|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
   |
Posted - 2008.06.12 01:02:00 -
[1]
 Originally by: The PitBoss
Originally by: Herschel Yamamoto
.. it'll work a lot better than a whine thread on CSM issue selection methodologies.
If you consider this whining .. you really need to get off the computer and go get a girlfriend ... 
Pitboss, I really intended to get involved with this discussion and there is still time to get it on the agenda for sunday. I do have a issue with the proposal as you've stated it on the thread though ... and thats about what happens to my gang mate's wreck flagging if we lose a ship fighting in hisec against war enemies. Is it our enemies that get to "own" the wreck for the purpose of flagging other neutral thieves that come and steal it? How about both the corporation/gang mates of the victim + the kill get dual ownership of the wreck - so anybody stealing from it gets flagged to both parties?
How does that sound? Can you work it into the proposal somehow?
We've still got time to get this heard for sunday - let me know what you think and if we can sort out some agreement on that dual ownership thing I'll advocate and raise the issue for you.
|
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2008.06.12 01:21:00 -
[2]
Edited by: Jade Constantine on 12/06/2008 01:21:41
Originally by: Farrqua
Wait a second. Pit boss had a decent support and response. And he has to change his proposal because you do not agree with it as such. Your agenda made the list and it did not even get even close to the same type of support. How does that work? That has been my point. The removal of the Learning Skills issue fell flat on its face support wise. And the OP had by no means changed anything that would make any sense. So how does this work? He made the mark of 7 days at least, garnered strong support, and the ratio was much higher than the ones that is currently on the list.
Listen. Scream at me for taking an interest and actually getting involved in the discussion if you want. Or maybe I could just ignore it and go away because I'm tired of the childish claptrap on this forum. The pure amount of time thats been wasted this week over the most irrelevant rubbish is astounding. So why don't you just shut up and let Pitboss answer. Its his damn thread, if you want to join the mob its -> that way.
|
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2008.06.12 01:37:00 -
[3]
Originally by: Farrqua
I was very calm as I wrote that and actually was looking for a real answer? I am not sure how you read that as a challenge.
Then I'd advise you re-read what you wrote. And revisit your tone, and ask the questions with a more neutral phrasing that doesn't immediately move to accusation and condemnation. I felt its entirely ridiculous for you to criticize me for suggesting an alternation to the ISSUE that would let me support it with a clear conscience. Isn't that exactly what we're supposed to be doing - engaging with player issues and supporting those we feel are a genuinely good idea for the game?
Honestly yes, I did snap at you but its not been a very productive day for CSM issues and I found it disappointing that actually having a couple of minutes to look at a genuine issue again turns back into the accusation-charged environment elsewhere on these forums today. People are human Farrqua - even CSM reps.
CSM Manifesto 2008 | Destroy Outposts! |
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2008.06.12 01:38:00 -
[4]
Originally by: The PitBoss
Thanks for your prompt response jade ... I will post something to the effect on dual ownership and what not in a bit after i've sat down and thought it out ...
The reason for this is BECAUSE i do realize that there has to be a compromise to get this topic on the agenda ... and many thanks for giving it the opportunity.
MY answer may not be the best one ... BUT i am willing to put forth another effort to get something fixed that i personally (and others) may feel is broken to the satisfaction of the majority.
Yeah I do apologize for taking a while to get round to this but the dual ownership thing was the compromise that a lot of people I've asked about it felt would be needed. It is a fairly complicated issue in that respect. The basic principle you know I love - more pvp opportunity in empire and consequence for theft is great. Just needed that tweak really. Fingers crossed we can get it through the csm now.
all the best.
|
Jade Constantine
|
Posted - 2008.06.16 00:41:00 -
[5]
Originally by: Jade Constantine
Originally by: The PitBoss
Thanks for your prompt response jade ... I will post something to the effect on dual ownership and what not in a bit after i've sat down and thought it out ...
The reason for this is BECAUSE i do realize that there has to be a compromise to get this topic on the agenda ... and many thanks for giving it the opportunity.
MY answer may not be the best one ... BUT i am willing to put forth another effort to get something fixed that i personally (and others) may feel is broken to the satisfaction of the majority.
Yeah I do apologize for taking a while to get round to this but the dual ownership thing was the compromise that a lot of people I've asked about it felt would be needed. It is a fairly complicated issue in that respect. The basic principle you know I love - more pvp opportunity in empire and consequence for theft is great. Just needed that tweak really. Fingers crossed we can get it through the csm now.
all the best.
Mission complete! - Raised the issue this evening and it got voted through the CSM 
CSM Manifesto 2008 | Destroy Outposts! |
|
|
| |
|