| Pages: [1] :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Shey Navarr
Noir.
Trinity Nova Alliance
   |
Posted - 2008.07.13 20:51:00 -
[1]
Please accept this as constructive criticism. By now I doubt that this issue has not been raised but I have not been able to find it anywhere and felt it needed to be pointed out.
LaVista Vista raised two issues recently in Assembly Hall. Both issues are interesting and both issues have positive and negative aspects that require exploration. Unfortunately in his OPs LaVista Vista only raised the positives. I say "unfortunately" not "incorrectly" or "wrongly". If LaVista Vista believes in these issues or if his constituency wants these issues raised in a positive manner then he is doing exactly as expected.
The unfortunate part is that other members of your council may not either be aware of the negatives or bother to read every post in those threads and may not become exposed to the negatives.
This means that an issue that seriously impacts a large number of players in a negative manner may not receive full scrutiny prior to a vote on whether to present it to CCP.
Have you considered means to combat this? Do you feel this is important? How are you currently dealing with the need to read hundreds (if not thousands) of individual posts and pulling valid arguments out from all the spam and flames on a weekly basis? Have you considered appointing advocates (one for, one against) to create short briefs of topics you will be voting on during your weekly meetings?
Obviously there are issues that more than one CSM member is well acquainted with and those issues probably receive a large amount of scrutiny prior to the vote. My concern is that more obscure issues may squeek through on the advocacy of one or two CSM members without anyone opposing them or presenting any form of argument to the other voting members.
Thanks for taking the time to read this.
|
LaVista Vista
|
Posted - 2008.07.13 21:30:00 -
[2]
Well. I can see where you are coming from. But I think you simplify it a bit too much
1. It has to receive 7 day worth of debate
2. These issues I brought up, are very heavily discussed already. They were mentioned by CCP themself during the CSM-CCP meetings and there is threads about in the science and industry forum.
3. When submitting the template, one has to list the negative aspects as well. This submission template is expected to be read by all council members before a vote happens.
4. I noted in one of the threads(I should have done so too in the other one as well) that I will only raise it if there is enough support.
Now, the human aspect will always be a weakness. But you can't really help that. But if a person do get a "bad" issue trough, CCP CAN tell that person that this is a horrible idea. CCP is not unreasonable. So it's not possible for a single person to make a "bad" change.
So in short: Sadly, I think there is no way to combat this. But obviously there will always be issues which might not fall in good ground with everybody. But nothing that is suggested, will be implemented as-is, without CCP making sure everything works out as expected.
|
Inanna Zuni
|
Posted - 2008.07.13 22:16:00 -
[3]
 Originally by: Shey Navarr
The unfortunate part is that other members of your council may not either be aware of the negatives or bother to read every post in those threads and may not become exposed to the negatives.
This means that an issue that seriously impacts a large number of players in a negative manner may not receive full scrutiny prior to a vote on whether to present it to CCP.
Have you considered means to combat this? Do you feel this is important? How are you currently dealing with the need to read hundreds (if not thousands) of individual posts and pulling valid arguments out from all the spam and flames on a weekly basis? Have you considered appointing advocates (one for, one against) to create short briefs of topics you will be voting on during your weekly meetings?
I won't deny that trying to understand issues that I haven't come across during my own experience ingame is sometimes problematic; it is one reason for having a range of player 'types' on the CSM as we each bring different experience to the table. For myself, where a topic is up for discussion I read each and every posting in the relevant listed thread(s) again just before the meeting. This is on top of trying to spot the new threads in the assembly hall each day or two and reading them all too (even if not always commenting - I believe there is much to be gained by waiting for more comments to a post before reaching my own conclusions) and asking ingame acquaintances also plays a part in understanding things.
Originally by: Shey Navarr
Obviously there are issues that more than one CSM member is well acquainted with and those issues probably receive a large amount of scrutiny prior to the vote. My concern is that more obscure issues may squeek through on the advocacy of one or two CSM members without anyone opposing them or presenting any form of argument to the other voting members.
When a CSM member brings up a topic for discussion they produce a document (based on our "Issue Template") which includes 'pro' and 'con' spaces and it is certainly the intention / expectation that they should detail both, and others will often query this too. In part though we would expect most of the positive and negative aspects of an issue to come out on the forum thread - one reason for it needing to be there for at least seven days - and, for myself, if I only see people saying 'yes please!' I tend to have a worry that something might have been overlooked, so try to find it.
Originally by: Shey Navarr
Thanks for taking the time to read this.
Thanks for making a point well.
IZ
My principles
|
Shey Navarr
Noir.
Trinity Nova Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.07.13 23:18:00 -
[4]
Good answers. Thank you both.
|
| |
|
| Pages: [1] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |