys should realize you aren't doing things right or efficiently.
DD changes
Docking PVP games |
Vuk Lau
4S Corporation Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2009.10.12 19:34:00 -
[143]
Thats true aswell.
|
Mynxee
Minmatar Hellcats The Bastards.
|
Posted - 2009.10.12 19:49:00 -
[144]
Originally by: Yaay For starters, how about an option to support or disapprove of a thread. I've seen 1000 post threads get 100 supports and 900 alts or replies detailing the thread more. Surface value would say that there are 900 rejections of the topic, when really it's just a stiff debate between posters. How many threads get passed up because of this mistake?
PLEASE Yes. Why it's not there already, I can't imagine.
Originally by: Yaay What about better publicity and handling of information from devs and CSM. OPEN TS night 2x a month, Open CSM only forum where topics can be debated by them for everyone to see. OPEN ask-a-Dev Forum where issues regarding CSM get a post, and no replies allowed Until someone in the know answeres the question.
How about an updated CSM section on the website.
Open CSM debate sessions on IRC.
ETC.
All those issues are far more important than the longevity of a CSM.
All those things would support continuity and encourage more player participation. Lack of proactive outreach to the player population at large is the CSM's biggest failing from my perspective. Part of being an effective voice for the people is reaching out to inform the uninformed so that they too can step up and be heard. I don't see any of the CSMs doing anything to accomplish that. And it's not a lack of tools. The tools and mechanisms exist and are free. Blogs and Twitter come immediately to mind. Relying on the ridiculously tiny viewport to the playerbase provided by this forum is pathetically short-sighted and frankly, lazy. Despite I'm one of CSM's biggest supporters, all I seem to see are people doing the bare minimum required to get their free trips to Iceland.
Maybe I have a skewed perspective on what we players should expect from CSMs since it is based on how I'd approach the job. However, I am not impressed with CSM's (lack of) efforts to inform, educate, and encourage players to participate in the process of getting heard. CCP hasn't really put their shoulder much into the yoke in this area either. But hey, they are footing the bill. Given that and their familiar "it's your sandbox, play in it" mentality, I can forgive them for expecting the CSM to step up if indeed that's what is going on behind the scenes.
If there is evidence out there to prove me wrong, please by all means share it and I will cheerfully admit that I am misinformed and ignorant. Wouldn't be the first time.
Bump It! | My Blog: Life in Low Sec |
Argonis Valentio
Senex Legio
|
Posted - 2009.10.13 01:56:00 -
[145]
Originally by: Mynxee
Originally by: Yaay For starters, how about an option to support or disapprove of a thread. I've seen 1000 post threads get 100 supports and 900 alts or replies detailing the thread more. Surface value would say that there are 900 rejections of the topic, when really it's just a stiff debate between posters. How many threads get passed up because of this mistake?
PLEASE Yes. Why it's not there already, I can't imagine.
Originally by: Yaay What about better publicity and handling of information from devs and CSM. OPEN TS night 2x a month, Open CSM only forum where topics can be debated by them for everyone to see. OPEN ask-a-Dev Forum where issues regarding CSM get a post, and no replies allowed Until someone in the know answeres the question.
How about an updated CSM section on the website.
Open CSM debate sessions on IRC.
ETC.
All those issues are far more important than the longevity of a CSM.
All those things would support continuity and encourage more player participation. Lack of proactive outreach to the player population at large is the CSM's biggest failing from my perspective. Part of being an effective voice for the people is reaching out to inform the uninformed so that they too can step up and be heard. I don't see any of the CSMs doing anything to accomplish that. And it's not a lack of tools. The tools and mechanisms exist and are free. Blogs and Twitter come immediately to mind. Relying on the ridiculously tiny viewport to the playerbase provided by this forum is pathetically short-sighted and frankly, lazy. Despite I'm one of CSM's biggest supporters, all I seem to see are people doing the bare minimum required to get their free trips to Iceland.
Maybe I have a skewed perspective on what we players should expect from CSMs since it is based on how I'd approach the job. However, I am not impressed with CSM's (lack of) efforts to inform, educate, and encourage players to participate in the process of getting heard. CCP hasn't really put their shoulder much into the yoke in this area either. But hey, they are footing the bill. Given that and their familiar "it's your sandbox, play in it" mentality, I can forgive them for expecting the CSM to step up if indeed that's what is going on behind the scenes.
If there is evidence out there to prove me wrong, please by all means share it and I will cheerfully admit that I am misinformed and ignorant. Wouldn't be the first time.
I totally agree with Mynxee on this. Finally people are putting forward the fact that CSM should be proactive in their approach as a body to do good, rather than harm, and without the need of assistance from CCP. All games are to some degree a sandbox in which the players can create and destroy empires based on the actions on one or more people. For example, take that EVE university group that teaches new players how to play the game. They have, by no small feat, achieved something even CSM has failed to do and without any assistance from CCP might I add. Perhaps it's time someone builds up another corporation that teaches people about CSM and it's importance and the importance of continued education of CSM and EVE.
Furthermore, I don't post on any other characters and I think CCP should make it that you must elect one and only one character to troll the forums with.
|
Chinwe Rhei
Minmatar Tribal Liberation Force
|
Posted - 2009.10.13 07:02:00 -
[146]
You guys are supposed to be player representatives not some kind of junior game designers, you know that right ? CCP has plenty of qualified, payed, experienced people doing that, if you're going to bring your own personal ideeas to the table instead of what the community actually wants we might as well disband the whole damn thing. If you want a job at CCP apply for that instead.
As far as i'm concerned CSM members shouldn't even be allowed to make any kind of proposal that is not directly related to the internal workings of the CSM meetings. Because **** like this happens, they post a thread about it, they ignore all feedback and decide ofcourse that their proposal is awesome and should be brought to the dev's attention.
Why even post threads like this at all ? Next time just ask your own alliance on the internal forums what would help them most and what kind of insider information they'd like to have, that's all you guys are good for anyway, officialising the kind of crap the CSM was initially thought to prevent.
|
Marlona Sky
D00M. Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2009.10.14 11:05:00 -
[147]
Is the CSM still going to bring this travesty of an idea to the attention of CCP???
Please tell me after all of the replies to this thread your still not going thru with it are you???
|
mazzilliu
Caldari Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
|
Posted - 2009.10.14 13:55:00 -
[148]
already did. muahahahahahahaahahah
MAZZILLIU 2009. CHANGE I CAN IMPOSE ON YOU. |
Marlona Sky
D00M. Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2009.10.14 20:25:00 -
[149]
Originally by: mazzilliu already did. muahahahahahahaahahah
So what did CCP say?
|
mazzilliu
Caldari Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
|
Posted - 2009.10.15 01:56:00 -
[150]
Originally by: Marlona Sky
Originally by: mazzilliu already did. muahahahahahahaahahah
So what did CCP say?
NDA until the minutes are released
muahahahhahaha
MAZZILLIU 2009. CHANGE I CAN IMPOSE ON YOU. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |