| Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 4 post(s) |
Tiny Tove
   |
Posted - 2009.11.18 20:39:00 -
[31]
 Originally by: KaarBaak
Three things the CSM has accomplished? And I'll give you one:
1. Skill queue
Yes, they do like to take credit for that don't they....
They didn't think of it themselves. Nor did the weight of 8 self importance slugs get it done.
Also, I clicked Abstain, just like every time before. These days, just the one account. I've put enough money in that cybertarts holiday fund. And no paying with PLEX doesn't suddenly make my financial contribution to her ego zero, that's would be just "Miner's Maths"; 'I mined it, so it's free'.
---
WTB: Unwritten Forum Rules and list of posters you're not allowed to Report. |
Le Skunk
Low Sec Liberators
|
Posted - 2009.11.18 20:43:00 -
[32]
Originally by: Tiny Tove
Originally by: KaarBaak
Three things the CSM has accomplished? And I'll give you one:
1. Skill queue
Yes, they do like to take credit for that don't they....
They didn't think of it themselves. Nor did the weight of 8 self importance slugs get it done.
Also, I clicked Abstain, just like every time before. These days, just the one account. I've put enough money in that cybertarts holiday fund. And no paying with PLEX doesn't suddenly make my financial contribution to her ego zero, that's would be just "Miner's Maths"; 'I mined it, so it's free'.
Excellant.The abstain faction now has at least three votes (nearly enough to get voted in iirc lol)
Though may i ask who "she" is. Are you refering to in general or to a specific woman?
SKUNK
(o)
|
Larkonis TrassIer
Neo Spartans
Laconian Syndicate
|
Posted - 2009.11.18 20:59:00 -
[33]
This thread is amusing to say the least.
|
Tiny Tove
|
Posted - 2009.11.18 21:05:00 -
[34]
Originally by: Le Skunk
Though may i ask who "she" is. Are you refering to in general or to a specific woman?
SKUNK
If you say the name, her ego appears, and frankly the less of it the better. Just think of the loudest, foulest wretch that besmirches all that is good about women, perhaps some gold digging tart who would like to thank you all for her free holiday.
|
Ban Doga
|
Posted - 2009.11.18 21:19:00 -
[35]
From the last CSM meeting minutes:
"The CSM has expressed its dissatisfaction with the GM teams in many ways.
The GM team showed the CSM data about petition ratings that are constantly going up (and reach 79%). The CSM regretted very much the absence of a category breakdown, because while ôstuckö and ôaccount paymentö issues may get frequent 100% satisfaction, reimbursement issues are more likely to be in the bottom of the satisfaction rating. And stuck/payment petitions are most likely to dwarf the other ones.
The CSM conceded that the GM Team does a great job in some tasks, but not in others.
The GM team said they had refined the hiring and training process, and that due to the complex nature of Eve, training people to know the intricacies of EVE was not an easy task (they mentioned a 200-page document that was supposed to cover information about nothing but POSes as an example). And this despite the fact that they sometimes hire former volunteers. They explained the steps taken to make sure that experts are available in different fields to make sure a GM less knowledgeable about a particular topic has the possibility of transferring the issue to someone who knows, or get the information.
They produced data showing decreasing waiting times on petitions, except around new releases.
The CSM conceded that customer support was not an easy job, and expressed their opinion that the GMs were shooting themselves in the feet by not communicating to the player base about the status of customer services on a regular basis. However despite the data presented, the CSM thinks there is still very much room for improvement, especially on the competency issue.
On the ôfairnessö and/or partiality issue, the GMs said that all allegations of misconduct/unfairness/etc. can be petitioned and they will be investigated by the Internal Affairs staff to prevent such things."
Seriously, what do you expect people to think of that?
This can be summarized as "CSM is unhappy with the GM team. The GM team assures they try hard. CSM understands that GMs have a difficult job." without losing too much information and that is exactly the thing that I find so lame about this: You learn nothing new from that.
I don't care whether the GM guidelines about POSes have 200 or 150 pages. I care about how they want to address the dissatisfaction expressed by the CSM.
Almost everything is paraphrased into the "We're doing what we can" / "We'll address that issue" / "We cannot talk about this (yet)" / "It's not easy" / "It's already good/improving" you get from CCP as well. You cannot even really tell what those 79% are supposed to mean (79% of all petitions where handled correctly / as fast as possible / as good as possible / to the satisfaction of the user / without unnecessary escalation / ...?)
Were those "petition ratings" so secret that they couldn't be included in the meeting minutes?
Same about those "steps taken to make sure that experts are available".
And how about not just regretting that the data wasn't really useful but instead asking to get data that would be useful?
The CSM is displeased with CCP's lacking communication yet does the same mistakes: "Measures are being taken - You can all relax".
A lot of the meeting minutes remind me of the monthly Q&A that found a very quick end after some incredibly lame answers.
For me this feels like wasting a lot of time.
|
Zeba
Minmatar
Honourable East India Trading Company
|
Posted - 2009.11.18 21:27:00 -
[36]
Originally by: Destination SkillQueue
It is a vote for an entity that has no decision making power, so why does it matter?
Indeed. Name one thing the csm did for the game that the devs hadn't already decided to do. 
|
Le Skunk
Low Sec Liberators
|
Posted - 2009.11.18 21:58:00 -
[37]
Edited by: Le Skunk on 18/11/2009 21:59:35
Edited by: Le Skunk on 18/11/2009 21:58:31
Originally by: Tiny Tove
Originally by: Le Skunk
Though may i ask who "she" is. Are you refering to in general or to a specific woman?
SKUNK
If you say the name, her ego appears, and frankly the less of it the better. Just think of the loudest, foulest wretch that besmirches all that is good about women, perhaps some gold digging tart who would like to thank you all for her free holiday.
Hmmm
Well the only two female CSM members that have been voted in as far as I can remember have both been embroiled in some form of scandal if the other
One was embroiled in a bitter faction warfare exploting scandal (amongst other scandals)
And the other (voted in on an alliance block vote) brought the CSM into disrepute by bringing "humorous" issues in front of the CSM and generally larking around and mocking the poor voters
SKUNK
(o)
|
Destination SkillQueue
Are We There Yet
|
Posted - 2009.11.18 22:08:00 -
[38]
Originally by: Zeba
Originally by: Destination SkillQueue
It is a vote for an entity that has no decision making power, so why does it matter?
Indeed. Name one thing the csm did for the game that the devs hadn't already decided to do.
The CSM influences decisions, but they don't make them. Same influence could be achieved by alternative means, if CCP chooses to allow it. My point was though, that there is no point in paying your way to the CSM. The ammount of money needed to secure a place would propably allow you to pay for your own trips to Iceland and the fanfest. Since buying the votes would actually be a waste of money and you can't buy any decision making power, why would the issue of buying votes be relevant to anyone.
|
Tiny Tove
|
Posted - 2009.11.18 22:14:00 -
[39]
Originally by: Le Skunk
And the other (voted in on an alliance block vote) brought the CSM into disrepute by bringing "humorous" issues in front of the CSM and generally larking around and mocking the poor voters
SKUNK
I didn't know they allowed login traps to win CSM votes. |
Julius Rigel
|
Posted - 2009.11.18 22:37:00 -
[40]
Originally by: Tiny Tove
Originally by: LaVista Vista
Are you suggesting that we ban alliances from the CSM? 
Or perhaps just the CSM. Replace with a forum poll.
But you can't invite a forum poll to Iceland for an important meeting. I mean, let's face it, are you more positive towards the idea of half a dozen "Players working towards the wishes of the community." or "What would you like to see in the next expansion? T3 Titans - Warp to 0 autopilot - Other"?
I think most players are reassured by the fact that their stupid ideas are hand-filtered by someone before getting rejected by CCP, as opposed to going straight into a database and getting rejected by CCP.
Also, sure, why not ban alliances from voting, the same way alliances are banned from faction wars, and corporations are banned from sovereignty, and NPC corps are banned from owning POSes, and players are banned from destroying NPC structures such as station, gates, and turrets. Or any number of other little rules arbitrarily apply to one group of pilots and not others.
Now get off my lawn and take this CSM stuff back to the CSM forum when you leave! /me waves his cane about. 
|
Emperor Cheney
Celebrity Sex Tape
|
Posted - 2009.11.18 22:49:00 -
[41]
Minmatars count for 3/5ths of a vote.
Women are turned away at the polls.
That last part was entirely theoretical of course.
|
ShadowMaiden
Amarr
Metal Machine
|
Posted - 2009.11.19 01:33:00 -
[42]
Edited by: ShadowMaiden on 19/11/2009 01:34:06
Originally by: Destination SkillQueue
It is a vote for an entity that has no decision making power and will only present things to CCP that suit their own agenda at the expense of the rest of the playerbase/further their own goals, so why does it matter?
fixed.
|
Caleb Fury
Amarr
Did I just do that
|
Posted - 2009.11.19 01:45:00 -
[43]
Originally by: Destination SkillQueue
It is a vote for an entity that has no decision making power, so why does it matter?
|
Catherine Frasier
|
Posted - 2009.11.19 03:41:00 -
[44]
Originally by: Rhen Ayase
so then they shouldnt call it democratic if it isnt... then they should call it account shareholder voting or whatever, but not democratic. it isnt and thats fact.
Everyone can vote for someone to represent them. That, by definition, makes this democratic.
What you want is democracy of a very narrow type, one with suffrage rights extended to individual players instead of by accounts. I agree that this would be "better" but that doesn't change the fact that the current system falls well within the definition of democratic.
|
Typhado3
Minmatar
Ashen Lion Mining and Production Consortium
Aeternus.
|
Posted - 2009.11.19 05:18:00 -
[45]
Originally by: ShadowMaiden
Edited by: ShadowMaiden on 19/11/2009 01:34:06
Originally by: Destination SkillQueue
It is a vote for an entity that has no decision making power and will only present things to CCP that suit their own agenda at the expense of the rest of the playerbase/further their own goals, so why does it matter?
fixed.
"....only present things to CCP that suit their own agenda...."
Well then what you do is find one who's agenda is similar to yours and vote for them, thus ensuring the issues you care about get heard. Say you think caldari suck balls in pvp you vote for a CSM who thinks caldari suck balls at pvp and plans to go yell at CCP about it if they get voted in. There's even a fricken questionaire which makes it easier for you to find out which CSM thinks similar to you.
Also to OP Australia had a system which allowed multiple voting up until around the 1890's and we did OK up until then. Maybe a system where every human has same voting rights would be better but I can't honestly see a way of doing it.
I really find it strange that in eve of all places you come to the forums whining that it's not fair and no one points out the fact your in EVE. The whole game is not fair it doesn't suddenly become all perfect simple and completely even just in the areas you want it to. If the CSM was fair and even and perfectly balanced it would be so out of touch with the EVE universe I wouldn't want it speaking on my behalf.
HTFU or GTFO
------------------------------
Just a crazy inventor
ccp fix mining agent missions % pls
|
Rhen Ayase
Imperial Crusade Syndicate
|
Posted - 2009.11.19 10:45:00 -
[46]
Originally by: Catherine Frasier
Originally by: Rhen Ayase
so then they shouldnt call it democratic if it isnt... then they should call it account shareholder voting or whatever, but not democratic. it isnt and thats fact.
Everyone can vote for someone to represent them. That, by definition, makes this democratic.
What you want is democracy of a very narrow type, one with suffrage rights extended to individual players instead of by accounts. I agree that this would be "better" but that doesn't change the fact that the current system falls well within the definition of democratic.
no a vote for someone to represent makes it republican, democratic means everyone get the same voting power. thats why its a plutocratic voting, true still repbulcian but not way not democratic.
republica - latin public affairs... means the public can see (parts) of whats going on and (a representative part of) the public (mostly elected but there are other types too) is involved in the gouverment
democratic - greek power of people, simple means the votepower is one fore each of the people
plutocratic - greek power of wealth, and this means one of the people get more votes dependant on wealth
and thats why its NOT democratic... and the whole other mess in this discussion: i simply want to clarify its not democratic, i still voted for my favourite, and dont care if the csm is useful or not.
its simply one word i think ccp should change, or overhaul the election system in general (which is not possible due to anonymity anyway) ;p
--------------------------------------
Slave and Property of Kathryn Dougans. |
Tippia
Reikoku
IT Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.11.19 11:38:00 -
[47]
Edited by: Tippia on 19/11/2009 11:39:29
Originally by: Rhen Ayase
republica - latin public affairs... means the public can see (parts) of whats going on and (a representative part of) the public (mostly elected but there are other types too) is involved in the gouverment
democratic - greek power of people, simple means the votepower is one fore each of the people
plutocratic - greek power of wealth, and this means one of the people get more votes dependant on wealth
and thats why its NOT democratic...
…and also why those meanings are now obsolete, which explains why you're not getting your argument through.
In the modern sense of the word, the CSM is democratic.
———
“If you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡…
you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.”
— Karath Piki |
Winters Chill
Amarr
Shadow Legion.
|
Posted - 2009.11.19 11:47:00 -
[48]
Dunno why you all so surprised.
In the grand scheme of things the CSM is marketing.
Yes it's very sweet of CCP to let the players have a say in the development in their interactive recreational product.
Yes, its very nice of them to fly you to iceland for free, based on a popular vote.
They don't have to do any of this, and CCP certainly hope you notice this. They hope even more that you'll tell your friends and the media about it. So more people come play eve and win an eve dev themed holiday to iceland.
Thats marketing.
Sorry if I sound cynical, but Im paying for a month software service, not a passport to a lifestyle.
|
TeaDaze
Agony Unleashed
Agony Empire
|
Posted - 2009.11.19 14:44:00 -
[49]
If you don't feel any candidate can represent your views and want to vote Abstain instead then that is valid part of the CSM process. CCP can only put candidates who apply (and meet the passport criteria etc) up for election so can't control the quality much. If you want that to improve (or not ) then apply next time.
IMO voting Abstain prolongs the CSM process in its current form, you are stating ôI like the CSM idea but I don't agree with any of these candidatesö.
Not voting at all and showing a general lack of interest in the CSM would be far more effective in killing it off if that is your aim
Is it mostly a marketing gimmick? - perhaps, but that doesn't mean that it doesn't also have a role in communicating player ideas and requests to CCP. Anything that brings new players into Eve is good for everybody; more subs for CCP, more players buying goods from the markets, more targets for PvP etc.
To reply to the OP, I simply describe the CSM as "A player Elected Council" and avoid the whole argument between democracy / plutocracy.
Vote TeaDaze for CSM #4
|
Oriens Pars
|
Posted - 2009.11.19 15:00:00 -
[50]
Originally by: Grunanca
Originally by: Rhen Ayase
its a plutocracy: the one with the money get more votes, because they have more accounts.
i hear from many people its normal to have 2 or even 3 accounts, up to 8 or even heard of one with 15.
its not democratic for one to have up to 15 votes compared to one only want (or can afford) one eve account.
Just like with shareholders in real life, the guy with 15 accounts has 15 times more money invested than you. Why shouldnt he then have 15 times more voting power? CCP couldnt care less if one person pays the party or many does as long as they get the money...
CSM isn't a corp. It apparently is an elected "office." So what you're saying is the guy that lives on the other side of town that makes 10 times more than me should get 10 more votes than me, when voting for mayor, or city council members, or county legislature, etc, etc? I think not.
|
Merovee
Amarr
Gorthaur Legion
|
Posted - 2009.11.19 15:27:00 -
[51]
 We are lucky to get a vote at all, and if I invest in this game with more than one account I demand that I get more votes. You people are stupid!
Of Mordor
|
Oriens Pars
|
Posted - 2009.11.19 16:07:00 -
[52]
Originally by: Merovee
We are lucky to get a vote at all, and if I invest in this game with more than one account I demand that I get more votes. You people are stupid!
Please explain to me how you think it's fair that you deserve more than 1 vote just because you have more than 1 account. I don't think your 2nd account speaks for me, or anyone else. In fact, it speaks for you...just a second time. What if someone owned 200 accounts and uses those 200 votes to sway a candidate into the CSM that wants to implement a change that benefits only him and his friends? Great, a candidate gets elected with 5000 votes. Who cares if those 5000 votes came from only 500 people (exaggeration of course)? Uh.....I'm sure a LOT of people care. If CCP really does want a fair representation of its player base then they need to fix the way the CSM is actually elected.
I'm not saying get rid of the CSM. I'm just saying there needs to be some different way of voting for the candidates. As it is now it's not fair, and needs to be changed....I for one won't vote until it is.
For the record - I own 3 accounts and don't want the 3 votes.....1 is fine, and fair.
|
Kazang
Gallente
Wrecking Shots
|
Posted - 2009.11.19 17:03:00 -
[53]
Originally by: Oriens Pars
Originally by: Merovee
We are lucky to get a vote at all, and if I invest in this game with more than one account I demand that I get more votes. You people are stupid!
Please explain to me how you think it's fair that you deserve more than 1 vote just because you have more than 1 account. I don't think your 2nd account speaks for me, or anyone else. In fact, it speaks for you...just a second time. What if someone owned 200 accounts and uses those 200 votes to sway a candidate into the CSM that wants to implement a change that benefits only him and his friends? Great, a candidate gets elected with 5000 votes. Who cares if those 5000 votes came from only 500 people (exaggeration of course)? Uh.....I'm sure a LOT of people care. If CCP really does want a fair representation of its player base then they need to fix the way the CSM is actually elected.
I'm not saying get rid of the CSM. I'm just saying there needs to be some different way of voting for the candidates. As it is now it's not fair, and needs to be changed....I for one won't vote until it is.
For the record - I own 3 accounts and don't want the 3 votes.....1 is fine, and fair.
Having one vote per account does make sense really if you think about as this is a game and not real politics. The hardcore players that play more and pay more, ie the ones with more accounts, should have more weight behind their vote(s) than one single character.
At the end of the day we are paying customers not a constituency to be governed, EVE is a product not a country.
Ironically real world politics is already biased far more towards the wealthy or those already in power so your idea that somehow paying customers getting votes per account is wrongly biased is laughable to the point of being stupidly naive.
Kazang
|
Oriens Pars
|
Posted - 2009.11.19 17:17:00 -
[54]
Originally by: Kazang
Having one vote per account does make sense really if you think about as this is a game and not real politics. The hardcore players that play more and pay more, ie the ones with more accounts, should have more weight behind their vote(s) than one single character.
At the end of the day we are paying customers not a constituency to be governed, EVE is a product not a country.
Ironically real world politics is already biased far more towards the wealthy or those already in power so your idea that somehow paying customers getting votes per account is wrongly biased is laughable to the point of being stupidly naive.
Biased in that they have the money to be in positions to influence others to vote in some way, NOT biased in that they actually have more votes. So yes, because they have the money they have the influence. Not, because they have the money they can physically vote more.
|
Ikserak tai
|
Posted - 2009.11.19 17:36:00 -
[55]
If the CSM is characterized as surrogate beggars with their hands outstretched imploring CCP to consider an idea or two, then they are accomplishing their mission.
All we can hope for is a bit of "noblesse oblige". We do not know what the CSM is going to evolve into in the future, but it is a step, albeit small, in the direction of more player involvement in CCP affairs.
A real leader may arise and become a member, and exert some real influence. Every frackin' religion has a messiah myth, why not us?
YOU'VE NEVER ROCKED 'TIL YOU'VE UNDOCKED. |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
|
Posted - 2009.11.19 18:11:00 -
[56]
Originally by: Le Skunk
Edited by: Le Skunk on 18/11/2009 21:59:35
Edited by: Le Skunk on 18/11/2009 21:58:31
Originally by: Tiny Tove
Originally by: Le Skunk
Though may i ask who "she" is. Are you refering to in general or to a specific woman?
SKUNK
If you say the name, her ego appears, and frankly the less of it the better. Just think of the loudest, foulest wretch that besmirches all that is good about women, perhaps some gold digging tart who would like to thank you all for her free holiday.
Hmmm
Well the only two female CSM members that have been voted in as far as I can remember have both been embroiled in some form of scandal if the other
One was embroiled in a bitter faction warfare exploting scandal (amongst other scandals)
And the other (voted in on an alliance block vote) brought the CSM into disrepute by bringing "humorous" issues in front of the CSM and generally larking around and mocking the poor voters
SKUNK
You must admit that in both cases they were thoroughly representative of the player base. I can't deny that I got a laugh out of seeing people being so thoroughly trolled by Mazillu. If anyone was dumb enough to take what she said at face value then I have a RAVEN NAVY ISSUE I can trade them in Jita 4-4.
|
Anna Kommenos
|
Posted - 2009.11.19 18:16:00 -
[57]
Originally by: Rhen Ayase
Originally by: Grunanca
Originally by: Rhen Ayase
its a plutocracy: the one with the money get more votes, because they have more accounts.
i hear from many people its normal to have 2 or even 3 accounts, up to 8 or even heard of one with 15.
its not democratic for one to have up to 15 votes compared to one only want (or can afford) one eve account.
Just like with shareholders in real life, the guy with 15 accounts has 15 times more money invested than you. Why shouldnt he then have 15 times more voting power? CCP couldnt care less if one person pays the party or many does as long as they get the money...
so then they shouldnt call it democratic if it isnt... then they should call it account shareholder voting or whatever, but not democratic. it isnt and thats fact.
there is no such thing as a true democratic system, so your point is moot.
from the viewpoint of ccp, csm candidate A wins because he gets more accounts voting for him then csm candidate B, which is in real terms the equivalent of winning a "democratic" vote. that only candidate A's alliance members can be bothered to vote is not ccp's problem, they are getting accurate representation because candidate A's voters are the only ones that can be bothered to vote, and therefor are the only ones who deserve a say in the process. if you want true representation convince the playerbase that its worth their time to click a few buttons, otherwise htfu and stfu.
|
Anna Kommenos
|
Posted - 2009.11.19 18:21:00 -
[58]
Originally by: Rhen Ayase
no a vote for someone to represent makes it republican, democratic means everyone get the same voting power. thats why its a plutocratic voting, true still repbulcian but not way not democratic.
no that makes it a representative democracy, republics are capable of being democratically constituted, but historically speaking this is rare; for the most part they are oligarchal or plutarchal in nature, which, to be honest, makes them no different from any other governmental system.
|
Avon
Caldari
Black Nova Corp
IT Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.11.19 20:03:00 -
[59]
Edited by: Avon on 19/11/2009 20:03:24
Democracy sucks anyway.
You are in a plane and the captain and the co-pilot both fall ill and are unable to fly...
There is a qualified pilot on the plane.
There are several rows of drunken football fans.
In a meritocracy you are going to live.
In a democracy you are going to plunge to your doom whist rather rude sporting chants are slurred through the PA system as the most popular football fan looks for the cup holder.
Letting everyone have an equal say is a pretty terrible idea.
アニメ漫画です
|
LaVista Vista
Conservative Shenanigans Party
|
Posted - 2009.11.19 21:43:00 -
[60]
Originally by: Le Skunk
Well the only two female CSM members that have been voted in as far as I can remember have both been embroiled in some form of scandal if the other
SKUNK
There has been 4 female members of the CSM. Not 2.
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |