EVE Search - CSM Formal Meeting 5. Sunday 15th June. 18:00 hours Eve Time

Check My IP Information

All Channels

Jita Park Speakers Corner

CSM Formal Meeting 5. Sunday 15th June. 18:00 hours Eve Time

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]


Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Jade Constantine Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.06.11 01:06:00 - [1] 5th CSM Meeting: 15th of June 18:00 Eve Time Initial Agenda Items: 1. ALL discussions of the CSM to be ruled as "public record". This will include the private CSM mailing list. DARIUS 2. "It will be prohibited to bring the interpretation of the CSM document into discussion or vote, all questions regarding the interpretation will be sent to CCP." Ankhesentapemkah * 1.Capital Ships Online Bane http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=785828 2.Buff Large Autocannons (especially Dual 650mms and 800mms) Bane http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=785820 3.Abolish Learning Skills Bane http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=779267 4.Completion of unfinished Story Arcs: Hardin http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=789648 Promotion of Roleplay Interests in EVE: http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=791735 5. Increase the number of corporation standing slots: Hardin http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=789692 Corps should automatically obtain alliance standings: http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=791955 6. Nighthawk Needs a powergrid Increase** (Jade) http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=777872 IÆd like all CSM representatives/alternatives that will be able to attend on Sunday to inform themselves about the council/public issues that weÆll be discussing in advance of the meeting. Please read the threads, check out the drafts and review the previous meeting minutes/chatlog so we donÆt waste any time allotted to us. If any CSM representative wishes items added to the agenda for Sunday please reply to this thread before 14:00 hours on Friday afternoon with a brief overview of the issue + link to the assembly hall thread. Make sure that the issue you are advocating will have been open to public debate for 7 days by the time of the meeting on Sunday. Since this is the last possible opportunity for ISSUEs to be raised in time for the Iceland trip all agenda items discussing issues must be coupled with COMPLETED submission template documents that must be available for inspection at the time of this meeting. Technically we are missing the deadline for the ISSUES discussed in this meeting, but we'll be sending them off anyway in a separate batch and asking that they be made available for discussion in Iceland if we have time following the main items submitted on thursday. *Note, order of the agenda will be tweaked if necessary to ensure that all CSM reps get their issues heard within the scope of the meeting. CSM Manifesto 2008 \| Destroy Outposts!
Jade Constantine Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.06.11 23:50:00 - [2] Edited by: Jade Constantine on 11/06/2008 23:52:02 Originally by: Herschel Yamamoto Re item 1, Darius' motion - I'm not convinced this is a good idea. In my experience, most committees function far more smoothly when there are informal channels to use in advance of the meeting. You won't hammer out contentious stuff there, but to make sure all the stuff everyone agrees on goes smoothly, a private list that doesn't get seen by anyone else is invaluable, if only because you don't need to worry about keeping up false pretenses. Similarly, your private conversations should be sealed, even when they're about CSM business. I know Darius is our resident anarchist, and I know he'll disagree with me on this, but there's nothing wrong with the occasional back room. Yeah for the record I think its a terrible idea too and will be opposing it. And if the measure passes I won't be using the csm list for future communications. But we're not talking proposals for "the good of the csm" here Herschel, we're talking personal power plays and strategies for personal gain and more time wasted on admin wrangling and ego wars between people that dislike each other rather than actually talking about the issues on the agenda. Cynical perhaps but there you are. End of the day though he asked for the administrative Issue and it had to go on since it doesn't contradict the founding documentation. CSM Manifesto 2008 \| Destroy Outposts!
Jade Constantine Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.06.12 00:05:00 - [3] Originally by: Herschel Yamamoto Has it occurred to you that he may actually believe what he's saying? Honestly, no. I have to work with the guy. I don't have to trust or like him. I am deeply suspicious of this measure and the reasons for its promotion. But hey, its my responsibility to put it on the agenda and I've done so. CSM Manifesto 2008 \| Destroy Outposts!
Jade Constantine Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.06.12 00:14:00 - [4] Originally by: Darius JOHNSON Let me fill you in there cream puff... We're a public council. Our official communications are public record. Again... How does that help me politically? You think up your own silly schemes. I could ask you how having the sole channel of private communication we still have, opened to public comment and politicized debate and trolling, might help the process of the CSM function. But then maybe you don't want us to be able to talk without putting on the boxing gloves and adopting the combative stances of the factions we've devolved into? Who knows. Any which way I think its a bad issue and will be voting against. We'll see what happens. CSM Manifesto 2008 \| Destroy Outposts!
Jade Constantine Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.06.12 01:24:00 - [5] Originally by: Sapphrine I believe most documents in the house of lords and house of commons are public. Surpisingly enough their private correspondences, phone calls, messages and meetings are not. Further, almost all committee's have un-minuted business to discuss issues frankly and bluntly. Otherwise we get all sorts of crap being thrown about in public. Jade, might be good to just state the Agenda and step back. Seriously consider taking the alloted meeting time, divide it between the issues over 90% and set 10% as AOB. If an issue fails to make it to a vote in its time limit then it gets canned to AOB. If it fails there then it gets canned to the next meeting. Yeah moving administrative stuff to the end does actually sound like a damn good idea - I think I'll do it CSM Manifesto 2008 \| Destroy Outposts!
Jade Constantine Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.06.12 01:29:00 - [6] Originally by: Inanna Zuni From the email discussions there is clearly a difference of opinion between different Council members over whether the CSM mailing list has ever been 'private'. Might I suggest a more neutral term to use for this discussion therefore would be "[i]This will include the closed-circulation CSM mailing list. Nope disagree on this. On reviewing Serenity's statement on the issue (list) I'm happy with the wording. It was intended to be a private mailing list and specifically stated as such - while this motion is to publicize its content. Motion stands as stated. CSM Manifesto 2008 \| Destroy Outposts!
Jade Constantine	Posted - 2008.06.16 00:37:00 - [7] Edited by: Jade Constantine on 16/06/2008 00:38:05 Another epic meeting: 1. Nighthawk Needs a powergrid Increase (Jade) http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=777872 Escalation Denied 2 votes for (Jade, Hardin) 6 votes against 2. Completion of unfinished Story Arcs/Roleplay Interests in EVE: Hardin http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=789648 http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=791735 Escalation Supported 8-0 Escalation Supported 8-0 3.Capital Ships Online Bane http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=785828 Escalation Denied 4 votes for (Bane, Darius, Dierdra, Hardin) 5 against. 4. Moon mining Improvements: LaVista http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=778035 (Issue sent back to incorporated with dynamic moon distribution possibilities) Escalation Supported 9-0 5. Ownership of Wrecks Jade http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=778546 Escalation Supported 9-0 6. Increase the number of corporation standing slots/Corps should automatically obtain alliance standings: Hardin http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=789692 http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=791955 Escalation Supported 9-0 Escalation Supported 8-0 7.Buff Large Autocannons (especially Dual 650mms and 800mms) Bane http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=785820 Escalation Supported 5-4 (Jade, Serenity, Leandro, LaVista opposed) 8. Colourblind UI LaVista http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=784427 Escalation Supported 8-1 (Darius opposed) 9. Account Security Jade http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=781256 Escalation Supported 8-1 (Ankhesentapemkah opposed) 10. Abolish Learning Skills Bane http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=779267 Escalation Denied 2-7 (Bane and Ankhesentapemkah voted yes) 11. Mac/Linux client LaVista http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=778522 Escalation Supported 9-0 12. Multi-monitor support LaVista http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=784389 Escalation Supported 9-0 +Additional Issue from Darius The use of email as a logging facility for corporate events. http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=792405 Escalation Supported 9-0 Any Other Business: 1. ALL discussions of the CSM to be ruled as "public record". This will include the private CSM mailing list. DARIUS Escalation Denied 4-5 (Darius, Bane, Hardin, Inanna voted for) 2. Request that Internal Affairs make time available to talk to the CSM group as part of the Iceland Conference. DARIUS Escalation Supported 9-0 2. "It will be prohibited to bring the interpretation of the CSM document into discussion or vote, all questions regarding the interpretation will be sent to CCP." Ankhesentapemkah Escalation Denied 3-6 (Jade, Ank, Dierdra voted for) ************ Serenity will be hosting the chatlog on the eve csm site at some point this week but until then feel free to view the raw chat log at http://www.jericho-fraction.net/smf/index.php?topic=10310.msg94219#msg94219 Enjoy. CSM Manifesto 2008 \| Destroy Outposts!
Jade Constantine	Posted - 2008.06.16 15:38:00 - [8] The problem with the capitals online issue was that A) we didn't get to see the presentation notes and the documentation we did see was very brief and generalized. and B) (and this is an important one) - there were some very specific and contentious ideas expressed there that needed to be split up into different topics in order that we could vote on each element properly. An idea like "reducing the skill reqs for capital use" is a huge thing and its an entirely different issue to "rebalancing the cpu reqs on capital shield xfer modules". Basically the issue was TOO big and all-encompassing while at the same time presenting some specific proposals that a majority of the CSM did not support. I'll happily go on record and say right now that I do not find a good argument in the proposition that the "capitals online" problem can in any way be solved by reducing the skill reqs for capital pilots and allowing more alliances to spam capitals in fleet combat. It just didn't make ANY sense to me and I couldn't in all conscience vote for an issue that included this as a proposal. As I've already stated elsewhere in relation to my campaign docs and the Issues I have supported, I believe the solution to "capitals online" is to increase the incidence of capital combat and loss through introducing greater necessity to expose these ships to formal combat risk and let natural attrition handle the problem. This could be done in various ways: changing the sov system to be less defensively orientated. Aggression timers for station warfare, hell maybe introducing a timer to re-enter POS shields after you fire or activate a repper. I've already spoken on the Titan issue and I'd like them to be forced to remain on the field longer after they DD. But basically I think the solution to "capital spam" is make the game harder for capitals and increase the risk they suffer on involvement in pvp contention. See more of them explode, we'll see less ridiculous over-spam. So thats my position on the issue, and I completely oppose the principle that you deal with a "problem class" or "technique" by lowering the barriers to entry for that class or technique. Thats just counter-intuitive and in this specific case transcends game-balance into the realm of seeking partisan advantage for a hypothetical alliance for superior numbers of relatively low-skilled pilots and an aspiration to sit at the big boys capital table without doing the same training their rivals have already done to attain competency and military advantage in this field. CSM Manifesto 2008 \| Destroy Outposts!
Jade Constantine	Posted - 2008.06.17 17:27:00 - [9] Originally by: Kelsin Originally by: Hamfast I think what Goumindong is saying is that CSM members who are not informed on an issue should not vote "No" but abstain... I got the impression from the chatlogs that the CSM had word from CCP about abstaining, suggesting that it requires 5 "Support Escalation" votes to move an issue forward, and that an abstention is the same as a No vote because of that. Is that true? Yep there wasn't supposed to be an abstain option. Bottom line is nobody who was running for the position of CSM should really be abstaining on gameplay issues - our homework for the meetings is the read the threads, talk to players, understand the argument and reach an informed decision. I've certainly had multiple convo's open during some of these votes and been taking external advice on the technicalities - I'm doing my best to cast an informed "support/deny" vote based on what I perceive to the be the best interest of the game. CSM Manifesto 2008 \| Destroy Outposts!
Jade Constantine	Posted - 2008.06.17 18:06:00 - [10] Originally by: Yuki Santara Originally by: Kelsin Originally by: Yuki Santara That's only a technical difference though, one could always wait until everyone who cares has voted and then vote with the majority. That's true, they could do that - but I agree with Jade that if you're elected to the CSM you should do some research and talk to people in order to gain an informed opinion, not abstain. I think people abstaining from votes are not doing their jobs. Agreed, still abstaining would seem like the lesser evil than generally voting no under such circumstances. Well if a CSM really cannot get enough understanding of an issue to put their name with conscience behind a support vote it doesn't necessarily mean they are stupid or failing - it could mean the issue is not well stated or is confusingly argued - in these cases voting "no support" can mean "sorry but I'm not convinced" and thats fair enough in the process. CSM Manifesto 2008 \| Destroy Outposts!

Jade Constantine	Posted - 2008.06.17 18:20:00 - [11] Originally by: Yorda Wouldn't it make more sense to vote for it right now so you can have a discussion in Iceland about it and hopefully have your questions answered? I don't understand what you are asking there Yorda? If people don't agree/understand the proposition on the table they can't really vote "support". CSM Manifesto 2008 \| Destroy Outposts!
Jade Constantine	Posted - 2008.06.17 19:00:00 - [12] Originally by: Yorda The whole point of the votes right now is to decide what you discuss with CCP, if the issue really is so complex that you cant understand it don't you think that having a face to face discussion with the person presenting it and CCP would maybe clear up some of the issues? Well its actually about which questions we ask CCP. We are supposed to frame these things in the term of questions in our documentation. For example my "destructible outposts" thing actually boiled down to "hey ccp can you envisage a future for 0.0 space that includes destructible outposts?" (yes/no) The CSM voted to support me asking that question. Problem with some issues (particularly the capital ships online one) was that it was very specific on some of the proposed solutions and had stuff like fixing captial ship proliferation by reducing skill reqs and that really wasn't very persuasive. I certainly didn't find any single issue that got raised that I couldn't cast an informed vote on. But there were issues that I found poorly framed or badly argued or simply unconvincing and I had to vote "no support" with my conscience. End of the day we do have a responsibility to decide the priority of issues being raised and can't simply blanket support all of them and leave it for ccp to sort out or else whats the point of the CSM itself? I'd be happy to see capital issues come up again certainly, but I'd like to see each distinct proposal split into a separate issue and fully argued and described so we can vote support/no support on an informed and decisive basis. CSM Manifesto 2008 \| Destroy Outposts!
Jade Constantine	Posted - 2008.06.17 22:33:00 - [13] Edited by: Jade Constantine on 17/06/2008 22:34:33 Originally by: Letouk Mernel Originally by: Jade Constantine Serenity will be hosting the chatlog on the eve csm site at some point this week but until then feel free to view the raw chat log at http://www.jericho-fraction.net/smf/index.php?topic=10310.msg94219#msg94219 That's nice, but he hasn't posted the last one, let alone this one. I guess we're switching to Jericho Fraction's site for the CSM stuff now. And, yeah, CCP haven't posted the FIRST meeting minutes yet. Everyone dropping the ball all over the place. Well complain about it or say "thanks" to the people trying to do their best in trying circumstances. This really ain't an easy task and despite that we've pretty done the thing. Keep in mind Serenity had no formal responsibility to do this - he set up the eve.csm site (and our mailing list) because he wanted to make the CSM a success not because he was obligated too. He could have sat back and watched ccp not get the resources in place in time and watch us fail to achieve much but no, he gave it a go and tried his best. Thats what I'm doing by hosting these chatlogs on the Jericho Fraction site. I could sit back and not publish the logs but I'm trying to do the best I can to keep the promises we collectively made as the CSM. Sheesh. CSM Manifesto 2008 \| Destroy Outposts!

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.