EVE Search - CSM Council Members Kicking and Muting eachother like Children

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

CSM Council Members Kicking and Muting eachother like Children

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 [12] 13 .. 13 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 1 post(s)
Anton Marvik AnTi. Atrocitas	Posted - 2008.06.11 01:40:00 - [331] Edited by: Anton Marvik on 11/06/2008 01:42:37 Originally by: Pnuka Who is Kelsin? One of Jade's cronies. Its ironic because SF actually doesn't hold sovereignty anywhere while Darius' Corp/Alliance holds huge amounts of space.
Goumindong Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.06.11 01:41:00 - [332] Originally by: Pnuka Originally by: Jade Constantine Originally by: Darius JOHNSON The difference being one of us plays by the rules as established and one throws a temper tantrum and insinuates that they can change them by dictatorial fiat whenever they realize they'll lose. Game hasn't changed for me. It's now officially gone from a council to the Jade Constantine hour. Congrats! You haven't seen me lose my temper Darius old boy. Cheer up, at least we'll get some decent ISSUES through. You should actually drop Kelsin a line about that 0.0 sovereignty re-vamp, he might be able to help you with the write up. Who is Kelsin? The guy who thinks we should have sovereignty by sitting on gates. Another one of Jades blind followers. This guy
Kai Wooglin GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.06.11 01:57:00 - [333] Wow. I just read that thread, and it is possibly the worst idea I have ever heard regarding potential sov changes/ It can't be serious.
Pnuka GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.06.11 02:00:00 - [334] Originally by: Kai Wooglin Wow. I just read that thread, and it is possibly the worst idea I have ever heard regarding potential sov changes/ It can't be serious. Ya...unless this guy has some alts or something, a guy playing less than a year in a empire corp really isn't going to know what's going on is he? Jade are you trolling Darius or something? I've lived in 0.0 for a year now, and I'm still hazy on some of the issues.
Martin VanBuren GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.06.11 02:02:00 - [335] Star Fraction are pretty keen on changing sov mechanics, as clearly they are the only thing holding Star Fraction back from becoming the mighty pvp empire they obviously deserve to be
Kai Wooglin GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.06.11 02:20:00 - [336] Originally by: Martin VanBuren Star Fraction are pretty keen on changing sov mechanics, as clearly they are the only thing holding Star Fraction back from becoming the mighty pvp empire they obviously deserve to be They would obviously be the next GS/RA/TCF/BOB/AAA if only they weren't being held back by current sov mechanics. It has nothing at all to do with who they are. Right?
Wu Jiun State War Academy	Posted - 2008.06.11 02:25:00 - [337] Originally by: Jade Constantine I said I'd do my best to get a change to the constitution that made the CSM chair elected by the committee. I've written, publicly discussed, and commended the issue to the CSM, its been added to the Iceland agenda. If I manage to see this put into the constitution by vote and consultancy with CCP I'll step down and stand for re-election as chair under the new rules. Originally by: Jade Constantine I think the way forward is to pretty much veto all attempts to re-write the constitutional issues at this point and focus entirely on player subscribed gameplay issues. So basically you withdraw that statement? I wonder how even your own corpmates can stand behind such an obvious liar. They should be ashamed.
Aprudena Gist GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.06.11 02:29:00 - [338] Originally by: Wu Jiun Originally by: Jade Constantine I said I'd do my best to get a change to the constitution that made the CSM chair elected by the committee. I've written, publicly discussed, and commended the issue to the CSM, its been added to the Iceland agenda. If I manage to see this put into the constitution by vote and consultancy with CCP I'll step down and stand for re-election as chair under the new rules. Originally by: Jade Constantine I think the way forward is to pretty much veto all attempts to re-write the constitutional issues at this point and focus entirely on player subscribed gameplay issues. So basically you withdraw that statement? I wonder how even your own corpmates can stand behind such an obvious liar. They should be ashamed. I think they are alt's not corpmates.
Kelsin Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.06.11 02:33:00 - [339] Hi. I expect Darius has plenty of ideas for writing up how to pitch it to CCP but simple though the actual topic is, if for some reason he's into collaborating, I'm up for it. And...broken record...while Capturing Stargates is an interesting jumping off point for a wild revamp of Sovereignty, that's not what Darius is writing up...and he already knows that...etc etc. I love you Goons, Kelsin
Aprudena Gist GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.06.11 02:54:00 - [340] Originally by: Kelsin Hi. I expect Darius has plenty of ideas for writing up how to pitch it to CCP but simple though the actual topic is, if for some reason he's into collaborating, I'm up for it. And...broken record...while Capturing Stargates is an interesting jumping off point for a wild revamp of Sovereignty, that's not what Darius is writing up...and he already knows that...etc etc. I love you Goons, Kelsin You will never get a dramatic change to the sov system like that though ccp anyways they would never spend the time/effort.
Kelsin Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.06.11 02:58:00 - [341] Originally by: Aprudena Gist You will never get a dramatic change to the sov system like that though ccp anyways they would never spend the time/effort. I get why you say that, but...and I've said this a lot recently...CCP Nozh actually posted something pretty similar beforehand, and my example was just based off of that. His version is linked in the OP of one of those two links Goum posted. So my thing was a relatively small variation on something they're already working on - hence the CSM proposal to inquire as to how that revamp they're already working on was coming. Don't shoot the messenger, I'm fragile.
Illaria	Posted - 2008.06.11 09:09:00 - [342] Sorry if I missed it, but you guys still haven't answered the question many here have asked: Why don't you use a forum and instead insist on chat based communication, although it's general consensus that chats are a very inefficient method for the discussion of complex matters, and only get worse the more people are involved. It's really baffeling to me. I know you use forums to manage communication within your respective alliances so why not for the CSM. Aside from that: haggling about procedural matters is the norm and the exception in politics. As CCP unfortunately hasn't defined a constitution for the CSM procedure I'd guess that we will witness some more haggling in the future until the CSM decides upon their own constitution. I'd recommend joining your local chapter of the political party of your choice, if you don't believe me, or any other political quasi political organization like a union. Like a fellow (RL) party member once told me, after I asked her why so much time is wasted on procedural matters on each meeting: "Procedure is power, my friend. It allows you to define the agenda, and the agenda is the cornerstone of the political process".
Anton Marvik AnTi. Atrocitas	Posted - 2008.06.11 10:21:00 - [343] Originally by: Jade Constantine Well, the only "power" I believe the chair should have in these meetings is the ability to moderate discussion. When did it change from that to you interpreting the CSM documentation and having veto power?
Goumindong Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.06.11 12:04:00 - [344] Edited by: Goumindong on 11/06/2008 12:04:24 Originally by: Illaria Sorry if I missed it, but you guys still haven't answered the question many here have asked: Why don't you use a forum and instead insist on chat based communication, although it's general consensus that chats are a very inefficient method for the discussion of complex matters, and only get worse the more people are involved. They are supposed to use the forum for the discussion threads. But are skirting the line by considering the "issue" threads "adequate discussion". They are using eve-chat as a communication manner for the meetings because CCP and the CSM document require it in order to officially record the meetings(or something, but the point is that they don't have a choice in the latter)
Aprudena Gist GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.06.11 13:39:00 - [345] Originally by: Anton Marvik Originally by: Jade Constantine Well, the only "power" I believe the chair should have in these meetings is the ability to moderate discussion. When did it change from that to you interpreting the CSM documentation and having veto power? when people didn't obey him as their lord and saviour.
Darius JOHNSON GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.06.11 16:24:00 - [346] Originally by: Anton Marvik When did it change from that to you interpreting the CSM documentation and having veto power? The first time a vote was called to prevent it.
Cpt Branko Surge. NIght's Dawn	Posted - 2008.06.11 21:35:00 - [347] Edited by: Cpt Branko on 11/06/2008 21:36:56 I'm rather annoyed at the lack of any actual worthwhile discussions on topics. I mean, seriously - saying 'oh, we've got this issue, we'll talk to CCP about it' is BS - discuss the issue, discuss solutions, discuss why it's an issue or don't even bring it up in the first place. Extending aggro timer / variable aggro timer was something that had a 2-page thread which did not get any meaningful discussion off CSMs (and had dissenting voices explaining why aggro timers are fine), and they all said 'aye' without saying WHY are aggro timers a problem and discussing wether they should be changed. Just saying 'aye'... meh.* Furthermore, the issues like 'oh, war-decs, let's talk to CCP about war-decs' without discussion wether war-decs are broken, why are war-decs broken, etc, is totally LOL. Furthermore, people abstaining from votes are just LOL. You were not selected to 'not give a damn' - and someone can push an issue (potentially a bad one) further with just one vote since nobody cares about it. Don't forget you were elected by the player-base. I assume most people didn't vote so you can say "I don't give a damn" about important issues. *Jade did a world of discussing in the thread. "Oh, yeah, I support it" is NOT a discussion. Particularly and specifically not when it's posted by one of the CSM guys, and advancing a unpopular topic just because you like it (with a number of other topics far more popular not being discussed) means you're only pushing your personal agenda rather then being a medium for the players to communicate with CCP. Sig removed, inappropriate link. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint
Jade Constantine Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.06.11 22:55:00 - [348] Edited by: Jade Constantine on 11/06/2008 22:56:38 Originally by: Cpt Branko *Jade did a world of discussing in the thread. "Oh, yeah, I support it" is NOT a discussion. Particularly and specifically not when it's posted by one of the CSM guys, and advancing a unpopular topic just because you like it (with a number of other topics far more popular not being discussed) means you're only pushing your personal agenda rather then being a medium for the players to communicate with CCP. I think you'll find I expressed an opinion on one of the threads on the topic. "Currently there is a problem with the docking timer being abused by well-tanked battleships (and capitals) being able to engage in combat and then de-aggress and redock to avoid significant counter-attack. This problem was caused by general increase in ship hit points over several incremental patches designed to specifically to lengthen combat while there has been a failure to lengthen re-dock/jump aggression timers by a similar degree. Outcome is that station dock range (stargate range) fighting is currently overpowered since in the environment of increased hit points for all ships it becomes too difficult to destroy targets in the limited aggression window. This encourages over-blobbing as the only way to inflict sufficient damage on the target before it docks and has the knock-on effect of discouraging any combat at all. Question will CCP development agree this is a problem? And will they commit to increasing dock/redock/gate aggression timers to be in line with general ship hit point buffs since CASTOR? Roughly this would involve lengthening timers to 2-3x their current value. Additional related question can we have a visual countdown of dock/redock/gate aggression timer on our User Interface please?" In raising the issue document for the Iceland agenda several discussions in several threads will be summarized and the decent ideas listed. Please don't jump to the conclusion that just because I've typed "yeah support" in one of several duplicate threads I haven't made substantive comment in one of them.
Fallorn GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.06.11 23:58:00 - [349] Edited by: Fallorn on 11/06/2008 23:59:00 Edited by: Fallorn on 11/06/2008 23:58:39 Edited by: Fallorn on 11/06/2008 23:58:15 Originally by: Jade Constantine Edited by: Jade Constantine on 11/06/2008 22:56:38 Originally by: Cpt Branko *Jade did a world of discussing in the thread. "Oh, yeah, I support it" is NOT a discussion. Particularly and specifically not when it's posted by one of the CSM guys, and advancing a unpopular topic just because you like it (with a number of other topics far more popular not being discussed) means you're only pushing your personal agenda rather then being a medium for the players to communicate with CCP. I think you'll find I expressed an opinion on one of the threads on the topic. "Currently there is a problem with the docking timer being abused by well-tanked battleships (and capitals) being able to engage in combat and then de-aggress and redock to avoid significant counter-attack. This problem was caused by general increase in ship hit points over several incremental patches designed to specifically to lengthen combat while there has been a failure to lengthen re-dock/jump aggression timers by a similar degree. Outcome is that station dock range (stargate range) fighting is currently overpowered since in the environment of increased hit points for all ships it becomes too difficult to destroy targets in the limited aggression window. This encourages over-blobbing as the only way to inflict sufficient damage on the target before it docks and has the knock-on effect of discouraging any combat at all. Question will CCP development agree this is a problem? And will they commit to increasing dock/redock/gate aggression timers to be in line with general ship hit point buffs since CASTOR? Roughly this would involve lengthening timers to 2-3x their current value. Additional related question can we have a visual countdown of dock/redock/gate aggression timer on our User Interface please?" In raising the issue document for the Iceland agenda several discussions in several threads will be summarized and the decent ideas listed. Please don't jump to the conclusion that just because I've typed "yeah support" in one of several duplicate threads I haven't made substantive comment in one of them. Marius Duvall said, "Doing 'an Andy Cruse' became the accepted term for walls of text that sapped your will to live." I think most of you know that he was right.
XxAngelxX The Illuminati. Pandemic Legion	Posted - 2008.06.12 04:28:00 - [350] If you want this to be done properly then you need: - A clear agenda with all points of discussion prepared before hand and handed out to all members before the meeting - A chairman who is unbiased and good at time management, probably a CCP employee As for the muting, well, I can understand the time constraints but seriously, if you're going to give someone moderation of a channel at least make sure they know how to moderate properly. The mute-kick bug has been there for months. It was pretty good comedy though, next time someone prepare highlights so I don't have to read all the drivel.
Cpt Branko Surge. NIght's Dawn	Posted - 2008.06.12 06:54:00 - [351] Edited by: Cpt Branko on 12/06/2008 06:56:01 Originally by: Jade Constantine I think you'll find I expressed an opinion on one of the threads on the topic. "Currently there is a problem with the docking timer being abused by well-tanked battleships (and capitals) being able to engage in combat and then de-aggress and redock to avoid significant counter-attack. This problem was caused by general increase in ship hit points over several incremental patches designed to specifically to lengthen combat while there has been a failure to lengthen re-dock/jump aggression timers by a similar degree. Outcome is that station dock range (stargate range) fighting is currently overpowered since in the environment of increased hit points for all ships it becomes too difficult to destroy targets in the limited aggression window. This encourages over-blobbing as the only way to inflict sufficient damage on the target before it docks and has the knock-on effect of discouraging any combat at all. Question will CCP development agree this is a problem? And will they commit to increasing dock/redock/gate aggression timers to be in line with general ship hit point buffs since CASTOR? Roughly this would involve lengthening timers to 2-3x their current value. Additional related question can we have a visual countdown of dock/redock/gate aggression timer on our User Interface please?" In raising the issue document for the Iceland agenda several discussions in several threads will be summarized and the decent ideas listed. Please don't jump to the conclusion that just because I've typed "yeah support" in one of several duplicate threads I haven't made substantive comment in one of them. (a) The thread you linked did not contain this discussion - in fact, the visible thread did not have any sort of massive support, indicating it's an issue you like rather then a popular issue. (b) Your arguments are hugely flawed, given firepower has increased as well and player mechanics have been developed (bumping, the most popular solution to station hugging, particularly when you undock) to offset deaggro/dock/tank tactics (which ARE valid tactics btw). All sub BS ships right now are very unlikely to deaggro/dock successfully, and it's preety much only the BS which can do this (and it doesn't work for them often enough either, wether due to bumping or just due to having too little time since you spot your tank failing to the final explosion). There is simply nothing wrong with the mechanics for sub-BS ships, and I highly suspect there's anything wrong with it when we consider capitals (which just need to be bumped). I completely disagree it has the effect of discouraging combat at all; without the ability to deagress and dock in a reasonable time frame, people would simply not agress in the first place. Promoting blobbing or no, people will blob all the same, and now you don't have to worry about the target deaggro/dock-ing on a local spike, you know he's stuck there for long enough ;) So, why promote a not so supported topic? Your personal agenda? Sig removed, inappropriate link. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint

Chribba Otherworld Enterprises Otherworld Empire	Posted - 2008.06.12 10:26:00 - [352] Meh less drama more raising of important issues and issues Secure 3rd party service ■ Do you Veldspar?

Night Tripper Es and Whizz	Posted - 2008.06.12 19:56:00 - [353] this post is gold dust.
Anthony Pants	Posted - 2008.06.13 01:37:00 - [354] I'm severely disappointed in the turnout of our CSMs to this thread, and the others like it. Do they feel threatened by the goons? Do they feel threatened by Jade? Do they feel impotent? The fact of the matter is, this is a huge topic that a lot of the voting public feels strongly in. Jade is dismissing it as trolling or a threadnought or a goon conspiracy, but even CSMs other than Darius and Bane feel differently than Jade does. I've yet to see the majority of our CSMs respond to the claims that have been put forward. By the way, isn't posting this the duty of the secretary?
Courthouse Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.06.13 01:55:00 - [355] Edited by: Courthouse on 13/06/2008 01:57:05 Edited by: Courthouse on 13/06/2008 01:55:19 Originally by: Anthony Pants By the way, isn't posting this the duty of the secretary? That is Jade politicking to act like it's the best man/woman/thing for the job after what went down this week. If he can't have absolute power he'll take it in small portions, including discounting 50% of the EvE playerbase by giving a giant tt to the US players.
Anthony Pants	Posted - 2008.06.13 03:33:00 - [356] Originally by: Courthouse Edited by: Courthouse on 13/06/2008 01:57:05 Edited by: Courthouse on 13/06/2008 01:55:19 Originally by: Anthony Pants By the way, isn't posting this the duty of the secretary? That is Jade politicking to act like it's the best man/woman/thing for the job after what went down this week. If he can't have absolute power he'll take it in small portions, including discounting 50% of the EvE playerbase by giving a giant tt to the US players. [ 2008.06.12 20:47:44 ] Ankhesentapemkah > Abstain - I'm not happy with the current situation but I'm not happy with the fix either. [ 2008.06.12 20:47:58 ] Inanna Zuni > (CCP won't let us abstain on issues) [ 2008.06.12 20:48:06 ] Jade Constantine > I'm going to say Aye - because i'd like to talk about it with ccp [ 2008.06.12 20:48:06 ] Hardin > Just say no then ankh [ 2008.06.12 20:48:07 ] Ankhesentapemkah > gives them the finger [ 2008.06.12 20:48:13 ] Inanna Zuni > (rofl) [ 2008.06.12 20:50:53 ] Inanna Zuni > what is a .docx? [ 2008.06.12 20:51:02 ] LaVista Vista > Office 2007 [ 2008.06.12 20:51:06 ] Jade Constantine > something i needed a converter for Smiley [ 2008.06.12 20:51:19 ] Ankhesentapemkah > microsoft has a plugin for office 2003 [ 2008.06.12 20:51:28 ] LaVista Vista > Most application should be able to read it. Plugin for office 2003 [ 2008.06.12 20:51:29 ] Ankhesentapemkah > but please dont use DocX in the future its crap [ 2008.06.12 20:51:44 ] Ankhesentapemkah > well I had office 2000 before I got 2003 from a torrent just to open this crap. [ 2008.06.12 20:51:48 ] Jade Constantine > Anyways lets take a few minutes to make sure we can open and read these documents everyone please? [ 2008.06.12 20:52:01 ] Jade Constantine > cup of tea, get them opened and have a read [ 2008.06.12 20:52:16 ] Jade Constantine > and as you are happy with the docs - ... please let us know here : [ 2008.06.12 20:55:38 ] Dierdra Vaal > I feel a lot of the documents lack a proper explanation, and motivation, of the solution [ 2008.06.12 20:55:43 ] Dierdra Vaal > and in some cases of the problem [ 2008.06.12 20:55:56 ] Inanna Zuni > I'm having to research something to open the files; will clearly take too long so will take what is posted here as my input (one reason I sent PDFs around) [ 2008.06.12 20:56:25 ] Ankhesentapemkah > I can convert them and mail them... [ 2008.06.12 20:56:52 ] Jade Constantine > When i tried to open them i got a popup that prompted me to download a converter from microsoft inanna? [ 2008.06.12 20:56:58 ] Jade Constantine > seemed to work [ 2008.06.12 20:57:13 ] Ankhesentapemkah > not if you have office 97 or something [ 2008.06.12 20:57:17 ] Jade Constantine > ah [ 2008.06.12 20:57:31 ] Jade Constantine > if you could convert them quickly and put them to the list that would be great Ank [ 2008.06.12 20:57:35 ] Ankhesentapemkah > sure [ 2008.06.12 20:57:36 ] Jade Constantine > much obliged [ 2008.06.12 20:57:54 ] Inanna Zuni > please (am currently looking at Bugtracker ...) [ 2008.06.12 20:58:11 ] Dierdra Vaal > what office suite do you use? [ 2008.06.12 20:58:39 ] Hardin > Okay I am ready for next stage [ 2008.06.12 20:58:58 ] Inanna Zuni > I am on OpenOffice latest-but-not-beta [ 2008.06.12 20:59:43 ] Jade Constantine > Yep I'm ready too but we'll allow plenty of time for people to catch up (I'm going to make another cup of tea) [ 2008.06.12 20:59:48 ] Inanna Zuni > beta of 3.0 has support though so I mighrt download [ 2008.06.12 21:07:46 ] Inanna Zuni > "it got all kinds of docx crap in the layout" ... tries not to get into MS-bashing mode Of course, that's not disruptive. You can tell because nobody got muted. Why was LaVista Vista was the moderator this time? I'm glad he stepped up; at least there's one individual who's able to carry out the meetings in a professional manner.
LaVista Vista	Posted - 2008.06.13 03:49:00 - [357] Originally by: Anthony Pants Why was LaVista Vista was the moderator this time? I'm glad he stepped up; at least there's one individual who's able to carry out the meetings in a professional manner. I was presenting my 6 issues which were voted on last time, provided they would be split up into several issues rather than one. So it was my job to present the issues and make sure debates were structured. And I think it turned out very very well, so I'm very happy about that.
Arithron Gallente Trade Alliance	Posted - 2008.06.17 20:14:00 - [358] LaVista, could you please tell us exactly what issues (each specific one) that you got through then? Or did you get through 6 topics with multiple issues? How is this splitting them up for discussion and voting purposes? Take care, Bruce Hansen
Velios M. Corp Mostly Harmless	Posted - 2008.06.20 14:56:00 - [359] Originally by: Arithron Silly man playing at politics. Get a life - when you are older you will look back at all this rubbish you have written on the internet and be embarrassed at how sad you truly were. You aren't the only one either and I am CERTAIN that having regular people playing at being bureaucrats, but doing it very badly is not what CCP had in mind for this whole process. This certainly isn't enjoyable to see and is beginning to completely destroy the concept of EVE as a Game (remember that people - EVE actually is a game) I am beginning to think that it was a mistake to involve players in the procedures that could change the game for everyone involved. CCP should have had the strength and courage to make their own decisions about the great game which they created instead of bowing to pressure which has ultimately created this monster. The NEW M.Corp Data Hub - Check it out!
Arithron Gallente Trade Alliance	Posted - 2008.06.20 15:43:00 - [360] You may want to actually quote something of substance when replying? I have reported you, as your post is, if nothing else, offensive. What is truely sad is that many representatives can not even be bothered to interact and discuss issues with the players of Eve, nor answer simple questions about issues and the procedure they are presented to the council. You seem to think that the CSM council can change the game? I think that the CSM documents would suggest otherwise. Take care, Bruce Hansen (Arithron)

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 [12] 13 .. 13 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.