| Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Yara Stone
Southern Productions
   |
Posted - 2008.05.22 23:13:00 -
[31]
 Originally by: Ki Tarra
Originally by: Inanna Zuni
Two things:
1. The 5% requirement is what is needed to *force* the CSM to actively consider a topic. The alternative is that *one* member of the CSM must accept the topic and announce they will take it to a meeting of the CSM. I will guarantee here and now that if, in my opinion, there is sufficient and clear support for a topic to be brought to the CSM then I *will* bring it to the Council even if the 5% level has not been reached.
This I think is the key point.
The Council is free to choose the topics that they see as being most important based on what they see here.
Lobby groups should not be able to force their issue on the CSM without conciderable support from the player base.
If half of those who voted in the last election what to *force* the CSM to review an issue, then I think it reasonable for the CSM to be *required* to review that issue.
If a lobby groups is able to get 25% of the voting population behind them, that 2% of the player base should not be able to *force* the CSM to redirected their limited time to that issue if the CSM believes that their time is better spend addressing issues important to the silent majority.
Remember that the key here is *forcing* the CSM to spend its limited resources on an issue. If the barrier of entry is too low, then the CSM will be *forced* to spread itself to thin across the issues.
I doubt that we will see the CSM ignoring issues that are officially backed by 4% of the player base. 
I agree completely with this point, we should never allow small interest groups to force the council to do anything. If we ever get the 5% it will be from something that important to us all.
I think it will be important for the council to manage there workload to best benfit of eve all around.
|
Latex Underwear
|
Posted - 2008.05.22 23:21:00 -
[32]
This I can't agree with. 5% is too low imo to force a topic forward.
|
Oriana Cain
|
Posted - 2008.05.23 00:32:00 -
[33]
/signed
I would be surprised if at least 10% of the eve population visited the forums on a regular basis
|
Frecator Dementa
|
Posted - 2008.05.23 00:32:00 -
[34]
/signed
-----------------------
forum ate my post again |
Suboran
Victory Not Vengeance
Intrepid Crossing
|
Posted - 2008.05.23 00:37:00 -
[35]
i only voted with one of my alts
|
Frecator Dementa
|
Posted - 2008.05.23 00:43:00 -
[36]
Originally by: Suboran
i only voted with one of my alts
if you've got two accounts you can vote twice, no?
-----------------------
forum ate my post again |
Sakura Nihil
Stimulus
|
Posted - 2008.05.23 00:55:00 -
[37]
One thing to consider isn't the 5% rule, but rather, the fact that people voted with all their accounts. In contrast, people generally only post with 1 character.
Goal Line Blitz, an American Football MMO |
Zeknichov
Imperial Shipment
|
Posted - 2008.05.23 01:06:00 -
[38]
I think it's far too early to be making changes like these. Lets wait it out a little and see how things go.
|
Kinkie Yuuki
|
Posted - 2008.05.23 01:43:00 -
[39]
If I gotta keep making stupid replies like this one I'm gonna give up.
<--- The Thumb.
|
Wolf Soldier
Neh'bu Kau Beh'Hude
Ushra'Khan
|
Posted - 2008.05.23 04:09:00 -
[40]
|
|
|
Locin WeEda
Red Frog Investments
Blue Sky Consortium
|
Posted - 2008.05.23 05:48:00 -
[41]
There should be another way to pledge support to an issue than making posts. Even 2200 posts is a lot for a forum thread.
Red Frog Freight Service
|
Sariyah
HUN Corp.
HUN Reloaded
|
Posted - 2008.05.23 09:29:00 -
[42]
Rather have top10 of raised issues or something like that. It would make so much more sense.
|
Venkul Mul
|
Posted - 2008.05.23 09:36:00 -
[43]
Supported. La Vista suggetion of 10% of the voters seem reasonable.
|
Lucy'Lastic
|
Posted - 2008.05.23 11:05:00 -
[44]
Not signing this.
CCP gave the 5 % rule.
If the CSM doesn't attract enough interest then tough luck.Catering to the minority is not what the CSM is about.
|
Sunwillow Auryn
|
Posted - 2008.05.23 11:13:00 -
[45]
Originally by: Lucy'Lastic
Not signing this.
CCP gave the 5 % rule.
If the CSM doesn't attract enough interest then tough luck.Catering to the minority is not what the CSM is about.
Originally by: Latex Underwear
This I can't agree with. 5% is too low imo to force a topic forward.
Ya see, the thing is, on the figs we have, the play base is 220,000. 5% if that number is 11,000. This would therefore require that for a topic to come to CSM's attention, a thread would require 11,000 individual posts, which at 30 posts per page is on to page 367. I very much doubt 11,000 players even frequent the forums, never mind care enough about some of these issues to vote on them.
If voting was possible in game, 5% of player base might be a more reasonable total to reach. That's on another issue thread though.
* Disclaimer - my understanding is that it's 5% of player base - this may or may not be the case as I have only heard that figure anecdotally.
|
Soulita
Inner Core
|
Posted - 2008.05.23 11:15:00 -
[46]
Originally by: Jade Constantine
Agreed, it should be a lower total based on a percentage of those who voted in the election.
Pretty much this, yea.
|
JiJiCle
COLSUP
Tau Ceti Federation
|
Posted - 2008.05.23 11:51:00 -
[47]
|
Maor Raor
|
Posted - 2008.05.23 13:01:00 -
[48]
I disagree.
Vote for your candidate because you trust they will bring up issues that you also feel strongly on or because you think they can accutratly measure the validity of an issue with regard to the whole community.
Alow them to do that and if they dont then vote more carefully next time.
Any CSM who wants to get re-elected will bring our concerns up without the %5 needed to force them to.
Making it to easy to force an issue could clog the system with to many issues and make it totaly (more) inefective.
Also forceing these guys to do somthing wont help your cause.
|
The Cosmopolite
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2008.05.23 14:38:00 -
[49]
Edited by: The Cosmopolite on 23/05/2008 14:51:21
The 5% rule is totally unworkable.
In truth, the player population forcing an issue by any percentage of a shifting player base is looking like an increasingly dubious idea. Too high a threshold and it's a nonsense of a sop that will never practically be used; too low and it's an unstoppable flow of bilge onto the CSM's agenda.
The ideas about a percentage of the turnout being used instead are pretty odd and somewhat suspect in my view as they contain within them the kernel of an idea that the people who voted have assigned to them a privileged status over and above those in the electorate that did not vote. That's simply wrong. (I realise the intent is to gauge a reasonable figure of those interested but the idea still smacks faintly of dismissing the rest of the electorate because they didn't vote in the CSM election.)
The question really is where you pitch it in terms of absolute supports in relation to server and forum population.
I am inclined to think 1,000 supports should be simply the hard figure. Look at the average longest threads on EVE-O... they typically contain 200-600 posts over the course of 5 or 7 days. Moreover, those 200-600 posts will typically be the result of far fewer individuals repeatedly posting.
So 1,000 is quite a limit. But it's one that could potentially be reached thus it meets the requirement of being an enabling figure. It can't be reached that readily thus meeting the requirements of being a limiter and indicating a significant level of player interest.
Ultimately, if 1,000 supports are registered that is a lot of players who want an issue discussed. Should they really be denied some time at the CSM for the issue in question?
This is predicated on a support vote being counted once and once only for a given forum account in any given thread.
The hard figure can be reviewed at every new 'parliamentary session' of the CSM in line with forum activity averages, how it has performed in its limiting/enabling function in the previous session and server/forum populations.
The percentage notion is just not going to work. It is too complicated and too difficult to police. Keep it simple and effective. Make a hard threshold based on a judgement of player activity on the forums.
Cosmo
PS. Quick example, the stickied POS thread on Features and Ideas Discussion has 555 replies over 19 pages and about 18 months... you can be sure that doesn't amount to 555 individuals. The point really is that we either have a practical provision for forcing issues or there is the honesty to say, 'Actually, no we're not having such a provision.' Either works. Pretence doesn't.
The Star Fraction Communications Portal |
Havohej
The Defias Brotherhood
DEFI4NT
|
Posted - 2008.05.23 16:46:00 -
[50]
Originally by: Illaria
Against.
It shouldn't be allowed that a small, though very active, minority should get so much influence on the CSM agenda.
The active forum community isn't representative of the EvE population in general. 0.0 alliances and more hardcore players are probably more forum active than empire dwellers and rather casual players. Removing the 5% clause would mean that this minority could set a CSM agenda to the detriment of the not so much forum attending majority much more easily.
Also note that many players are not forum active, because they may not have the necessary proficiency in the English language to participate on these forums (there are many corps and even alliances that are language based).
All in all abandoning the 5% rule would put to much power in the hands of a vocal forum minority.
Inactivity is the player's own fault. Just like the thousands of people who didn't vote (not even to log their Abstain vote), anyone who isn't concerned enough about the direction of the game and its community to read the forums and weigh in on the topics is more or less saying that they don't have an opinion one way or the other. So of course that 'silent majority' isn't represented - they choose not to be, and frankly that's on them.
As to the language barrier, it's their choice to 'stick to their own' along lines of language and/or nationality. It might be an unpopular thing to say in an international community like EVE-O, but I gotta ask: How far do you expect the world to bend for you, just because you can't read/write english? I can't speak Russian, but I don't expect them to hold their election results until somebody can translate everything and explain it to me.
I agree with the OP - compared to the total EVE-O playerbase, participation in the CSM election was rather small - too small to warrant needing such a high number of support votes imo.
Originally by: techzer0
I'm invincible until proven wrong
|
|
|
Alexandria Youl
|
Posted - 2008.05.23 16:58:00 -
[51]
Originally by: LaVista Vista
As I suggested in another thread, we should base the % on the amount of votes for the main election. And then say that an issue need like 10% support in order to come in.
At this point, that is 2,2k votes. Seems very reasonable to me.
This exactly
|
Durente Galaica
Fortunate Few
|
Posted - 2008.05.23 17:14:00 -
[52]
Disagree.
As others have already pointed out 5% of population of eve is already a pathetically low number. Just because an issue is below 5% doesn't mean it can't be considered anyway.
|
xena zena
Catalyst Corporation
Dominatus Phasmatis
|
Posted - 2008.05.23 17:20:00 -
[53]
I don't think 5% is fair because if your basing it off the election vote % then you have to look at the demographics of those who voted, what % live in high-sec and what % live in 0.0, because both will have very different concerns or problems. Something that is a SERIOUS problem to everyone who lives in 0.0 will have absolutely no meaning or affect to someone who lives in empire, why should they vote?
Likewise a industrial question, why would someone who doesn't do industrial stuff care and vote? Or ship specific problem, if you don't fly it why vote?
A lot wider set of voters will vote for the election, but a much smaller sub-set of those actually give a care about some of the topics that we care about. Like say the GTC changes, if you don't ever buy or use them you may not understand why it's a *HUGE* deal to those who can only play by them!
|
Lucy'Lastic
|
Posted - 2008.05.23 17:27:00 -
[54]
Originally by: Sunwillow Auryn
Originally by: Lucy'Lastic
Not signing this.
CCP gave the 5 % rule.
If the CSM doesn't attract enough interest then tough luck.Catering to the minority is not what the CSM is about.
Originally by: Latex Underwear
This I can't agree with. 5% is too low imo to force a topic forward.
Ya see, the thing is, on the figs we have, the play base is 220,000. 5% if that number is 11,000. This would therefore require that for a topic to come to CSM's attention, a thread would require 11,000 individual posts, which at 30 posts per page is on to page 367. I very much doubt 11,000 players even frequent the forums, never mind care enough about some of these issues to vote on them.
True,367 pages is a lot but then again the people organising this should have thought about that before they implemented the 5 % rule.CCP should do away with the thumbs up and just let people vote imo.
Well 25000 people/accounts cared enough to vote.I would assume that they would still show some interest and continue to support their chosen candidate or vote in these forums.
If people want it to be changed to a 5% of the total voters then I would even go so far as to exclude anybody who couldn't be bothered to vote from supporting any topics. If someone cba to vote why should they have a say on what goes before CCP?
This is the first election and this sort of stuff will be sorted out in 6 months time. I hope.
|
Shai MaiTsang
|
Posted - 2008.05.23 18:16:00 -
[55]
Testing please disregard +1 support.
|
Tamia Clant
New Dawn Corp
New Eden Research
|
Posted - 2008.05.23 19:55:00 -
[56]
Support.
Looking for queue-free research slots? Click here!
|
Tommy TenKreds
Animal Mercantile Executive
|
Posted - 2008.05.23 23:39:00 -
[57]
meep
Bandures > tommy you like a cowboy harry ) |
IlluminatedOne
Tycho Brahe Fan Club
|
Posted - 2008.05.24 01:26:00 -
[58]
/supported.
|
Ameliorate
|
Posted - 2008.05.24 08:43:00 -
[59]
Posting to offer my support for this issue.
|
Stephen HB
Mystical Knights
Legionnaire Services Ltd.
|
Posted - 2008.05.24 08:43:00 -
[60]
I support the raising of this issue.
5% of the playerbase actively posting is a ludicrous number to require. While I'm sure 1/20 people would, if asked, express support for any number of issues, expecting all of them to post in a thread is not realistic.
The largest thread I can ever recall was locked at ~100 pages, and that was a JOKE THREAD. To put things in perspective, the carrier nerf barely rated 10,000 posts in total, and does anyone seriously think such a monumental crapstorm would not have been raised at CSM?
This is the central issue: To force the CSM to raise an issue none of them personally support (even presuming they would actively ignore the opinions of their constituency) would currently require a larger volume of attention than the carrier nerf!!
PS: The carrier nerf shall now be the standard against which volumes of forum vitriol shall be measured.
----------
Character creation guide.
Originally by: Adonis 4174
You killed him to annoy him. He self-destructed to annoy you. You're annoyed thus he wins.
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |