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.
|
|
Dirty Wizard
|
Posted - 2009.09.25 00:55:00 -
[31]
Simply one word to this: NO!
CSM's absolutely need term limits. Without limits, all it would take is some major alliance (say goonswarm) to flex its voting muscle and keep the same do-nothing yahoos in the CSM position indefinitely.
Suggesting no term limits smacks of corruption.
|
Argonis Valentio
Caelum Custos Industries
|
Posted - 2009.09.25 10:03:00 -
[32]
As many have said, No to this - can't support corruption and that is what your doing by increasing the term limit.
Presidents/Prime Ministers are restricted to limited terms because of the ability for corruption. Furthermore parties are often altered over decades to prevent the corruption of one party. To support this would be to destroy the very foundation on which the CSM was made, that is a council for the players of EVE.
Furthermore it was ridiculously for someone such as yourself to bring this up. One only needs to read the words CSM under Author and the topic to know that something is WRONG with this topic. CSM should NEVER have the ability to debate this topic or have any significant say over the matter. Such decisions should be left to a third party, in our case CCP or if need be, the players. However since it is CCP's interest to get players ideas it should be left with them to make any real decision as to this.
Topic listed 2. states that incumbent's are observed on contributions. This has many forms and therefore would need clarification. Furthermore contributions can be negative and promoted based on self-interest, this is not in the interests of CCP.
So to clarify, no to supporting this. It's CCP's decision and not the players. Allowing such an atrocity only opens up an avenue for corruption.
|
Emrys Ap'Morgravaine
Caldari Minmatar Ship Construction Services Ushra'Khan
|
Posted - 2009.09.25 16:25:00 -
[33]
So thankfully, someone else in corp raised this to the attention of everyone. As since I'm not a big forum dweller, I never noticed it was being discussed.
So quick reponse? Oh dear frakking god no, its a god awful idea...
Democracy as laid down by the US administration has a 2 term limit, and when all is said and done, it works. I'll point at all the issues with 2 terms of dubya and say no more.
In democractic countries where there are -not- term limits, we get situations like the Thatcher years here in the UK.
Anyone with any sense will vote against this as being an all round terrible idea.
Em. -=-=-=-=- Reformed Carebear.
Much bear, zero care. -=-=-=-=- |
Jarna
Amarr Eternal Frontier
|
Posted - 2009.09.25 17:53:00 -
[34]
Crap, you remind me of someone and I can't quite place it. It's that stupid sig. Oh right!!!> Obama. I'll bet my life savings (300$...lol), that Obama tries the same thing.
|
Becq Starforged
Minmatar Ship Construction Services Ushra'Khan
|
Posted - 2009.09.25 18:30:00 -
[35]
My vote is to keep the term limits. That way, we will keep cycling through new people, and perhaps we'll eventually come up with a set who actually serves as a voice for the players.
Kinda like the million monkey approach to writing literature, but in slow motion. Right now we're still in the monkey stage, but eventually perhaps we'll end up with Shakespeare.
-- Becq Starforged
The Flame of Freedom Burns On! |
Max Torps
Gallente Agony Empire
|
Posted - 2009.09.25 23:17:00 -
[36]
Freshness not staleness. No. Continuity can be served by adequate documentation and natural overlap of two consecutive terms that has already occurred. @MaxTorps
|
Mynxee
Minmatar Hellcats The Bastards.
|
Posted - 2009.09.26 01:01:00 -
[37]
Sorry, Maz, can't support the specifics that you're proposing, although I think that continuity IS important and a change is needed to help ensure it.
Item 1: Four continuing members is too many--for all the reasons stated by non-supporters already. Two would be plenty. Staggered terms might also help with continuity although I'm not sure how the system might be painlessly and fairly converted from as-is to that.
Item 2: Way too subjective. Even if CCP had very good reasons, I can already hear the whines and moans from the players whose favorite candidate got rejected out of hand.
Item 3: Issler should not have this partial term counted against of eligibility to run again. However, I believe that partial terms that result from someone dropping out due to RL or a failure to meet their obligations should be counted against that eligibility.
So...very much in your camp regarding the importance of continuity, but just can't support the specific ideas you've proposed.
Bump It! | My Blog: Life in Low Sec |
Argonis Valentio
Senex Legio
|
Posted - 2009.09.28 03:08:00 -
[38]
CSM term limits received a total support of 3 with some CSM members opposing it. How can this be in the 'submission' and receive any credible CCP input?
Waste of time better spent elsewhere. |
Jason Edwards
Internet Tough Guy
|
Posted - 2009.09.28 03:23:00 -
[39]
Originally by: Dr BattleSmith 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.
Maybe I should apply to become CSM. At least I already know I am Caesar.
I like it how it is now tbh. Though 1 change might be to get actual representation.
Aka get at least 2 carebear positions. 2 market jockey positions. 2 low sec positions. 2 0.0 positions. I also like the idea of alliance leaders getting in there. It kinda proves that ccp isnt padding the csm with ccp employees. Then again... Enslaver from lotka volterra turned out to be a ccp employee. ------------------------ To make a megathron from scratch, you must first invent the eve universe. ------------------------ Life sucks and then you get podded. |
Kronossan
Tread Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.09.29 08:39:00 -
[40]
Edited by: Kronossan on 29/09/2009 08:44:45 Never thought of the fact that Goonswarm would get every single member of them to vote on their preferred candidate.
If this is the case I think it may be time to disband the CSM because it clearly isn't working out as democratic as everyone thinks.
edit: Disband and never get a new one that is. _________________
|
|
Iwant Urstuff
Amarr Iwant Urstuff Corp
|
Posted - 2009.09.30 15:16:00 -
[41]
I think I would prefer to just scrap the whole CSM rather than do away with term limits. While I am not advocating scrapping the CSM system now I am awfully close to it. It just seems to be a way for the big alliances to get advanced intel on what is coming down the dev pipeline. I don't believe that NDA slows them for 5 seconds. They are just a lot more sophisticated than you know who was.
My .02 ISK.
NOT SUPPORTED.
|
Drake Draconis
Minmatar Shadow Cadre REIGN Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.09.30 15:27:00 -
[42]
Originally by: Iwant Urstuff I think I would prefer to just scrap the whole CSM rather than do away with term limits. While I am not advocating scrapping the CSM system now I am awfully close to it. It just seems to be a way for the big alliances to get advanced intel on what is coming down the dev pipeline. I don't believe that NDA slows them for 5 seconds. They are just a lot more sophisticated than you know who was.
My .02 ISK.
NOT SUPPORTED.
Ah yes... it doesn't slow them at all...
*looks at the tattered remains of Lark*
Nope... not one bit.
========================= CEO of Shadow Cadre http://www.shadowcadre.com ========================= |
Kasi Kasai
|
Posted - 2009.09.30 16:27:00 -
[43]
Edited by: Kasi Kasai on 30/09/2009 16:28:21 Three supports, a whole THREE supports on the forum, and this gets passed to CCP?
Thats just....
CSM just lost ALL credibility in my eyes.
|
Lori Carlyle
Void Engineers Mass - Effect
|
Posted - 2009.09.30 21:45:00 -
[44]
Originally by: Kasi Kasai Edited by: Kasi Kasai on 30/09/2009 16:28:21 Three supports, a whole THREE supports on the forum, and this gets passed to CCP?
Thats just....
CSM just lost ALL credibility in my eyes.
Amen.
|
Irongut
H A V O C Against ALL Authorities
|
Posted - 2009.10.01 16:05:00 -
[45]
Four more years President Nixon? No thanks.
The only part of your idea that I'd support would be the bit about half terms not counting.
-- Please resize your signature to the maximum file size of 24000 bytes. Zymurgist |
Song Li
MinmaTire Corporation LTD
|
Posted - 2009.10.01 19:07:00 -
[46]
Originally by: mazzilliu
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.
I can see a limitation on incombents running but not a complete removal of term limits. Having the same person on the CSM indefinately to me, does not breed inovation or a balancing of views.
Originally by: mazzilliu
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.
I think this is more an internal CCP issue for all candidates. It's a fine line that CCP has to walk with all applicants and I wouldn't remove their right to refuse any application, though for openness CCP may wish to explain their reasoning. But that's an internal decision.
Originally by: mazzilliu
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.
I can support this change if it only relates to a CSM stepping down to reasonable life reasons and not for instance, a vialation of NDA or the likes.
In fact I believe a violation of the NDA should result in forfeiture of the CSM position and banning from running again.
Originally by: mazzilliu
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.
See I see this as a reason why it would be abused.
Originally by: mazzilliu
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.
The term limits also provide CCP an easy way to ride out a useless CSM member that has support without having to deal with denying an application that could cause unfavourable press about how the CSM is run.
Originally by: mazzilliu
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)
I agree and support your item 3.
|
Romale
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
|
Posted - 2009.10.02 02:53:00 -
[47]
i just would like to point out, that anyone who thinks our dear leader mazzilliu shouldn't be appointed a life term in office is an idiot
|
Pian Shu
Bene Gesserit ChapterHouse Tread Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.10.02 06:11:00 -
[48]
There is absolutely no reason to remove term limits.
If you want continuity, move that 2 members of the current CSM always remain for the next term as advisors. Those two members should be elected by a vote of the CSM as only the council can determine who was effective and who was not.
|
Mynxee
Minmatar Hellcats The Bastards.
|
Posted - 2009.10.02 23:52:00 -
[49]
Originally by: Pian Shu If you want continuity, move that 2 members of the current CSM always remain for the next term as advisors. Those two members should be elected by a vote of the CSM as only the council can determine who was effective and who was not.
I like this suggestion. I'd even go so far as to suggest that we players vote for 7 delegates and the CSM elect the other 2 delegates from within their ranks to serve on the subsequent council.
Bump It! | My Blog: Life in Low Sec |
Argonis Valentio
Senex Legio
|
Posted - 2009.10.03 03:28:00 -
[50]
Originally by: Mynxee
Originally by: Pian Shu If you want continuity, move that 2 members of the current CSM always remain for the next term as advisors. Those two members should be elected by a vote of the CSM as only the council can determine who was effective and who was not.
I like this suggestion. I'd even go so far as to suggest that we players vote for 7 delegates and the CSM elect the other 2 delegates from within their ranks to serve on the subsequent council.
No, I completely disagree with any remedy to this situation. The fact is, CSM have incentives to continue being elected because they get a free trip+meals and lodging to Iceland every election (makes a fantastic holiday destination). Altering this process gives CCP and large alliances the incentive to abuse the system in which case I might as well chuck money on the street and see how long it takes for someone to find it (usually 10 min) which is more entertaining.
Bottom line is, by placing this in the CSM submission and CCP review pile you have already abused your powers. It's like sending a bill through to be discussed, having it denied and implementing it in society anyway. That isn't democratic, it's tyranny.
I have to draw blood from a stone every time I petition CCP about an ethical issue which always requires a supervisor's input because the grunts have to stick to the CCP policy's. This money could be better spent removing one step so that people don't have to wait so long for a proper solution.
|
|
Iwant Urstuff
Amarr Iwant Urstuff Corp
|
Posted - 2009.10.05 23:18:00 -
[51]
Originally by: Drake Draconis
Originally by: Iwant Urstuff I think I would prefer to just scrap the whole CSM rather than do away with term limits. While I am not advocating scrapping the CSM system now I am awfully close to it. It just seems to be a way for the big alliances to get advanced intel on what is coming down the dev pipeline. I don't believe that NDA slows them for 5 seconds. They are just a lot more sophisticated than you know who was.
My .02 ISK.
NOT SUPPORTED.
Ah yes... it doesn't slow them at all...
*looks at the tattered remains of Lark*
Nope... not one bit.
Perhaps you should learn to read before you practice replying. Besides if you think you know who is an a large alliance with a huge amount of out of game coordination I think you been smoking to much of the wacky weed dude.
I think the way this was pushed through the CSM with no quorum (counting an absent member to make a quorum is an interesting interpretation of their rules) and VERY LIMITED SUPPORT. Yeah, three supports and off to CCP it goes. Wow look at the great representation the EVE Community has. Reminds me of certain workers collective representation which always after awhile begins representing the collective representation rather than the workers. Disband the CSM!!!!
|
Dr BattleSmith
PAX Interstellar Services
|
Posted - 2009.10.06 01:34:00 -
[52]
Originally by: Lori Carlyle
Originally by: Kasi Kasai Edited by: Kasi Kasai on 30/09/2009 16:28:21 Three supports, a whole THREE supports on the forum, and this gets passed to CCP?
Thats just....
CSM just lost ALL credibility in my eyes.
Amen.
Amen.
Really CSM deligates....... How did you think that would fly?
After seeing the massive objections on the forum....... Then continuing to *NOT* explain your reasons to the general public......
Amazingly brash. Think this shows that we very much *DO NOT* want these same candidates if this is how they behave.
|
Dr BattleSmith
PAX Interstellar Services
|
Posted - 2009.10.06 01:45:00 -
[53]
Originally by: Argonis Valentio
Bottom line is, by placing this in the CSM submission and CCP review pile you have already abused your powers.
+1
|
Argonis Valentio
Senex Legio
|
Posted - 2009.10.06 05:30:00 -
[54]
Mazzilliu, if your going to update this to the CSM how about putting the player input into the answer. For example:
Cons:
- Allows large corporations to abuse the CSM system - Allows CCP staff to abuse the system - Reduces flow of ideas and processes leading to a power struggle - Creates more tension for CCP which it doesn't need right now - Likely to cost more than it's value (CCP investing to get new ideas and thoughts rolling) - Gives a lot of players the incentive to become a CSM member for the WRONG reasons - May indirectly impact other volunteer programs which receive no special incentives - On general principle, makes the CSM members think they can rule the world...perhaps next you want to scrap the election process while your at it - Half the EVE population doesn't know about what CSM is, does or receives from CCP in terms of benefits
|
Bethany Blaze
Amarr Cool Story Bro
|
Posted - 2009.10.06 05:30:00 -
[55]
Originally by: Dr BattleSmith
Originally by: Argonis Valentio
Bottom line is, by placing this in the CSM submission and CCP review pile you have already abused your powers.
+1
Quoting a QFT, posting in an epic fail thread, and...completely...utterly opposed to the ideas presented.
|
Drake Draconis
Minmatar Shadow Cadre REIGN Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.10.06 07:13:00 -
[56]
Is there a way to impeach mazz for being a total idiot in ignoring the obvious lack of support? ========================= CEO of Shadow Cadre http://www.shadowcadre.com ========================= |
De'Veldrin
Minmatar Special Projects Executive
|
Posted - 2009.10.06 13:06:00 -
[57]
Originally by: Drake Draconis Is there a way to impeach mazz for being a total idiot in ignoring the obvious lack of support?
Unfortunately, no. We can simply think of this as the asshat CSM and (hopefully) not have a repeat in the future. Unfortunately, the good things this particular CSM have done will forever be drowned out by the idiocy of the last six months, which is unfortunate. The current members of the CSM who can run again are going to be tainted by association. --Vel
In the world of emoticons, I was colon capital d. |
Argonis Valentio
Senex Legio
|
Posted - 2009.10.06 13:15:00 -
[58]
Originally by: De'Veldrin
Originally by: Drake Draconis Is there a way to impeach mazz for being a total idiot in ignoring the obvious lack of support?
Unfortunately, no. We can simply think of this as the asshat CSM and (hopefully) not have a repeat in the future. Unfortunately, the good things this particular CSM have done will forever be drowned out by the idiocy of the last six months, which is unfortunate. The current members of the CSM who can run again are going to be tainted by association.
There are plenty of remedies to correct this atrocity however the problem is after the first few posts CSM stopped looking at this issue, probably because of the one week time frame to be considered for CSM submission. At any rate, here's a few fixes:
- Update the EVElopedia file with proper information, not your fantasy version - Remove the information from the submission pile provided it hasn't already been processed
|
OwlManAtt
Gallente Yasashii Heavy Industries
|
Posted - 2009.10.06 14:00:00 -
[59]
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 |
Santiago Fahahrri
Galactic Geographic
|
Posted - 2009.10.06 14:10:00 -
[60]
Originally by: OwlManAtt
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.
Complete crap. Three CSMs have just guaranteed they will never get a vote from me. I encourage just about everyone to take this stance. Even if they pass this nonsense, make sure they don't benefit from it. ~ Santiago Fahahrri Galactic Geographic |
|
Bethany Blaze
Amarr Cool Story Bro
|
Posted - 2009.10.06 14:13:00 -
[61]
Originally by: Santiago Fahahrri
Originally by: OwlManAtt
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.
Complete crap. Three CSMs have just guaranteed they will never get a vote from me. I encourage just about everyone to take this stance. Even if they pass this nonsense, make sure they don't benefit from it.
CCP still has final say. It is, in fact, their game...their rules. They can decide to completely ignore whatever the CSMs have done on this matter, should they choose to.
Still, I already know who I'm voting for. His home corn liquor brew sold me.
|
Drake Draconis
Minmatar Shadow Cadre REIGN Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.10.06 14:48:00 -
[62]
Originally by: OwlManAtt
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.
Ah yes... let's all thank the egotistical "I got boobs" (no offense to De of course) Lets make a proposal and vote it in with less than 3 supports for making such a stellar farce of this CSM term.
Yes... much good to be had here.
I'm glad you love this sort of thing.. it's no wonder the CSM have a hell of a time retaining any sense of decency let alone respect WHEN THERE OWN ####ING PEOPLE IGNORE THE ####ING PUBLIC.
Normally I always back them... but this... is crossing the line.
Hell I'd say this is WORSE Than Lark... at least he had the guts to fess up to it (sorta kinda). ========================= CEO of Shadow Cadre http://www.shadowcadre.com ========================= |
mazzilliu
Caldari Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
|
Posted - 2009.10.07 10:37:00 -
[63]
Originally by: Drake Draconis
Originally by: OwlManAtt
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.
Ah yes... let's all thank the egotistical "I got boobs" (no offense to De of course) Lets make a proposal and vote it in with less than 3 supports for making such a stellar farce of this CSM term.
Yes... much good to be had here.
I'm glad you love this sort of thing.. it's no wonder the CSM have a hell of a time retaining any sense of decency let alone respect WHEN THERE OWN ####ING PEOPLE IGNORE THE ####ING PUBLIC.
Normally I always back them... but this... is crossing the line.
Hell I'd say this is WORSE Than Lark... at least he had the guts to fess up to it (sorta kinda).
haha i am quoting this for posterity because this is funny.
if ccp pass this issue i suggest you quit eve
MAZZILLIU 2009. CHANGE I CAN IMPOSE ON YOU. |
Drake Draconis
Minmatar Shadow Cadre REIGN Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.10.07 14:27:00 -
[64]
Edited by: Drake Draconis on 07/10/2009 14:32:27 Edited by: Drake Draconis on 07/10/2009 14:29:57 Then answer me this miss ego trip.
Why did you pass this when there was no support?
I'm quite sure that EVERYONE here would like to know that.
If you can't answer for your actions "I suggest you quit EVE."
Hell I just might run for one single reason... to make sure this crap doesn't happen again. I may not come up with great ideas and spend alot of time shooting down several really bad ideas but I'm not stupid enough to ignore the majority public opinion (no not the OMGTHEYKILLEDTHESCANNER angry mob) but when its obvious they don't support something you don't going around pushing the issue and then sit there acting all trollish and prideful.
This is an abuse of privilege and power.
Yes... CCP could still say no... that's not the point. The point is... you ignore the public and passed the damn thing anyway.
That is why you are as just as bad as Lark if not worse. A lot of people may hate me or not appreciate me but I think it's safe to say they agree with me ON THIS.
So what do you have to say for yourself?
What's wrong? Too busy asking me to shutup? ========================= CEO of Shadow Cadre http://www.shadowcadre.com ========================= |
Santiago Fahahrri
Galactic Geographic
|
Posted - 2009.10.08 00:09:00 -
[65]
Originally by: Drake Draconis Edited by: Drake Draconis on 07/10/2009 14:32:27 Edited by: Drake Draconis on 07/10/2009 14:29:57 Why did you pass this when there was no support?
I'm quite sure that EVERYONE here would like to know that.
I would like to know the answer to this.
~ Santiago Fahahrri Galactic Geographic |
Mike Azariah
|
Posted - 2009.10.08 05:31:00 -
[66]
No.
If CCP decided that certain members of a specific CSM were valuable assets to the company they could hire them on as consultants or community reps. They would then still be in a position to influence CCP without being stagnant holdovers of voting power blocs.
Fresh blood may need to relearn the job every six months but it still has a chance to make new idea blossom, make new mistakes, and maybe even manage a few new successes.
Term limits exist for a reason. Please keep them.
mike
|
Gone'Postal
Naviworks Inc
|
Posted - 2009.10.08 18:20:00 -
[67]
Originally by: Santiago Fahahrri
Originally by: Drake Draconis Edited by: Drake Draconis on 07/10/2009 14:32:27 Edited by: Drake Draconis on 07/10/2009 14:29:57 Why did you pass this when there was no support?
I'm quite sure that EVERYONE here would like to know that.
I would like to know the answer to this.
+1 I'd like to know as well.
Originally by: Rells
Without the carebears, the economy would be dead.
|
Marlona Sky
D00M. Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2009.10.08 20:28:00 -
[68]
As usual, this just goes to show that in the end, some members of the CSM has their own agenda. Representing the eve community is the last thing on their mind.
Yet another sad day for the current corrupt CSM council.
Next thing you know we will hear about a CSM member using insider information to attempt to profit... oh wait.
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
|
Posted - 2009.10.08 21:28:00 -
[69]
Originally by: Marlona Sky As usual, this just goes to show that in the end, some members of the CSM has their own agenda. Representing the eve community is the last thing on their mind.
Yet another sad day for the current corrupt CSM council.
Next thing you know we will hear about a CSM member using insider information to attempt to profit... oh wait.
Well that's EvE for you.
Of course it's a terrible idea, no-one's disputing that. All this emo butt-hurt about it, though...
|
Larkonis TrassIer
Neo Spartans Laconian Syndicate
|
Posted - 2009.10.08 22:27:00 -
[70]
The nerd rage here is palpable.
From my (limited) perspective.
As a CSM Virgin there was very little in the way of feedback from CCP about how we were supposed to conduct ourselves... it was simply a case of 'You're coming to Iceland on these dates... crack on ladies and gents.', at least in my experience, I know there was a bit more conversation between DV and CCP Xhagen.
It wasn't until we got to Iceland that we really started to see how the process operates and what it's all about (and by that I don't mean insider trading )... so it's not really until the second term that people are really able to start making a real contribution (not that myself or any of the first termers didn't add a lot to what was going on), at least in the run up to the Iceland summit.
Mazz's suggestion is pretty balanced if you read it, maybe not entirely correct. Certainly things do need to be looked at. Most of the trolling here is typical CSM and flamebait from the usual suspects. Knock yourselves out, I enjoy reading it. If you're so rabidly opposed why don't you run for the CSM this time around and make sure you use your powers for good rather than act as a malignant despot like everyone on the current CSM!
With regards to power blocs keeping the same people in position year after year... I do realise that many people in these blocs are mindless drones essentially but I don't think many of them would put up with their alliance being represented by an incompetant boob. I believe the Goons ran their own internal primaries and I'm sure many other Alliances did. You don't like that? It's the way the cookie crumbles. Joe Bloggs from 0.0 Naptrain Bloc 2 is going to be able to rally much more popular support than John Smith from Empire Mining and Production Corp 1532523. It just means you have to put in the extra effort. The CSM is a political body and as a consequence of that the most powerful organisations are going to make sure they have representation. If you are naive to think it's going to be any other way then l2politics.
The arguement that most people live in hisec and the CSM is a misrepresentation is pish and codswallop. You will probably find that of people in hisec a large proportion are farmers, trade/hauling alts for 0.0 types or mission alts for 0.0 types. Regardless, the vast majority of goods manufactured and generated in Hisec are going to make their way up the chain to the 0.0 war machine. That doesn't mean Empire should be or is ignored by any stretch of the imagination. In fact on the current council 5/4 members predominantly stick to High/Low sec.
tl;dr...
CSM is a force for good. Term limits need to be looked at, maybe not in the way suggested but a bit of a shake up is in order. Perhaps not right now but certainly another year or so down the line. Please resize your signature to the maximum allowed of 400 x 120 pixels with a maximum file size of 24000 bytes. Navigator |
|
mazzilliu
Caldari Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
|
Posted - 2009.10.08 22:37:00 -
[71]
Originally by: Drake Draconis lalallalala
the reason they implemented the term limits is because they were emulating some sort of icelandic system of government and the issue itself wasnt exactly a big deal for them. it was just that way because they had to pick SOME way, and that was as good as any other way, knowing what they knew back then.
like i said in another post, the assembly hall is like the equivalent of CAOD for the CSM. its a good measure of the opinion of a few dozen active assembly hall posters, and that's about it. i'm mourning the fact that i will never get the votes of a few dozen of you, i really am. pretty much almost every single issue ive raised was one i raised myself or something that didnt get more then a full page of replies much less actual popular support. but was something that was blatantly broken with the game.
for example one issue ive raised all the way back in April(create tools to detect macroers without player petitions involved) got trolled to absolute **** and i ended up not raising it- but then(in september, the first iceland trip) during a meeting, one of the devs specifically requested i send them a link to my list of suggestions since it was pretty much exactly what the "unholy rage" project was, months before it was even announced.
my point in all this is that aside from a few major issues(for example the huge reaction following the scanner change), the assembly hall is pretty much a gallery of ideas and csm members can load up their shopping cart with whatever they want. a lot of ideas are bad ideas or repeats. the reason for this specific issue that i have raised is because the first term of CSM members is largely spent being useless. learning the system, figuring out what the ****, et cetera. by the second term they finally know what is going on, and pretty soon after that they are disqualified for life.
term limits in real life are intended to prevent corruption, since the longer someone serves the more likely they will be more of a detriment then a benefit to their office. the CSM is not applicable to this since there's not really any ingame special interest groups that are trying to push issues at the cost of another group of players. instead, the longer a csm member serves the better they are able to serve, since this sort of position is more like a consultant job then an actual public office. the better handle the CSM member gets on how ccp works internally, the better they are able to filter good ideas from bad ones, and the better they are able to re-work raw ideas into forms that ccp can actually implement.
so tl;dr: yeah i do a lot of assembly hall trolling, and you can interpret my motives any way you want(i suggest you interpret them in the most malicious way possible), but at the end of the day im not really going to get my measure of public opinion from what the CSM-caod-equivalent posters say, AKA i dont really care about what mr. drake draconis thinks.
MAZZILLIU 2009. CHANGE I CAN IMPOSE ON YOU. |
Drake Draconis
Minmatar Shadow Cadre REIGN Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.10.09 05:26:00 -
[72]
Edited by: Drake Draconis on 09/10/2009 05:31:59 So let me get this straight.
You know what the CSM is about... and what they are supposed to do.
But you don't give a flying #### what people say?
Wow... I'm starting to see why so many people hate the CSM.
Here's a staggering question for you guys who hate me/like me/don't know what to think of me.
Hows this for a new party - The one that gives a #### what the "rational" people think... the one that listens to the public opinion and pays attention to those who support and those who don't.
The one that doesn't force the issue in spite of fierce opposition.
Here's the scary part... talking to my executor... he says they could drum up enough support to push me through... only thing is... I'm not even sure its worth it thanks to larkonis's surprisingly clear description first hand.
o7 @ Lark
What something even scarrier...
I labeled "I got's boobs" worse that lark.
Lark I read your post... you know what... I think you just re-earned some lost respect points from me... If you acted like that all the time I'd be backing you 110% all the time. No I'm not gonna condone your stupidity in violating the NDA... you should have been banned for that... but you coming here saying what you did made me pause and consider that perhaps i was quick to judge. Ignoring your crimes that is.
Because YOU understand what its about... that's obvious.
I am not attacking the CSM.
I'm attacking people in the CSM who blatantly broke one of its most sacred trusts...
Listening to the people.
It is one thing to ignore a 1000 mile long rant rave emo-rage post of people screaming over the scanner.
It's an another to propose something... and get sane... rational.. thinking knowledgeable people to oppose you without the emo-rage/quit crap... and then boldly going up and telling all of us to #### off and passing a proposal.
I don't give a rat's @$$ what you think about the forums and its support system.
We all know it sucks and its practically broken.
I may be a pain in the butt here but I know ONE thing to be true.
You start ignoring the voice... you start counting your days before something smacks you in the face.
Mark my words... you don't play that kind of game here. Count on it.
The day the CSM starts ignoring people and there proposals is the day I stop posting here because It REALLY is a waste of time for me to say one bloody word.
This is why Im taking issue with this. I may be alot of things... but this is a BIG problem... and your flat out ignoring it Mazz.
Your ass should be tossed off the CSM council for ignoring that. I may be harsh... I may be terse... and people tend to take issue with that. I respect that... I'm passionate because I enjoy this game and I wan't to see it grow... and succeed. Can you honestly blame me for that?
There are far worse out there... I'm quite sure that people will quickly line up and question the fact that a CSM council member(s) decided to just flat out say screw them and pass a proposal we ALL clearly said no... and here's why and that and this.
Interpretation? Take your blinders off and take a gander at what you just ignored. Take a gooooood long look and tell me you honestly think you did right.
Your nuts if you didn't catch the loud roar of saying NO to extending or adding to the term.
Thank GOD your term is up for re-election. I'd sooner vote for Lark before I vote for you mazz. ========================= CEO of Shadow Cadre http://www.shadowcadre.com ========================= |
Efrim Black
Gallente Shadow Cadre
|
Posted - 2009.10.09 05:42:00 -
[73]
Same BS thats weighing down the real life senate.
A resounding no.
|
mazzilliu
Caldari Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
|
Posted - 2009.10.09 05:50:00 -
[74]
Originally by: Drake Draconis
So let me get this straight.
You know what the CSM is about... and what they are supposed to do.
But you don't give a flying #### what people say?
Wow... I'm starting to see why so many people hate the CSM.
Here's a staggering question for you guys who hate me/like me/don't know what to think of me.
Hows this for a new party - The one that gives a #### what the "rational" people think... the one that listens to the public opinion and pays attention to those who support and those who don't.
The one that doesn't force the issue in spite of fierce opposition.
Here's the scary part... talking to my executor... he says they could drum up enough support to push me through... only thing is... I'm not even sure its worth it thanks to larkonis's surprisingly clear description first hand.
o7 @ Lark
What something even scarrier...
I labeled "I got's boobs" worse that lark.
Lark I read your post... you know what... I think you just re-earned some lost respect points from me... If you acted like that all the time I'd be backing you 110% all the time. No I'm not gonna condone your stupidity in violating the NDA... you should have been banned for that... but you coming here saying what you did made me pause and consider that perhaps i was quick to judge. Ignoring your crimes that is.
Because YOU understand what its about... that's obvious.
I am not attacking the CSM.
I'm attacking people in the CSM who blatantly broke one of its most sacred trusts...
Listening to the people.
It is one thing to ignore a 1000 mile long rant rave emo-rage post of people screaming over the scanner.
It's an another to propose something... and get sane... rational.. thinking knowledgeable people to oppose you without the emo-rage/quit crap... and then boldly going up and telling all of us to #### off and passing a proposal.
I don't give a rat's @$$ what you think about the forums and its support system.
We all know it sucks and its practically broken.
I may be a pain in the butt here but I know ONE thing to be true.
You start ignoring the voice... you start counting your days before something smacks you in the face.
Mark my words... you don't play that kind of game here. Count on it.
The day the CSM starts ignoring people and there proposals is the day I stop posting here because It REALLY is a waste of time for me to say one bloody word.
This is why Im taking issue with this. I may be alot of things... but this is a BIG problem... and your flat out ignoring it Mazz.
Your ass should be tossed off the CSM council for ignoring that. I may be harsh... I may be terse... and people tend to take issue with that. I respect that... I'm passionate because I enjoy this game and I wan't to see it grow... and succeed. Can you honestly blame me for that?
There are far worse out there... I'm quite sure that people will quickly line up and question the fact that a CSM council member(s) decided to just flat out say screw them and pass a proposal we ALL clearly said no... and here's why and that and this.
Interpretation? Take your blinders off and take a gander at what you just ignored. Take a gooooood long look and tell me you honestly think you did right.
Your nuts if you didn't catch the loud roar of saying NO to extending or adding to the term.
Thank GOD your term is up for re-election. I'd sooner vote for Lark before I vote for you mazz.
im skipping the next term because beginning of the year terms suck. i'm running during a fanfest term for maximum relevance
also im going to quote your whole post because its absolutely adorable. no, sometimes people want something that isn't the best when talking about the internals of some system they have never really participated in. also most of my voters dont even use the assembly hall and dont have a clue about anything in the CSM, they usually just want webbers fixed or stuff like that. you're just one guy, who has one vote and a ton of posts
MAZZILLIU 2009. CHANGE I CAN IMPOSE ON YOU. |
Drake Draconis
Minmatar Shadow Cadre REIGN Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.10.09 05:58:00 -
[75]
Edited by: Drake Draconis on 09/10/2009 06:00:24 You keep hiding behind your delusional world of non-accountability and see how far that gets you.
You may think this is just one big game... and yes... EVE online is a game.
But its a game that many people enjoy and would like to see improved. Ignoring those people when they happen to know more than you think they do... is a fatal mistake.
We don't need to know how the system works.
We know that we post here to propose ideas... to be heard by CSM... to carry forward ideas to CCP.
That is the point here.
You posted an idea... it was rejected... you carried it forward in spite of that rejection... and it got passed.
What the hell did you expect? A hearty pat on the back?
Your more foolish than you look.
You won't think they are adorable when they start taking issue with that.
You can make as many excuses as you want. The fact remains... you abused the system for your own gain.
At least Lark had the guts to own up to it... that's more than anyone can say for you. No I don't approve what he did... but hes making some valid points... and yes... your proposal was fair and balanced as lark said.
But your proposal was rejected... and you obviously didn't give a ####. That's what has everyone saying:
What's the point of a CSM that won't listen? Why bother with it in the first place? For the first time I've started participating here... I'm starting to question why I bother defending you people in the first place! ========================= CEO of Shadow Cadre http://www.shadowcadre.com ========================= |
mazzilliu
Caldari Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
|
Posted - 2009.10.09 06:10:00 -
[76]
Originally by: Drake Draconis Edited by: Drake Draconis on 09/10/2009 06:00:24 You keep hiding behind your delusional world of non-accountability and see how far that gets you.
You may think this is just one big game... and yes... EVE online is a game.
But its a game that many people enjoy and would like to see improved. Ignoring those people when they happen to know more than you think they do... is a fatal mistake.
We don't need to know how the system works.
We know that we post here to propose ideas... to be heard by CSM... to carry forward ideas to CCP.
That is the point here.
You posted an idea... it was rejected... you carried it forward in spite of that rejection... and it got passed.
What the hell did you expect? A hearty pat on the back?
Your more foolish than you look.
You won't think they are adorable when they start taking issue with that.
You can make as many excuses as you want. The fact remains... you abused the system for your own gain.
At least Lark had the guts to own up to it... that's more than anyone can say for you. No I don't approve what he did... but hes making some valid points... and yes... your proposal was fair and balanced as lark said.
But your proposal was rejected... and you obviously didn't give a ####. That's what has everyone saying:
What's the point of a CSM that won't listen? Why bother with it in the first place? For the first time I've started participating here... I'm starting to question why I bother defending you people in the first place!
one of the things i strive to do every day, dear drake, is to get your approval on the forums for my proposals. your thumbs up or thumbs down is a critical part of the voting process. this is why i respond to your posts, so i can get more of your important feedback. when i said that CSM first terms are largely spent being useless blobs while learning the ropes, that was pretty much it. im not quite sure what i should fess up to, but after the reputation i have been building up in EVE as of recent im not really sure what else other awful thing i can possibly admit to to make people think i am even worse.
MAZZILLIU 2009. CHANGE I CAN IMPOSE ON YOU. |
Drake Draconis
Minmatar Shadow Cadre REIGN Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.10.09 06:20:00 -
[77]
Originally by: mazzilliu
Originally by: Drake Draconis Edited by: Drake Draconis on 09/10/2009 06:00:24 You keep hiding behind your delusional world of non-accountability and see how far that gets you.
You may think this is just one big game... and yes... EVE online is a game.
But its a game that many people enjoy and would like to see improved. Ignoring those people when they happen to know more than you think they do... is a fatal mistake.
We don't need to know how the system works.
We know that we post here to propose ideas... to be heard by CSM... to carry forward ideas to CCP.
That is the point here.
You posted an idea... it was rejected... you carried it forward in spite of that rejection... and it got passed.
What the hell did you expect? A hearty pat on the back?
Your more foolish than you look.
You won't think they are adorable when they start taking issue with that.
You can make as many excuses as you want. The fact remains... you abused the system for your own gain.
At least Lark had the guts to own up to it... that's more than anyone can say for you. No I don't approve what he did... but hes making some valid points... and yes... your proposal was fair and balanced as lark said.
But your proposal was rejected... and you obviously didn't give a ####. That's what has everyone saying:
What's the point of a CSM that won't listen? Why bother with it in the first place? For the first time I've started participating here... I'm starting to question why I bother defending you people in the first place!
one of the things i strive to do every day, dear drake, is to get your approval on the forums for my proposals. your thumbs up or thumbs down is a critical part of the voting process. this is why i respond to your posts, so i can get more of your important feedback. when i said that CSM first terms are largely spent being useless blobs while learning the ropes, that was pretty much it. im not quite sure what i should fess up to, but after the reputation i have been building up in EVE as of recent im not really sure what else other awful thing i can possibly admit to to make people think i am even worse.
If that was true you would have never have pushed this proposal in the first place.
Therefore your just being hypocritical and wasting my time with your propoganda for your "cause".
And why bother? You just proved to us that you don't give a damn to begin with. So don't bother buttering me up... you can do whatever the hell you want.. because that's what you did right here. I could flap my gums endlessly and your still going to push forward proposals that are not supported.
No ones going to stop you.
The catch is... just how far will it get you before you attract the crowd far larger than this one? ========================= CEO of Shadow Cadre http://www.shadowcadre.com ========================= |
mazzilliu
Caldari Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
|
Posted - 2009.10.09 06:26:00 -
[78]
Originally by: Drake Draconis
If that was true you would have never have pushed this proposal in the first place.
Therefore your just being hypocritical and wasting my time with your propoganda for your "cause".
And why bother? You just proved to us that you don't give a damn to begin with. So don't bother buttering me up... you can do whatever the hell you want.. because that's what you did right here. I could flap my gums endlessly and your still going to push forward proposals that are not supported.
No ones going to stop you.
The catch is... just how far will it get you before you attract the crowd far larger than this one?
i dont know, ive never done anything unpopular before. i guess it will be an all new experience for me, having people disliking me and my posting.
you should also never stop posting man, dont give up. maybe youll change my mind if you make another post.
MAZZILLIU 2009. CHANGE I CAN IMPOSE ON YOU. |
Marlona Sky
D00M. Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2009.10.09 06:38:00 -
[79]
They still have not answered why this got pushed forward with only three votes...
|
Yldrad
The Dandy KillerS
|
Posted - 2009.10.09 07:46:00 -
[80]
Edited by: Yldrad on 09/10/2009 07:46:56
Originally by: Marlona Sky They still have not answered why this got pushed forward with only three votes...
Beacause they can !
Originally by: Larkonis TrassIer As a CSM Virgin there was very little in the way of feedback from CCP about how we were supposed to conduct ourselves... it was simply a case of 'You're coming to Iceland on these dates... crack on ladies and gents.', at least in my experience, I know there was a bit more conversation between DV and CCP Xhagen.
It wasn't until we got to Iceland that we really started to see how the process operates and what it's all about (and by that I don't mean insider trading )... so it's not really until the second term that people are really able to start making a real contribution (not that myself or any of the first termers didn't add a lot to what was going on), at least in the run up to the Iceland summit.
If i understood correctly, you need one participation as CSM member to know how it really works. It's stupid. Why not just ask old CSM member how it works and/or ask for a better documentation from CCP?
|
|
Larkonis TrassIer
Neo Spartans Laconian Syndicate
|
Posted - 2009.10.09 08:29:00 -
[81]
Originally by: Yldrad Edited by: Yldrad on 09/10/2009 07:46:56
Originally by: Marlona Sky They still have not answered why this got pushed forward with only three votes...
Beacause they can !
Originally by: Larkonis TrassIer As a CSM Virgin there was very little in the way of feedback from CCP about how we were supposed to conduct ourselves... it was simply a case of 'You're coming to Iceland on these dates... crack on ladies and gents.', at least in my experience, I know there was a bit more conversation between DV and CCP Xhagen.
It wasn't until we got to Iceland that we really started to see how the process operates and what it's all about (and by that I don't mean insider trading )... so it's not really until the second term that people are really able to start making a real contribution (not that myself or any of the first termers didn't add a lot to what was going on), at least in the run up to the Iceland summit.
If i understood correctly, you need one participation as CSM member to know how it really works. It's stupid. Why not just ask old CSM member how it works and/or ask for a better documentation from CCP?
Well yes, I did ask previous members and some extra documentation would be helpful. Let me expand on the virgin comment. You can ask all the pros, read all the books and watch all the blue movies you want before you do the deed but at the end of the day pretty much everyone's first time is going to involve a couple of nervous, half hearted thrusts and a trail of man fat leading from a hip to an inner thigh. Everyone knows how it works first time around... but there's a difference between knowing the mechanics and really understanding. Please resize your signature to the maximum allowed of 400 x 120 pixels with a maximum file size of 24000 bytes. Navigator |
Marlona Sky
D00M. Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2009.10.09 10:16:00 -
[82]
Originally by: Larkonis TrassIer stuff
I simply can't support more terms if one is being used as training wheels for the whole term. If it takes one term to figure out how to represent the community and be able to learn the CSM mechanics if you will, then the person should not be there to begin with.
Sounds harsh but it is how I feel about it.
|
mazzilliu
Caldari Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
|
Posted - 2009.10.09 10:21:00 -
[83]
Edited by: mazzilliu on 09/10/2009 10:21:48
Originally by: Marlona Sky
Originally by: Larkonis TrassIer stuff
I simply can't support more terms if one is being used as training wheels for the whole term. If it takes one term to figure out how to represent the community and be able to learn the CSM mechanics if you will, then the person should not be there to begin with.
Sounds harsh but it is how I feel about it.
you know what you are right. only experienced CSM members who already know wtf they are doing and how they will do it should be allowed to be elected.
MAZZILLIU 2009. CHANGE I CAN IMPOSE ON YOU. |
Marlona Sky
D00M. Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2009.10.09 10:56:00 -
[84]
Originally by: mazzilliu Edited by: mazzilliu on 09/10/2009 10:21:48
Originally by: Marlona Sky
Originally by: Larkonis TrassIer stuff
I simply can't support more terms if one is being used as training wheels for the whole term. If it takes one term to figure out how to represent the community and be able to learn the CSM mechanics if you will, then the person should not be there to begin with.
Sounds harsh but it is how I feel about it.
you know what you are right. only experienced CSM members who already know wtf they are doing and how they will do it should be allowed to be elected.
and mature ones who don't emo rage...
|
Nicolo da'Vicenza
Amarr Dissonance Corp Libertas Fidelitas
|
Posted - 2009.10.09 11:07:00 -
[85]
Current CSM reps are pretty crap. Quote this post if you want to reduce term limits to 1.
|
Larkonis TrassIer
Neo Spartans Laconian Syndicate
|
Posted - 2009.10.09 11:14:00 -
[86]
Originally by: Nicolo da'Vicenza Current CSM reps are pretty crap. Quote this post if you want to reduce term limits to 1.
Excellent in depth analysis there. |
Nicolo da'Vicenza
Amarr Dissonance Corp Libertas Fidelitas
|
Posted - 2009.10.09 11:20:00 -
[87]
You might call yourself "Example A" |
Dianeces
The Illuminati. Pandemic Legion
|
Posted - 2009.10.09 11:43:00 -
[88]
Originally by: Nicolo da'Vicenza You might call yourself "Example A"
i might call you a butte~
(i'd be right)
|
Nicolo da'Vicenza
Amarr Dissonance Corp Libertas Fidelitas
|
Posted - 2009.10.09 11:46:00 -
[89]
Originally by: Dianeces
Originally by: Nicolo da'Vicenza You might call yourself "Example A"
i might call you a butte~
(i'd be right)
no u
|
Drake Draconis
Minmatar Shadow Cadre REIGN Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.10.09 14:17:00 -
[90]
It's amazing they keep dodging the question isn't?
Keep it up.. all your doing is proving my point mazz.
Here have a bigger shovel while your at it. ========================= CEO of Shadow Cadre http://www.shadowcadre.com ========================= |
|
OwlManAtt
Gallente Yasashii Heavy Industries
|
Posted - 2009.10.09 14:38:00 -
[91]
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 |
Drake Draconis
Minmatar Shadow Cadre REIGN Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.10.09 14:45:00 -
[92]
Humor me... quote the said information.
Might as well be saying "read post number 3202352 word 35 character 3" ========================= CEO of Shadow Cadre http://www.shadowcadre.com ========================= |
Orokar Blane
Minmatar The Penumbra Initiative Atropos.
|
Posted - 2009.10.09 17:13:00 -
[93]
Queue the Imperial March....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-bzWSJG93P8
|
Dianeces
The Illuminati. Pandemic Legion
|
Posted - 2009.10.09 17:17:00 -
[94]
Not supporting this because my e-vote is v. important .
|
Mynxee
Minmatar Hellcats The Bastards.
|
Posted - 2009.10.09 17:54:00 -
[95]
I was surprised that Mazz's proposal was passed, given the lack of support here. I hope CCP does not support her proposal as written, but do feel continuity IS important...by which I mean, continuity of productivity (not continuity of pet issues each CSM might support) and best use of CCP's investment in the CSM. Lark's amusing description alludes to the struggles a new CSM deals with. Some remedies that occur off the top of my head (and that would seem to contribute positively to the idea of my definition of continuity with or without a change in term limits):
Proactive Self-Education. I would expect every new CMS member to have taken the time to read every word of past CSM meeting minutes (raw logs, too), other CSM stuff at EVElopedia, and at minimum the first 15 or 20 pages of this forum and Jita Speakers. In addition, I'd expect them to have had at least some discussion with previous CSM members who ran on similar platforms to learn more about progress and obstacles relative to their initiatives and what some reasonable next steps might be. Being as informed as possible would seem vital to new CSM delegates being able to hit the ground running and not waste time raising issues that are non-starters or have no traction. But...do new CSMs actually invest the time and effort to avoid that? I'd love to hear from some incumbents and past delegates about how much "back reading" they did to prep for the job.
New CSM Orientation Guide. Some kind of living document that orients new CSMs in a practical manner to how internal CSM processes work, level of effort expectations, obligations, links to important internal CSM info, contact info for relevant parties, etc. Maybe something like this exists already but if not, it would be extremely useful--especially if it were all in one easily accessible document or wiki or something.
New CSM Orientation. A meeting between new CSMs and exiting ones before the new folks take up the yoke, for purposes of information sharing, Q&A, etc. Surely this must already happen. Doesn't it?
Anyways, I ramble. Bottom line, with such short terms I feel it is vital that new CMSs be at maximum velocity from the first minute of the first meeting they attend. Doesn't sound like that's the way it happens currently. There is no reason it can't, though; to validate CCP's investment in the CSM, it should.
Bump It! | My Blog: Life in Low Sec |
mazzilliu
Caldari Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
|
Posted - 2009.10.09 18:09:00 -
[96]
Edited by: mazzilliu on 09/10/2009 18:09:43
Originally by: Mynxee I was surprised that Mazz's proposal was passed, given the lack of support here. I hope CCP does not support her proposal as written, but do feel continuity IS important...by which I mean, continuity of productivity (not continuity of pet issues each CSM might support) and best use of CCP's investment in the CSM. Lark's amusing description alludes to the struggles a new CSM deals with. Some remedies that occur off the top of my head (and that would seem to contribute positively to the idea of my definition of continuity with or without a change in term limits):
Proactive Self-Education. I would expect every new CMS member to have taken the time to read every word of past CSM meeting minutes (raw logs, too), other CSM stuff at EVElopedia, and at minimum the first 15 or 20 pages of this forum and Jita Speakers. In addition, I'd expect them to have had at least some discussion with previous CSM members who ran on similar platforms to learn more about progress and obstacles relative to their initiatives and what some reasonable next steps might be. Being as informed as possible would seem vital to new CSM delegates being able to hit the ground running and not waste time raising issues that are non-starters or have no traction. But...do new CSMs actually invest the time and effort to avoid that? I'd love to hear from some incumbents and past delegates about how much "back reading" they did to prep for the job.
New CSM Orientation Guide. Some kind of living document that orients new CSMs in a practical manner to how internal CSM processes work, level of effort expectations, obligations, links to important internal CSM info, contact info for relevant parties, etc. Maybe something like this exists already but if not, it would be extremely useful--especially if it were all in one easily accessible document or wiki or something.
New CSM Orientation. A meeting between new CSMs and exiting ones before the new folks take up the yoke, for purposes of information sharing, Q&A, etc. Surely this must already happen. Doesn't it?
Anyways, I ramble. Bottom line, with such short terms I feel it is vital that new CMSs be at maximum velocity from the first minute of the first meeting they attend. Doesn't sound like that's the way it happens currently. There is no reason it can't, though; to validate CCP's investment in the CSM, it should.
theres already a sort of orientation, but that sort of transfer of information is better handled speaking to a past csm 1 on 1 rather then in a short meeting.
also all the internal csm rules and **** is out there and public but its buried under irrelevent stuff and outdated stuff and i would rather kill myself then read that boring ****. i tried to do it, but i just couldnt get through it. theres no way you can expect someone to 'get' the csm from just reading that even if it were theoretically possible to do. the only way you can do it is by experience and communication. my term up until before the iceland trip was pretty much spent on doing nothing much since i didnt know wtf was going on. everything useful i learned about how to do csm stuff was from speaking to past csm.
also who would update such a document to educate new csms? i guess we can get around to it after the meeting minutes are released. lol
MAZZILLIU 2009. CHANGE I CAN IMPOSE ON YOU. |
Drake Draconis
Minmatar Shadow Cadre REIGN Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.10.09 18:50:00 -
[97]
Originally by: mazzilliu Whiny excuses
So what your saying is you couldn't be bothered to read up and get the general feel and history of the CSM's progress?
Wow... that's yet an another strike.
I can distinctly remember numerous occasions where many people would be screaming at the CSM for JUST THAT very reason... they failed to pick up on past things... and lo' and behold... your repeating history.
Oh and nice dodge on the obvious again.
Have I read everything on the CSM? No... but I did catch quite alot of documents and minutes from time to time just to see what the hub bub was all about... and I managed to get one thing clearly in mind... the CSM is not about "showing up" and just passing anyones ideas at the drop of the hat. It takes effort.. and alot of work.
You have to read the posts that people propose ideas for... you have to LISTEN... you have to OBSERVE... DISCUSS... PAY ATTENTION TO DETAILS.
Not every idea let alone everyone is worthy of pushing ideas forward as most things I shoot down are utterly ridiculous or a waste of time... but the fact remains that its just my opinion and that doesn't justify my so called opinion to take precedence over someone else.
If I WAS CSM and I proposed an idea and everyone said no... EVEN if I disagreed and thought the mob was crazy... I would have no choice but to disregard and move on.... aside form CCP making a point to say otherwise... which I would document and make sure it was clearly stated that was the case.
Why? Because unlike half the scumbags around these days I give a damn about being honorable enough to keep my frakking word.
CSM would be a nasty job personally due to the fact that your forced to realize that its not about what you think anymore... it's what everyone thinks...
Being CSM is not taking a personal power trip... and pushing your agenda.
Damn good thing that the CCP is really the one to choose whether your "sly move" is going to take affect or not.
I'm pretty sure they wont... but if they do... It's gonna be one messy day for the forums. ========================= CEO of Shadow Cadre http://www.shadowcadre.com ========================= |
Larkonis TrassIer
Neo Spartans Laconian Syndicate
|
Posted - 2009.10.09 19:01:00 -
[98]
ITT Drake Draconis gets trolled...
I know you are maybe considering running for CSM Drake, I'd advise against it though. I guarentee you will either alienate the other delegates long before you arrive in Iceland or give yourself a stomach ulcer/have a stroke.
You might get some straight, polite and honest answers if every time you make a post about something you don't agree with you don't spew out so much spiteful bile. Please resize your signature to the maximum allowed of 400 x 120 pixels with a maximum file size of 24000 bytes. Navigator |
mazzilliu
Caldari Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
|
Posted - 2009.10.09 19:12:00 -
[99]
i would vote for drake draconis for csm just for entertainment value. especially since he knows sooo much about the csm, and his posting is of such high quality. i really want to see if hes like this irl
MAZZILLIU 2009. CHANGE I CAN IMPOSE ON YOU. |
Drake Draconis
Minmatar Shadow Cadre REIGN Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.10.09 19:31:00 -
[100]
Edited by: Drake Draconis on 09/10/2009 19:32:31
Originally by: Larkonis TrassIer ITT Drake Draconis gets trolled...
I know you are maybe considering running for CSM Drake, I'd advise against it though. I guarentee you will either alienate the other delegates long before you arrive in Iceland or give yourself a stomach ulcer/have a stroke.
You might get some straight, polite and honest answers if every time you make a post about something you don't agree with you don't spew out so much spiteful bile.
People always give me funny statements about ulcer's and strokes... but this is who I am... I can no more fault you lark for being a pirate than you can for me being a bit zealous and passionate about how I think when it comes to certain subjects.
Thanks for your concern regardless. If I was a CSM member however...
I'd probably stop posting the way I do currently... as being CSM representive means I represent a larger group of people and not myself... nor my corporation... or my alliance for that matter. I'd be come a target for alot of harassment and troubles... can't exactly afford to take pot shots.
When I post.. It's my opinion and only my opinion. As CSM I would have to alter my perspective and try to take it as someone who needs to filter out and spend more time listening... short of giving my opinion which would have to be less... barbed and more... subtle... if not tactful.
But I'm not required to do that right now.
And I'm still testing the waters so to speak because I'm not convinced it would be worth the effort if all we are going to get is a bunch of guys abusing power.
But I do have one question...
If I alienate myself from the rest of the council for pushing THIS issue... then I dare ask.. what exactly is the Issue they are taking?
The fact that I'm against passing a proposal obviously opposed? I'm curious as to what you people think about that.
And what would YOU people (the public) think about THAT!
========================= CEO of Shadow Cadre http://www.shadowcadre.com ========================= |
|
Mynxee
Minmatar Hellcats The Bastards.
|
Posted - 2009.10.09 19:37:00 -
[101]
Originally by: mazzilliu ...out there and public but its buried under irrelevent stuff and outdated stuff...also who would update such a document to educate new csms? i guess we can get around to it after the meeting minutes are released. lol
Yeah...CSM public info is a mess to find and read through (insert organizational nerd rant here). I know there have been attempts to be more organized and timely in publishing CSM info, but I still see a lot gaps and questionably long (sometimes annoyingly unexplained) delays. Too bad, really, because I think good and easily accessible documentation of CSM activities and initiatives is a big part of the continuity puzzle. That and the development of new CSM orientation materials just need champions to take up the cause.
Bump It! | My Blog: Life in Low Sec |
mazzilliu
Caldari Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
|
Posted - 2009.10.09 19:56:00 -
[102]
Edited by: mazzilliu on 09/10/2009 20:01:44
Originally by: Mynxee
Originally by: mazzilliu ...out there and public but its buried under irrelevent stuff and outdated stuff...also who would update such a document to educate new csms? i guess we can get around to it after the meeting minutes are released. lol
Yeah...CSM public info is a mess to find and read through (insert organizational nerd rant here). I know there have been attempts to be more organized and timely in publishing CSM info, but I still see a lot gaps and questionably long (sometimes annoyingly unexplained) delays. Too bad, really, because I think good and easily accessible documentation of CSM activities and initiatives is a big part of the continuity puzzle. That and the development of new CSM orientation materials just need champions to take up the cause.
everything is still a work in progress, every time we meet with ccp so far we always bring up csm organization as a subject. not only do the public info release need to be better organized, the communication within CCP between the CSM and the people working in the relevent areas need to be worked on. same with the scheduling. we have come a long way from absolutely nothing but we still have a ways to go and at least we are plugging away at it.
basically theres a lot of internal-ish csm hit that is also broken and needs fixing too that the public doesnt even know about because its either not spelled out or probably under the nda or something like that. even after finishing most of one term i dont really have a good enough handle on the situation to really know what is the best plan for everything.
MAZZILLIU 2009. CHANGE I CAN IMPOSE ON YOU. |
Larkonis TrassIer
Neo Spartans Laconian Syndicate
|
Posted - 2009.10.09 20:01:00 -
[103]
Originally by: Drake Draconis Edited by: Drake Draconis on 09/10/2009 19:32:31
Originally by: Larkonis TrassIer ITT Drake Draconis gets trolled...
I know you are maybe considering running for CSM Drake, I'd advise against it though. I guarentee you will either alienate the other delegates long before you arrive in Iceland or give yourself a stomach ulcer/have a stroke.
You might get some straight, polite and honest answers if every time you make a post about something you don't agree with you don't spew out so much spiteful bile.
People always give me funny statements about ulcer's and strokes... but this is who I am... I can no more fault you lark for being a pirate than you can for me being a bit zealous and passionate about how I think when it comes to certain subjects.
Thanks for your concern regardless. If I was a CSM member however...
I'd probably stop posting the way I do currently... as being CSM representive means I represent a larger group of people and not myself... nor my corporation... or my alliance for that matter. I'd be come a target for alot of harassment and troubles... can't exactly afford to take pot shots.
When I post.. It's my opinion and only my opinion. As CSM I would have to alter my perspective and try to take it as someone who needs to filter out and spend more time listening... short of giving my opinion which would have to be less... barbed and more... subtle... if not tactful.
But I'm not required to do that right now.
And I'm still testing the waters so to speak because I'm not convinced it would be worth the effort if all we are going to get is a bunch of guys abusing power.
But I do have one question...
If I alienate myself from the rest of the council for pushing THIS issue... then I dare ask.. what exactly is the Issue they are taking?
The fact that I'm against passing a proposal obviously opposed? I'm curious as to what you people think about that.
And what would YOU people (the public) think about THAT!
How can you fault me for the way I play the game? Really... what's so bad about being a pirate, but I digress.
All well and good broski. But you said you'd stop yourself from behaving in the manner you are behaving now if elected. Judging by your posting history I find that very hard to believe. It's not just this one issue, you seem to approach everything you disagree with with the same 'passion' and 'zeal' (I call it spite but one man's hot apple and pastry dessert is another man's evening companionship).
And in no way am I suggesting that you will alienate yourself from this council or any that you end up serving on by arguing about this issue. It's quite contentious and understandably so, only those of us on the inside looking out have a real perspective on it (and those who voted for it are far from freeloading, power hungry despots). I'm making that assumption based upon your posting history, which quite frankly, unless you genuinely are RPing a 15 year old with a chip on each shoulder one called nerd rage and the other unwarranted self importance, is pretty terrible even by my standards.
Please resize your signature to the maximum allowed of 400 x 120 pixels with a maximum file size of 24000 bytes. Navigator |
Drake Draconis
Minmatar Shadow Cadre REIGN Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.10.09 20:55:00 -
[104]
Originally by: Larkonis TrassIer
How can you fault me for the way I play the game? Really... what's so bad about being a pirate, but I digress.
All well and good broski. But you said you'd stop yourself from behaving in the manner you are behaving now if elected. Judging by your posting history I find that very hard to believe. It's not just this one issue, you seem to approach everything you disagree with with the same 'passion' and 'zeal' (I call it spite but one man's hot apple and pastry dessert is another man's evening companionship).
And in no way am I suggesting that you will alienate yourself from this council or any that you end up serving on by arguing about this issue. It's quite contentious and understandably so, only those of us on the inside looking out have a real perspective on it (and those who voted for it are far from freeloading, power hungry despots). I'm making that assumption based upon your posting history, which quite frankly, unless you genuinely are RPing a 15 year old with a chip on each shoulder one called nerd rage and the other unwarranted self importance, is pretty terrible even by my standards.
I wasn't faulting you for anything.. I was making a comparison of your judging me for my behaivour is no different than me judging for yours.
In other words... pot calling the kettle black.
If you wana get picky... If what I've been doing is so "bad" in your eyes... lets not discuss what you did recently eh?
But I'll stop there as you've been very respectful.
Know that I genuinely appreciate your comments and respectfully say that regardless... If you can go around saying "stuff"... so can I.
And that is why I do what I do.
I don't intend to offend or insult randomly... there is a method to my maddness if you will.
Strike up a convo with me when you spot me and you'll find I'm quite capable of admitting im at fault when you give me valid enough reason to accept it.
I'm unique... I tend to not follow the crowd... like it or not.. it's who i am.
REGARDLESS... let's stop beating around the bush and covering up the fact that Mazz and whatever people you guys feel appropriate to pick... have pass a proposal without... well daresay our consent as a whole. (bad choice of words yes i know but how else do you describe this).
Is this the CSM's true nature?
I hope not. ========================= CEO of Shadow Cadre http://www.shadowcadre.com ========================= |
Argonis Valentio
Senex Legio
|
Posted - 2009.10.09 23:44:00 -
[105]
Just to clear this all up:
Mazz answered your question earlier as to why it was posted for submission. CSM members aren't, in Mazz's opinion, as much political positions as opposed to 10 year old fat kids running through a candy shop. The topic was submitted because CCP asked for a previously non-submitted topic raised by Mazz which makes all future posts valuable, apparently...
On another issue, just because your position doesn't clearly depict that of a typical Icelandic office doesn't mean that the terms should be increased. Those terms are based on several very well structured theories which have been established globally and known to WORK. For example, in Australia some cities there are entire museums dedicated to these theories and the history of democracy. That still doesn't avoid the issue of CCP paying for all expenses for that trip to Iceland every year. With less than 9% voting for CSM its a shock because CCP hasn't added it sufficiently in the game to give more attention to the very sensitive issue.
On the issue of large corporations and alliances voting in their own members, I realise this is going to be the case however by increasing the term limits - and in some cases, someone suggesting they are unlimited or take on a more consultative role means that these members could be rotated in the alliance for who gets the next trip to Iceland. This is fantastic because it becomes the opposite of good, it means we pay more money for nothing.
|
Drake Draconis
Minmatar Shadow Cadre REIGN Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.10.10 00:36:00 -
[106]
Originally by: Argonis Valentio Just to clear this all up:
Mazz answered your question earlier as to why it was posted for submission. CSM members aren't, in Mazz's opinion, as much political positions as opposed to 10 year old fat kids running through a candy shop. The topic was submitted because CCP asked for a previously non-submitted topic raised by Mazz which makes all future posts valuable, apparently...
That is a bit of a stretch.
First off... we have just her word to go on it. Secondly... This sets a nasty precedent... basically it means that the greater majority of us here... at assembly hall.. can say all we want.... good... bad... ugly... loud... quiet... it won't matter... only having CCP to stand in there way.
Everything we are discussing here is a colossal waste of time.
Anyone in the CSM can make proposal and it will be passed or rejected at-will.
I find it a bit hard to swallow that.
Which leaves one final question.
What is the point of having a CSM when they can ignore the overall population? Because if that's the case... then why bother giving input to begin with.
========================= CEO of Shadow Cadre http://www.shadowcadre.com ========================= |
Yaay
Game-Over
|
Posted - 2009.10.10 00:48:00 -
[107]
Originally by: Drake Draconis
Originally by: Argonis Valentio Just to clear this all up:
Mazz answered your question earlier as to why it was posted for submission. CSM members aren't, in Mazz's opinion, as much political positions as opposed to 10 year old fat kids running through a candy shop. The topic was submitted because CCP asked for a previously non-submitted topic raised by Mazz which makes all future posts valuable, apparently...
That is a bit of a stretch.
First off... we have just her word to go on it. Secondly... This sets a nasty precedent... basically it means that the greater majority of us here... at assembly hall.. can say all we want.... good... bad... ugly... loud... quiet... it won't matter... only having CCP to stand in there way.
Everything we are discussing here is a colossal waste of time.
Anyone in the CSM can make proposal and it will be passed or rejected at-will.
I find it a bit hard to swallow that.
Which leaves one final question.
What is the point of having a CSM when they can ignore the overall population? Because if that's the case... then why bother giving input to begin with.
There's a reason people hate politics. Welcome
DD changes
Docking PVP games |
Drake Draconis
Minmatar Shadow Cadre REIGN Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.10.10 01:03:00 -
[108]
for once... I actually agree with you.
Yeah there's always politics... but honestly... they could have made an effort "FFS" ========================= CEO of Shadow Cadre http://www.shadowcadre.com ========================= |
mazzilliu
Caldari Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
|
Posted - 2009.10.10 02:23:00 -
[109]
practically speaking, the csm is a consultant job not a political office. flying 9 CSM members to iceland twice per year probably costs about as much hiring one guy full time to try to figure out wth the community wants, and can do the job better too. the only reason there are elections is because its the only fair way to decide which players get the trip.
the problem with all your arguments is that you think this is like electing a senator or a governor. the only wrongdoing a csm member is capable of is not really made any more possible the longer they stay in office. you're basically electing a player opinion consultant for CCP that is paid in free trips to iceland.
most of the rest of my posting here is just to provoke drake.
MAZZILLIU 2009. CHANGE I CAN IMPOSE ON YOU. |
Marlona Sky
D00M. Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2009.10.10 08:35:00 -
[110]
The Scope of the CSM
The purpose of the CSM is to represent society interests to CCP. This requires active engagement with the player community to master EVE issue awareness, understanding, and evaluation in the context of the ôgreatest good for the greater player baseö.
Topic Presentation and Management by the CSM
A topic can be anything that a player considers important. The goal is to either gain the support of a Representative, or gain a 25% public support level on the issue from the total number of voters from the last general election. If either of these conditions is met, the topic must be addressed by the CSM.
*Basically, if a topic gets the support of just one CSM, it can be brought to vote. Now as far as a CSM starting a topic and then the same CSM voting yes to it so it can be voted on by the CSM counts, I am unsure about. If that is allowed, then that rule should be changed otherwise it would be an auto-csm-vote on anything a CSM member feels like.*
Source: The CSM
On a related note, I dare not attempt to copy and paste the raw log of the minutes of the last meeting, even only the discussion of this topic and how it came to be a 4 to 3 vote. I encourage everyone to please read it, specifically the term limits section towards the end. It is interesting to say the least.
Source: CSM Meeting Minutes
I guess my question is, did the CSM represent society interests on this topic, as per their job, as described by PTtur J=hannes +skarsson of CCP?
|
|
Drake Draconis
Minmatar Shadow Cadre REIGN Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.10.10 12:09:00 -
[111]
Obviously no they did not!
According to CCP that is. ========================= CEO of Shadow Cadre http://www.shadowcadre.com ========================= |
Santiago Fahahrri
Galactic Geographic
|
Posted - 2009.10.10 14:32:00 -
[112]
Originally by: mazzilliu practically speaking, the csm is a consultant job not a political office. flying 9 CSM members to iceland twice per year probably costs about as much hiring one guy full time to try to figure out wth the community wants, and can do the job better too. the only reason there are elections is because its the only fair way to decide which players get the trip.
the problem with all your arguments is that you think this is like electing a senator or a governor. the only wrongdoing a csm member is capable of is not really made any more possible the longer they stay in office. you're basically electing a player opinion consultant for CCP that is paid in free trips to iceland.
most of the rest of my posting here is just to provoke drake.
Quoting this so it's in my post and not editable by mazziliu. This should be reposted the next time mazziliu is up for election so people can mazziliu's own words on what they are getting with a vote... a "player opinion consultant for CCP that is paid in free trips to iceland" whos level of wrongdoing is "not really made any more possible the longer they stay in office"
Inspiring stuff there. ~ Santiago Fahahrri Galactic Geographic |
Kasi Kasai
|
Posted - 2009.10.10 16:12:00 -
[113]
As an aide memoire the following CSM reps voted for this proposal.
Mazzilu, proposed the topic and took it to the csm with three supports on the thread and naturally supported her own proposal.
Zastrow J. voted to support the proposal.
Avalloc voted to support the proposal.
Vuk Lau voted to support the proposal. (Even though he wasn't there for the debate on the proposal, I thought that if they couldn't be there for the debate on a vote the next person in line was supposed to take over and vote and if there weren't enough people to make a quorum the meeting should have been closed at that point)
The next CSM election is coming up.
|
mazzilliu
Caldari Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
|
Posted - 2009.10.10 17:58:00 -
[114]
Edited by: mazzilliu on 10/10/2009 17:58:24
Originally by: Kasi Kasai As an aide memoire the following CSM reps voted for this proposal.
Mazzilu, proposed the topic and took it to the csm with three supports on the thread and naturally supported her own proposal.
Zastrow J. voted to support the proposal.
Avalloc voted to support the proposal.
Vuk Lau voted to support the proposal. (Even though he wasn't there for the debate on the proposal, I thought that if they couldn't be there for the debate on a vote the next person in line was supposed to take over and vote and if there weren't enough people to make a quorum the meeting should have been closed at that point)
The next CSM election is coming up.
vuk lau, avalloc, and me wont be running next term. im pretty sure zastrow's support base will be even bigger when they see this thread and the fact he helped troll the crap out of you 5 or 6 guys. i suggest you do what the eveo trolls did with larkonis "ADAM RIDGWAY" trassler and write our names all over the place and generally go ape****, im sure that will help
MAZZILLIU 2009. CHANGE I CAN IMPOSE ON YOU. |
Marlona Sky
D00M. Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2009.10.10 22:27:00 -
[115]
Originally by: mazzilliu Edited by: mazzilliu on 10/10/2009 17:58:24
Originally by: Kasi Kasai As an aide memoire the following CSM reps voted for this proposal.
Mazzilu, proposed the topic and took it to the csm with three supports on the thread and naturally supported her own proposal.
Zastrow J. voted to support the proposal.
Avalloc voted to support the proposal.
Vuk Lau voted to support the proposal. (Even though he wasn't there for the debate on the proposal, I thought that if they couldn't be there for the debate on a vote the next person in line was supposed to take over and vote and if there weren't enough people to make a quorum the meeting should have been closed at that point)
The next CSM election is coming up.
vuk lau, avalloc, and me wont be running next term. im pretty sure zastrow's support base will be even bigger when they see this thread and the fact he helped troll the crap out of you 5 or 6 guys. i suggest you do what the eveo trolls did with larkonis "ADAM RIDGWAY" trassler and write our names all over the place and generally go ape****, im sure that will help
Utterly pathetic...
|
mazzilliu
Caldari Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
|
Posted - 2009.10.11 01:55:00 -
[116]
save your rage for fall of 2010 when i will run
MAZZILLIU 2009. CHANGE I CAN IMPOSE ON YOU. |
Frug
Veyr
|
Posted - 2009.10.11 02:05:00 -
[117]
I'd say let incumbents come back after they take a term break. - - - - - - - - - Do not use dotted lines - - - - - - If you think I'm awesome say BOOO BOOO!! - Ductoris Neat look what I found - Kreul Whisper/PrismX 4 emperor |
Argonis Valentio
Senex Legio
|
Posted - 2009.10.11 05:29:00 -
[118]
To date, most of the people you have insulted or looked down upon Mazzilliu have been informative in their messages with the exception of Drake Draconis who doesn't seem to read or interpret English correctly (You won't have my support if you ever try for a position such as a Judge DD).
Again, the people on CSM who voted for an extension of the term limits are, with no surprise, the people about to get the boot. In many newly formed democratic nations it is common to see this, it's only natural - people are power hungry and like to suppress their fellow man.
On the issue of your position as a CSM representative, regardless of what you want to call yourself Mazzilliu, a consultant is commonly experienced and professionally educated in the field that they are consulting on. Furthermore they are impartial to the issue they are consulting. So far, it just seems like you've breached both those requirements, am I wrong?
This can only conclude that you must be a politician in which case your duty is firstly to the people who elected you to your office and secondly the greater player base of EVE Online. Of course this is contradictory to the rules of the CSM however those rules are in conflict of being re-elected. I can't see any reason we would want to give you more power, you clearly can't handle your present duties.
On the case of the cost, only 10%, 8% and 9% voted in years 1,2 and 3 respectively. These statistics don't indicate that it's getting better and most likely, that only a small section of players know about CSM. These are in a sense hidden costs because most of the players don't know they are paying for them in their subscription. That said, a permanent consultant would be better as they would atleast take the suggestions made in petitions and what not seriously for once instead of brushing them aside.
|
Mashie Saldana
BFG Tech
|
Posted - 2009.10.11 11:46:00 -
[119]
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.
|
Vuk Lau
4S Corporation Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2009.10.11 13:08:00 -
[120]
I was really divided on this issue, cause its not pure black/white decisions. Looking for my perspective CSM 6 month term is actualy extremely short, and the most unthankfull thing with CSM is that fruit of your CSM office will be visible in best case for the duration of next office, and as we saw you can wait even for 2-3 more terms.
Continuity of CSM is also tricky cause basicly its all up to dedication/willingness of the delegates who are continuing their terms to pass the procedures and help the new candidates. As much as I can only express huge thanks to CCP for idea of CSM both as regular player and CSM candidate I still think there is A LOT of place for improvements in tools CSM shiould have for better work and for better continuity but anyway back to the topic.
I initially voted yes for CCP to generally reconsider 2 term limit of CSM candidates, but then again as much some current/past CSM delegates should have been allowed to be in CSM for as long as they are getting enough votes, then sadly there is more people who shouldnt be allowed nowhere near CSM. At the end I know there is no perfect system cause if we look our politicians its the same **** as huge percent of them should be publicly crucified, but instead of that they are leading our countries thanks to voters.
What is something that extremely annoys me is the people running for CSM for the free trip, 6 months of free gameplay, trip to fanfest etc. I know I would run for CSM even if there is no trip to Iceland at all, and when I was running 1st time we didnt even knew we will get free time.
At the end I have faith in CCP that they will make good decision about this matter.
|
|
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. |
|
Yaay
Game-Over
|
Posted - 2009.10.15 03:46:00 -
[151]
Originally by: mazzilliu
Originally by: Marlona Sky
Originally by: mazzilliu already did. muahahahahahahaahahah
So what did CCP say?
NDA until the minutes are released
muahahahhahaha
First in a Maz is drunk with Eship power post?
DD changes
Docking PVP games |
mazzilliu
Caldari Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
|
Posted - 2009.10.15 04:04:00 -
[152]
its merely an appropriate place to put an evil laugh
MAZZILLIU 2009. CHANGE I CAN IMPOSE ON YOU. |
Marlona Sky
D00M. Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2009.10.15 12:07:00 -
[153]
Originally by: mazzilliu
Originally by: Marlona Sky
Originally by: mazzilliu already did. muahahahahahahaahahah
So what did CCP say?
NDA until the minutes are released
muahahahhahaha
Which is when??
|
Dianeces
The Illuminati. Pandemic Legion
|
Posted - 2009.10.15 18:15:00 -
[154]
Originally by: Marlona Sky
Which is when??
If the posters in this thread is to be believed, sometime after the apocalypse.
|
Dread Nanana
|
Posted - 2009.10.21 01:05:00 -
[155]
No.
Term limits are removed by dictators and others that think too highly of themselves. If only a few people in entire playerbase can represent that playerbase, then the game is screwed anyway.
There should be a 1 term limit, max.
Mazzilliu, you have to realize Eve is not RL. Maybe get a RL and do something productive, like run for public office in real elections instead of the fake elections for CSM.
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 :: [one page] |