Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
   |
Posted - 2008.05.23 16:16:00 -
[2]
 Originally by: Felysta Sandorn
Considering that goons have outright said they are here for the 'lulz' and just want to ruin other player's gaming experiences, I'm inclined to agree with the OP... The fact of the matter is, if goons wanted to, they could create a thread in this forum and give it 1000 thumbs up at the drop of the hat, making the whole idea completely impractical. I for one don't want to wait for that to happen before someone realises a mistake has been made.
I'd say a maximum of one player per alliance should be in the CSM, meaning get rid of one of the goons. That way at least we can retain some of the sanity from this mockery of a council.
Not picking on you but I think you fall into a trap quite a few are currently stumbling into - don't look at the forum froth from uninvolved people and see the CSM itself as "mockery". 9 representatives and 5 alternates were chosen and in they main they are sensible, adult and mature people, with a wide range of real-life skills and abilities that will be critical for this role. From my first informal meeting with my fellow Reps I've found them positive and enthusiastic and friendly. I personally expect great things from the council.
Its a reality of any political process that there will always be some lunatics that follow the parade and try and cause controversy to stir up emotions and fervor because they enjoy that sort of thing. Trick is look past the noise to see the signal, judge the CSM on what it does. Not what the loudest disruptive "look at me!!!!" forum voices try to pretend it does. That way you'll get a much more accurate view on proceedings and what the CSM can actually achieve.
As for the OP post - I'm against it. The ultimate player sanctioned "vote of no confidence" is to not elect people again at the next election. This will happen if people abuse their power and responsibility or simply don't do the job.
And of course there is a CCP sanctioned "no confidence" if reps actively break the rules and confidences of the job and behave improperly and in that case the misbehaving rep will be replaced by the top alternate.
In either case this is all we actually need and it would be an extremely bad precedent to introduce some kind of mob-shouting mechanic to remove CSM reps in situ. I think we all know where that would lead.
CSM Manifesto 2008 | Destroy Outposts! |