Pages: 1 2 3 :: [one page] |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
|
CCP Fallout
|
Posted - 2010.03.23 15:24:00 -
[1]
In addition to changes in the length of the Council of Stellar Management terms, we are pleased to announce that will be accepting candidates for the Fifth CSM. More information can be found in CCP Diagoras' newest dev blog.
Fallout Associate Community Manager CCP Hf, EVE Online Contact us |
|
Marlona Sky
D00M. RED.OverLord
|
Posted - 2010.03.23 15:47:00 -
[2]
1st in a dark day for the EVE Community with the removal of term limits. I guess we should welcome out new CSM dictators.
|
el caido
School of Applied Knowledge
|
Posted - 2010.03.23 16:02:00 -
[3]
Marlona, you're assuming the CSM matters.
Silly bear.
|
Destination SkillQueue
Are We There Yet
|
Posted - 2010.03.23 16:02:00 -
[4]
Originally by: Marlona Sky 1st in a dark day for the EVE Community with the removal of term limits. I guess we should welcome out new CSM dictators.
On the positive side, we can now stop wasting time getting to know any new candidates and just keep voting the same candidate each time, until he finally gets tired of taking free trips to Iceland.
|
Mashie Saldana
Red Federation
|
Posted - 2010.03.23 16:15:00 -
[5]
Yay, now we will have Fanfest freeloaders stuck at CSM for 12months per year...
|
T'Amber
www.shipsofeve.com
|
Posted - 2010.03.23 16:26:00 -
[6]
Edited by: T''Amber on 23/03/2010 16:29:21
T'amber for CSM5
I'm not sure on the time changes, but it would be cool if we could pool our votes for coalitions incase we fail by ourselves. Its also good to see all the support for csm above
-T'amber
Click to Support
|
Larkonis Trassler
Genos Occidere Sev3rance
|
Posted - 2010.03.23 16:35:00 -
[7]
Awwwww yeah.
Please resize your signature to the maximum file size of 24000 bytes. Zymurgist No. Larkonis |
Jason Edwards
Internet Tough Guy Spreadsheets Online
|
Posted - 2010.03.23 16:46:00 -
[8]
Quote: Term limits will be removed, and all people who have previously used up their term limits are æreset' - anyone can run again, and can be elected as many times as the voters see fit.
Lol. Csm failing to exist already? ------------------------ To make a megathron from scratch, you must first invent the eve universe. ------------------------ Life sucks and then you get podded. |
Katana Seiko
Gallente
|
Posted - 2010.03.23 16:50:00 -
[9]
Well, I think that a limitation is good and necessary. But a limitation of being re-elected once should be good. That also allows the person to run for office again after having a break of one year. --- "Multiple exclamation marks are a sure sign for a diseased mind." -Terry Pratchett |
Jack bubu
Lyonesse. RAZOR Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.03.23 16:52:00 -
[10]
good, more power to the CSM ;)
|
|
TeaDaze
|
Posted - 2010.03.23 16:58:00 -
[11]
I do wonder if that is a bit too soon for the next Iceland summit. Unless CCP expect CSM5 to consist of pretty much all returning candidates.
Getting up to speed in 3 weeks (whilst the Alliance Tourney is on too) is a big ask for people totally new to the process.
|
Ashina Sito
Gallente Center for Advanced Studies
|
Posted - 2010.03.23 17:01:00 -
[12]
Originally by: Mashie Saldana Yay, now we will have Fanfest freeloaders stuck at CSM for 12months per year...
Quote: The visit will take place in June, the first month of their taking office.
This will then be followed by a second visit in December.
There is no FanFest CSM summit, unless CCP is moving Fanfest out of October and changing it to June or December.
It's nice to see all the requirement information posted or linked to with the CSM announcement blog this time. Having a 3 day notice to get started with the CSM canidaite info is a bit short, but I guess it must be done. Time to get crackin' I guess.
My canidate post from the last CSM Election Ashina for CSM |
Rakshasa Taisab
Caldari Sane Industries Inc. Initiative Mercenaries
|
Posted - 2010.03.23 17:04:00 -
[13]
Originally by: Marlona Sky 1st in a dark day for the EVE Community with the removal of term limits. I guess we should welcome out new CSM dictators.
Better than having the number of voters half every term cause no one knows anything about the dregs of the barrel.
Though I would have suggested a cool-off period of one term after every two, just to rotate the seats a bit.
|
Ashina Sito
Gallente Center for Advanced Studies
|
Posted - 2010.03.23 17:10:00 -
[14]
Originally by: TeaDaze I do wonder if that is a bit too soon for the next Iceland summit. Unless CCP expect CSM5 to consist of pretty much all returning candidates.
Getting up to speed in 3 weeks (whilst the Alliance Tourney is on too) is a big ask for people totally new to the process.
I think they know this. I can't see the CSM 5/1 summit being of much use to CCP. It is unfortunate but something that must be done to set the CSM on the schedule they want it to run.
My canidate post from the last CSM Election Ashina for CSM |
Derus Grobb
Tribal Liberation Force
|
Posted - 2010.03.23 17:16:00 -
[15]
Looks like the CSM is getting a boost.
Good stuff CCP! ---
|
Kile Kitmoore
|
Posted - 2010.03.23 17:36:00 -
[16]
No term limits but is there a mechanism for recalling someone?
EVE is a very complex game, thank god. That complexity however makes it impossible for a handful of elected individuals to represent many aspects of the game. Divide the game into categories and CSM candidates should run on their expertise in those areas.
Please consider using EVE Gate, IGB and e-mail to help facility CSM communications and voter turnout.
|
ThorTheGreat
Caldari GoonWaffe SOLODRAKBANSOLODRAKBANSO
|
Posted - 2010.03.23 17:40:00 -
[17]
Originally by: Kile Kitmoore No term limits but is there a mechanism for recalling someone?
EVE is a very complex game, thank god. That complexity however makes it impossible for a handful of elected individuals to represent many aspects of the game. Divide the game into categories and CSM candidates should run on their expertise in those areas.
Please consider using EVE Gate, IGB and e-mail to help facility CSM communications and voter turnout.
yes csm candidates should be pigeonholed into arbitrary categories because you said so
|
Larkonis Trassler
Genos Occidere Sev3rance
|
Posted - 2010.03.23 17:40:00 -
[18]
Originally by: Marlona Sky 1st in a dark day for the EVE Community with the removal of term limits. I guess we should welcome out new CSM dictators.
U mad?
I do have my reservations about the term length and abolition of limits though. As seen with CSM 4 continuity isn't much of an issue, perhaps forbid people from doing 2 consecutive terms?
Please resize your signature to the maximum file size of 24000 bytes. Zymurgist No. Larkonis |
Larkonis Trassler
Genos Occidere Sev3rance
|
Posted - 2010.03.23 17:50:00 -
[19]
Originally by: ThorTheGreat
Originally by: Kile Kitmoore No term limits but is there a mechanism for recalling someone?
EVE is a very complex game, thank god. That complexity however makes it impossible for a handful of elected individuals to represent many aspects of the game. Divide the game into categories and CSM candidates should run on their expertise in those areas.
Please consider using EVE Gate, IGB and e-mail to help facility CSM communications and voter turnout.
yes csm candidates should be pigeonholed into arbitrary categories because you said so
What he said.
Funnily enough people tend to vote for the people they most relate to and to be brutally honest a candidate is probably better off with decent-good knowledge of all game mechanics rathat than being an expert in one field at the expense of others.
Please resize your signature to the maximum file size of 24000 bytes. Zymurgist No. Larkonis |
Meissa Anunthiel
Redshift Industrial Rooks and Kings
|
Posted - 2010.03.23 19:11:00 -
[20]
Originally by: Larkonis Trassler
Funnily enough people tend to vote for the people they most relate to and to be brutally honest a candidate is probably better off with decent-good knowledge of all game mechanics rathat than being an expert in one field at the expense of others.
Absolutely. The number of elected representatives over the terms who had no knowledge whatsoever of some aspects is not small. Some of them barely knew anything other than PvEing in Empire... There is no signature |
|
Vuk Lau
4S Corporation Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2010.03.23 19:18:00 -
[21]
If I get elected I will propose the rule that Herschel Yamamoto must be in CSM. Its a pity that he is missing his delegate spot for ages, while FreeTripToIcelandCrew is repeatedly getting in.
|
Virtuozzo
Against ALL Authorities
|
Posted - 2010.03.23 19:55:00 -
[22]
"Term limits will be removed"
So much for steering away from the CSM as special interest / advance insight group.
≡v≡
|
Ben Derindar
Dirty Deeds Corp.
|
Posted - 2010.03.23 21:18:00 -
[23]
I can understand the desire for longer terms for the sake of added delegate continuity, but I can't say I like the idea of unlimited terms, I'm afraid; not unless CCP raises the standard of requirement for becoming a candidate to begin with.
It's hard to have faith in a system when some of the delegates have clearly got in just for the luls, and would freely do so again given another chance.
/Ben
|
Serenity Steele
Dynamic Data Distribution
|
Posted - 2010.03.23 22:36:00 -
[24]
This looks to me like over-kill; both extending the period to 1 year PLUS making no limit on total number of sessions.
Taking the limit off enables good performers can do it for longer = good.
Extending the period to 1 year means: - non-contributing/incapable/stupid people stay longer = bad. - people will need to be kicked for non-participation = bad. - Still facing a risk of continuity every time the entire council can cycle = bad.
Would it not be better to state the terms are 6 months, existing members get an option to extend for 1yr? Council members nominating to step-down before election cycles, rather than having to be kicked because their life changes. A number of seats open each 6 month period, there is still continuity for people who get into it, there is still a chance to bow-out gracefully, there is still a medium-term period for new-blood to enter.
Not to mention the other interesting meta-gaming aspects of people demanding that specific council members step-down at the 6 month mark, encouraging others to stay the 1 year etc.
It would probably also have an interesting effect on the election periods, as there are less positions, people would have a greater impact on garnering votes to get in. The flip-side could ofc. be that larger voice powerblocks keep on inserting more candidates, with 2 strikes at the pie ;)
Buy ≡v≡ Strategic Maps in the Eve-Online Store |
JitaPriceChecker2
|
Posted - 2010.03.23 22:43:00 -
[25]
Posts nr 2 and 3 says it all.
|
Carniflex
StarHunt Systematic-Chaos
|
Posted - 2010.03.23 23:00:00 -
[26]
Hm. Perhaps one day I will run also for that spot in there. Next spring perhaps. I can already imagine the pitchforks and torches when I promise to lobby for removal of T2 BPO's and proper UI for industry.
6 months was pretty reasonable time interval for CSM in my opinion considering how 'fast' is time in EVE. However 1 year is still within more or less reasonable time interval. Just have to pick your candidates better.
|
Cat o'Ninetails
Rancer Defence League
|
Posted - 2010.03.24 00:01:00 -
[27]
vote cat
x
|
Dragon Greg
|
Posted - 2010.03.24 01:00:00 -
[28]
Originally by: Serenity Steele This looks to me like over-kill; both extending the period to 1 year PLUS making no limit on total number of sessions.
Taking the limit off enables good performers can do it for longer = good.
Extending the period to 1 year means: - non-contributing/incapable/stupid people stay longer = bad. - people will need to be kicked for non-participation = bad. - Still facing a risk of continuity every time the entire council can cycle = bad.
Would it not be better to state the terms are 6 months, existing members get an option to extend for 1yr? Council members nominating to step-down before election cycles, rather than having to be kicked because their life changes. A number of seats open each 6 month period, there is still continuity for people who get into it, there is still a chance to bow-out gracefully, there is still a medium-term period for new-blood to enter.
Not to mention the other interesting meta-gaming aspects of people demanding that specific council members step-down at the 6 month mark, encouraging others to stay the 1 year etc.
It would probably also have an interesting effect on the election periods, as there are less positions, people would have a greater impact on garnering votes to get in. The flip-side could ofc. be that larger voice powerblocks keep on inserting more candidates, with 2 strikes at the pie ;)
Looks like you're still thinking of the CSM as the CSM, whereas it seems CCP is moving ahead full speed encompassing CSM in SCRUM.
It is almost funny if it goes like announced now it'll bump into stuff players usually bump into in game, like kicking inactive directors and all that, I wonder if the chairman has a button to disband the CSM
As long as the CSM remains a political process, it will not become a viable stakeholder group within scrum since it solely represents special interest groups (representing polities) as opposed to general interest groups (representing clients).
|
Meissa Anunthiel
Redshift Industrial Rooks and Kings
|
Posted - 2010.03.24 01:20:00 -
[29]
Originally by: Dragon Greg
As long as the CSM remains a political process, it will not become a viable stakeholder group within scrum since it solely represents special interest groups (representing polities) as opposed to general interest groups (representing clients).
That is only true insofar as the only people voting are the ones with special interests.
However, despite the fact that most elected reps come from special interests, some of them have acted in the general interest and have had the knowledge necessary to make decisions with general regards to the impact to the whole community. There is no signature |
ThorTheGreat
Caldari GoonWaffe SOLODRAKBANSOLODRAKBANSO
|
Posted - 2010.03.24 01:24:00 -
[30]
Originally by: Dragon Greg
Originally by: Serenity Steele This looks to me like over-kill; both extending the period to 1 year PLUS making no limit on total number of sessions.
Taking the limit off enables good performers can do it for longer = good.
Extending the period to 1 year means: - non-contributing/incapable/stupid people stay longer = bad. - people will need to be kicked for non-participation = bad. - Still facing a risk of continuity every time the entire council can cycle = bad.
Would it not be better to state the terms are 6 months, existing members get an option to extend for 1yr? Council members nominating to step-down before election cycles, rather than having to be kicked because their life changes. A number of seats open each 6 month period, there is still continuity for people who get into it, there is still a chance to bow-out gracefully, there is still a medium-term period for new-blood to enter.
Not to mention the other interesting meta-gaming aspects of people demanding that specific council members step-down at the 6 month mark, encouraging others to stay the 1 year etc.
It would probably also have an interesting effect on the election periods, as there are less positions, people would have a greater impact on garnering votes to get in. The flip-side could ofc. be that larger voice powerblocks keep on inserting more candidates, with 2 strikes at the pie ;)
Looks like you're still thinking of the CSM as the CSM, whereas it seems CCP is moving ahead full speed encompassing CSM in SCRUM.
It is almost funny if it goes like announced now it'll bump into stuff players usually bump into in game, like kicking inactive directors and all that, I wonder if the chairman has a button to disband the CSM
As long as the CSM remains a political process, it will not become a viable stakeholder group within scrum since it solely represents special interest groups (representing polities) as opposed to general interest groups (representing clients).
This statement would make more sense if it wasn't the clients doing the voting.
|
|
TornSoul
BIG Majesta Empire
|
Posted - 2010.03.24 03:13:00 -
[31]
Edited by: TornSoul on 24/03/2010 03:15:03
Removal of term limit - Finally!
With the removal of the term limit, I however don't see the need for extending the term period.
In fact *because* of the no term limit, the term period should not be increased, but stay at the 6 months. I think you (CSM/CCP) should reconsider that one. If a CSM member does a good enough job, s/he'll be re-elected. If not, out s/he goes - Instead of having to wait a full year to get rid of the person.
-----
I applause the no term limit, simply because I wan't "the best"(*) people to be in the CSM, and not have them ruled out simply because they've reached their term limit. Why settle for second (third, fourth...) best, if the best are willing to keep doing the job.
The call for "need for rotation" I don't give much for - It's only ever an extremely small margin of the EVE populace who will ever get to sit on the CSM anyhow. Rotation or not - That won't change by any sensible amount. Better to have "the best" people there instead. And frankly... There ain't that many "really good" ones to go around anyhow... (imo)
(*)"The best" - Yes I realize the occasional douche-bags will get elected to the CSM, due to alliance voting powers and what not (and potentially might sit there perpetually now) But that's exactly why the CSM is not just, say, 3 people. It needs to be BIG enough to allow for the douche-bags and in-actives etc. Which it is - imo.
BIG Lottery |
riverini
Gallente Reliables Inc Majesta Empire
|
Posted - 2010.03.24 04:28:00 -
[32]
+1 for the period increase. +1 for the unlimited consecutive period
NOW I CAN SAY THAT I FOR ONCE, WELCOME OUR NEW CSM OVERLORDS!
German Giggles riverini.
|
Dierdra Vaal
Caldari Eve University Ivy League
|
Posted - 2010.03.24 08:25:00 -
[33]
Originally by: Dragon Greg I wonder if the chairman has a button to disband the CSM
comfirming this Director of Education :: EVE University
CSM1 delegate and CSM3 chairman
|
Louis deGuerre
Gallente Amicus Morte Void Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.03.24 09:27:00 -
[34]
I think these are good changes. I also advocate that CCP takes brutal vindictive measures against CSM members who abuse their position/inside knowledge. The voters have little confidence in the CSM system as it is.
CSM vs the vulcano ! Sol: A microwarp drive? In a battleship? Are you insane? They arenÆt built for this! Clear Skies - The Movie
|
Venkul Mul
Gallente
|
Posted - 2010.03.24 10:19:00 -
[35]
Originally by: TornSoul
Removal of term limit - Finally!
With the removal of the term limit, I however don't see the need for extending the term period.
In fact *because* of the no term limit, the term period should not be increased, but stay at the 6 months.
This.
And a further note: from what I recall the first CSM members were required to disclose all the accounts they held.
While I don't see any need to disclose that data to the playerbase, CCP need to know all the accounts a CSM member has. From what I see in the CSM Withe paper that is no more a requirement.
Without that knowledge monitoring is the CSM member is using insider informations is very hard.
So, the CSM members are disclosing to CCP the list of the accounts they held?
|
Serufa
|
Posted - 2010.03.24 12:06:00 -
[36]
Good changes. However, to preserve the continuity I think it'd be better to do staged elections, so you don't have the risk that the whole CSM gets replaced at once. You'd still have 2 elections a year, but only elect half of the seats in each election (5 in the summer and 4 in the winter for example), and the candidates would have a one year term. The 5 reserves would be replaced completely at each election.
This'd ensure continuity, the changes would be more gradual, and the voters could still express their opinion more often. Win-win.
|
TeaDaze
|
Posted - 2010.03.24 13:47:00 -
[37]
Originally by: Louis deGuerre I also advocate that CCP takes brutal vindictive measures against CSM members who abuse their position/inside knowledge. The voters have little confidence in the CSM system as it is.
I don't believe there has been much of this kind of thing (Larkgate excluded ) compared to the issue of people not turning up to meetings.
Of course neither are good for the public perception of the CSM...
|
DCThunder
Agent-Orange Nabaal Syndicate
|
Posted - 2010.03.24 15:04:00 -
[38]
Edited by: DCThunder on 24/03/2010 15:04:51 Why not stagger the terms? Make half the CSM "A" members, and half "B" members. Elect the "A's" for a 6 month term and the "B's" for a year. In 6 months, have a new election for A members but not B's. Rinse and repeat.
Also don't eliminate term limits completely, but say that you can't serve more then 3 years and then have to sit out at least a year.
Both of these are basic corporate governance principles that are probably in place for the CCP board of directors.
ETA, sorry didn't see the same idea posted above....
|
Rakshasa Taisab
Caldari Sane Industries Inc. Initiative Mercenaries
|
Posted - 2010.03.24 16:12:00 -
[39]
Originally by: TeaDaze I don't believe there has been much of this kind of thing (Larkgate excluded ) compared to the issue of people not turning up to meetings.
Of course neither are good for the public perception of the CSM...
I see you're running for reelection on a platform that wishes to introduce public/youtube tarring and feathering of CSM members who miss overly many meetings, and I just wanted to say you got my full support come this election.
|
SencneS
Rebellion Against Big Irreversible Dinks
|
Posted - 2010.03.24 21:41:00 -
[40]
No term limit doesn't mean people will stick around forever..
While a trip to Iceland and debate over EVE's issues sounds appealing to a majority of forum goers, I doubt people will want to do it after maybe a couple of years.. I wouldn't be surprised that some CSM members would quit mid term because they've had enough of EVE and CSM in general. They could view it as an obligation rather then a pleasure or honor to be elected.
However I would rather see a cool-off period, and maybe a six month term. Having a year long term the CSMs will likely burn out faster. However taking a break for six months might be all they need. While they could do that in any given year, a years time they might not be interested in running again.
Meh, good changes I guess, I'd like to run one day but I know my wife would kick my ass for going overseas twice in a year without her..
Amarr for Life |
|
Cinori Aluben
Minmatar Gladiators of Rage
|
Posted - 2010.03.24 21:52:00 -
[41]
I am concerned as well with the potential for "Mob Bosses" to emerge. A well-populated alliance can keep their potentially useless guy in office solely for the image and control. Some sort of balance needs to be instituted in consideration of this.
Originally by: DCThunder Edited by: DCThunder on 24/03/2010 15:04:51 Why not stagger the terms? Make half the CSM "A" members, and half "B" members. Elect the "A's" for a 6 month term and the "B's" for a year. In 6 months, have a new election for A members but not B's. Rinse and repeat.
The whole point here is to make the CSM idea more efficient and useful to both the players and CCP. By eliminating the need to reintroduce and refamiliarize CCP & CSM delegates with each others' styles & modes of functioning, it will do just that - allow more time to be spent on transmission of information between CCP & playerbase and improvement of gameplay, as well as developing a more cohesive, properly functioning group within that CSM. If you reseat 1/2 every 6 months, you'll still have to have those "introduction" meetings at the beginning of all CSM summits, CCP will still have to learn new people, as well as the two halves will then half to learn each other. Increasing term duration and cohesiveness is the way to go.
I think I'll throw my hat in the ring this go around actually
|
Mynxee
Noir. Noir. Mercenary Group
|
Posted - 2010.03.24 23:22:00 -
[42]
I like these changes and CCP's increased commitment to the CSM so that it can serve the role it was intended to have. Even though I've always been a dedicated supporter of the CSM process, I'm now even more enthused and look forward to applying to be a CSM5 candidate.
Bump It! | My Blog: Life in Low Sec |
Esharan
Caldari
|
Posted - 2010.03.25 03:54:00 -
[43]
I am going to run, as an average player (e.g. no one knows me really) I think I am a good canidate to be fair and unbiased. I don't owe anyone anything, and would represent the average gamers well.
Yep I will run.
|
Yaay
Fusion Enterprises Ltd
|
Posted - 2010.03.25 07:57:00 -
[44]
So you're letting the People who are most positively affected by no term limits decide on no term limits.
Amazing and truly the end of credibility.
Kinda like congress getting to vote on whether they deserve a pay raise.
DD changes
Docking PVP games |
Ankhesentapemkah
Gallente
|
Posted - 2010.03.25 10:11:00 -
[45]
Interesting developments.
I've been against lifting the term limit, and warned CCP of the consequences of doing this. With the 1 year terms, I also fear that people get bored or too busy with real life or otherwise become unable to participate properly. This is not a good thing.
I will likely be putting myself up as candidate again as I have been requested by Take Care members and there was no-one else that wished to step up as representative. Even though I feel two terms was more than enough for me, I rather go again than see Take Care die out. ---
Click banner for info! |
Larkonis Trassler
Genos Occidere
|
Posted - 2010.03.25 11:38:00 -
[46]
Originally by: Ankhesentapemkah
I will likely be putting myself up as candidate again
Hahaha, oh wow. If I'm allowed to run then I am definately tempted to have a try this time around.
C U on da voting field.
Please resize your signature to the maximum file size of 24000 bytes. Zymurgist No. Larkonis |
mazzilliu
Caldari Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
|
Posted - 2010.03.25 14:58:00 -
[47]
im so taking credit for removal of term limits. CSM FOR LIFE YEAH!!! i raised the issue as a troll, now it's reality. Awesome!
SELLING MY POWERS. 1 PLEX FOR 1 ISSUE |
Issler Dainze
Minmatar Tadakastu-Obata Corporation The Honda Accord
|
Posted - 2010.03.26 20:48:00 -
[48]
I may run again (not that I think I have that much chance of winning) but a year commitment is a pretty big piece of someones life. I think the lenght of time has the potential to improve the effectiveness of the CSM overall, but burnout might really be an issue.
The CSM is a serious commitment and I know in my case it really diminished the time I could spend focused on my corp and alliance.
Issler
|
Ovella
|
Posted - 2010.03.27 07:58:00 -
[49]
Originally by: mazzilliu im so taking credit for removal of term limits. CSM FOR LIFE YEAH!!! i raised the issue as a troll, now it's reality. Awesome!
Now we only need someone to raise issue to cancel election and make CCP hanpick candidates themselves (or use some sort of random number generator for it to be "fair") so they could have even more convinient time for "elections" than march \o/ Hell, it might even free up some time for them to actually make more imortant devblogs (like insurance nerf) instead of another CSM ones, while EVE population will be spared from pointless local spam and containers promoting one or other candidate - everyone happy. |
Mashie Saldana
Red Federation
|
Posted - 2010.03.27 17:19:00 -
[50]
Originally by: Ashina Sito
Originally by: Mashie Saldana Yay, now we will have Fanfest freeloaders stuck at CSM for 12months per year...
Quote: The visit will take place in June, the first month of their taking office.
This will then be followed by a second visit in December.
There is no FanFest CSM summit, unless CCP is moving Fanfest out of October and changing it to June or December.
It's nice to see all the requirement information posted or linked to with the CSM announcement blog this time. Having a 3 day notice to get started with the CSM canidaite info is a bit short, but I guess it must be done. Time to get crackin' I guess.
I can only assume you are unaware of this but the candidates that was in CMS during the autumn period also got a free trip to Fanfast in addition to the summit.
Godly scientist/builder/reverse engineer for sale |
|
ThorTheGreat
Caldari GoonWaffe SOLODRAKBANSOLODRAKBANSO
|
Posted - 2010.03.30 04:23:00 -
[51]
Originally by: Mashie Saldana
I can only assume you are unaware of this but the candidates that was in CMS during the autumn period also got a free trip to Fanfast in addition to the summit.
Actually to date, every member of the CSM has been given the trip. Only the core 9 from each of the 4 councils. I'm not sure if 4's timing was off or not or if they weren't offered it for some reason.
|
Future Mutant
Republic Military School
|
Posted - 2010.03.30 08:55:00 -
[52]
Edited by: Future Mutant on 30/03/2010 08:56:02
Originally by: mazzilliu im so taking credit for removal of term limits. CSM FOR LIFE YEAH!!! i raised the issue as a troll, now it's reality. Awesome!
Behold the power of the jugglies! Theyre not just for getting free drinks at bars anymore. Theyre also for getting free drinks at bars in iceland.
That joke aside- im not entirerly against the concept of the csm. As long as ccp realizes the committee is essentially special interest groups- and dont plan to blindly follow every bad idea given.
Would be nice if they severly limited sensitive information. Non disclosure agreements aside- you would have to be corky to actually get caught abusing privileged information.
On that note i say we vote for lark again- at least he actually made some of us some isk.
*note the author doesnt endorse breaking any rules, non disclosure agreements, or tos in any way shape or form.*
Also- i would like to see a procedure where candidates can offer isk for your vote. Perhaps make it secure like with gtc sales. That sounds awesome and would instantly make the csm worth something- and as far as i know it doesnt break any tos.
|
Jerid Verges
Gallente The Society of Innovation The Last Stand
|
Posted - 2010.03.30 21:16:00 -
[53]
Originally by: Jack bubu good, more power to the CSM ;)
POOOWEEEEER!!! UNLIIIMITEEEEEED POOOOOWEEEEEEEER!!!!!!!
|
Manalapan
Dynasty Banking General Tso's Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.03.31 04:15:00 -
[54]
Originally by: Future Mutant
Also- i would like to see a procedure where candidates can offer isk for your vote. Perhaps make it secure like with gtc sales. That sounds awesome and would instantly make the csm worth something- and as far as i know it doesnt break any tos.
I, Manalapan, agree with this proposal due to my historically generated wealth and as a response to the recent changes to the CSM process will be running for CSM.
Dynasty Banking |
Marlona Sky
D00M. RED.OverLord
|
Posted - 2010.03.31 07:10:00 -
[55]
Originally by: Larkonis Trassler Hahaha, oh wow. If I'm allowed to run then I am definately tempted to have a try this time around.
C U on da voting field.
Originally by: mazzilliu im so taking credit for removal of term limits. CSM FOR LIFE YEAH!!! i raised the issue as a troll, now it's reality. Awesome!
|
Omega Flames
Caldari Last Resort Inn SYSTEM SHOCK INITIATIVE
|
Posted - 2010.04.03 16:04:00 -
[56]
The only change I don't welcome with open arms is the no term limits one. I do feel there should be some sort of limit or method to force the seats to be filled with a new person every so often. ------------------------- "Forsys > WAR Forsys > HUH Forsys > WHAT IS IT GOOD FOR Harry Sunday > loot Forsys > touchT" |
Dr BattleSmith
PAX Interstellar Services
|
Posted - 2010.04.08 04:54:00 -
[57]
Votes will be XSS hackable again this time?
Maybe the trolls can hack their way in for 8 terms.
|
Illectroculus Defined
|
Posted - 2010.04.08 16:48:00 -
[58]
Is there a page which gives status on a pending submission? I'm pretty sure I submitted my info properly last night, I saw some sort of status page after that, but I can't find it now, just an option to update my info. No e-mail confirmation either.... (the CSM need to spend some time addressing UI issues....)
|
Elf Lord
|
Posted - 2010.04.08 21:00:00 -
[59]
Ok I'm new to this entire thing, I have only been playing for 6 months and have had no experience with any member of the CSM? that I know of. (Actually I never even know such a group exsisted until very recently and totally be accident, So take this question for what little it's worth. I would like to run, but I can't afford to fly much of anywhere. I'm 59 and an unemployed IT Specialist. I think this game has a world of potential but would someone clarify what if any amount of money I will need to pay out of pocket to do the job correctly and for the players. I also work Emergency Responce and Search and Rescue on My own Nickle,so that also cuts into my budget such as it is. Thank you for letting Me ask this question.
|
Elf Lord
|
Posted - 2010.04.08 22:19:00 -
[60]
OK another question. Sorry but I looked and can't find the answer. I went ahead and submited my application for the CSM but I have no idea whaere to look to see if it actually went through or not. WHere would the canidents be listed? Second the reason, or one of the 2 reasons that CCP wanted a copy of someone passport was to verify that the person was who they say they are and there age. I use and old Passort since in the US it's good for ID no matter what how or where. It even beats out Birth certificates and Drivers licences. The second reason stated was to make sure the person running for office could/can in fact travel to Iceland for what ever reasons. I have an up to date Passport but I also have a Clearence. And becasue of that I am not willing to send new passport ID through the Internet or in any other way short of registered Mail, and or by Fax directly to CCP HQ. If thats a problem tell me now so it can be addressed. but it will NOT be sent over this or any other internet link. I hope everyone understands and can live with it. But there is little or no chance I will chance My mind. Besides they pick alts, so if the winner can't show they have a passport than the alt gets the job. It can't be that tough to veriy in time after the fact.
Thank you again Fly Well Fly Free
Elf Lord
PS
Gee aren't I fun?
|
|
Crownsith
Minmatar Potentium Force
|
Posted - 2010.04.09 09:12:00 -
[61]
Edited by: Crownsith on 09/04/2010 09:34:49
Originally by: Ankhesentapemkah Edited by: Ankhesentapemkah on 25/03/2010 10:18:57
Originally by: SencneS No term limit doesn't mean people will stick around forever..
While a trip to Iceland and debate over EVE's issues sounds appealing to a majority of forum goers, I doubt people will want to do it after maybe a couple of years.. I wouldn't be surprised that some CSM members would quit mid term because they've had enough of EVE and CSM in general. They could view it as an obligation rather then a pleasure or honor to be elected.
Well they should definately consider it an obligation. If done well, being a CSM is a heavy commitment, that takes both a lot of your free time and mentally tires you after a while. You can also say goodbye to all your normal recreational EVE play. I still remember almost every CSM issue raised in the past two years, so it'll definately come and haunt you. A lot of CSM didn't expect it to be such a burden and either dropped out half way, or simply started slacking (not showing up for meetings, not raising any issues, not talking to players, and so on).
I think you both make an excellent point here. However as we strive to create a body of reliable and dedicated individuals who can be our voice on permanent basis, changes like the one introduced by CCP are unavoidable. We need good, and most importantly, consistent candidates. Longer terms, and the ability to run for office any number of times are the right steps in this direction, no question about that. Of course as this process evolves we run up against new problems like the one you mention above. Ideally, CSM delegate is suppose to be an active player "in touch" with the in-game reality having fun in the process. I wonder how actively he will play, or rather, how much "fun" he will have, with the 12 month-CSM workload? As you pointed out, some will simply neglect their duty. Hopefully, such individuals will be voted out next term. But the problem still remains - even the most hard working CSM players will simply be burned out after that 12 month period...
I personally believe that rather then avoiding this problem and shortening the terms I would move in a completely opposite direction. Meaning: As this whole process begins inevitably resembling real life democratic style governance, I would use real life solutions to those problems. In real life, politicians form political parities, (as you have sort of done here), it could be the party that gets the delegate seat, for the entire term not an individual - thus lessening the work load and pressure on that one person. Ultimately politicians do not serve the society for free, its a job, and if they do it well they get reelected. Giving some sort of reward/salary to the CSM for his hard work, is actually very logical. It would add tremendously to the accountability of that office, especially if, like in real world, that reward came right out of the players "pocket" via taxes. Naturally such a system would be abused by some, but hey, this is EVE right . The reward would not have to be substantial, ( I am not talking about real money of course) however it could help a dedicated CSM to "spread the word" so to speak. After all, a good CSM should not only focus on promising his voters the proverbial "pie in the sky" but also put more effort in educating the "public" what a CSM can and cannot do, and why voting at all is important.
This would be a long term process but I am sure that in a couple of years some strong political parties would emerge, parties which would continue to exist even if some of its members retired from playing EVE, parties which would posses thousands of determined voters - a voice which CCP cannot simply ignore.
|
Andrea Jars
|
Posted - 2010.04.11 14:10:00 -
[62]
Well so now CCP finally gives in and makes the CSM seats mainly the buddy seats.
Atlast we have a CSM that can buy a permanent seat on the council and all CCP has to do is look if it manipulated all in the right way to get the real buddies they want back to come over and stay in Iceland from time to time.
CCP offcourse sees no possibilities to get rigged elections offcourse, but heee, as long as the masses don't see how this can be rigged then why care. Let the sheep just follow.
In the meantime I am already putting my top 10 together of perma CSM reps. It's easy to filter out who will have a seat there for as long as they want.
Here a little ingame tip for marketplayers: Watch the shifts in PLEX carefully.
|
Elf Lord
|
Posted - 2010.04.14 05:42:00 -
[63]
Edited by: Elf Lord on 14/04/2010 05:45:51 Freelady Andrea Jars I take My hat off to you and most humbly congradulate you on what you said and how you said it. You made my point so much much better than I have done so far and in less words and time. As I have no expections of ever being on the CSM in any size shape or form since I am but a but one person on My own path in this game I wanted you to know however when the times comes if ever to actually vote you may count on My vote as a given. I do not promise to vote for your 9 friends as I no not know whom they are and how they stand.
Fly Well Fly Free
Elf Lord
Originally by: Andrea Jars Well so now CCP finally gives in and makes the CSM seats mainly the buddy seats.
Atlast we have a CSM that can buy a permanent seat on the council and all CCP has to do is look if it manipulated all in the right way to get the real buddies they want back to come over and stay in Iceland from time to time.
CCP offcourse sees no possibilities to get rigged elections offcourse, but heee, as long as the masses don't see how this can be rigged then why care. Let the sheep just follow.
In the meantime I am already putting my top 10 together of perma CSM reps. It's easy to filter out who will have a seat there for as long as they want.
Here a little ingame tip for marketplayers: Watch the shifts in PLEX carefully.
|
Elf Lord
|
Posted - 2010.04.14 06:41:00 -
[64]
One last thing. (ok thats a fib since as this goes on I'm sure I will have something else to say but frankly I hope not.)
CCP and EVE stand on the brink of Greatness by making a major and permenate change to gaming by combinding pc/mac gaming with Console (Dust)gaming and ultimetly adding playing by phone or any other possible internet connection in the future. Yet it risks this and everything they have shed blood, sweat, and tears doing for the last few years because they are about to alienate a very great number of players by their disregarding what those players are asking for and not getting and by CCP's standoffish handling of this entire CSM election. We have players from the young to the old (like Myself 59) and others I know are older than I am. Yet more and more of those players are leaving Eve even after putting in months if not years building their toons and skills. Why? Because they are furstrated because the game has become chaotic. PVP players are in every single section of space from 1.0 to 0.0 and everywhere else taking advantage of new players or simply killing and stealing from whom ever they want. So Concord kills them so what? Their friends are there to collect the salvage and the loot. They use cheep ships for suscide ganging that don't begin to cost them anythin even close to what the honest player has spent just trying to get by. Then the forums are so crowded and jammed with old and worthless information that trying to take the time to find out info on your own is actually an exercise in futility. Add to that that (lets be real here) very very few people are going to read for than the first 3 maybe 4 pages of any forum looking for what they want, won't find it, and the simply ask their question that has be asked and answered countless times before in the same forum that they didn't go far enough back. That's human nature, come on people wake up! Get rid of anything in ANY forum that is more than 6 months old. No one wants to nor will they read it and it is taking up a hugh amount of server space and no doubt making some sort of impact on lag in the game. And the skill sets are great I totally understand offering as much as anyone could want in skills but are you kidding Me? Anything that takes more than a week to learn is going to get passed over everytime untill the player relises that he/she Needs that skill to advance to something else. This is a GAME folks not college not work. Do away with anything that takes longer than a week to learn or simply cut the time for that skill back to a week. You scare off a ton of people when they see how much they have to learn and then they ask around and find out that it could litterly take years to learn even one races technology completly. They are going to quit before they even start. Go look at your stats. Or should I say go back and look at your stats and see how many players never get past the free period or if they stick past that point what is the average length of time the AVERAGE player stays with eve? I bet money it isn't longer than 6 moths if that. No one is going to pay 20 or 30 dollars a month to get killed by buttheads or spend forever learning a skill. If all you have to look forward to is getting killed and robbed no matter how "safe" a section is SUPPOSED to be and spending weeks and weeks learning skils just to make money to stay in the game. They are going to go run not walk to find something more fun and a damn site easier to play. There is/are and in fact another thing or two I would suggest and proberly something else I have left out of this but if you haven't gotten the idea by now that you need to take a time out and punt, then nothing I will say further will do any good and a wonderfull, incredable idea and dream will simply die because it's to top heavy to float. And frankly in My opion that would be a shame and a crime for all this to have been wasted.
Fly Well Fly Free
Elf Lord
|
Andrea Jars
|
Posted - 2010.04.14 12:10:00 -
[65]
Originally by: Elf Lord [ I do not promise to vote for your 9 friends as I no not know whom they are and how they stand.
Elf Lord
I am not running for the CSM nor any of my friends. I was merely pointing out to the fact that a smart player knows which will be the perma reps for the CSM. Just watch the influx of new subscriptions prior to votes and the decline of new members after the elections. If you have the financial backbone that some people / organisations have then it's easy to buy PLEX and then let the 1 monther vote. No training required because al you have to do is have them vote. Looking at the amount of votes the overall elections normally generated this won't be that much of an issue ISK related to ensure a perma seat in the CSM. By refering to the 10 I don't mean friends but to those that will most likely use this tactic to generate votes.
So invest in PLEX you market runners.
|
Elf Lord
|
Posted - 2010.04.14 17:07:00 -
[66]
Originally by: Andrea Jars
Originally by: Elf Lord [ I do not promise to vote for your 9 friends as I no not know whom they are and how they stand.
Elf Lord
I am not running for the CSM nor any of my friends. I was merely pointing out to the fact that a smart player knows which will be the perma reps for the CSM. Just watch the influx of new subscriptions prior to votes and the decline of new members after the elections. If you have the financial backbone that some people / organisations have then it's easy to buy PLEX and then let the 1 monther vote. No training required because al you have to do is have them vote. Looking at the amount of votes the overall elections normally generated this won't be that much of an issue ISK related to ensure a perma seat in the CSM. By refering to the 10 I don't mean friends but to those that will most likely use this tactic to generate votes.
So invest in PLEX you market runners.
FreeLady, your point is still well made, but I think if I remember this correctly, one of the rules to vote in the CSM election, is that you be a paid member and have been so for more than a month, So I think that your plex premess is incorrect. I just looked back over this forum and the other one but I can't find the information on who can vote. I did notice however that the application time to run is over and by their own timing it should have been closed sometime in the last few days, Yet NO annoucment of the Candidates has been listed anywhere. Sort of hard to know who to vote for if there is no list to decide from, let alone for anyone to ask the Candidates questions. (Presuminly of course they actually care and plan to vote.) Anyway, seems I misunderstood your statement about running. Sorry to see that though, you speak/type well. Besides I would think that with the size of some of these corps especially the PVP ones that they would hardely need to spend any money to win a seat simply because as it has been stated most players (and even in real life) are in fact sheep and will vote how ever their CEO's tell them to. So you are in effect correct about how the entire thing is slanted against small and independt players, and made for all intents and purposes a guaranted seat for big and bigger corps to win. Which means if last years Board is any indication the Board will be run by people that only care about the players they can steal and kill, and not for the good of the game.
Fly Well Fly Free
And People say I don't know how to make friends and influence people. HA! I bet I have shown them a thing or 6.
Elf Lord
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 :: [one page] |