| Pages: 1 [2] :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Cearain
The IMPERIUM of LaZy NATION
88
   |
Posted - 2011.12.01 17:40:00 -
[31] - Quote
I wish nda was information was not talked about or at least was the exception rather than the rule. Here are the problems:
1) Its unclear how alliance leaders that are on the csm don't get an advantage from hearing what changes are being made in advance of the other players. Is there any clear guidlines on how the csm should act. For example Alliance leader csm hears super caps are being nerfed. Another leader in his alliance then tells him "Super caps are the **** we are putting all our resources toward creating huge fleets of them." How is the CSM alliance leader supposed to respond? Is he to say well we discussed the future of supercaps at an nda meeting so I must recuse myself from any alliance decision making relating to supercaps?? Its insider trading.
Ok I agree that with any one thing this may not amount to much - just a slight advantage. But when you add it all together anoms nerfed/buffed dreads nerfed buffed basically csm knows all the changes well in advance of other players.
2) Even if somehow csm can explain how the above does not give them an advantage it seems to me there is still the appearance of an advantage. This appearance will lead more people to want to join the alliances where the leaders are in the know. This also gives the alliances an advantage.
3) Most importantly, the nda and csm has just built a wall between players and ccp. CSM never really discusses much at all with the players on the forums. And the conversations that do happen are often chilled by the csm worrying they will be anked for overstepping the nda.
Basically csm has become the receptionist for ccp. When players want to know something csm says GÇ£CCP is unavailableGÇ¥ and when we ask them its always GÇ£well we canGÇÖt really say what we know because of nda.GÇ¥ Look at the GÇ£discussionGÇ¥ about the secret meetings with zulu. Really why csm at all? Zulu knew the players werenGÇÖt happy. CouldnGÇÖt zulu himself told the players ccp is reworking things and he will let us know. Why did he need csm to tell us that.
With new emphasis on NDA the csm has become pretty silly. If ccp wants CSM to be a focus group to run ideas by then fine but donGÇÖt claim csm is representing views of the players when the players arenGÇÖt even privy to the issues discussed.
CCP has bought some good will with the players they no longer need csm to be a buffer. CSM should be able to come back from a meeting and tell players about everything they discussed. Sure some ideas will be howlers but thatGÇÖs not the end of the world.
So for these reasons I think the nda discussions should be scrapped and if ccp isnGÇÖt willing to discuss things with the players that should include the players on the csm. Short of that there should be precious little that is bound by the nda. Otherwise csm is really just acting like a receptionist/wall between players and ccp.
BTW: I do not mean to suggest anyone on the csm did anything wrong with any nda information. I donGÇÖt pretend to know one way or another. But until I understand what sort of guidelines are followed when it comes to how they deal with nda information its hard to see that their alliances are not reaping benefits.
Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
|
Max Kolonko
Worm Nation
Ash Alliance
10
|
Posted - 2011.12.03 20:40:00 -
[32] - Quote
I would like to see few things changed:
- minimal representation of each major "playstyles" representatives - i.e. null, hi, low, wh etc...
- players should be able to vote for more than one "playstyles" candidates, for example being able to vote for null and WH representative
- CSM should have IN GAME visibility - In Game croudsourcing for example? CSM news on splash screen? CSM Voting IN GAME? etc...
- CSM should have TAGS on forum, like GM/DEV's
Now a little more explanation for 2 first points:
I represent few "playstyles". I like incursions and used to run missions every day at some point, I used to live in 0.0 and would like to have many things in there reworked. Now I live in WH space, and see all the things that need work in there too.
So, I would sleep better if I knew, that CSM have representative for each of those "playstyles", even one dedicated person.
CSM consist of what? 10 delegates if I recall correctly? Lets say there are 7 Major "Playstyles" (Hi, Low, Null, WH, FW, Mining, Industry - those are just examples, that can be totally difrent) each playstyles have at least one delegate, and 3 "playstyles" that are most common have second delegate
Each Delegate will be somehow (either by CCP, or by running candidate) categorized to ONE "playstyle".
Each player would be then able to vote in up to two (three) categories.
This ofc have it drawbacs. Possibilities of gaming system and putting much more representatives by heavy organised entities (goons, EVE UNI, etc...).
Just food for discussion |
Hirana Yoshida
Behavioral Affront
173
|
Posted - 2011.12.03 21:37:00 -
[33] - Quote
Make sure that all (or most) aspects/areas of Eve are represented .. the travesty that is the current null council is bad for Eve as whole. |
The Mittani
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
2465
|
Posted - 2011.12.03 21:55:00 -
[34] - Quote
This thread is a good collection of tinfoil.
Stuff I'm going to push:
*minimum signatures requirement
*more electoral visibility
Stuff that's dead on arrival
*siloing proposals
*coerced voting
It's important to allow people to /not/ vote, if they feel the CSM is a sham. I don't plan to vote for President in ~freedomland~ next November, and if I was forced to I'd write in Mickey Mouse. People shouldn't be required to validate a system they consider to be bullshit.
I suspect CSM7 will see vastly increased turnout, because despite a tiny vocal minority of the blind and deluded, most players now realize how much power and influence a properly-led CSM can wield. They ran a lot of login ads for the CSM6 election; if you didn't notice them, it's not because CCP didn't try - it's because people didn't think the CSM mattered.
The Office of the Chairman: A Thread for Constituent Issues |
Cearain
The IMPERIUM of LaZy NATION
88
|
Posted - 2011.12.04 05:18:00 -
[35] - Quote
The Mittani wrote:This thread is a good collection of tinfoil. ..
I suspect CSM7 will see vastly increased turnout, because despite a tiny vocal minority of the blind and deluded, most players now realize how much power and influence a properly-led CSM can wield.....
Wield in what way?
In game I think the alliance leaders who are also on csm will do better in general than those who are not on csm.
Outside the game I think we saw people unsubscribing en mass that influenced ccp.
I think we saw csm often explain that they couldn't say much due to nda so players never really knew what was going on.
I'm not sure if you include my post in the collection of "tinfoil" but I'm sure even you could see that the nda was onerous this time around.
Why not make it so the nda is the exception and not the rule? That is make it so csm can discuss with the players they supposedly represent about what they discussed with ccp unless there is clear indication it is nda? Now it seems the other way around. It seems you can't discuss anything with he players unless ccp says you can.
Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
|
Andski
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
1142
|
Posted - 2011.12.04 07:10:00 -
[36] - Quote
Cearain wrote:In game I think the alliance leaders who are also on csm will do better in general than those who are not on csm.
Tell that to Vuk Lau! |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
1326
|
Posted - 2011.12.04 11:26:00 -
[37] - Quote
Cearain wrote:The Mittani wrote:This thread is a good collection of tinfoil. ..
I suspect CSM7 will see vastly increased turnout, because despite a tiny vocal minority of the blind and deluded, most players now realize how much power and influence a properly-led CSM can wield..... Wield in what way? In game I think the alliance leaders who are also on csm will do better in general than those who are not on csm. Outside the game I think we saw people unsubscribing en mass that influenced ccp. I think we saw csm often explain that they couldn't say much due to nda so players never really knew what was going on. I'm not sure if you include my post in the collection of "tinfoil" but I'm sure even you could see that the nda was onerous this time around. Why not make it so the nda is the exception and not the rule? That is make it so csm can discuss with the players they supposedly represent about what they discussed with ccp unless there is clear indication it is nda? Now it seems the other way around. It seems you can't discuss anything with he players unless ccp says you can.
CCP dictate NDAs, not the CSM. Maybe you missed the blogs and posts where all the CSMs have said that they want to reduce the use of the NDA-bat - but they're also unanimous that they need to be able to see information that really does need to be NDA'd in order to function.
Malcanis' Law: Any proposal justified on the basis that "it will benefit new players" is invariably to the greater advantage of older, richer players.
Things to do in EVE:-áhttp://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/ |
Aineko Macx
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
25
|
Posted - 2011.12.04 11:38:00 -
[38] - Quote
The one thing CSM has been slacking on, is, ironically, communication with the playerbase. Except for Trebor and Two Step the CSMs rarely give input on discussions the forum (especially Ass. Hall, which is supposed to be the official venue). |
Cearain
The IMPERIUM of LaZy NATION
88
|
Posted - 2011.12.04 16:31:00 -
[39] - Quote
Malcanis wrote:Cearain wrote:The Mittani wrote:This thread is a good collection of tinfoil. ..
I suspect CSM7 will see vastly increased turnout, because despite a tiny vocal minority of the blind and deluded, most players now realize how much power and influence a properly-led CSM can wield..... Wield in what way? In game I think the alliance leaders who are also on csm will do better in general than those who are not on csm. Outside the game I think we saw people unsubscribing en mass that influenced ccp. I think we saw csm often explain that they couldn't say much due to nda so players never really knew what was going on. I'm not sure if you include my post in the collection of "tinfoil" but I'm sure even you could see that the nda was onerous this time around. Why not make it so the nda is the exception and not the rule? That is make it so csm can discuss with the players they supposedly represent about what they discussed with ccp unless there is clear indication it is nda? Now it seems the other way around. It seems you can't discuss anything with he players unless ccp says you can. CCP dictate NDAs, not the CSM. Maybe you missed the blogs and posts where all the CSMs have said that they want to reduce the use of the NDA-bat - but they're also unanimous that they need to be able to see information that really does need to be NDA'd in order to function.
Good then csm seems to agree with me. Maybe that will be a topic of conversation.
To say "ccp dictate nda's, not the csm" is irrelevant. CCP dictates *everything* in game but this is a meeting between ccp and csm. So CSM could presumably discuss things that they want changed - liked the extremely overbearing nda cloud that looms over their communication with players.
Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
|
Hirana Yoshida
Behavioral Affront
173
|
Posted - 2011.12.04 17:17:00 -
[40] - Quote
We players have proven on more than one occasion that we don't behave well with foreknowledge of the Eve universe, in that light the use of the NDA is more than acceptable. Very fine line between necessary information and encouraging insider trading.
|
|
|
Mara Villoso
Big Box
39
|
Posted - 2011.12.05 21:40:00 -
[41] - Quote
The Mittani wrote:This thread is a good collection of tinfoil.
Said the tin supplier and foil maker.
Explain why the CSM is better than all of the other methods for systematically gathering stakeholder input.
- Why is it better to filter everything through a small group of people who are self-admittedly acting in their own best interest?
- Is the purpose of the CSM to provide feedback on the game? If so, who is gathering the input from the groups not represented by the current CSM members?
- Since the majority of players don't even vote, can it even be said that the CSM is truly a representative body in the traditional sense? If we're going to pretend that its a democratic process, the process itself must first be decided on by the body politic, which is something that never occurred. If low participation is a sign that the majority of players feel the CSM is a sham, then why do we still have a CSM. The "vote" would seem to already be in and counted. Why not formalize it? Let's have a vote to decide whether there should even be a CSM. Or a vote to decide between a variety of methods to accomplish the same goals.
Finally, *adjusts tinfoil hat* what checks and balances prevent any CSM member from from acting on NDA information through indirect means? A smart, observant player with resources and an advanced understanding of the interrelationships of game mechanics could easily get his group to act in such a way that no one could ever say he violated the NDA, yet they would still benefit from it. E.g. it is confidentially revealed moons will be reseeded throughout EVE. So an alliance leader opts to not defend the space he currently controls and instead prepare to move to whatever new locations are eventually revealed. There's no way to prove he stopped defending it based on that information. I'm not saying its happened for sure, but the metagame extends into the CSM process, so it seems safe to assume that it does. Intelligent belligerents use every tool they can.
|
AkJon Ferguson
JC Ferguson and Son Ltd
Ferguson Alliance
56
|
Posted - 2011.12.05 22:19:00 -
[42] - Quote
Disband the CSM and with the money you save hire back 1 of the crying dudes that got fired. Maybe have a blubbering competition where whoever produces the most actual tears in 10 minutes wins.
Seriously, this CSM has been horrible and proven that the CSM election mechanic is so broken that CCP would somehow incorporate it into New Eden if it could only figure out how.
Failing that, support my proposal and let's at least have the opportunity to vote the worst of this bunch out. |
Cearain
The IMPERIUM of LaZy NATION
89
|
Posted - 2011.12.05 22:28:00 -
[43] - Quote
Mara Villoso wrote:The Mittani wrote:This thread is a good collection of tinfoil. Said the tin supplier and foil maker. Explain why the CSM is better than all of the other methods for systematically gathering stakeholder input.
This isn't necessarilly better. And I don't think CCP intends it to be the only way to get input.
I would say ccp have been very good about getting information from the forums about what players want. In fact I would bet there have been 5xs as many posts directly from devs as there have been posts from our csm representatives on the forums.
Most people at ccp are smart enough to know that the csm is not representative representative of the playerbase at large.
Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
|
AkJon Ferguson
JC Ferguson and Son Ltd
Ferguson Alliance
56
|
Posted - 2011.12.05 22:29:00 -
[44] - Quote
Cearain wrote:Most people at ccp are smart enough to know that the csm is not representative representative of the playerbase at large.
Let's hear them say say that, then. That would be a good first step.
|
Cearain
The IMPERIUM of LaZy NATION
89
|
Posted - 2011.12.05 23:05:00 -
[45] - Quote
AkJon Ferguson wrote:Cearain wrote:Most people at ccp are smart enough to know that the csm is not representative representative of the playerbase at large. Let's hear them say say that, then. That would be a good first step.
They pretty much have.
Don't get me wrong the csm is helpful to ccp.
But its pretty clear that many people just voted for whoever their alliance leaders told them to vote for. There was no real close consideration of why they play eve and whether their alliance leaders ideas will make them play eve longer.
Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
|
AkJon Ferguson
JC Ferguson and Son Ltd
Ferguson Alliance
56
|
Posted - 2011.12.05 23:18:00 -
[46] - Quote
Cearain wrote:AkJon Ferguson wrote:Cearain wrote:Most people at ccp are smart enough to know that the csm is not representative representative of the playerbase at large. Let's hear them say say that, then. That would be a good first step. They pretty much have. Don't get me wrong the csm is helpful to ccp. But its pretty clear that many people just voted for whoever their alliance leaders told them to vote for. There was no real close consideration of why they play eve and whether their alliance leaders ideas will make them play eve longer.
You trolling, bro?
If they 'pretty much have' then why the **** am I posting in the 'Council of Stellar Management' section of forums?
Why am I not posting in the Player Feedback and Suggestions section of forums?
Show me where Hilmar has said 'Yes, we're aware that having a goon spy lead developer (Soundwave) a former goon leader security chief (Darius Johnson) and a goon spy/leader CSM chair (Alex) has a huge potential for favoritism and otherwise unacceptable behavior.'
Show me where Hilmar has said 'Yes, we're aware that CSM V represented all of EVE and we ignored them, so the best of them quit. We're also aware that CSM VI mostly behaves like a bunch of juvenile delinquents and most of their 'ideas' are self-serving.'
CSM VI is like me without the foresight, ethics, eloquence, or intellect. Perhaps that's why they get on so well with CCP. |
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 [2] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |