Accountabilty doesnt exist in EvE.

Off topic posts removed. Stay on topic please.

The demands of accountability, made by a one day old anonymous forum alt, is hilarious in its hypocrisy. A counter-proposal I made to remedy such situations that degrade dialog within Jita Park Speakers Center: 'ban npc forum alts from csm forums'

Edit: Forum moderation discussion part removed, CCP Phantom

My request is simple in that viewpoints of significance reflected in the minutes can be made attributable to the party/parties making them to better inform the community. Most significant for considering election options which I think is a valid consideration you should afford to EvE players.

Accountabilty doesnt exist in EvE.

Considering that the ownership of the records is in fact public and not the CSM council, can I ask that you attempt to improve the record keeping.

CCP may make it public, if they'd wish to, but will probably not - NDA and stuff.

I love when people pull statements like that out of their opposite end. Ownership, I guess, is that of CCP. CCP may make it public, if they'd wish to, but will probably not - NDA and stuff.

I love when people pull statements like that out of their opposite end. Ownership, I guess, is that of CCP. CCP may make it public, if they'd wish to, but will probably not - NDA and stuff.

Considering that the ownership of the records is in fact public and not the CSM council, can I ask that you attempt to improve the record keeping.

Hey, if CCP wants to spring for multiple cameras, mics for every participant, and lots of transcribers, sure, we could document every word.

But the practical reality is that even doing the Minutes at the current level is easily >150 hours per summit, and most of that gets done by a relatively small number of people. I personally spent >40 hours working on the Winter minutes.

Hey, if CCP wants to spring for multiple cameras, mics for every participant, and lots of transcribers, sure, we could document every word.

But the practical reality is that even doing the Minutes at the current level is easily >150 hours per summit, and most of that gets done by a relatively small number of people. I personally spent >40 hours working on the Winter minutes.

So replacing "someone" with a "name" is really going to expand the document writing so much?

As I have explained several times, it is often very difficult, if not impossible, to figure out who is talking. The camera is on the conference table, and it's pointed at the end where the devs sit. Only one or two CSM's are visible in the video.

Even if we had proper coverage (at a minimum 2 cameras in opposite corners of the room; I've explained to CCP what would be needed, and I've done multicamera taping and editing in RL), it would still take a fair amount of extra time. And remember guys, we are volunteers, in many cases burning vacation days to go to Iceland plus evenings/weekends to prep the minutes.

Several CSMs -- myself included -- have already taken the time to clarify details upon specific request. If that is not good enough for you, I'm sorry, but we have to strike a balance.

you're a hypersensitive npc corp alt with an axe to grind about a triviality which is already covered by csm blogs

"This was followed by a discussion about removing learning implants, to encourage more risk taking. This was generally unpopular with most of the CSM at first. The discussion turned towards clone costs, which were widely agreed to be too high for high SP characters, which discourages high SP players from going on random suicide Rifter roams. One CSM stated a point in favor of removing learning implants, as that would be a nerf to highsec income, and he is always in favor of those where possible. Other members of the CSM were quick to object to that suggestion. Another CSM objected to "his peeps being thrown under the bus". It was suggested that CCP look into the implant losses in PVP, to try to determine the amount people are currently risking in implants."

I'd kind of like to see Learning Implants vanish. A lot of people avoid PvP on account of them. "Oh, I won't go on this op, my jump clone is on a timer and I'm in my Learning clone."

I think the attribute system vanishing entirely is something we'd never see, but removing learning boosts from implants (such that they become combat-only enhancements) might be a possibility.

However, this isn't really a major priority for me. I might bring it over beer in Islenskibarinn, but it's not going to be a summit topic and something I expend vast amounts of political capital on, like I have on supercaps.

Another CSM objected to "his peeps being thrown under the bus"

I think learning implants should be removed, ayep.

The anonymity of the minutes or lack thereof is a Xhagen/Diagoras thing, not a 'CSM chooses' thing.

At one time the CSM meetings including releasing notes that attributed every CSM members comments. If and of the VoR candidates are elected to the CSM 7 we will insist that the practice be reinstated!

Issler Dainze
Voice of Reason Party CSM 7 Candidate

Once something has been deemed unnecessary by those tasked with doing something it generally never returns unless there's a really good reason to force it back in.

And yet if you took the time to read Selene's blog as represented on the subject there are CSM council members who consider it an important part of the CSM duties.

As the editor of the minutes, I can address your question.

The main reason we don't individually attribute statements is a practical one; it would take a huge amount of extra time, and would delay the release of the minutes. Also, the AV recording of the meeting is a single camera with a built-in mic, and it's often hard to tell who is making a fool of thems... er, expressing their well-considered opinions.

Many of the more communicative members of the CSM, such as Meissa, Seleene and myself, have publically posted their personal positions on a variety of items in the minutes.

You should, of course, assume that any CSM who does not do so is violently opposed to your own personal position, whatever it might be.

Interesting. Some posts are now missing from this thread.

That kind of leads right into what I was saying. When information can be manipulated, it will be. Not that everybody has a reason to or would even try. the fact is, once the idea that only unverifiable summaries become the norm, that's were it stays. Its hard to raise the bar once lowered, regardless of good intentions. The road to Hell is paved with those.

We did it in earlier CSMs and got out minutes out much faster than we see as typical these days.

You served on CSM2 and CSM3 IIRC. Unless I'm mistaken, the CSM2 summit minutes were 10 pages long and contain references to individual CSMs; the CSM3 summit minutes were 16 pages long -- and do not contain references to individual CSMs.

The minutes from the most recent CSM summit were 44 pages long. Admittedly, we had an extra day of meetings, but even so, apparently we talk twice as fast and get twice as much done.

Oh, and by the way, you are not credited with having done any work on the above-mentioned minutes.

You served on CSM2 and CSM3 IIRC. Unless I'm mistaken, the CSM2 summit minutes were 10 pages long and contain references to individual CSMs; the CSM3 summit minutes were 16 pages long -- and do not contain references to individual CSMs.

The minutes from the most recent CSM summit were 44 pages long. Admittedly, we had an extra day of meetings, but even so, apparently we talk twice as fast and get twice as much done.

Oh, and by the way, you are not credited with having done any work on the above-mentioned minutes.

My view of the role of the CSM 2 was oversight of the POS exploit scandal and worked on influence after hours with 1:1 to CCP employees. If you look at all the individual meeting minutes you will see that I was quite active in all the meetings.

One thing to note is that the Wiki is screwed up. The minutes listed as the second CCP/CSM meeting are not the CCP/CSM Iceland meeting with the second CSM. Look at the members present, you can see that was a meeting with the first CSM. So your claim I wasn't credited with having done anything is wrong.

My personal preference is to favor putting the time and effort into describing in as much detail as possible what things were discussed, as opposed to detailing exactly who said what brilliant or stupid thing. You can disagree with that position, but you aren't doing the work.

What a load of "codswallop". More like protecting your anonymity it seems.

As has been argued I really fail to see the practical difficulty in changing pronouns for names or how that would seriously detract from being able to complete things with the same level of detail. I'd suggest getting someone to take on the editorial role with some competence if so.

You're missing the point. Petty he/she-said spaceship politics are irrelevant in the context of what the summit as a whole is about.

I don't mind one bit that a) there are realities of time and manpower preventing full disclosure and b) that there exists one area of the CSM free from politics and pandering in which the CSM can discuss and debate 'hot topics' internally without worrying about the forum lynch mob.

The argument you put forward is really only relevant if sufficient trust is afforded.

Well that's where we'll have to agree to disagree I guess. I think you're reading to far into what is essentially people volunteering their free time to attend a three-day workshop encased in darkness with a room full of nerds for a larger community of angry nerds who salivate over the idea of dissecting said workshop with the least amount of civility possible.

It's not that I 'trust' them. It's that I feel bad enough for them already.

Well they should have considered that before taking on board the duties and responsibilities of being a CSM council member then.

What, NPC forum alt disapproval?

(ban npc forum alts from csm forums)

But seriously changing pronouns to names is really that much of a big ask?

Not really, just a lack of "professionalism" even if they are volunteers.

As its just another smack in the face to CCP intentions for the CSM and every "paying" player as a result.

Yes ok great you got an axe to grind and want to come here to throw silly punches. Are you wanting a serious discussion or is this just a drive by poop post?

And yet the overall page length really wouldn't be that affected by this request.

This may be hard for you to understand, but as a voter I thought I might express my opinion on the matter. If you simply want to dismiss it by projecting "your" inaccurate take on things thats up to you. Seems you simply have (maybe a pattern of behaviour on the subject).

Not really, just a lack of "professionalism" even if they are volunteers.

As its just another smack in the face to CCP intentions for the CSM and every "paying" player as a result.

I explained my reasons why, trebor explained his. I took the time to break down some other reasons why it won't work this time around (not to say that it is impossible for the future) and you post to throw punches right after these explanations.

You suggested we're unprofessional, explain why in this context.

You suggested that we're dismissing somehow by... explaining our reasoning? Maybe this whole 'reading' and 'words' thing is a tough one to grasp?

If you want to have an adult conversation about this subject then back up a bit, rethink your post, and engage on an adult level instead of posting silliness like:



See? You aren't even talking to us, you're just trying to make a snarky one liner.

Please explain why I should afford to explain my reasoning to someone who childishly accuses me of having an "axe to grind" and doesn't support any of their reasoning or explantion for their baseless accusations? Pot, kettle, black, Sir.

One rule for you, different rule for everyone else I guess. Otherwise I'm free to express my concerns how I like. Just because you disagree with a persons opinions does not make them invalid. As such I don't see it as a "snarky one liner" but a strong reflection of how dissapointed Iam with members of the CSM on this matter, seemed pretty obvious to me.

Or is now the primary concern of the CSM total mind control and censorship of all "unregulated" posting against their interests?

I seem to have missed where you even commented on any specifics of what we've been saying. Link? Heh that was a joke.



Did you read what I posted? Care to comment?

Simply fulfill your remaining term of office as you suggested and resign as you have announced it will be one less "clown" on the Council.

Please explain why I should afford to explain my reasoning to someone who childishly accuses me of having an "axe to grind" and doesn't support any of their reasoning or explantion for their baseless accusations? Pot, kettle, black, Sir.

One rule for you, different rule for everyone else I guess. Otherwise I'm free to express my concerns how I like. Just because you disagree with a persons opinions does not make them invalid. As such I don't see it as a "snarky one liner" but a strong reflection of how dissapointed Iam with members of the CSM on this matter, seemed pretty obvious to me.

Or is now the primary concern of the CSM total mind control and censorship of all "unregulated" posting against their interests?

The best thing to do is not just troll the forums, but actually get out there and stump for your candidate

All these threads talking about the CSM and the rage.

idgi..

I voted last election 4 time for the Mittani. I felt perfectly represented by the candidate I chose, and feel like he carried through on the things he said he was going to do. At no point was I dissapointed in who I voted for (hell sometimes there was even an immense entertainment value involved on the meta level).

The best thing to do is not just troll the forums, but actually get out there and stump for your candidate I think if you want to see a change to the CSM to people who represent you. If people who represent you can't get voted in, that's cause to the majority of people who can be arsed to vote, your views suck. Deal with it.

I'd very much like to have the minutes acknowledge something like,"Seleene stood up and threw Mitten's laptop at CCP Soundwave because of his stance on the Retribution needing another mid-slot." instead of, "The CSM all agreed the Retribution needed another mid-slot."

(The above may or may not have actually happened...)

"herp derp, I make my mind up before I read the issues".

Two words: Informed choice (it's kind of what the topic is about if it escaped you)

Two Words: Reading Comprehension (you should try it)

Those two words apply to yourself, weak anonymous forum troll. I said I voted for the Mittani 4 times last election because of WHAT he represented. I said nothing about how I was planning to vote this election.

It's all well and good to howl about accountability

So you questioned it. What did you find out by chance?

Seems we are simply going around in circles with this debate.

As such it seems we are to accept what we are given as testimony. I suppose the old addage of "history goes to the victors" holds true.