|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
The PitBoss
Interstellar Brotherhood of Gravediggers
Privateer Alliance
   |
Posted - 2008.06.11 23:49:00 -
[1]
Back on MAY 23rd i posted an issue i would like the CSM to look into and bring to CCP
This issue has Somewhat substantial discussion/debate ... decent amount of support ... OVER ALL ... a good AMOUNT of attention to it ... OR SOME WOULD THINK ... ATLEAST compared to other issues out there that are ... LESS discussed ... LOW support votes ... LOW thread views
[ISSUE] Looting from my kill SHOULD = Looter flagged to me (214 responses / 99 votes / 3823 Views)
For some reason this issue and OTHER issues are being treated to the left by the CSM ... Whilst issue like the following Have jumped to the front of the line ...
=======================
Here is just a few on that list:
1. [ISSUE] BACON and basic logserver exploitation (169 replies / 77 votes / 3082)
2. [ISSUE] Fix the forums (66 replies / 62 votes / 716 replies)
3. Drone Implants (39 replies / 30 votes / 546 views)
4. [ISSUE] Re-examination of 0.0 Sovereignty System (73 replies / 13 votes / 1240 views)
5. [Minor ISSUE] Option to change all ammo at once (86 replies / 83 votes / 967 views)
6. [ISSUE] Bombs need a boost (36 replies / 24 votes / 533 views)
7. [ISSUE] 5% rule way too strict (97 replies / 70 votes / 2467 views)
 8. [ISSUE] Evaluation of empire war dec mechanics (55 replies / 11 votes / 952 views)
This one i find VERY humorous ... especially since the war dec fiasco between PRIVATEER ALLIANCE and IVY LEAGUE ... Thread <-- clicky
MAINLY because: dierdra vaal posted this one .... and is now in charge of the follow-up
CAN WE SAY: You're putting the mouse in-charge of the cheese 
========================
ANYWAY ... the list goes on AND the trend continues ...When asked about how each [ISSUE] is selected to bring to CCP this reply was given in a previous thread: CLICKY
 Originally by: Serenity Steele
Right now;
- The main constraint on taking issues to vote is requirement that they have been raised in this forum for a minimum of 7 days.
- After that, the secondary constraint is time to discuss issues per meeting. At time of writing, this is the first meeting with topics eligible for voting, so expect more issue coverage as the weeks progress.
Which selection criteria EXACTLY are used is entirely up to each CSM member, unless there is a minimum basis of support, in which case the council are required to take it to CCP. At the moment, the basis for minimum support is 5%, which the CSM see as unrealistic, so will vote to have this changed.
So THE question is ... WHO'S INTERESTS ARE YOU LOOKING OUT FOR?
The General player base who you were voted in by to represent them
-OR-
Your personal interests and/or that of your buddies/corps/alliances?
Respectfully,
Thanks,
PB
Siggys and Banners by: Kalen Vox |
The PitBoss
Interstellar Brotherhood of Gravediggers
Privateer Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.06.12 00:53:00 -
[2]
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 ...  |
The PitBoss
Interstellar Brotherhood of Gravediggers
Privateer Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.06.12 01:32:00 -
[3]
Originally by: Jade Constantine
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.
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.
Thanks,
PB
Siggys and Banners by: Kalen Vox |
|
|
| |
|