| Pages: 1 [2] :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Arithron
Gallente Trade Alliance
   |
Posted - 2008.06.14 18:06:00 -
[31]
I have to agree totally with Verone, and I've said as much elsewhere. You stood (as others also did) fully aware of the commitment you would need to give. If you can't give this commitment, withdraw and let one of the alternates that can take your place. It's that simple. Meetings take time, and when you start to discuss an issue it might take an hour or two to come to the point where everyone can make an informed vote. Start putting just issues that affect the MAJORITY of Eve players onto the agenda, and your meetings may get a little shorter....
Take care,
Bruce Hansen
|
LaVista Vista
|
Posted - 2008.06.14 18:29:00 -
[32]
 Originally by: Verone
People were told that if they were to apply to be a candidate then they'd need to dedicate the time to be able to do what's asked of them.
I don't see this as a vaild argument tbh. If people want to be on the CSM, they should make sure they have the time and the chair should make sure the meetings are organised so that under regular circusmstances everyone is able to attend.
Oh, I do agree with you. And I have till this point attended all meetings even though I didn't have the time. But I did take the time to attend all meetings.
But still, lets not forget that in some cases people just WONT be able to attend and I think we have to respect that.
|
Exodus Alpha
Eve University
Ivy League
|
Posted - 2008.06.15 23:23:00 -
[33]
Originally by: Arithron
I have to agree totally with Verone, and I've said as much elsewhere. You stood (as others also did) fully aware of the commitment you would need to give. If you can't give this commitment, withdraw and let one of the alternates that can take your place. It's that simple. Meetings take time, and when you start to discuss an issue it might take an hour or two to come to the point where everyone can make an informed vote. Start putting just issues that affect the MAJORITY of Eve players onto the agenda, and your meetings may get a little shorter....
Take care,
Bruce Hansen
This sentiment is silly. The CSM is made up of other players just like you guys, and they're already giving up a lot of time as it is. I don't think its all that unreasonable to not expect them to be at the playerbase's beck and call 24/7 - this isn't their full time job. They aren't CCP engineers or designers - its a player committee.
I mean, you can't seriously be making the claim that just because holding much longer meetings would cause problems for the US/EU part of the council that they aren't somehow honoring their obligation.
The lack of thinking on the CSM forums is astounding. This post will, of course, be interpreted next by someone as me saying that the CSM candidates shouldn't have to attend meetings, or don't have to put in the hours, or whatever. Everything isn't black and white folks.
---
On the issue of CSM members looking out for their interests primarily - you didn't expect this? Obviously these are not unbiased people, and as with any political position each member will have their pet issues and will tend to support those issues that affect them and theirs. Again, this is not to say that the CSM members should be allowed to be corrupt politicians who ONLY look out for their best interests, but you must expect some amount of slant in their decisions based on their personal experiences and involvements in the game. That's why the playerbase was supposed to vote for these people - so that they could get a selection of members who represented their best interests.
tl;dr - Ideally the CSM members will look out for the "greater good of the greater playerbase," but you must account for some slant with their votes. It would be naive not to.
|
Jade Constantine
|
Posted - 2008.06.16 00:41:00 -
[34]
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! |
Pezzle
Imperial Dreams
Curatores Veritatis Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.06.16 15:28:00 -
[35]
Edited by: Pezzle on 16/06/2008 15:28:14
Strictly speaking all the issues passed by the CSM yesterday were past the submission deadline set by CCP yes?
|
Hardin
|
Posted - 2008.06.16 16:13:00 -
[36]
Originally by: Pezzle
Edited by: Pezzle on 16/06/2008 15:28:14
Strictly speaking all the issues passed by the CSM yesterday were past the submission deadline set by CCP yes?
Yes. The official submission deadline was last Thursday but we are relying on CCP to show 'goodwill' and accept the latest batch for discussion at the meeting...
-----
Alliance Creation/Corp Expansion Services
Advert |
| |
|
| Pages: 1 [2] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |