| Pages: 1 2 3 4 :: [one page] |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Tusko Hopkins
HUN Corp.
HUN Reloaded
   |
Posted - 2008.05.22 16:24:00 -
[1]
With 11% participation during the 2 week election process, despite all the campaigning and advertising, I think the 5% support level (approximately 11.000 support votes) required to force the council to present an issue is way too high, probably unreachable.
In the light of the voting statistics it should be lowered to a more reasonable level.
First alternate to CSM.
|
LaVista Vista
Conservative Shenanigans Party
|
Posted - 2008.05.22 16:26:00 -
[2]
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.
|
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2008.05.22 16:28:00 -
[3]
Agreed, it should be a lower total based on a percentage of those who voted in the election.
CSM Manifesto 2008 | Destroy Outposts! |
Heartstone
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2008.05.22 16:32:00 -
[4]
Agreed I don't think there is ever going to be a topic that gets than many votes apart from the standard whine-a-thon topics we now get in General
---
|
Gorobom
|
Posted - 2008.05.22 16:33:00 -
[5]
Agreed. On practice, it won't ever happen that way anyway.
|
Erotic Irony
0bsession
|
Posted - 2008.05.22 16:34:00 -
[6]
I'm in favor of the 10,000 views methodology, if you've seen it, you've had time to object.
___
Eve Players are not very smart.
Support Killmail Overhaul
|
Saju Somtaaw
Amarrian Religious Reformation Society Exalted
|
Posted - 2008.05.22 16:41:00 -
[7]
11% turnout for CSM and 5% needed for an issue, doesn't make sense at all base it on turnout from the election not total population.
---- --- ---
My views don't represent those of my corporation or alliance. |
Ishina Fel
Synergy.
Imperial Republic Of the North
|
Posted - 2008.05.22 16:48:00 -
[8]
It is sad that we got so few voters, but yeah, I don't think they can carry through with the 5% bar.
Basing the number required on the numebr of voters seems sensible.
|
Cosmar
Kingfisher Industries
|
Posted - 2008.05.22 16:56:00 -
[9]
It should be like 2% with at least 1% not belonging to the same corp/alliance.
It's a legitimate concern that if you lower the numbers too much you can get one entity to basicly force anything into the CSM agenda.
|
Serenity Steele
Dynamic Data Distribution
Ministry of Information
|
Posted - 2008.05.22 17:01:00 -
[10]
 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.
Sounds like a good idea to me.
≡v≡ Strategic Maps now in Eve-Online Store |
|
|
Illaria
M. Corp
Mostly Harmless
|
Posted - 2008.05.22 17:02:00 -
[11]
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.
|
Piitaq
19th Star Logistics
|
Posted - 2008.05.22 17:03:00 -
[12]
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.
I support this
|
Siona Windweaver
|
Posted - 2008.05.22 17:21:00 -
[13]
I agree completely.
|
Sally Bestonge
GoonFleet
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.05.22 17:23:00 -
[14]
Edited by: Sally Bestonge on 22/05/2008 17:24:28
it should be made up of a percentage of the people who voted now this is not to lessen the number of voters but only to represent the active community in a better way as there are many people who would never vote in the first place as shown by this election and the 5% rule they have in place which would mean more then half of the people who voted in the election would have to vote on a single issue.
|
shuckstar
Hauling hogs
CryoGenesis Mining Syndicate
|
Posted - 2008.05.22 17:59:00 -
[15]
Originally by: Saju Somtaaw
11% turnout for CSM and 5% needed for an issue, doesn't make sense at all base it on turnout from the election not total population.
|
Kazuo Ishiguro
House of Marbles
Zzz
|
Posted - 2008.05.22 17:59:00 -
[16]
Agreed
My research services
Spreadsheets: Top speed calculation - Halo Implant stats |
Herschel Yamamoto
Bloodmoney Incorporated
|
Posted - 2008.05.22 18:05:00 -
[17]
The way I see it, you've got 3 of the 9 CSMers already having posted in support of this. Get 2 more, and make it a rule within the Council - CCP's rule will be there as a backstop against a future Council getting a bit more tyrannical, but the Council should have the right to make its own operating procedures if the rules of order being used are anything like that used by any other body I know of. Say you'll automatically consider any motion with more than X votes, or X% of election voters, or whatever, and stick to it. This is how parliamentary bodies evolve.
------------------
Fix the forums! |
Nyphur
Pillowsoft
|
Posted - 2008.05.22 18:06:00 -
[18]
Eve-Tanking.com - We're sorry, something happened. |
Draygo Korvan
Merch Industrial
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.05.22 18:16:00 -
[19]
Edited by: Draygo Korvan on 22/05/2008 18:16:59
Originally by: Jade Constantine
Agreed, it should be a lower total based on a percentage of those who voted in the election.
Because it takes 2.2k votes to force the CSM, couldnt you as chair set up your own rule saying any issue thread with significant support should be brought up even if it doesn't reach the required votes?
--
|
Malar
HUN Corp.
HUN Reloaded
|
Posted - 2008.05.22 18:49:00 -
[20]
I support this with all my alts.
im just too lazy to log in with them right now :)
---------------------------------------------
*Comments in this post are mine and mine only* |
|
|
Voculus
E X O D U S
Imperial Republic Of the North
|
Posted - 2008.05.22 19:42:00 -
[21]
_________________________________________________________
|
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2008.05.22 19:52:00 -
[22]
5-10% of voters sounds like reasonable enough to me... so, make that 0.5%-1% instead of 5% 
1|2|3|4|5 |
Daelin Blackleaf
Naqam
Project Alice.
|
Posted - 2008.05.22 20:27:00 -
[23]
Originally by: Malar
I support this with all my alts.
im just too lazy to log in with them right now :)
I sense another flaw in this system. 
|
Inanna Zuni
The Causality
Electus Matari
|
Posted - 2008.05.22 20:37:00 -
[24]
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.
2. The 5% was set as a percentage of *accounts* whereas posting on these forums is by *pilot name*. The two are not directly convertible by the CSM and would require CCP to validate the list of pilots who had supported a topic here and how many accounts they represented (clearly always fewer, but no idea by how much). As such the 5% percentage is impossible to police at this time unless and 'out of game' interface is created (very unlikely)
Inanna Zuni
|
Avalira
Pax Minor Expiscor Pario Addo
|
Posted - 2008.05.22 21:18:00 -
[25]
If 5% means 11000 votes, each vote is a post and each page is 30 posts then an issue brought up requires a thread of 367 pages.
Something definitely wrong here...
I have never seen nor do I think I'll never see a thread of 367 pages. Even if it is to force CSM's to take on the subject, that amount of posts is ridiculous and outright impossible. So whoever made the 5% rules either didn't do his maths or doesn't actually want any issue to be forced onto CSM's. I think a 50 page thread is already enough, that's 1500 posts (if all vote in favour).
-------------
Selling the following:
Probe BPC's
ARK JF 4.5b
|
Stellar Reaper
Viziam
|
Posted - 2008.05.22 21:31:00 -
[26]
Agreed!
I think they should recalculate the percentage, or come up with a more attractive multi language in game advertisement system to bring more attention to the issues!
---------
Will work for your forzen corpses! |
Scagga Laebetrovo
Delictum 23216
San Matari.
|
Posted - 2008.05.22 21:48:00 -
[27]
Sounds like a catch 22 to me.
San Matari Official forums |
Hoshi
Black Water.
|
Posted - 2008.05.22 21:50:00 -
[28]
11.000 support votes means the thread will need to reach at least 370 pages (assuming everyone is supporting the issue). Wonder if the forum software support that :)
----------------------------------------
A Guide to Scan Probing in Revelations |
MongWen
Farmer Killers
United Corporations Against Macros
|
Posted - 2008.05.22 21:53:00 -
[29]
I must agree with the op
------------------
|
Ki Tarra
Ki Tech Industries
|
Posted - 2008.05.22 22:20:00 -
[30]
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. 
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
Nydia Chavez
|
Posted - 2008.05.24 23:48:00 -
[61]
I concur.
|
MotherMoon
Huang Yinglong
FOUNDATI0N
|
Posted - 2008.05.24 23:48:00 -
[62]
agreed go with the 51% of the number of voters.
|
Alphrenel
The Black Rabbits
|
Posted - 2008.05.24 23:53:00 -
[63]
/signed
___________________________________
Best regards,
ALPR CEO Alphrenel
Alphrenel Productions - making nice videos for everyone! |
Kuranta
Pator Tech School
|
Posted - 2008.05.25 00:18:00 -
[64]
Needs to be looked at, obviously. I seem to remember that CCP stated they would look at it again when the first topics have been raised to CCP.
|
Ren Tales
Crimson Flag
|
Posted - 2008.05.25 10:02:00 -
[65]
----
Want to learn how to yar? Want to teach young pirates?
Crimson Flag is Recruiting
|
Xofii
Hedion University
|
Posted - 2008.05.25 20:00:00 -
[66]
|
Tenebrion Darkness
Viziam
|
Posted - 2008.05.25 23:40:00 -
[67]
|
Hitoshi Yamadori
|
Posted - 2008.05.26 10:49:00 -
[68]
|
Nastasia Muse
deii feram
|
Posted - 2008.05.26 11:51:00 -
[69]
Against.
I disagree. This is a recipe for the opppression of the majority of players by an activist minority. If changes are desired, get support for them from a broad church. If you cannot do that - if you cannot make people care enough - then your idea does not deserve implementation.
|
Lutien
z-inc.
|
Posted - 2008.05.27 10:39:00 -
[70]
against
We elected a council, if they don't do what we want next year they won't be re-elected. If you put a 5% the active forum people will get a lot of infulence towards the people who rarly post a comment.
If this was done in RL people would push for the death penalty, reinstate slavery and other stupid idea's.
If you want a topic to the council, run your own candidate next year.
|
|
|
Cpt Iwan
4S Corporation
Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2008.05.27 12:37:00 -
[71]
Against.
|
Ki Tarra
Ki Tech Industries
|
Posted - 2008.05.27 21:17:00 -
[72]
Originally by: MotherMoon
agreed go with the 51% of the number of voters.
So in other words you think that they should need 5.6508% if the player base to support an issue before it is forced. 
|
Kirex
Vale Heavy Industries
Molotov Coalition
|
Posted - 2008.05.27 23:45:00 -
[73]
Yeah, getting 11,000 support is ridiculous..
|
ceyriot
Induseng Enterprises
R0ADKILL
|
Posted - 2008.05.28 01:04:00 -
[74]
Yes, totally....the 5% thing was kind of unreasonable...
Personally, I thought it was the % of those that voted...but apparently not...Just another way for CCP to avoid certain ideas. 
Faction Store - Killboard |
Ehranavaar
|
Posted - 2008.05.28 02:44:00 -
[75]
given the small turnout 5% of the gross number of accounts would seem high to me.
i'm against the 5% requirement
|
Ulstan
|
Posted - 2008.05.28 18:58:00 -
[76]
I'd be surprised if 5% of players even actively read the forums, let alone all care about the same issues, let alone all agree on the same issues.
Have you EVER seen a forum thread with 11,000 posts from different people agreeing with each other? No? Neither have I.
|
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2008.05.28 19:02:00 -
[77]
The issue is getting raised
CSM Manifesto 2008 | Destroy Outposts! |
Squirrrel
Squirrrel Industries
|
Posted - 2008.05.28 21:00:00 -
[78]
Edited by: Squirrrel on 28/05/2008 21:01:12
Needs to be number of voters. So many people who play eve never have or are likely to read the forums. They just want to play the game.
|
Heroldyn
|
Posted - 2008.05.28 21:07:00 -
[79]
almost forgott to agree on this topic
|
Amarr Holymight
Bat Country
Aegis Militia
|
Posted - 2008.05.28 21:15:00 -
[80]
Edited by: Amarr Holymight on 28/05/2008 21:15:31
Agreed based on the low % of votes for the CSM per capita doesn't make sense to have voting participation on more menial topics so high.
|
|
|
Letrange
Chaosstorm Corporation
Apoapsis Multiversal Consortium
|
Posted - 2008.05.29 01:15:00 -
[81]
|
Phroneo
Southern Cross Incorporated
Southern Cross Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.05.29 06:47:00 -
[82]
Edited by: Phroneo on 29/05/2008 06:47:55
Yeah it seems like this should be supported though it can never win enough support due to the issue being presented.
Perhaps we can just make the council address the top 5% or top 10 issues by support.
--
It may be that the old astrologers had the truth exactly reversed, when they believed that the stars controlled the destinies of men. The time may come when men control the destinies of stars. ACC |
Eirikk
|
Posted - 2008.05.29 14:06:00 -
[83]
|
Miyamoto Shigesuke
Jugis Modo Utopia
|
Posted - 2008.05.29 14:30:00 -
[84]
I agree, and my wife agrees too :)
|
Czanthria
Ad Astra Vexillum
|
Posted - 2008.05.30 05:41:00 -
[85]
--
Knowledge is Power! |
Stephannus Calimben
Trill Crabulas
Nihil-Obstat
|
Posted - 2008.05.30 07:47:00 -
[86]
Edited by: Stephannus Calimben on 30/05/2008 07:47:30
/signed
I think this threshold is too high, and not enough issues will be brought to the fore.
|
Orontes Ovasi
COGNET SpaceSystems Ltd
Ushra'Khan
|
Posted - 2008.05.31 02:50:00 -
[87]
|
Nastasia Muse
deii feram
|
Posted - 2008.06.02 08:11:00 -
[88]
I disagree. If you want to try to force changes in the game, you need to carry the community with you. 5% is, if anything, a lowball figure.
|
Poontang McFadyen
|
Posted - 2008.06.02 08:13:00 -
[89]
It's amazing how many people in this thread haven't read the question, and whose responses clearly reveal that they think you need 5% for the issue to go forward.
I disagree. |
Rouque Vanderbuilt
Nuts and Bolts
|
Posted - 2008.06.02 23:13:00 -
[90]
/signed
|
|
|
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] |