Pages: 1 2 3 [4] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Elsinaril
CHON Aphelion.
|
Posted - 2008.06.03 21:52:00 -
[91]
|
Carrus Thrace
|
Posted - 2008.06.04 02:12:00 -
[92]
I agree, the fact that I mostly browse these issues rather than giving my support to any definately shows the improbabilty of getting the required votes.
Though if we manage to get all the votes we need for this topic...
|
Satis Tyr
|
Posted - 2008.06.04 06:32:00 -
[93]
The question is this.
Under what circumstances hould the players be able to force an issue into CSM discussions, and how will theese circumstances be be deturmined?
First the circumstances. A council was chosen bassed on player vote. Only when the council is not doing the job of representing the players should they be able to force an issue that the council has no interest in.
Second how do we know we are in this situation? The 5% threshold represents an emergency situation where the council is not doing their job. While I do not nessesarily agree that the 5% threshold is the correct way to deal with this, I deffinitly do not think that it should be reduced or replaced with a hard threshold of 1,000 (as Cosmo suggests) which would, at present, be a lowering of the threshold. In fact I do not think that a threshold is the correct way to deal with this issue.
A big part of this issue relys on how much the CSM can realisticly address succusfully. Have no illusions. any one CSM term cannot deal with all of the issues, or even all of the important issues. A benifit of having the council is to be able to focus, refine, and prioritise issues to bring to CCP.
I propose to do away with a threshold altogether. Let the council see what issues are supported by players and bring the ones they prioritise. That is the job we elected them to do after all. Also to allocate time for the top 2 or 3 supported issues during a term, however much support they have be it 2%, 50% or 1,100 accounts.
-Satis Tyr
P.S. this has been a mindpost. parden the spalling.
|
Kito Fernandez
|
Posted - 2008.06.04 09:39:00 -
[94]
Edited by: Kito Fernandez on 04/06/2008 09:39:31 way too harsh indeed, no thread will reach that (well maybe except the ETC one) :)
|
mazzilliu
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
|
Posted - 2008.06.05 08:16:00 -
[95]
|
Somatic Neuron
|
Posted - 2008.06.05 10:55:00 -
[96]
Lower it to something more reasonable ---------- |
herindoors x
ORIGIN SYSTEMS Atlas Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.06.05 12:21:00 -
[97]
10% of voted numbers works.
This will vary as numbers go up and or down for each round of CSM elections. Idea therefore self-regulates:
Low voter turnout for CSM elections means that CSM get the mandate to bring more topics to attention with smaller response -> players note CSM activity on their behalf and could actively vote in next round CSM elections.
It improves the numbers from a blank 5% player base for a highly voted-on CSM committee as well.
Supportin' dis
|
BiggestT
Fun Inc Black-Out
|
Posted - 2008.06.07 17:21:00 -
[98]
/signed
Boost Field commands! they need love :( |
Banedon Runestar
The Phalanx Expeditionary Conglomerate The Gemini Project
|
Posted - 2008.06.12 16:34:00 -
[99]
I agree.
I doubt 11,000 people read the forums. ______________________ Join Channel Profit
|
Talkuth Rel
Republic Military School
|
Posted - 2008.06.12 17:09:00 -
[100]
My thoughts on the matter from another thread:
Originally by: Talkuth Rel The problem I see is that the CSM elections themselves were only able to draw about 11% of the playerbase. If we look at historical examples, major elections (such as presidential in US) always draw a higher voter turnout than elections with only lesser issues at stake. I would propose that the CSM election is like a presidential election, while individual issues discussed on the forums are more minor and will draw the attention of fewer voters.
Given the numbers from the CSM elections, it is entirely reasonable to assume that most of the issues brought to the CSM forums will only ever be seen by 5 or 6% of the playerbase. In this case, requiring a 5% support is requiring the playerbase to be nearly unanimous on the issue, which I think we can agree is a ridiculous level of requirement just to have an issue looked at by CCP, and most likely a requirement that will rarely ever be met, if at all. With this model, it is entirely possible that the only issues brought before CCP will be those proposed by the CSM itself. If this is the case, then the power to suggest change to CCP has been removed almost entirely from the playerbase and put solely in the hands of 9 individuals and 5 alternates. Does anyone else have a problem with this?
In response to the naysayers:
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.
What you and those like you fail to grasp is that with the current threshold compared to the number of players who are active in the forums, the players will realistically never be able to push an issue to the CSM agenda, which is counter to the whole purpose of the council as a means for bringing player concerns forward. I personally have little faith in small governing bodies to do the right thing, and an effective means for the populace to set the direction for those in charge is absolutely necessary for success. |
|
Eanok
Equitus Nosferatum Praetorians
|
Posted - 2008.07.01 12:01:00 -
[101]
|
lady2isis
Philae Temple
|
Posted - 2008.07.04 03:45:00 -
[102]
10% of voted numbers.
/signed i am who i am; therefor i am Her |
SickSeven
|
Posted - 2008.07.04 04:52:00 -
[103]
support basing on % of total voter turnout.
|
RuleoftheBone
Minmatar Celestial Apocalypse The Requiem
|
Posted - 2008.07.04 10:09:00 -
[104]
Edited by: RuleoftheBone on 04/07/2008 10:09:53
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.
Bingo.
Not supported at all.
All it takes is one alliance mass vote to shit on everyone else.
No thank you.
**EDIT**LOL filter
"Lead Me..Follow Me..Or get the **** out of my way" General George Patton USA
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |